New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

[The Kingmaker]

This is a new project I started working on recently. Having scoured the internet unsuccessfully for a complete and comprehensive list of world civilizations, I decided to create one myself for future use.

First off, I should specify that by "civilization" I mean a complex societal movement defined by the presence of cities, ie. large urban settlements ("large" being relative to any given time period).

What I do not mean is nation-states, or ethnicities, or dynasties, or tribes, etc. Shared civilization does not necessarily entail shared nationality. Example: Teutonic civilization represents the complex societal movement of a certain group of people in central Europe with a shared (or similar) language and culture. However, the various proponents of this civilization have formed numerous polities throughout the centuries, including the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, Austria, Switzerland and Germany.

I should also specify that "civilization" has become something of a sensitive word since it has been used for ages by some cultures to justify their looking down on other cultures, many of whom actually were quite civilized at the time, like the colonial British in India, for example.

However, I had to draw the line somewhere, so I'm only considering cultures that utilized marked urban centers. By its very nature, urban lifestyle lends itself to engendering a multiplicity of trades and a reliance on some form of agriculture, as well as a more sedentary life, as opposed to older hunter-gathererer forms.

I've listed the individual civilizations according to the time period in which their urban centers first began to flourish. The dates are all merely approximate.

That being said, this list is still incomplete, and I'm still debating just how to handle the "modern" section. Which other groups need to be added, do you think?



Prehistoric: Neolithic Age - 5000 BC
Jericho (9000 BC) - primordial urban center in Canaan
Çatalhöyük (7500 BC) - primordial urban center in Anatolia
the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (5500 BC) - early urban culture in the Black Sea coastal region

Ancient: 5000 BC - 1000 BC
the Sumerians (5000 BC) - the "first" civilization, located in the "Fertile Crescent" of Mesopotamia
the Egyptians (4500 BC) - long-lived civilization of the Nile Valley and the Faiyum
the Canaanites (3500 BC) - multiple tribal city-states spread across the Levant
the Meluhhans (3300 BC) - the Indus Valley civilization, also known as the Harappans
the Jiroft civilization (3000 BC) - recently discovered civilization in Iran, possibly "proto-Elamites"
the Elamites (2700 BC) - early monarchical society that flourished in western Persia
the Norte Chico civilization (2600 BC) - relatively unknown civilization of pyramid-builders in northern Peru
the Akkadians (2500 BC) - second Mesopotamian civilization, with offshoots including the Babylonian and Assyrian Empires
the Minoans (2500 BC) - thalassocratic civilization centered on Crete in the Mediterranean Sea
the Babylonians (2300 BC) - scientific and cultured Akkadian subculture in south-central Mesopotamia
the Assyrians (2300 BC) - militaristic Akkadian subculture in north-central Mesopotamia
the Hurrians (2200 BC) - Indo-European culture in Armenia and northern Mesopotamia, including the Kingdoms of Mitanni and Urartu
the Hittites (2200 BC) - urban culture centered around Hattusha in Anatolia
the Olmecs (2200 BC) - the first major civilization of Mesoamerica
the Chinese (2200 BC) - dynastic civilization along the Yangtze and Huang He river valleys in eastern Asia
the Mycenaeans (2000 BC) - early civilization that developed on the Greek mainland and the Aegean Sea
the Nubians (2000 BC) - early African civilization in southern Egypt and Sudan, including the Kingdom of Kush
the Mayans (1800 BC) - the most prolific Mesoamerican civilization, centered in Tehuantepec, the Peten and the Yucatan
the Hebrews (1500 BC) - Semitic nomads that eventually settled in Canaan
the Phoenicians (1500 BC) - seafaring Canaanite city-states in the northern Levant
the Vedic civilization (1500 BC) - Aryan city-states established in northern India
the Anatolians (1200 BC) - a series of smaller kingdoms in Asia Minor, including Lydia, Lycia, Caria and Phrygia, among others
the Aramaeans (1200 BC) - city-states in Syria, the Levant, and northwestern Mesopotamia
the Caucasians (1200 BC) - civilization arising in the Caucasus mountains, including the Kingdom of Colchis

Classical: 1000 BC - AD 500
the Sabaeans (1000 BC) - proto-Arabic civilization that flourished in Yemen, including the Kingdom of Saba' (or Sheba)
the Chavín (900 BC) - civilization that developed in the Andean highlands of Peru
the Persians (800 BC) - civilization that developed in Iran, including the Median, Persian and Parthian empires
the Greeks (800 BC) - city-states centered in Greece that spread across the Mediterranean world
the Etruscans (800 BC) - early northern Italian civilization
the Tartessians (800 BC) - early urban culture centered around Tartessos in Spain
the Carthaginians (800 BC) - Phoenician colonies in north Africa and the western Mediterranean
the Macedonians (700 BC) - monarchical civilization that developed in the Balkans, north of Greece
the Romans (700 BC) - prominent Latin kingdom, republic, and later empire centered on the Italian peninsula
the Celts (500 BC) - tribal civilization that spread throughout central and western Europe
the Zapotecs (500 BC) - pre-Columbian civilization in the Oaxaca valley of central Mexico
the Indians (500 BC) - various kingdoms and empires derived from the Vedic civilization in India, including the Maurya and Gupta Empires
the Aksumites (400 BC) - African civilization centered in Ethiopia
the Yamato (400 BC) - east Asian civilization centered on the archipelago of Japan
the Choson (400 BC) - east Asian civiliation centered on the peninsula of Korea
the Tamil (400 BC) - south Asian civilization that developed in southern India and Sri Lanka, including the Chola Empire
the Hellenistic civilization (300 BC) - Greek-influenced civilization spread from the Mediterranean to Bactria and India
the Nabataeans (300 BC) - civilization controlling a string of oasis-based cities from Jordan to Arabia, including Petra
the Berbers (200 BC) - North African civilization located in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, including the Kingdom of Numidia
the Teotihuacan civilization (200 BC) - urban civilization in central Mexico
the Burmese (200 BC) - southeast Asian civilization in Myanmar
the Vietnamese (200 BC) - southeast Asian civilization located in Indochina
the Khmer (AD 100) - various southeast Asian polities in Cambodia and the surrounding region
the Nazca (AD 100) - South American civilization that developed along the southern coast of Peru
the Moche (AD 100) - coastal civilization in northern Peru
the Tiwanaku civilization (AD 100) - pre-Columbian civilization located in the Andes mountains of Peru, Bolivia and Chile
the Huns (AD 200) - confederation of steppe tribes that produced various polities across a vast swathe of Eurasia, including the Hunnic, Hephthalite and Kushan Empires

Medieval: AD 500 - AD 1500
the Byzantines (AD 500) - Mediterranean civilization comprised of the eastern Roman Empire
the Arabs (AD 500) - Islamic civilization centered around the Arabian peninsula
the Teutons (AD 500) - civilization comprised of various Germanic polities in northern and central Europe including the Holy Roman Empire and its successor states
the Huari (AD 500) - pre-Columbian civilization based in the south-central Andes of Peru
the Olmec-Xicalanca (AD 500) - civilization in central Mexico that settled monumental cities like Huapalcalco and Xochicalco, not to be confused with the Olmecs
the Hausa (AD 500) - West African civilization arising in Nigeria
the Anglo-Saxons (AD 600) - northern European civilization focused in the British Isles
the Tibetans (AD 600) - east Asian civilization based in the Himalayas
the Indonesians (AD 600) - southeast Asian civilization based in the Malaysian peninsula and Indonesian archipelago
the Moors (AD 700) - Islamic civilization based in North Africa and Spain
the Siamese (AD 700) - Thai civilization based in southeast Asia
the Anasazi (AD 700) - North American pueblo-dwelling civilization based in the southwestern United States
the Slavs (AD 700) - eastern European civilization consisting of various tribes and kingdoms including Poland
the Norse (AD 800) - northern European civilization based in Scandinavia and beyond
the Toltecs (AD 800) - Mesoamerican civilization based at Tula in central Mexico
the Malinese (AD 800) - western African civilization, including the empires of Ghana, Mali and Songhai
the Mississippians (AD 800) - North American mound-building civilization, based at Cahokia in the mid-west of the United States
the Chimú (AD 900) - pre-Columbian civilization located along the northern coast of Peru
the Mixtecs (AD 900) - Mesoamerican civilization located in central Mexico
the French (AD 900) - western European civilization occupying the majority of Gaul, resulting from a fusion of Gallo-Roman and Frankish elements
the Iberians (AD 900) - southern European civilization comprised of the various Christian kingdoms of Spain and Portugal
the Italians (AD 900) - southern European civilization comprised of various mercantile city-states along the Italian peninsula
the Russians (AD 900) - large Slavic subculture arising on the Eurasian steppes from a fusion of Norse and Slavic elements
the Tatars (AD 900) - confederation of tribes arising on the central Asian steppes, resulting in polities as disparate as Bulgaria and Kazan
the Kanem-Bornu (AD 900) - central African civilization stretching from Nigeria to Chad
the Zimbabweans (AD 1000) - civilization located on the southern African inland plateau
the Magyars (AD 1000) - migratory Finno-Ugric people that settled in eastern Europe
the Turks (AD 1000) - migratory civilization that ultimately settled in Turkey and gave rise to the Seljuk and Ottoman Empires
the Polynesians (AD 1100) - oceanic civilization consisting of multiple tribes spread across the Pacific Ocean, including the Tongans, Samoans, Hawaiians and Maori
the Jurchen (AD 1100) - east Asian civilization located in Manchuria, dynastic rulers of China's Jin and Qing dynasties
the Mongols (AD 1200) - central Asian civilization inhabiting the steppes of Mongolia, conquered an empire spanning most of Eurasia
the Balts (AD 1200) - various tribes arising in the coastal region of the Baltic Sea
the Incans (AD 1200) - South American civilization spanning the Andes from Ecuador and Peru to Chile and Bolivia
the Aztecs (AD 1300) - Mesoamerican confederation of tribes centered around Tenochtitlan (or Mexico City)
the Bantu (AD 1400) - African civilization comprised of a conglomeration of tribes arising in south-central Africa
the Edo (AD 1400) - west African civilization arising in southern Nigeria, including the Benin Empire
the Yoruba (AD 1400) - west African civilization arising in western and northern Nigeria

Modern: AD 1500 - Present
the Dutch (AD 1500) - Germanic subculture in the Low Countries
the Ashanti (AD 1600) - west African civilization arising in Ghana
the Dahomey (AD 1600) - west African civilization arising in Benin
the Iroquois (AD 1600) - North American confederation of tribes in the northeastern United States
the Cherokee (AD 1700) - North American confederation of tribes in the southeastern United States
the Americans (AD 1700) - Anglo-Saxon subculture with heavy immigrant and indigenous influences
the Sioux (AD 1800) - North American confederation of tribes in the mid-western United States
the Latin American civilization (AD 1800) - fusion of colonial and indigenous elements occurring in Central and South America

 

[sophie]

Your definitions seem a bit...arbitrary, don't they?

I mean, Norse isn't really a "civilization", it's a language. What makes Norse a civilization and Frisian not? Likewise with "Celtic", which represents a family of languages, and at a very large, loose definition, a common culture, perhaps. But is that a civilization?

 

[The Kingmaker]

Your definitions seem a bit...arbitrary, don't they?

I mean, Norse isn't really a "civilization", it's a language. What makes Norse a civilization and Frisian not? Likewise with "Celtic", which represents a family of languages, and at a very large, loose definition, a common culture, perhaps. But is that a civilization?

Well that's just it, isn't it.

I'm defining sweeping cultural movements as best I can using shared language and culture as a denominator. So for instance, to use your example of the Norse civilization as I've defined them: that entity refers ultimately to all of the achievements of that shared language group/culture throughout their existence up through their latest descendants. So medieval/modern nations like Norway, Sweden and Denmark would all be considered a part of that over-arching civilization.

I'm not trying to label every single individual tribe, dynasty, nation, country, etc. I'm trying to define the major urban-dwelling cultural movements of our history as best I can. I'll divide them using whatever means I can in order to make the list as reasonable and all-inclusive as possible. So I'll be looking at language, culture, archaological remains, chronology, and yes, political divisions when absolutely necessary. Whether or not I include the occasional subgroup will be predicated on the accomplishments of said group.

For example, I felt that "the Celts" was sufficient to define the large European super-culture that includes the La Tene culture, ancient Britons and Gauls, as well as modern Irish, Scots, Bretons, Welsh, etc.

And the list is far from done. I'm trying to work out all the kinks, be as inclusive as possible without delving into the tedium of micro-managing the tiniest subgroups and achieve an acceptable nomenclature for each group.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If we're going to group together the "Celts" like that, why do we draw distinctions between the "Norse" "Anglo-Saxons", Teutons and Dutch?

 

[sophie]

If we're going to group together the "celts" like that, why do we draw distinctions between the "Norse" "Anglo-Saxons", Teutons and Dutch?

But it's still arbitrary. Why did you group "Iberians" rather than dividing it up into Spanish, Catalan, Basque, Gallatian, and Portuguese? Why are the Dutch so important when there were plenty of other cultures/language groups in that region? Why not Frisian or Danish or Low Saxon or the hundred other languages that have come out of what we now refer to as "The Low Countries" Why did you group a whole bunch of entirely disparate languages and cultures into "Amerindian"? What the hell are "The Indians"? You might as well also include "The Europeans" and "The Chinese". These are massive regions representing hundreds if not thousands of different cultures, languages, and polities. I just don't understand how you're trying to do this.

 

[The Kingmaker]

If we're going to group together the "celts" like that, why do we draw distinctions between the "Norse" "Anglo-Saxons", Teutons and Dutch?

A simple little question with a big, complicated answer.

Several reasons actually, although this list is not set in stone and I could presumably see breaking up the Celts into possibly Goidelic and Brythonic component subcultures, should somebody make the case for that.

I presume your statement above is based on the presumption that since each of these groups has a Germanic component that they should all be lumped under one?

I suppose it has to do with what those groups evolved into: the fact that they were able to persist into higher urban city-dwelling forms and grow to become markedly different from one another. They had the chance to grow apart. Plus we simply know more about them because they've been able to engage in lasting works of literature and architecture, whereas much of Celtic culture was either snuffed out by Romans, compelled to persist on the fringes of later cultures or actually integrated into those self-same cultures (as happened somewhat in England and France). That is not to say that modern Celtic culture has not been able to engage in such high civilization; it most assuredly has, and I'm actually a part of it.

Regarding the other civilization movements you mentioned:

The Anglo-Saxon civilization encompasses the English-speaking world, including the modern UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand among others. I don't think there's any argument about the differences between the English-speaking culture and the German-speaking cultures today. The earliest beginnings of this culture however resulted from the fusing of both Celtic and Germanic elements. If the early Anglo-Saxons had stuck around in their original homelands and not headed to Britain, then I fancy they wouldn't have had any role in creating modern British culture. Indeed, there would likely be no English.

The Scandinavian and Teutonic cultural cores have evolved likewise.

Re: the Dutch, this is a case of imperfect nomenclature. "Netherlanders" seems equally imprecise. I had intended for this group to represent the cultures of the lowlands (ie. the Benelux, though I'm averse to that term; it sounds silly). I had some internal wrestlings over whether to include this group and ultimately added them simply because of the alternate direction their civilization has taken over the past few hundred years. Their little subculture has had a tremendous impact on many other cultures around the world, and their absence seemed noteworthy.

I imagine that if the Celtic cultures had been allowed to persist uninterfered with for a longer period, that they would have been able to grow into even larger cultures with more global impact. As it is, their impact is felt primarily through the elements that persisted into England and France, as well as the smaller Celtic cultures of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, etc., which have been a big composite element in yet further cultures like modern America.

 

[sophie]

A simple little question with a big, complicated answer.

Several reasons actually, although this list is not set in stone and I could presumably see breaking up the Celts into possibly Goidelic and Brythonic component subcultures, should somebody make the case for that.

I presume your statement above is based on the presumption that since each of these groups has a Germanic component that they should all be lumped under one?

I suppose it has to do with what those groups evolved into: the fact that they were able to persist into higher urban city-dwelling forms and grow to become markedly different from one another. They had the chance to grow apart. Plus we simply know more about them because they've been able to engage in lasting works of literature and architecture, whereas much of Celtic culture was either snuffed out by Romans, compelled to persist on the fringes of later cultures or actually integrated into those self-same cultures (as happened somewhat in England and France). That is not to say that modern Celtic culture has not been able to engage in such high civilization; it most assuredly has, and I'm actually a part of it.

This is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Glassfan]

The Anthropological/Historical divide is between cultures and civilizations. A culture is usually thought of as a geographically/temporally distinct human population sharing common characteristics, traits or practices as reveled in the archaeological record. A civilization is a culture that has advanced (an admittedly loaded and much abused term) to create cities and writing. I would add that the distinction you (Alezander) make concerning ethnicity is another difference - a culture is largely homogeneous, while a civilization is usually large enough to include sub-ethnics.

So, a number of your civilizations - for instance, migrating pastoralists like the Sioux or rampaging warriors like the Mongols - are actually cultures rather than civilizations. Some were in transition, like the Aztecs or Inca, when brutally destroyed by more "civilized" peoples. There's certainly a lot of wiggle-room and opportunity for interesting debate.

 

[The Kingmaker]

But it's still arbitrary.

As I've said, I'm not done yet.

Why did you group "Iberians" rather than dividing it up into Spanish, Catalan, Basque, Gallatian, and Portuguese?

Because I don't have any intent to subdivide ad infinitum. If I did break off a subculture here it would be the Portuguese because of the great impact that they had globally. Though when the culture first began in the Middle Ages, each of the subgroups you listed were much more similar than at least the later Spanish and Portuguese grew to be. After all, there were half-a-dozen "Spanish" polities in the Middle Ages, and for a while the Portuguese were little more than another one of the same.

Why are the Dutch so important when there were plenty of other cultures/language groups in that region? Why not Frisian or Danish or Low Saxon or the hundred other languages that have come out of what we now refer to as "The Low Countries"

Because of the manner in which they exported their culture to the world. I've theyed stayed put and just milled about in their towns, then I don't imagine I would have broken them off. See what I wrote above re: that group. I'm open to a better name for them. But it has to be better than "Dutch," "Netherlanders" or "Benelux."

Why not Danish? Because they're grouped with the other Scandinavians under "Norse." Why not Low Saxon (Niedersachsen)? Because they're grouped under "the Teutons."

Why did you group a whole bunch of entirely disparate languages and cultures into "Amerindian"?

I didn't. I have no idea what you're referring to here. Did you misread "American" or perhaps "Aramaean" here?

What the hell are "The Indians"? You might as well also include "The Europeans" and "The Chinese". These are massive regions representing hundreds if not thousands of different cultures, languages, and polities. I just don't understand how you're trying to do this.

The "Indians" are what they purport to be: the civilizations of India from the Maurya to the present. The earlier Meluhhan and Vedic civilizations are isolated separately. Considering that India is a huge mishmash that grew together over millenia, I'd love it if somebody could isolate the separate civilizations that constitute the whole. I'd love a more precise depiction. Hence my opening this up to discussion. Again, I'd love to see a proper dissection of this superculture into its constituent civilizations, not merely polities like Magadha, Maurya, Gupta ad nauseum. I'm well aware of those.

And I did include the Chinese. I'm aware of many of their ethnic groups. Of course the Han are the largest and most prevalent of these. But I've included the Jurchen separately, as well as the Mongols, Koreans and Vietnamese (all of which still have decent-sized cultural minorities in China). I'd love to be able to appropriately dissect the Chinese into its component civilizations (not merely dynasties). Though again, the situation is the same as with India. The many Chinese subcultures have been grouped under the same polity or polities for so long that they've grown together. I'd love it if somebody could isolate some large important Chinese civilizations that are distinct from the whole.

If there are some experts on India and China, let's have this discussion.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The Anthropological/Historical divide is between cultures and civilizations. A culture is usually thought of as a geographically/temporally distinct human population sharing common characteristics, traits or practices as reveled in the archaeological record. A civilization is a culture that has advanced (an admittedly loaded and much abused term) to create cities and writing. I would add that the distinction you (Alezander) make concerning ethnicity is another difference - a culture is largely homogeneous, while a civilization is usually large enough to include sub-ethnics.

So, a number of your civilizations - for instance, migrating pastoralists like the Sioux or rampaging warriors like the Mongols - are actually cultures rather than civilizations. Some were in transition, like the Aztecs or Inca, when brutally destroyed by more "civilized" peoples. There's certainly a lot of wiggle-room and opportunity for interesting debate.

My sentiments exactly.

There's also a problem with nomenclature. I'm only including the Sioux because of the degree of coalescence they showed immediately prior to their being squelched by the United States. As for the Mongols, I intend for them to represent more what they became than what they started out as.

 

[The Kingmaker]

This is absolutely ludicrous.

Perhaps I was being inarticulate above, but there's no need for insults or invective. I'm perfectly willing to have a reasonable discussion here, but I can't do that if you start name-calling.

 

[innonimatu]

A civilization is a culture that has advanced (an admittedly loaded and much abused term) to create cities and writing.

No, we just need to have one city to get Civilization started. Writing is always one of the technologies to research.

@Alezander01:
You,re now here, I can tell because you asked "which civilizations" and dared not to conclude Poland - just wait until the poles see your list!

Pick whichever ones please you. Just don't expect everyone to agree, in fact whatever you pick it's guaranteed people will disagree.

 

[The Kingmaker]

@Alezander01:
You,re now here, I can tell because you asked "which civilizations" and dared not to conclude Poland - just wait until the poles see your list!

Pick whichever ones please you. Just don't expect everyone to agree, in fact whatever you pick it's guaranteed people will disagree.

But the Poles are on the list, under "Slavic civilization."

I want to be as all-inclusive as possible. Every urban society should be included in one form or another. But I expect most individual polities and ethnicities will largely be subsumed into greater civilizations.

I don't expect everyone to agree. I'm perfectly willing to engage in debates on various issues as long as they're polite.

Thanks for commenting.

 

[History_Buff]

You mean this part?

the Russians (AD 900) - large Slavic subculture arising on the Eurasian steppes from a fusion of Norse and Slavic elements

Queue not entirely unjustified ultra-nationalist ramblings from Domen in 3... 2... 1...

 

[The Kingmaker]

Queue not entirely unjustified ultra-nationalist ramblings from Domen in 3... 2... 1...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't know the poster in question, but I've specified from the beginning that this endeavor has nothing to do with individual nation-states or polities.

 

[sophie]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't know the poster in question, but I've specified from the beginning that this endeavor has nothing to do with individual nation-states or polities.

I don't understand why the Dutch and French and "Teutons" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) and Norse and Anglo-Saxons are distinguished from one another and yet the Poles and Lithuanians and Ukrainians and Byelorusians and Estonians and Finns and Serbians and Croats and Moldavians and the Ruthenians and the Russians are not. I think that's what he's trying to imply.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I don't understand why the Dutch and French and "Teutons" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) and Norse and Anglo-Saxons are distinguished from one another and yet the Poles and Lithuanians and Ukrainians and Byelorusians and Estonians and Finns and Serbians and Croats and Moldavians and the Ruthenians and the Russians are not. I think that's what he's trying to imply.

First of all, divorce your definition of civilization from mere notions of ethnicity and politics. That's not the point of this discussion.

"Teutons" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean)

You really don't get what that means? I explained it in the original post.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I don't understand why the Dutch and French and "Teutons" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) and Norse and Anglo-Saxons are distinguished from one another and yet the Poles and Lithuanians and Ukrainians and Byelorusians and Estonians and Finns and Serbians and Croats and Moldavians and the Ruthenians and the Russians are not. I think that's what he's trying to imply.

If you want to persuade me to include some of those, you should explain how the Estonians, Moldavians etc. are individually major world civilizations. I'll happily consider any constructive assertions.

As a point of contrast, Anglo-Saxon civilization currently has about half a billion proponents throughout the Anglophone world. At one point, one Anglo-Saxon polity called the British Empire held sway over 1/5 of the world's population and covered more than 13 million square miles.

 

[sophie]

As a point of contrast, Anglo-Saxon civilization currently has about half a billion proponents throughout the Anglophone world. At one point, one Anglo-Saxon polity called the British Empire held sway over 1/5 of the world's population and covered more than 13 million square miles.

Yeah, but now you're getting into individual polities, which you explicitly stated you didn't want to do, so I still don't really get what this is all about.

 

[Joecoolyo]

First of all, divorce your definition of civilization from mere notions of ethnicity and politics. That's not the point of this discussion.

Dude, the "civilizations" you've listed out are almost entirely based on ethnicity and politics, especially considering that you see divisions of some as absolutely necessary but balk at the idea of splitting up others.

If you want the most accurate list, you're going to just have to list every single city that has ever existed, or put it all under the umbrella of "human" civilization and call it a day.