New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

It's the literal meaning of the word: it derives from the Latin "civilis", meaning that which pertains to the meaning city (civitas) or the citizenry (civis).


Dachspwn in three, two, one...
I sincerely doubt Dachs cares about this ridiculous discussion enough to comment on it. I know I stopped caring quite some time ago, and am somewhat surprised that TK and Masada are still bothering.
 
I sincerely doubt Dachs cares about this ridiculous discussion enough to comment on it. I know I stopped caring quite some time ago, and am somewhat surprised that TK and Masada are still bothering.

I'm only still in this discussion because someone brought up Southeast Asia.
 
So according to that, which civilization are the Huns belonged to?
Why do you think you have to shoehorn everything into neat categories?
 
I doesn't depend on times, nor on importance. Just about being a civilization or not.
In 1350 BC (150 years after the rise of Mitanni) the Hurrians weren't a civilizatons, and in 1300 BC they were?
In 940 BC the Israelites weren't a civilization, and in 770 BC they were?
In 130 AD the Kushans weren't a civilization, and in 350 AD they were?
In 50 BC the Xiongnu weren't a civilization, and in 30 AD they were?
In 1040 AD the Hungarians weren't a civilization, and in 1200 they were?

Maybe the definition can be applied retroactively. By illustration, Gladstone was a long-lived man, and he was always a long-lived man even when he was 20 years old, but when he was 20 years old no-one knew yet that he was a long-lived man. Similarly, if one wants to take the 200-year rule seriously, one could say that e.g. the Hungarians were indeed a civilisation in 1040 CE, because they were going to last 200 years, but no-one knew it yet.

Personally I'd be inclined to say that one cannot define "civilisation" any more than one can define "sport". Any definition that one produces will inevitably exclude some cases that one would like to include, and include some that one would like to exclude. That doesn't mean that the term can't be used meaningfully any more than "sport" can, it just means that one has to judge on a case-by-case basis without clear criteria. But that's all right, we do that all the time. The assumption that you can't have a meaningful discussion about something without having a watertight definition of it is a Platonic one, and it's wrong.
 
Absolution said:
Tai is too big for that list.
It is like Turkic or Germanic.
A massive ethnic group which includes many different peoples and even civilizations.

I hate repeating myself. But to reiterate: the difference between the court cultures (and this is what we're talking about) of what-is-now Thailand and Laos were no greater than those of courts inside Thailand and, hell, even Laos. This is quite beside the point that even talking about "Thailand" or "Laos" is anachronistic in the extreme. Suggesting otherwise would require that one project colonial boundaries back into the distant past. This is patently absurd because as TK noted, Lanna straddled both sides of the modern border. This begs the question: what then is Lanna? Thai or Laotian. (Hint: the answer is neither).

Furthermore, the use of "Tai" to denote an elite culture (not ethnicity) common to courts is well accepted. While I accept one could confuse my use of "Tai-as-a-court-culture" with "Tai(-Kedai)-as-a-linguistic-group" (which I hasten to add is never ever ever ever used to denote an ethnic group), I fail to see how that was possible considering what I wrote. Among other things: I never once mentioned language, which is, I think, irrelevant for the most part in the formation of durable identities in Southeast Asia. The implication here being that you can't even be bothered to parse other peoples posts. I can forgive Civciv5 because he's probably Laotian, judging by his responses, and has kept it rather cool. What I can't understand is why someone who hasn't been suckled on the nationalist teat can be this closed minded.

I also strenuously object to the conflation of linguistic groups - e.g. Turkic, Germanic and Tai - with ethnic groups. It's inaccurate and doesn't hold up to even the most cursory examination. Consider that Malagasy, one of the official languages of Madagascar, is actually a part of the Barito sub-branch of Indo-Melanesian. Using the logic you've employed here, would suggest that Dayaks in Borneo were of the same ethnic group as Malagasy people, despite an almost complete lack of historical contact. The Germanic example is no less ridiculous: grouping Iceland and Germany. And Turkic would have me link Uighurs with Azerbaijanis.

You also can't complain about lumping groups together into unwieldy groups such that "they include many different peoples and even civilizations" because of your ungodly inclusion of "the Indonesians" whatever-the-hell-that-word-is-supposed-to-mean-in-600-freaking-AD. Even using Melayu is problematic, because it didn't even mean a court culture at that point but a place - Malayu.


Plotinus said:
Personally I'd be inclined to say that one cannot define "civilisation" any more than one can define "sport". Any definition that one produces will inevitably exclude some cases that one would like to include, and include some that one would like to exclude. That doesn't mean that the term can't be used meaningfully any more than "sport" can, it just means that one has to judge on a case-by-case basis without clear criteria. But that's all right, we do that all the time. The assumption that you can't have a meaningful discussion about something without having a watertight definition of it is a Platonic one, and it's wrong.
This cannot be emphasized enough. There are always exceptions. The mere fact of them existing doesn't mean we shouldn't bother, but that we should work to include them, or at least acknowledge them as being exceptions.

TheLastOne36 said:
I swear I remember reading somewhere that most Mongols were actually settled in central Asia, and lived sedentary lives.
There were always lots of settled and semi-settled Mongols.
 
I can forgive Civciv5 because he's probably Laotian, judging by his responses, and has kept it rather cool. What I can't understand is why someone who hasn't been suckled on the nationalist teat can be this closed minded.
I'm not Laotian and I live nowhere near Laos,I live in Belgium and I'm a Belgian.
I'm trying to prove that the Laotians are a civilization.
I think they are sufficiently different from the Thai to be considered a seperate entity.
They have different architectural styles,languages,cultures,arts,cuisine,traditions...
Grouping all ethnic groups within larger ethnic groups would be preposterous.
Many civilization have things that are the same (political structure,hierarchical structure,arts or other things),but they also have differences.
You will never be able to convince me of your viewpoint.
 
Civciv5 said:
They have different architectural styles,languages,cultures,arts,cuisine,traditions. ..

So do Chiang Mai and Bangkok. Your point being?

Civciv5 said:
You will never be able to convince me of your viewpoint.
I'm touched that you think this is my viewpoint, but I'm afraid to say it's the mainstream academic one. :(
 
I'm getting tired of discussing constantly with you.
Most people think that the Thai civilization encompasses all kingdoms that existed there and the Laotian civilization encompasses all kingdoms that existed there.
The thing to which you refer as "Bangkok",which I think it means the Sukhothai,Ayutthaya and Rattanakosin Kingdoms always was the master of Lanna and other small surrounding kingdoms.
I'm touched that you think this is my viewpoint, but I'm afraid to say it's the mainstream academic one
Oh,I am afraid that it isn't,at least not in my country.
 
Oh,I am afraid that it isn't,at least not in my country.

I hate to say it, but in this day and age that's hardly an excuse. I mean, you're talking in English on a website with people from all over the world; it's not as if you're limited to the vast quantity of Belgian scholarship on Indochinese civilisation.
 
Civciv5 said:
I'm getting tired of discussing constantly with you.
Having to put up with you inanely repeating points, with not the slightest hint of understanding obvious ones TK and I are making is tiring.

Civciv5 said:
Most people think that the Thai civilization encompasses all kingdoms that existed there and the Laotian civilization encompasses all kingdoms that existed there.
I don't care what random people think. I do care what scholars in the field think and scholars in the field without exception don't consider the modern Thai and Laotian borders in the least bit relevant to the discussion of pre-modern polities.

Civciv5 said:
The thing to which you refer as "Bangkok",which I think it means the Sukhothai,Ayutthaya and Rattanakosin Kingdoms always was the master of Lanna and other small surrounding kingdoms.

No, I was talking about the long standing historical differences between inhabitants of Bangkok and Chiang Mai up to and including the use of different vernaculars. A state of affairs which still exists.

Flying Pig said:
I hate to say it, but in this day and age that's hardly an excuse. I mean, you're talking in English on a website with people from all over the world; it's not as if you're limited to the vast quantity of Belgian scholarship on Indochinese civilisation.
"Indonchinese civilization"? :confused:

EDIT: The most annoying thing about this conversation is that TK and I have ponied up paragraphs, only to be responded to with the same assertions with not a shred of actual evidence to back them up or frankly any hint of understanding that the opposition understands what it is we're talking about.
 
I don't care what random people think. I do care what scholars in the field think and scholars in the field without exception don't consider the modern Thai and Laotian borders in the least bit relevant to the discussion of pre-modern polities.
Let's make a conclusion:this discussion was a contest to see who is right,but nobody is right,because everybodies opinions are different.
Also,we can't consider each kingdom and nation as a civilization.
The Ayutthaya,Sukhothai,Rattanakosin,Chiang Mai,Lavo and Lanna Kingdoms have more things in common with each other than with other kingdoms and empires,so it is safe to assume that they are ONE civilization:The Thai.
Other examples=
Pyu city states+Pagan Kingdom+Hanthawaddy+Arakan+Taungoo+Konbaung= Burmese civilization
Maurya+Gupta+Chola+Chalukya+Pala+Delhi+Mughal= Indian civilization
See?
They all have many differences,but the things that they have in common outweigh the differences.
We can't name all kingdomes,empires and nations civilizations,then there would be tens of thousands...
 
I freely admit to being old-fashioned; what's the modern collective term encompassing both Laos and Thailand?
Indochina is and old term when referring to the territory encampassing Vietnam,Cambodia and Laos.
In the broad sense it also encompasses Thailand,Myanmar,Malaysia and Singapore.
When you want to refer to the latter,the best option is Mainland South East Asia.
 
Civciv5 said:
The Ayutthaya,Sukhothai,Rattanakosin,Chiang Mai,Lavo and Lanna Kingdoms have more things in common with each other than with other kingdoms and empires,so it is safe to assume that they are ONE civilization:The Thai.

No, it isn't safe to assume that. TK and I have pointed that reasons for that ad nascuem. Notable objections include:

(1) the modern Thai identity not existing until the 1850s, at the earliest;
(2) the absurdity of retrospectively applying modern borders to pre-modern polities;
(3) the significant inter-regional differences between the elite cultures of what-is-now-Thailand,
(4) the broad continuities between the elite cultures of what-is-now-Thailand and what-is-now Laos;
(5) the fact that those broad continuities meant that Northern and Northeastern elite cultures in what-is-now-Thailand were closer to the elite cultures of what-is-now-Thailand than to the elite culture of, say, Central Thailand; and
(6) the rather simple fact that in order for this to all work you need to rely on modern nationalist narratives.

The "Burmese" and "Indian" examples are to my mind just good evidence for this whole project being irredeemably tainted by Euro-centrism.
 
We can continue this discussion ad infinitum,but we are not going to.
Also,your own opinion is the most important,I believe that the Thai are an unified civilization and you don't.
Well that's OK,I don't bother it.
Everybody can have their own opinion and viewpoint.
 
Civciv5 said:
Also,your own opinion is the most important,I believe that the Thai are an unified civilization and you don't.

You have got to be kidding. This is not what I've been arguing at all.
 
You have got to be kidding. This is not what I've been arguing at all.
What do you try to explain?
You have to believe in one of these viewpoints:
  1. The Thai consist of many civilizations
  2. The Thai are part of a larger civilization
  3. The Thai are one civilization
  4. The Thai are not a civilization
Which of the above do you prefer?
Also,which number would you prefer if you replace "Thai" with Lao?
 
. That doesn't mean that the term can't be used meaningfully any more than "sport" can, it just means that one has to judge on a case-by-case basis without clear criteria. But that's all right, we do that all the time. The assumption that you can't have a meaningful discussion about something without having a watertight definition of it is a Platonic one, and it's wrong.
Finally some one says that.
Civilizations are not a strict term.
 
Finally some one says that.
Civilizations are not a strict term.

Yeah, but that still means you have to define your reasoning. You can't just say Ottomans are a civilization because.
 
Back
Top Bottom