New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

[The Kingmaker]

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.

Sigh. It's not on the list is it? It's an example of big stuff done by just part of one group that is an example of what makes them big and different from another group.

 

[The Kingmaker]

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.

I was thinking more along the lines of shared culture and linguistics. Sure there's a few anomalies. Try classifying the French as anything but French and see how that goes. Austrians, Germans, Prussians, they're all Teutons. But the French? French.

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.

I'm not looking for the most minute list. Honestly I was posting here on the off chance that people would have some good suggestions for Africa and South America and maybe some more detail on India, but everybody always gets hung up on Europe.

 

[sophie]

I was thinking more along the lines of shared culture and linguistics. Sure there's a few anomalies. Try classifying the French as anything but French and see how that goes. Austrians, Germans, Prussians, they're all Teutons. But the French? French.

No, I think that's your personal bias coming into play.

 

[The Kingmaker]

No, I think that's your personal bias coming into play.

What, the French? I don't even like the French.

But sure, I'm biased. I guess I thought the half-a-billion group people was more likely to count as its own civilization than the smaller one million people group, which I thought was better served as part of another bigger group.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The French are Romans. They're traditionally called Romans.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The French are Romans. They're traditionally called Romans.

Are you sure? Because they call themselves Gallic a lot. And Frankish too.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Are you sure? Because they call themselves Gallic a lot. And Frankish too.

Yes, but if we're going to go by self-identification, the list will have to get changed around quite a lot.
As a first example, the boundary between Frank and Roman self-identification was never clear.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Yes, but if we're going to go by self-identification, the list will have to get changed around quite a lot.
As a first example, the boundary between Frank and Roman self-identification was never clear.

And the Franks were a Germanic tribe...

 

[Tee Kay]

"Germanic" is a linguistic indicator, not necessarily an ethnic, genetic, cultural or civilisational one. It's a lot like the term "Slavic", actually.

 

[The Kingmaker]

"Germanic" is a linguistic indicator, not necessarily an ethnic, genetic, cultural or civilisational one. It's a lot like the term "Slavic", actually.

Definition of Germanic:

1. German (a member of any of the Germanic peoples, an inhabitant of German, the primary language spoken in Germany, Austria and Switzerland)

2. a branch of the Indo-European language family

3. of, relating to, or characteristic of Germanic-speaking peoples.

I tend to favor the third definition there for the purposes of this exercise.

 

[Dachs]

And the Franks were a Germanic tribe...

Which doesn't describe Merovingian society in the slightest.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Which doesn't describe Merovingian society in the slightest.

You don't think so? I thought Clovis and his ilk behaved pretty typically for a Germanic tribe of the time.

 

[Dachs]

You don't think so? I thought Clovis and his ilk behaved pretty typically for a Germanic tribe of the time.

Nah, they behaved pretty much like standard Gallo-Roman military aristocrats.

 

[Glassfan]

Al, don't be discouraged by the critques here; it's normal for these forums. It looks like you did a lot of homework on these lists. Keep it up and turn it into something.

 

[Tee Kay]

It looks like you did a lot of homework on these lists.

Yeah. The OP is knowledgable and I must say the list is pretty comprehensive. Too bad the project is based on flimsy grounds.

 

[Tee Kay]

If I must, I'd suggest ten "civilisations", grouped into two categories based on antiquity (based on the definition of a "civilisation" in the OP; that is, "a complex societal movement defined by the presence of large urban settlements")

Earlier Civilisations:
1. Mesoamerican
2. Andean
3. Eurasian
4. Indic
5. Sinic

Later Civilisations:
6. North American
7. Amazonian
8. Niger-Sahelian
9. Congo-Zambezi
10. Pacific

A civilisation is identified by a large degree of contact and movement between the people and states, and a large degree of shared state organisation, religious beliefs, culture and customs. That said, these ten civilisations have no distinct boundaries, geographic or otherwise, and often overlap with one another.

Thus the Eurasian civilisation, including the people and polities of the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, from Ancient Sumer up to early modern nation-states, is identified by a large degree of interaction between different peoples and states, which in turn is partly defined by geography (eg migration, conquest, spread of technology, languages, trade networks) and, as a result, a large degree of shared culture and religion (related polytheisms and later Abrahamic monotheism). However, the Eurasian civilisation also interacts with other civilisations to produce syntheses such as modern Indian cultures or modern American cultures.

IMHO, this categorisation is superior to the one in the OP which, while very comprehensive, is biased towards certain prominent states, ethnicities or tribes, and failed to account for the varying degree of interaction and continuity between civilisations.

 

[Absolution]

I don't think you can call those prehistorics a "civilization".

They are not civilizations.
They didn't have any real political organization.
Just cities.
If you make a list of the history of urban life, they are surley in. But as civilizations, I don't think you can count them.
Sumeria is the first civilization.

And another thing - Herbews is a too wide defenition.
Hebrews were just a minority in Mesopotamia in the early 2nd millenium BC.
It's true that Israel and Juda are Hebrew people, but Hebrew people are not Israel and Juda.
A few Hebrew immigrants in Cnaan created the Israeli civilization.
But most of the Hebrew people were still in Babylon.
In the times of David and Solomon, Israel included more Hebrew people than Mesopotamia, but at least until 1200 BC (if not later) most of the Hebrew people were still a Mesopotamian minority.
Even in the bible - Abraham the Hebrew, was originaly from Ur.
You can refer to it like Phoenicians and Carthaginians.
The Carthaginians were created by Phoenician immigrants.
But until like 700BC, I think that most of the Phoenician people were still in Phoenicia.
And the Carthaginians developed their own culture. They were influenced by the Berbers, and the Europeans.
Israelites had a different culture as well. The original Hebrews were like Amorites, or Armeans, in their culture.

And -- Maybe you can include the early veitnamese?
I mean Van Lang.

And Gojoseon?

------------------------------

I didn't read all the comments, just the first 3.
And there is a different defenition for a civilization in every part of the world, or in every period.
Dutch can be a civilization, and even Austrians. Becuse of what practically happened in history.
There is no absolute defenition. You have to think about each one, and decide.
I think, for example, that even Mamluks deserve some reference. You can't call the Kipchaks.
But on the other hand, many (not all) of the Spanisn former colonies shouldn't be refered as different civilizations.
Because there is no real cultural difference, and they didn't play a different role in history.
Another example is the Almoravids and the Almohads, which aren't a civilization. They are part of the Berber civilization.


I wonder what you think about Romans, Italians and Etruscans.
I think it's the right decision to divide them. But maybe the Romans should be called "The Latins"?

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.

Catalans and Basque didn't have their own existence in history.
They are not a civilization.
You insult Assyria or Greece when you call the a civilization.
Spanish and Portuguese are a civilization, of course.
And I don't think that Low Saxons have done so as well. But I might be wrong in here.
The Dutch were just a little more important, more unique, and more significant than those ethnical groups, don't you think?

 

[Plotinus]

This is fun, and I think a worthwhile endeavour even though it's inevitably impossible. In that spirit I'm going to add a few criticisms.

I'm defining sweeping cultural movements as best I can using shared language and culture as a denominator.

This is always going to be pretty arbitrary, not least because sometimes you have different languages but a shared culture. For example, you have listed the Akkadians as a distinct civilisation from the Sumerians. But they were pretty much completely indistinguishable from each other apart from the fact that they spoke different languages (and indeed the Sumerians themselves had two languages of their own). The Akkadian empire was just the Sumerian city states, run by some Akkadians. And conversely, you list the Sumerians as a single civilisation, but this overlooks the cultural differences between the early Uruk period, when that one city seems to have dominated the whole region culturally, and the subsequent Jemdet Nasr and dynastic periods, which were quite different. Why cite the Sumerians and the Akkadians as distinct civilisations but merge the Uruk civilisation into the Sumerian one?

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.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Certainly the Anglo-Saxons were crucial to the emergence of what became England and Britain and the subsequent achievements of those countries, but that doesn't mean that (say) the British empire can be considered part of the Anglo-Saxon civilisation. By the high Middle Ages, the "English" were already a mixture of Anglo-Saxons, Danes, and Normans - not to mention the earlier Celtic and Romano-British peoples as well, all of whom had been melted together and all of whom contributed to the culture of what would become England. Calling the modern English-speaking cultures "Anglo-Saxon" makes as much sense as calling the French Romans. Again, if you're going to count the Sumerians and the Akkadians as distinct civilisations, I don't see how you can fail to distinguish between the Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman civilisations - the differences between the latter two are arguably greater than those between the former two.

Also, why run together Ghana, Mali, and Songhai into the catch-all "Malinese"? They weren't even in the same place, let alone had the same culture. Why are the Yoruba included but not the Igbo? Relatedly, you seem to have left out Kongo.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Al, don't be discouraged by the critques here; it's normal for these forums. It looks like you did a lot of homework on these lists. Keep it up and turn it into something.

Thanks for the support. I don't mind some healthy debate. People could be a bit nicer about it though.

 

[The Kingmaker]

This is fun, and I think a worthwhile endeavour even though it's inevitably impossible. In that spirit I'm going to add a few criticisms.

As long is it doesn't just turn into "dogpile the OP" again. I am perfectly willing to engage in friendly discussion and debate but I have neither the time nor the disposition to fend off personal jabs. I trust you'll intervene at that point. I was beginning to regret even coming here.

This is always going to be pretty arbitrary, not least because sometimes you have different languages but a shared culture. For example, you have listed the Akkadians as a distinct civilisation from the Sumerians. But they were pretty much completely indistinguishable from each other apart from the fact that they spoke different languages (and indeed the Sumerians themselves had two languages of their own). The Akkadian empire was just the Sumerian city states, run by some Akkadians. And conversely, you list the Sumerians as a single civilisation, but this overlooks the cultural differences between the early Uruk period, when that one city seems to have dominated the whole region culturally, and the subsequent Jemdet Nasr and dynastic periods, which were quite different. Why cite the Sumerians and the Akkadians as distinct civilisations but merge the Uruk civilisation into the Sumerian one?

I originally had the Akkadians down but not the Assyrians and Babylonians. It felt wrong to have those two absent so I listed them as Akkadian subcultures. The Akkadian Empire of Sargon was indeed just Akkadian elites dominating Sumerians. But the Akkadophone (let's coin a term, shall we?) peoples of later centuries grew into something else entirely. If it weren't for Assyria and Babylonia, I wouldn't include Akkad at all. I meant for the term Akkadian civilization to include all that came after, not merely the Akkadian empire.

That being said, the list is incomplete and I posted it here for the purpose of expanding it. If you believe that the early Uruk period was different enough to be a completely separate civilization from the rest of Sumer, then make a case for that. Tell me how the material culture, architecture, language, etc. were different and why they merit a separate entry.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Certainly the Anglo-Saxons were crucial to the emergence of what became England and Britain and the subsequent achievements of those countries, but that doesn't mean that (say) the British empire can be considered part of the Anglo-Saxon civilisation. By the high Middle Ages, the "English" were already a mixture of Anglo-Saxons, Danes, and Normans - not to mention the earlier Celtic and Romano-British peoples as well, all of whom had been melted together and all of whom contributed to the culture of what would become England. Calling the modern English-speaking cultures "Anglo-Saxon" makes as much sense as calling the French Romans. Again, if you're going to count the Sumerians and the Akkadians as distinct civilisations, I don't see how you can fail to distinguish between the Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman civilisations - the differences between the latter two are arguably greater than those between the former two.

I wouldn't say that. I'd probably describe Anglo-Norman England as the English people governed by some Norman elites. There was a major change politically, but the bulk of the actual people were still the same. And those Anglo-Saxons described themselves as "Aenglisc" even before the Norman conquest.

This is not about ethnicity though so much as it is about the persistence of culture. The English may have been ruled by Normans (and later Angevins), but they didn't become Normans. In fact, those Normans who came to England merged into the English instead. We're not writing in French after all, or Norse. Sure the language has evolved and been influenced by other tongues since 1066, but it's still ultimately English. This is also in contrast to the example of Sumer and Akkad that you raised, where it was the Akkadian language and culture of the conquerors that ultimately took over in Mesopotamia.

And in fact, I'm glad you brought up the peculiar admixture of the Anglo-Saxons (Romano-British + Saxon + Norse etc.). That cultural mishmash is part of what makes the English unique. If England was culturally analogous to Germany or Austria for example, there'd be no point in considering them as a separate civilization. But today we still talk of people as being WASPs (white Anglo-Saxon protestants), and people as disparate as Washington and Churchill looked to Anglo-Saxon leaders like Alfred as cultural icons (he was also very likely their direct ancestor).

Also, why run together Ghana, Mali, and Songhai into the catch-all "Malinese"? They weren't even in the same place, let alone had the same culture.

Sure they were, at least roughly. Each subsequent dynasty may have conquered different neighboring regions, but the core appears to be basically the same. Mainly though it simply appears to me that these different polities did share a similar culture. There were different dynasties and ethnicities involved over time, but they all ultimately flourished in Mali. If there's a better name for this group, I'd love to consider it.

Why are the Yoruba included but not the Igbo? Relatedly, you seem to have left out Kongo.

Make a case for the Igbo. Subsaharan Africa is my weak spot and I'd love to learn more. It was for that sort of thing that I even originally posted.

As for Kongo, I originally had them on the list, but then wondered that since they were a Bantoid group, wouldn't they be considered as subsumed under the greater Bantu whole? If you think they should be split off, say as a major Bantu subculture, tell me why.