ISBN (identifier) Enlarge Doi (identifier)

Ancient Egypt is a canonical example of an early culture considered a civilization.

A civilization (or civilisation) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, a form of government and symbolic systems of communication such as writing.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Civilizations are intimately associated with and often further defined by other socio-politico-economic characteristics, including centralization, the domestication of both humans and other organisms, specialization of labour, culturally ingrained ideologies of progress and supremacism, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon farming and expansionism.[2][3][4][6][7][8]

Historically, civilization has often been understood as a larger and "more advanced" culture, in contrast to smaller, supposedly primitive cultures.[1][3][4][9] In this broad sense, a civilization contrasts with non-centralized tribal societies, including the cultures of nomadic pastoralists, Neolithic societies or hunter-gatherers, however sometimes it also contrasts with the cultures found within civilizations themselves. Civilizations are organized in densely populated settlements divided into hierarchical social classes with a ruling elite and subordinate urban and rural populations, which engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending human control over the rest of nature, including over other human beings.[10]

Civilization, as its etymology (below) suggests, is a concept originally linked to towns and cities. The earliest emergence of civilizations is generally associated with the final stages of the Neolithic Revolution, culminating in the relatively rapid process of urban revolution and state formation, a political development associated with the appearance of a governing elite.

History of the concept

The English word civilization comes from the 16th-century French civilisé ("civilized"), from Latin civilis ("civil"), related to civis ("citizen") and civitas ("city").[11] The fundamental treatise is Norbert Elias's The Civilizing Process (1939), which traces social mores from medieval courtly society to the Early Modern period.[12] In The Philosophy of Civilization (1923), Albert Schweitzer outlines two opinions: one purely material and the other material and ethical. He said that the world crisis was from humanity losing the ethical idea of civilization, "the sum total of all progress made by man in every sphere of action and from every point of view in so far as the progress helps towards the spiritual perfecting of individuals as the progress of all progress".[13]

Adjectives like "civility" developed in the mid-16th century. The abstract noun "civilization", meaning "civilized condition", came in the 1760s, again from French. The first known use in French is in 1757, by Victor de Riqueti, marquis de Mirabeau, and the first use in English is attributed to Adam Ferguson, who in his 1767 Essay on the History of Civil Society wrote, "Not only the individual advances from infancy to manhood but the species itself from rudeness to civilisation".[14] The word was therefore opposed to barbarism or rudeness, in the active pursuit of progress characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment.

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, during the French Revolution, "civilization" was used in the singular, never in the plural, and meant the progress of humanity as a whole. This is still the case in French.[15] The use of "civilizations" as a countable noun was in occasional use in the 19th century,[16] but has become much more common in the later 20th century, sometimes just meaning culture (itself in origin an uncountable noun, made countable in the context of ethnography).[17] Only in this generalized sense does it become possible to speak of a "medieval civilization", which in Elias's sense would have been an oxymoron.

Already in the 18th century, civilization was not always seen as an improvement. One historically important distinction between culture and civilization is from the writings of Rousseau, particularly his work about education, Emile. Here, civilization, being more rational and socially driven, is not fully in accord with human nature, and "human wholeness is achievable only through the recovery of or approximation to an original discursive or prerational natural unity" (see noble savage). From this, a new approach was developed, especially in Germany, first by Johann Gottfried Herder, and later by philosophers such as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. This sees cultures as natural organisms, not defined by "conscious, rational, deliberative acts", but a kind of pre-rational "folk spirit". Civilization, in contrast, though more rational and more successful in material progress, is unnatural and leads to "vices of social life" such as guile, hypocrisy, envy and avarice.[15] In World War II, Leo Strauss, having fled Germany, argued in New York that this opinion of civilization was behind Nazism and German militarism and nihilism.[18]


The emergence of table manners and other forms of etiquette and self-restraint are presented as one of the characteristics of civilized society by Norbert Elias in The Civilizing Process (1939). The End of Dinner by Jules-Alexandre Grün (1913).

Social scientists such as V. Gordon Childe have named a number of traits that distinguish a civilization from other kinds of society.[19] Civilizations have been distinguished by their means of subsistence, types of livelihood, settlement patterns, forms of government, social stratification, economic systems, literacy and other cultural traits. Andrew Nikiforuk argues that "civilizations relied on shackled human muscle. It took the energy of slaves to plant crops, clothe emperors, and build cities" and considers slavery to be a common feature of pre-modern civilizations.[20]

All civilizations have depended on agriculture for subsistence, with the possible exception of some early civilizations in Peru which may have depended upon maritime resources.[21][22] Grain farms can result in accumulated storage and a surplus of food, particularly when people use intensive agricultural techniques such as artificial fertilization, irrigation and crop rotation. It is possible but more difficult to accumulate horticultural production, and so civilizations based on horticultural gardening have been very rare.[23] Grain surpluses have been especially important because grain can be stored for a long time. A surplus of food permits some people to do things besides producing food for a living: early civilizations included soldiers, artisans, priests and priestesses, and other people with specialized careers. A surplus of food results in a division of labour and a more diverse range of human activity, a defining trait of civilizations. However, in some places hunter-gatherers have had access to food surpluses, such as among some of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest and perhaps during the Mesolithic Natufian culture. It is possible that food surpluses and relatively large scale social organization and division of labour predates plant and animal domestication.[24]

Civilizations have distinctly different settlement patterns from other societies. The word "civilization" is sometimes simply defined as "'living in cities'".[25] Non-farmers tend to gather in cities to work and to trade.

Compared with other societies, civilizations have a more complex political structure, namely the state.[26] State societies are more stratified[27] than other societies; there is a greater difference among the social classes. The ruling class, normally concentrated in the cities, has control over much of the surplus and exercises its will through the actions of a government or bureaucracy. Morton Fried, a conflict theorist and Elman Service, an integration theorist, have classified human cultures based on political systems and social inequality. This system of classification contains four categories[28]

Economically, civilizations display more complex patterns of ownership and exchange than less organized societies. Living in one place allows people to accumulate more personal possessions than nomadic people. Some people also acquire landed property, or private ownership of the land. Because a percentage of people in civilizations do not grow their own food, they must trade their goods and services for food in a market system, or receive food through the levy of tribute, redistributive taxation, tariffs or tithes from the food producing segment of the population. Early human cultures functioned through a gift economy supplemented by limited barter systems. By the early Iron Age, contemporary civilizations developed money as a medium of exchange for increasingly complex transactions. In a village, the potter makes a pot for the brewer and the brewer compensates the potter by giving him a certain amount of beer. In a city, the potter may need a new roof, the roofer may need new shoes, the cobbler may need new horseshoes, the blacksmith may need a new coat and the tanner may need a new pot. These people may not be personally acquainted with one another and their needs may not occur all at the same time. A monetary system is a way of organizing these obligations to ensure that they are fulfilled. From the days of the earliest monetarized civilizations, monopolistic controls of monetary systems have benefited the social and political elites.

Writing, developed first by people in Sumer, is considered a hallmark of civilization and "appears to accompany the rise of complex administrative bureaucracies or the conquest state".[31] Traders and bureaucrats relied on writing to keep accurate records. Like money, the writing was necessitated by the size of the population of a city and the complexity of its commerce among people who are not all personally acquainted with each other. However, writing is not always necessary for civilization, as shown by the Inca civilization of the Andes, which did not use writing at all except a complex recording system consisting of cords and nodes instead: the "Quipus", and still functioned as a civilized society.

Ancient Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle

Aided by their division of labour and central government planning, civilizations have developed many other diverse cultural traits. These include organized religion, development in the arts, and countless new advances in science and technology.

Through history, successful civilizations have spread, taking over more and more territory, and assimilating more and more previously-uncivilized people. Nevertheless, some tribes or people remain uncivilized even to this day. These cultures are called by some "primitive", a term that is regarded by others as pejorative. "Primitive" implies in some way that a culture is "first" (Latin = primus), that it has not changed since the dawn of humanity, though this has been demonstrated not to be true. Specifically, as all of today's cultures are contemporaries, today's so-called primitive cultures are in no way antecedent to those we consider civilized. Anthropologists today use the term "non-literate" to describe these peoples.

Civilization has been spread by colonization, invasion, religious conversion, the extension of bureaucratic control and trade, and by introducing agriculture and writing to non-literate peoples. Some non-civilized people may willingly adapt to civilized behaviour. But civilization is also spread by the technical, material and social dominance that civilization engenders.

Assessments of what level of civilization a polity has reached are based on comparisons of the relative importance of agricultural as opposed to trading or manufacturing capacities, the territorial extensions of its power, the complexity of its division of labour, and the carrying capacity of its urban centres. Secondary elements include a developed transportation system, writing, standardized measurement, currency, contractual and tort-based legal systems, art, architecture, mathematics, scientific understanding, metallurgy, political structures and organized religion.

Traditionally, polities that managed to achieve notable military, ideological and economic power defined themselves as "civilized" as opposed to other societies or human groupings outside their sphere of influence – calling the latter barbarians, savages, and primitives.

Cultural identity

"Civilization" can also refer to the culture of a complex society, not just the society itself. Every society, civilization or not, has a specific set of ideas and customs, and a certain set of manufactures and arts that make it unique. Civilizations tend to develop intricate cultures, including a state-based decision making apparatus, a literature, professional art, architecture, organized religion and complex customs of education, coercion and control associated with maintaining the elite.

The intricate culture associated with civilization has a tendency to spread to and influence other cultures, sometimes assimilating them into the civilization (a classic example being Chinese civilization and its influence on nearby civilizations such as Korea, Japan and Vietnam). Many civilizations are actually large cultural spheres containing many nations and regions. The civilization in which someone lives is that person's broadest cultural identity.

Many historians have focused on these broad cultural spheres and have treated civilizations as discrete units. Early twentieth-century philosopher Oswald Spengler,[32] uses the German word Kultur, "culture", for what many call a "civilization". Spengler believed a civilization's coherence is based on a single primary cultural symbol. Cultures experience cycles of birth, life, decline and death, often supplanted by a potent new culture, formed around a compelling new cultural symbol. Spengler states civilization is the beginning of the decline of a culture as "the most external and artificial states of which a species of developed humanity is capable".[32]

This "unified culture" concept of civilization also influenced the theories of historian Arnold J. Toynbee in the mid-twentieth century. Toynbee explored civilization processes in his multi-volume A Study of History, which traced the rise and, in most cases, the decline of 21 civilizations and five "arrested civilizations". Civilizations generally declined and fell, according to Toynbee, because of the failure of a "creative minority", through moral or religious decline, to meet some important challenge, rather than mere economic or environmental causes.

Samuel P. Huntington defines civilization as "the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species". Huntington's theories about civilizations are discussed below.[33]

Complex systems

Depiction of united Medes and Persians at the Apadana, Persepolis.

Another group of theorists, making use of systems theory, looks at a civilization as a complex system, i.e., a framework by which a group of objects can be analysed that work in concert to produce some result. Civilizations can be seen as networks of cities that emerge from pre-urban cultures and are defined by the economic, political, military, diplomatic, social and cultural interactions among them. Any organization is a complex social system and a civilization is a large organization. Systems theory helps guard against superficial and misleading analogies in the study and description of civilizations.

Systems theorists look at many types of relations between cities, including economic relations, cultural exchanges and political/diplomatic/military relations. These spheres often occur on different scales. For example, trade networks were, until the nineteenth century, much larger than either cultural spheres or political spheres. Extensive trade routes, including the Silk Road through Central Asia and Indian Ocean sea routes linking the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, India and China, were well established 2000 years ago when these civilizations scarcely shared any political, diplomatic, military, or cultural relations. The first evidence of such long-distance trade is in the ancient world. During the Uruk period, Guillermo Algaze has argued that trade relations connected Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran and Afghanistan.[34] Resin found later in the Royal Cemetery at Ur is suggested was traded northwards from Mozambique.

Many theorists argue that the entire world has already become integrated into a single "world system", a process known as globalization. Different civilizations and societies all over the globe are economically, politically, and even culturally interdependent in many ways. There is debate over when this integration began, and what sort of integration – cultural, technological, economic, political, or military-diplomatic – is the key indicator in determining the extent of a civilization. David Wilkinson has proposed that economic and military-diplomatic integration of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations resulted in the creation of what he calls the "Central Civilization" around 1500 BCE.[35] Central Civilization later expanded to include the entire Middle East and Europe, and then expanded to a global scale with European colonization, integrating the Americas, Australia, China and Japan by the nineteenth century. According to Wilkinson, civilizations can be culturally heterogeneous, like the Central Civilization, or homogeneous, like the Japanese civilization. What Huntington calls the "clash of civilizations" might be characterized by Wilkinson as a clash of cultural spheres within a single global civilization. Others point to the Crusades as the first step in globalization. The more conventional viewpoint is that networks of societies have expanded and shrunk since ancient times, and that the current globalized economy and culture is a product of recent European colonialism.[citation needed]


The notion of world history as a succession of "civilizations" is an entirely modern one. In the European Age of Discovery, emerging Modernity was put into stark contrast with the Neolithic and Mesolithic stage of the cultures of the New World, suggesting that the complex states had emerged at some time in prehistory.[36] The term "civilization" as it is now most commonly understood, a complex state with centralization, social stratification and specialization of labour, corresponds to early empires that arise in the Fertile Crescent in the Early Bronze Age, around roughly 3000 BC. Gordon Childe defined the emergence of civilization as the result of two successive revolutions: the Neolithic Revolution, triggering the development of settled communities, and the Urban Revolution.

Urban Revolution

At first, the Neolithic was associated with shifting subsistence cultivation, where continuous farming led to the depletion of soil fertility resulting in the requirement to cultivate fields further and further removed from the settlement, eventually compelling the settlement itself to move. In major semi-arid river valleys, annual flooding renewed soil fertility every year, with the result that population densities could rise significantly. This encouraged a secondary products revolution in which people used domesticated animals not just for meat, but also for milk, wool, manure and pulling ploughs and carts – a development that spread through the Eurasian Oecumene.[definition needed]

The earlier neolithic technology and lifestyle were established first in Western Asia (for example at Göbekli Tepe, from about 9,130 BCE), and later in the Yellow River and Yangtze basins in China (for example the Pengtoushan culture from 7,500 BCE), and later spread. Mesopotamia is the site of the earliest developments of the Neolithic Revolution from around 10,000 BCE, with civilizations developing from 6,500 years ago. This area has been identified as having "inspired some of the most important developments in human history including the invention of the wheel, the planting of the first cereal crops and the development of the cursive script."[37] Similar pre-civilized "neolithic revolutions" also began independently from 7,000 BCE in northwestern South America (the Norte Chico civilization)[38] and Mesoamerica.[39]

The 8.2 Kiloyear Arid Event and the 5.9 Kiloyear Interpluvial saw the drying out of semiarid regions and a major spread of deserts.[40] This climate change shifted the cost-benefit ratio of endemic violence between communities, which saw the abandonment of unwalled village communities and the appearance of walled cities, associated with the first civilizations.

The ruins of Mesoamerican city Teotihuacan

This "urban revolution" marked the beginning of the accumulation of transferable surpluses, which helped economies and cities develop. It was associated with the state monopoly of violence, the appearance of a soldier class and endemic warfare, the rapid development of hierarchies, and the appearance of human sacrifice.[41]

The civilized urban revolution in turn was dependent upon the development of sedentism, the domestication of grains and animals and development of lifestyles that facilitated economies of scale and accumulation of surplus production by certain social sectors. The transition from complex cultures to civilizations, while still disputed, seems to be associated with the development of state structures, in which power was further monopolized by an elite ruling class[42] who practiced human sacrifice.[43]

Towards the end of the Neolithic period, various elitist Chalcolithic civilizations began to rise in various "cradles" from around 3300 BCE, expanding into large-scale empires in the course of the Bronze Age (Old Kingdom of Egypt, Akkadian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Old Assyrian Empire, Hittite Empire).

A parallel development took place independently in the Pre-Columbian Americas, where the Mayans began to be urbanized around 500 BCE, and the fully-fledged Aztec and Inca emerged by the 15th century, briefly before European contact.

Axial Age

The Bronze Age collapse was followed by the Iron Age around 1200 BCE, during which a number of new civilizations emerged, culminating in a period from the 8th to the 3rd century BCE which Karl Jaspers termed the Axial Age, presented as a critical transitional phase leading to classical civilization.[44] William Hardy McNeill proposed that this period of history was one in which cultural contact between previously separate civilizations saw the "closure of the oecumene" and led to accelerated social change from China to the Mediterranean, associated with the spread of coinage, larger empires and new religions. This view has recently been championed by Christopher Chase-Dunn and other world systems theorists.


A major technological and cultural transition to modernity began approximately 1500 CE in Western Europe, and from this beginning new approaches to science and law spread rapidly around the world, incorporating earlier cultures into the technological and industrial society of the present.[43][45]

Eurocentric Views of Civilizations

Modern academia regarding the study of civilizations, and history as a whole, has had a distinctly Eurocentric viewpoint dominate the field.[46] Eurocentrism, as the name implies, treats European history as the central subject of study; it excludes other civilizations in favor of Europe.[46] While it cannot be denied that European history plays an important role in global history, Eurocentric views dismiss the study of the rest of the world.[46]

The prevalence of Eurocentric thought in academia can be attributed to the fact that Europeans have been the main figureheads in academia.[46] Despite Europe's slow start onto the world stage, Europe soon became the colonial powerhouse that would dominate the rest of the world.[47] History is written by the winners; Europeans were the only large group of people that could extensively study history, and thus Eurocentrism was born. Rather than examine other cultures, academics began measuring civilizations against a Western standard.[48] This framework also was supported by Americans; the country had come from European roots, and so follow European thought, thus perpetuating the continuing cycle of Eurocentric thought.[46]

Religious Origins

When learning about civilization there was often a need to emphasize European civilizations and under appreciate eastern civilizations. There are many reasons for why this Eurocentric viewpoint took over history classes and textbooks. One of the reasons is religion. At the time of making history, religion was important for every aspect of civilization. People depended on religion, legally, politically, socially, and culturally, all around the globe.[49] Many countries led with Christian inspired viewpoints, while other's led with Islamic viewpoints,[50] regardless of where people were, and what their religious beliefs were, religion cultivated every part of day-to-day lives. Some examples of this can be in Roman Catholic countries, people studied astronomy in order to explain how God created the cosmos where the reason for Gregorian Reform was to explain and further exceed God’s power on the Catholic People [50] and “astronomy...was absolutely central to the authority of Rome”,[51] so “the Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy than did any other institution".[51] In Islamic countries, people studied astronomy for the sole purpose of knowing which direction to pray in.[50] Therefore, it makes sense that when European and American countries started recounting history about powerful civilizations, they would only include Christian led civilizations. However, this Eurocentric viewpoint came at an expense though, where now multiple historians are upset and discouraged with the lack of information on other civilizations outside of the European circle. And have written many articles highlighting powerful civilizations all throughout the Eurasian continent, and the cultural richness and significance outside of the Eurocentric circle.


Our understanding of what distinguishes a Civilization has been debated by historians for decades.  In the late 20th century, historians began critiquing Eurocentrism with respect to what is considered civilization.  Historians such as Edward Farmer and Syed Farid Alatas have argued that a Eurocentric view of what a Civilization is has led to the simplifying and paternal view of the Eurasian landmass.[46]  Farmer argues that Asia is not a comparable unit to that of Europe. Asia has no unifying tradition, religion language or culture and is often used to describe the non-European portion of the eurasian landmass.[46] Farmer argues that there are more than three civilizations in Asia which could be comparable to Europe.  This is portrayed most serious as an intellectual problem.  Farmer offers an example of Eurocentrism in the scholastic world citing a popular textbook by R.R Palmer and Joel Colton entitled “A History of the Modern World” which is described as “a history of Europe and European civilization.”  Syed Farid Alatas, a prominent Malaysian scholar and sociologist argues that our understanding of civilization is that of a Eurocentric perspective which harms individuals' understanding of themselves.[52]  He argues that changes need to be made in education systems to provide positive aspects about the contributions many other civilization have made to modern Europe such as from the India, Chinese and Islamic civilizations.

In these education systems, European civilizations are often overemphasized and other civilizations deemphasized.  The Copernican revolution is often considered the trigger of the Scientific Revolution and has many recognized names attached: Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Newton etc.  The understanding of the Copernican revolution being an entirely European phenomenon is an artifact of Eurocentrism and does not show a complete picture.  Arun Bala, physicist and philosopher of science argues that a revolution in Europe could not have happened without mathematical contributions from India and Arabia.[53] Bala continues this argument citing the many mathematical, theoretical and empirical contributions from a whole host of cultures towards the understanding of a rotating and revolving earth.  Bala argues that many scientific discoveries are amalgamations of discoveries made by many civilizations and that the Copernican Revolution is not an exception.[53]

Fall of civilizations

Civilizations are traditionally understood as ending in one of two ways; either through incorporation into another expanding civilization (e.g. As Ancient Egypt was incorporated into Hellenistic Greek, and subsequently Roman civilizations), or by collapsing and reverting to a simpler form of living, as happens in so-called Dark Ages.[54]

There have been many explanations put forward for the collapse of civilization. Some focus on historical examples, and others on general theory.


A world map of major civilizations according to the political hypothesis Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington[a]

Political scientist Samuel Huntington has argued that the defining characteristic of the 21st century will be a clash of civilizations.[63] According to Huntington, conflicts between civilizations will supplant the conflicts between nation-states and ideologies that characterized the 19th and 20th centuries. These views have been strongly challenged by others like Edward Said, Muhammed Asadi and Amartya Sen.[64] Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris have argued that the "true clash of civilizations" between the Muslim world and the West is caused by the Muslim rejection of the West's more liberal sexual values, rather than a difference in political ideology, although they note that this lack of tolerance is likely to lead to an eventual rejection of (true) democracy.[65] In Identity and Violence Sen questions if people should be divided along the lines of a supposed "civilization", defined by religion and culture only. He argues that this ignores the many others identities that make up people and leads to a focus on differences.

Cultural Historian Morris Berman suggests in Dark Ages America: the End of Empire that in the corporate consumerist United States, the very factors that once propelled it to greatness―extreme individualism, territorial and economic expansion, and the pursuit of material wealth―have pushed the United States across a critical threshold where collapse is inevitable. Politically associated with over-reach, and as a result of the environmental exhaustion and polarization of wealth between rich and poor, he concludes the current system is fast arriving at a situation where continuation of the existing system saddled with huge deficits and a hollowed-out economy is physically, socially, economically and politically impossible.[66] Although developed in much more depth, Berman's thesis is similar in some ways to that of Urban Planner, Jane Jacobs who argues that the five pillars of United States culture are in serious decay: community and family; higher education; the effective practice of science; taxation and government; and the self-regulation of the learned professions. The corrosion of these pillars, Jacobs argues, is linked to societal ills such as environmental crisis, racism and the growing gulf between rich and poor.[67]

Cultural critic and author Derrick Jensen argues that modern civilization is directed towards the domination of the environment and humanity itself in an intrinsically harmful, unsustainable, and self-destructive fashion.[68] Defending his definition both linguistically and historically, he defines civilization as "a culture... that both leads to and emerges from the growth of cities", with "cities" defined as "people living more or less permanently in one place in densities high enough to require the routine importation of food and other necessities of life".[69] This need for civilizations to import ever more resources, he argues, stems from their over-exploitation and diminution of their own local resources. Therefore, civilizations inherently adopt imperialist and expansionist policies and, to maintain these, highly militarized, hierarchically structured, and coercion-based cultures and lifestyles.

The Kardashev scale classifies civilizations based on their level of technological advancement, specifically measured by the amount of energy a civilization is able to harness. The scale is only hypothetical, but it puts energy consumption in a cosmic perspective. The Kardashev scale makes provisions for civilizations far more technologically advanced than any currently known to exist.

Non-human civilizations

The current scientific consensus is that human beings are the only animal species with the cognitive ability to create civilizations. A recent thought experiment, however, has considered whether it would "be possible to detect an industrial civilization in the geological record" given the paucity of geological information about eras before the quaternary.[71]

See also


  1. ^ Latin America, is either considered a part of the West or a distinct civilization intimately related to the West and descended from it.[62]


  1. ^ a b Adams, Robert McCormick (1966). The Evolution of Urban Society. Transaction Publishers. p. 13. ISBN 9780202365947.
  2. ^ a b Haviland, William et al. (2013). Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge. Cengage Learning. p. 250. ISBN 978-1285675305.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  3. ^ a b c Wright, Ronald. A Short History anthropological. ISBN 9780887847066.
  4. ^ a b c Llobera, Josep (2003). An Invitation to Anthropology. Berghahn Books. pp. 136–137. ISBN 9781571815972.
  5. ^ Fernández-Armesto, Felipe (2001). Civilizations: Culture, Ambition, and the Transformation of Nature. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780743216500.
  6. ^ a b Boyden, Stephen Vickers (2004). The Biology of Civilisation. UNSW Press. pp. 7–8. ISBN 9780868407661.
  7. ^ a b Solms-Laubach, Franz (2007). Nietzsche and Early German and Austrian Sociology. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 115, 117, and 212. ISBN 9783110181098.
  8. ^ a b 1964-, AbdelRahim, Layla. Children's literature, domestication and social foundation : narratives of civilization and wilderness. New York. p. 8. ISBN 9780415661102. OCLC 897810261.CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ Bolesti, Maria (2013). Barbarism and Its Discontents. Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804785372.
  10. ^ Mann, Michael (1986). The Sources of Social Power. 1. Cambridge University Press. pp. 34–41.
  11. ^ Sullivan, Larry E. (2009). The SAGE Glossary of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. SAGE Publications. p. 73. ISBN 9781412951432.
  12. ^ It remains the most influential sociological study of the topic, spawning its own body of secondary literature. Notably, Hans Peter Duerr attacked it in a major work (3,500 pages in five volumes, published 1988–2002). Elias, at the time a nonagenarian, was still able to respond to the criticism the year before his death. In 2002, Duerr was himself criticized by Michael Hinz's Der Zivilisationsprozeß: Mythos oder Realität (2002), saying that his criticism amounted to hateful defamation of Elias, through excessive standards of political correctness. Der Spiegel 40/2002
  13. ^ Albert Schweitzer. The Philosophy of Civilization, trans. C.T. Campion (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 91.
  14. ^ Cited after Émile Benveniste, Civilisation. Contribution à l'histoire du mot (Civilisation. Contribution to the history of the word), 1954, published in Problèmes de linguistique générale, Éditions Gallimard, 1966, pp. 336–345 (translated by Mary Elizabeth Meek as Problems in general linguistics, 2 vols., 1971).
  15. ^ a b Velkley, Richard (2002), "The Tension in the Beautiful: On Culture and Civilization in Rousseau and German Philosophy", Being after Rousseau: Philosophy and Culture in Question, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 11–30
  16. ^ E.g. in the title A narrative of the loss of the Winterton East Indiaman wrecked on the coast of Madagascar in 1792; and of the sufferings connected with that event. To which is subjoined a short account of the natives of Madagascar, with suggestions as to their civilizations by J. Hatchard, L.B. Seeley and T. Hamilton, London, 1820.
  17. ^ "Civilization" (1974), Encyclopædia Britannica 15th ed. Vol. II, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 956. Retrieved 25 August 2007. Using the terms "civilization" and "culture" as equivalents are controversial[clarification needed] and generally rejected so that for example some types of culture are not normally described as civilizations.
  18. ^ "On German Nihilism" (1999, originally a 1941 lecture), Interpretation 26, no. 3 edited by David Janssens and Daniel Tanguay.
  19. ^ Gordon Childe, V., What Happened in History (Penguin, 1942) and Man Makes Himself (Harmondsworth, 1951).
  20. ^ Nikiforuk, Andrew (2012). The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the new servitude. Greystone Books.
  21. ^ Moseley, Michael. "The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization: An Evolving Hypothesis". The Hall of Ma'at. Archived from the original on 18 August 2015. Retrieved 13 June 2008.
  22. ^ Moseley, Michael (1975). The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization. Menlo Park: Cummings. ISBN 978-0-8465-4800-3.
  23. ^ Hadjikoumis; Angelos, Robinson; and Sarah Viner-Daniels (Eds) (2011), "Dynamics of Neolithisation in Europe: Studies in honour of Andrew Sherratt" (Oxbow Books)
  24. ^ Mann, Charles C. (June 2011). "Göbekli Tepe". National Geographic.
  25. ^ Tom Standage (2005), A History of the World in 6 Glasses, Walker & Company, 25.
  26. ^ Grinin, Leonid E (Ed) et al. (2004), "The Early State and its Alternatives and Analogues" (Ichitel)
  27. ^ Bondarenko, Dmitri et al. (2004), "Alternatives to Social Evolution" in Grinin op cit.
  28. ^ Bogucki, Peter (1999), "The Origins of Human Society" (Wiley Blackwell)
  29. ^ DeVore, Irven, and Lee, Richard (1999) "Man the Hunter" (Aldine)
  30. ^ Beck, Roger B.; Linda Black; Larry S. Krieger; Phillip C. Naylor; Dahia Ibo Shabaka (1999). World History: Patterns of Interaction. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell. ISBN 978-0-395-87274-1.
  31. ^ Pauketat, Timothy R. (2004). Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge University Press. p. 169. ISBN 9780521520669.
  32. ^ a b Spengler, Oswald, Decline of the West: Perspectives of World History (1919)
  33. ^ Huntington, Samuel P. (1997). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon and Schuster. p. 43. ISBN 9781416561248.
  34. ^ Algaze, Guillermo, The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization (Second Edition, 2004) (ISBN 978-0-226-01382-4)
  35. ^ Wilkinson, David (Fall 1987). "Central Civilization". Comparative Civilizations Review. 17. pp. 31–59.
  36. ^ "Explicit theories of the origin of the state are relatively modern [...] the age of exploration, by making Europeans aware that many peoples throughout the world lived, not in states, but in independent villages or tribes, made the state seem less natural, and thus more in need of explanation." "A Theory of the Origin of the State". Archived from the original on 30 May 2014. Retrieved 5 August 2014.
  37. ^ Milton-Edwards, Beverley (May 2003). "Iraq, past, present and future: a thoroughly-modern mandate?". History & Policy. United Kingdom: History & Policy. Archived from the original on 8 December 2010. Retrieved 9 December 2010.
  38. ^ Haas, Jonathan; Creamer, Winifred; Ruiz, Alvaro (December 2004). "Dating the Late Archaic occupation of the Norte Chico region in Peru". Nature. 432 (7020): 1020–1023. Bibcode:2004Natur.432.1020H. doi:10.1038/nature03146. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 15616561.
  39. ^ Kennett, Douglas J.; Winterhalder, Bruce (2006). Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture. University of California Press. pp. 121–. ISBN 978-0-520-24647-8. Retrieved 27 December 2010.
  40. ^ De Meo, James (2nd Edition), "Saharasia"
  41. ^ "Ritual human sacrifice promoted and sustained the evolution of stratified societies" op cit[clarification needed]
  42. ^ Carniero, R.L. (Ed) (1967), "The Evolution of Society: Selections from Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Sociology", (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1967), pp. 32–47, 63–96, 153–165.
  43. ^ a b Watts, Joseph; Sheehan, Oliver; Atkinson, Quentin D.; Bulbulia, Joseph; Gray, Russell D. (4 April 2016). "Ritual human sacrifice promoted and sustained the evolution of stratified societies". Nature. 532 (7598): 228–231. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..228W. doi:10.1038/nature17159. PMID 27042932.
  44. ^ Tarnas, Richard (1993). The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View (Ballantine Books)
  45. ^ Ferguson, Niall (2011), Civilization
  46. ^ a b c d e f g Farmer, Edward L. (1985). "Civilization as a Unit of World History: Eurasia and Europe's Place in It". The History Teacher. 18 (3): 345–363. doi:10.2307/493055. ISSN 0018-2745.
  47. ^ Frank, Andre Gunder (2008). ReOrient : global economy in the Asian age. Univ. of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-21474-3. OCLC 838156621.
  48. ^ Hart, Roger, Verfasser. Imagined Civilizations : China, the West, and Their First Encounter. ISBN 978-1-4214-0712-8. OCLC 958055684.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  49. ^ University, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown. "Christianity and Religious Freedom in the Early Modern Period (1454 – 1750)". berkleycenter.georgetown.edu. Retrieved 1 September 2020.
  50. ^ a b c Minghui Hu Lecture
  51. ^ a b Heilbron, J.L. (1999). The Sun in the Church. Harvard University Press. p. 29.
  52. ^ Alatas, Syed Farid (December 2002). "Eurocentrism and the Role of the Human Sciences in the Dialogue among Civilizations". The European Legacy. 7 (6): 759–770. doi:10.1080/1084877022000029046. ISSN 1084-8770.
  53. ^ a b Bala, Arun, (2006). The dialogue of civilizations in the birth of modern science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-7468-3. OCLC 191662056.CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  54. ^ Toynbee, Arnold (1965) "A Study of History" (OUP)
  55. ^ Massimo Campanini (2005), Studies on Ibn Khaldûn, Polimetrica s.a.s., p. 75
  56. ^ Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed., vol. 4, ed. by J. B. Bury (London, 1909), pp. 173–174. Chapter XXXVIII: Reign Of Clovis. Part VI. General Observations On The Fall Of The Roman Empire In The West.
  57. ^ Peter J. Heather (1 December 2005). The Fall Of The Roman Empire: A New History Of Rome And The Barbarians. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-515954-7. Retrieved 22 June 2012.
  58. ^ Bryan Ward-Perkins (7 September 2006). The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280728-1. Retrieved 22 June 2012.
  59. ^ Demarest, Arthur (9 December 2004). Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. ISBN 978-0-521-53390-4.
  60. ^ McNeely, Jeffrey A. (1994) "Lessons of the past: Forests and Biodiversity" (Vol 3, No 1 1994. Biodiversity and Conservation)
  61. ^ Koneczny, Feliks (1962) On the Plurality of Civilizations, Posthumous English translation by Polonica Publications, London ASIN B0000CLABJ. Originally published in Polish, O Wielości Cywilizacyj, Gebethner & Wolff, Kraków 1935.
  62. ^ Huntington, Samuel P. (1991). Clash of Civilizations (6th ed.). Washington, DC. pp. 38–39. ISBN 978-0-684-84441-1 – via El choque de civilizaciones (in Spanish). The origin of western civilization is usually dated to 700 or 800 AD. In general, researchers consider that it has three main components, in Europe, North America and Latin America. [...] However, Latin America has followed a quite different development path from Europe and North America. Although it is a scion of European civilization, it also incorporates, to varying degrees, elements of indigenous American civilizations, absent from North America and Europe. It has had a corporatist and authoritarian culture that Europe had to a much lesser extent and America did not have at all. Both Europe and North America felt the effects of the Reformation and combined Catholic and Protestant culture. Historically, Latin America has been only Catholic, although this may be changing. [...] Latin America could be considered, or a sub-civilization within Western civilization, or a separate civilization, intimately related to the West and divided as to its belonging to it.
  63. ^ Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, (Simon & Schuster, 1996)
  64. ^ Asadi, Muhammed (22 January 2007). "A Critique of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations"". Selves and Others. Archived from the original on 26 April 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
  65. ^ Inglehart, Ronald; Pippa Norris (March–April 2003). "The True Clash of Civilizations". Global Policy Forum. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
  66. ^ Berman, Morris (2007), Dark Ages America: the End of Empire (W.W. Norton)
  67. ^ Jacobs, Jane (2005), Dark Age Ahead (Vintage)
  68. ^ Jensen, Derrick (2006), "Endgame: The Problem of Civilization", Vol 1 & Vol 2 (Seven Stories Press)
  69. ^ Jensen, Derrick (2006), "Endgame: The Problem of Civilization", Vol 1 (Seven Stories Press), p. 17
  70. ^ Netton, Ian Richard. Encyclopedia of Islamic Civilization and Religion. Routledge. pp. 80–81. ISBN 978-1-135-17967-0. Retrieved 4 September 2020.
  71. ^ Schmidt, Gavin A.; Frank, Adam (10 April 2018). "The Silurian Hypothesis: Would it be possible to detect an industrial civilization in the geological record?". arXiv:1804.03748 [astro-ph.EP].