Least Civilised Civilisation

[Anonymous No.6292068]

Could anyone please educate me on what was, objectively, the least civilised human "civilisation" around 1800?

I would assume Aboriginal Australian's, or even Maori's.

[Anonymous No.6292070]

>>6292068
> least civilised
this has no meaning in modern anthropology

[Anonymous No.6292071]

What the hell do you even mean, OP? You sound like some 17th century French guy.

Every civilization is equally civilized by definition. As far as technologically challenged, yeah, I'd say the aborigines.

[Anonymous No.6292086]

>>6292070
spare the nerdy politically correct shit.

>>6292071
yea, you knew exactly what I meant though.

[Anonymous No.6292090]

>>6292086
no he's right it literally has no meaning. human groups before outside contact were reasonably well adapted to their environment

[Anonymous No.6292092]

>>6292086
this is the science board. which means we at least try to be scientifically accurate.

The idea of a culture being more "civilised" is an antiquated one. It's not a matter of being politically correct. That's just how it is.

[Anonymous No.6292094]

>>6292092
There's a difference between correcting someone even though you know what they mean, and correcting someone and answering their question though.

[Anonymous No.6292096]

>>6292094
if your question is inherently wrong though, it's more important we correct that first.

[Anonymous No.6292097]

For the sake of this, I'll ask again, which I hope would be more accurate.

Which civilisation by roughly 1800 was furthest behind, technologically?

[Anonymous No.6292101]

>>6292092
> a culture being more "civilised" is an antiquated one

In a world where only liberals exist maybe, but in real world all cultures are different. And if you compare two with each other, one of them is going to stand out in terms of technology, welfare, healthcare and many other things.

And when you compare all of them to each other, you get a ranking of cultures by their average features.

[Anonymous No.6292105]

>>6292101
How do you define civilized, then?

[Anonymous No.6292111]

>>6292105
Civilization is a system designed for people to live in content. For this, a civilization must meet the requirements in technology, healthcare, security, social justice and many other things. Failing to do so will put a civilization below another one when compared.

[Anonymous No.6292114]

>>6292105
>>6292111
>>6292101
I like to think there's a difference between defining a civilisation in 2014 and defining a civilisation in the early 1800s like I asked in the OP.

I'm fine with this little debate but figured I'd state that.

[Anonymous No.6292116]

>>6292114
Mine was the modern day definition, especially when technology and healthcare are the hotspots right now.

What is your opinion on the definition of civilization ?

[Anonymous No.6292118]

>>6292111
Okay, and why is this the definition of "civilized"? If you think about this, you'll see why actual scientists don't really worry about it anymore.

>>6292114
the definition of civilization is fairly well defined. What we're arguing about is the idea of being "civilized", as if one civilization can be quantitatively measured as inferior to another.

[Anonymous No.6292120]

Aboriginal Australians never learned how to make fire.

[Anonymous No.6292123]

>>6292118
Civilization is many things combined. If you compare civilization by healthcare, a certified diagnostician will outrank a native indian healing man by a mile. If you combine the technology in japan to any small european country, japan will outrank them.
Yes, every country is civilized by definition. But how civilized is what matters. Because when you compare two, one will always stand out.

[Anonymous No.6292131]

>>6292123
>Civilization, n. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
Healthcare has nothing to do with civilization. Technology (sans record keeping) has nothing to do with civilization.

You can argue that one civilization is better than another based on your own subjective metrics. But you cannot say one is more civilized than the other. Once you have the qualities which define civilization, you are civilized. It is not a scalar value.

When you look at the healthcare abilities of a nation, you are not measuring how civilized it is. You are measuring its healthcare abilities.

[Anonymous No.6292140]

>>6292118
If that's the definition for 'civilized' then I think we need a new one to compare.

I find it silly that one group of people, living in a dry desert hut of sticks, mud and maybe clay (if not a cave), hunting with spears, and never domesticating any animals is "equally a civilisation" or "equally as civilised" (which is it again?) as a large group of people who live in stone, or even marble castles, hunting with bows and swords, domesticating multiple animals for multiple uses, who have a written language, ways to count, the concept of zero, learning about space, etc.

[Anonymous No.6292142]

>>6292131
> intellectual, cultural, and material development
> marked by progress in the arts and sciences

> Healthcare has nothing to do with civilization.
>Technology (sans record keeping) has nothing to do with civilization.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.6292143]

>>6292142
The point is, what technology they have doesn't matter. What matters is that technology is developing.

[Anonymous No.6292144]

>>6292142
dude, you're clearly trolling. go back to /pol/ we don't take kindly to people who don't abide by scientific principles

[Anonymous No.6292146]

Obviously, /sci/ isn't full of anthropologists.

You can't say one civilization is more civilized than another anymore than you can call one proton more protonic than another proton. Civilization is civilization.

[Anonymous No.6292156]

>>6292140
What you're trying to do is decide if one civilization is superior to another. Being "civilized" is no longer a measurement of how "good" a civilization is. You can't measure how "good" one is, because that's entirely subjective according to your own cultural biases. How you rank a civilization is going to be different than someone from an Asian culture, is going to be different than an ancient Mayan, for instance.

Now, it's entirely possible to argue that one society is better than another, using whatever qualities you choose. But this is different from being civilized.

[Anonymous No.6292161]

>>6292156
So essentially

"We changed the meaning of this word because it was offensive to people of different cultures - every civilisation is equal".

Sorry for not being a pansy faggot and knowing and acknowledging this.

[Anonymous No.6292164]

>>6292161
No, they changed the meaning of civilization to fit what it actually means. Technological development isn't linear: there is no "hierarchy of civilization." Each civilization is a separate people that do their own thing. I don't understand why that is so difficult to grasp.

[Anonymous No.6292165]

>>6292068
most of /sci/ are some edgy highschool circle jerking on pedantic non-sense.

That being said, "civilized" really doesn't mean much and is mostly subjective and depends on what definition you wish to give it some people who say a bunch of aboriginals living in a communistic system would be more civilized than an ultra-capitalistic first world country.

As for the least technologically advanced civilisation many would be mostly on equal footings and it depends what you think is more important, for example yes the andamanese don't know fire but they knew navigation, while most tribes in africa didn't, and the same can be said about things like cultivation, animal taming, durable weapons, etc.

[Anonymous No.6292168]

"Civilized" just means a civilization exists, i.e. you're asking which civilization exists the most. Which is fucking stupid.

What you're asking for is the amount of technology, social cohesiveness, arts, standard of living, military etc.

[Anonymous No.6292173]

>>6292161
Not because it's offensive, but because otherwise it's scientifically meaningless.

[Anonymous No.6292176]

Whatever, don't really care, all you pseudo-intellectual English majors chilling in the /sci/ board is pretty fucking sad. Keep debating the word if you want.

I just want to know >>6292097

Which you all skipped because arguing semantics and the use of English is more important.

[Anonymous No.6292177]

>>6292176
This would be anthropology, not English. If you're gonna just insult us while at the same time asking for help, at least be accurate about it.

[Anonymous No.6292180]

>>6292176
Your question was answered by >>6292165
Now fuck off

[Anonymous No.6292182]

>>6292180
I will happily apologise for skipping that due to the consistent posting of shit.

[namefag No.6292211]

>>6292071
>>6292070
>>6292092
>>6292131
>>6292146
>>6292156
>>6292164
>>6292165
>>6292168
Civilization or civilisation (in British English) generally refers to state polities which combine these basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city.
'Civilized' doesn't mean 'good' or 'moral' or 'superior'

Based on this definition, we could design a system to assess how civilized a society is, perhaps looking at
-literacy rates
-agricultural technology
-building technology
-civil technology (sewerage systems, roads, so forth)
and other things like that

/sci/ is painfully autistic
Civilization is quite an abstract concept, but we can construct ways to roughly quantify it
Same for intelligence and IQ
Same for muscular strength and the big 4 total

It really depends on what time period, but suppose we were talking about pre-European expansion, then it would probably be some of the San or Aboriginal tribes

as
-most lacked a writing system
-lack of infrastructure
-lack of building technology (mostly just really simple huts of wood/straw)
-lack of agriculture

[Anonymous No.6292214]

>>6292101
>he doesn't understand the meaning of the word and argues about it
There are no shades of gray in this matter kid, there is no gradient. Its not a matter of which was more gray. Its a binary condition, either you are or are not civilized.

[Anonymous No.6292215]

>>6292211
Aren't there tribes still around today that don't integrate with "modern" society?
Deep in jungles. I wouldn't mind living in one of those tribes, but I'm a bit too nerdy to be able to do all the labor and not have any useful machines to build or invent.

[SAGE No.6292216]

>>6292211
>taking his definition from wikipedia

[Anonymous No.6292217]

>>6292216
>being this condescending just for the sake of being technically "right" in an argument

[Anonymous No.6292218]

>>6292161
Make a new word then, dumbass.
This word already has its own specific connotations.
If you want to measure a metric/metric and call it civilization, then you'd be expected to use conventions that define civilization, which you obviously have no understanding of.
Otherwise, you could easily create a new term/ranking system using any subjective markers/cherrypicked functions of your choice.
This is why I hate non-STEM faggots

We need a fucking philosophy board,
getting real tired of this shit.

[SAGE No.6292220]

>>6292217
the reality is that civilized means nothing, you are tkaing the definition of some arbitrary paper quoted on wikipedia but if you look at oxford dictionary you will find ceveral other definitions and same for any fucking dictionary, the reality is that if you are to argument you need to define your terms.

And I already answered here>>6292165

[Anonymous No.6292224]

>>6292220
No, I'm someone else.
Yes, I know you're right, it's just annoying that you have to disrupt a simple, moronic discussion about culture and societal tech levels.
Yes, it's sad they're stupid, but do you think your bitching is going to correct them? They are stupid people who don't know when they're wrong. Why do you care what they think?

[namefag No.6292226]

>>6292214
>Civilization or civilisation (in British English) generally refers to state polities which combine these basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city.
You could look at these 3 standards and respond to them in a 'yes/no' way

-does it have a ceremonial centre?
-does it have a system of writing?
-does it have a city?
And based on this you could see whether or not something is civilised.

But this is problematic.

Whether or not something is a city is not discrete. There is no point at which a large town becomes a city.
Whether or not a system of writing is used is not discrete. At what point does using pictures to convey meaning count as writing? what portion of the population needs to use the writing system for it to be 'in use'?
What counts as a ceremonial centre?

It isn't as discrete as you think.

[Anonymous No.6292239]

>>6292068
>I would assume Aboriginal Australian's, or even Maori's.
I don't think they can even be considered civilizations.

Wikipedia says the bare minimum to qualify consists of a ceremonial center, a system of writing, and a city.

So It's probably one of those tiny obscure backwater towns located in the Whogivesafuck province of Nobodycaresland

[Anonymous No.6292245]

>>6292239
>>6292226
Exactly. Civilization is defined as city dwelling, however there must also be a defined state. Most tribes don't have governmental bodies like more "complex" (I use the term not as a derogatory, but as an anthropological definition) civilization. Statehood usually arises out of a large population that has a lot of excess people.

Most tribes are not technically civilizations, and can't be considered for determining "best," if such a thing can be determined.

[Anonymous No.6292247]

>>6292239
>Maori
No way
The Maori were far more advanced than the Aboriginals pre-European contact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_people#Classic_period_.281500-1642.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pounamu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wharenui
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waka_%28canoe%29

They were sea-faring
They built large, ornamental canoes
They built hill forts
They made ornate jade jewellery

[namefag No.6292249]

>>6292245
>however there must also be a defined state
I disagree with this
There have been societies, without (functional) states and with non-state legal systems, that you would probably consider civilised to some extent
-The unincorporated Western US territories
-Early Rhode Island
-Early Pennsylvania
-Early Iceland
-Early Ireland
I could tell you more if you want

[Anonymous No.6292253]

>>6292249
What kind of states or governmental bodies did they have?

[Anonymous No.6292269]

>>6292253
polycentric law

It's hard to describe and most people have never heard of it before

imagine trying to describe a free market economy to someone who lived in an entirely state-controlled economy for their whole life and never heard of something else - it's not easy

So I'll just outsource this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylXAhyDZhZ4
Sure, it's biased

I don't support it, but his descriptions of it are correct

[Anonymous No.6292271]

>>6292253
alternatively, you could just read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brehon_law

[Carbon No.6292276]

>>6292068
>Could anyone please educate me on what was, objectively, the least alive human living around 1800?
>Could anyone please educate me on what was, objectively, the least athiest human athiest around 1800?
3/10 for making me reply.
Some concepts are dualistic OP, but you are already aware of this.
>>>/phil/
If you are referring to advancement, you'd need criterion for it, an abstract/subjective/arbitrary formula would do nicely.

[Anonymous No.6292279]

>>6292247
I had no idea of their technological achievements, but since they didn't have a written language it technically disqualifies them from what OP was looking for despite being a relatively advanced people

[SAGE No.6292284]

>>6292224
i don't know what you are talking about, I answered OP in an extremely appropriate manner pointing why people were so pedantic, why they were right despite not answering and told him the answer to the question he should of asked instead

and than some guy said
>muh wikipedia
pointed to him that wikipedia definitions are completly arbitrary, as should everybody in a board about science

[Anonymous No.6292285]

>>6292271
I'd prefer to read, thanks. Especially if the alternative is something that you'd rather not have me watch anyway.

Well, according to this, people practiced Brehon law under a state: the king. A state is defined as a hierarchical rule, and that's what this appears to be. The powers of the state are enforced by jurists.

[Anonymous No.6292293]

>>6292245
>mfw federalism was originally a tribal concept practiced by the Iroquois League.
>mfw monarchists still call their bullshit a "government".

[Anonymous No.6292299]

>>6292293
>Implying the Iroquois League was a state.
>Implying government is ruled by the people.

[Anonymous No.6292298]

>>6292285
There certainly was a hierarchy and a caste system

There were slaves. There were people tied to land. There were free men. There were lords. Some people were the property of other people, in the same way that cattle or sheep were property of people.

The thing is that the lords didn't CONTROL the legal system.

What really defines a state is a law monopoly over a fiat land claim. The law in Ireland was not controlled by a law monopoly. Brehon law was more or less independent from the so-called 'Kings'.

Regardless of whether or not Ireland counts as a state, legal systems similar to Brehon law existed in early Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and the Unincorporated Western US

[Anonymous No.6292306]

>>6292298
Hm... Then it most likely wasn't a state, but a culture nonetheless. I am still reading it, and it's pretty neat. Still, I don't think it would qualify as a civilization. There was no central authority, which is the cornerstone of a state. Cultural pressures acting as a legal system is all well and good, but does not a civilization make.

[Anonymous No.6292307]

>>6292279
Technically there's only been five times/places where writing has been invented. Everywhere else it has simply traveled.

That said, I think requiring a proper writing system is too strong a requirement for two reasons. One, many regions got by without full fledged writing systems but primitive systems resembling writing systems. Two, some civilizations that did have writing systems also made it easier to wipe out their history during colonial periods. For example, the Mayans had a writing system and huge libraries of books while the Triple Alliance (commonly called by the misnomer "Aztecs") maintained their history through their mandatory public school system which also required "song" memorizing. After the colonization and slavery, Diego de Landa ordered all the Mayan books stacked in a giant pile and burned, it was said that the fire in Mani could be seen all the way from Havana. After this the majority of Mayan history has been entirely lost, in Mexico City however the descendents of the Triple Alliance were forbidden from singing their history songs but despite that a lot more Triple Alliance history has survived than Mayan history. One might argue that the Mayans having a full fledged writing system were civilized while the Triple Alliance was not (despite the Triple Alliance being a collection of huge city states with laws, trading, politics, etc..) though if you did argue that then what meaning would it have.

[Anonymous No.6292308]

>>6292299
>>Implying castles are states.
>>Implying that's what federalism means.

[Anonymous No.6292313]

>>6292308
>Implying you know what I think federalism means.
>Implying large amounts of implications.

[Anonymous No.6292316]

>>6292313
>implying you don't know that I know that you don't know what federalism means.
>implying (>implying (>implying (....))))

[Anonymous No.6292321]

>>6292316
>No, I was implying that you do know what I think about federalism. Therefore, I'd know that you know what you think you know about me knowing federalism.

[Anonymous No.6292328]

>>6292321
but why did you greentext that

[Anonymous No.6292354]

So are we defining 'civilized' as level of technology, rate of its development, and use of it to consciously impact the environment(cities, canals, etc)?

[Anonymous No.6292388]

Does anybody know of a journal database that allows a search using SMILESS or chemical structure diagrams?

I need benzimidazole derivative articles for a lit review.

>Sorry if you guys don't do real science