This statement appeared on Crikey. “Indigenous Australians are the oldest living culture on the planet, having lived in Australia for more than 50,000 years. The British got here 252 years ago.”

Every human alive today is part of a living culture. Every human alive today has ancestors who were around 50,000 years ago. The difference between the culture of indigenous Australians and that of other human beings is that the cultures of most other human beings have had more changes, but every human alive today is part of a living culture that goes back 50,000 years.

Dear David F.,

Thank You for raising this topic for discussion.

Aboriginal Australians became genetically isolated 58,000
years ago, tens of thousands of years before other
ancestral groups, making them the world's oldest
civilization.

There's more at the following link:

http://allthatsinteresting.com/aboriginal-australians-oldest-culture

Wikipedia describes a civilization thus:

A civilization (or civilisation) is any complex society characterized by the development of a political state, social stratification, urbanization, and symbolic systems of communication beyond natural spoken language (namely, a writing system).

The Acropolis of Athens: Athens is widely referred to as the cradle of Western civilization and the birthplace of democracy.

Civilizations are intimately associated with additional characteristics such as centralization, the domestication of plant and animal species (including humans), specialization of labour, culturally-ingrained ideologies of progress, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon farming, and expansionism.

According to the above definition Aboriginal culture was not a civilization.

According to Kenneth Clark, the Vikings weren't a civilisation either.

I think that maybe 50000 years ago the neanderthals used to hunt, rape, kill and eat our ancestors, but then we wiped them out.
- But I don't really know for sure as I wasn't there then.

Darwin's DNA Dilemma
http://youtu.be/DVu6ryEwF5w

Neanderthal: Profile of a Super Predator
http://youtu.be/mZbmywzGAVs

Indigenous people have started to dispute the term "first" in regard to mainly European discoveries.
Being born in a region does not make one a discoverer. Setting out into the unknown with the aim to bring back information from yonder made early explorers the "first". That applies to Chinese, European & every other civilisation. People simply moving from one place after making it unliveable, to another place were not Explorers in the sense of the word. Exploring was done by civilisations seeking knowledge & trade. Ancient nomadic tribes simply looked for food first & foremost & as they gradually formed civilisations & designed & built settlements, they left legacies many of which are still evident to-date.

It is fairly common to game the definitions on terms such as 'civilization', 'democracy', and 'genocide' - this is typically done by nationalists of every denomination in order to make their own country or culture shine, or make that of their rivals stink. I've seen that even on this site in an article by Pat Byrne.

In this particular case, I do know that China's civilization is considered one of the oldest on the planet- that it was already old 3000 years ago, according to some people. I guess this would be because the lineage of people living there now is the same as before. Australian Natives, using a DNA analysis, indeed are measured to track back to the original African diaspora, 50K years ago.

Hi David,

That is a reference to the Aboriginal culture being one continuous unchanged culture for 50,000 years. No other human society can trace its lineage that far back. 252 years of European occupation has caused massive upheaval for common Aboriginals, in every facet of their traditional existence, language, beliefs, practices etc, they were all attempted to be extinguished, either by accident, or by forced action on the part of the European.

Aboriginal culture was almost wiped out within Australia in a very short space of time, however today there is a revival in that culture including language, art, beliefs and practices. With the dominant and destructive influence of European society there is no possibility Aboriginal culture will ever return to what it was pre 1788, however it will continue to exist in a modern form, which is a good thing for all Australians.

I suppose I should back up that accusation on Pat. He wrote the article "Locking up the dogs of war: huge decline in war-related deaths", and I have never seen a more distorted piece of agitprop. He reports 8863 were killed in Iraq. Which, honestly, is just plain stupid.

I say this because the figure suggested by ORB (Opinion Research Business, an independent UK based polling agency) had a margin of error of 2.5%, and showed the number killed was between 946,000 to 1,120,000. The Lancet survey published in 2006 reported a mere 654,965, in contrast. Regardless, claiming it was only 8863 shows a lack of respect by Pat for truth, human life in general, and also the intelligence of his readers.

Foxy,

The minimum requirement for civilization is a written language. Even the link you provide does not claim that.

Also as cultures change over time, the claim that the culture today is the same as that from 60 000 years ago is pure fantasy.

Aboriginal ... what? .... culture, I suppose, didn’t come within a bull's roar of 'civilisation' by any definition. Primitive, hunter-gatherers is the best description, with remote communities not much further advanced than they were 60,000 years ago - or whatever the latest guess on their time here is.

The more Leftist crap that is put about on these people, the more hopeless they look; the more sick and tired of them people become; which is a shame for most of them who live in the mainstream with the rest of us.

We now have 11 people of aboriginal descent in parliament; let them sort it out, you Green/Labor/Marxist nasties, who have no interest in any group of people - just your own, twisted, anti-social, anti-everything sickness.

Most of the warped thinking on aboriginal affairs is fomented in NSW and Victoria. The latest stupidities being Perrottet's $25 million flag, and Andrews' 'treaty' with his own citizens!

Perrottet has ungrammatically said that he would put the flag "up himself". There would be many people who would be glad to perform that painful exercise for him, pole first.

Andrews is too thick and out of control to know that the time for a treaty passed two centuries ago, and that a country cannot make a treaty with itself. But, remember, he was stupid enough to think that a tinpot state premier could make a deal with a foreign power (CCP and 'belt and road).

The last person to dabble with a treaty was Bob Hawke, who signed the Barunga Statement in the NT and promised “a treaty within the life of this parliament”. But, when he returned to Canberra, he discovered that he could not deliver on his pledge because international law does not recognise as treaties agreements between the government of a country and any group of its own citizens.

End of story. Hawke was the last Labor leader, state or federal, who wasn’t a halfwit. We have the halfwits we have now because halfwits keep voting for them.

Although the Aborigines did not have a civilization I regard some of their ideas as sophisticated. The Jewish God is not a human being. He is a somewhat inscrutable presence. The pagan peoples, unable to accept a God removed from humanity invented the Christ figure, a god both human and divine. God was reduced to a humanoid form like Zeus or Aphrodite. Christians, contemptuous of Aboriginal spirituality tried to replace the Aboriginal religion with Christian and Jewish myths. The Aborigines in their mythology had the Rainbow Serpent as creator. Their creation figure was part of nature. Humans came from nature. I regard the Rainbow Serpent as a better myth than Jesus. Of course, I regard Jesus, the inscrutable god of the Jewish Bible, and the Rainbow Serpent as all myths of a pre-scientific age which humankind will eventually discard as our species becomes more civilized.

David

With respect, what you 'regard as' is not in line with what 'is' and what most people accept. You have a very eccentric view of the world. Interesting, though.

Dear ttbn,

Of course, my view is not in line with what most people accept. There is no reason why it should be.I doubt that what is and what most people accept will ever be the same. I try to know what is to the best of my ability, but I know I will die not knowing what is.

I have a son who is an anthropologist. He is interested in learning about what people think what is. I have another son who is a biochemist. He deals with the chemistry of living matter. I have a grandson who is studying to be a theoretical physicist. He will probably deal with the behaviour of inanimate matter.

I think most people retreat from learning what is to a security of myth.

SM,

"The minimum requirement for civilization is a written language", and who said that? Written language developed over centuries or even millennia, from early pictorial representation of events to the modern forms of written script. For most of human history the majority were excluded from written language, unable to read or write. Modern English has developed from earlier Latin and other forms of writing. Written language is only one indicator of civilisation, its a complex melange of things such as beliefs, laws, practices etc within a society that gives it a degree of ordered sophistication that it can be deemed a civilisation.

The European definition of "civilised" which only embraced European civilisation, and the consequential failure of all others to be civilised seen the European engage in the most uncivilised acts in an attempt to civilise so many others, including Australian Aboriginals.

Pauliar,

Civilization is an English word with a reasonably clear definition which is significantly different from culture.

It does not include nomadic hunter-gatherers grouped in small villages.

To be considered a civilization, the following requirements must be met:
Stable food supply.
Social structure.
System of government.
Religious system.
Highly developed culture.
Advances in technology.
Highly developed written language.

http://www.studentsofhistory.com/characteristics-of-a-civilization
http://msvurusic.weebly.com/6-characteristics-of-civilization.html

SM,

There is nothing there that says; "The minimum requirement for civilization is a written language", so did you just make that up. From your post, I could say the minimum requirement for civilisation is having a religious system, just as valid. Pictorial rock art could be considered written language, the development of stone tools as advances in technology etc. Sumerians with only early cuneiform writing, and lacking to any great degree many of the other things on your list are considered a civilisation. Your list is arbitrary and is open to debate.

The simplest way to describe Civilisation is that in order to reserve the right to call oneself civilised is to be civil.
There's nothing civil about greed such as in wanting more than is needed or not wanting to share surplus !
Human history is full of people colonising because they want more & the colonised rejecting others to settle on unused land.

Dear David F.,

I've come across an interesting article that I think
puts things into perspective for us and is worth a
read:

http://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/australian-aboriginals-remind-us-how-civilization-should-be/

We're told that - " In their new book, "Farmers or
Hunter-Gatherers: the Dark Emu Debate," Sutton and Walshe
scholarly evaluate a common Eurocentric view of Australian
Aboriginal culture that is, in their view, reinforced by
the best-selling "Dark Emu" written by Bruce Pascoe, a
well-known Aboriginal author. They characterise Pascoe's
book as unfortunately and ironically Eurocentric, while
applauding its hunter-gatherer skills, other parts of
Aboriginal culture are interpreted as signs of being
merely on the threshold of becoming civilized in the
Eurocentric sense."

"Sutton and Walshe disagree, arguing that Aboriginal
knowledge of their environment was so profound and their
social organization so complex, that their culture,
organised around equality and sustainability, was
distinctly civilized."

There's much more given in the link and is worth reading.
It gives us another way of looking at things. Most of us
have very limited knowledge of our First Nations People.
And we do tend to see things from our own point of view.

The article ends on the following:

"Aboriginal people remind us of the profound flaw in what
we call civilization, that is, the transience, volatility
or absence of equality and sustainability. Recognised
civilizations built vast cities and infrastructures, often
involving warfare, slavery, religious intolerance, and
massive environmental destruction, and yet they faded away."

"Aboriginals largely avoided these and although recently
decimated by European colonials, remain as Earth's oldest
continuous culture. To misquote Caesar: they came, they saw,
they adapted.

Most aboriginals have very little knowledge of aboriginal culture, before white settlement, & if they did have would give praise every day that the poms took over the place.

People believing the latest imaginative crap from modern anthropologists, wishing to ingrate themselves with the aboriginal industry need to open their eyes.

Like many other words the word, civilization, has more than one meaning. One common meaning is the development of skills in humanities, the sciences and social organization. Another meaning is a society which acts with due consideration for all members of it. I believe no society on earth fits the last definition. My definition of civilization I used when I started this thread is the first one above. That implies literature and science which the Aborigines did not have.

What I would like to see is a society which acts with due consideration for all members of it. This definition depends on how we define all members of it. Some would extend this definition to all sentient creatures. Others would extend this definition to fertilized human ova. Some would reject boat people. The definition is the subject for another thread.

What I find most extraordinary about this whole 'oldest civilisation/culture' meme is that its held up as some sort of achievement by the natives.

In the past 50000 years inhabitants around the Mediterranean went from hunting sheep and gathering whatever grass seed they could find, to domesticating sheep and wheat, inventing agriculture and writing, building the Acropolis and the Pyramids and creating modern Western civilisation.

In the past 50000 years inhabitants around the Yellow River went from hunting pig and gathering proto-Rice grains to domesticating pigs and rice, inventing writing and bureaucracy, the terracotta soldiers and creating eastern civilisation.

In the past 50000 years inhabitants in American went from hunting horses and gathering a few maize seeds to creating a civilisation around maize domestication and the wonders of Aztec and Mayan cultures.

Meanwhile in the past 50000 years the inhabitants of this land went from throwing sticks into a flock of cockatoos in the hope of hitting something to....throwing sticks into a flock of cockatoos in the hope of hitting something. From drawing outlines of their hands on rocks to ...drawing outlines of their hands on rocks. From wiping out the mega-fauna that existed here 50000 years ago to wondering what happened to the mega-fauna.

Yet somehow we are meant to swoon and admire the fact that, while the rest of the world was creating civilisation, these people advanced not one iota in all that time. Only in a mindset determined to offer praise where none is due, would we find reason to laud 50000 years of stagnation.

mhaze your last post is not merely ignorant it is offensive. All people learnt to survive in their environment. When it comes to the environment Jared Diamond argues that the Aboriginal people drew the short straw. There was no native fauna that could be put to work, the flora likewise difficult to manage. Despite these obstacles indigenous Australians displayed the same ingenuity as humans did elsewhere. They managed their environment, they had what we now realize should have been recognized as farms. Read Sturt's account of his exploration of the Murray - all along its length were permanent settlements. Far from stagnating their cultures continued to develop. As Blainey explains in the Triumph of the Nomad at the time of the British invasion - the average Aboriginal's standard of living was well in excess of the average Englishman. So yes we should have admiration for their achievements.

Baygon tells me my post is ignorant and then proceeds to NOT tell which things I said were wrong. (He also says he's offended but we can ignore that because so many people get so easily offended these days.)

Baygon offers up excuses as to why the aboriginals failed to advance which are of varying validity. But my point wasn't why they failed to advance, only that they did indeed fail and that therefore their society is not worthy of praise.

But just on those excuses, Baygon tells us that "the flora likewise difficult to manage". I've discussed this elsewhere on this site. The claim is misleading at best. There are indeed flora that could have been domesticated. When you look at wild forms of wheat, rice and maize, they look no more promising than wild forms of kangaroo grass or Lomandra. But the former became the basis of civilisation and the latter didn't.

Baygon asserts "Read Sturt's account of his exploration of the Murray - all along its length were permanent settlements." Well if you go back and look at the 'Dark Emu' thread here you find me advocated a reading of Sturt's diaries. So I'm very familiar with them. They do not show the permanent settlements you assert.

Equally he asserts that Blainey says "the average Aboriginal's standard of living was well in excess of the average Englishman" in 1800. Again that it flat out wrong. Blainey says no such thing. I invite Baygon to quote the passage in Nomads that says that. I have my copy at hand to check it. (Just to be clear Blainey says that the average aboriginal was probably as well of as the average European in a few select areas. Nothing like what Baygon claims).

Again, this is really beside the point. When you show me the aboriginal Parthenon, or Epic of Gilgamesh or Tenochtitlan then I'll agree that the aboriginal culture is praise-worthy. But just showing that they survived unchanged for 50000 is not something to swoon over.

Pauliar,

I know that you are a bit slow, but if you look up all the definitions and requirements for civilisation every one of them will include the requirement of a written language, and in no way do rock paintings qualify.

As for all the other requirements, aboriginal culture meets very few of them. "Culture" has much lower requirements.

Dear Paul,

You wrote: "The European definition of "civilised" which only embraced European civilisation, and the consequential failure of all others to be civilised seen the European engage in the most uncivilised acts in an attempt to civilise so many others, including Australian Aboriginals."

In the above you have used the word, civilised, in two senses. One sense is the achievement of a certain state of knowledge and the other is to act in a humane and decent manner. However, the European definition of the word, civilised, is the one generally used. Acting in a manner which is neither humane nor decent is not restricted to Europeans.

If the Australians were cut off from contact for so long, where did the dingo come from?

AC,
The Neaderthals were not wiped out they were bred out by inter breeding with the ancestors of today’s humans.
Evidence, many, if not most humans have a small lump on the base of their skull at the back, this is first found on Neanderthal skulls then later on human skulls, the unmistakeable evidence is that humans who have the bump are descended, in part from Neanderthals.

Hi David,

"Acting in a manner which is neither humane nor decent is not restricted to Europeans." Absolutely, were the Romans civilised when they fed Christians to the lions, in our book no, in theirs of course they were a perfectly civilised thing to do. Like technology, we might enthuse over the latest 'Intel' processor as; "Wow, what fantastic technology", back in the day one bloke might have said to another; "Wow, what fantastic technology...what do you call that?"..."A BOOM-E-RANG." And another; "What do you call that?"...."I was going to call it a rumberlypol, but on second thoughts I'm just calling it a WHEEL." See, people today could be driving around in their cars on four rumberlypols, if it wasn't for that bloke having second thoughts.

Hi Issy,

You are correct, there are many on this forum who, judging by what they post, they must have some very big lumps on their heads. When you say; "they were bred out by inter breeding with the ancestors" that's not entirely correct, my ancestors only breed with the good lookn' ones, as evidenced by my rugged good looks, I don't know what happened to some today, possibly a stray baboon got into the mix.

Dear Paul,

You wrote, ""Acting in a manner which is neither humane nor decent is not restricted to Europeans." Absolutely, were the Romans civilised when they fed Christians to the lions, in our book no, in theirs of course they were a perfectly civilised thing to do."

I don't know what point you were trying to make as the Romans were Europeans.

Hi David,

Forget the Romans were European, I could have said the natives boiling up a missionary in a big pot, would have seen themselves as civilised. Just on the Romans, I believe when the Barbarians took over Rome, they stopped the practice of feeding people to the lions, they thought it uncivilised, its all relative. My point is we can't determine what is civilised and what is not, we can only judge it against our own established standards. Agree.

Just a little point, the Native Americans viewed the European as extremely uncivilised, and the reverse was also the case. Who was correct, one, both, none? My wife's Maori people thought the European when he arrived in Aotearoa was an uncivilised drunken greedy slob, and had no culture or tradition. They thought the majority of Pakeha were beneath them. Even today she thinks of the Pakeha as lacking in virtue, not respecting ancestry, not having important close family bonds, not having long established practices and traditions etc. Those are the important aspects of culture/civilisation for her, for others its different.

What is your take on this; "Forms of pedophilia were common among nobility (Roman and Greek) and were often seen as rites of passage for the youth involved in them." This might be unacceptable to us today, but was the social norm back then.

Dear Paul,

No people can reasonably claim to always act humanely and decently. Now much of the world condemns the barbarity and atrocity of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Much of that same world supported the wars in Vietnam and Iraq which were also barbarous and indecent.

However, I would like to see more honesty in speech. We should have armies, navies and air forces rather than defense forces. Banks, corporations, real estate people and the like should not claim their services are 'friendly'. Religious institutions should not claim they are spreading enlightenment when they are intolerant of those who do not subscribe to their particular enlightenment. I should not continue preaching so I will stop.

Hi David,

Its all relative, take our old mates Hitler and Stalin, I'm sure they didn't wake up in the mornings and thought; "What evil deeds can I do today", but rather thought what 'good can I do today". Banks honestly believe they are 'friendly", churches "enlightened" and so on.

Dear Paul,

I do not think banks believe anything. I think churches would rather accept 'eternal verities' than be enlightened. I don't believe it is all relative. I believe that the scientific method can sometimes determine what is true. Possibly, Stalin and Hitler didn't think in terms of good and evil.

Hi David,

You are probably correct, Hitler and Stalin most likely thought in terms of what is necessary, and not good and bad. What is good and bad? If I bake you a birthday cake and you are pleased with it, then I feel "good", likewise if you are displeased with it I feel "bad". Is good and bad just an emotional feeling within, and has nothing to do with the cake, after all in both cases its the same cake. If in the same situation, you say that cake is "good", you are expressing pleasure, having enjoyed the cake, but later on you become ill, and say, Paul's cake was bad. Is good and bad simply related to cause and effect? Could not a person who commits evil acts in our minds, see those acts as good. In your example; Churches are intolerant and not enlightened, and that is bad in your mind, and they should change their ways. They would be far easier to change if the churches seen their actions as bad, but they don't, they see them as good. I said it was relative, you see their actions as bad, and in need of change, but the churches see them as good and not requiring change. How do you change a person or a church who believes they are doing good. Other than convince them they are actually doing bad, a tall order indeed.

"I believe that the scientific method can sometimes determine what is true". If you drop a stone from high, it falls to the ground, that is true, and it can be proven scientifically to be a fact, but science can't prove something to be good or bad, only a fact.

Foxy,

If you had any grasp of the English language you would recognise the difference between a person or persons being described as civilised and a civilisation. You are almost as bad as the ignoramus Pauliar.

A person that is well-mannered and considerate is often described as civil or civilised.

Civilization is focused on large groups or nations, not individuals.

shadowminister,

You're seriously questioning my grasp of the English language?

Well Sir, I'll match my Masters in English Lit. with
your apparent vocabulary limitations on this forum
After all - you're the one
who goes around unable to refer to people by their proper
given names - you refer to - Juliar, Pauliar, Krudd, and so on.

As for civilization? I like the following:

"I do not think the measure of a civilization
is how tall its buildings of concrete are but
rather how well its people have learned to relate
to their environment and fellow man."

( Sun Bear
Chippewa Tribe).

Hi Is Mise,
Yes I know modern humans have a little bit of Neanderthal DNA
Did you watch the short videos I added?
- They're interesting short videos.
Apparently they weren't as human-like how we commonly picture them to be though, they were apex predator night hunters.
They could see well in very low light (big red eyes) and were also cannibalistic,
Maybe similar to the Eloi and Morlocks from HG Wells Time Machine,
They hunted, raped and killed our distant ancestors...

- Depending on what you believe, religious-wise that is.
I think at some point our daytime dwelling ancestors turned the tide and hunted them and wiped them out.
Maybe ancient humans learned how to set pit-traps?

Apparently there's some kind of missing link in DNA and Darwin's understanding of things.
All this is speculation of course, based on fossils and anthropologists view of things;
- As always I wasn't there so don't really know...

Hitler and Stalin most likely thought in terms of what is necessary, and not good and bad.
Paul1405,
Has your quack put on sanity tablets ? Looks like you're starting to think !
Running a nation requires focussing on issues that prevent that nation from imploding such as collective responsibility rather than individual rights !.
The climate & economic issues that are threatening our very existence are plainly a result of individual rights & no responsibilities.

Well BAYGON,

It seems you're not about to defend your claims about Blainey and Sturt. I'll put the relevant source material back on my bookshelves - but they will remain at hand.

Civilisations are simply episodes of human evolvement. They happen alternately.
Surely, some people can see that civilisations can't all peak at the the same time ? Some have come & gone & some are already on the second or third return run whereas others are still in the pipeline for a first term. What Westerners call stone Age people are more than likely future apex civilisations. Judging by the antics of Westerners over the past 50 years it's not too difficult to imagine they will be the next Stone Age lot !