Why are there so many different interpretations of the term "civilization"?

Question

and why is this problematic for historians and anthropologists?

Answer 1

There are different interpretations to any term we have. This is where the problem lies in most debates. Each person has their own definition of a word based on what they where taught and when and by who they where taught it. For example if you where to ask Aristotle, Pope Gregorius the Great and my wiccan friends on what a pagan is, you would get 3 completely different answers, none of them being wrong. People who interpret history and anthropology have to deal with various different cultures in different times so the problem of misinterpreting a text or a person is very common.

Answer 2

The root of this word, civil, refers to 'city'...

Cities didn't really come about until the past 10,000 years, when humans began to give up their Hunter/Gatherer tendencies, and concentrate on farming, which required staying in one place, with the added benefit of having stored food, for more than one season...

This behavior also led to the first successful human blood mutation, from Type "O" to "A", due to the radical change of diet (From meats & vegetation, to grains)...

Before that, the nomadic Hunter/Gatherers could not stay in one micro-environment long enough to build a civilization, because of the lack of resources...

The introduction of farming led to the necessity of overcoming spatial problems, by developing architecture, sanitation practices, as well as field irrigation techniques, all which were novel undertakings for these early city dwellers...

Answer 3

because there have been so many that started up and failed, such as Mayans, Incas, Republicans, etc. that there is speculation over just what constitutes a civilization. what makes one succeed where others have failed?