[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

In the historian world, this is a lively debate that often mutates into another question: how exactly do/should we define civilization?

[alancalverd]

The essence of civilisation is specialisation.

Difficult to tell, but it probably goes back to when the first human male suffered a serious injury and instead of killing him, the rest of the tribe let him stay at home making arrows rather than trying to keep up with the hunt. Suddenly, everything became more efficient on the one hand, and more compassionate on the other.

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

The essence of civilisation is specialisation.

Difficult to tell, but it probably goes back to when the first human male suffered a serious injury and instead of killing him, the rest of the tribe let him stay at home making arrows rather than trying to keep up with the hunt. Suddenly, everything became more efficient on the one hand, and more compassionate on the other.

By your definition, civilization long precedes all things Sumerian. To use a coveted British term, they were "beggers". You're basically defining civilization as tribes with social contracts.

[Bored chemist]

this is a lively debate that often mutates into another question: how exactly do/should we define civilization?

You're basically defining civilization as tribes with social contracts.

Yep.
So?

[alancalverd]

Specialisation is a significant advance on social contract.

AFAIK tribes of chimpanzees and bonobos occasionally hunt as groups but whilst there may be an alpha and some students, i.e. a social contract that establishes a chain of command, everyone has essentially the same job and the apprentices gradually move forward in the ranks as they gain strength and cunning. Much the same with dogs and lions - they track and chase in turn, but everyone is a tracker and chaser to the  best of his/her ability. 

[Origin]

The essence of civilisation is specialisation.

I think the word civilization needs to be defined.
From the National Geographic site and according to anthropologist:
Civilization describes a complex way of life characterized by urban areas, shared methods of communication, administrative infrastructure, and division of labor.

[alancalverd]

That sounds more like a defence of the status quo than a useful definition.

Division of labor, absolutely, except that child rearing and hunting are necessarily separated by the exceptional neoteny of homo sapiens, so we need to think about specialisation within those roles. Admin comes with specialisation because you need to keep accounts or work out how to divide the spoils between workers. But there's nothing uncivilised about Mongolian nomads with no urban areas, nor anything "complex" about a subsistence fishing or farming community: Joe makes nets, Fred catches fish - what could be more civilised?

[Petrochemicals]

In the historian world, this is a lively debate that often mutates into another question: how exactly do/should we define civilization?

You are probably missing the point. There is almost certainly a very great advantage to societal living that vastly separates them subsistence farmers etc. Once the basis for a society begins it expands and accelerates ahead giving rise to communes that soon affect the hunter gatherer farmers around them, sort of like rabbits in Australia, it was either one thing or another.

[Zer0]

What men call Civilization, is the condition of Present customs.

What they call Barbarism, the condition of Past ones.

Anatole France.