The oldest known human settlement is in Catalhoyuk, Turkey (7th Millenium B.C.)
http://www.users.interport.net/k/a/kaparla/bil.htm
The earliest one hinted at was Enoch, built by Cain in the land of Nod, East of Eden
http://nabataea.net/eden8.html
...but then that sunk in a Flood
An account to Atlantis also exists in Bible where it is called, 'Enoch'.
"

Atlantis the Final Solution: A Scientific History of Humanity Over the Last 100,000 Years"

;)

...How did they manage to do that? Couriers? For such a large area of land that they controlled, that seems unlikely. Alternatively, they could have just done what the Hittites did - leave a loyal magnate in command of the area in which they wished to govern. Interestingally enough, Peru and Anatolia in some respects are quite similar in their lay of the land and ruggedness - the Incas may have been able to use the same method. I don't think that the Hittites did communicate with writing to their magnates to such a huge extent as other empires, so this comparison may be worth following up.

Oh...I take that back then! I assumed that the Inca did have writing...but how could they have an administered empire which functioned effectively without such a means of communication?

Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator Moreover, I'd consider writing and a literary culture to be one of the building blocks for a "civilisation"

I'm not entirely sure about that ... what about the Inca? They can't really be classified as a tribal group - they have a large, centrally administered empire, a bureaucracy, numerous cities, and a wealth of infrastructure (roads, irrigation, terraces, granaries, even a postal service).

and I don't believe that the Uruk, Halaf, Ubaid, etc. cultures have anything that comes close - they may have had hieroglyphs, or perhaps that comes later.

Pictographic script appears during the Uruk Period; by 2800 BC there are syllabic and phonetic elements. 

Thanks, that makes sense

Most people are saying Sumerian is older than Egyptian so is this timeline incorrect? http://chaos1.hypermart.net/fullsize/ancivfs.gif

The word "civilization" originally means "living in a city".

I think we have to adequately define "civilisation" to make any sense of the question. The temple that predates the agricultural revolution above probably does constitute, as a coherent socio-cultural system is needed in order to create something like that, and, we can assume, a political. If, however, we are to consider that writing formulates a civilisation, as it presents a literary and historical heritage, as well as an awareness of their own past, we'd have to restrict the boundaries to c.3000 BC Mesopotamia and Egypt. I'm not sure if the legendary dynasties of China such as the Xia and the Shang would constitute - as I'm not that familiar with them and I don't know if they have much archeological evidence associated with them. If we are to speak of a nation state to constitute a civilisation - with the ability to exert administrative control over a large area, aside from just a city-state - we would have to state that "civilisation" must be placed with Sargon of Akkad, c.2200 BC. However, I am in favour of a socio-cultural model - the idea of a "nation state" with de-centralised power is hard to harmonise with such ancient cultures, and if we use the above model, then technically, Rome and Greece wouldn't be civilisations! The word is usually a cultural epithet - we don't hear of individual states within Greece, the levsant or Mesopotamia being reffered to as "civilisations", so I think we have to say which people had the largest cultural vibrance and most advanced society. Sorry...ramble!

First, I wish people would answer the question posed.

how about the Hurrians?