This fallacy ought to tip you off that the whole story is suspect

Scholars have defined civilization by using various criteria such as the use of writing, cities, a class-based society, agriculture, animal husbandry, public buildings, metallurgy, and monumental architecture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization

“class-based” . . . um, you mean class-divided

Primal tribal societies were rarely class-divided. So part of the story is that we “ascended” into civilization and class division.

But class division is a descent. It’s a bad thing.

So progressivists, like Marxists for example, tell the story like this:

Around five thousand years ago we got onto a path of ascent. In the early stages of it there was scarcity and so there was (temporary) burdensome corollary stuff like class division and warfare and exploitation. We had to learn how to overcome that stuff and we had to become productive enough to provide abundance for all. We’ve been working on those projects lately. They will result in a high level where we enjoy all the fruits of civilization within an enlightened context of egalitarianism, peace, social responsibility, and ecological responsibility.

We had to go Through It to get To It.

It’s bullshit.