First Australians?

The current SBS series First Australians is an important and serious attempt to tell the story of the impact of the colonisation of this continent. It is long overdue. That said, I can't help questioning a couple of points, not the least being the title.
Did the indigenous occupants think of their land as Australia? No, judging from the (colonists') historical records and programme interviews, it was simply, but emotively, 'country'. Therefore the very title places the series firmly within settler discourse, particularly with the emphasis on post-contact events.
Thus far, there has hardly been mention of 40-60,000 years of Aborigine settlement and the archaeological remains (yes, I know, I'm biased, and subsequent episodes may redress this failing). Given the details of the terror in Tasmania in the 1800s, perhaps 'Last Australians' would have been a more appropriate title.
My second quibble is with the repeated use of the word 'civilization'. From a historical and academic point of view, I have yet to come across a definition of 'civilization' (and I've just spent a semester tutoring 1st years on ancient civilizations) that can be applied to Aborigine culture. Urban centres, state level government and administration, intensive agriculture, writing systems - none of these major prerequisites for 'civilization' status (however meaningful a concept that is, or is not) were found by Cook and the subsequent settlers.
This is not, of course, to say that Aborigine culture was and is 'uncivilized', nor lacking in complexity. Their art, oral traditions and sensitive and sustainable management of often hostile environments are remarkable and put much of what the 'White Fella' has done to shame. But it somehow seems politically incorrect these days to suggest that these features of their culture do not equate to civilization. This is simply inaccurate.