The Mesoamerican Thread

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Still, that doesn't mean they WERE Toltec cities. I remember, several years ago, I saw (in the most recent column, actually) a mod for Civ4 or Civ5 that claimed to be a Harrappian civ mod. The, "leader," presented, complete with a portait, didn't come up on a Google search, or in Wikipedia, by the name given. So, I asked (out of sheer curiosity, as Civ4 and Civ5 are the two iterations I haven't played) where this leader, and their city-state, were derived from. I was utterly ignored...

For most modded civs the modder has put out information about the leader and their unique components in the Civilopedia. For example, the Civilopedia entry for the leader of Tomatekh's Harappan civ is:

Went-Antu​

As the Indus script has not yet been deciphered and there are no foreign extant documents which extensively refer to the Indus civilization, little is known about Indus government and there are no king lists naming any individual. However, the sophistication and uniformity of their urban planning indicate an advanced degree of civic administration and formalized government.

"Went-Antu" is not the name of any one specific individual, but a reconstructed pro-Dravidian title indicating kingship. Words for chief/king/lord in proto-Dravidian most often are cognates translating to "high one". For example, the word for a local administrator, "per-kata", translates to "the one in a high place". This lines up with theories regarding the name Meluhha being linguistically related to the Dravidian "mel akam" meaning "high country". It is possible this in turn was a reference to the citadel found in most large Indus sites, which itself was often constructed on a raised mound of earth.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

* The real first Tollan was not Tula (the Toltec one) but Teotihuacan, so if you mean Teotihuacan that is perfect. But if is about Tula the Toltecs are a lesser options even as city states. Tula despite being more recent was way smaller and lasted less than Teotihuacan.

The city name of Tula is also used by Russia.

* Mapuche is unlikely to become into a regular, their role as native american raiding horsemen overlaps with many popular USA native american nations.

I agree. It seems they wanted a second indigenous American civ (besides the Aztecs, Maya and Inca) but instead of putting both in North America they split it and put one in South America.

 

[Patine]

For most modded civs the modder has put out information about the leader and their unique components in the Civilopedia. For example, the Civilopedia entry for the leader of Tomatekh's Harappan civ is:

Though, from what I was reading about hypothsized expanded primary languages by linguists, the notion that the unattested Harrapian language(s) being in a broader language family with the Dravidian language family and the generally-held language isolate of Elamite has lost a lot of support in linguistic circles.

 

[Evie]

So, my Mesoamerican selection for Civ VII:

Three civilizations: Mayans, Aztecs, Purepecha*
City States: Mitla*, Teotihuacan*, La Venta, Tlaxcala

*These three will take turns over future games alternating between City States and the Third Civ. When Zapotec (Mitla) or Teotihuacan are a civ, Tzintzuntzan (Purepecha) should take their place as a City State. If we ever get enough understanding of Olmec language and rulers, they (and La Venta) can join this rotation. Not Tlaxcala, though.

 

[Xandinho]

I think the third rotating Mesoamerican civ should extend to the Caribbean and include the Taino and Haiti. Or perhaps the Caribbean should have its own rotating fixed slot?

Either way, I'm totally on board with more representation for Mesoamerica. It's a very interesting and unique region. For me it's the most historically interesting region in the Americas, followed by Andes.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think the third rotating Mesoamerican civ should extend to the Caribbean and include the Taino and Haiti. Or perhaps the Caribbean should have its own rotating fixed slot?

I don't know if that's technically Mesoamerica, but I'd be fine with that.
I also hope South America will keep a rotating slot of an indigenous group, alongside the Inca, and at least two Native Americans/First Nations from U.S./Canada.

 

[Evie]

The Taino, perhaps ; but any Mesoamerican slot should, in my opinion, not go to a non-native nation. Haiti should be taking turns with the colonials, not with the natives.

Though there is a strong case that as an Arawakan language (thus, a language family mostly spoken in South America), the Taino are closer to being South American than Mesoamerican representation.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Either way, I'm totally on board with more representation for Mesoamerica. It's a very interesting and unique region. For me it's the most historically interesting region in the Americas, followed by Andes.

Hang on to that thought.

Just saw a news article in one of my Internet news feeds yesterday from an archeological team working in Ecuador along a river (the Upano) through rthe rainforest. They've found a massive collection of what can only be called sprawling urban remains - 6000 or more platforms, possible ceremonial buildings and structures, arrow-straight sunken roads between concentrations of dwellings. It seems that the hints about there being much denser Pre-Columbian population in Amazonia were correct - and of anything, major underestimates. The lowest estimate of the population represented by the sites they've investigated is in the 10s of thousands, possibly the 100s of thousands, and they've only LiDAR-scanned about half the total area!

Of course, for our (Civ game) purposes, they have to be added to groups like the Olmecs, Harappans or Minoans for whom we have no existent language or leaders to represent an so cannot include them as a playable Civ, but it's still an exciting new discovery in World and American archeology - and potentially a third 'most interesting region' in the Americas . . .

 

[Henri Christophe]

Taino and Haiti.

I was thinking about these civs, because some here argue they can't come together because they share the same spot in Hispaniola Island.
Despite the fact they are enouth distinct to be two good civs.

But Taino is very similar to another South Americans possible civs as Muisca and Guarani; I guess these ones (Muisca and Guarani) should come and took the place of Taino, not Haiti.
Also, I don't will mind if come together Taino and Haiti; I just think is important to have at least Haiti because he is very unique, the only others comparables (as Ahmednagar Sultanate of Malik Ambar or Quilombo dos Palmares of Zumbi) are both considerable unviable to be civs, the already dead thread Blacks Outside África shows the Haiti as the only viable choice of this so important tier to have.

 

[Patine]

I was thinking about these civs, because some here argue they can't come together because they share the same spot in Hispaniola Island.
Despite the fact they are enouth distinct to be two good civs.

But Taino is very similar to another South Americans possible civs as Muisca and Guarani; I guess these ones (Muisca and Guarani) should come and took the place of Taino, not Haiti.
Also, I don't will mind if come together Taino and Haiti; I just think is important to have at least Haiti because he is very unique, the only others comparables (as Ahmednagar Sultanate of Malik Ambar or Quilombo dos Palmares of Zumbi) are both considerable unviable to be civs, the already dead thread Blacks Outside África shows the Haiti as the only viable choice of this so important tier to have.

Muisca are nothing like Taino. Though I would prefer them - and over a reappearance by Gran Colombia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I was thinking about these civs, because some here argue they can't come together because they share the same spot in Hispaniola Island.
Despite the fact they are enouth distinct to be two good civs.

The Taino occupied more than just that one island. They also lived on present-day Cuba, Jamaica and Puerto Rico etc.

Muisca are nothing like Taino. Though I would prefer them - and over a reappearance by Gran Colombia.

I think he's referring to them being both indigenous to the Americas.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I think he's referring to them being both indigenous to the Americas.

Both walk naked, both have the same kind of weaponary.
I think to Guarani be distinct enouth to be a Civ it needs to have mix with Paraguay heritage, maybe an unique unit of Guazu war.
Also, Muisca to be distinct enouth of Tainos need to have reference to El Dorado.

Because if we make a pure Taino, Guarani and Muisca civ, they will be too much similar.

 

[Patine]

Both walk naked, both have the same kind of weaponary.

Not modern standards of dress, certainly, nor even as well-covered as the Inca, but this Muisca is not NAKED.

 

[pineappledan]

Teotihuacan would be a really cool addition, though I think it’s probably too close to the Aztec start location and culture for both to get in at the same time. Perhaps if Mexico was picked as a colonial civ, Teotihuacan could be the pre-colonial mesoamerican civ to put some distance between the two.

Re: the Maya, I certainly think they’re the best choice for Central American representation, since we have the most information for them. I would like if civ depicted a specific Mayan polity for a civ instead of just using a grab-bag of city-states for the list. Calakmul controlled a multi-city empire/kingdom for a long stretch of its history, for example. I think that would be much more coherent, and truer to the history of the region than the franchise’s previous attempts at Mayan representation.

A civ like the Olmec would have too much conjecture. We don’t even know what they called themselves, after all.

 

[ehecatzin]

Focusing only on mesoamerica, first the obvious:

• Maya: They absolutely deserve to be a vanilla civ, they've got way too much history to pick from.
• Aztec: They are going to be in, always a vanilla civ. That said I'd love to see them expanded beyond just warlike civ.

And both of these could absolutely have distinct leaders, please let both Monty's rest for a while, make him DLC it would print money for Firaxis.

Posible civ additions:

• Purepecha: (also known as Tarascan) West Mexico representation, they absolutely were an empire to rival the Aztecs, own distinctive culture, architecture, and a living language (easier for leader animations)
• Zapotec: Because classical mesoamerica is more than just Mayans, their hilltop cities are an engineering marvel, they had their own writing system. And again, living language.

City States: Either because they weren't big enough or long lived enough as compared to the previous mentions. Or don't have a living language to point to for certain (Teotihuacan)

• Teotihuacan
• Tula
• Tlaxcala
• Cholula

And while we are at it, one thing that always bothers me from civ games is how they just aren't treated the same way when it comes to their buildings or the correct placement of their units in the tech tree, foe example:

• Jaguar warriors should be medieval, not ancient, Aztecs weren't around in 4000BC
• Ball game court wasn't unique to just one mesoamerican civ, they were everywhere, they don't work as a "unique" by definition, if anything ball courts should be unlocked by civs or what have not, maybe a type of building for entertainment districts, or even a wonder (Chichen Itza ball court). They being uniques only detracts from other unique building or district options like:
  • Chinampas, Telpochcalli, Calmecac, Sak Be, Obvservatory, and a whole bunch of different temples, like Purepechan Yakatas, or Zapotec Catacombs.
  • AND....another thing, how come when we get to choose religious buildings there's never an option for a mesoamerican piramid temple?
  • AND another thing Chichen Itza is the name of the city not the temple, it should be Kukulkan's temple. We don't call the Temple of Artemis "Ephesus" do we?
  • AND another thing how come the Pyramid of the Sun is not a wonder yet?

*takes a breather*

I don't expect Firaxis to go beyond Aztec and Mayan, (even if they absolutely should) I would hope they make them more accurate with each civ iteration tho.

 

[pokiehl]

• Jaguar warriors should be medieval, not ancient, Aztecs weren't around in 4000BC
• Ball game court wasn't unique to just one mesoamerican civ, they were everywhere, they don't work as a "unique" by definition, if anything ball courts should be unlocked by civs or what have not, maybe a type of building for entertainment districts, or even a wonder (Chichen Itza ball court). They being uniques only detracts from other unique building or district options like:
  • Chinampas, Telpochcalli, Calmecac, Sak Be, Obvservatory, and a whole bunch of different temples, like Purepechan Yakatas, or Zapotec Catacombs.
  • AND....another thing, how come when we get to choose religious buildings there's never an option for a mesoamerican piramid temple?
  • AND another thing Chichen Itza is the name of the city not the temple, it should be Kukulkan's temple. We don't call the Temple of Artemis "Ephesus" do we?
  • AND another thing how come the Pyramid of the Sun is not a wonder yet?

I disagree with a lot of these points:

Jaguar Warriors being ancient is a balance choice and a compromise to make sense of disparate tech paths between the old and new world.

The ball court isn’t necessarily unique to Aztec, but it’s certainly one thing emblematic of them, and is fitting in their role as a representative for the area.

Chichen Itza being called that is no different than using Macchu Piccu or Petra. It’s just the game’s choice to go with more widely known, recognizable terminology.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Chichen Itza being called that is no different than using Macchu Piccu or Petra. It’s just the game’s choice to go with more widely known, recognizable terminology.

Then you would also prefer that we call the Eiffel Tower 'Paris' and the Statue of Liberty "New York" because the city names are so widely known?

I'm sorry, aside from the fact that Chichen Itza wasn't actually the name of the city in the first place, using a city name for a single structure with unique aspects is simply wrong no matter how you slice it. Which is not to say numerous other 'wonders' in the game are not mislabeled, but this one is particularly egregious because the Temple of Kukulcan is one of the few pyramid temples any where which also has a Throne Room (or possibly a personal temple for the ruler) built into it, so it served, and could in-game serve, more functions than simply as a big ol' temple/tomb.

If the game can include such Less Than Widely Known 'wonders' as Orszaghaz, Torre de Belem, Apadana and completely fake wonders like the 'Great Bath' then the game can get a familiar graphic like one of the more-visited Mayan temples labeled correctly and not worry about 'recognizable terminology' which has been only approximately applied in the past.

 

[pokiehl]

Then you would also prefer that we call the Eiffel Tower 'Paris' and the Statue of Liberty "New York" because the city names are so widely known?

There's a better way to convey your points than snippy sarcasm and being purposefully obtuse.

New York and Paris aren't archaeological sites where the featured building in Civ is the most famous, relevant structure. There are many wonders that Civ names after a broader place rather than a specific building: Chichen Itza, Petra, Kilwa Kisawani, Great Zimbabwe, Ruhr Valley...

Which is not to say numerous other 'wonders' in the game are not mislabeled, but this one is particularly egregious because the Temple of Kukulcan is one of the few pyramid temples any where which also has a Throne Room (or possibly a personal temple for the ruler) built into it, so it served, and could in-game serve, more functions than simply as a big ol' temple/tomb.

This seems to subvert your initial point by pointing out that "Temple" would perhaps be a misnomer. Maybe that's another reason they went with Chichen Itza

If the game can include such Less Than Widely Known 'wonders' as Orszaghaz, Torre de Belem, Apadana and completely fake wonders like the 'Great Bath' then the game can get a familiar graphic like one of the more-visited Mayan temples labeled correctly and not worry about 'recognizable terminology' which has been only approximately applied in the past.

My overall point was that Chichen Itza is called Chichen Itza in Civ for a reason, and that reason isn't so that the devs can thumb their nose at Mayan culture (or Nabatean culture, Swahili culture, or North Rhine-Westphalian culture, or...). Nor is that they know less about history than internet enthusiasts of Mesoamerican history. The tone of this sentence, as well as the tone of the post I originally replied to, is indignant, as if the devs are too stupid to know any better than you.

When evaluating things in the game that we think should be portrayed differently, it’d be more productive to start from “What was the reasoning the devs had?” rather than assume that they’re so inept that they can’t even skim Wikipedia for the basic facts raised here like everyone else.

 

[reddishrecue]

I was going to say Nahua, but I see that it's a part of Tlaxcala, Teocalli and the Toltecs so that's covered. Other than the major Aztec and Mayan civilizations.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I was going to say Nahua, but I see that it's a part of Tlaxcala, Teocalli and the Toltecs so that's covered. Other than the major Aztec and Mayan civilizations.

I'm total in favor to have more Nahua civs, since we already know their languages and is way more feasible to do they.
I'm in special in favor of Tlaxcala and Toltecs civs, as I said several times before.

Tlaxcala was in the center of Spanish conquest of Americas appearing even in the conquest of Peru and is poorly unknown even in groups who should know it. And I guess this game have the power to empodering history, and didn't help a lot if it shows Tlaxcala in the range of cities of Aztecs.
I know, literally Tlaxcaltecas and Mixtecas are both Aztecas since both come of the mythical land of Aztlán, but it totally ignores how Tlaxcaltecas are a distinct force in XVI and XVII century.


And Toltecs have their kind of historography, and still conviced is a kind of racismus desconsider the Aztecs sources of history just because they have any kind of intentionality when tell the Toltecs history, still have archeological prooves of Toltec society (at least I was in Tullan and saw with my eyes what was a capital of the biggest empire of Mesoamerica before the Spaniards).

And Toltecs could have the fantastic history of the real king named Quetzalcoalt, not the feathered serpent, who confuse it self with the God (the feathered serpent) and his exilium to the Atlantic sea who is promissing return give birth the legend who Monteczuma II really belives was Hernan Cortéz as the returning of Quetzalcoalt, the Toltec king.

Also Toltecs are know to being whiter and beard, as was believed by Diego Riveira when he draw this painting of the Quetzalcoalt in XX century.