Americas

[Henri Christophe]

Sorry but is interesting that you see easier to cross long distances of open sea than the obvious route arond the paleo-coast.

I dont doubt the cross around the Beringia straight happens. What I doubt it was the first route.
Some how we need to find an explanation to the age of Luzia (and her propably Australoide physiognomy).

Also have the issue of ego dispute in it, most North American archeologist prefer the Beringia straight theory because it means the first humans of Americas was from USA/Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_point
Meanwhile, Brazilians archeologist as Niède Guidon, should apoint others routes to explain the peopling of the americas. I most believe in Oceania route but we cant discard the hypothesis the first man can come directly from Africa to Americas.

"race agenda,"

I'm not using my race agenda in this thread. I acept the most of native americans have asiatic heritage, even if they come by Oceania.
Why are you accusing me of racial agenda?

 

[Patine]

I'm not using my race agenda in this thread. I acept the most of native americans have asiatic heritage, even if they come by Oceania.
Why are you accusing me of racial agenda?

Because, you refuse to believe the Beringia, or peripheral, crossings could have happened much further back than the rough date you've accepted, but SOMEHOW trans-oceanic voyages happening at FAR earlier periods than their first archaeologically-known instance is more, "acceptable," to you, to the point of insistence, and you said you believe, more or less out faith in some unnamed people who've said, that Luzia and the southern Chile remains were, "Black," and that Spanish records of people in Panama referred to them being, "Black," as the term is used racially, today, not considering it may have (almost certainly) mean something else in relativity and context. What else am I to conclude?

 

[Henri Christophe]

Because, you refuse to believe the Beringia, or peripheral, crossings could have happened much further back than the rough date you've accepted, but SOMEHOW trans-oceanic voyages happening at FAR earlier periods than their first archaeologically-known instance is more, "acceptable," to you, to the point of insistence, and you said you believe, more or less out faith in some unnamed people who've said, that Luzia and the southern Chile remains were, "Black," and that Spanish records of people in Panama referred to them being, "Black," as the term is used racially, today, not considering it may have (almost certainly) mean something else in relativity and context. What else am I to conclude?

First, I don't refuse to believe the Beringia theory, I just don't believe it was the oldest route to Americas.
Second, Spanish chronist speaking about Black Africans in Panamá (what other context it may have? Do you think a chornist of XVI century didn't know what is a Black African?)
But is more likely this Black Africans isn't Africans at all, but Australians instead. But this is impossible to know, we only know they are Black.
Third, this thread isn't about who was the first human of Americas, but it is to we discuss about American's civs we want to see in this game.

 

[Birch617]

We can also choice a civ from the south bottom of the world, as the people from Patagonia. I don't know any good name of leaders, maybe you can help me on that too.

Maria la Grande of the Tehuelche People
Terwa Koyo (I know he was more of polymath but he could still work) of the Kaweskar People
Seriot of the Selk'nam People
Masemikensh of the Yaghan people

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Except, the flaw there, is that the earliest signs of trans-oceanic, trans-island, seafaring capability of the Lapita Culture seems to go back to only 5000 or 6000 years ago, or so. FAR more recent than the Beringia migrations. You seem to be under the impression that Lapita seafaring is far older than there is is any evidence of it being. Where do you get this notion from?

The problem with Beringia is twofold: 1) when was the land above water, and 2) when was the land uncovered by ice. It's different at different times. Animals (e.g. the wolf) crossed around 170,000 years ago, and humans could have, too, but that's too early for most models. The last time the land bridge was open and had a habitable environment was around 12,000 years ago. The "bridge" is in fact a wide land that would have been open for thousands of years, not a sudden appearance.

The problem, as has been stated here, is that there's increasing evidence for humans in the Americas before then.

But as I've pointed out, people (e.g. the present-day Inuit) can live just fine in the Arctic without the land bridge, living primarily off of the sea. So humans don't need the land bridge to come over. Early models assumed that people didn't have good technologies for boat-related travel (even kayak or umiak - related travel) at that time, but that seems to be based just on unfounded assumptions. People acquire and lose technologies all the time; life isn't a game of Civilization.

So we can imagine a people in large kayaks, living on the edges of land deemed "unlivable" long before Beringia becomes habitable. Because their homes would have been places that are now covered by the sea, it's only natural that we wouldn't see them in the archaeological record. They might have moved over thousands of years from Taiwan to Japan, from Japan to Siberia, from Siberia to Alaska, from there to California, Mexico, and finally to Chile. Because moving inland would have meant changing lifeways from living off of the sea to hunting different things, the move down the coast would have been much faster than the move inland. Indeed, Chile is a great place for sea-faring people to make inland settlements, as one still needs the sea to live in Patagonia.

This theory is controversial right now, but is looking increasingly plausible. What we do know from genetics is that there were very few of them, and that they grew rapidly from a small population, and that there were multiple waves of migration from north to south.

What did they look like? That's a harder question. And, perhaps, an irrelevant one. The first arrivals - might have been a different population than later ones. We can even imagine around 40,000 years ago a population that takes to coastal waters, some of whom go south to Australia and some of whom go north, becoming Jomon, etc. And a later, Ainu-related population. And a later, Siberian population. But that's speculation.

Bear in mind this is not travel across open waters of the Pacific. But it doesn't make too much of a difference if people take twenty thousand years to go in a large arc around the Arctic and down North America or go straight across in a hundred. And the former is easier to believe. It isn't that much bigger of a distance, and you can do it slowly over thousands of years rather than in a few straight shots.

Travel across the open ocean is much, much harder and more risky, making this a fringe theory rather than one that people are open to speculation about. Academics don't like to dismiss theories out of hand (OK, aliens are out). Especially anthropologists, whose work is largely committed to challenging the racist assumptions of much of the rest of historical theory. But what I would want from a "directly across the sea" theory, and what is lacking right now, would be:
- introduced species in Polynesian islands.
- archaeological sites in Polynesian islands.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Maria la Grande of the Tehuelche People
Terwa Koyo (I know he was more of polymath but he could still work) of the Kaweskar People
Seriot of the Selk'nam People
Masemikensh of the Yaghan people

I like theses ideas, I never heard about they, but they can come together with Inuits in a DLC of the Bottoms of the world.

But what I would want from a "directly across the sea" theory, and what is lacking right now, would be:
- introduced species in Polynesian islands.
- archaeological sites in Polynesian islands.

Archaeological sites in Polynesian islands is hard to find since the sea level is rising continuously since the end of glacial age.
But, about species we can speak about sweet potato (Camote in Spanish, Kumara in native languages of Polynesia and Inca).
I don't know how long there is potatoes in the world, but just have it in Polynesia and Americas (and having the same name in both places) is an argument of some kind of contact between theses places.

 

[Birch617]

Another piece of evidence that some people talk is the Mapuche Chicken, which was kept by the Mapuche people before colonization, but there is still a mystery about their origin as dna test shows little connection to polynesian chickens, still their bones have been found in prehispanic site of Chile and due the proximity of this site to the pacific has made the leading theory to be a polynesian introduction.
Also in one of my classes (I'm a southamerican art history student btw) the teacher has talk about some theories of contact in the region of Pasto (Colombia) and its frontier with Ecuador, based on the art and expression of some pieces from the Tumaco- La Tolita Culture, still just a theory.

This are some photos i took last time i went to National Museum in Bogotá, all pieces from Tumaco- La Tolita culture

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

I like theses ideas, I never heard about they, but they can come together with Inuits in a DLC of the Bottoms of the world.
But, about species we can speak about sweet potato (Camote in Spanish, Kumara in native languages of Polynesia and Inca).
I don't know how long there is potatoes in the world, but just have it in Polynesia and Americas (and having the same name in both places) is an argument of some kind of contact between theses places.

Yes! The potatoes are pretty clear! Not for ancient contact, but for contact at least a thousand years ago, before Europeans. Those seem to have come from South America to Polynesia around 1000AD, though there's some dispute. So possible evidence that someone (Polynesians? Americans?) were moving around that area somewhere (tsunamis can do this, too, as Fukushima wreckage on the Alaskan coast indicates, but I don't see why not outriggers from Rapa Nui or Hawaii could have made it to California or South America).

Just as a note - I'm commenting on this because I can't comment on speculative civilizations. If I were to say "X sounds cool," or even to like a post, then people would say "X is going to be in Civ!" If it's not, people will get disappointed, and if it is, people will say "we made that happen!"

 

[Henri Christophe]

Just as a note - I'm commenting on this because I can't comment on speculative civilizations. If I were to say "X sounds cool," or even to like a post, then people would say "X is going to be in Civ!" If it's not, people will get disappointed, and if it is, people will say "we made that happen!"

We will not be disapointed, here is the place to do this kind of list.
I believe Civ 7 will have again USA, Brazil, Aztecs, Incas and Mayas.
I hope they add Haiti for the first time and some other Mesoamerican civ as the Toltecs.
Also I want more natives from USA and Brazil as Iroquois and Guaranis.
But if want to add some obscure civ as Inuits, we will understand. We will be no mad with you.

 

[FishFishFish]

I hope they add Haiti for the first time and some other Mesoamerican civ as the Toltecs.

I'd prefer the Zapotecs or the Mixtecs over the Toltecs. The Toltecs were Nahuatl speaking people just like the Aztecs so they would overlap a lot. Plus the Zapotecs and Mixtecs have been influential for longer.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I'd prefer the Zapotecs or the Mixtecs over the Toltecs. The Toltecs were Nahuatl speaking people just like the Aztecs so they would overlap a lot. Plus the Zapotecs and Mixtecs have been influential for longer.

I'm not against Zapotecs and Mixtecs, I would understand if Fireaxis choice one of them. But I still prefer the Toltecs.
Maybe take out the Aztecs of CIv 7 and put the Toltecs instead, in order to don't overlap with nahualt speakers.
Aztecs are famous because was the empire at the time of the arrival of Spaniards. But thinking in American historry as one roll.
The Toltecs had the biggest empire of Meso-america pre colombina.

And they can have a strong name as leader as Quetzalcoatl. Who was a real man, an emperor of Toltec Empire. Is said in Popol Vuh the Toltecs conquer the Mayapan, bringing the cult of the feathered serpent (civilization) and they will come from the north sea and will have more whiter skin then the people of Mayapan.
By the way, was the Toltecs who build Chichén Itzá in Yucatán peninsula, that is also a signal of "bring of civilizations"

Other option of name is Xochitl as leader of the Toltecs, because it is a woman.

 

[Evie]

We already went over the Toltec, their possibly mythical nature (and Teotihuacan being the far more likely source of the cultural influence credited to the Toltecs), and the gross inaccuracy of this map (it's an area of cultural influence, not political control/empire)before, Henri.

 

[Henri Christophe]

We already went over the Toltec, their possibly mythical nature (and Teotihuacan being the far more likely source of the cultural influence credited to the Toltecs), and the gross inaccuracy of this map (it's an area of cultural influence, not political control/empire)before, Henri.

I know we already went over the Toltecs, but I bring it back again because I'm not convinced they are mythical. At least I was in Tula (the Toltec capital) ans saw with my eyes the amazing Atlantes of Tula, it was no myth in it, it is there.

And why the map is wrong? As far I know the Toltecs conquer the Mayapan and orderer the construction of Chichén Itzá.
And also maybe bring to the maya the cult of the feathered serpent.

 

[FishFishFish]

At least I was in Tula (the Toltec capital) ans saw with my eyes the amazing Atantes of Tula, it was no myth in it, it is there.

I mean this doesn't definitively prove anything because Tula existing does not mean the Toltec's huge empire also existed.

Tula certainly exerted enough influence over Anahuac to be incredibly prestigious in that region, enough for later Nahua polities to claim descent and possibly add to its history to puff it up even more. The Aztecs, already excellent propagandists, could have taken it even further. And then come the archaeologists and historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries examining Mesoamerica under a Nahua-centric lens, and the rest is histor(iograph)y.

 

[Evie]

For the umpteenth billionth time, Henri, "the Mayapan" doesn't exist.

There is a Mayan city of Mayapan, and it was the capital of the last great Mayan political empire, the League of Mayapan, but no "the Mayapan". And Tula cannot have conquered either of them because they were only rose after the fall of Tula.

And *Chichen Itza is older than Tula*. So no, it wasn't founded by the "Toltec Empire".

The Toltec Empire, as FishFishFish says, is the produce of multiple generations adding layers of propaganda one after another, combined with a criminal dearth of primary historical sources (because until very recently there were no contemporary written records we could decipher - only oral history set down in writing long after the fact), and archaeologists trying to fit thei archaeological findings to the old narrative.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Tula certainly exerted enough influence over Anahuac to be incredibly prestigious in that region, enough for later Nahua polities to claim descent and possibly add to its history to puff it up even more. The Aztecs, already excellent propagandists, could have taken it even further. And then come the archaeologists and historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries examining Mesoamerica under a Nahua-centric lens, and the rest is histor(iograph)y.

Sounds perfect for a cultural city-state, which Tula could definitely be.
Also make it an achievement if you, as the Aztecs, produce enough culture by being the suzerain of Tula.

 

[Evie]

Tula as a city state would definitely make sense, though Teotihuacan needs it even more.

Pretty much everything Tula did, Teotihuacan did more. It was more populous, more multicultural/multiethnic, more influent across Mesoamerica and Mesoamerican. In a very real way, most of the things that get credited to the Toltec of Tula in chronicles, archaeology points to Teotihuacan having actually come much closer to achieving (in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the Chronicles about the Toltec empire didn't conflate the later Toltec with the actual accomplishments of the earlier Teotihuacani). It's to the Mesoamerican world what Rome was to the European World.

 

[Henri Christophe]

And *Chichen Itza is older than Tula*. So no, it wasn't founded by the "Toltec Empire".

The city maybe be older than Tula, but it's piramide not. El Temple of Kulkútan (El Castillo) was made by Toltec. As far I remenber of Popol Vuh the white civilizaded nation who come from the north sea, the Toltecs, came and bringi civilization and conqueror to the mayas, I remeber they speaking about Mayapan because it's name is very significant, since pan means all (as in Panamerican).
The city was conquered by Toltec, not founded.

Tula as a city state would definitely make sense, though Teotihuacan needs it even more.

That a have to agree with Evie, speaking about city states make more sense to have Teotihuacan, who was de facto a great city state of it time. The lack of knowledge about his write system make impossible to give good name to their leaders. So is enfeasible to be a Civ.

 

[Patine]

The city maybe be older than Tula, but it's piramide not. El Temple of Kulkútan (El Castillo) was made by Toltec. As far I remenber of Popol Vuh the white civilizaded nation who come from the north sea, the Toltecs, came and bringi civilization and conqueror to the mayas, I remeber they speaking about Mayapan because it's name is very significant, since pan means all (as in Panamerican).
The city was conquered by Toltec, not founded.

I assume you were actually IN Chichen Itza to WATCH El Temple of Kulkútan being built by the Toltecs?

At least, the certainty and familiarity with how you speak on the issue seems to indicate, so...

 

[Evie]

Pan means "all" in Greek, Henri. A language that I think we can agree was not commonly spoken in pre-1492 Mayan lands.

The pan in "Mayapan" does not mean "all".

As for the rest: we don't have any proof of this alleged Toltec conquest other than cultural similarities (eg, "Chichen Itza building looks like buildings from the valley of Mexico"). It was largely invented by nineteenth and twentieth century scholars on the assumption that the Aztec chronicles were accurate (and our only source), and who thus concluded that the similarities must be due to a conquest. And because the Aztec only mentioned the Tolted as a cool empire, they decided everything must have been done by the Toltecs.

But we don't have any archaeological evidence for that conquest. No traces of change in rulership, of war - and those should leave traces. WE don't even have any archaeological evidence that can be interpreted as testifying to a conquest. Nilch. Nada.

We've since established that the Aztec chronicles are semi-legendary and written well after the fact. We've come to understand that the Aztec used "Toltec" as a lump term for talented craftsmen in general, and for all civilization that build great things in particular. We've come to understand that "Tollan" means all great cities, not just Tula. Tenochtitlan was Tollan. Chichen Itza was Tollan. Cholula was Tollan. MAyapan was Tollan. And yes, Tula was Tollan - but Teotihuacan was Tollan, too. It basically means "The City" or "Metropolis". We've come to lean to read Mayan glyphs, and discovered that while the Mayans did write about foreigners from the northwest taking over rulership of some Mayan cities, that was in the fourth century CE, long before the time of Tula. The Mayans recorded nothing about Tulan influence. And there's evidence the cultural exchanges between the Valley of Mexico and the Mayan heartlands are much older.

The Toltec as you understand them are an outdated idea.

We've already gone over the Popol Vuh. It doesn't say what you claim it says. It talks about Yaqui (which means essentially anyone from Central Mexico) founding the Qiche people. Not about them conquering the Qiche. This is also about the Guatemalan highlands, not the Yucatan. Not about Toltecs conquering anything.