Archaeological Finds That Make No Sense

[ferretbacon]

My archaeologist found the ruins of an American city that was destroyed by me (China) in the Medieval era.

All well and good, except for the fact that this Antiquity Site was two tiles away from my 5,800 year old capital city.

If it wasn't already weird enough, America wasn't even a neighbor. Persia, the Celts, the Zulus, the Ottomans, and the Polynesians were all closer.

It made me wonder what the archaeology department was teaching at Beijing University.

This was just the strangest example, but I've had others. Anyone else found improbable or downright impossible finds at an Antiquity Site?

 

[bcaiko]

Yeah, the game will sometimes make up a "secret" historical event when it needs to place an antiquity site somewhere but can't find an appropriate spot otherwise. This is needed, in part, to keep the sites spread out somewhat fairly.

So...maybe your archeologists are falsifying artifacts. Or maybe they're just terrible at their jobs. Who cares, you're getting the culture anyway!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It's an archeological hoax perpetrated by your government for the sake of nationalistic fervor.

 

[vibe96]

Maybe it's a hoax, or maybe...

Spoiler :

What if the 'murican city was an alien settlement? I mean, you can't prove that it wasn't made by aliens

 

[Glauki]

If you start a game in the Future Era you will find antiquity sites of city states which are not in the game. It's because the game invents and places antiquity sites everywhere around the world if there was not enough events during your game.

 

[ferretbacon]

If you start a game in the Future Era you will find antiquity sites of city states which are not in the game. It's because the game invents and places antiquity sites everywhere around the world if there was not enough events during your game.

I started in the Ancient Era, so the game didn't really have an excuse.

 

[bcaiko]

I started in the Ancient Era, so the game didn't really have an excuse.

Right, but it needed to place a site around there to meet its quotas. It couldn't find a legitimate reason from the gameplay, so it made one up. No big deal.

 

[Browd]

And certainly better than finding you had no antiquity sites at all, since all of the "genuine" Ancient and Classical era battles took place halfway across the map. If that were the case, I suspect some would howl that successfully avoiding warfare was being unfairly penalized.

 

[The Keeper]

China destroyed the American civ in 4001BC.

And that is what started China on its path to greatness?

 

[Callonia]

I've had insane events but its amusing to make up tales to make the site appropriate.

In one game, there was this one mythical city state empire which razed alot of major civ cities XD

Which is hilarious considering how inept city state's AI is compared to major civ ones.

 

[Cerilis]

Well, I usually try to see the history beyond the engine. Engine-wise, every civilization was found in the same turn and some never have more than 3 centers of population (cities), what is rather unlikely. So, let's try to see your civ's history from another point of view (and only from the player's perspective):
I'll assume you only met the americans after the medieval ages, and you found the remnants of one of their medieval cities (this is a fact, as your archaeologists found out).
What might have happened: The americans were nomad people in the medieval age and tried to settle down near your people, who chased them away. They later settled somewhere else (their civ).
Or, if you found their civ earlier: They were refugees from the american society, that tried to settle down near your place.
Try to create a construct that is in line with all the available facts and is not contradicted by any (or is unlikely, like aliens). It doesn't have to be true, it just have to be believable.
Remember the quote of one 'famous' archaeologist: 'Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.'

I make those stories up for fun when using archaeologists.

 

[mudbacon]

(...) So...maybe your archeologists are falsifying artifacts. Or maybe they're just terrible at their jobs. Who cares, you're getting the culture anyway!

It's an archeological hoax perpetrated by your government for the sake of nationalistic fervor.

Hahaha! Top answers guys!

 

[Jampine]

damnit, if they're making stuff up, make it more interesting things like the ark of the covenant. or the holy grail.......Yes, I may like a certain film series......except from dem crystal skulls.

 

[Scirocco16V]

And certainly better than finding you had no antiquity sites at all, since all of the "genuine" Ancient and Classical era battles took place halfway across the map. If that were the case, I suspect some would howl that successfully avoiding warfare was being unfairly penalized.

Agree completely. I usually play relatively peaceful games. If antiquity sites were only placed in the locations of actual battles the only ones I'd usually have near me would be from barbarian camps, which would suck. Could you imagine, if you wanted to go for a culture victory, going out of your way to attack and have as many battles as possible near your capital in the early game to try to insure you have plenty of antiquity sites? That wouldn't be fun.

That said, when the game makes up events for antiquity sites, it could be better at picking civ names. If it is the site of a destroyed city, it could choose a civ or CS that was never in the current game.

 

[Browd]

Attributing artifacts to civs and CSs that aren't in the game would be great for flavor, but would make it a bit more difficult to arrange theming bonuses.