Australian indigenous civ?

[Kinestic]

As an Australian, apart from the obvious problems of them being at the tech level of the stone age, The biggest problem is we don't know too much about the actual history of them. With hundreds of different tribes, and over 250 different languages shared between them, doing an "Aboriginal" civ would go over about as well as doing a generic native American one would. Then you add in the fact that after that most story's and history were destroyed with the stolen generation, and the complete inability to get any sort of Leader for the civ, and it makes me doubt that it would be a good idea.

Although, if they did decide to do it, I would hope that it would come with an update to GS that introduces wildfires, as massive amounts of Australian plants and animals have evolved to adapt to fires as a result of the Aborigines using fire as a tool to both hunt and to rejuvenate the landscape, to the point where Eucalyptus trees literally can't germinate unless there is a bushfire, and they emit oils to help encourage one. So yeah, the Aborigines turned Eucalypt's into the arsonists of the plant world.

 

[MooFreaky]

It also depends on how strictly you define agriculture. Many aboriginal tribes used fire-stick farming, and were exceedingly good at controlling how a fire burned to avoid current growing & hunting areas, and to ensure the most productive burns possible.
It was wide spread enough that it permanently affected Australia's ecology.

Someone mentioned that they couldn't even invent a bow and arrow. That is false. Such weapons would have been familiar to the Aborigines, but they were not effective for the game in Australia. Spears thrown by a woomera are vastly more effective against the big reds, and boomerangs are far more effective than arrows for hunting on the open plains (both against emus and roos, but also effective against birds). Aborigines could launch a boomerang over 100 meters, keeping it low to the ground where it was more dangerous. Again the style of impact was far more useful than an arrow (a kangaroo will hop off at top speed with pretty serious injuries. Good luck catching it. But a boomerang to the leg or head will drop it in place. While an Emu's neck is a prime target).

That doesn't mean they should be included in the game. I have mixed feelings about that, as yes you are already controlling Civs that were non existent for large swathes of history. But the Civs that are chosen generally conform to a specific style of development. I like the idea of having such peoples are a minor style civ, more than barbarian but less than a playable Civ. That would allow so many more peoples and cultures to be included, but in a more limited way.
EG. You have an Aboriginal group who have large swathes of land, some units but no cities. There are penalties for taking their lands, but they have many religious landmarks if you do take them. Or you can exchange with them for culture and religious bonuses.

You can do similar thing with the Inuit, and even "more developed" groups like the Etruscans. Peoples who were/are interesting but don't have much chance of being their own Civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Maybe the Children's Crusade overlaps both of our sides of the definition.

Someone mentioned that they couldn't even invent a bow and arrow. That is false. Such weapons would have been familiar to the Aborigines, but they were not effective for the game in Australia.

I didn't say they couldn't; I said they didn't, which is true. NB that the bow is highly effective against the most dangerous animal in any given location, including Australia: humans. More importantly, the technology to create bows is also important for the development of other force-based machines. Also NB that Australia was the only region of the world to not develop the bow. I still maintain that archery, pottery, and agriculture are kind of a minimum bar for inclusion as a civ in Civilization.

I like the idea of having such peoples are a minor style civ, more than barbarian but less than a playable Civ. That would allow so many more peoples and cultures to be included, but in a more limited way.
EG. You have an Aboriginal group who have large swathes of land, some units but no cities. There are penalties for taking their lands, but they have many religious landmarks if you do take them. Or you can exchange with them for culture and religious bonuses.

That never ends well for the natives. (But I agree that minor factions would be a great addition to Civ. Get on it for the third expansion, Firaxis. )

 

[pgm123]

I didn't say they couldn't; I said they didn't, which is true. NB that the bow is highly effective against the most dangerous animal in any given location, including Australia: humans. More importantly, the technology to create bows is also important for the development of other force-based machines. Also NB that Australia was the only region of the world to not develop the bow. I still maintain that archery, pottery, and agriculture are kind of a minimum bar for inclusion as a civ in Civilization.

Only region where they did not develop the bow or the only region where they did not implement the bow? The two are different (i.e. adopting the bow because of neighbors using it isn't the same as developing it yourself).

There is a question why they didn't adopt the bow if people in the Torres Strait had it. It's also possible they did adopt the bow and abandoned it, but there's no archaeological evidence to support that. I've seen it suggested that the trees in Australia don't make very good bows, so it could simply be a result of that. Technology is a specific adaptation to the environment.

 

[Red_warning]

I find the idea that a boomerang or spear would be more effective than a bow against a kangaroo, or other Australian game, hard to accept. An arrow to the chest of a kangaroo should end it just as easily as any other creature. And even if it doesn't die instantly it still bleeds, and you can track and chase it just as well as any beast until it succumbs. Just consider the variety of game hunted through the ages where bow and arrow is the favoured weapon, from something as small as a fish to beasts as huge as the bison.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I find the idea that a boomerang or spear would be more effective than a bow against a kangaroo, or other Australian game, hard to accept. An arrow to the chest of a kangaroo should end it just as easily as any other creature. And even if it doesn't die instantly it still bleeds, and you can track and chase it just as well as any beast until it succumbs. Just consider the variety of game hunted through the ages where bow and arrow is the favoured weapon, from something as small as a fish to beasts as huge as the bison.

Bison might be a bad example. They were often "hunted" through channelling the animals into kill zones, where the animals were either driven off cliffs or finished off with spears. I'm not sure arrows alone would cause a bison to eventually drop, unless you managed to pepper the same animal with a quiver full of arrows. Then again, I've certainly never tried.

 

[Red_warning]

Bison might be a bad example. They were often "hunted" through channelling the animals into kill zones, where the animals were either driven off cliffs or finished off with spears. I'm not sure arrows alone would cause a bison to eventually drop, unless you managed to pepper the same animal with a quiver full of arrows. Then again, I've certainly never tried.

Arrows cut deep. Also, we used to have em in Europe but they were nearly extinct by the end of the medieval period.

 

[Patine]

Bison might be a bad example. They were often "hunted" through channelling the animals into kill zones, where the animals were either driven off cliffs or finished off with spears. I'm not sure arrows alone would cause a bison to eventually drop, unless you managed to pepper the same animal with a quiver full of arrows. Then again, I've certainly never tried.

But their close relatives (very close for hunting and herd mentality purposes), the buffalo (in the proper usage of the word) were not hunted that way by Bantu and Koisian peoples in Africa.

 

[Ferocitus]

Yep. Just like many other claims for "human sacrifice".

 

[Arwon]

Closer to Paleolithic level. Geographic conditions forced them to become excellent hunter gatherers who had no cities, insanely low population density, no agriculture, no writing, no metal, no animal husbandry, no state structures etc.

A lot of this is increasingly disputed, especially recently. There's a fair bit of evidence in the records and diaries of the colonialists about agriculture in pre-European Australia, evidence of intensive cultivation, irrigation, sowing and harvesting, milling and baking, aquaculture. And also evidence that many areas were more fertile than they are now, suggesting the introduction of European livestock and other practices changed the soil and the landscape.

Recommend a look at the book Dark Emu, or at least the author's talk here about it. Or this article focusing on 36 thousand year old grind stones that would make it the oldest known example of grinding seeds to flour in the world.

Then there's also the grazing animals, and the strong evidence that the expansion of settler-colonial sheep and cattle was focused on areas seized from Aboriginal custodians who maintained it as short grass to attract grazer animals like kangaroos. Early Europeans naturally told themselves and everyone else that the land just happened to naturally be good for pastoral pursuits, but it's unlikely that was the case without previous Aboriginal maintenance. We've long tended to assume the colonial paintings depicting Australia as having open grasslands and fields and sparse trees was homesick European delusion, but this also accords with how writers described the landscape and with what the evidence suggests were the actual "unfenced farming" type land management practices.

It's a shame the knowledge is so obscure and mostly lost to us, it would have been really useful given our modern unsustainable practices to know what was crops and practices had actually been in use before European ones were imported over the ruins of what was done previously. If nothing else you'd assume those native products used less water.

None of this means any of the nations are likely to want to give permission to be depicted as whiggish colonialist powers like in Civ, but it's important not to buy into the myths and self-deceptions about pre-European Australia spread by the people with the most interest in portraying the place as terra nullius.

 

[bite]

Also if you are interested in my previous position I put together this podcast about the political structures that existed before the British colonization, and it was really fascinating

 

[Arwon]

Only region where they did not develop the bow or the only region where they did not implement the bow? The two are different (i.e. adopting the bow because of neighbors using it isn't the same as developing it yourself).

There is a question why they didn't adopt the bow if people in the Torres Strait had it. It's also possible they did adopt the bow and abandoned it, but there's no archaeological evidence to support that. I've seen it suggested that the trees in Australia don't make very good bows, so it could simply be a result of that. Technology is a specific adaptation to the environment.

I think, per my above posts, it's possibly also more that given kangaroos and emus were treated somewhat pastorally through the aforementioned manipulation of landscapes, and the spear and woomera were probably sufficient to do the harvesting of animals lured to specific predictable spots.

 

[MooFreaky]

I find the idea that a boomerang or spear would be more effective than a bow against a kangaroo, or other Australian game, hard to accept. An arrow to the chest of a kangaroo should end it just as easily as any other creature. And even if it doesn't die instantly it still bleeds, and you can track and chase it just as well as any beast until it succumbs. Just consider the variety of game hunted through the ages where bow and arrow is the favoured weapon, from something as small as a fish to beasts as huge as the bison.

Kangaroos are notoriously tough, they can take significant injuries and still get away at top speed. I know people who hunt them during culling season (and that is most of the time these days as they are so numerous they would destroy their home vegetation permanently), and after shooting them they will hop away and die many kilometers from where they were shot. I don't know how familiar you are with the big reds, but they are incredibly tough. You shoot one with an arrow and it will tear away, and they will hop so far and for so long that following them is dangerous. If it's early in the day, you will end up in the desert at full sunlight by the time you track it down (and you would probably be dead before you got it home). If you do it at dusk, good luck finding it at night. These animals jump 10meter in a single hop, and can go for hours at a time. It is incredibly efficient method of moving in open plains (they can outrun greyhounds when in danger, and at a comfortable travelling speed are still doing 20-30kph for extended periods) . So you absolutely need to kill them or immobilise them in one go. A spear has vastly superior stopping power, and a well aimed boomerang will do likewise.

Torres Straight Islanders, who are also considered Indigenous Australians, used bows. But even the Torres Straight Islanders who lived on the mainland did not use them to hunt kangaroos.

 

[Red_warning]

I'm not against Firaxis including Aboriginals as long as they make it fit the theme of the game. Since this is an empire-building and city settling games that's going to be extra challenging for any kind of nomadic or semi-nomadic people.

Kangaroos are notoriously tough, they can take significant injuries and still get away at top speed. I know people who hunt them during culling season (and that is most of the time these days as they are so numerous they would destroy their home vegetation permanently), and after shooting them they will hop away and die many kilometers from where they were shot. I don't know how familiar you are with the big reds, but they are incredibly tough. You shoot one with an arrow and it will tear away, and they will hop so far and for so long that following them is dangerous. If it's early in the day, you will end up in the desert at full sunlight by the time you track it down (and you would probably be dead before you got it home). If you do it at dusk, good luck finding it at night. These animals jump 10meter in a single hop, and can go for hours at a time. It is incredibly efficient method of moving in open plains (they can outrun greyhounds when in danger, and at a comfortable travelling speed are still doing 20-30kph for extended periods) . So you absolutely need to kill them or immobilise them in one go. A spear has vastly superior stopping power, and a well aimed boomerang will do likewise.

Torres Straight Islanders, who are also considered Indigenous Australians, used bows. But even the Torres Straight Islanders who lived on the mainland did not use them to hunt kangaroos.

I've hunted plenty, though never with bow and arrow (even if I decided to try it out I'd use modern compact bows) and never kangaroos. In my mind if you hit something and it manages to run far, far away then you've done something wrong. No creature runs particularly far with a punctured lung, we're talking a few metres here. But the kangaroo is admittedly as different as possibly imaginable compared anything I've ever hunted, a bi-pedal animal that constantly shifts its upper body around.

 

[Zaarin]

Only region where they did not develop the bow or the only region where they did not implement the bow? The two are different (i.e. adopting the bow because of neighbors using it isn't the same as developing it yourself).

I didn't say every civilization in the world independently invented archery, but it was nevertheless independently invented in every region of the world--at the very least in Europe, Africa, the Near East, Asia, the Pacific, and several regions in the Americas.

I'm not against Firaxis including Aboriginals as long as they make it fit the theme of the game. Since this is an empire-building and city settling games that's going to be extra challenging for any kind of nomadic or semi-nomadic people.

That's my position as well. It's not meant as a slight against Aboriginal Australian culture, which is in itself very interesting; it's how do you make them fit into a game about empire building without turning them into something that doesn't even vaguely resemble the source material? Again, ibid. with Paleosiberians, Khoisan, Inuit, etc.

 

[Chuma]

Then an alternate history timeline such as this?

 

[Chuma]

A lot of the places people originally lived in Australia are now under water due to sea level rise.

The fish traps are some of the earliest structures still surviving
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...a-extraordinary-ancient-structures-protection

Also the eel traps
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...e-ancient-eel-traps-recognised-world-heritage

There have been 9000 year old stone houses found and also in SW Victoria
https://www.nationalgeographic.com....-stone-houses-found-off-the-aussie-coast.aspx

Knowledge of food and medicine was gained over thousands of years (Bush Tucker Man is da bomb!)

Also Malcolm Douglas (I can't find the clip of backpacker refusing a ride with him)

There were trade routes internally and externally to Australia, the Indonesians were visiting for hundreds of years
https://austhrutime.com/macassan_traders.htm
https://blog.qm.qld.gov.au/2012/05/16/indigenous-science-australia-had-ancient-trade-routes-too-2/

There was indigenous science but it wasn't called that
https://blog.csiro.au/five-ways-indigenous-science-is-helping-us-understand-the-world-around-us/

There were more than four seasons in Australia dependent on where it was
https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Environment/Land-management/Indigenous/Indigenous-calendars

There was also a sport of sorts developed
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-13/historian-reveals-marngrook-influence-on-afl/8439748

Was some conjecture of the Chinese visiting in the 15th century?

Could be more of a scenario than a proper expansion, starting around the time of the first European explorers in 1700 or so. Ships would crash into the coast due to the roaring 40s.

Saw this recently, was great

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: The subject of this thread is an indigenous civ for Australia. If we cannot get back to that, the thread will be closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Okay, so here is a thought.

1. Players really want a prehistoric expack. While I don't think the idea lends itself to a large expack, I do think that a couple civs could be included. I think the Inuit, for example, would be an excellent option to reflect prehistoric mechanics. It would allow for a couple of odd regions on the map to be filled, with civs that players want or would welcome, without stretching the plausibility of why/how the Inuit are starting off with cities.

2. So far native representation in VI has been very much population and/or land-based. The Cree have the largest (or second-largest?) population in Canada, and stretched the furthest across the northern territories. The Mapuche have the largest population in Chile and Argentina, and at one point controlled the northern half of both regions. And for similar reasons I wholly expect the Navajo to be our U.S. tribe, given that they hold the largest tribal territory in the U.S., as well as represent the largest native population in the U.S.

Speaking of land title, the Noongar just achieved a massive land title settlement with Australia late last year. They acquired right to over 200 square kilometers of land,which is twice the amount the Pitjantjatjara acquired. The six tribes which comprise the Noongar amount to about 30,000 people, which although not on the level of the Navajo or Cree is quite sizeable as far as Australian tribal membership goes. Presently they are the tribe which holds the most territory in Australia, and although they are not quite as advanced or integrated as the Pitjantjatjara, they have achieved so much more with respect to autonomy in the modern era that the settlement has been described as "Australia's first treaty."

Now, mechanically, we all seem to agree that they fit the civ mold just about as well as the Inuit. But they have been in the region for over 10,000 years, which to my mind situates them equally well as a prehistoric civ candidate. They could be authentically represented culturally, without the mechanical dissonance everyone is concerned about.

Would this work? Would you buy a smaller DLC pack which added a prehistoric era, plus the Inuit and Noongar as civs with specifically prehistoric era bonuses?

 

[Patine]

Okay, so here is a thought.

1. Players really want a prehistoric expack. While I don't think the idea lends itself to a large expack, I do think that a couple civs could be included. I think the Inuit, for example, would be an excellent option to reflect prehistoric mechanics. It would allow for a couple of odd regions on the map to be filled, with civs that players want or would welcome, without stretching the plausibility of why/how the Inuit are starting off with cities.

I've not seen this desire as a common, popular sentiment, only as an outlier desire of a notable, but small, minority. I wouldn't say "players really want" in such broad terms. I think the interest seems to be niche.

2. So far native representation in VI has been very much population and/or land-based. The Cree have the largest (or second-largest?) population in Canada, and stretched the furthest across the northern territories. The Mapuche have the largest population in Chile and Argentina, and at one point controlled the northern half of both regions. And for similar reasons I wholly expect the Navajo to be our U.S. tribe, given that they hold the largest tribal territory in the U.S., as well as represent the largest native population in the U.S.

By Canadian First Nations registered Treaty Status statistics, Iroquois, Objibwe, Haida, and Miqmaq all outnumber Cree (though numbers are notably close). These numbers also do not include Metis or Inuit, who are not "First Nations" but different statuses entirely. And, of course, there are those with traceable First Nations backgrounds, and even have obvious First Nations or Metis physical features, but are not registered as a Treaty status in any First Nation, Metis, or Inuit, but are "standard" Canadian citizens due to poorly-done paperwork which is still being attempted to be corrected.[/QUOTE]