It's likely that my own cultural biases make me see civilizations in terms of contiguous history, like China, Persia or Japan. But it's one I've stood by because the game series (talking about unmodded Civ) itself seems to encourage that contiguous view of history. With the one big anachronism being starting a game with the "American civilization" from the Ancient Era, which if you stretch it, based on the commonly stressed civilizations kids in America learn about, would mean you'd be playing Greeks & Romans in the "Ancient & Classical Eras", England in the "Medieval Era" who all of a sudden become "Americans" in the Industrial Era. All while entertaining the ludo-narrative dissonance that the Greeks named their capital "Washington". When you see Italian sword-and-sandal flicks, or the long list of British and American productions about Greece and Rome. Even look at things like Harry Potter, where a significant chunk of wizards bear names like "Hermione", "Cornelius", "Lucius", "Scamander". The message is kind of clear: "We came from this." You could argue that "Well, of course they would draw from those things and names, America doesn't have an ancient history to speak of, and nobody in England likes or even knows those pre-Roman names, the only written sources we have are Roman anyway!" It's hard to make that contiguous approach in Europe admittedly because there's tons of overlap, which is why we have things like "English", "French" & "German" civilizations instead of "Germanic" civilization. England would be a nightmare for that kind of system, it'd be a Frankenstein four-way of Celtic, Germanic, Nordic & Greco-Roman civilization. But as we see with the Vikings, it's possible to do that with some European civilizations. And also by modern parlance when we refer to the big lump known as "the West", almost as if they all share similar values and ethno-cultural heritage, almost... like a civilization*. The only time I'd support your position is in cases like the "Native American civilization" which is just intellectually dishonest because they don't all share from the same pool of traditions unlike other incredibly obvious groupings of people (Slavic, Turkic, etc) and also that there are fewer points in time that you can use to draft a contiguous history and that there's a significantly larger amount of difference between say, the Sioux and the Iroquois than the Spanish and the Portuguese. Granted, the game wouldn't be fun if it were like that. I feel the base game took a great middle ground and that for the most part, DoC has followed in that same path, with a tight core of "civilizations" and "nations", as opposed to other mods that add civs that aren't even civs, like "Iraq" or the-sin-that-shall-not-be-named (Venice) in Civ5. I feel like the Celts could fit the same niche as the Vikings, instead of being separated into a modern Ireland civ and an ancient La Tène civ. Defining a difference for them between the ages feels extraneous to me and the suggestions for the UU/UB don't feel weird to me, but it's probably because I'm viewing the overall history of the Celts in a line. *Hell, if it's not a civilization of its own, why are there so many different "Western Civ" classes? Also, not to give Huntington too much credit, since he's pretty damn off-base when it comes to some of his groupings.