Progenitor Civs; My Own Answer to Genericization

[Praetyre]

There is no conflict between our ideas, and indeed as you say in some ways they complement each other. There is talk at present of giving Cultures bonuses in particular areas that do not correspond to unique units and buildings (German culture boosting Alcohol, for example), which might give the player an extra incentive to pursue cultures in this way.

 

[Praetyre]

 

[johny smith]

Well I do not have a lot of time on my hands, but just saw this.

Its your mod do you want, and your thread.

So my opinion, and again do you want. Genetic lineage is BS. Culture does not follow genes. The Romans were not just pure Indo-Europeans. They were mixed with Etruscans. Etruscans language relates to their whatever gene spread might of existed for them. The language clearly was not part of Indo-European immigration they were the old-Europe. This is just example that all of those cultures in western Europe would not be the first inhabitants of Europe. Germans, Brits, French, Spain, and etc all have linguistic roots in Indo-European. Meaning those other groups like the Basque language probably were not from the same area at all. Anyway genetics is not good. If you think Ukraine was only something slavic, you would be naive if you do not believe they mixed with many surrounding groups. Genes can not be linked to modern cultures. Not one.

Anyway do you want. This is one of the biggest reasons I am burnout on Civ4. The makers think the super civs really were like genetic clean pure to one line.

 

[Praetyre]

In my plan, Basque and Etruscan culture (assuming the latter is ever added to C2C) would be PCs in their own right for that reason. I'm not sure what point you're making with the Ukrainians; are they not a very predominantly Slavic people? I'm obviously no expert on these things, and I think it'd probably be next to impossible to analyze the genetic makeup of an entire people, but wouldn't the vast majority of Ukrainian DNA be Slavic or Russian in origin, as opposed to say, Hellenic or Germanic?

 

[johny smith]

In my plan, Basque and Etruscan culture (assuming the latter is ever added to C2C) would be PCs in their own right for that reason. I'm not sure what point you're making with the Ukrainians; are they not a very predominantly Slavic people? I'm obviously no expert on these things, and I think it'd probably be next to impossible to analyze the genetic makeup of an entire people, but wouldn't the vast majority of Ukrainian DNA be Slavic or Russian in origin, as opposed to say, Hellenic or Germanic?

No it would not be noticeable. There be as much variation between populations inside Ukraine versus just same number of random gene samples between Germany and Ukraine.

There is not a gene to go ahah anywhere in the world now, maybe 10,000 years ago. But not modern. So that is why say not when you compare modern cultures.

The idea has no merit in reality, but yes this is not reality. So do what you want.

 

[Praetyre]

I'm still not sure I'm understanding your argument. Are you saying that Ukrainians are not a Slavic people, or that I should use a different basis for my ideas altogether? I'm fully open to constructive criticism, and it's great you are putting in your opinion, but I'd like to make sure I'm reading you clearly.

 

[Acularius]

Was my proposal not feasible?
I'm curious since there was no response to it.

 

[johny smith]

I am saying there is no Slavic gene. There is no gene that matches any culture. There is a Slavic culture. There is a Slavic culture history.

Mitochondrial dna is the best you could get to trace origin, but that is from the female side. That does not consider the other sex in the equation.

Clusters of gene can be seen by neighbor proximity which equals geography in the end.
So this means your neighbor is usually more closely related. Appearance only makes up 15% of the DNA code at max. Perhaps people selectively breed on appearance. If you are looking for an appearance gene well that is not easy either.

Language can give a history of changes.
Culture. Well what is culture? Ukraine can be considered a sort of Slavic culture, but Ukraine still has its own uniqueness just like every culture. 1900 Ukraine culture is not one for one to 2000 Ukraine culture.

So anyway I am trying to say genetics is really bad to try to trace a correlation to culture. Genes do not determine culture. A conqueror still sleeps with the person that was conquered. It is not a just a straight line but a convergence of many lines. The same could be said about culture.

So only two things that I know to use when looking a civilization for the game. Language and geography.

Again I am not trying to put my mouthpiece into and say do not do it. I am just trying to say I think you should focus on another way of explaining how a civilization came about.

Rome for example is not just Indo-European. The Roman culture was very heavy influenced by Etruscan culture. The same analogy can be applied to nearly any culture.

 

[Praetyre]

Was my proposal not feasible?
I'm curious since there was no response to it.

Was that addressed to me? If so, I was waiting on your response to my altered-origin suggestions before posting my full reply; I didn't want your stuff to get buried before I could get my more minor revisions out of the way.

@johnysmith: So are you advocating that a linguistic basis for cultural trees and evolution would be a more appropriate model to use? Are you aware that doing so may result in a greater number of PC's as far as many indigenous peoples go (i.e. Amerindians and Aborigines may respectively come from Siberia and Southeast Asia, but their arrival in their respective homelands occured before any known language and their numerous tribal languages and groupings would be classified as language isolates by linguists)?

 

[johny smith]

@johnysmith: So are you advocating that a linguistic basis for cultural trees and evolution would be a more appropriate model to use? Are you aware that doing so may result in a greater number of PC's as far as many indigenous peoples go (i.e. Amerindians and Aborigines may respectively come from Siberia and Southeast Asia, but their arrival in their respective homelands occured before any known language and their numerous tribal languages and groupings would be classified as language isolates by linguists)?

So every genetic characteristic is smaller?

No I said geography or languages could be used for a proxy.

 

[Praetyre]

So every genetic characteristic is smaller?

I don't follow.

No I said geography or languages could be used for a proxy.

If we go by geography, then we're back where we started; the bizarreness in assuming Indians are as close to Chinese people as Germans are to French people, or that Australians and Aborigines are blood brothers. If we go by linguistics, then that would tend towards Acularius suggestion, which is what I was saying to begin with. I'm not clear on what you mean by proxy, but the main reason I'm advocating for ethnicity and race over linguistics as a cultural basis is because recorded languages are a post-Neolithic invention, whereas differentiation of the ethnic sort is observable throughout nature.

 

[johny smith]

I don't follow.
I'm advocating for ethnicity and race over linguistics as a cultural basis is because recorded languages are a post-Neolithic invention, whereas differentiation of the ethnic sort is observable throughout nature.

Ethnic is observable? So tell me how you tell a German from an Italian? Observable, yes as observable as the differences on the hairs on my body. Race and ethnicity are only byproducts of what a culture believes to be true. I am looking at census results right now btw. I like how the US groups there race into white foreign and the rest of the world in 1900.

I am sure someone has the great equation figured out for who is what race and ethnicity are for the entire planet. All you have to do is plug in the formula then viola you have genes. Especially when you can trace one drop rules back to color: race hispanics, asians, and everyone else who is not considered aka "white".

Have fun. Just trying to be helpful.

P.S.

Languages are not post-Neolithic. People spoke before the Neolithic. Written language is not the first invention of language. How do you think we have a proto-Indo-European language group?

 

[Antmanbrooks]

This all sounds awesome and something I have often thought would be amazing... I love the historical approach to everything and if this is in any way possible it gets my vote!

 

[Acularius]

Hmm, I'll take another look at what you posted, can you specify which post though?

I tend to go with lingustics because it won't be tied down to DNA, but more enviromental causes which I tend to think has a great impact on how a civilization develops.

(It is also a theme that is readily apparent in Mass Effect 3, if anyone else has been playing that )

 

[Praetyre]

Referring to post #15, which contains suggestions for potential revision of the existing groups.

 

[Acularius]

Ah, I see, I think some more research is needed for the asiatic groups because they seem to be more fluid in their approach to culture and language. I'll be giving that area a better look when it isn't a sleepless morning.

I do like where it is going, and I agree that Ethiopia is a hard one to deal with also due to the area we are looking at, since it is on the border between linguistic (and cultural) groups.
So you can put it into a group you feel is more likely to spawn it if the conditions arise. (Back to the base group, which is most likel to spawn a Ethiopia-esque civilization.)

We are essentially dealing with the 'esque' part of the game, and trying to give it a more realisitc reason to exist. Personally if the system is implemented, I think it can go a long way, with 'real' existing civilizations and 'ahistorical' civilizations. Which should synergize with some other aspects of the mod that deal with ahistorical units and situations.

 

[Praetyre]

Aside from the greater number of Progenitors (language isolates) a linguistic approach would produce, a rather interesting and much more significant gameplay difference would be in the assignment of certain language families versus the ethnic makeup of those families; Japanese is made Austronesian (though I must admit I'm still having trouble getting my head around that ethnic connection) in my plan, while a linguistic one would have it (and Korean) either as Progenitors or rooted in a Proto-Altaic Progenitor. Similarly, Spanish would be closely linked to Roman despite the relative lack of genetic affinity between these peoples, and the Americas/Africa could prove a real basket case.

A particularily interesting illustration of this distinction comes in the requirements for the New World colonial cultures; linguistically, American English is a derivative of British English, but on an ethnic level, even discounting rapidly growing minority populations like Latinos and African-Americans, the European populace is far from homogenous. Furthermore, much of the founding political culture of America was influenced just as strongly by the French Enlightenment as by the English, and let's not forget the original name of New York.

Mexico, meanwhile, defines itself as a hybrid nation between the Spanish and native Mesoamerican peoples, a "mestizo" nation which nowadays organizes it's society along racial lines in a manner reminscient of India's caste system. Would Mexico merely need Spanish, or would there be room for representing this cultural feature in a linguistic plan?

One other idea I've been kicking around is giving each Culture a designation; Major cultures (like the Progenitors and all of those currently represented as civs in their own right) would be capable of being adopted as the main culture of your civ, with interface/leaderhead/cosmetic changes et. al, while minor cultures (Ainu, Aka, Armenian, Carib, Goth, Luba, Nepalese, Turkmen and Uighur come to mind as examples) could only be incorporated as auxiliary cultures within a larger parent culture. Trick would be in deciding who gets major status, as there are some definite borderline cases among the mix (Basque, Berber and Welsh come to mind).

 

[johny smith]

I thought Japanese has a closer relationship with North Asia. Not Austronesian which spawns last in Asia in Taiwan. Unless I got things tied up in my head.

Mexico believes themselves to be the continuation of the Aztecs. It is the symbol on the Mexican flag. In my opinion Mexico is either an Aztec or a Spanish splinter group. There is some reason for my madness in Fabula Terra idea.

America is well so late. I would not associated the language that much with French. I would have steps in between if it was me. French colonies, English colonies, Dutch colonies, and etc. I would just have it a splinter group just like Australian English later. American English probably has less French in it then British English.

And Europeans have been borrowing words from each other since the beginning of time. Then they get mad and try to protect their language. In some cases they start World Wars. The diversity is smaller in Europe because the languages were not around as long in Europe versus languages that were around longer like in Africa. So geography really has to play in deciding some of the cases.

Anyway I don't understand how it is that complicated. It sounds as it is since you are trying to go backwards in time. If you approach it from the past first you can just knock off cultures that did not succeed in continuing. At least that was my reasoning.

Ill stay out of here though. I am probably just not making any sense.

 

[Praetyre]

I thought Japanese has a closer relationship with North Asia. Not Austronesian which spawns last in Asia in Taiwan. Unless I got things tied up in my head.

A linguistic approach would indeed make it so; though even from an ethnic perspective, the Japanese and Polynesian connection to Austronesia seems extremely tenuous to me, and I listed it principally to illustrate the differentiation these approaches would cause. If my own opinions on ethnography were to be reflected in this plan, Polynesians would require Olmec, which in turn would require Malinese or a similar West African culture in addition to another Mesoamerican people.

 

[johny smith]

A linguistic approach would indeed make it so; though even from an ethnic perspective, the Japanese and Polynesian connection to Austronesia seems extremely tenuous to me, and I listed it principally to illustrate the differentiation these approaches would cause. If my own opinions on ethnography were to be reflected in this plan, Polynesians would require Olmec, which in turn would require Malinese or a similar West African culture in addition to another Mesoamerican people.

Well whatever a tie between Olmec and Polynesian makes no sense. I do not know where you are getting that from. Olmecs are the homegrown people of the region and do not have a anything to do with polynesian.

Japan's original inhabitants came from Asia, and then the language was swallowed up by the later Chinese immigrants. Japan only has any influence in Austronesian languages because of later events.

The Pacific Islanders have been sorta isolated for a while linguistically. Then a rapid influx from later languages.

There are plenty of Mesoamerican people with very significant contributions to the scene. For example vanilla comes from Mesoamerica forget which group it was right now. I always wanted a real scenario for the different groups.

It it makes you feel better I have recently looked at how the first people populated the Americas. It was by boat probably, but only from north Asia. The Austronesian developed later then people i thought were entering North America. There are multiple waves of language groups entering North American like the Na Dene. They occur a different periods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na-Dene_languages

Anyway none of it is simple to fit to the civilizations selected by the game. You have to discard a lot of people in between, but I would not stretch things way out that do not link up.