pre-release info Shawnee - Exploration Age Civilization Discussion

[Uberfrog]

anyway, I think one of the first mods I’ll end up downloading is moving the Shawnee to the modern era if Firaxis don’t fix it themselves. Really bizarre that a civ that peaked in the early 1800s is in the exploration era, which is generally said to end with the 7 years war and American Revolution. Especially since the most correlary civ we have at the moment is Buganda, who peaked around the same time.

I don’t think Firaxis is focusing too much on strict date cut offs for each era.

If you take the Shawnee civ in-game as also incorporating the Fort Ancient culture, which Firaxis seem to be doing by associating them with the Serpent Mound wonder, then Tecumseh’s federation of 1812 represents the end of that period (an era-ending crisis, if you will!) rather than the focus. So the Exploration era makes sense.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

It seems like both ends of the Exploration Age are deliberately murky. They've said both Antiquity and Exploration overlap the Medieval so I'd expect Exploration is meant to be 1000-1850, give or take a couple centuries on the low end and a few decades on the high end.

I guess this is the trouble with Civ’s compromise on Humankind’s divisions

say what you will about Humankind and perhaps the fact that you changed civ’s too often, but the eras were relatively well defined.

assuming the antiquity age timeframe you’ve suggested is correct, there’s alreayd all kinds of progressions just in the antiquity age that can’t be explored

gauls -> franks
romans -> franks
indus river -> maurya
celts -> romans
romans -> norse

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I don’t think Firaxis is focusing too much on strict date cut offs for each era.

If you take the Shawnee civ in-game as also incorporating the Fort Ancient culture, which Firaxis seem to be doing by associating them with the Serpent Mound wonder, then Tecumseh’s federation of 1812 represents the end of that period (an era-ending crisis, if you will!) rather than the focus. So the Exploration era makes sense.

Good point—I guess it’s just odd that the Shawnee are exploration era and their literal contemporaries in Buganda are modern.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I guess this is the trouble with Civ’s compromise on Humankind’s divisions

say what you will about Humankind and perhaps the fact that you changed civ’s too often, but the eras were relatively well defined.

assuming the antiquity age timeframe you’ve suggested is correct, there’s alreayd all kinds of progressions just in the antiquity age that can’t be explored

gauls -> franks
romans -> franks
indus river -> maurya
celts -> romans
romans -> norse

Yeah, if Medieval Age was it's own fourth age it would make the distinctions clearer.

 

[Zaarin]

say what you will about Humankind and perhaps the fact that you changed civ’s too often, but the eras were relatively well defined.

I consider the blurry age boundaries a pro.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I consider the blurry age boundaries a pro.

I do too, but I think 10000 years of human history into only 3 ages is a little rough when the boundaries can be bent so easily

the bronze age civs are extremely different than classical era civs, and those are different than the early vs. late medieval civs, some of which only really make sense to evolve into each other.

when there’s a clear theme of trying to emulate these evolution patterns, but then very clear patterns don’t fit into the limitations of the three sole eras, you’re either going to miss out on a bunch of intermediate civs (like, the norse), or a civ like the norse is going to be straight up categorized in the same timeframe as…Babylon?

it’s just extremely messy for no reason. I think if there was a fourth era it would a different convo, but 3 is just too few to pair with the civ progressions that almost make the most sense

convos like “should this civ really have been in this era” are going to keep popping up, if you ask me.

 

[Zaarin]

I do too, but I think 10000 years of human history into only 3 ages is a little rough when the boundaries can be bent so easily

the bronze age civs are extremely different than classical era civs, and those are different than the early vs. late medieval civs, some of which only really make sense to evolve into each other.

when there’s a clear theme of trying to emulate these evolution patterns, but then very clear patterns don’t fit into the limitations of the three sole eras, you’re either going to miss out on a bunch of intermediate civs (like, the norse), or a civ like the norse is going to be straight up categorized in the same timeframe as…Babylon?

it’s just extremely messy for no reason. I think if there was a fourth era it would a different convo, but 3 is just too few to pair with the civ progressions that almost make the most sense

convos like “should this civ really have been in this era” are going to keep popping up, if you ask me.

The part of me that wants more nuance is easily countered by the part of me that wants to only change civs twice. If I had to name the biggest breaks in human history, it would be the Neolithic Revolution (the start of the game), the bronze age collapse, the Columbian Exchange, and the Industrial Revolution. If I have to pick two, it's the Columbian Exchange and Industrial Revolution. So mostly I'm satisfied, even if the granular part of me still nitpicks.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The part of me that wants more nuance is easily countered by the part of me that wants to only change civs twice. If I had to name the biggest breaks in human history, it would be the Neolithic Revolution (the start of the game), the bronze age collapse, the Columbian Exchange, and the Industrial Revolution. If I have to pick two, it's the Columbian Exchange and Industrial Revolution. So mostly I'm satisfied, even if the granular part of me still nitpicks.

if we got 4, it would be pretty easy:

fall of rome/columbian exchange/industrial revolution

I def agree with the principle of what you’re saying though. However, if I was the devs, I would sacrifice the definitions happening at the most significant times to create culturally appropriate progressions that highlight the most civs, and the most progressions, so in that sense, fall of rome and 7 years war make more sense to me.

in any case, I still don’t know if Shawnee to Haudenosaunee should be the progression, considering I don’t think there’s much evidence to really put the Haudenosaunee in modern besides the fact that the confederacy is still around.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

gauls -> franks
romans -> franks

Arguably the "Franks" were contemporaneous with the Abbasids, so why not?

Edit: never mind, realised why not

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Arguably the "Franks" were contemporaneous with the Abbasids, so why not?

Edit: never mind, realised why not

could prob do it if modern france under napoleon is a modern civ, tbf

 

[Darth Hibernicus]

He tried to establish a Pan-Indian movement. He was a brilliant general, but unfortunately he became a fixation of Manifest Destiny-minded historians who held him up as proof that even a "latter day Alexander the Great" couldn't stop American expansion. He was the only Native American mentioned by Frederick Jackson Turner, whose Frontier Thesis was foundational for American historiography until the mid twentieth century. (Unfortunately his memory as a warrior glosses over that he was, fundamentally, a man of peace who worked hard to avoid war, and I'm glad Civ7 seems to be portraying him as such.)

Thanks. I hope this doesn't mean that the frontier/Oregon Trail/western expansion phase of American history will be portrayed negatively by Civ 7. I've always thought it was the most exciting and adventurous part of American history, and the pioneers were very brave, it took a lot of grit and determination to do what they did.

And this is why I don’t understand why they’re not a modern era civ. especially since Buganda’s peak was around the same time and they’re a modern civ.

Also, side note, Tecumseh is by far the best looking leader model we’ve seen so far.

For me it’s Tecumseh, Ashoka, then Hatshepsut, then Amina, then Augustus (eek)

I wish they would depict more leaders similarly to Catherine in Civ 5 or Boudicca in Civ 4.

 

[Wabnosa]

Tecumseh is Pontiacs successor and Black Hawk is Tecumsehs successor. There where mighty warchiefs in-between. The Haudneshonee raided the Shawnee and pushed them west.

The Ojibwe are the oldest language in the Algonquin branch that includes Shawnee. Ojibwe -> Shawnee but the Shawnee were probably already broken off before the antiquity age.

 

[SeelingCat]

Returning to the names of the uniques, I've been consulting some dictionaries and have found maybe a couple bits of info.

• Helikhilenawewipe (tradition): may be related to hilenahkwi "bow (weapon)"?
• Hoceepkileni (unique civilian): I think is related to hočeepihki "medicine"; potentially something along the line of "medicine man"? EDIT: hileni is "man"; so Medicine Man seems likely
• Maleki Kintake (civic): No dice on Maleki, but Kintake came up as a potential etymology for Kentucky, meaning "land of our in-laws" or "in/on the prairies/meadows" depending on the source
• Nepekifaki (ability): might be related to nepi "water"?
• Mawaskawe Skote (infrastructure): skote means "fire"; nothing for Mawaskawe

-ki appears to be a plural marker, which shows up in a couple of the terms (like Nepekifaki).

Additionally, the orthography is intriguing: s (instead of sh) and c (instead of ch or č) seem to be common, but the use of f is interesting. It seems to be being used in place of "th" (or θ if you're being formal), which didn't match any of the dictionaries I consulted, but does match the style used by the website of the Absentee Shawnee Tribe.

I'm guessing (and hoping) that Firaxis may have worked with a native Shawnee speaker - of which only approximately 260 remain - and perhaps a tribal organization to find these names. Resources for this language are extremely limited - the two dictionaries I found have less than 100 pages between them! Hopefully, Civ helps ignite greater interest in supporting this endangered language.

Maybe eventually Andrew Johnson will be able to give us more info about how it all came together...

 

[Zaarin]

I wish they would depict more leaders similarly to Catherine in Civ 5 or Boudicca in Civ 4.

...as thirst traps?

Tecumseh is Pontiacs successor and Black Hawk is Tecumsehs successor.

I wouldn't say that's true. Tecumseh didn't want a war; he had war thrust upon him by William Henry Harrison's scheming and Tenskwatawa's incompetence. It's much fairer to say Tecumseh was the successor of Joseph Brant, whom he admired and regarded as a mentor. He wanted to carve out a space where Native Americans could live separately from colonists, but he wanted to do it non-violently if possible. Also, unlike Pontiac and the Neolin, it doesn't seem that Tecumseh more than nominally supported his brother's Nativist religion (and indeed was known to wear a British uniform).

 

[Wabnosa]

Where are you finding that?

 

[pokiehl]

Returning to the names of the uniques, I've been consulting some dictionaries and have found maybe a couple bits of info.

• Helikhilenawewipe (tradition): may be related to hilenahkwi "bow (weapon)"?
• Hoceepkileni (unique civilian): I think is related to hočeepihki "medicine"; potentially something along the line of "medicine man"?
• Maleki Kintake (civic): No dice on Maleki, but Kintake came up as a potential etymology for Kentucky, meaning "land of our in-laws" or "in/on the prairies/meadows" depending on the source
• Nepekifaki (ability): might be related to nepi "water"?
• Mawaskawe Skote (infrastructure): skote means "fire"; nothing for Mawaskawe

-ki appears to be a plural marker, which shows up in a couple of the terms (like Nepekifaki).

Additionally, the orthography is intriguing: s (instead of sh) and c (instead of ch or č) seem to be common, but the use of f is interesting. It seems to be being used in place of "th" (or θ if you're being formal), which didn't match any of the dictionaries I consulted, but does match the style used by the website of the Absentee Shawnee Tribe.

I'm guessing (and hoping) that Firaxis may have worked with a native Shawnee speaker - of which only approximately 260 remain - and perhaps a tribal organization to find these names. Resources for this language are extremely limited - the two dictionaries I found have less than 100 pages between them! Hopefully, Civ helps ignite greater interest in supporting this endangered language.

Maybe eventually Andrew Johnson will be able to give us more info about how it all came together...

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing

 

[Zaarin]

Where are you finding that?

Not sure what "that" is so I'll just post the bibliography of my paper on Tecumseh and his legacy.

Barr, Daniel P., ed., The Boundaries Between Us: Natives and Newcomers along the Frontiers of the Old Northwest Territory, 1750-1850. Kent: Kent State University Press, 2006.
Cave, Alfred A. Prophets of the Great Spirit: Native American Revitalization Movements in Eastern North America (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2006.
Edmunds, R. David. American Indian Leaders: Studies in Diversity. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1980.
Edmunds, R. David. “Main Poc: Potawatomi Wabeno,” American Indian Quarterly 9, No. 3 (Summer 1985): 259-272.
Edmunds, R. David. The Shawnee Prophet. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985.
Harrison, William Henry, Messages and Letters of William Henry Harrison, Volume 1, edited by Logan Esarey. (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Commission, 1922.
Hughes, Bethany. “The Indispensable Indian: Edwin Forrest, Pushmataha, and Metamora,” Theatre Survey 59, Iss. 1 (January 2018): 23-44.
Jefferson, Thomas. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 37, edited by Barbara B. Oberg et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Jefferson, Thomas. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 38, edited by Barbara B. Oberg et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
Lincecum, Gideon. Pushmataha: A Choctaw Leader and His People, edited by Greg O’Brien. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2004.
Markowitz, Harvey and Carol A. Barrett, eds. American Indian Biographies. Pasadena: Salem Press, Inc., 2005.
Mooney, James. The Ghost-Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1991.
Mould, Tom, ed. Choctaw Tales. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2004.
Ruby, Robert H. and John Arthur Brown. Dreamer-prophets of the Columbian Plateau: Smohalla and Skolaskin. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989.
Sturgis, Amy H. Tecumseh: A Biography. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2008.
Thomson, Charles. An enquiry into the causes of the alienation of the Delaware and Shawanese Indians from the British interest, and into the measures taken for recovering their friendship : extracted from the public treaties, and other authentic papers relating to the transactions of the government of Pensilvania and the said Indians, for near forty years : and explained by a map of the country : together with the remarkable Journal of Christian Frederic Post, by whose negotiations, among the Indians on the Ohio, they were withdrawn from the interest of the French, who thereupon abandoned the fort and country. London: Printed for J. Wilkie, 1759.
United States. President, Quapaw Nation, Choctaw Nation. Treaties, etc. United States, Quapaw Nation. Treaties, etc. United States, United States. Treaties, etc. Choctaw Nation of Indians, and United States. Congress . House. Message from the President of the United States : transmitting copies of treaties between the United States and the Quapaw and Choctaw Nations of Indians. Washington: Printed by Gales & Seaton, 1825. Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926 (accessed September 5, 2020). https://link-gale- com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/CY0110602276/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=SABN&xi d=b8838f5a.
Vanderwerth, W.C. and William R. Carmack, ed., Indian Oratory: Famous Speeches by Noted Indian Chiefs. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1979.
Wagner, Mark J. “‘He is Worst Than the [Shawnee] Prophet’: The Archaeology of Nativism Among the Early Nineteenth Century Potawatomi of Illinois,” Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 31, No. 1 (Spring 2006): 89-116.
Warren, Stephen. The World the Shawnees Made: Migration and Violence in Early America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014.
Wilkins, David E., ed., Documents of Native American Political Development: 1500s to 1933. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2009.
Wovoka, “The Messiah Letter,” translated by James Mooney. The West Film Project, 2001. Accessed October 8, 2020. https://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/eight/gdmessg.htm

ETA: Amy Sturgis's biography on Tecumseh and R. David Edmunds biography on Tenskwatawa are both excellent reads on the subject of Tecumseh's Pan-Indian movement.

 

[Wabnosa]

Thank you, I like David Edmunds, I just watched his video on Main Poc. He has always fascinated me.

 

[Bosque]

It seems like both ends of the Exploration Age are deliberately murky. They've said both Antiquity and Exploration overlap the Medieval so I'd expect Exploration is meant to be 1000-1850, give or take a couple centuries on the low end and a few decades on the high end.

This makes a lot of sense. The year 1000 coincides (more or less) with the Viking explorations, is close to when it is likely that Hawaii was first settled, and several centuries before the Maori reached New Zealand.

And 1850 is just before the American Civil War, which brought innovations such as gatling guns and ironclad ships, along with widespread industrial production of rifled guns and cannons.

Edit: The Civil War also brought military observation balloons.

 

[Zaarin]

Thank you, I like David Edmunds, I just watched his video on Main Poc. He has always fascinated me.

I like David Edmunds a lot, as well. I read quite a bit of his work during my studies. In that list, Daniel Barr's The Boundaries Between Us is also a really interesting read on how Native and Euro-American societies interacted in the Old Northwest. As always, it's a sad story but worth knowing.