Are Aborigines a specification of "Polynesians"?

[Trifna]

I woundered... I read a little about Polynesians and Aborigines. Of course, Aborigines have some specificities since they are coming from the Australian "continent" and have a different way of living. But basically, generally, should they be considered as part of what we call "Polynesians", all these tribes south from Asia and all around Eurasia?... They seem to have some similarities.

[datakodin]

www.unifi.it/unifi/msn/antrop/route/ocfr_eng.htm

Better to call all of them Oceanians

[ranskaldan]

Nah... Polynesians include only the light-skinned people of the east Pacific.

[Oerdin]

According to "Guns, Germs, & Steel" the Australian Aborigines are related to the Negritos of the Philipines and the Black Pigmes of Burma and east India. The book speculated that these dark skinned people are reminents of an earlier dark skinned nomadic people who dominated south Asia, southeast Asia, Indonesia, and Australia who got subplanted by farmers from northern & eastern Asia.

[Rasbelin]

We shouldn't really mix up Aborigines in Australia and the Polynesians. As I said under the second thread about Polynesians, they don't seem to have the same origins.

[cavebear]

The Australian Aborigines arrived there about 50-60,000 years ago and their original mainland population was either killed off or subsumed into the ranks of later groups. The Polynesians arrived in the area many tens of thousands of years later and spread out from either Taiwan or SE Asia.

[Trifna]

But culturally, I just don't know if they wouldn't be quite similar. Because many cultures were formed of many fidderent arrivals. In Civ III, we're trying to find civilisations that would englobe general cultures. Such as Babylonians that are referencing to all a group of different civilisations that followed. They had similar culture and were, even if not under the same government, from a same general civilisation. Or like Iroquois and Aztecs, that are representing many others.

[cavebear]

Originally posted by Trifna
But culturally, I just don't know if they wouldn't be quite similar. Because many cultures were formed of many fidderent arrivals. In Civ III, we're trying to find civilisations that would englobe general cultures. Such as Babylonians that are referencing to all a group of different civilisations that followed. They had similar culture and were, even if not under the same government, from a same general civilisation. Or like Iroquois and Aztecs, that are representing many others.

The Australian Aborigines were hunter/gathers who had been culturally and physically isolated for at least 40,000 years. They had lost whatever seafaring technology they originally developed long before Europeans arrived in modern times. They are genetically distinct. The Polynesians were a completely different people, were agriculturalists, and were relatively "modern" .

I have to say that the Australian Aborigines are no more related to the Polynesians than the Egyptians are to the Zulus. They are certainly less related than the Aztecs are to the Iraquois.

Cultural similarities often derive from groups finding similar solutions to similar problems. Parallel cultural evolution is not unusual.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by cavebear


The Australian Aborigines were hunter/gathers who had been culturally and physically isolated for at least 40,000 years. They had lost whatever seafaring technology they originally developed long before Europeans arrived in modern times. They are genetically distinct. The Polynesians were a completely different people, were agriculturalists, and were relatively "modern" .

I have to say that the Australian Aborigines are no more related to the Polynesians than the Egyptians are to the Zulus. They are certainly less related than the Aztecs are to the Iraquois.

Cultural similarities often derive from groups finding similar solutions to similar problems. Parallel cultural evolution is not unusual.

Thanks cavebear, this is what I wanted to know

Now my question is... are they englobed in annother civ that's more general or are they culturally distinct? Because I know they DID expanded. They went on some Islands around. The peculiar characteristic with them is that they do not seem to have any obligation for war against another civ and go over annother. And they were pacific. Wonder if they are different enough and all to consider them as a civ that should be in Civ III if we wanted to put all general cultures.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Trifna


Thanks cavebear, this is what I wanted to know

Now my question is... are they englobed in annother civ that's more general or are they culturally distinct? Because I know they DID expanded. They went on some Islands around. The peculiar characteristic with them is that they do not seem to have any obligation for war against another civ and go over annother. And they were pacific. Wonder if they are different enough and all to consider them as a civ that should be in Civ III if we wanted to put all general cultures.

"Culture" does not equal "civilization". A "civilization" is a culture that builds cities. This is true generally, but especiallly true in a Civ game. No hunter/gatherer culture remotely qualifies. The only nomadic cultures that qualify are those which historically acquired somebody else's cities through conquest (like the Mongols).

[Rasputin]

good to see people trying to put our local natives into the game... i wonder if you would if youy personaly knew them

[Trifna]

Well I see important civs as beeing the ones that had the possibility to make something if in situation. The ones that are "great" by what they are (which is culture, the civilisation itself). As Greek that were by their litterature and elses. In a culture, this seems to me to always be reflected when they interact with annother civ, but the problem with aborigines is that they didn't have really needed to interract with anybody and were peaceful... So, I'm not sure...

Any comments Rasputin?

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill


"Culture" does not equal "civilization". A "civilization" is a culture that builds cities. This is true generally, but especiallly true in a Civ game. No hunter/gatherer culture remotely qualifies. The only nomadic cultures that qualify are those which historically acquired somebody else's cities through conquest (like the Mongols).

Iroquois were hunter/gatherer, and I think they in fact had quite an elaborated culture with what comes with it (organized civilisation, group spirit, manners that are proper to them, their own developped philosoĥical lines/litterature (oral)/religion, etc.)

Same for Zulus, African tribes or Polynesians. They aren,t only tribes of hunters/gatherers, they elaborated by themselves.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Trifna


Iroquois were hunter/gatherer, and I think they in fact had quite an elaborated culture with what comes with it (organized civilisation, group spirit, manners that are proper to them, their own developped philosoĥical lines/litterature (oral)/religion, etc.)

Same for Zulus, African tribes or Polynesians. They aren,t only tribes of hunters/gatherers, they elaborated by themselves.

None of that matters. No matter what else they achieved, they never built cities. Ergo, they are/were not "civilizations".

Of course, depending on exactly what you mean by "African tribes". The Ethiopians were a civilization, as was Kush (although heavily Egyptian influenced) and Mali (heavily Arab influenced). Not the Zulus, though.

Similarly in the Americas - Incas & Mayas were civilizations, as were several precursors to the Aztecs (Toltecs, Olmecs, etc...), but not Iroquois or Souix (or Apache or anybody else in what is now the US & Canada).

There are literally a host of true civs that did not get included - way too many to be putting in non-civs. Instead, I'd worry about the Arabs, Turks, Hittites, Assyrians, Phoenicians/Cathaginians, Sumerians/Akkadians, Etruscans, Armenians, Lydians, Phrygians, Mitanni, Poles, Bulgars, Ethyiopians, Incas, Mayas...

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill


None of that matters. No matter what else they achieved, they never built cities. Ergo, they are/were not "civilizations".

Of course, depending on exactly what you mean by "African tribes". The Ethiopians were a civilization, as was Kush (although heavily Egyptian influenced) and Mali (heavily Arab influenced). Not the Zulus, though.

Similarly in the Americas - Incas & Mayas were civilizations, as were several precursors to the Aztecs (Toltecs, Olmecs, etc...), but not Iroquois or Souix (or Apache or anybody else in what is now the US & Canada).

There are literally a host of true civs that did not get included - way too many to be putting in non-civs. Instead, I'd worry about the Arabs, Turks, Hittites, Assyrians, Phoenicians/Cathaginians, Sumerians/Akkadians, Etruscans, Armenians, Lydians, Phrygians, Mitanni, Poles, Bulgars, Ethyiopians, Incas, Mayas...

So if Greeks had made all the great things they made, but instead of cities were going everywhere with tents, they wouldn't be a civilisation? And Arabs weren't a civlisation when they had camps in the desert??

And about all these civs you named, most of them could be within a more general civilisation. I don't think we want to put non-general civilisations in Civ III, since a civ's specific branch wouldn't take over all other civs I guess... Incas, Mayas, Aztecs... it's all the same culture. They succeed, one after the other. As same as there were many different lords in France. They were all French but they were fighting.

[Barnacle Bill]

Frankly, the Greeks could not have achieved the things they did without cities. Cities deliver a concentrated critical mass of people who are doing something for a living other than feeding themselves. With less population density, there is insufficient demand for professional artists, writers, poets, etc... for things to really take off. A very high-tech society could function as a civilization due to things like telephones, the internet, etc... but not at a primative tech level. The only way to make it happen before electronics is to put wads of people together in one place.

Also, the Arabs had cities well before they exploded onto the world stage. Ever hear of Mecca & Medina? Mohammed was a raised a city dweller, although his first career was a travelling one.

Most civilizations are derivative of a precurser to some extent or another. The handfull which are not are the "cradles of civilization", and it would not be much of a game if that is all you had - the Nile Valley in Egypt, the "Fertile Crescent (i.e. the Middle East), the Indus Valley ("India" in Civ game terms but actually in modern Pakistan), the Huang River Valley in China, the Central Mexican plataue and the Andes.

As I write this, I'm looking at a map in the Rand McNally Historical Atlas of thw World, titled "Eurasia: The Growth of Civilization to 200 A.D.". Egypt, southern Iraq & the Indus Valley were civilized in the 3rd Millennium B.C. China didn't make it until the 2nd Millennium B.C. (Civilization spread to the rest of the "Fertile Crescent" and to Greece & the Aegean coast of modern Turkey in the same period). According to the map, in the period 1000 BC-200 AD, civilization spread to the rest of what was the Roman Empire, the Sudan (i.e. Kush), Iran, the rest of India, the rest of China, plus Korea. Civilization was developed in the Americas much later - C. 100 AD in the Andes & c. 800 AD in Central America.

I don't want to put non-civilizations in Civ III. Civs that were "cradles", civs that arose under the influence of one (or more) of the "cradles", or even civs that arose out of barbarian conquest of an existing civ (or parts thereof) are all fine. Lets leave out cultures that never were civilized, though.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
Frankly, the Greeks could not have achieved the things they did without cities.

Which doesn't mean the cities are the cause of the civilisation... The cities are the cause of the culture which is the cause of civilisation. Thus, culture brings civilisation, but if culture was there without cities, there would be civilisation nevermind.

Cities deliver a concentrated critical mass of people who are doing something for a living other than feeding themselves. With less population density, there is insufficient demand for professional artists, writers, poets, etc... for things to really take off. A very high-tech society could function as a civilization due to things like telephones, the internet, etc... but not at a primative tech level. The only way to make it happen before electronics is to put wads of people together in one place.

All this city thing doesn't make the civilisation BECAUSE of the city. Thus, the hypothesis of a civilisation without cities would then be possible if you have culture.

Also, the Arabs had cities well before they exploded onto the world stage. Ever hear of Mecca & Medina? Mohammed was a raised a city dweller, although his first career was a travelling one.

I wasn't talking of Arabs whe they already had cities, but of the one that hadn't.

Most civilizations are derivative of a precurser to some extent or another. The handfull which are not are the "cradles of civilization", and it would not be much of a game if that is all you had - the Nile Valley in Egypt, the "Fertile Crescent (i.e. the Middle East), the Indus Valley ("India" in Civ game terms but actually in modern Pakistan), the Huang River Valley in China, the Central Mexican plataue and the Andes.

As I write this, I'm looking at a map in the Rand McNally Historical Atlas of thw World, titled "Eurasia: The Growth of Civilization to 200 A.D.". Egypt, southern Iraq & the Indus Valley were civilized in the 3rd Millennium B.C. China didn't make it until the 2nd Millennium B.C. (Civilization spread to the rest of the "Fertile Crescent" and to Greece & the Aegean coast of modern Turkey in the same period). According to the map, in the period 1000 BC-200 AD, civilization spread to the rest of what was the Roman Empire, the Sudan (i.e. Kush), Iran, the rest of India, the rest of China, plus Korea. Civilization was developed in the Americas much later - C. 100 AD in the Andes & c. 800 AD in Central America.

I don't want to put non-civilizations in Civ III. Civs that were "cradles", civs that arose under the influence of one (or more) of the "cradles", or even civs that arose out of barbarian conquest of an existing civ (or parts thereof) are all fine. Lets leave out cultures that never were civilized, though.

I think that your definition of "civilized" is our discordance. You define civilize as it was generally done by colonialist, civilized beeing grandiose stuff, etc. I define civilized as a society that is well-formed. For me it isn,t the buildings that are grandiose and nice and civilized, but the people and their way of doing

[Barnacle Bill]

Before the Arabs had cities, they were not civilized.

All peoples have a culture, but all peoples are not civilized.

I define a civilization as a culture that has cities. Look up the derivation of the word.

The meaning of the word "civilization" in history books is very clearly (by context) "a culture with cities". Given that Civ3 is a game about managing cities, I think that this is the operable definition.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
Before the Arabs had cities, they were not civilized.

All peoples have a culture, but all peoples are not civilized.

I define a civilization as a culture that has cities. Look up the derivation of the word.

The meaning of the word "civilization" in history books is very clearly (by context) "a culture with cities". Given that Civ3 is a game about managing cities, I think that this is the operable definition.

Your definition is the colonialist's definition, beeing that a culture isn't civilized and isn't a civilization if it is kind "berserk, blood and conquest". The kind that some call barbaric. My definition of civilization is not reliated in any way to the way people are establishing themselves but the way they think and are organized. If it's the definition of history books, then I do not agree with them. And the dictionary doesn't either.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Trifna
Iroquois were hunter/gatherer,

Actually most Eastern woodland indian tribes are catagorized as being a mixed economy where some basic food items are farmed but the diet is supplemented by hunting and gathering. Be contrast Aborigines were entirely hunter gathers and Polynesians (on some islands but not on all) used intensive agriculture to supply the needed food.

[Trifna]

Just to say I concluded about Aborigines:

Their culture isn't distinctive enough compared to some others so I totally put them out. Even if they are geographically different, they are included in some others I think. Such as some African tribes from which they may come from initially (even if it was lonnnng ago, they stil are too culturally close to these cultures to me).

[xane]

Going back to 4000 BC, when agriculture was not widespread or undeveloped, a city could only grow in specific areas of very fertile land, typically where large rivers flooded on a regular basis, like the Nile.

Most "civilizations" only became so because of their proximity to such places, but many more had the potential to become civilizations but they never got to the "critical mass" needed by a large city.

If you are playing a game where anyone can end up in a patch of fertile land and make a civilization from it, then you have to consider "potential" rather than historical civilized cultures.

I'd certainly consider the Aboriginies to have that potential.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Trifna

Your definition is the colonialist's definition, beeing that a culture isn't civilized and isn't a civilization if it is kind "berserk, blood and conquest". The kind that some call barbaric.

Nonsense! It's got nothing to do with whether or not they are violent or aggressive. A bunch of Quakers could found a city and it would be a civilization. A bunch of Thuggees could establish a hunter-gather culture and it would not be a civilization.

Originally posted by Trifna

My definition of civilization is not reliated in any way to the way people are establishing themselves but the way they think and are organized.

Bingo! Organized in cities!

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill


Nonsense! It's got nothing to do with whether or not they are violent or aggressive. A bunch of Quakers could found a city and it would be a civilization. A bunch of Thuggees could establish a hunter-gather culture and it would not be a civilization.



Bingo! Organized in cities!

Could you please not be sophistic by continuing reasonings at my place and not consider by this way what I said?...
Organized in a magic saucer. Socially organized doesn't mean cities. Nomadic groups can be organized, cavemen could be organized (before you say something, go read Dune or at least see the movie. They are in caves and showing what I mean). Cities are a physical organization and I think what is needed is the social organization. Of course, cities may help, but they aren't necessary for a socia rganization.

And about your previous pararaph, I was talking of YOUR definition and it wasn't my opinion. It was talking of similar opinions to yours (the colonialists here). They saw groups that were in tribes or weren't in cities as some barabrians.

[pumph]

Originally posted by Trifna

Nomadic groups can be organized, cavemen could be organized (before you say something, go read Dune or at least see the movie. They are in caves and showing what I mean).

Sorry, but I don't think you can look to Frank Herbert for the last word on what makes an earth-bound civilization.

In the thread entitled "Criterions for eligibility of a civ to be in Civ III" I've just posted that the key factor is economics, or at least mode of production. To have a civilization you need to generate and concentrate a surplus over and above subsistence. Now to generate the surplus you need agriculture, which excludes hunter-gatherers, while to concentrate it you need an administration, thereby implying centralized control. Finally, such centralized control appears to mean a city with the capability of defending itself.

I wouldn't call Barnacle Bill a "colonialist" or whatever. I agree with almost everything he wrote, apart from on Mongols and Zulus. The Mongols had their own cities comprising felt tents (as well as those they conquered) and the Zulus, an agriculture-based people, had their "Royal Kraal", an administrative center which certainly qualified as a city in the making. In both cases, large standing armies were maintained from a material surplus. So, I'd say the Mongols are in and the Zulus just scrape through (especially since its doubtless rather politically correct to have at least one sub-Saharan African people in the package).

Finally, contrary to what you said, the Australian aborigines had a very unique hunter-gatherer culture, about as unique as anything on earth and totally different from anything found among Africans (in respect to whom they are also genetically about as far apart as it is possible to get), yet I would still say that they don't qualify as a civ. Hunter-gatherers don't qualify. Pure and simple.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by pumph


Sorry, but I don't think you can look to Frank Herbert for the last word on what makes an earth-bound civilization.

In the thread entitled "Criterions for eligibility of a civ to be in Civ III" I've just posted that the key factor is economics, or at least mode of production. To have a civilization you need to generate and concentrate a surplus over and above subsistence. Now to generate the surplus you need agriculture, which excludes hunter-gatherers, while to concentrate it you need an administration, thereby implying centralized control. Finally, such centralized control appears to mean a city with the capability of defending itself.

I wouldn't call Barnacle Bill a "colonialist" or whatever. I agree with almost everything he wrote, apart from on Mongols and Zulus. The Mongols had their own cities comprising felt tents (as well as those they conquered) and the Zulus, an agriculture-based people, had their "Royal Kraal", an administrative center which certainly qualified as a city in the making. In both cases, large standing armies were maintained from a material surplus. So, I'd say the Mongols are in and the Zulus just scrape through (especially since its doubtless rather politically correct to have at least one sub-Saharan African people in the package).

Finally, contrary to what you said, the Australian aborigines had a very unique hunter-gatherer culture, about as unique as anything on earth and totally different from anything found among Africans (in respect to whom they are also genetically about as far apart as it is possible to get), yet I would still say that they don't qualify as a civ. Hunter-gatherers don't qualify. Pure and simple.

Well I think that Fremens aren't funding "cities" in the sense it was said...

Secondly, I'm not saying that Barnacle is "colonialist" but that his definition is close the theirs, which eliminated many "human agglomeration" that I call civilizations.

And about hunter-gatherers, I personnally think they qualify IF they do something else than just surviving with this. I mean by this that even if they get their food that way I qualify them as civ if they have some other things that makes me consider them as having an elaborated enough structure, their own specific philosophy about life and all (and developed, not just stories).