Very good idea. The idea of a sham coming into your village, after his tribe won, would bring into the game an interesting dynamic.
what means âshamâ ? (sorry, my english)
My bad I meant shamen.
1 Like
I rather not have any actual historic religion implemented in the game. Iâd prefer a set of beliefs that can be chosen (or archieved), combined and developed into own religions and pantheons. In this game, I wanna lead my own tribe through the ages, found my own civilisation with unique cultures in a believable simulation, rather than just follow the actual historic path of human kind (that has been done in plenty of other games already). Otherwise it would pretty much narrow my options for development, and greatly lower replay value, as every civilisation would eventually go down the same path.
6 Likes
For the base game it wonât be a issue because our knowelege on historical religion in the Neolithic are scarce.
In the Bronze Age religion are more documented and the wide range of religions (and pratice inside a same religion) could bring the diversity you ask.
After all religion will only have realistic power (moral boost and social cohesion) so all religion will have a similar effect (not like the civ6 religion). I do not know how the difference between religion will be showed (differente temple/ceremony or boost to differente categories like hunter or craftman? ) but I am not sure sure it will be a game changer.
My opinion is that it is better (and easier) to use historical religions (when available). Moreover if link with an ingame wiki it will add a educational layer to the game.
Also suspect that it was a different form of religion than we would call it. Rather, a mixture of ancestor worship and nature worship, especially with sun / moon in the center.
2 Likes
[quote=âlotus253, post:19, topic:1306, full:trueâ]If anyone has a background in this (not religious, but scholarly) it would be interesting to hear an informed opinion on Asherah.
The Bronze Age is of course not the Neolithic, but itâs certainly possible that Yahweh, probably previously to that called El, probably had some origin even before that. It gets a little tricky as the people Yahweh comes from appear to have been polytheistic, making Yahweh one of many gods. Perhaps that is why in the Ten Commandments mythos, Yahweh says thou shall have no other gods before me, which doesnât really make sense unless you were speaking in polytheistic terms.[/quote]
Weâve got quite a famous Swiss professor at the Collège de France, called Thomas RĂśmer. Maybe you could look around that if he wrote in English. In French, thereâs AndrĂŠ Lemaire, but Iâm not sure heâs got anything translated.
In the States, I know Daniel Fleming worked a lot on the links between Old Testament and the religion as seen in Mesopotamia, notably what we know of it from Mari letters and documents.
Basically, what I remember from Uni time is that the first Hebrews (probably their name meaning âEconomic Exiledâ from Jean-Marie Durand, also a famous professor at the Collège de France, specialized on Mari) where typical Mesopotamians, having multiple gods, meddling with surrouding populations, etc.
Some historians specialized in religion history say that probably the Hebrews were not one people at first, but some tribes came from various origins, were separated from time to time, so that their myths and stories from the past evolved differently, etc.
When they connected again, it explains why there are twice the famous episode of the Red See crossing (the second one being the crossing of Jordan River, with water level going down to leave the Hebrews cross, etc.), and when we read the 10 Commandments they looked different, depending on the people met and their own legal traditions (e.g. I think I remember one of the versions of the Commandments looks furiously alike the Hittite peace treaties, while in some other cases the alliances were the same in Mari and in whatâs seen in the Bible, with a donkey being killed by being cut in 2, etc.).
[quote=âtschuschi, post:21, topic:1306, full:trueâ]
Interestingly, dependency / poverty always plays an important role in the mass of believers. The more independent an individual is, the harder the conviction work becomes. Deeply religious societies are usually not very well-stocked and often not well-educated (in the sense of general knowledge of the respective epoch). Religious upheavals had their origin always in the elites, never in the lower people. There was more the reverse of the phenomenon, the abundance, the occultism and the persistence of traditions until it was no longer possible through earthly / secular violence.[/quote]
Probably there are Google translations issues there. Making an association between poverty and faith is just plainly ridiculous event with todayâs standards. Youâre European, look at the States where religion is far less discreet than in Europe â but we canât say their a Third World country, even if they also have poverty like anywhere else.
About the âreligious upheavalâ, I think you may have another word in mind. Thereâs just to take the case of Christianism, whose the first believers were the women and slaves â and as such the less powerful persons in the society, who managed to impose their religion in the Roman Empire when the elites understood that it could be used for reassuring their own power. Saint Augustine himself was form an humble family before becoming a bishop.
And when the Franks came in Gauls, they were those who had most of the economical and political power, while they choose to convert to christianism for obvious political reasons (notably the fact they could have closer relationships with the bishops that had the social power over the Christians in every âcityâ in the Latin sense of the word.
Last example in Germany, where the Peasants War shows a Martin Luther saying the Peasants to go back to their fields instead of revolting against their legitimate lords.
2 Likes
As far as I can remember, the Merovingians were the first in Europe to desperately search for âdivine descent.â This went as far as to assert that kings have blood from the lineage of Jesus in their veins. (by the alleged daughter of Jesus) It was about the legitimation to rule. For this purpose had to be plausibly assured to stand above ânormalâ people and their nobles. This is probably the origin and meaning of religion.
Once this hurdle has been overcome, you can do everything possible with this power.
Martin Luther recognized this very well, which is why he had to protect the nobility. He was part of this clique, without that fact his life in Worms would have ended. His interest was a redistribution of power, not the smashing of this useful institution. 
One problem with existing religion is that interpretation and speculation is needed to some degree to properly implement them into this game. As some of those early religions may still be around in some form, people may feel offended by the way they are pictured.
This game would work just fine with fictional religions, that may be well inspired by what we know from history. I could see beliefs and rites being âdiscoveredâ similarly to how technology is planned to spread. So thereâs gonna be a different mix every time the game is played.
Presumably, it is the conclusions that have been drawn from the respective religions. In the Neolithic Europe, perhaps we were not very far from Budhism or Hinduism? The actual coinage was first created by the religions of the Middle East and was âexportedâ to Europe in the Bronze Age and later in the Iron Age. The real problem was the monotoism with its intolerant character towards other religions.
If it is to become realistic, at some point it will not go without religion, it is part of human history. It will depend on how this aspect affects the respective people, what the player is leading. It should not be forgotten that at regular intervals existing religions questioned and thereafter co-existed in different strands. Our âReformationâ was certainly not the first event of its kind.
I did like how (if you look at the AC videos) you see little people standing before monoliths and praying.
This is how I envision Neolithic religion. We may never understand how it was practiced, but I suspect examination of tribal religions around the world (e.g. Amazon peoples, Himba) can give us clues (though these would be speculative). My guess is Neolithic people probably prayed often and in small rituals, such as waking up, before meals, after activities.
I hope we can create our own little religions. Hopefully, polytheistic.\o/
2 Likes
Not long ago, I saw a documentary about an excavation site on the Syrian-Turkish border. Neolithicum, 11,000 BC, (allegedly directly outside the biblical âGarden of Edenâ). In addition to various stone circles there were artfully decorated with relief stone steles. The construction is said to have served to bury deceased by vultures ⌠(urks) Religion has many faces ⌠
1 Like
Many religions have regarded vultures and other carrion-eating creatures as being divine messengers. I am always skeptical of avian excarnation claims, is they rarely ever hold up, however.
Anatolian Neolithic Priestess. She wears vulture feathers for decoration and religious symbolism, Circa 5500 BCE
In fact, only bones were found there. Some have features of scavengers ⌠who knows what it really was?
By the way - in the documentary also a small group of hunters and collectors was shown and (tataa) the women had a bow and arrow. Thought you like that.
1 Like
I will have to check it out. The most prominent vulture excarnation example, at Catalhoyuk, has been dismissed as being incorrect. Iâm not sure about other examples of excarnation, since some of them, I believe, have indeed been confirmed.
My big interest isnât so much armed women, but the rejection of the notion of gender normative absolutism. If we donât know what gender norms a society had, we seem to just assume either contemporary or historical norms, forgetting that the world has shown us a wide variety of gender rolls. In most societies, for example, women donât fight as warriors. However, we have exceptions to this, such as the Steppes cultures, where hundreds of women have been found in graves with wounds of battle ( James, S., Arms, the armed, and armed violence). This also relates to religion insomuch as one can extrapolate and even suppose how prehistoric religion, in its minutia, may have been exacted, but not without a loss of determinable accuracy inversely proportionate to the depth of the detail.
Now I am a fan of comparative analysis and narrative suppositional reconstruction (e.g. look how other similar folks did it and make a good guess), but this certainly requires a qualification of result which I think we donât find in an exclusionary gender normative absolutist mindset.
puff
Anyhow, yes I do like the women with bows lol
James, S. Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Pg. 3
https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/40355/2/James%20in%20press%20Iron%20Age%20Armed%20Violence%20for%20LRA.pdf â Worth a read!!
1 Like
Can you tell me the documentaryâs title?
I could watch it on my phone tonight.
look at 07:54
1 Like
Wait⌠Is this the same video? =/
1 Like
No, but also very interesting! Thank you! 
Iâve given some thoughts on the topic of âcompeting religionâ since my (unfinished!) discussion with @tschuschi
As this be one of my looong posts, Iâll try to keep clear and use title 
Evidently, this is totally opened to critics and other comments. Please also take note that the devs may have more precise thoughts on the topic now that a few weeks of months ago, so they may look at my vain attempt with quite a laughing eyeâŚ
What I would not want in AC
Clearly stated: oversimplified features. I donât want to play a Civilization/Age of Empire game, where building a barrack gets you instantly 5 warriors, build a sanctuary to Thor and get instantly +10% morale for warriors and makes your citizens Vikings.
As a rule, I think this game definitively should avoid flat modifiers of this type â but I think thatâs not the road followed by our dear devs.
Instead, it should be another tool to form our own society, create interactions with other tribes and villages, etc. Our religion should be a constantly evolving one, which is quite usual when dealing when such things, and still more when speaking about polytheism.
Social effects for religious buildings
As I have plainly stated above, those lame buildings found in most game should be avoided. Instead, I think they should have a smooth effect on our society, for a given number of generations, making the long-game run far more interesting than just seeing a new modifier appear.
The best way to do that, I think, may be to have a sanctuary built to attract citizens towards such or such activity.
As an example: when your tribe is established, and because it most probably was polytheist, they may believe in a variety of spirits or gods, whatever the term we use. River spirit, forest spirit, wild game spirits, crop spirits, fertility spirits, etc.
Having a shrine erected e.g. to the wild game spirit should make the hunting activity more attractive: meaning, when build, this shrine may give +10% more attractiveness for the citizens to become hunters. This mixes well with what the devs stated about the preferences of citizens, while making the religion based on the natural resources and the surrounding environment. Clearly: you wonât have any reason to erect a shrine to a sea god when living in a plain, but would have lot of reasons to do it if living near the seashore.
With enough gods/spirits, this means youâll have possibility to create more interest within your society for such or such tasks you may think important: stone/hills spirits to have a bit more miners, wood/earth gods for builders, etc. With the passing generations, youâll have smooth transitions: the wild game spirit you that was so important when settling down may be progressively replaced by the crop spirit if youâre now plainly established, or the war god if youâre constantly facing to raids. This would be a multi-generation game, with multigenerational effects.
Buildings effects
Each of those shrines should have various levels, from a simple tree in the forest or a stake in the middle of the village, to a shrine and up to Stonehenge or whatever. This would give more important effects as theyâre overhauled. If youâre only having a wargod shrine and only tiny steles for other spirits, youâll have number of people interested in war business and raiding (but troubles to feed them, very probably. Your fault, you just had to give more reverence to the crop spirit).
Those effects may be also coupled to other shrines: graves for example.
If you decide that a peculiar warrior, or priest, or big man should be honored, having your citizens to work hard to raise a monumental grave for him will give a logical attractiveness for this character, as children will ask questions on him, learn from his story, and as such be more interested in military. This should also give prestige to his family, creating a possible ruling family for later times.
If this grave is made for e.g. a woman from another village/tribe married to your big man, this should make trade and diplomatic relations with this tribe easier (so reducing the prices when dealing with them, having better relations in case of need, etc.).
As you just canât have monumental graves all over the map, I think that a decaying modifier should be used: letâs say for 2 generations you have the full, flat modifier; then for the following 2 or 3 generations it slowly decays until itâs either a forgotten cairn, or it is maintained and expanded up to a shrine level and the modifiers become more important.
Polytheism: gods/spirits names, etc.
If those characters, whose graves need a lot of work, are sufficiently important for your village, they should slowly access to a higher status.
Letâs imagine a very simple story: you have a very competent warrior, whose grave is quite simple but that gives you the wanted effect (+10% attractiveness for military activities and hunting). This grave should give his family some prestige â that should be easy to make with the promised family trees.
If you expand this grave up to a real shrine level, this character may become forgotten as such but access to a semi-legendary character, and finally become the poliad god for the tribe and city.
This simple story may be the same for a fisher (Poseidon), or for a woman having numerous children (Inanna/Ishtar/Astarte), etc.
This comes to the issue of names: why deal with inventing god names for the game? We donât and probably wonât know them before weâre 6 feet under ourselves.
Just use a very simple interface, where when erecting a shrine or sanctuary you may define:
- the gender of the spirit/god: man, woman âneuterâ/inanimate;
- the type: human, animal, natural (tree, rock, riverâŚ);
- the competency: crops, river, hunting, fertility, etc.).
Then it generates a basic name: the Sun Lord, the Moon Goddess, the Bear Spirit, the She-Wolf, etc.
With passing time, either those names will stay, or be replaced with two other possibilities:
- your own citizens names: if you favorite hunter was called Care Bears, this Care Bears may replace any other wargod you had before.
Thatâs basically the story of Marduk, this secondary divinity from a little place called Babylon that is just one name in long lists of gods written on Sumerian tablets; but it suddenly became a major divinity when when Hammu-rabi and other Babylon kings became the major power in Southern Mesopotamia; - foreign divinities (just under).
"Competing religions": post-Neolithic DLCs, monotheism, etc.
Iâve written before that I though religion, as social or power structure (what I called âtraditionsâ to use a broad term) should be used to define your relations with other tribes. If you start a city in e.g. Ancient Egypt, you may want to stick to women-power society and have a major goddess called Teletubbies. Just, this wonât make your relations with any surrounding town or power easier: more difficulties to find allies, a less benevolent Pharaoh if you come to be his subject (so harsher taxes, more men raised for the levies, etc.).
But what I proposed above should allow you either to keep to your own peculiarities (hardest mod) or adapt yourself to the surrounding context.
E.g. you may decide to create an association between this Croppy god you had so far (he was a very good farmer a few centuries ago, producing twice as much as any other farmer back then) with the crop god Dagan revered by those merchants that are so much important to you by bringing food. This would allow easier relations with them, and something like reduced prices/more beneficial change rate with fish or whatever.
If you keep to your own god, youâll have a slight penalty. If you manage to impose your own god to surrounding cities, then youâll have Mardukâs story reproduced â like this was partly the case for Mithra, or Cathaginian gods in Rome.
Monotheism, for much latter DLCs, would then be the following step, while keeping to realism: your powerful goddess Teletubbies may have added the aspects of crop, war, rivers, hunting, etc. to the point you have the possibility to âaccessâ to monotheism.
If youâre lucky enough youâve submitted neighboring villages and towns, meaning your cult may expand â but once again this should be the hard mode, as before youâve met other gods quite commonly venerated in surrounding villages, whatever their names: Osiris, Marduk, Athena or GodâŚ
Hmmm, didnât lied when telling it would be long. But one day Iâll manage to make the devs cry, even if they will always fervently deny 
8 Likes