Making Game Indepth - Political/Cultural Progression

I guess it depends on the technological level of our tribe. If we do indulge in agriculture, as well as hunting and gathering, I see no reason the city map should not be able to sustain at the very least several hundred, inhabitants, if not thousands, all grouped together in a village surrounded by a strong palisade, guarded by good men. I should think it would take more than a few hours to reach that level.

I agree though that migration would play a important role, like in Banished or Tropico. Newcomers come to our town, with new knowledge and views. Some of them would even be quite exotic. Traders would be similar. In the beginning of the game, traders would probably only come from the nearest villages and tribes, with a backpack or so, full of stuff to trade. Later, we would have several traders at once, from further away, maybe even hand-drawn carts on the worn paths through the forests. With the domestication of horses would come bigger carts, more tradeā€¦ and more migrationsā€¦

Sure, Caesar III had certain goals for every city, but some goals were difficult enough to last you tens of hours, especially when balancing economy and war. In the later games of that series, Zeus: Master of Olympus, and Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom, you also have a complete strategic level, in which matters outside of your city play a much greater role. Establishing colonies, defending allies so that they can trade you food, conquering enemy cities to open up new supply routes, pacifying the regionā€¦

1 Like

(Nice intertwining of posts and thoughts here :slight_smile:)

I think the collapse of a civilization or of a settlement is probably the part of the game being the least difficult to modelize.
Without speaking of a defeat in a raid, or the death of all citizens by hunger (either due to plagues, hunger, climateā€¦) resulting in a game-over, I think historical examples are sufficient to show how a settlement may collapse.

Taking the example of the Empire carved by the Third Dynasty of Ur in Southern Mesopotamia, youā€™ll probably recognize slow descent to hell in any game you ever played (any Civilization, Paradox games, maybe Total War, etc.). The first cause was that the administration was probably over developed, with a strict organization of the space in the whole Empire: each region was far too much centered around one production, meaning the loss of any of those region created a lack of this resource into the surviving territories, and a difficulty to adapt instantly to this loss. This may happen e.g. in Civilization, if you overspecialize one of your cities (in science, or religion, or industry).

To this may be added probably a solidified society. The difficulty to give their place to recent immigrants (Elamits or Akkadians, coming from East or North in Ur-III case), while it was relied heavily on them for armies or specialized productions, drove them to progressively maintain relations more favorable with their native regions instead of the centralized power. It may be important here to note that the great wall built to keep any invader away didnā€™t worked ā€“ all other examples in history gave the same results, even if currently one US and some EU presidents seem to donā€™t have any knowledge in history.
This progressive froze of society partly explains why some societies progressively lost all vitality, which should be a very important thing in A.C. given whatā€™s currently known of the gameplay, notably technical discovery as it has been explained so far. Clearly, refusing any migration should lead to a progressive backwardness that (hopefully) tech discovery though war should not be able to catch up.

To those issues, evidently, may be added the fact that this froze in society and the worsening of the situation is prone to cause unrest and distrust towards the centralized power, in those society where the ruler is the father for his people, holding most of the power against the promise he will allow them to live safely and peacefully (no invasions) in good conditions (no hunger, no hunger, no drought, etc.). When the situation is growing too bad, provinces/regions/districts progressively grow reluctant to any order given by the central power, meaning then more unrest, political troubles, revolts, etc.

All in all, if A.C. gameplay is well thought out (I have no doubt on that), well implemented (letā€™s hope!) and well tested (it will be our job next year), this should promise quite a few interesting collapses alongside the most obvious ones related to any survival game.

1 Like

An important point. Iā€™m not sure if migration or trade is more important for technical progress.
Migration: Somewhere, every migrant comes. What caused him to do this? Let us move into the society from which he comes. Would you let your best people just leave? You need it yourself ā€¦
and then there would be the betrayal of technical secrets, which would benefit the tribe from his point of view. So, what kind of migrants will come?
Would be a stroke of luck if the best came. Probably, however, the greatest value will lie in a medium-term improvement of the immune system.
Trade: Traders travel a great radius of the map, learn a lot of news, bring in unknown merchandise (and maybe tell where they are from). One could then then ā€œlookā€ there ā€¦ Either one sends a few ā€œmigrantsā€, or one looks immediately with an army ā€¦ of course only, in order to achieve a better result for a trade contract. :wink:

Well, there were lot of exchanges as soon as the Neolithic and even far before that.

There were long-range trade for rare goods like stones or shells, which were asked to prove the greatness of some bigmen or other people. The stones from Stonehenge traveled something like 200 or 250 km before being set in place, etc. So thatā€™s less a question of unknown goods that of availability.

As for ā€œmigrantsā€, thereā€™s a least the reasons that someone may be the lone survivor of this own tribe, or he got lost, or he got married, or got exchanged against another member, or even against some rare goods, etc.

All in all, there were probably far more migrations from one tribe to another than we probably may see. And thereā€™s not doubt that as soon as someone got integrated, he had very few reasons to keep ā€œsecretsā€ hiden: if he knew a better way to make a bow, or a more efficient way to work a field, then he could either show his importance or just help his new people.

Also, as I know youā€™re German: I know illegal downloading is far more frowned upon in Germany than in France, but maybe youā€™ll find this in streaming: [02x02] Der erste Dorfbewohner - Die Spur der Steine ā€“ TV Wunschliste (ā€œSur nos tracesā€/ā€œDie Spur der Steineā€, season 4 episode 2).
At 17:00, youā€™ll find an interview with a German archaeologist in Halle, that shows the case of women having been killed by their own tribe after having had children in another tribe something like 80 km from their home. Thatā€™s a clear case of migration, although itā€™s difficult to know if they were there because of a rapt, by exchange, by love or anything else we may imagine.

About the series: even if centered essentially on France, itā€™s really worth the watch. Quite up-to-date for everything Iā€™ve seen so far, no fancy 3D simulation being half false, most of the content being interviews with archaeologists, filming of the actual locations, views of the pieces in the museums commented by specialists, etc. In case anybody would want to try, thereā€™ a Youtube chain about it, although when not understanding French English auto-translation is quiteā€¦ strange, to say the least. But for ex. in episode 3, season 2 the middle part shows an archeologist working on a weaving loom which could be of interest for @lotus253 and the final part the Belgian silex mines in Spiennes, commented by archaeologists also, in case this would be of interest for @UncasualGames

3 Likes

Thank you, good tip! I am not only German but also too stupid to stream. :smirk: But remember to have seen some episodes years ago (arte)
Ahh, found it on Youtube ā€¦
ā€¦ and many other things on this topic, unfortunately everything in German without English translation for you.

ā€¦ we should think about this topic. Was that already there? In which form? Monogamy?
Harem? Jealousy? Adultery? Incest? Vendetta? Marriage policy? Dowry?
How is this going to play a role in the game?

@Elfryc, I should be very careful to mix in our modern notions on migration, including its politics, into a discussion about the place of migration in Ancient Cities. Whether or not Sweden or Germany or Hungary choose to shut its borders to large-scale migrations in 2015, or whether or not Trump wants to extend an existing wall, has very little to do with migrations of tribes more than seven thousand years ago.

I also reject your notion that "the great wall built to keep any invader away didnā€™t worked ". Not to mention that the Great Wall of China worked for very effectively for centuries, millennia, at its task. That it has been superseded doesnā€™t prove anything. A wall is simply one brick atop another, and is useless and worthless in itself. If anything, the cultural wall set up by Qin Shi Huangdi over two thousand years ago, still stands. Whether Huns, Mongols or other invaders, they are gone, and China still stands, a unified nation and culture, apart from any nomads or other foreign domination. Another example: while the Roman limes was manned and supported, mankind thrived through the pax romana. When corruption and self-interest took over, and the emperors squabbled and wasted, so did the limes fall, and a scourge swept through much of Europe, one of the greatest disasters in the history of our civilisation. When looking at several historic examples, like when the Normans threw out Islam and Orthodox Christianity from the Mezzogiorno, or the American push westwards, practically exterminating all that was foreign, it led to everything but ā€œprogressive backwardnessā€ or loss of ā€œvitalityā€.

Iā€™m not trying to paint a picture saying that migration is bad, and that building walls is good, but rather: migration is a very complicated concept, it can be very good, very right, and very bad, and very wrong. It completely depends on thousands of variables. The same is true of walls. No black and white. Would France have been better off if the Franks were kept out of Gaul? No MĆ©rovĆ©e, no Clovis, no Hugues Capet? God knows quality of life and levels of technology fell with the collapse of Roman rule. How about the Visigoths in Spain? How about invasion of Islam? And then the reconquista? The expulsion of the Moors and Jews? Itā€™s all very complicated. The US started encouraging immigration after the civil war, but then shut its gates almost completely before WWI. They didnā€™t really reopen till the 1970s, and seem to be closing them again now. Sweden prided itself in the 1950s with not having any ethnic problems, while in the recent Norwegian election, Swedenā€™s widespread ethnic problems featured heavily. Itā€™s all endlessly complicated. So letā€™s not even mention politics at all, letā€™s keep politics far away. A bit like the recent discussion on religion: letā€™s not bring up stuff that are either irrelevant or might offend. Letā€™s keep to ancient times.

With all that said:

I agree that migration should be an important part of the game. Like you say, the Akkadians and other Semitic or even Indo-european peoples could serve as an important model, in their contacts with the Sumerians. Maybe the Sea Peoples, the Doric invasion of Greece? In older city-building games, the city is completely build on migration, since no children are born: any population increase is because more people move in from outside. That might be a overdoing it a bit, but I do believe that migrants will make up a sizeable portion of the inhabitants of our city, natural increase would be limited. Some will be of our own people, only from other sites. Others will be similar to ourselves, another branch of the tree as it were. A few will be completely foreign, in language, religion, clothing (@lotus253!) and other matters. There might be tension, or not, depending on the differences, but also the society, and the leadership (the player). If anything, imagine the richness of the market squares, the multitude of languages!

At its most basic level there should be some note in the ā€œinfo cardā€ of each tribe member, about where they were born. This already exists in Tropico, where both tourists and foreign hired educated workers may hail from all sorts of places. It has no effect on game play though. We could also connect this with ā€œclansā€ and ā€œgreater family groupsā€ or similar, by having some family tree information available, a light version of Crusader Kings. You know, to see ā€œwhich lineā€ they are a part of, a bit like the (if you would allow me to use your nationality) Spanish BorbĆ³nes are a branch of the Bourbons of Louis XIV, in turn a line of the Capets of Saint Louis (IX), in turn a line of the Robertians of Hugues Capet. The ancient Romans of higher rank would use three names, sometimes even more, to denote their own personal name, the name of the immediate family, but also the name of the extended family, the ā€œclanā€ if you will. Maybe some of our villagers, mindful of their origins, would have something similar? ā€œUgga-bugga, son of Og, of the Hoktoksā€? :wink:

Iā€™m assuming that when we start, all of the the tribe members we start with would be of the same clan, the same extended family. Iā€™m guessing then that the player would beā€¦ associated with that group? That the player, although not a person walking around in the game, would ā€œbeā€ a part of that clan? The original clan? And any other clan encountered in the game, let alone tribe or people, would be different, apart, foreign? Orā€¦ maybe the player has no clan, no loyalty but to the city, meaningā€¦ clans may come and go, even tribes, peoplesā€¦? Kind of like a ā€œruler of Parisā€ would start out with, maybe, some Celtic tribe, the Parisii, on a little island in the river, which in time become Latin speaking Gallic Romans of Lutetia, who are then conquered by the Franks and slowly become French in Paris? Both options would be funā€¦

I must though say that I am a bit hesitant regarding the role of migration and trade when it comes to technology, as you both imply, @tschuschi and @Elfryc. We know from history that many technologies and discoveries were only made once or twice, and then slowly spread across the world, from the places where a discovery was likely, to places where a discovery would never occur (but once made, it could be used). The focus on this spreading of ideas, through either trade or migration, does though undermine any possibility for the playerā€™s tribe to single-handedly discover agriculture, metallurgy, husbandry, domestication, and so forth. Surely, over a few generations, our tribe would both learn of discoveries and inventions from afar, as well as discover and invent on its own, just like it would surely establish its own norms and culture?

Looking forward also to using tradesmen as spies, fighting to keep competent and specialised tribe members from moving away, and fearing disease in every foreigner :stuck_out_tongue:

3 Likes

That was a wall of text :blush: Iā€™ll answer in several post, just by fear that it becomes unreadable.

[quote=ā€œGrigor, post:19, topic:2282, full:trueā€]@Elfryc, I should be very careful to mix in our modern notions on migration, including its politics, into a discussion about the place of migration in Ancient Cities. Whether or not Sweden or Germany or Hungary choose to shut its borders to large-scale migrations in 2015, or whether or not Trump wants to extend an existing wall, has very little to do with migrations of tribes more than seven thousand years ago.

I also reject your notion that "the great wall built to keep any invader away didnā€™t worked ". Not to mention that the Great Wall of China worked for very effectively for centuries, millennia, at its task. That it has been superseded doesnā€™t prove anything. A wall is simply one brick atop another, and is useless and worthless in itself. If anything, the cultural wall set up by Qin Shi Huangdi over two thousand years ago, still stands. Whether Huns, Mongols or other invaders, they are gone, and China still stands, a unified nation and culture, apart from any nomads or other foreign domination. Another example: while the Roman limes was manned and supported, mankind thrived through the pax romana. When corruption and self-interest took over, and the emperors squabbled and wasted, so did the limes fall, and a scourge swept through much of Europe, one of the greatest disasters in the history of our civilisation. When looking at several historic examples, like when the Normans threw out Islam and Orthodox Christianity from the Mezzogiorno, or the American push westwards, practically exterminating all that was foreign, it led to everything but ā€œprogressive backwardnessā€ or loss of ā€œvitalityā€.

Iā€™m not trying to paint a picture saying that migration is bad, and that building walls is good, but rather: migration is a very complicated concept, it can be very good, very right, and very bad, and very wrong. It completely depends on thousands of variables. The same is true of walls. No black and white. Would France have been better off if the Franks were kept out of Gaul? No MĆ©rovĆ©e, no Clovis, no Hugues Capet? God knows quality of life and levels of technology fell with the collapse of Roman rule. How about the Visigoths in Spain? How about invasion of Islam? And then the reconquista? The expulsion of the Moors and Jews? Itā€™s all very complicated. The US started encouraging immigration after the civil war, but then shut its gates almost completely before WWI. They didnā€™t really reopen till the 1970s, and seem to be closing them again now. Sweden prided itself in the 1950s with not having any ethnic problems, while in the recent Norwegian election, Swedenā€™s widespread ethnic problems featured heavily. Itā€™s all endlessly complicated. So letā€™s not even mention politics at all, letā€™s keep politics far away. A bit like the recent discussion on religion: letā€™s not bring up stuff that are either irrelevant or might offend. Letā€™s keep to ancient times.[/quote]

As a preliminary, I have to say I wrote about the great wall build by Shu-SĆ®n of the Third Dynasty of Ur. In the official calendar, the 4th year of his reign was named "Year Shu-SĆ®n the king of Ur built the wall against the Amurrites called ā€œHolding back the Tidanumā€.

But please forgive me if I ever give the impression Iā€™m meddling any emotion and history ā€“ thatā€™s clearly not the case. In fact, I just need one example of any wall having been successful to prevent either any migration or invasion, given I donā€™t know any, either ancient (Ur III, the Great Wall of China, the Roman limes) or contemporary that managed to do that.

But youā€™re totally right saying that a wall is a wall, and an unmanned wall is clearly not worth anything. However, I really think that the fact China was ruled for centuries by Mongols and Mandchus, and that the Roman Empire left the Franks enter their territories to protect them is clearly an evidence those two societies erected wall to protect themselves, trying to froze on their current states and finally were enforced the changes they refused. As a French, I know that any wall, as modern as it may seem, is until proven otherwise unable to prevent any invasion.

So, to be clear: I think those long walls trying to prevent any form of invasion or migration just doesnā€™t work ā€“ which donā€™t mean in any way Iā€™m for or against migration. Thinking a society is more dynamic and vitalized by migration is not an opinion, itā€™s just a fact.

1 Like

I will settle for this. Sorry about the wall of text :stuck_out_tongue: Looking forward to your coming responses :smiley:

1 Like

But - they have gone around the world ā€¦! :wink:
Let us use the game not only to play back archaeological history. Let us have the chance to acquire talents and knowledge in the speed and order that portrays our game. The engine always sees us and can adapt the environment accordingly. In the multiplayer it would be something - well - ā€œmore surprisingā€ for our teammates. :open_mouth: But in single-play?

1 Like

On technology:

[quote=ā€œtschuschi, post:22, topic:2282, full:trueā€]But - they have gone around the world ā€¦! :wink:
Let us use the game not only to play back archaeological history. Let us have the chance to acquire talents and knowledge in the speed and order that portrays our game. The engine always sees us and can adapt the environment accordingly. In the multiplayer it would be something - well - ā€œmore surprisingā€ for our teammates. :open_mouth: But in single-play?[/quote]

Well, the issue is quite settled according to el seƱor Juan himself.
And I have to admit Iā€™m highly satisfied with such an idea :slight_smile:

(EDIT: if you ever want to like my post, instead like Juanā€™s post :wink:)

On migrations and clan/family/tribe names:

[quote=ā€œGrigor, post:19, topic:2282, full:trueā€]I agree that migration should be an important part of the game. Like you say, the Akkadians and other Semitic or even Indo-european peoples could serve as an important model, in their contacts with the Sumerians. Maybe the Sea Peoples, the Doric invasion of Greece? In older city-building games, the city is completely build on migration, since no children are born: any population increase is because more people move in from outside. That might be a overdoing it a bit, but I do believe that migrants will make up a sizeable portion of the inhabitants of our city, natural increase would be limited. Some will be of our own people, only from other sites. Others will be similar to ourselves, another branch of the tree as it were. A few will be completely foreign, in language, religion, clothing (@lotus253!) and other matters. There might be tension, or not, depending on the differences, but also the society, and the leadership (the player). If anything, imagine the richness of the market squares, the multitude of languages!

At its most basic level there should be some note in the ā€œinfo cardā€ of each tribe member, about where they were born. This already exists in Tropico, where both tourists and foreign hired educated workers may hail from all sorts of places. It has no effect on game play though. We could also connect this with ā€œclansā€ and ā€œgreater family groupsā€ or similar, by having some family tree information available, a light version of Crusader Kings. You know, to see ā€œwhich lineā€ they are a part of, a bit like the (if you would allow me to use your nationality) Spanish BorbĆ³nes are a branch of the Bourbons of Louis XIV, in turn a line of the Capets of Saint Louis (IX), in turn a line of the Robertians of Hugues Capet. The ancient Romans of higher rank would use three names, sometimes even more, to denote their own personal name, the name of the immediate family, but also the name of the extended family, the ā€œclanā€ if you will. Maybe some of our villagers, mindful of their origins, would have something similar? ā€œUgga-bugga, son of Og, of the Hoktoksā€? :wink:

Iā€™m assuming that when we start, all of the the tribe members we start with would be of the same clan, the same extended family. Iā€™m guessing then that the player would beā€¦ associated with that group? That the player, although not a person walking around in the game, would ā€œbeā€ a part of that clan? The original clan? And any other clan encountered in the game, let alone tribe or people, would be different, apart, foreign? Orā€¦ maybe the player has no clan, no loyalty but to the city, meaningā€¦ clans may come and go, even tribes, peoplesā€¦? Kind of like a ā€œruler of Parisā€ would start out with, maybe, some Celtic tribe, the Parisii, on a little island in the river, which in time become Latin speaking Gallic Romans of Lutetia, who are then conquered by the Franks and slowly become French in Paris? Both options would be funā€¦[/quote]

Thinking about it, I think that migration should be still more important than I ever thought about for the scope a neolithic tribe.
If you start e.g. with 10 citizens, then have 2 migrants, this means youā€™ve got a sudden increase of 20% of population, with added possibility for children, added competencies in whatever field theyā€™re good at, whatever idea they may bring with them regarding society, religion, any new technology they have a competency in, etc.

(A very contemporary example of such an cultural improvement in 20th century France is when Russian exiled came to Archachon, near Bordeaux, after the Russian Revolution. They saw local fishermen fishing sturgeon but just throwing away the eggs to keep only the fish meat. They said them: ā€œHmm. You Frenchmen are just crazy, throwing out the bestā€¦ā€ Then Frenchmen discovered caviar! ā€“ though we didnā€™t need them for frog legs, snails or foie gras!)

(Well, French and cookingā€¦ I stop here.)

Regarding the ā€œcadet branchesā€/clans/tribes, Iā€™ve thought a bit about it earlier, but Iā€™m not really sure how it should work, for a lot of reasons. Thatā€™s not the only game that would need a similar system, but the way to implement them is probably far more difficult than expected ā€“ not for technical reasons, as thatā€™s only a bit a code probably, but to have something not being totally moron.
If you look at this thread about CK2, this guy gave a thought about it, but clearly this would mean that there would not be any dynasty in the game after a few generations, but only cadet branches. Thatā€™s the proof itā€™s far from being that easy.

So, I think there may be a few possibilities when a new clan/tribe/family may be considered founded, more or less promising:

  • If a family is invented for any non-elder son surviving and having children, then the family or clan system in your society would be totally worthless. It would be best to have everybody called ā€œX son of Yā€, because if this was implemented if would mean there would be not interest at all to have ā€œX of clan Zā€, has each 2 or 3 members would have a different clan.

  • At a fixed date, e.g. every 100 years. It clearly would feel quite unrealistic and cheaply implemented.

  • At a fixed, scripted moment, for instance when you see a new upgrade in your social organization. It could be done e.g. when a pseudo-democratic system, with a council of fathers or an assembly is decided. Then, each family would become one of your ā€œclansā€, with a common ancestors.

  • Another way to implement a new clan would be when a character is able to any prowess. It could be when this character hunts down a peculiar wild animal, or when he perfoms peculiarly well in a battle, etc. But thatā€™s far from being easy to define by scripting (how many enemies should he kill to avoid having one clan for each hunter/warrior? And if heā€™s a very low charisma, shouldnā€™t it be crazy to have him being revered by his descendants if they have no more prestige than him?)

  • So, maybe the best and easier solution would be a creation of clans/families when thereā€™s a chief/king or whoever ruler rules the settlement. In a non monarchical government form, if each ruler being not a descendant of a former ruler come to power, he could be the founder of a clan (e.g. if Ugosh becomes the big man and heā€™s from a common family, then all his descendants would be member of the Ugosh clan). But thereā€™s a limitation: if the government form becomes a monarchy, where power is inherited, the settlement is supposed to grow, the number of expected families and clans to grow, but there wonā€™t be any new ruler from common origins. So maybe this could be opened to other ā€œtitlesā€ in this case?

  • We still donā€™t have any idea if there will be in the game any value given to individual prestige. If this is the case, this probably would be ā€“ by far ā€“ the easier way. Any character being not a member of a clan could be considered the founder of a new one reach a given amount of prestige, so that all his descendants are members of his clan?

1 Like

Last post (sorry for the double and long walls of text!), back on technology: I think one aspect has been forgotten in the discussions so far.

I thought at first that military technologies should be distinguished between:

  • pure technologies (how to create better spears, or a new type of arrow, etc.).
  • ideas (how to give warn the scattered citizens in case of any enemy raid?). This time, itā€™s far less technical than an idea thereā€™s just to produce a sound. The lone question should be "whatā€™s the most efficient between hitting a wooden stake and a blowing a whistle?)

In the case of ā€œideasā€, itā€™s enough to see them used by a neighbor tribe to know how to reproduce it. Fast learned, to make it short.
In the case of a technique, e.g. reproducing a new arrow type, it needs someone able to reverse-engineering it and use it.

But I though also that this may broadened to other topics, being not militaristic. E.g., Iā€™d be unable to knap a flint stone to have an arrow head. It seems this was so difficult to learn that children of the time needed years to learn how to perform that.
On the contrary, I suppose that polishing a stone to have an efficient axe would be far easier. Iā€™m not that much patient, so probably Iā€™d give up after a few hours, but thatā€™s far more easy to do.

So, my question would be: shouldnā€™t there a clear distinction between technologies, between ā€œtechniquesā€ and ā€œideasā€, for the sake of credibility?

1 Like

On technology:

What they seƱores have written, they have written, as it were. But as it looks right now, I should disagree with them. Though the great discoveries and inventions are truly only made a few times in history, all the other ones, the myriad of adaptations and smaller inventions, are not. Once your tribe discovers that certain rocks will melt and then become hard again, the rest of the path to making ornaments and tools is easy, and will inevitably follow, given time. The same with agriculture: once a need arises to harvest a lot of grass, a sickle will be made, out of stone if needs be. The exact design of the sickle will surely vary from region to regionā€¦ but there is no reason to believe that people will harvest grasses with either their hands or a stick, until some trader appears with a sickle. They will adapt, modifying existing tools, improving, until after several tries, something new has been ā€œinventedā€.

Not to mention that the spread of agriculture was often the spread of not of knowledge, but of means: seeds. Agriculture never did appear in any meaningful scale in Australia, simply because there was no wheat there, nor barley, rye, oats, nor potatoes, rice, millet, maize, cassava, or any cattle, sheep, pigs or the likes. Of course they didnā€™t invent agriculture, it was impossible for them!

In the same way, basic building techniques were surely mostly invented locally all over the world, even though they dealt most often with the same forces (gravity, wind, sun, rain, snow) and materials (wood, stone, thatch), wherefore basic wooden houses look similar regardless of location, be it Hokkaido, the Tatras or the Great Lakes. In fact, in many of these cases, the different possible inventions (ways of fastening the roof for example) are more or less equivalent, which makes them more ā€œcultureā€ than technology. The ways of building a wooden house in Hokkaido, the Tatras or the Great Lakes varies not really by technology, but by culture. Which can, and should, be locally based.

Unless it really is imported (like skyscrapers all over the world werenā€™t locally invented, but copied off mostly American examples). But even then, it can be improved, changed, like Romans improving vastly Etruscan and Greek methods. Most of the history of inventions, technology and discoveries is just that: improving what already exists. And that should always be possible locally. Unlikely in a short time span, but as time goes to infinity, to put it mathematically, so does probability go to 1.
Maybe I should have posted this in the technology threadā€¦ but it seems deadā€¦
(I now see that you wrote a bit about these things in your later reply :stuck_out_tongue: )

On migration:
Youā€™re right, it would be important. But remember this: we know for a fact that people back then, just like today, were more likely to trade, migrate and other things, closer to home. Travelling between one village and the next wasnā€™t a big deal, but a couple of villages away? Across the great river? Beyond the mountains? How many neolithic villagers living in Bretagne ever saw the Alps?

It took many centuries for the Germanic tribes to slowly migrate south from Scandinavia into modern day Poland, Germany, Austria and then on. There is no reason to believe any Neolithic little village would come into contact with very different peoples, traditions, religions and so forth. Even the few modern hunter-gatherers tribes that survive barely know of any other peoples other than themselves. Maybe one, ā€œthe people who live beyond where we liveā€ :stuck_out_tongue:

So a Neolithic farming community in Bretagne would probably not know of any other language other than Celtic (for reference), they would not know of any other religion than the traditional Celic/Gallic one, they would not know of any other ways of life other than their own. No single trader would travel all the way into Germanic lands, nor Iberian or Roman or any other lands. Almost all migration taking place would be local, regional at most, one clan to another, one tribe to another, differing in dialects at the most. Iā€™ve read researchers suggesting that early Scandinavian Vikings (letā€™s say c. 600 AD) could speak practically the same language as many of the Germanic peoples on the continentā€¦

I do however agree that the talk of cadet branches and the likes was a bit too much. But before citizenships kick in, making all the people of the same extended family the same ā€œclanā€, and members of the same ā€œtribeā€, and members of the same ā€œpeopleā€, might make sense. For example: our clan inhabit this village, another clan inhabits the neighbouring village. We are all the same tribe though, we have good connections to each other, and sometimes cooperate. Further away though, is a different tribe, that we rarely engage with. They speak our language, but it sounds weird. They have a few clans, each with a village. But all of those people, that tribe, and our tribe, are of course part of the same people, spread over a vast area. Far, far away, there is some other people, that speak a strange language that we donā€™t understand, and pray to strange gods that we donā€™t recognise.

So every person in the game would (very formally) be called, for example: ā€œUgga-bugga, son of Og, of the clan Hoktoks, of the tribe Arakaw, of the Maliki peopleā€. And most of the migrants to our village would be members of the Hoktoks, maybe Arakaw. But practically always Malikiā€¦

1 Like

Technologie/Migration

Knowledge gained through migration would only work differently locally. More important than migration would in this case be the presence of these special rocks.

This is similar in this case. In addition to suitable floors, you need the right climate. Then the matter comes with the seed. At least the original grain ā€œEmmerā€ would have to be present. Either brought along by a migrant or naturally occurring. (From Emmer, for example, wheat was bred) In the case of Migrant, the first attempt has to work, otherwise this ā€œknowledgeā€ is no longer worth anything.

Probably one of the key technologies will be the development of ceramics. This is connected with ā€œdifferent earth / clay,ā€ the learning of ā€œever higher temperatureā€, in this logical sequence ā€œfurnacesā€ and the production and understanding of the mode of operation of ā€œcharcoalā€. This is followed by ā€œformā€ (also cast-form) and then comes the special stones. The subsequent ā€œmetallurgyā€ has probably been a huge exchange process of knowledge over a longer period of time. While ceramics served food storage, it was more of a ā€œpeaceful technologyā€. In the case of the metals, this might very quickly have migrated into the military area. Likewise, this technology was certainly of great importance for the continuity of a culture.

1 Like

Good approach, as I think. Let us think of ā€œthe Celts.ā€ They were given the title by the Romans. In fact, they were not a ā€œtribeā€, as the Romans thought (invasion of Brenno), but the result of many thousands of years of a very similar nation in language, way of life, and religion. What they clearly distinguished was the fact that they helped each other with threats from outside. This certainly meant no general ā€œPax Kelticā€, but the tendency to exterminate each other was apparently not present. Clap was surely excessive, a question of honor.

The target group would then be these ā€¦

Their territory was probably ā€œunsafe landā€.
The problem of understanding what I do not understand could threaten me.
For migration, this will have meant a barrier for both sides, a ā€œdifferent countryā€.

Could imagine that the spread had similar reasons as those of the Vikings - fertile land for the 2nd and 3rd born of a family. Only that the Celts did not need a ship and had to attack other tribes. They simply went 10 kilometers further and found there uninhabited land, if not, then a few kilometers further. What remained was the bond to their roots.
The end of this simple spread was the contact with the language barrier described above. For the Celts, it was the Latin language, which, as we can read, marked its boundary quite loudly and clearly ā€¦:wink:

Technology:

I agree completely with you. The existence of certain resources decides practically everything. Once you have a good knowledge of metallurgy, you will know that certain ores, if treated in a very specific way, with many steps, will yield metal. But before that? When you canā€™t even imagine the concept of a metal, as opposed to just a rock? Then of course, the probability of any discovery leading to metallurgy would be 0.

However, if you happen to live in an area where there is for example native gold or native copper (meaning ā€œpureā€ and ā€œfreeā€ metals, in lumps), then you are much more probable to discover than you can melt these, and that you can shape and form them. And from this, it is much easier to learn that rocks nearby may contain more of the shiny stuff, but in a different form.

You bring up ceramics, and I think this is very important. That certain muds, left in the sun, would become quite hard, is something our ancestors, living in regions with a hot sun and such muds, learned very early, long before metallurgy or agriculture. If youā€™ve discovered that mud becomes quite solid if dried in the sun (=warmth), it wonā€™t be that difficult to discover that burning these muds in an oven, a furnace, makes them even harder, even better. Iā€™m sure different sands and other materials, mixed in the mud, will make the bricks or pots harder, or softer. This all leads to a greater understanding of how materials work, and a furnace can change them, just as you write. Imagine throwing the discoveries of the native metals I mentioned earlier, into this equation.

Also: if you throw in limestone, this common mineral, into a furnace, you get quick lime! Throw that into water, and you will see the fury of Mother Nature. Take it out of the water and let it rest, and it will turn back into stone. And just like that, youā€™ve got mortar, and soon youā€™ll be building like the Romans!

Trade and migrations mean that a single isolated discovery, not very useful in itself, can combine with other discoveries, to create wonders. I definitely agree with the importance therefore of trade and migrationā€¦ but if we happen to have all of the necessary resources in one place (not a historical location, more procedurally generated)ā€¦ I see no reason why we should not be able to discover agriculture and metallurgy in the same place, over a few generations.

1 Like

Migration/tribes:
We seem to be in aggreeance! :smiley: Your mentioning ā€œ[going] 10 kilometers further and [finding] there uninhabited land, if not, then a few kilometers furtherā€, is practically exactly how the Germanic peoples moved from Scandinavia southwards, or the Slavs much later, going west all the way into modern northern Germany, and south all the way into modern day central Greece. Or the Magyars, the Hungarians, coming from the east, crossing the Carpathians almost exactly a millennium ago.

Since Iā€™ve written so little, Iā€™ll just quote what I wrote earlier in a thread about these things:

1 Like

I see it the same way. If a coincidence occurred and one could repeat this chance, the curiosity about other accidents should be aroused. The then worries the rest to develop a ā€œlaboratoryā€

Maybe they were glad when they met a stranger in their whole life. Every day the same faces ā€¦:rolling_eyes: :slight_smile:

1 Like

ā€¦ or theyā€™re just afraid and hostile :wink: The unknown could always be a threat, and when your life always hangs in the balance, and neighbouring tribes might be starving, and might want your food, over your dead bodyā€¦ :wink:

1 Like