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]

Re: Are Aborigines a specification of "Polynesians"?

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.

[Dinner]

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.