Sioux city names vs. Iroqouis city names

[Marquis de Sodaq]

dp

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Could any of the Lakota cities/towns you name actually be considered as such?

Most are either battle sites or camp locations. So yes, they were towns, but used for only half of the year.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
ALL native tribes use(d) tobacco, how can that be an appropriate name for any particular tribe?

So how did the Petun get their name?
And didn't all the native tribes know rattlesnakes, too?

The insult of "snake" is the rightly accepted name.

We already know that you like to insult people, you don't have to show it every time.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
The Inca were not a tiahuanacan people...

The Inca were not a people, period.
(Parts of) several peoples were united under the Inca rule, and they were largely the same tribes that were united under the dynasties that went before, in largely the same area, with largely the same culture. The differences between the several dynasties in both Egypt and China are larger, yet we have no trouble recognizing them as part of the same civilization.

[Ribannah]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by eewolf


do you have some links or references for this? i love history and digging in to separate the myths and facts (not always easy or possible). i will now be searching myself for more data about the Haudenosaunee and the origins of the name Iroquois.

you seem to be quite well read on these subjects. that is only going to lead you to trouble, you know.

I know
Ignorance is abundantly present, to begin with at Firaxis.

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/indian7.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/iro/ibr/ibr.htm

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Ribannah
We already know that you like to insult people

Now, now, only you.

(we sound like a couple that just went thru a bitter divorce... )

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Ribannah

I know
Ignorance is abundantly present, to begin with at Firaxis.

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/indian7.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/iro/ibr/ibr.htm

thank you. i have been doing some digging around myself and had found one of those links. now that this subject has been injected into my brain i know i will be at the library this weekend.

i found this about salamanca: it is the only u.s. city owned by an indian tribe, the Seneca, part of the Iroquois Nations. the land has been leased. this brings into question why it should be the capital city in civ IMHO.

as far as the origins of "Iroquois", looks like there is a difference of opinions out there. as usual. it may be a little off topic here (city names) so i may let it rest here.

proposed changes in civ ptw:
change the Iroquois name to Haudenosaunee (after all, it is their own name)
remove salamanca as the capital (and use what? not sure. each tribe had villages and each had its own importance. this points to one of the glaring problems with creating a game which purports to track "civilization" with only one track. the idea of a capital city is maybe not germane to some native american cultures, eh?)

for civ iv: different and separate possible tech/cultural advancement tracks.

[Ribannah]

See my post above about Salamanca (Bucktooth).
Onondaga is the true capital. It's where the league's council meets were held, and where the sacred wampums were kept (and are kept again, those that could be recovered).

I have no objections against the name Iroquois. It's how we know them, and they frequently use the name themselves (another reason why it cannot be an insultive name).
If we were to use only the names peoples originally had for themselves, we would run into trouble cuz maybe a quarter of them would all be called 'The People' (and Haudenosaunee isn't even the original name anyway).

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq

Most are either battle sites or camp locations. So yes, they were towns, but used for only half of the year.

Battle sites and impermanent camp sites are towns? Sounds like a fairly loose definition of a town to me.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Ribannah
See my post above about Salamanca (Bucktooth).
Onondaga is the true capital. It's where the league's council meets were held, and where the sacred wampums were kept (and are kept again, those that could be recovered).

thank you again. i agree with your assessment here, salamanca (bucktooth) is hardly a good choice for the cultural center for the Iroquois. i have made the city name change for myself to Onondaga.

Originally posted by Ribannah
I have no objections against the name Iroquois. It's how we know them, and they frequently use the name themselves (another reason why it cannot be an insultive name).
If we were to use only the names peoples originally had for themselves, we would run into trouble cuz maybe a quarter of them would all be called 'The People' (and Haudenosaunee isn't even the original name anyway).

i can see this. however, using the name themselves is EVIDENCE that it is not an insult, but doesn't falsify it. i have not looked over the other evidence yet and i doubt it will be definitive. please bash me with as much evidence as you can on this.
my reason for using Haudenosaunee was from these items which i have read:
it means "People Building a Long House"
[URL=http://www.sixnations.org/]
which is supposed to represent the five original tribes of the confederacy forming a "longhouse" west-east across the land. this would indicate that the name was born when the confederacy was born (or close to it). studies by barbara mann and jerry fields (toledo university) would put this at 1142AD.
[URL=http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/DatingIC.html]
anyway, that seemed like a good enough reason to use the name for me.

[SlowwHand]

The Sioux names many times happened to fit the description of their location.

[Winterlord]

Well, as a Lakota, I am biased and wished they would have kept the Sioux. Especially since we had "Mounted Warrior" (after the 1600s) and the Iroquois did not.
I went through the process of changing the City and GL list to reflect my tastes.
Also, I just thought I'd point out that the word Sioux is also a corruption (by the French). Sioux is short for nadouéssioux, from Ottawa naadowesiwag, which IIRC means "little snakes."
Lakota just means allies.

[Ribannah]

Yes, I know.
But I've always wondered: whose allies?
And you're right, the Mounted Warrior should be the Sioux UU, the Iroquois didn't have mounted troops.
It seems that Firaxis have promised a second expansion with another set of civs, so who knows? Maybe more Amerind tribes will make their appearance after all.

[SpencerH]

It would be good if they (or we) could straighten it out.

[kring]

Originally posted by Winterlord
Well, as a Lakota, I am biased and wished they would have kept the Sioux. Especially since we had "Mounted Warrior" (after the 1600s) and the Iroquois did not.
I went through the process of changing the City and GL list to reflect my tastes.

If you haven't, would you mind either posting your changes here, or emailing them to me, please? I would be interested in the changes you made.