Tinto Maps #27 - 22nd of November 2024 - Oceania

[Big_birdy]

Does anyone have a good source for pre-contact vegetation in Australia? A lot of the national parks in the state of Victoria in areas marked sparse on the map above are forested which would suggest much of the land was forested before the white fellas showed up.

also here is natural vegetation according to the atlas of aboriginal Australia second edition

 

[korandder]

Looking at the vegetation map again, why is the southern edge of the Nullabor along part of the Great Australian Bight jungle? Yeah nah mate. To be fair right along the coast has more vegetation than the Nullarbor proper but you do know that 'Nullabor' is Latin for no trees.

 

[Lamartine]

I'm flummoxed that the local Australian names have had English suffixes added for no reason. The Eora people are now Eoran? That's like butchering the German to Germanish, French to be Frenchian, and English to Englishite.

 

[NPJ]

Some really good stuff here. I just have a few suggestions on New Zealand:

1. The impassible area in the North Island beneath Lake Taupō was heavily settled by Māori. The key mountains in this area - Ruapehu, Ngauruhoe and Tongariro - are all rich in mythology and were surrounded by a flat plateau where settlements existed. It seems this area should be included.

2. The western South Island should not be arctic. Yes the southern alps are cold and have snow, but central Otago is a wine growing region that gets very warm temperatures (as high as 30 degrees Celsius) in summer. The land on the West Coast is famously rainy, but no one would describe it as arctic.

3. The eastern half of Te Whanganui-a-Tara could probably go to Wairarapa, which would make more sense. The Remutaka ranges are typically the border between the two.

4. Te Whanganui-a-Tara should be a natural harbour. Wellington is famous for it and it’s the main reason the city (new zealand’s capital) was founded there.

5. Historically before European settlement the upper half of the North Island was heavily settled by Māori and it (broadly speaking) declined as you went south. The South Island was famously very sparsely settled.

 

[Lamartine]

Te Whanganui-a-Tara should be a natural harbour. Wellington is famous for it and it’s the main reason the city (new zealand’s capital) was founded there.

I was reading Frank McLynn's biography of Captain James Cook and he made the observation that it was ironic that Cook missed Te Whanganui-a-Tara on his voyages because it's one of the great natural harbours of the world. Having lived in Welly, I agree!

 

[Big_birdy]

every map I have of aboriginal Australia

Spoiler: dust storms

Spoiler: run off and ground water

Spoiler: rainfall

Spoiler: climate

Spoiler: temprature

Spoiler: vegetation

Spoiler: specialized economies

Spoiler: popualtion density

Spoiler: trade routes

Spoiler: tindale groups

Spoiler: habitability map

Spoiler: use of fishing hooks

Spoiler: use of water craft

Spoiler: distribution of bush tobacco

Spoiler: European land exploration

 

[Orinsul]

5. Historically before European settlement the upper half of the North Island was heavily settled by Māori and it (broadly speaking) declined as you went south. The South Island was famously very sparsely settled.

the bottom of the south island was heavily settled, Ruapuke may have been the largest permanent settlement in either island, half the hapu of the south wintered there and the elderly and children lived there year round, it had the whole of the foveaux strait fish stock for granary and received tribute/support from farming kaiks up as far as canterbury, the famously sparsely settled comes from misunderstanding of how southern settlements looked different from northern from climate adaption, but mostly from a deliberate choice to base population estimates on the post-measles census, not the pre-measles estimations.

 

[NPJ]

the bottom of the south island was heavily settled, Ruapuke may have been the largest permanent settlement in either island, half the hapu of the south wintered there and the elderly and children lived there year round, it had the whole of the foveaux strait fish stock for granary and received tribute/support from farming kaiks up as far as canterbury, the famously sparsely settled comes from misunderstanding of how southern settlements looked different from northern from climate adaption, but mostly from a deliberate choice to base population estimates on the post-measles census, not the pre-measles estimations.

I’d be interested in any sources you can send me on this - not saying you’re wrong, it’s just if there’s been updated research on this I’m keen to know as I’d always read that the south was less settled as it was less suited to Polynesian crops. It also explained how one iwi (Ngai Tahu) had dominated most of one island.

 

[Deleted user]

Is there any reason why Pohnpei isn't a centralized state under the Saudeleur dynasty? The dynasty controlled the state from 1100 - 1200 until 1628 which is well within the timeframe of the game (Tried adding a source but it was blocked for some reason).

 

[Vengirni]

So I've noticed that the Irarutu culture speaks Kei language, while the Kei culture speaks Timoric. What's the deal with that?

 

[Splorghley]

As I've said, it's late, but I'll add on a couple clarifications; first nations Australians had MULTIPLE villages, farms, and plantations, of crops like bananas, mostly concentrated in northern Australia around the Torres Strait. the modern state of Victoria, as I mentioned, had multiple fixed, permenant settlements around the Yarra river.

Please note that much of this evidence was actively destroyed by Colonial authorities as part of Terra Nullius narratives, but it is there; I'd highly reccomend the book Dark Emu on the topic, but for an overview, please read the article

The enduring myth of the hunter-gatherer​

from the University of Tasmania on the topic.

Dark Emu is controversial at best, and discredited at worst.

Nonetheless I more broadly agree - Australia being represented without a single political or tribal entity of any kind is clearly both a consequence of the myth of terra nullius, and a perpetuation of that myth. The fiction that Australia was uninhabited, or that the locals did not have a concept of land ownership, is false, and was used to justify some pretty atrocious things.

Australian courts have for many decades been in agreement that Australian Aboriginals had (and have) a highly elaborate system of laws, that Australia was not terra nullius prior to colonisation, and that Aboriginal societies were sufficiently organised to posses interests in land akin to ownership. Australian courts are not generally considered particularly progressive; these points are extremely well established.

It kind of seems like the only distinction between the places that do have polities in the game, and those that do not, is whether some Englishman in the 17th century called them kings or savages. Needless to say, this is not a particularly good grounds for such a distinction, especially given we now have decades of scholarship that could be drawn on instead.

It's pretty disappointing to see the cultural and linguistic borders so well represented, while at the same time seeing the people themselves, and their polities, be erased.

 

[2neutrons]

The Whakarū province in the south island could a natural harbour, as it contains both the sheltered port of nelson and the marlborough sound (both portected and being deep water) which today contians picton, which is an economically significant port

 

[Orinsul]

I’d be interested in any sources you can send me on this - not saying you’re wrong, it’s just if there’s been updated research on this I’m keen to know as I’d always read that the south was less settled as it was less suited to Polynesian crops. It also explained how one iwi (Ngai Tahu) had dominated most of one island.

One iwi didn't dominate the island, so that doesn't need to be explained, Kāi Tahu aren't one Iwi in the sense you mean and north islanders mean by Iwi, it's a nation, a union of a dozen hapu of diverse dialects, traditions and origins under one political/corporate entity. There was a war from early 1600s untilt he 1700s, it was the worst war in pre-colonial history, only Te Rauparaha's raids come close. It ended in the 1780s, and to make sure it never happened again, every hapu intermarried, a system of paramouncy and structured inter-hapu marriage was set up and they were well on to a centralised state before the measles epidemic hit and then the oncoming settlers right on it's heel. There isn't one iwi in the south, Iwi is sort of an arbitrary modern concept on the whole anyway, but Kāi Tahu/Ngāi Tahu are a corporate entity, not one tribe, even today the governance is a complicated negotiated arrangement between Waitaha, Kāti Mamoe, Kāi Tahu and dozens of smaller hapu like the Pahi. Currently they're all agreeing to wear one hat for the sake of land rights and survival but it's not one iwi. it's the southern version of the Kīngitanga it just happened precolonisation so, it's an 'Iwi' now, and everyone just politely pretends marriages in the 1790s-1820s made everyone descended from each other and ignores contradicting land claims and traditions because it's not the time yet.

Good sources are Bill Dacker, Te Mamae me te Aroha, The Pain and the Love it is THE authoritative book on south Māori history although it's mostly focused on colonisation onwards, but really, Kāi Tahu history wasn't accepted academically until less than a decade ago and there is still massive discrimination against those persectives by the establishment, there are still uni's teaching that there are no native Māori in the South Island, just urban transplants from the 60s, the first ever Kāi Tahu reo disseration was last year! that's still the climate, there aren't really books if you want to learn it you got to go out to Otakou (for the Kāi Tahu side) or Oraka (for the Waitaha side) or Arowhenua and ask to learn.
Syd Cormack's Four Generations (which is mostly a fishing memoir) has a fantastic index at the back, and always, Baettie is the greatest primary source, the hocken has most of him scanned up online. but again, it's still pretty oral/unofficial down here because there just isn't the grants or academic support. Tahi Potiki out at Portobello died, two years ago? maybe three, he recorded vast amounts as well. Also there's the missionaries, we have Watkins and Wolher's first hand accounts, and Horomia Pohio's letters if you want to go primary. But again, really if you want to learn it, you learn it in person.

Also the polnesian crops changed over time too, the first places to grow kumera were all in the south, and southland has the microclimate that lets it grow what Otago and Canterbury can't, but reall the little ice age hit the south hard, (which is why Māori migrated north from Wairau Bar to the north in the first place!) so the system of permenant settlements suppliment by season migration loops through maintain forest paths developed unique to the south which is why settlements in the south took a very different shape from northern, and also why southern Māori were so unprepared for the military innovations of Northern Māori when the war happened, both Kāi Tahu and Kāti Mamoe originate as invasions from the NI, which later intregrate in and absorb more populous but less military southern hapu.

 

[JimmyDD9000]

Very exciting to finally see the PC version of Australia. It's clear that a great deal of effort has gone into what has historically always been a very neglected corner of the Paradox world. I honestly never thought I'd ever get to see my home in such high fidelity, given how easy it is to write off Australia's early history as 'boring' or 'irrelevant'. So thank you Tinto, for giving it an honest crack.

That said, I do have some slight mixed feelings about what I'm seeing here. In the past, Australia has always only ever been represented with massive provinces and amalgamated cultures, to the point where it never really represented any true Australian reality. As such it was easy to just ignore all the problems. Like why would I care if any given province had the wrong terrain, the provinces were so big it was probably correct somewhere.

Now though, with so much more detail in the locations, it's really hard to look past the errors. In fact I kind of understand the sentiment that has led to the Balkan guys descending into the insanity that has been documented over in their Tinto Maps. It's things like heavily forested areas being labelled as sparse and entire mountain ranges being missing. I know Australia's forests are probably hotter and drier than typical, and our mountains are definitely stumpier than most, but still, they should be represented. South West Tasmania being represented by a single Hill location is mind boggling to me. Maybe they aren't high enough to meet whatever criteria Paradox needed but if you've ever tried driving through that region you would agree a single jungle hill doesn't do it justice.

Locations and provinces are the other big one. There are a couple of locations that I've noticed that the names don't seem accurate to my understanding of the area. The provinces are massive, to the point that it causes problems. For example, right now Mildura and Kangaroo Island are part of the same province. That would be like having Corsica and Geneva in the same 'South East France' province (based on distance and vibes). No one would ever divvy up the land that way. Honestly I think part of the problem is that the locations are still too large, which is ironic given how ecstatic I am that we have as many as we do. I'm going to work on a proposal for Victoria at least which will include adding more locations. Not too many but I think a couple more will really help the continent shine. I do understand why they have been limited in the first place.

People much more clever than I have said all I could say on the matter of whether any indigenous people being SoPs would be fair. I would like to note for the record that it would be very cool if they were allowed to be SoPs or something similar (likewise for similar groups in Africa etc). More locations would improve the gameplay should there one day be playable options on the continent.

Beyond the locals, I think more locations would also improve the colonisation game a good deal. It took a long time post first settlement for Europeans to spread around in great numbers, especially inland. More locations would help simulate that. It would also give more time for other European powers to get a foothold if they choose. In our timeline the Brits declared the whole thing theirs and no Europeans really bothered to seriously challenge them on it. I'm not sure how true this is but they say the French were very close to discovering Port Philip Bay, who's to say that in an alternate timeline where they do discover it and have a less chaotic state back in Europe that they don't found the settlement of Mélbourne? The Dutch knew about Australia for yonks. Never bothered doing anything about it but maybe in an alternate timeline they do? The Indonesians knew about Australia, therefore any of the countless Muslim/Asian entities who traded with them could have found out about it and sent some folk over for whatever reason. My point is that adding locations to Australia doesn't have to just be busy work for a hypothetical British player, it can also offer meaningful choices to any country with the right perspective, and a willingness to piss off the British.

Apologies, this turned into a bit of a stream of consciousness by the end there. I'm going to go work on my Victoria proposal. Hope to see others with their own suggestions.

Cheers

 

[Mister X]

Will the Nullarbor be comprised of mere wasteland passages, or are those actual locations?

Also, I see no reason to have Papua be that much of a wasteland, especially on the coasts

 

[Streamlet]

Maori location name suggestions

(North to South):

Aupouri -> Kāitaia
Aupouri is a peninsula

Waitangi -> Whangārei
Whangārei was always a more important settlement

Ahurei -> Kāwhia or Kirikiriroa
Ahurei seems to have been the name of a school or hill in Kāwhia?

Moehau -> Pārāwai
Moehau is a hill range

Tauwhare -> Tauranga
Tauwhare is outside of the location. If it's too similar to Tūranga, then you could also call it 'Mauao' or 'Te Moana-a-Toitehuatahi' after geographical features

Urewera -> Taupō
Not sure if you've given names to lakes, but if they're not allowed to share a name then you can call the lake Taupōmoana

Makeakea -> Wairoa
Makeakea is a stream

Wairarapa -> Wainui
Wairarapa is outside the location

Kahurangi -> Tākaka
Kahurangi is a national park

? (location between Whakarū and Māwhera) -> Kawatiri
I couldn't make out the name of this location, it might be fine already

Tauihu -> Waiharakeke
I think Tauihu is the name of a region rather than a settlement

 

[YashaCarry]

It's understandable. We needed to set these country categories to make a first selection based on a realistic historical approach, as we want to deliver with Project Caesar one of the best historical simulations ever. But as I usually say, we're always open to revision and changes, that's why we're doing the Tinto Talks and Tinto Maps, in the first place, to listen to the community early on.

Well thank you for being open to revisions, because I have a lot to say.

First of all, let me start off by saying I mean no ill-intent to you all. I just have gripes that ought to be addressed, beginning with playable nations

But going off of your list, we have three classifications for societies, and this will help me determine what is what.

• Settled Countries (State Societies)
  • Organized through States, which implies a public power holding:
    • Monopoly of violence
    • Tax collection
    • Public works
    • Writing/record-keeping systems
• Societies of Pops (Stateless Societies)
  • Societies lacking a State properly, but that have some complex organizational features, such as (not necessarily all, but some):
    • Chiefdomly authority
    • Permanent settlements
    • Agricultural development
    • Some kind of taxation
• Non-Tag Cultures (Bands/Kin Groups)
  • Simple societies, usually hunter-gatherers or shifting agriculturalists, don't organize around power structures, but through horizontal ones
  • Their pops won't be part of any type of tag, akin to EU4 natives

Now, I'll begin by listing every nation that I believe could content for centralization and this is a long one.

Tonga:

The Empire of Tuʻi Tonga was already deemed to be a SoP, which clears out me discussing those for requirements, but for the four criteria of being a Settled Country, it's a bit harder. Tax collection is definite, as Tonga had a system of tribute extraction from chiefdoms underneath it known as Inasi, which would occur during the harvest season at Mu'a, the capital each year, which James Cook even saw the ceremony in 1777, as they would offer various things as tribute to the emperor as offerings to the gods, which the Tu'i Tonga were recognized as such. Definite tax collection of some kind right there! As for a monopoly of violence, to be honest, this is rather hard to define, so I'll go by an easier metric in how centralized the authority of the nation was, which Tonga for sure was centralized, having warriors being able to be exerted all over core Polynesia, going as far as Kiribati thanks to the help of their Imperial Navy, which allowed for them to exert their political and economic control over Polynesia. In fact, this would go so far as for me to insinuate for Tongatapu to gain its own market separate from Ternate. Record-keeping was mostly done orally, which marks that one down which is consistent with almost all of Polynesia. Public works is the hardest for me to define, so forgive me, but from what I understand, Tonga did fulfill these conditions as they were able to build these burials grounds in one of the tomb hills where there are still two dozen langi (what they are called) in Lapaha today, and that's not counting the fale that the Tu'i Ha'atakalaua. Langi are big artificial hills surrounded by slabs of huge coral rock, and it definitely shows evidence of that. There are also other facets of government that existed, such as political advisors, organized military structure... so yeah!

From this, I conclude that Tu'i Tonga definitely qualifies to be a Settled Country in 1337.

Samoa:

Samoa is unique compared to the others as it sort of mishmashes a lot of these, yet it still was plenty developed. This shall also include Tuʻi Manu'a since both are relatively similar. As it was already deemed to be a SoP, let's see how much higher we can take it! Public works are actually easier to define for Samoa since their system of governance under the Fa'amatai had built traditional meeting houses for their matai and significant orators in society, alongside various other fale, which is just for any house, at this time, not made out of metal, and there were a lot of houses, including the large meeting houses that were used for the fa'amatai system, so yes, public works were definitely present if they are to be believed that they were buildings built by a collective group. Authority is... unique. While yes there were noble houses who ruled as kings of Samoa, there were also chiefs, or matai, who acted as some sort of local governance, which the two often conflated with one another. So tiered government proves some sort of centralization beyond the chiefly authority, even if the matai are a very important political group in Samoa and even to this day, the matai still are significant to an overwhelming 96% of Samoans in their local affairs, but even then, Samoa in 1337 was not as centralized yet, and took until the reigns of Queen Nafauna to properly centralize Samoan authority, so this one is a mixed bag. Once again, all records are kept orally. Tax collection is the hardest one for me to define in Samoa's case as after Samoa gained independence, they obviously stopped paying their Inasi to Tu'i Tonga, but I honestly have no sources for if this goes one way or another, all that I do know is that Samoa partook in trade and exerted some economic control of their own, being able to send their own ships out to export goods like cloth, even more so in the case of Tu'i Manu'a, who despite only being equivalent to American Samoa now, they still had all of the public works of Samoa, a more organized governance system more akin to Tu'i Tonga (especially due to the fact that Tu'i Tonga took a lot of influence off of Tu'i Manu'a's style of governance for things.), oral record-keeping, again, and a higher capacity to enter into economic relations with other nations in the area.

From this, I conclude that Samoa and Tu'i Manu'a qualify to be Settled Countries in 1337. (I'll talk about adding Manu'a later)

Hawaiian Aliʻi:

For this section, the Hawaiian Aliʻi consists of the Aliʻi Nui of Hawaiʻi, Maui (where it is incorrectly placed, because Lahaina is there), Hāna (who is weirdly absent, and Maui has consumed it too early), Molokaʻi, Oʻahu, and Kauaʻi (which can be spelled Tauaʻi due to the old dialect spoken before it was standardized) which I will cover together since there are no major differences in how each were governed from one another at the start of the game. Public works can be proved again, where in each of the islands they built sacred temples known as luakini where they did human and animal sacrifice, alongside other heiau, like Hale o Keawe, the most notable, constructed somewhere between 1475-1650 in North Kona as the burial site of the Aliʻi of Kona and the Aliʻi Nui of Hawaiʻi used until 1818, and it is still one of four places in Hawaiʻi where the Hawaiian flag can fly without the American flag alongside it, the other three being later constructions during the period of Victoria 3. Public works, yup! Records... oral, eugh... when will we get to a nation that has non-oral recording systems? (foreshadowing by the way). Monopoly of violence is... complicated, but if we're talking organized government structure, well this was certainly true! There were other Aliʻi underneath the Aliʻi Nui of the nation, which would rule a moku (or district), so inside Hawaiʻi, there were subservient Aliʻi for Kona, Kaʻū, Kohala, Hāmākua, Hilo, and Puna, which one of these moku was also the Aliʻi Nui of Hawaiʻi, and they would rule over the others, until it passed down to the next ruler from that moku, or another Aliʻi usurped the throne, which was quite common in this period for Hawaiʻi specifically. So yes, there was some form of proper centralized tiered government. Finally, tax. Tax is pretty easy, the commoners paid tribute and supplied labor to their Aliʻi, since no one owned the land, but the Aliʻi were sort of like the managers of the land, and they were working under these managers.

From this, I can conclude that the Hawaiian Aliʻi of Hawaiʻi, Maui, Hāna, Molokaʻi, Oʻahu, and Kauaʻi can all be considered as Settled Countries in 1337.

Rapa Nui and Mangareva:

Rapa Nui is unique in that its record keeping system was oral AND written! Oral history was kept for the commoners, but for the elite, they were literate in rongorongo, an undeciphered system of proto-writing or writing that has yet to be proven as such yet, which might be one of the few independent instances of developing writing, which were written on wooden tablets mostly in boustrophedon orientation for likely sacred purposes. Record-keeping for this little island polity can be proven in spades. As for Mangareva, they were once again oral, but I'd like for us to pay a bit of attention to their development of binary by a few centuries before Europeans did as unlike other Polynesian nations, Mangareva developed their own form of binary counting as proven in 2013, which had to have been developed sometime after Mangareva was settled, which was sometime around the 11-12th century according to carbon dating, predating the discovery in Europe by about 500 to 600 years! It definitely has some development of its own we've yet to cover. Okay, now back on track. Mangareva was considered the most important polity in the Gambier Islands and they two had their own Aliʻi, much like the Hawaiians, called the ʻAkariki which covered the same purpose in society, with the kings being the most significant of these ʻAkariki, which they came from the togoʻiti class in society, which was sort of the top caste in Mangarevan society. Centralized tiered leadership is proven! As for Rapa Nui, this was much of the same as well with their strong class system, where the ꞌAriki had great power over nine other clans and their respective chiefs, which was a hereditary system from the descendant of the first king of Rapa Nui, the nation's legendary founder, Hotu Matu'a, which does suggest the same for Rapa Nui as well. Rapa Nui and Mangareva also had the capacity to trade with a lot of nations despite their position and may or may not have had connections with some of the native peoples around the island of Chiloe in Chile. Public works can also be defined simply with... the moai, and despite their stone-toppling had occurred in the 18th century, their ability to construct these monolithic human figures in a quarry proves the evidence of public works for Rapa Nui. As for Mangareva, up to the 15th century, mass logging occurred by the islands population which led to deforestation, which despite it having consequences for the environment and economy, the island was able to support a large population off of that wood, which I'm not sure to count in favor or against, it's something. And of course, we come back to taxation and... I have no good evidence in support of either yes or no if they had any system of taxation or not! All I know is that the two were able to partake in trade with other islands, so they definitely had some economic process, but I'm unclear as to what it was, it likely was akin to the Hawaiian system, however.

From this, I can conclude that Rapa Nui and Mangareva can qualify to be Settled Countries.

Pohnpei and Kosrae:

Moving away from Polynesia, we head into Micronesia with Pohnpei and Kosrae. Pohnpei at this point beginning in the 10th century had an organized government which lasted until 1628 when an invasion from Kosrae caused the island to become into a decentralized chiefly system. Pohnpei had the massive Nan Madol complex constructed, which is pure evidence of a Public Work, no question about it. There were systems of taxation, known as uhpa (as a service) and nohpwei (first fruits, religious offerings essentially), which continued on in the more decentralized structure of Pohnpei after Kosrae decentralized the nation (albeit on a lesser scale). Tax collection is definitely there, alongside landlord classes overseeing commoners harvesting the land for them, with tributes of fruit (breadfruit during rak and yams, taro, and fermented breadfruit during isol) and fish frequent. Eventually this led to a starving populace and mass enslavement of the population, which led to assassinations against the Saudeleur dynasty, but they were still in charge. Centralized leadership was also present in Pohnpei as the Saudeleur dynasty developed a stratified title system where they gave various occupations such as advisors and guards. As for military, the Saudeleur dynasty had little concern with the military and this was a peaceful era for Pohnpei. Records were... oral.

With this, I can conclude that Pohnpei qualifies to be a Settled Country. As for Kosrae, their rulers ruled from Leluh, with a monarchy similar to that of Tonga and the rulers of the Aliʻi Nui of Hawaiʻi, with various social class divisions and an aristocracy. Centralized leadership is definitely present, alongside the public works of Leluh itself which had royal tombs, burial pyramids, and sacred spaces, generally built out of coral and basalt blocks, public works were present as well. Records were... oral as well. As for tax collection, there is no clear evidence that taxation occurred, however, I would not be surprised if they had a lighter version of the system found in Pohnpei.

From this, I can conclude that Kosrae can be a Settled Country as well.

Kaimana/Sran:

Kaimana is a unique one, as we're now in Melanesia, but this time in Papua, specifically Western Papua, covering the regencies of Fakfak and Kaimana. There was a hereditary monarchy present, with the king as ruler, the heir and the Duduvura Adat, a council both subservient to the king, alongside various advisors such as generals, religious leaders and admirals, alongside Orang Kaya, who were richer men with influence, akin to nobles. So yes, a class structure and a centralized leadership structure. They also entered into trade with Majapahit, who they gave a flag to them and gifts, and in exchange, Sran gave a daughter and bird of paradise, which would be recorded down in Negarakertagama, a Javanese eulogy to Hayam Wuruk, but it eventually turned its tribute to Tidore where it sent slaves, spices, and birds of paradise. Sran wouldn't move the capital to Kaimana until 1808, so it's best to call it Sran for now. Records were oral for the most part, even if they later adopted Papuan Malay. In the 16th century, Sran would convert to Islam, around 300 years after establishment (As Sran was established in 1309.) Public works are a bit harder to define as the old royal palace of Sran and forts around it were destroyed, but the mosque in the nation and the burial complexes still stand, proving there were Public Works. Finally tax, again, no conclusive evidence of taxation existed, but since they did have to pay tribute to Tidore later on, it likely suggests there were some understanding of it.

From this, I can conclude that Sran qualifies to be a Settled Country too!

With that, that covers the nations that I ought to think should be centralized at game start. I'll cover culture and religion, locations and provinces, and some other things later on, but I do hope you'll take this all into consideration.

- Yasha

 

[Dev2150]

after how many DLCs do you think you'll release the Terrain Test Island?

 

[Adonnus]

1. Could potentially be, depending on feedback, but right now there aren't.
2. They're mostly done, but we will be open to review, as usual.

As an Australian who has some interest in Aboriginal prehistory/society: You would have to basically meet at least one criteria from this list:

• Chiefdomly authority
• Permanent settlements
• Agricultural development
• Some kind of taxation

Now, I think technically you could argue Aboriginal societies had all four of these at varying locations. But it really depends how flexible you want to be with how you meet those criteria. In terms of a large scale settlement like pre Roman Gaul or Cahokia, as far as I'm aware there is nothing like that. The last pop category to my present understanding of Aboriginal Australia seems to apply best. Farming was there in the form of various plants like murnong and aquaculture. But it was never a large scale, mainstay of a large population centre, more a supplement. Economy was based on barter with neighbouring tribes and seashells were used for currency. As for permanent settlement, again, to my knowledge, there were only a few stone houses that have ever been located by archaeologists. If there were large scale wooden villages I haven't heard about them.

As mentioned last week, we’ve split Animism into several ‘cultural confessions’, which we want now to recombine into broader families; so, again, any suggestions are welcome!

To my understanding (a good source on all this stuff is Legendary Tales of the Australian Aborigines by David Uniapon - yes, the guy on the money) there were some commonalities between most of Australia, such as Baiame, the big dicked main god of creation myths, as well as the better known Rainbow Serpent, but each tribe also had its own deities and myths connected to stories which differed to a degree from place to place. Make of that what you will.

Picture of Baiame and his lethal weapon: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Biamie's_Cave.jpg

 

[Rule Britannia]

We're thinking of ways to be able to move raw materials around...

You kind of skipped over the important question of the British Isles Tinto Map update. I think we are quite a large number of people who would love to see that soon or at least get an update on when we can expect it