Tinto Maps #28 - 29th of November 2024 - North America

[ScienceNinja7]

Hey @ScienceNinja7 , you mentioned before that Etowah was a paramount chiefdom over two smaller polities: one upstream (with no clear historical equivalent) and the other downstream near Rome, Georgia (where Ulibahali was at the time of Spanish contact).

If you don't mind, I was wondering what info you have on that or where you read it? Ulibahali makes sense as one subject and I'd like to see or read up on where the upstream subject was located!

I got all the info about Etowah from Etowah: The Political History of a Chiefdom Capital, by Adam King (University of Alabama Press, 2003).

Chapter 4 goes through the reconstructed political history of the Etowah River valley, broken down chronologically by archaeological phase. The section on the Late Wilbanks Phase (1325–1375), on pages 91–92, states that two single-mound polities emerged at this time at the Horseshoe Bend and Plant Hammond archaeological sites, and concludes that, based on Etowah's regional prominence at that point, "it is reasonable to suggest that Late Wilbanks phase Etowah was the capital of a paramount chiefdom whose authority stretched throughout the Etowah valley from Horseshoe Bend to Plant Hammond."

The Plant Hammond site is the one near Rome (actually rather to the west, at the modern community of Coosa). The Horseshoe Bend site is the upriver one, on the Etowah River in easternmost Cherokee County. The mounds at both of these sites, as well as at Etowah itself, ceased to be used starting in the last quarter of the 14th century and mound centers didn't reappear until around the start of the 16th century, according to the section about the following phases (p. 92), so there's no guarantee of political continuity up to the 16th century.

I doubt there are any resources with more information on this Horseshoe Bend polity. Since there aren't really any significant historical places or place names from the area, I don't think there's even much justification for a separate map location for the Horseshoe Bend site, let alone a country representing a minor, basically unknown polity that existed for less than a century—it should just be "abstracted" into being part of Etowah.

On the other hand, the 16th-century Ulibahali province corresponded roughly to the area between modern Rome and the Alabama border—which the Plant Hammond site is basically right in the middle of. I think that's good justification for Ulibahali to be separate country subject to Etowah at the start date.

 

[JohnCro]

Also I made a suggestion for impassable tiles for mainland Nunavut, mostly based on already existing province border and historical border of Northwest Territory with Rupert Land

(Also sligtly adjusted Ennadai location to fit the province border
I tried to match the border:

I am sure others and devs will be far more accurate than I was with impassable tile borders
Anyway how it would be

The location of Padlei could definitely be better designed to maybe even fully connect to the corridor that leads to Baker Lake

 

[Tahami Tsunami]

I got all the info about Etowah from Etowah: The Political History of a Chiefdom Capital, by Adam King (University of Alabama Press, 2003).

Chapter 4 goes through the reconstructed political history of the Etowah River valley, broken down chronologically by archaeological phase. The section on the Late Wilbanks Phase (1325–1375), on pages 91–92, states that two single-mound polities emerged at this time at the Horseshoe Bend and Plant Hammond archaeological sites, and concludes that, based on Etowah's regional prominence at that point, "it is reasonable to suggest that Late Wilbanks phase Etowah was the capital of a paramount chiefdom whose authority stretched throughout the Etowah valley from Horseshoe Bend to Plant Hammond."

The Plant Hammond site is the one near Rome (actually rather to the west, at the modern community of Coosa). The Horseshoe Bend site is the upriver one, on the Etowah River in westernmost Cherokee County. The mounds at both of these sites, as well as at Etowah itself, ceased to be used starting in the last quarter of the 14th century and mound centers didn't reappear until around the start of the 16th century, according to the section about the following phases (p. 92), so there's no guarantee of political continuity up to the 16th century.

I doubt there are any resources with more information on this Horseshoe Bend polity. Since there aren't really any significant historical places or place names from the area, I don't think there's even much justification for a separate map location for the Horseshoe Bend site, let alone a country representing a minor, basically unknown polity that existed for less than a century—it should just be "abstracted" into being part of Etowah.

On the other hand, the 16th-century Ulibahali province corresponded roughly to the area between modern Rome and the Alabama border—which the Plant Hammond site is basically right in the middle of. I think that's good justification for Ulibahali to be separate country subject to Etowah at the start date.

Thank you very much for that information! The best I had found was the Long Swamp site so I was prepared to make it the upriver subject. Searching Horseshoe Bend site online has unfortunately only brought up the unrelated site in Alabama referred to as Tohopeka. For native places names somewhat close to that part of Cherokee county, the best I could fine are Sutallee and Kennesaw.

Edit: By the way, was there any mention of Talimachusi in that book? I'm wondering if I should show it as under Etowah in 1337 or not.

 

[ScienceNinja7]

Thank you very much for that information! The best I had found was the Long Swamp site so I was prepared to make it the upriver subject. Searching Horseshoe Bend site online has unfortunately only brought up the unrelated site in Alabama referred to as Tohopeka. For native places names somewhat close to that part of Cherokee county, the best I could fine are Sutallee and Kennesaw.

Edit: By the way, was there any mention of Talimachusi in that book? I'm wondering if I should show it as under Etowah in 1337 or not.

Yeah, I had been looking at Long Swamp before too. But the height of its occupation was in the 12th century, and it had been abandoned (or at least no longer used as a mound center) by 1337—although interestingly it was reoccupied by the 16th century. Long Swamp Creek got its name from the Cherokee equivalent, Gatigunahita, so that could be used for a location name.

(also oops I meant easternmost Cherokee County, not west!)

Unfortunately, Talimachusi is out of scope for the book, which is limited to the Etowah–upper Coosa valley. I haven't been able to find any information about Talimachusi, so I've just been treating it as part of Coosa, so that there would be a three-way political division between Ulibahali, Etowah, and Coosa corresponding to the Coosa, Etowah, and Coosawattee rivers—which to my understanding more-or-less accurately reflects the 16th-century situation.

 

[Tahami Tsunami]

Yeah, I had been looking at Long Swamp before too. But the height of its occupation was in the 12th century, and it had been abandoned (or at least no longer used as a mound center) by 1337—although interestingly it was reoccupied by the 16th century. Long Swamp Creek got its name from the Cherokee equivalent, Gatigunahita, so that could be used for a location name.

(also oops I meant easternmost Cherokee County, not west!)

Unfortunately, Talimachusi is out of scope for the book, which is limited to the Etowah–upper Coosa valley. I haven't been able to find any information about Talimachusi, so I've just been treating it as part of Coosa, so that there would be a three-way political division between Ulibahali, Etowah, and Coosa corresponding to the Coosa, Etowah, and Coosawattee rivers—which to my understanding more-or-less accurately reflects the 16th-century situation.

There's a lot of info to keep track of so no worries! Thank you again for sharing this, I'll try to get my hands on the book so I won't have to ask you for every detail!

Ironically enough, the nearest location with a native name for easternmost Cherokee County would be the name for the Long Swamp Creek site so either Gatigunahita or Neuconoheta. I'll do my best to share a map on this soon for feedback.

 

[Venboven]

A few weeks ago, after making a suggestion for more locations in Greenland (also check out this even better suggestion by @Maxipuchi !!!), I began to collaborate with @JohnCro in the comments of my thread to create a suggestion for the expansion of locations across the greater North American Arctic in EU5. John already posted his more detailed suggestions with extra locations earlier in this thread.
I figured I should post my more rudimentary but also more comprehensive suggestion covering the entire region:

(I should note that, yes, I've drawn on the 6 locations in southern Baffin Island, but they are not my suggestions. The devs have already added them to the map; they just hadn't done so yet when they released this Tinto Talks. Couldn't find an updated map, so for this reason, I've drawn them onto this older map and colored them blue instead of white.)

Location Names
Each location has both a colonial English name and a native Inuit name for dynamic naming. Town names were preferred, otherwise general regional names were used. Historic names were prioritized over modern names for both languages, and in the rare instance that translations for one of the languages was absent, they were improvised to the best of my ability, often using the names of local natural features, although most English names were already named after bays and inlets anyways.

Passageways
I utilized uninhabitable passageways/corridors (the black lines) as already exist in-game in places like Siberia as well as British Columbia on this very map to connect many of the more remote proposed locations. I have also added a few new passageways to connect already existent locations in Southwest Alaska, between the Mackenzie River and the Great Bear Lake, and throughout southern Baffin Island, similar to John's suggestions.

Historical Accuracy and Precedent
All of these locations that I am proposing have historical precedent, as they are the sites of modern Inuit villages and migratory lands. These locations have remained fairly consistently populated throughout the centuries, as they cluster around the few local environments that can support abundant seasonal hunting and fishing opportunities. For that reason, most of the passageways directly reflect caribou herd and Inuit group migration paths.

Proposed Sea Route Changes
I'm not advocating for an opening of the sea routes across the Northwest Passage, as I understand that would be an unrealistic request for this time period. But an expansion of the current sea zones up to Repulse Bay, Igloolik, and Clyde River (similar to the expansion of the sea routes up to Disko Bay in Greenland) would be necessary if these locations were to be added and accessible, as they would not be connected to the mainland via passageways. These sea routes were historically sailed and traversed by whalers and explorers during EU5's time frame, so I think this is reasonable.

Is This Suggestion Realistic for EU5's Timeframe?
Not only were all of these locations inhabited by natives, but almost all of them were also the sites of Hudson's Bay Company trading posts. Truthfully, many of these far-northern outposts were set up in the late 1800s or even the early 1900s, which is admittedly outside the game's timeframe, but frankly, so were many of the other locations across Alaska and Baffin Island, and those have already been added to the game, as have so many other locations in Siberia, Africa, and Australia that would similarly not see European colonization until the late 1800s at the earliest. But I believe for a game which allows for alternate history, the availability of more colonizable locations is not at all a bad thing, and with the previous examples, not a stretch for inclusion. On the contrary, more locations are great! They will give players a fuller map to work with, allow for more possibilities while colonizing, and simulate a more active and immersive world for a better overall game experience.

Here is a link to a theorizing post I made where I compiled several sources for an early version of my suggestion map: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-colonizable-locations.1745383/post-30384719

And here are some additional sources I've used that I thought were important:
-Maps of the Hudson's Bay Company trading posts: https://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/archives/hbca/post_maps/index.html
-Ungava locations information: https://www.makivvik.ca/our-communities/

 

[JohnCro]

A few weeks ago, after making a suggestion for more locations in Greenland, I began to collaborate with @JohnCro to create a suggestion for the expansion of locations across the greater North American Arctic in EU5. @JohnCro already posted his more detailed suggestions earlier in this thread.
I figured I should post my overall suggestion covering the entire region:
View attachment 1309303
Each location has both a colonial English name and a native Inuit name for dynamic naming.

I utilized uninhabitable passageways/corridors (the black lines) as already exist in-game in places like Siberia as well as British Columbia on this very map to connect many of the more remote proposed locations. I have also added a few new passageways to connect already existent locations in Southwest Alaska, near the Mackenzie River Delta, and in Baffin Island.

I'm not advocating for an opening of the sea routes in the Northwest Passage, as I agree that is an unrealistic request for this time period, but an expansion of the sea zones up to Repulse Bay, Igloolik, and Clyde River (similar to the expansion of the sea routes up to Disko Bay in Greenland) would be necessary if these locations were to be added, as they would not be connected to the mainland via passageways. These regions were historically sailed and traversed during the game's time frame, so I think this is reasonable.

All of these locations that I am proposing have historical precedence, as they are the sites of Inuit villages and migratory lands. The passageways also reflect either historic Inuit trade routes or caribou herd migration paths.

Not only were all of these locations inhabited by natives, but almost all of them were also the sites of Hudson's Bay Company trading posts. Truthfully, many of these far-northern outposts were set up in the late 1800s or even the early 1900s, which is outside the game's timeframe, but frankly, so were many of the other locations across Alaska and Baffin Island, and those have already been added to the game, as have so many other locations in Siberia, Africa, and Australia that would similarly not see European colonization until the late 1800s at the earliest. But I believe for a game which allows for alternate history, the availability of more colonizable locations is not at all a bad thing, and with the previous examples, not a stretch for inclusion. If anything, they will simply give players a fuller map to work with and allow for more possibilities while colonizing and a more interesting gaming experience overall.

Here is a link to a theorizing thread I did where I compiled several sources for an early version of my suggestion map: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-colonizable-locations.1745383/post-30384719

And here are some additional sources I've used that I thought were important:
-Maps of the Hudson's Bay Company trading posts: https://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/archives/hbca/post_maps/index.html
-Ungava locations information: https://www.makivvik.ca/our-communities/

This is cool and I hope it gets considered by the devs.

 

[fraughtGYRE]

For these suggestions to come at a time when HBC is about to stop existing... almost poetic.

 

[Sirbab]

Could we please get an image of the river map mode for north America?

 

[Nortrix]

Greenland?

 

[Ekyman]

Greenland?

Tinto Maps Extra #1 - North Atlantic

Hi there, map lovers! There won't be a proper Tinto Maps this week, as it's a bank holiday in Spain, and we won't be available to address and reply to the feedback properly. However, we thought it would be a good idea to show some extra maps that...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[ChiefD500]

I know that like the pueblo, the Numakiki, Hiraacá, and Sahnish had cities, farmed, and were big traders in their region. Is there a playstyle that differs from nomadic tribes that lived in the area because they were not nomadic tribes like others on the plains

 

[PrinceMarthIV]

I'm not sure if it's already been suggested, but "Western Ontario" should be "Southern Ontario"

 

[korandder]

I'm not sure if it's already been suggested, but "Western Ontario" should be "Southern Ontario"

That area is known as Western Ontario, especially historically - for example the University of Western Ontario is in London, Ontario. Southern Ontario is the region covered by the currently named Western Ontario and Eastern Ontario areas. Remember that white settlement in what was to become Ontario started along the St Lawrence River and the coasts of Lake Ontario and Lake Eire and even today about 95% of the population of Ontario lives in Southern Ontario.

I would suggest Southwestern Ontario rather Western Ontario for the name of that area.

 

[Stevo76]

Regardless on the splits of Ontario, I know the devs had asked the question over how provinces and areas should be handled (colonial borders, or geographic ones). With the community's clear preference for geographic borders, I'm really hoping we might see a follow-up for the North America maps. I'm really curious to see how things have changed with community feedback.

 

[PrinceMarthIV]

That area is known as Western Ontario, especially historically - for example the University of Western Ontario is in London, Ontario. Southern Ontario is the region covered by the currently named Western Ontario and Eastern Ontario areas. Remember that white settlement in what was to become Ontario started along the St Lawrence River and the coasts of Lake Ontario and Lake Eire and even today about 95% of the population of Ontario lives in Southern Ontario.

I would suggest Southwestern Ontario rather Western Ontario for the name of that area.

That's fair. I suppose I would describe everything south of Ottawa as "Southern Ontario," I was just surprised to learn I lived out west.

 

[Lord_McMuffin]

A Better Base Map for California
The California Native Distribution Model is the best map I've seen so far of pre-contact California. There's layers for language, language group, pop density, and mission influence/depopulation. It "models the socio-political landscape of native California at the time of first contact with the Spanish, a rolling moment from the 1770s to the 1830s." So not 1337, but it's probably the closest we'll get (also means no Lake Cahuilla). There is a wiki describing the project with a lot more information.

Caltrans has a different ArcGIS map webpage where you can compare it to earlier maps/models of pre-contact California.

Although its not stated, I'm fairly certain the pop density layer is using freedom units (sq. mile).

Edit: Sadly in trying to make this post, I realized that new users can't post links. Googling "Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model" brought up results for the wiki with more info and the interactive ArcGIS web map application. For the Caltrans map try searching "cal trans roadmap to research interactive map tool".

Spoiler: Pop Density Map

Spoiler: Language Group Map

My Recommendations

• The desert region of southeastern California should have more wastelands to represent their seasonal-use / difficulty of travel. Locations there should closely hug the Mojave/Colorado rivers. I also would like to see some oasis type locations here to bridge the gap between the California coast/mountains and the Colorado river. The oases could represent some of the major stops along the Old Spanish Trail / Mohave Trail.
  • This could also be done further south for the Southern Emigrant Trail / Various Mail Routes, but Lake Cahuilla is kind of one giant oasis. Maybe for the Sonoran Desert east of the Colorado River?
• Coastal areas should have the largest population / location density. In particular, I think the Chumash / Channel Islands / Bay Area could use some more locations to reflect this.
• California is a mess of different languages and cultures, and the endonyms don't make it any easier to spot mistakes. I caught some smaller distinct cultures/languages missing: Esselen, Luiseño / Juaneño, Tübatulabal, Timbisha. There's probably more I didn't catch.

 

[WombatOverlord]

Is the 20 million population of the Americas final? I believe more modern research like this paper from 2019 has population models have it higher, around 60 million with a breakdown of this:

Caribbean: 300k-500k
Mexico: 17.2M
Central America 4.75M-6M
Inca Territory: 20M
Amazonia: 8-20M
North America: 2.8-5.7M
Rest of the Americas: 1.2M-3.1M

Helpfully the paper also covers "The Great Dying" giving a figure of about 90% of Native Americans dying over the century after European contact, as that is another half of the importance of modeling the population of the Americas in this game.

 

[SPACEWHALE66]

I feel like St. John's in Newfoundland should have natural harbor

 

[Lord_McMuffin]

Maps for Improving the Accuracy of the South Bay (Los Angeles)
The coastline of San Pedro is missing several historically interesting features that have been lost to time that you can see in the maps below. The current map does not properly show the islands of the Wilmington Lagoon, nor the Dominguez and Bixby Sloughs (granted they are quite small).

Spoiler: Map of Unfortunately Named Sloughs

Spoiler: Map of Wilmington Lagoon & Former Coastline

No Natural Harbor
Historically the port of San Pedro was pretty terrible until it was improved with dredging and breakwaters. The inner harbor was mostly inaccessible mudflats and ships couldn't anchor close to shore in the outer harbor. It was also far from Los Angeles. These issues led to competition with other closer ports/wharves (famously the Long Wharf in Santa Monica). While currently represented as a low-quality natural harbor, it might be more accurate for the location to have no natural harbor at all. Then to represent the high potential of the area, once colonized, an event can fire where the player can pay to make it a high-quality harbor.

Quotes from the website of the Port Of Los Angeles:
"Still relatively undeveloped, the harbor did not offer deep-water access, forcing merchants to send small boats and rafts to meet cargo-carrying ships at anchor in the bay. This method was particularly cumbersome in transporting lumber which, as a result of the growing towns surrounding San Pedro, was in enormous demand. Once ashore, there was the added obstacle of expeditiously transporting the lumber to various markets in the region. Recognizing these shortcomings, one inexhaustible man was instrumental in bringing innovative changes to San Pedro Bay — changes that marked the first steps toward developing the bay into one of the great seaports of the world."

"The Los Angeles and San Pedro Railroad began service between San Pedro Bay and Los Angeles in 1869. This 21-mile stretch of track was the first railroad in Southern California and marked the beginning of a new era of development for the harbor region. As the nation recovered from the Civil War, and with business booming, Banning led the crusade to solicit Congress for the first harbor improvements. These included dredging the shallow Main Channel in 1871 to a water depth of 10 feet and constructing a breakwater between Rattlesnake Island (now Terminal Island) and Deadman's Island (formerly located near Terminal Island). In that year alone, 50,000 tons of lumber, coal and other types of cargo moved through the Port as the railroad became the dominant mode of transportation."

Quotes from an Environmental Impact Report on the same website:
"With the granting of statehood in 1848, San Francisco was quickly established as the Port of Entry for California and all imported goods destined for Los Angeles had to be transported from there. In order to maintain economic independence and viability, Los Angles had San Pedro also designated as an official Port of Entry in 1853. With ranching still the primary industry in southern California, the port at San Pedro remained underused. In addition, the combination of a rocky shoreline and a shallow harbor made accessibility challenging for ships."

"Wilmington Lagoon begins near Deadman’s Island, a sand, clay and rock Promontory some fifty feet high and less than two acres in extent, located about three-quarters of a mile nearly due east of the Government Reservation. The Lagoon is generally low land, overflowed at high tide, but largely mud-flats at low tide, extending northward and eastward distances of three to four miles from Deadman’s Island. In all there are some 1,360 acres in the Lagoon. About one mile north of Deadman’s Island there were two or three channels leading to Wilmington having from two to six feet of water at low tide, though across the present entrance, west of the island, there were generally depths of only one to three feet (Weinman and Stickel 1978 citing Out West 1907)."

Spoiler: Post-Improvement Old San Pedro Harbor

Location Proposal
My proposal is that the South Bay become its own location separate from Los Angeles (Yaanga). It would make the Palos Verdes Hills strategically important, and represent the fact that the port of San Pedro is quite far from Los Angeles. It would be bounded to the north-west by Redondo and the Old Salt Lake, to the north-east by the Dominguez Slough, and possibly further east by the Los Angeles River. These boundaries would roughly match the Rancho San Pedro Land Grant of 75,000 acres (300 km2). While this makes for a fairly small location, it would actually still be decently populated due to the large cluster of Tongva villages in the area.

More Quotes from the Environmental Impact Report (Tongva Population):
"The Gabrieliño/Tongva inhabited some 50 to 100 permanent villages in fertile lowlands along streams and rivers and in sheltered areas along the coast at the time of European contact. The larger permanent villages most likely had populations averaging 50 to 200 persons."

"McCawley (1996:56) provides Gabrieliño place names for the peninsula, including Chaawvenga, Xuuxonga, Toveemonga, Aataveanga, Kiinkenga, Toveemonga, and Haraasnga. McCawley also provides information for the village sites of Swaanga and Ahwa Anga as located along the Los Angeles River closest to its junction with the Pacific Ocean. These villages were occupied as late as the 1700s and early 1800s as evidenced by notations in the baptismal registers of Mission San Gabriel (McCawley 1996). Swaanga was documented as one of the larger, more substantial village sites (Reid 1852; McCawley citing Reid 1996)."

Spoiler: Map of Rancho San Pedro

Location Details

Names: San Pedro, Wilmington, Suangna or Chowigna (The Tongva names have a lot of alternate spellings).

RGO: Salt, to represent the exploitation of the Old Salt Lake at Redondo. Fish/Furs are also reasonable.

Harbor: No Natural Harbor, possibly with an event to make a high-quality harbor to represent the potential of the Wilmington Lagoon.

Terrain: Hills, Mediterranean, Grasslands/Sparse (IDK why coastal California has so much sparse terrain when it gets as much or more rain than similar regions in Europe like Italy and Spain).

Population: The area had a particularly large cluster of Tongva villages. Based on the earlier quote and my count of 11 named villages in the map below, that gives a population range of 550-2200.

Spoiler: Map of Tongva Villages