So here's the question. In designing my Native American setting from 1200 AD there is one glaringly obvious problem... as these folks (in North America) did not write, and all evidence of them is archaeaological, we do not know what their names were. So, when creating a RPG you have to have names. This leaves several options, none of which are going to be 100% accurate, but some may be more palatable than others. Please vote for the solution you think would be best for a RPG. Also, any comments are most appreciated.
Quote from: ZalmoxisSo here's the question. In designing my Native American setting from 1200 AD there is one glaringly obvious problem... as these folks (in North America) did not write, and all evidence of them is archaeaological, we do not know what their names were.
Which peoples are you basing it on? Aren't there stories told about them by neighbouring peoples? Weren't there any names for them? Nothing in legends? Myths?
Quote from: AlgoleiWhich peoples are you basing it on? Aren't there stories told about them by neighbouring peoples? Weren't there any names for them? Nothing in legends? Myths?
There are stories and legends, but they are of very limited value. For example, the great mounds in Cahokia, Illinois were built by unknown people. The Illinois tribes, including the Cahokia, had no memory of who built the mounds when they were first "discovered" by Europeans. The Cahokia tribe used the mounds, but they had no idea who made them.
Right now I am trying to get some information from linguists who might be able to give me an idea, but it's all very confusing. I had no idea that Native American tribes migrated as much as they did, prior to European contact. I can pinpoint who was where in the 16th century, but for most of North America, 1200 AD is a mystery. We know there were people all over the place, but we don't know who most of them were.
Quote from: Harry JoyEstablish a language first, then create appropriate names. I would have gone for option #2, but "fanciful" didn't sit right with me.
By fanciful, I just meant "made up."
Quote from: ZalmoxisSo, when creating a RPG you have to have names. This leaves several options, none of which are going to be 100% accurate, but some may be more palatable than others. Please vote for the solution you think would be best for a RPG. Also, any comments are most appreciated.
I voted for "fanciful" names. Since you are largely guessing who these people were and what they were like, it makes sense to me to not tie them to any later "historical" groups. And using the archeological names seems too clinical to me.
Most human groups call themselves some variation of the "people", and the names of subgroups within and other outside groups can be based on names with geographic or spiritual significance, e.g. the "Bear People", the "River People", etc.
TGA
You could always use the stereotypical translated-to-english movie names like Sitting Bull, Dances with Wolves, Runs with Scissors... that sort of thing.
I think you've got a certain amount of creative license on this one. I know you'll probably base it on what data you have to the extent possible, but it's probably more important to use names to reinforce whatever themes you need to with the groups you describe. Making it work artistically is more important than striving for some impossible level of accuracy.
By the way everyone, I have begun to keep a blog on the development of this setting, if you all would like to check it out.
Quote from: ZalmoxisBy the way everyone, I have begun to keep a blog on the development of this setting, if you all would like to check it out.
I'd love to check it out. I'd just use some of the words you've already used to describe the time-period. "Land of Mystery", or "Mysteries of the New World", or "The Forgotten People". I tend to think like documentarians apparently when it comes to names for settings :)
I voted for the names of the people that were there later, but then I read down to The Good Assyrian's post and that actually sounds better. :)
Quote from: GunhildaI voted for the names of the people that were there later, but then I read down to The Good Assyrian's post and that actually sounds better. :)
Based on what I have gotten so far, I think I can work around it. The names will be fanciful but loosely based on real names, thus (hopefully) sounding authentic.
I've been interested in world-wide language groups for a while, and I just found this site: http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/languagefamilies.html
Check out the Amerind Family (North America) map, it's kinda cool.
QuoteAlthough many linguists do not accept the idea that all North and South American Indian languages (other than the Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut) can be classified into one family, it is often accepted for convenience sake. Amerind includes nearly 600 languages, with more than 20 million speakers. In North America, some of the best known names are Ojibwa and Cree, Dakota (or Sioux), Cherokee and Iroquois, Hopi and Nahuatl (or Aztec), and the Mayan languages.
I've got a book around here somewhere (can't find it, don't remember the author's name) about the theory of language groups being traceable back beyond the 6000 year limit most language experts accept. The author claimed it was "fairly obvious" (my words, not his) that North and South American Indian languages were related, but that specialists in the individual languages refused to investigate because they were sure it wasn't true.
Hmm, wish I could find the book so I could google the author for more info.
Hey I don't know if your looking for reference or not, but I have actually done some excavation at a site from this period, and the prof who ran the project suggested this book on the topic:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0500285322/sr=8-1/qid=1150295429/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9756779-9642416?%5Fencoding=UTF8
it is a bit technical, but if you read a basic archaeology text first (even a short one) you can glean a huge amount of data from this book about lifestyle, pottery, textiles, technology and food gathering techniques, and trade routes.
I recently did a research project on lithic tool procurement, production and dispersal patterns, so i have some knowledge about that stuff and I might be able to help you with other stuff too- although I'm still two semester away from my Archaeology BA, so I'm hardly an expert. Feel free to PM me though I may be able to provide some sort of minimal assistance- although I may need to look up answers, myself.
Quote from: AlgoleiI've been interested in world-wide language groups for a while, and I just found this site: http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/languagefamilies.html
Check out the Amerind Family (North America) map, it's kinda cool.
I've got a book around here somewhere (can't find it, don't remember the author's name) about the theory of language groups being traceable back beyond the 6000 year limit most language experts accept. The author claimed it was "fairly obvious" (my words, not his) that North and South American Indian languages were related, but that specialists in the individual languages refused to investigate because they were sure it wasn't true.
Hmm, wish I could find the book so I could google the author for more info.
Thanks for that link, but I don't think I'm going to go with language groups as a base. Rather, I am leaning towards using "culture areas", pinpointing groups based on location and cultural similarity.
Quote from: AosHey I don't know if your looking for reference or not, but I have actually done some excavation at a site from this period, and the prof who ran the project suggested this book on the topic:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0500285322/sr=8-1/qid=1150295429/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9756779-9642416?%5Fencoding=UTF8
it is a bit technical, but if you read a basic archaeology text first (even a short one) you can glean a huge amount of data from this book about lifestyle, pottery, textiles, technology and food gathering techniques, and trade routes.
I recently did a research project on lithic tool procurement, production and dispersal patterns, so i have some knowledge about that stuff and I might be able to help you with other stuff too- although I'm still two semester away from my Archaeology BA, so I'm hardly an expert. Feel free to PM me though I may be able to provide some sort of minimal assistance- although I may need to look up answers, myself.
That book is massive and is something I will probably get. Hopefuly it will be able to flesh out some of the areas of the map that are not well-represented online. Like I said in the previous post, I plan on using the commonly-used "culture areas" as the basic definitive bedrock to base my descriptions. Not only do I think it will be more accurate, but it doesn't carry the baggage associated with strict linguistics or educated guesswork based on tribal placement in 1200. Thanks for offering to help, as I am sure I will probably need it.:)
Quote from: AlgoleiHmm, wish I could find the book so I could google the author for more info.
It was by Merritt Ruhlen, I remember that much.
Here's the exact book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471159638/ref=pd_sim_b_4/002-8313599-2960861?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
But my point was, Ruhlen discusses the idea that peoples could be tracked backward through prehistoric movement by examining the change in language and human genes. The last chapter specifically looks at one North American tribe and where it seems to have originated and how it moved. (See also Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza's
The History and Geography of Human Genes.)
Ruhlen's book copyrighted 1994. Perhaps someone has done more research of this type since Ruhlen wrote it.
Quote from: ZalmoxisThanks for that link, but I don't think I'm going to go with language groups as a base. Rather, I am leaning towards using "culture areas", pinpointing groups based on location and cultural similarity.
:heh: You posted while I was still typing up my post. Took me over an hour 'cause the TV was on. Funney.
All of the above....
IE: Whatever sounds coolest.
Just make sure it is pronounable and doesn't sound like a bad pun.
Quote from: BagpussAll of the above....
IE: Whatever sounds coolest.
Just make sure it is pronounable and doesn't sound like a bad pun.
Dagnabbit! There goes my contribution! :O
-clash
I'm all for someone doing research on a language/nation to give their setting the veneer of reality, but I'm in the "make it up" camp.
Just make sure you haven't named anyone "Deepthroat McEarfuck" and play the rest by ear.
Quote from: ZalmoxisBased on what I have gotten so far, I think I can work around it. The names will be fanciful but loosely based on real names, thus (hopefully) sounding authentic.
That sounds good to me. I set a game in an alternate history New World in 1392, and I used "modern" Algonquian and Iroquoian names. In a pre-literate society, it's pretty silly to get worked up over exact spellings and such. Pick a native language family as your base for your people, and use names from that.
Your language pick doesn't have to be a geographically local tribe like the Cahokia -- just decide which branch of the language tree that they're closest to and pick from there.
My take is that the basic purpose of attending to names in historical RPGs is twofold: you want to establish atmosphere, and you want to maintain consistency.
Bearing that in mind, my solution would be to make an extensive list of the earliest names on record and keep it on hand. I like the music of strange names – 'In the vale of Tawasentha' and all that.
I do also like the idea of everything being a translation. It gives a cool mythic feel when everyone is called 'Mist-on-the-Water' or 'Wounded Bull'. It's easier to be consistent, but maybe you lose a bit of the linguistic music.
I'm leaning toward using the actual names, translated into English. It will mean more to your players, anyway, and it will be easier to establish an atmosphere.
I mean, if you tell me the guy over there in jet black armor is named "Zxjnuy moaBLuzk," I'm probably not going to attach any emotional or cognitive value to it. However, if you tell me his name means (or is) "Vladimir, Drinker of Heartsblood," I may have more of an "aha" moment.
Way back when a fellow contributor to A&E was designing a Mythic Greece RPG. He'd been doing some research, and had learned what the Greek Gods were really called by their worshippers. He wanted to use the real names instead of the Anglified ones we use today.
Until, that is, another contributer pointed out that the players wouldn't know what he was talking about, and would use the names they knew. Besides which, it wouldn't make any damn difference in the game anyway.
Now if you're designing an alien world...
Quote from: willpaxI think you've got a certain amount of creative license on this one. I know you'll probably base it on what data you have to the extent possible, but it's probably more important to use names to reinforce whatever themes you need to with the groups you describe. Making it work artistically is more important than striving for some impossible level of accuracy.
Absolutely. Given that we are still discovering the most basic of information about pre-1600AD. For example until just months ago that it was widely assumed that the NNA of the northern plains were living solely hand-to-mouth with no organization above nomatic extended family groups of about 20 people until europeans came. But new evidence has come to light that strongly suggests they had a much wider political and trading system in place, likely due to the pressure from the more organized tribes to the south and east.
Basically you are talking about trying to go up to and beyond what Phd specialists in related fields are willing to commit to as fact.
Please check out the "Realism™ sucks" thread around here somewhere. It seems highly relavent as I assume you don't want players to require a translator at their table?