Re: Concosmic Conlocation (was; Re; Back!)

On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Adam Parrish wrote:

> > I wouldn't say that 'civilisation' never evolved in the Tokana universe.
> > In fact, I'm quite sure it did, in some form.  The reason I chose to
> > have the Tokana timeline diverge from ours so early (circa 12,000 BCE)
> > is so that none of the details of their recorded history would overlap
> > with ours.
>
>         Yeah.  Replace "civilization" with "civilization as we know it"
> where applicable.  I certainly didn't mean to imply that the speakers of
> Tokana were uncivilized. :)
Well, in the literal sense of the term, the Tokana *are* uncivilised,
insofar as they do not live in cities.  They also lack many of the
trappings of what we would call civilisation, such as hierarchical
social structures, large-scale food production, and (quasi-)permanent
governmental and religious institutions.

In terms of their economy, social structure, and material technology,
the Tokana probably most closely resemble a cross between the highlanders
of New Guinea and the Native American peoples of the Pacific Northwest
(which is where they live):  They subsist mostly on hunting and gathering,
but their environment is sufficiently rich in food sources that they
don't need to be nomadic, and consequently have permanent settlements.
They are also small-scale agriculturalists, who keep orchards and
vegetable gardens, but don't plant grain crops.  Unlike the New Guineans
and Northwestern Indians, however, their society is not stratified, but
egalitarian.  (Kind of utopian, I know, but hey...)  Also unlike the
New Guineans and Northwestern Indians, they have metal tools and pack
animals - both of these imported from more 'advanced' peoples to the
south.  The metal tools are mostly of the knife and needle type (no
sophisticated machinery), while the pack animals are of the camel
type (presumably some breed of llama or alpaca).

This has turned into a rather CONCULTURE-ish thread.  Apologies for
posting this on CONLANG...

Matt.