Hmm. This pattern is not as clear as it might be. Examples violating this rule follow:
Pamaltelan savannah, in which the tendency is to drop civilization in favor of the nomad way.
Orlanthi barbarians, who periodically spew forth high civilizations. Once these fall, they remain barbarians for centuries before another arises, rather than immediately replacing it with another high civilization. Unlike the Pamaltelans, they don't seem to have an inner urge to destroy their civilizations themselves.
Gloranthan history in general, in which the most advanced and sophisticated societies are almost all past phenomena. Compare the Empire of Nysalor to the modern-day Lunars -- Nysalor's empire was at least as advanced. And the second-age empires were unanimously far more cultured than those in the late third-age.
Glorantha myth -- most folk agree that things were better in the good old days, from the Praxians to the dwarfs to the East Islanders.
Even the most seemingly obvious cases of cultural evolution may not be so. For instance, one standard example is always the civilizing and advancement of Hsunchen to "real men".
Is it not likely that Hsunchen have diminished, not because they've evolved away from the old ways, but because they've been cut back? Or because they've outright joined another culture. A Tiger Man leaving his clan to become a true Kralori is not an examplar of cultural evolution, but rather demonstrates cultural competition and replacement. Just a thought.
Anyway, I think that just as modern Earth Western philosophers see culture as a progression, most modern Gloranthan philosophers see time as cyclic or static.
Sandy P
Powered by hypermail