So how do we resolve this?

we want to have a starting Civ name e.g.:
Britons, Romans, Egyptians, Greeks

these at key points in time can either split or simply change name. A split would have to be caused by either extreme unhappiness (CTP) or capitol capture (Civ2). A name change could be activated by a tech (ancient->renaissence->modern age) or when a nation is captured

so now
Britons -> English -> British

Roman -> Italian

Aztec -> Mexican

I would argue that there really shouldn't be an "American" civ. Some sort of Native American maybe. Of course a civil war in the British, French or Spanish civs would lead to a new civ of the Americans.
Of course I'm sure there are loads of people out there who like to play the Americans in Civ and you can go ahead and do that. I just find it a bit unsatisfying to meet a civ in 2000bc which calls themselves the Americans led by Abraham Lincoln.

Possibly some notion of Enthnicity within a civ should be included (Just for the sake of flavour though, only affecting naming and unit/city style). So invaded cities would retain there ethnic origins and get absorbed into the invading civ.

quote: I too care about historical accuracy in Civ, but I have to disagree on this point, because once again, we have hit the border between simhistory and civ game. It's the same question as whether it is historically accurate for you to live for 6000 years in your long and prosperous reign. Sure, in 4000BC most of the original Civs don't sound right, but dividing the game in two is not a good idea either. If you ask me, (and why would anyone ask me, anyway ) I'd either keep the distribution of the civs as it is, or abandon the current naming of Civs altogether and give them generic names, based on geography. In fact, in the first case, if you use your imagination, you'd see that there's no need to increase the number of civilizations or worry about the history of nationalities: we have 3 civs from Africa, one from the south, one from the north west and one from the north east; we've got two middle eastern civs, 3 mediterraneans, 4 west European civs, 1 east European Civ, 1 civ from central asia, 1 from south asia and 2 from east asia, as well as 2 north Americans and one central American civ. That covers much more than the places where civilization actually sprung. (well, civ is not always played on the earth map, but the Civs it employs are real terrestrial civs. )--Besides, this also explains why unalterable unique civs is such nonsense.-- Why keep on expanding the list, or divide the game into modern/ancient versions? I remember that there was a forum with a family tree of some sort of nationalities. I don't think we need this. However, now that the website has declared a new feature in Civ games, that of nationality, we may expect exciting new things to do with national identities etc. Let's wait and see.

I wrote this under the Modern/Ancient Civs topic. I think your idea of Civs changing names is interesting. I always felt that something was wrong with the English popping out of the Zulu when you capture their capital. Maybe there could be a solution to this as well.