The Mesoamerican Thread

[Bonyduck Campersang]

 

[Arcaian]

And Toltecs have their kind of historography, and still conviced is a kind of racismus desconsider the Aztecs sources of history just because they have any kind of intentionality when tell the Toltecs history, still have archeological prooves of Toltec society (at least I was in Tullan and saw with my eyes what was a capital of the biggest empire of Mesoamerica before the Spaniards).

I really don't think it's a kind of racism - I think these objections would hold true to trying to create a civilization based on the Greek mythology of Troy, for a more European example. We know that there really was a city in that location, but presuming that everything written in Greek legend to be true and building a civ led by Hector with abilities focused around defending your cities and searching for diplomatic solutions to conflict would be strange and pretty blatantly unhistorical. When you discuss archaeological evidence, we both don't have enough to recreate the basics of a civ, and it seems you're conflating multiple places - Tula, which was called Tullan, was a big city, but not as big as Teotihuacan, which was also called Tullan and was the capital of the larger and older state in the area (Tula is estimated to have peaked at less than half the population of Teotihuacan). To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence (outside of Aztec mythology) of the Toltec empire being comparable in size to larger states before and after their existence.

I think it would be racist (albeit fairly standard practice for the field) to dismiss evidence purely because it came from the oral history of indigenous people, with oral history having an (imo) undeserved reputation of being inaccurate. But that's not what is happening - we have evidence against the mythology of the Aztecs on this topic, and the Aztec mythology on this point is clearly and consistently exagurating the details of the Toltec empire for political reasons that we understand. We do not base civilizations off of this level of evidence for any other region of the world, and we shouldn't do so here either.

 

[Evie]

I'm also not disbelieving the older Aztec claims because they're the Aztecs. I'm skeptical of what they say about the Toltecs - because I believe what they say about themselves :

1. The Aztec themselves admit (claim proudly, in fact), in their own sources that the founder of their empire ordered the destruction of pre-existing codex because he did not want people to know what they said (lit "It was not wise that people shoudl know the paintings". Which, okay, but if we believe them about that, we have to accept that they deliberately erased their own history because they didn't want people to know it, which kind of makes anything they tell us about anything that happened before them, well, suspect. If we had surviving codex from before the burning, that would be different, but we most certainly do not.

2. The Aztec themselves claim that by the time they came to central Mexico, the Toltec were essentially gone. Which, okay, we believe them about this. But if that's true, then that means they were not firsthand witness to anything involving the Toltec ; what they are reporting to us is not what other Aztec saw and passed along in a well established chain of oral transmission. It's Aztec reinterpretation of what other people, speaking different languages, had seen, and remembered in their own tradition. Oral history can have value ; but oral history transmitted across multiple language barriers loses a lot of it.

In essence, to take for granted Aztec claims about the Toltecs, we'd have to ignore what the Aztec tell us about themselves. If we believe what the Aztec tell us about themselves, then we have to treat them as a weak source on the Toltecs.

Given what archaeology tells us, believing the Aztecs about themselves and being skeptical of what they say about the Toltecs appears by far the smarter approach.

 

[Henri Christophe]

it seems you're conflating multiple places - Tula, which was called Tullan, was a big city, but not as big as Teotihuacan, which was also called Tullan and was the capital of the larger and older state in the area (Tula is estimated to have peaked at less than half the population of Teotihuacan).

If Teotihuacan was greater then Tula, I don't see no problem and it should be also a civ, despite I guess we don't know the language of Teotihuacan, making unfeasible to this game, but, in the other hand, we do know the language of Toltecs (Nahualt) and for that reaseon I still believing Toltecs are super feasible.

Aztec claims about the Toltecs

We should be very happy to have Aztecs claims about Toltecs, because otherwise it should be just an archeological civilization as Olmecs who we don't know almost nothing.

...
This semester in the University I'm making the discipline of America I, my teatcher speaks Nahualt and I bring this question of Toltecs to her, the first thing she said the Toltecs are archeological civilization, I mean, we aren't able to find historical sources about they of it's time, we do just have the chronist of XVI century who are written about a remote past.

But she recomended a book of the history of Tepaneca, who is the society between Mexicas and Toltecs (she said Tepaneca are already Aztecs, but isn't Mexicas... who make me very confuse).


I will take a while to read it, but I will back with better argues.

 

[Evie]

I mean, yes, Henri. That's just it. The Toltecs (as in, the people of Tula/Tollan) are for all practical purposes an archaeological civilization. Much like the Olmec.

And that's okay. We do not know everything about world history. We will never know everything about world history. Being able to recognize what we do not know is not some kind of scholarly fault.

 

[Patine]

We should be very happy to have Aztecs claims about Toltecs, because otherwise it should be just an archeological civilization as Olmecs who we don't know almost nothing.

That would be like making a Minoam civilization based on Plato's tale of Atlantis and Myth of Minos, Daedalus, Ikarus, Theseus, Medea, and the Minotaur.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

That would be like making a Minoam civilization based on Plato's tale of Atlantis and Myth of Minos, Daedalus, Ikarus, Theseus, Medea, and the Minotaur.

Question: Who are the "Minoam"? (Joking with your mistype)

 

[Evie]

Minoans.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Minoans.

(I knew that, was just joking around :3)

 

[Evie]

I could swear that "joking with..." part wasn't there when I responded, but now it doesn't say you edited anything. That's weird.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Wait, we know very little about the Olmec? But they're all over popular media and stuff! I mean, aren't they in Civ6 as a city state?
How interesting...

 

[Evie]

All we know about them is what archaeology can tell us about their cities. Which makes them very interesting for popular culture, because their archaeological remains are striking, but, in the absence of any written records, leave us to have theories but no solid knowledge of what they were actually like, no knowledge of whatever their language might have sounded like, or which later people they may be related to (if any).

We're pretty sure they weren't underground-dwelling technologically advanced mutated survivors of the nuclear destruction of Atlantis, though. I think I can confidently say that much.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Wait, we know very little about the Olmec? But they're all over popular media and stuff! I mean, aren't they in Civ6 as a city state?
How interesting...

But appearing as a city-state means that they don't need to have a leader with a spoken language, and multiple cities etc.

Archaeological civilizations are the perfect city-state material for those reasons. Speaking of the Minoans, Knossos should be a city-state in Civ 7, and leave Greece's city list.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

We can also try to 'backdate' a number of things from later Mayan and other Meso-American groups, because many of the cultural/technological artifacts seem to have started with the Olmec: the ball games, the temple-pyramids, jade and gold decorative objects.

But, as said, the whopping gap is language: there are less than 100 Olmec 'glyphs' in all the examples found, which is simply not enough to decipher anything, so we only have guesses as to what later languages theirs might be related to, no Leader names, not even a single city name for them: all the Olmec sites you see listed are modern names, not contemporary.

As a perfect example, the famous 'Olmec (giant) Heads' are probably their most iconic graphic motif, but we have absolutely no idea why they made them or what they mean or what they are supposed to represent: Gods, Leaders, Very Important People, Symbols only, or advertising for a new barber shop chain.

 

[Patine]

We can also try to 'backdate' a number of things from later Mayan and other Meso-American groups, because many of the cultural/technological artifacts seem to have started with the Olmec: the ball games, the temple-pyramids, jade and gold decorative objects.

But, as said, the whopping gap is language: there are less than 100 Olmec 'glyphs' in all the examples found, which is simply not enough to decipher anything, so we only have guesses as to what later languages theirs might be related to, no Leader names, not even a single city name for them: all the Olmec sites you see listed are modern names, not contemporary.

As a perfect example, the famous 'Olmec (giant) Heads' are probably their most iconic graphic motif, but we have absolutely no idea why they made them or what they mean or what they are supposed to represent: Gods, Leaders, Very Important People, Symbols only, or advertising for a new barber shop chain.

Indeed, they're pretty much in the same boat as the Harrappians and Nazca, in that way.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Speaking of the Minoans, Knossos should be a city-state in Civ 7, and leave Greece's city list.

There is a Mod that makes Knossos a City State in Civ VI. I believe its 'Suzerain bonus' is to give you a warship. That's not completely put of line, but given Herodotus' description of Minoan Crete as a 'Thalassocracy' ("Sea Empire") something related to seaborne Trade or a more continuing Naval bonus might be more appropriate, like giving you a second ship everytime you build a warship in one Harbor . . .

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Indeed, they're pretty much in the same boat as the Harrappians and Nazca, in that way.

It's a sad fact that new technologies like DNA analysis from smaller and smaller samples and LIDAR surveys are uncovering more and more about really ancient and unexpected civilizations and groups, but so far not enough to actually make them into viable In-Game Civilizations in any Civ game.

 

[Patine]

There is a Mod that makes Knossos a City State in Civ VI. I believe its 'Suzerain bonus' is to give you a warship. That's not completely put of line, but given Herodotus' description of Minoan Crete as a 'Thalassocracy' ("Sea Empire") something related to seaborne Trade or a more continuing Naval bonus might be more appropriate, like giving you a second ship everytime you build a warship in one Harbor . . .

Or grandiose architecture.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Or grandiose architecture.

Trouble is, as the site report I did for Dr. Matson too many years ago pointed out, the 'Minoan Palace' is very similar to earlier palaces built in Mari and Beyce Sultan in southwestern Anatolia and northern Syria: similar ground plan of storage rooms, upper levels with open 'audience' chambers and throne rooms, so I'm not so sure we can call trhe palace at Knossos 'distinct' to Minoan Civilization. Also, much of the iconic look of the palace is more the result of Arthur Evans' modern reconstruction than the original design - for which Evans has been roundly condemned by later archeologists . . .

That doesn't make grandiose architecture a non-starter for Knossos (Suzerain Bonus: Major Discount to building a Wonder?), just not, IMHO, as good as the fact that Minos and his ilk built the first sea-based economy/political power known to history, predating the Phoenicians by almost 1000 years.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Trouble is, as the site report I did for Dr. Matson too many years ago pointed out, the 'Minoan Palace' is very similar to earlier palaces built in Mari and Beyce Sultan in southwestern Anatolia and northern Syria: similar ground plan of storage rooms, upper levels with open 'audience' chambers and throne rooms, so I'm not so sure we can call trhe palace at Knossos 'distinct' to Minoan Civilization. Also, much of the iconic look of the palace is more the result of Arthur Evans' modern reconstruction than the original design - for which Evans has been roundly condemned by later archeologists . . .

It's about as distinct as a monastery improvement is for Armagh.
I think using the term "Labyrinth Palace", or just call it "Labyrinth", would give it a Minoan feel, based off of the popular mythological story. Not to mention that they were very large and complex structures.