In Progress Now! Aztec!

I don't think there is any reason to suppose that, if the Classic cities of the southern lowlands had survived the crises of the 8th and 9th centuries, they had become any much more advanced than what the Postclassic Maya states eventually became. For all its glories, the Classic was not a period of great technological advancement.

As for how advanced the Maya were compared to other pre-Columbian peoples, the first thing to note is that they never formed a political structure to rival the Aztec empire, still less that of the Incas. The hegemonies of Tikal, Calakmul, Chichén Itzá, or Mayapan were even at their heights only small and loosely organized shadows of such true empires. Also, for all their impressive buildings and monuments, the Maya centres never developed into metropoleis that could compare with Teotihuacán or Tenochtitlán - indeed, some experts, like Webster, would deny they were true cities at all.

As regards technology - weapons, tools, architectural methods, etc - they pretty much held to the same level as other Mesoamericans.

The point where the Maya do shine is writing - I don't think anyone would deny that the Maya writing system was the most advanced in all of pre-Columbian America. Even better, they left us what amounts to a historical record of much of the Classic period (~250-909 AD), which is absolutely unique in the Americas; for those other peoples that we have written records at all, they begin much later.
 
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
So they would have first needed to unify into an empire with extensive trade and such before any true advancement was made?
My point was, they lacked the political sophistication of the Aztecs and Incas, but this doesn't mean they could not advance in other fields without achieving that.
I do know that the Mayans had astronomy and brain surgery, which I think is remarkable
I'm unfortunately not in a position to judge the Maya's achievements in astronomy and medicine to those of other ancient American peoples, but it's worth noticing that primitive brain surgery goes far back indeed - it's known from the late paleolithic of Europe.
 
I suppose you could say that, but I don't know if there's anything particularly enlightening in the metaphor. Both Greeks and Maya had plenty neighbours who also lived in citystate-style polities.

The lack not only of horses, but of any decent draught animal certainly helped hold the Mesoamericans back, yes.
 
Well spoken, TLC. It is important in for me in Aztec to represent the Maya as a once great power. They will have decent units but a terrible government and little in the way of good city improvements. Lots of ruins about the place too.

Re: Aztec/Mexica. The inhabitants of Tenochtitlan and tlatelolco would have called themselves Mexica. But they considered themselves decended from the inhabitants of a distant nortern city called Aztlan. The Spanish must have heard of this legend and mistakenly called the Mexica the aztecs. Opinion is greatly divided on the actual location of the mythic Aztlan but it was somewhere around the marshland of the northwest pacific coast.
 
The Last Conformist said:
That name is Spanish, and probably given because they're reminicent of Atlas (Greek genitive Atlantos), the titan who in Greek myth carried the heavens on his shoulders.

Quite correct. But the similarity between Atlantis and Aztlan is interesting - both mythic lost lands. I think I smell a crackpot theory in the offing!! ;)
 
I was using one that someone posted a while back but I don't think there was anything for the specialists. You might have already seen it but I'll get you the link when I get home.
 
Back
Top Bottom