The Mesoamerican Thread

[Evie]

Because the joke is that if we're going to have a pointless circular debate about mythological civilization representation in a Mesoamerican threaed, it should be our usual Mesoamerican pointless circular debate about mythological civilization representation, which is the Toltecs.

There's nothing stupid, pointless, circular or mythological about Teotihuacan or Purépecha ; they're both good, feasible ideas. And well :

So, my Mesoamerican selection for Civ VII:

Three civilizations: Mayans, Aztecs, Purepecha*
City States: Mitla*, Teotihuacan*, La Venta, Tlaxcala

*These three will take turns over future games alternating between City States and the Third Civ. When Zapotec (Mitla) or Teotihuacan are a civ, Tzintzuntzan (Purepecha) should take their place as a City State. If we ever get enough understanding of Olmec language and rulers, they (and La Venta) can join this rotation. Not Tlaxcala, though.

I have a LONG history of supporting both, and I'm pretty sure I was one of the if not the earliest supporter(s) for including the Purépecha.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Toltecs? Why not talk about the Purépecha?

For one thing they can have Eréndira as leader

Funny thing, Eréndira is almost sure to be a nationalist make up by Eduardo Ruíz at late 19th century and popularized by Lázaro Cárdenas at early 20th century.

 

[Patine]

My point was that calling it a labyrinth at all would be ahistorical given that this label for the archaeological site is based off of Arthur Evans’ mistakes.

(As an aside, calling out posts by number is pretty unhelpful. I think just saying who said what or quoting directly is a better reference)

Do you have a historically accurate term on tap? And Arthur Evans was mostly criticized, specifically, for his exaggerated imagined recreations of the structures, not the use of the word.

 

[pokiehl]

Do you have a historically accurate term on tap?

It’s most commonly considered to be a palace, so I don’t think it’s interesting or unique enough at all to be a UI or anything, as Boris said.

And Arthur Evans was mostly criticized, specifically, for his exaggerated imagined recreations of the structures, not the use of the word.

you’re being incredibly pedantic here. He imagined the structure as the labyrinth, which was wrong and part of his wider misinterpretation of the site..

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It’s most commonly considered to be a palace, so I don’t think it’s interesting or unique enough at all to be a UI or anything, as Boris said.

you’re being incredibly pedantic here. He imagined the structure as the labyrinth, which was wrong and part of his wider misinterpretation of the site

More importantly, Evans and his contemporaries thought 'labyrinth' could be translated as "House of the Double Axe" using the Lydian/Ionic Greek word Labrys , which translates as "Double-bladed Axe". (And before you ask, the double-bladed axe isn't a Minoan symbol - it has been found in other cities in the Near East, dated to before the Minoan 'palace period' on Crete) Since then, we've managed to translate Linear B and discovered that 'labyrinth' isn't a Greek word at all, but something much older. I gave the latest assumptions in my earlier post, but to be accurate, until someone translates Linear A it's mostly speculation.

And among the Greeks, Romans, and post-classical scholars, 'labyrinth' never meant Palace: as far back as the 5th century BCE it was depicted as a Maze, and much later is considered to be one of the inspirations for the 'hedge mazes' that became popular in late-Renaissance European formal gardens.

And finally, it is peculiarly Minoan and Off Topic, in that no one in Mesoamerica, as far as I am aware, ever built any.

 

[Patine]

It’s most commonly considered to be a palace, so I don’t think it’s interesting or unique enough at all to be a UI or anything, as Boris said.

you’re being incredibly pedantic here. He imagined the structure as the labyrinth, which was wrong and part of his wider misinterpretation of the site..

A palace is a very generic term for the residencr of a royal ruler, and thus could not be used as such. And I am not being pedantic - you are.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Toltecs? Why not talk about the Purépecha?

For one thing they can have Eréndira as leader

I'm not against any other civ to become more one in Mesoamerica, Purépecha or Teotihuacano are fine if we have all requists needed in order to do this Civ, as a leader, a know language and etc...

What I think is very wrong is discard the Toltec influence just because it was important to be an Aztec.
If I'm understanding well, the Tlatoani should have two heritages, Toltecs and Chichimecs, in order to be more royal as possible.

So, kind of the Aztecs are the continuation of the Toltecs, but they are distinct enouth to be two separete civs.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

What I think is very wrong is discard the Toltec influence just because it was important to be an Aztec.

I am not an expert on the region, but what i've gathered from the others in this thread is that we're discounting the Toltecs for the same reason we discount the Minoans or the Harappans: we just don't know enough about them.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I am not an expert on the region, but what i've gathered from the others in this thread is that we're discounting the Toltecs for the same reason we discount the Minoans or the Harappans: we just don't know enough about them.

But it isn't right, we do have chronist of XVI century who used aztecs sources in order to write down the Toltec history, the Toltecs aren't so ancient as Minoans and Harappans...
The problem is, some users of the site think this kind of sources aren't realible... And I think it's more then enouth to draw a civ.

 

[Patine]

I am not an expert on the region, but what i've gathered from the others in this thread is that we're discounting the Toltecs for the same reason we discount the Minoans or the Harappans: we just don't know enough about them.

And, everything we, "supposedly know," about the Toltecs (as Henri harps on) is in fact due unreliable mythologization obviously created in that form for early Nationalistc spin (like English Nationalist going on about King Arthur or the British Israel Movement, or American Nationalists pushing the myth that the Clovis Cultural Horizon were racially European and were supposedly wiped out by, "newcoming," ancestors of Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere) to forge a credence and legacy in the Valley of Mexico, where they had only recently arrived from the desert to the north, at the time, that they did not actually have. It is not, as Henri claims, just because, "the Toltecs were important to the Aztecs."

 

[Henri Christophe]

is in fact due unreliable mythologization obviously created in that form for early Nationalistc spin (like English Nationalist going on about King Arthur

That's is the point I think is kind of racismus, just because the Mesoamerican historians believe in a mythologized history is not enouth to we discard it.

And believe in existence of Toltecs was, at least, in academy for while, because my edition of Popol Vuh have a note about who are the Yanqui (white and civilized tribe of north) and the note said it was the Toltecs.

 

[pokiehl]

But it isn't right, we do have chronist of XVI century who used aztecs sources in order to write down the Toltec history, the Toltecs aren't so ancient as Minoans and Harappans...
The problem is, some users of the site think this kind of sources aren't realible... And I think it's more then enouth to draw a civ.

It’s not an unreasonable choice to want the Toltecs. There are a lot of other requested civs with far less in the historical record.

 

[Patine]

That's is the point I think is kind of racismus, just because the Mesoamerican historians believe in a mythologized history is not enouth to we discard it.

And believe in existence of Toltecs was, at least, in academy for while, because my edition of Popol Vuh have a note about who are the Yanqui (white and civilized tribe of north) and the note said it was the Toltecs.

It's not racist! That accusation is ridiculous and insulting. I insist on a retraction and apology. You have overused, and misused, the racist label on these forums. Where have I advocated similar for a different race?

 

[Evie]

If you haven't noticed, we just had a whole discussion on how we cannot include the Minoans (except as a city state) for the exact same reasons we cannot include the Toltecs (again, except as a city state): because the Greeks who wrote about them did so centuries later and they were reporting their own legends about the Minoans, not actual Minoan history. Which is exactly the same problem as with the Aztecs and Toltecs. Are we racist toward the Greeks, now?

We're treating *everyone's* mythology with warranted suspicion : as something that can be used to fill in some details for a civ, but not as somethign that justifies the inclusion of a civ. The Toltecs are not getting specially mistreated here.

Meanwhile, we're suggesting actual, well documented Mesoamerican civilizations that you keep dismissing in favor of your beloved Toltecs because you have a weird obsession with including mythological civilizations the world over.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I'm not against any other civ to become more one in Mesoamerica, Purépecha or Teotihuacano are fine if we have all requists needed in order to do this Civ, as a leader, a know language and etc...

What I think is very wrong is discard the Toltec influence just because it was important to be an Aztec.
If I'm understanding well, the Tlatoani should have two heritages, Toltecs and Chichimecs, in order to be more royal as possible.

So, kind of the Aztecs are the continuation of the Toltecs, but they are distinct enouth to be two separete civs.

Henri dont you are of the idea that there are too many redundant European civs like Rome+Byzantium?
Because in some way Toltec is also a redundant civ.

The name of Toltecs come from Tula-Xicotitlan, Tollan (in the original nahuatl name) was in reality a title that mean "Place of Reeds" to point a great number of people as if they were a field of reeds. This title used by others Post-Classical Mesoamerica cities like Cholula and Tenochtitlan comes originally from the Classical city of Teotihuacan that was way bigger and long lasting than Xicotitlan. So we can see true Tollan (Teotihuacan) as the Rome of Mesoameirca (not a 100% match but are some similarities) at least in the way later states claimed to be the "New Rome" or in this context the "New Tollan".

Also, the origin of the core population of Teotihuacan is unclear but most discoveries point to a pre-nahua population of central Mexico, likely Otomangue related to current Otomi people. Meanwhile the later Toltecas were Nahua people like the even later Mexicas (like other Aztecs) so have Toltecs is just add an ealier moment of the Nahua people in central Mexico.

So of course we can take the convenient Mexica version of the history that legitimate them though a mythologized leader to have Toltecs in game. But that is an option that pales when we have others like the actual more impresive original creators of the title of Tollan, The Teotihuacans. Not to forget others like Purepechas, Totonacas and Zapotecas that represent diferent cultures and regions of Mesoamerica, with longer history and better know leader options than Toltecs.

 

[Henri Christophe]

It's not racist! That accusation is ridiculous and insulting. I insist on a retraction and apology. You have overused, and misused, the racist label on these forums. Where have I advocated similar for a different race?

I don't want to offend anyone, but not consider the historiography of a people because they made very different from western method, for me, it's a error.

There are a discussion similar as that in ancient Greece, when we compare the historiography of Herotodo and Teucidides.
Teucidides are like you, who like a real and true history... But, I don't see any problem with Herotodo who wrote down everthing he listening, however if it's plausible or mythical.

And even if Herotodo have a lot of mythical histories in his book, it still today a great reference of history of ancient world

we just had a whole discussion on how we cannot include the Minoans

Yeah, I saw it, despite it's out of topic... I do agree we can't do a Minoans civ because a lack of knowledge.
We don't know their language or name of leaders (or do we know something?)

But I don't think Toltecs are in the same foot of Minoans, because I do know their language (Nahualt) and do know some leaders, who have the amazing name of Quetzalcoalt and all his myth who come back as Hernan Cortéz.
Xóchitl could be also a cool female name, I still believing we do need more female civs.

Henri dont you are of the idea that there are too many redundant European civs like Rome+Byzantium?
Because in some way Toltec is also a redundant civ.

Okay, this kind of argue is way better to discard the Toltecs.

Maybe we do have others civs more appealing in Mesoamerica then the Toltecs.
But I still think is a error take out Toltecs just because we cannot believe in Aztec sources, I think the opposite of it, we should be very happy to have any kind of sources about a so ancient people as Toltecs, other mesoamericans civilizations, as Teotihuacan, are totally lost.

 

[Evie]

Old Greek texts do tell us about leaders for the Minoans. Like Minos. We do not accept them as real.

We do not accept anybody's legends, except perhaps to fill in the blanks and help interpret what archaeology tells us. But not to contradict what archaeology tells us, or to create whole new civilizations where no archaeological remains exist.

And what archaeology tells us is that while Tula/Tollan was a decent-sized city, it was not the great capital of a Mesoamerica-spanning empire. It wasn't even particularly large, and much smaller than Teotihuacan or Tenochtitlan. We're not sure what ethnicity they were, or what languages they actually spoke (nahuatl is one possibility). We know there are some architectural similarities between Tula and Chichen Itza, but we also know the buildings with those similarities were built in Chichen Itza first.

This is not a massive empire, or a city without rivals, or a cultural capital influencing all of Mesoamerica. It may not be a Nahutal polity at all. In short, the archaeological people of Tula-Tollan are NOT the Toltecs of Aztec writing. And there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever for the legendary toltecs existing.

 

[pokiehl]

The you keep acting like this is special discrimination against the Aztecs is just complete lack of respect on your part.

His tone isn’t disrespectful at all. You guys need to calm down and stop getting angry at him for expressing a dissenting opinion.

 

[Evie]

He literally called disliking his favorite sources racism, Pokiehl.

And the whole arbiter of justice act is getting old. You're about as far removed from an unbiased unemotional participant in these discussions as anyone on these forums is.

 

[pokiehl]

He literally called disliking his favorite sources racism, Pokiehl.

English is not his first language so I'll forgive his wording for not being as precise, but what certainly comes through in his messages is a tone of deference and respect. Yet every time he posts what he wants, he's basically shouted down as if he's some ignorant cad who doesn't know anything. One guy demands an apology (despite Henri not actually saying anything about him personally), you call him "obsessed." This happens in every thread. He, however, has not raised a single pejorative against any of you. All he does is post what he wants to see.

Does he have a bias? Yes, he is personally interested in specific indigenous and African civs, and that's fine. If I had my druthers, I'd have Civ's lineup be biased towards what I like too, as would any of us.