Is that true? I thought not even the people that lived there thousands of years ago considered themselves to be the same as the old kingdom.
Regardless, the difference is that what their descendants are called doesn’t change what they were called. And by calling themselves a different name than their ancestors, their descendants are acknowledging that there is a distinction between the two peoples
Many indigenous groups now call themselves names others used to call them. Because they didn’t have a name for themselves, they were just “the people.”
There was never a united Mayan empire. It was a collection of city-states that shared a culture. Eventually the descendents of the people of those city-states were referred to by others as Mayan.
So, again, according to your own rationale, the Mayan people of today are not the same people as their indigenous ancestors despite sharing a language and many cultural links.
TIL, although Wikipedia also says Maya is derived from their historical capital Mayapan, which tracks as far as civilisations go. It’s the next best thing they can be called if there isn’t a word they called themselves.
So, again, according to your own rationale, the Mayan people of today are not the same people as their indigenous ancestors
That’s not what I wrote at all? My point is that a civilization shouldn’t be referred to by
What country exists there today
What citizenship their descendants have
What their descendants call themselves
I made no comments about who gets to claim heritage. I said you can only claim to be the same people as your ancestors, not claim your ancestors were the same people as you.
Again- it is not one single civilization. If you told someone from Tulum that they were the same as the people from Tikal, he’d kick the shit out of you for daring to say that.
And yet we call them both Mayan.
So should we actually refer to each city’s name individually? Even though we don’t actually know what some of them were?
Or maybe we should just call them collectively by the same name we call their descendants as they are inextricably linked to the point that you can say they’re as close to someone from Tikal as someone from Tulum was at the same time.
And then there’s the point when Teotihuacan may or may not have invaded and taken over Tikal and some other cities and maybe made them part of their empire for a while before they gained autonomy again.
Teotihuacan is literally in the Valley of Mexico. That would make them literally Mexican.
I really think you need to learn more about the topic of the Mayans.
This isn’t about Mayans. I don’t need to know more than the fact that historians and Wikipedia editors found it more appropriate to call it ‘Maya civilization’ instead of ‘city states around Mayapan’. If the experts decide it wasn’t a shared civilization after all, I’ll go with what they call the people that built Chichen Itza.
Or maybe we should just call them collectively by the same name we call their descendants as they are inextricably linked to the point that you can say they’re as close to someone from Tikal as someone from Tulum was at the same time.
Civilizations can have multiple descendants that claim its legacy, why call it anything other than ‘built by humans’ at that point? But that’s not useful right? Perhaps it’s best to make an effort to get as specific as possible?
No I don’t mean specific to the point of counting people’s names. Specific enough to encompass only the people who would’ve thought the structure to be an achievement of their people.
Many Egyptians today claim to be of the same people as those who were there in the old kingdom. Genetically, they are correct.
So what’s the difference?
Is that true? I thought not even the people that lived there thousands of years ago considered themselves to be the same as the old kingdom.
Regardless, the difference is that what their descendants are called doesn’t change what they were called. And by calling themselves a different name than their ancestors, their descendants are acknowledging that there is a distinction between the two peoples
Many indigenous groups now call themselves names others used to call them. Because they didn’t have a name for themselves, they were just “the people.”
Incidentally, that includes the Maya people.
There was never a united Mayan empire. It was a collection of city-states that shared a culture. Eventually the descendents of the people of those city-states were referred to by others as Mayan.
So, again, according to your own rationale, the Mayan people of today are not the same people as their indigenous ancestors despite sharing a language and many cultural links.
I think you may be a bit out of your depth here.
TIL, although Wikipedia also says Maya is derived from their historical capital Mayapan, which tracks as far as civilisations go. It’s the next best thing they can be called if there isn’t a word they called themselves.
That’s not what I wrote at all? My point is that a civilization shouldn’t be referred to by
I made no comments about who gets to claim heritage. I said you can only claim to be the same people as your ancestors, not claim your ancestors were the same people as you.
Again- it is not one single civilization. If you told someone from Tulum that they were the same as the people from Tikal, he’d kick the shit out of you for daring to say that.
And yet we call them both Mayan.
So should we actually refer to each city’s name individually? Even though we don’t actually know what some of them were?
Or maybe we should just call them collectively by the same name we call their descendants as they are inextricably linked to the point that you can say they’re as close to someone from Tikal as someone from Tulum was at the same time.
And then there’s the point when Teotihuacan may or may not have invaded and taken over Tikal and some other cities and maybe made them part of their empire for a while before they gained autonomy again.
Teotihuacan is literally in the Valley of Mexico. That would make them literally Mexican.
I really think you need to learn more about the topic of the Mayans.
This isn’t about Mayans. I don’t need to know more than the fact that historians and Wikipedia editors found it more appropriate to call it ‘Maya civilization’ instead of ‘city states around Mayapan’. If the experts decide it wasn’t a shared civilization after all, I’ll go with what they call the people that built Chichen Itza.
Civilizations can have multiple descendants that claim its legacy, why call it anything other than ‘built by humans’ at that point? But that’s not useful right? Perhaps it’s best to make an effort to get as specific as possible?
No I don’t mean specific to the point of counting people’s names. Specific enough to encompass only the people who would’ve thought the structure to be an achievement of their people.
If it isn’t about Mayans, why bring them up?
Is it proper to say Teotihuacan was built by Mexicans? If not, what should we call people who come from the Valley of Mexico?
Do you not know what an example is?
I thought it was what we were discussing. And I hope I’ve shown you why it was such a poor example.