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.
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.