Unit_2 wrote:what? though it WAS a Aztec city
Unit_2 wrote:"The name Teotihuacán was given by the Nahuatl-speaking Aztec centuries after the fall of the city. The term has been glossed as 'birthplace of the gods,' reflecting Nahua creation myths that took place in Teotihuacán. Another translation was offered by Thelma Sullivan, who interprets the name as "place of those who have the road of the gods."
The original name of the city is unknown, but it appears in hieroglyphic texts from the Maya region as 'puh', or "Place of Reeds". This suggests that the Maya understood Teotihuacán as a 'Place of Reeds' similar to other Central Mexican settlements that took the name 'Tollan,' such as Tula-Hidalgo and Cholula. This naming convention led to much confusion in the early 20th century as scholars debated whether Teotihuacán or Tula-Hidalgo was the Tollan described by 16th–century chronicles. It now seems clear that 'Tollan' may be understood as a generic term applied to any large settlement, rather like the modern expression "the Big Smoke". In the Mesoamerican concept of urbanism, Tollan and other language equivalents serve as a metaphor, linking the bundles of reeds and rushes that formed part of the lacustrine environment of the Valley of Mexico and the large gathering of people in a city." if you want the whole thing go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan .
There is archaeological evidence that Teotihuacán was a multi-ethnic city, with distinct Zapotec, Mixtec, Maya and what seem to be Nahua quarters. The Totonacs have always maintained that they were the ones who built it, a story that was corroborated later by the Aztecs.
babinecz wrote:The only problem with the map is the Chichen Itza wasn't a contemporary city with Palenque and Tikal. It was a Late Classic, more so Post Classic city. Pretty much the entire Maya Lowland had collapsed by Chichen Itza's time (migrated north probably, but that's still up for debate). Chichen Itza didn't really emerge until the late 900s.
babinecz wrote:wasn't the Zapotec city Monte Alban, not just Alban?
babinecz wrote:Also, since one guy said names were uncreative, you could work some God names in there.
RjBeals wrote:Will the major cities start neutral?
oaktown wrote:I thought about it, but if they did the map would have 36 starting territories, which is bad for gameplay in two and three player games because the first player can instantly knock down somebody else's first turn placement.
RjBeals wrote:oaktown wrote:I thought about it, but if they did the map would have 36 starting territories, which is bad for gameplay in two and three player games because the first player can instantly knock down somebody else's first turn placement.
Uh oh... My dustbowl starts with 36 territories
Users browsing this forum: No registered users