Jump to content

Talk:Cē Ācatl Topiltzin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.133.186.186 (talk) at 21:09, 1 February 2023 (→Dates give Clarity that Many care Less About). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dates give Clarity that Many care Less About

What i learn here (from 895 May 13) is that a confirmation in shift from Mayan to Aztec appears to be the same way Christians argue 7th day as original Saturday (last visible outer planet) or claim sabbath 7th is 1st day Sunday (of the sun); along with the Romans who claimed Saturn was the sun. Few look at biggest being sun, (but it's not a planet) the biggest is Jupiter, but Saturn biggest orbit. I se this with dates like 13-Ahau the end that begins 1-imix because 39 days later (40 after 13-Ahau is 1-imix) and the confusion shifts the whole 52-year calendar round different than the Maya. It s YOUR info posted that helps figure the progressive evolution of one original calendar, Can it be coincidence that the G.Aug 12 epoch puts 1-Monkey Mayan (ratio 13/20) on Chinese 1-Monkey (ratio 10/12) so that every 780-day Mars the Maya and Chinese have the same 1-Monkey. (Note day Wu as #1 loses meaning when shifted to claim Chia (Jia/Kiah) as #7 is now #1. Loses meaning because from Hittite (Latin-German-English) in Hattusa to Persia the words Ten and Teen become Den and Deen or Din and in China Ting /Ding after 1st day Wu /uno/ one (wunay or wun). And whatever the Genesis event the Chinese Era Feb 2 of 2637bc and 237bc is day Jia matching Babylon's date 27th in 360-day and 60-day; which means 17th is also Jia. Point is i'm using you dates in dispute to find calendar cross-points of truth; and you can all argue until you gain your fame, or transfer to heaven. My God is TRUTH. Anyone want to seek truth and find for me!! 72.133.186.186 (talk)

Incompetence Questioned

It appears that this article is simply someone's (very poorly-written) junior-high research paper. I have corrected many of the more egregious errors (such as a switch from past to present tense) and will continue to correct others as I find them. In the meantime, I'm listing this on Cleanup. Kurt Weber 14:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, some of the content of this should be merged, most of the other content is poorly written to preserve. Nanahuatzin 06:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia should give its TALK page a thumps up count like Facebook has. Pretty bad when a moderator can delete something thumbed-up 1.2k times. Article as truth or not the thumbs-up will prove the world we live in. "Aztec settled by spaceship" 4.3k thumbs-up.72.133.186.186 (talk)

Should This Article Be Disputed?

No not disputed. Grab the dates and find your astral dates. Children grow up. For just like the churches while you bicker like squirrel over the nut, someone the possum gets the nut. Believe me (it happens in my backyard). I am here to find out if May 13 is Gregorian or Julian. This 895-947 (52 years) does not prove he was born in 895 because Mayan Pacal is another example born before 630AD, and already king before 630AD, he becomes the religious christ-king for 52 years because of the 3114bc calendar cycle of 3113bc day 13 Ahau/1 imix on the tun. Likewise my interest here is connecting or finding the shift from Mayan cycle, to this cycle, to the 1519AD cycle. So although thrice 260-day forms a triangle marking 780-day Mars conjunctions as if day 1 chuen (Chinese day 1-Chen/Wu Monkey) 390 days to day 1 imix (opposition) to observe Mars on 1-imix as eve-star 130-day thru 1-chuen conjunction to 130-day rising-star on 1-imix, the day names in numeric 20-day mark Venus in 40-day increments. Why? Because in the 360-day tun an 8-year Venus goes 40 days past previous date; (2) And in Flood-myth Venus was absent 40 days thru solar conjunction; (3) and the pattern itself falls into it where 1Ahau plus 40 is 2 Ahau for any date; 1-Reed plus 40 is 2-Reed. In other words while you quibble i take the crumbs and run; before the powers that be WikiPedia vanish what someone posted. I truly am reading this and i feel like saying no youre all wrong the Neanderthals who mothered and nursed Adam built the city. Get the point dont just delete me.72.133.186.186 (talk)

This article describes fiction and myth as truth. The evidence for the existence of a Toltec culture is close to zero. There is even less evidence for posing any kind of chroonology of kings since the kingdom it self is unlikely to have existed. Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl is simply the deity and mesoamerican Culture hero Quetzalcoatl. This page should be deleted or merged into Quetzalcoatl Please discuss at Talk: ToltecMaunus 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for a Toltec civilization is 100%. The ruins of their capitol Tollan are in Tula, Hidalgo. The history of this particular king is from post-conquest codices and is questionable.216.67.161.230 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc[reply]
No it is not. There is no evidence for any claims about the ethnicity of the people who built Tula Hidalgo. Most recently it has been suggested that Tula was built by Huastecs (which would explain the similarities between Tula and Chichén Itza). The only reason Tula Hidalgo is called the way it is is because the aztecs told the spaniards that Toltecs had lived there. They also said Toltecs had lived in Teotihuacan and in all other large cities: Tollan was a generic term for metropolis and thus the fist urbanized peoples of mesoamerica were called toltecs by the aztecs no matter what their ethnicity were.Maunus 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the article is poorly written likely a junior high history essay, the things that you're arguing against are naming issues and not actually a question of factual accuracy. Whether a separate culture named the Toltecs existed to spawn a priest-king named after the God he served isn't the issue - the existance of Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl is archaeologically accepted in academic circles as a given fact. The Aztecs themselves claimed descendance from the Toltecs - or what they called the Toltecs - so their claim to the Spaniards that Toltecs (or a group of people that also inhabited various metropoli including Tenochtitlan, Teotihuacan and others) lived in what we call Tollan is acceptable - why not? The processual approach to this issue - and others like it - dabbles in issues of naming and arbitrary boundaries between cultures that can't be verified in any way at the moment, so as it is, the claim of Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl's existance in fact should be accepted to the same extent as any Mesoamerican historical claim. Quixoticsupernova 02:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Topiltzin Ce Acatl" or "Ce Acatl Topiltzin"?

Hi, everyone! Is it "Topiltzin Ce Acatl" or Ce Acatl Topiltzin"? The page in Spanish says "Ce Acatl Topiltzin," and this is the way I remember the name since many years ago, when I was a student. Thanks and regards! Gustavo Sandoval Kingwergs.--correogsk (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ce Acatl ("One Reed") is just a calendrical name, and Topiltzin means something like "our prince/lord". Queztalcoatl is a deity name. I don't think there's a standard or correct ordering of these elements. At least, in practice the figure is variously referred to as Topiltzin, Topolitzin Quetzalcoatl, Queztalcoatl Topiltzin, Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl, Ce Acatl Topiltzin, Ce Acatl Tpolitzin Quetzalcoatl—just abt every possible permutation. To add to the confusion, often commentaries don't specify or distinguish when the original historical texts grammatically use the elements as proper names, or titles/epithets. I suppose a case could be made for placing the calendrical name first. Equally, omitting the calendrical name altogether is commonly done, or using it as an alternative. At a guess I'd say Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl is the most commonly seen name, but if true don't think that it can be by a large margin.
Probably not something to worry about too much, so long as all the various alternatives redirect to whichever form holds the article text. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double-Whopper

Quote "According to the Florentine Codex, which was written under the direction of the Franciscan missionary Bernardino de Sahagún, the Aztecs [...] Bernardino de Sahagún, who compiled the Florentine Codex, was also a Franciscan." -- I guess this doubleing isn't necessary -- Hartmann Schedel Prost 12:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tollan

This page repeatedly cites the city-name of "Tollan" but that links to a page citing two DIFFERENT cities, each sometimes called "Tollan" but each with its own separate name; and, more generally, to any great city in Central America. Should this page refer to "Tula" instead of "Tollan?" 2601:645:501:DCD0:6994:A523:86FA:757A (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably Tula (Mesoamerican site) but that article seems to contradict this one. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cē_Ācatl_Topiltzin&oldid=1136916426"