From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

is any of this Factual? debate[edit]

There seems to be no evidence whatsoever for any of the claims made in this article. Its all speculative story telling. Where are the documents that proove any of the claims made in this entire article. There are no Photographs or video taken to support any of the historical claims.

We may as well claim Pixies on Unicorn Horse back poked at tribes of the usual slaves to build it ! Lets just make up stuff ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

CE/AD debate[edit]

Anonymous observation: In keeping with political correctness (and the BCE used near the start of the document), wouldn't it be a good idea to change AD to CE wherever it occurs?

You're right. Done. --Danakil
Why is he right? CE and BCE are less offensive to non-Christians, but more offensive to me. Why is it always more important to not offend non-Christians? I'm changing this back. --JohnO 08:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Ha! Seems I didn't need to! Someone else beat me to it! So, I'm not the only one. (I'm not even a Christian, I just hate the whining lefties on this site.) --JohnO 08:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
You're not alone in this world johnnie boy! Christians are not in majority. So I'm changing back to Common Era, if you please, whining religious kid... 19:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
But there is NOTHING common about 1 CE other than relating that date to the birth of Jesus Christ! ( 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC))
Um yeah, the article is inconsistent right now, so I'm making it AD consistent now. Carl.bunderson 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The article had, in fact, been consistent (BCE/CE), until some anon recently and motivelessly altered it[1]. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well from the discussion that I saw, it looked like it was going back and forth and there was no real consensus. I just want it consistent, one way or the other. Carl.bunderson 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The "it's still referring to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth" argument is moot, since we don't measure dates "Before Jesus" and "After Jesus"; "Christ" and "Domini" are both theologically loaded terms that are rejected by all but Christians and Muslims for the former, and Christians alone for the latter. Also, I don't keep up with wikipedia bureaucratic bullshit but I'm fairly certain that it's standard to use BCE and CE in articles having nothing to do with Christianity or Christendom. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
"...I'm fairly certain that it's standard to use BCE and CE in articles having nothing to do with Christianity or Christendom." For the record, that's not the case. The current manual of style says "no preference is given to either style". As with American and British English, policy is to keep whatever system was used first on the page in question. The point is moot in this case, as CE was evidently used first on this page. Elmo iscariot (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Then why does it still say BC / AD? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


I'm unable to parse the sentence "Recent studies point to Teotihuacan as having been the place where the Mesoamerican rulers of lands as what is now Honduras were somehow appointed or, at least, formally recognized." It probably has something to do with the statement a few paragraphs down that says, "...the city is occasionally referred to in the texts of Maya monuments, showing that Teotihuacan nobility traveled to and married with the families of local rulers as far away as Honduras." I've deleted the former sentence and left the latter. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 04:32, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

And no one has complained, so good call. The sentence needed an editor anyway. If I may, I think the second "as" should have been "in". "Mesoamerican" is redundant (all the peoples mentioned in the article were Mesoamerican except the Spanish) and could have been assumed from context. "Recent studies point to Teotihuacan as having been the place where..." and "...rulers of lands in what is now Honduras" are much more awkward than they needed to be. "Somehow" is also redundant; obviously if something "was appointed" it was done "somehow". So I would have done this:
Recent studies indicate that Teotihuacan may have been the place where the rulers of Honduran states were appointed, or at least formally recognized.
Not that it matters now. 23:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Accent[edit]

It should actually be spelt Teotihuacán, since the stress is on the last syllable. Kelisi 00:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That depends on which language you start from. In Spanish it is generally pronounced and written with final stress, as you note. In Nahuatl, which is where the word originally comes from, the stress is penultimate (Teotiwákan) and since that is the default pattern for Nahuatl (the only one allowed in some variants), it is not written. In English we generally don't write accents except on foreign words, so I guess any solution can be argued for in this case: write it because it's from Spanish, don't write it because it's from Nahuatl, don't write it because it's English (and then you don't know how to pronounce it ...)--Lavintzin 17:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Does your argument also somehow explain the orthography "Teotihuacáno"? babbage 09:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the standard in academia is to refer to the site and culture as Teotihuacan (sans accent), and the modern town as Teotihuacán. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of the Teotihuacan People?[edit]

Supposedly, the people who built the temples at Teotihuacan "disappeared" after the time when much of the city was burned. After that, the city supposedly wasn't occupied until the Aztecs rose to power. There's little in the article on this. Perhaps it could be expanded? (Of course, one should avoid spilling over into the rediculous realm of the paranormal myths associated with Teotihuacan.) RobertM525 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that portion (and a fair few others) need more work and expansion (the "disappearance" was not of course literal). You'd be most welcome to have a shot at it yourself, as there's a bit of a backlog in going through related Mesoamerican articles.--cjllw | TALK 01:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course they did not disapear... But Teotihuacan was a milticultural city. The survivor were probably reasimilated form their original cultures, while the elite took refuge in other towns. Waht happend them is mostly speculations. Probably they become the seed that would become "Tollan Xicotitlan" or "Tula". That would explain why the aztec confuse Tula with Teotihuacan. But as i say, is mostly speculation. I will try to write a summary on this subject. Nanahuatzin 06:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
My college "World History to 1500 CE" (HIST 2) teacher suggested that after the "fall" of Teotihuacan, the city was unoccupied, despite its easy-to-access location, until the Aztecs began to make use of it (and gave it its current name). Its founders didn't "disappear" in her words, but rather "dispersed" for "reasons unknown to us." The burned building remains suggest some possibilities, of course, but nothing concrete. And my point is that the article doesn't make much reference to that. I'm certainly no expert on the subject, so I would feel ill equipped to contribute to it. RobertM525 21:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Of course they did not disapear [sp]..." Uh, yeah, I think they did. At least from history. 01:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


"at its height in the first half of the 1st millennium CE, rivaled Rome and Peking as the largest city in the world" This claim is, I see, cited... However... The Beijing article informs us that, "During the Sui (581-618) and Tang (618-907) dynasties, only small towns existed in this area." So I think there is something wrong with it... I suspect 'Peking' should be Chang'an... But I am not certain

I followed your research, did a bit of my own, and have to admit that Malmstrom's comment was flat-out wrong. I have removed it and, in its place, put Malmstrom's population estimate. Sheepishly yours, Madman 11:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

City of war[edit]

New evidence suggests that Teotihuacan was certanly not the city of piece and that brutal sacrifices and wars in which captives were taken were common. Also, some of the sacrificial victims (some were killed by being hit several times on the head and others decapitated) seem to have been from Guatemala, and therefore mayans. This proves that Teotihuacan subjected at least some mayan cities and did not spread its influence through commerce and religion but conquest insted. A very different picture emerges. Its empire spread from the Valley of Mexico beetwen both oceans to Honduras. This new evidence could be a good edition to the article. See National Geographic`s pyramid of death[2]. Harioris 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

National Geographic generally doesn't present new research. This knowledge is quite old and is already incorporated into the article - that's why it talks of a teotihuacano empire.·Maunus· tlahtōlli 09:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Porhaps old but not very old, and the information about the empire and warefare is quite obscure in the article.Harioris 11:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and mend it where you see fit.·Maunus· tlahtōlli 11:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A power and influence comparable to ancient Rome. This seems a gross exaggeration. Teotihuacan's power and influence was great, but cannot be compared with a directly ruled empire stretching from Scotland to North Africa. Dudley Miles 21 January 2007.

Yes it can. At its height the population size of Teotihuacan was also equal to the largest cities of Europe at the same time. Teotihuacan influence is documented from northern mexico and well into southern central america. And it's cultural influence on latter cultures in the area was as profound as the roman empires in europe. What is more is that it will not be problematic attributing such a comparison to a published source which might be a good idea. ·Maunus· tlahtōlli 11:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry. The line suggesting may have been larger than Rome also needs removing because it is clearly incorrect. Estimates of Rome's peak population range from 450,000 to over 3.5 million people with 1 to 2 million being most popular with historians. That would have been during the time period 1AD to 400AD, which coincides with the zenith of Teotihuacan. In other words, Rome was about 10 times bigger. Teotihuacan was a great city but there's no need to "big" it up in wiki. Fig (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I compleately agree with Manus because Teotihuacan probably did not have any rivals in Mesoamerica unlike Rome later in europe and its directly ruled empire was most likely the largest ever in the Central america, much larger than that of the the more famous Aztec. The Teotihuacan empire lasted loger than the Roman and while Rome was certanly sacked, burned and conquered by other nations, Teotihuacan most certanly did not suffer such fate as there was no powerful nation in Mesoamerica at that time that could conquer it even if weakened from inside (civil war, revolution etc.).The city dystroyed itsef from the inside. There are indications that Teotihuacan was known for its power and glory as far as the north part of the modern USA. All other later nations were influenced by the allready abandoned Teotihuacan whose size inspired many legends and myths. And its legacy in buildings is even stil today very much preserved unlike Rome that is laying in uninteresting ruins.Harioris 16:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"There are indications that Teotihuacan was known for its power and glory as far as the north part of the modern USA. " That sounds interesting, could you elaborate? babbage 09:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
My god there's some garbage talked on this page! Is this the cult of Teotihuacan or something? Maybe Harioris you need to go and read the Rome pages to learn how absurd what you are saying is. Fig (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
you have to think of it the right way. The Teotihuacan Empire, if it existed, would have absorbed almost all civilization. to the north were the deserts (which did not yet have Pakime as a midpoint) and to the south dense jungles. There were no more cities to conquer from which to extend control. It's the same reason Rome had trouble with Germania. Essentially, Teotihuacan conquered the civilized world, something even Rome can't boast. Yes, Teotihuacan's population was probably never more than 250,000 at best, but the city was larger (area wise) and it's empire, if not bigger, was more comprehensive71.225.248.28 (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Damage reversed[edit]

I reverted a strange edit by, but forgot to include the IP in the comment. -- NIC1138 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Lawrence Gowan, the Canadian musician, filmed his "Moonlight Desires" video on the steps of the pyramids in 1987. ( 04:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

Possible purpose of the Avenue of the Dead at Teotihuacan[edit]

I recently had the opportunity to sit in on a program comparing various cultures, with Maize as a common factor shared by each. Teotihuacan was part of this program and one of the program slides showed an angle of the Avenue of the Dead that struck me as possibly something other than what it may appear to be. When I saw the walls that run across the avenue at various locations, in my imagination they became dividers and bridges from side to side. Why would they be dividers...because of the elevation changes and why bridges, because the space between would be filled with water. I have never visited the site, so maybe on closer examination, the spaces wouldn't hold water, much like my theory. There would also have to be some kind of conduit to transport the water to the site and perhaps this doesn't exist. It was the combination of the dividers, the flatness of the space between the lower platforms along with the descending staircases (into the water) and the length of the avenue that took on an appearance of water and water was something every culture worshipped and what better way to honor it or show one's power and control, than fill either the entire Avenue of the Dead or a portion of it with this precious commodity. Let me know what the general consensus is for the construction of the apparent dividers. 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC) May 9, 2007/L. Parks

Uuh, I dont really think this kind of original research is good for Wiki. On the note you were going for thourgh, there is a river that runs to the site, there are open holes in the separating walls you speak of, but the avenue itself is open ended in places Mwheatley1990 (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Big Smoke / Teo / Tollan[edit]

hi cjllw,

i was the one who edited out the Big Smoke comment. I've been tinkering with the Teo article the last few days, and the 'Big Smoke' line has always bugged me a little, perhaps because I have never lived in any of those cities so it just doesn't resonate for me and seems out of place in the article. I also think it's not quite the same parallel - if I understand 'Big Smoke' correctly, the name is the only factor these places have in common, whereas 'Tollan' was (if we understand it correctly) more evocative of a whole set of ideas about what constituted a community (particularly an urban one). In some respects I'd say another (better?) parallel could be 'Springfield' or 'Washington' in as much as locales with these names participate in the evocation of a real or symbolic social and/or political archetype of a community. If that's what's going on with 'Big Smoke' - if there is an Ur-'Big Smoke' from which all other Big Smokes derive their legitimacy - then I think it's ok to include. If not . . . At a minimum, I'd suggest we expand the field a little bit so 'Big Smoke' has some context - but then we get into areas not directly related to Teotihuacan. Perhaps this comment could live on the Tollan page? Mhrobb (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd lose the "Big Smoke" reference as well; a loose comparison at best and IMO not needed and possibly distracting. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, your points are well made, and happy to concede it's not all that useful a comparision. Chop it away! Maybe some text could be worked up to capture that more correct impression...--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tourism at the site[edit]

During 1969, I visited this site as a student. We, and many others, walked up and down the staircase of the Pyramid of the Moon. Are tourists still allowed to do this? I hope not. Grandma Roses (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tourists are still allowed to walk up the staircases of the Pyramid of the Moon and the Pyramid of the Sun. In recent years, for a variety of reasons (conservation / excavation / excess crowds at the equinox), access to the Pyramid of the Moon has occasionally been limited to the Adosada platform. For conservation, access to the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent has been limited to its Adosada platform. Mhrobb (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If you click on the images (e.g. Image:Piramide_de_la_Luna_072006.jpg) you'll see that it's still allowed. -- (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The article name should not have use the accent (á)[edit]

TeotihuacánTeotihuacan — As with the article Tenochtitlan, there should be no accent over the "a". The accent (as says footnote #1) is a Spanish convention but "Teotihuacan" is not a Spanish name nor a Spanish place. Note that the Spanish Wikipedia article does not have an accent (see this). It is similarly out of place in an English encyclopedia. Madman (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • support, it would be consistent with the default mesoam practice of ignoring diacritics for archaeological sites, cultures etc where the name wholly derives from an indigenous mesoamerican lang. that doesn't use diacritics. Modern-day localities, municipios etc are a different matter. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per above -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per above Mhrobb (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Any additional comments:


CJLL or Infrogmation, could you please move the article? Thanks, Madman (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Page moved, per proposal & consensus above. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Religion": No cites, looks like speculation, moved to Talk[edit]

This from the section "Religion" has no cites and looks like somebody's speculation. Please provide good cites for this before replacing in the main article.

The religion of Teotihuacan is similar to those of other Mesoamerican cultures. Many of the same gods were worshiped, including the Feathered Serpent and The Rain god. Teotihuacan was a major religious center, and the priests probably had a great deal of political power. As with other Mesoamerican cultures, Teotihuacanos practiced human sacrifice. Human bodies and animal sacrifices have been found during excavations of the pyramids at Teotihuacan; it is believed that when the buildings were expanded, sacrifices were made to dedicate the new building. The victims were probably enemy warriors captured in battle and then brought to the city to be ritually sacrificed so the city could prosper. Some were decapitated, some had their hearts removed, others were killed by being hit several times over the head and some were even buried alive. Animals that were considered sacred and represented mythical powers and military might were also buried alive but imprisoned in cages: cougars, a wolf, eagles, a falcon, an owl, and even venomous snakes.

-- (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly this is uncited, but it is not idle speculation. It fits with much of what we know of Teotihuacan. In fact, the only sentence that I'm unsure about is the last one.
Certainly Wikipedia has gotten more vocal about the need for citations, and this needs citations, but it is by-and-large correct. While I didn't write it, I'll work on citations over the next week or so. In fact, the whole article is under-cited, like most of Wikipedia.Madman (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Appreciate your efforts. :-) -- (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't thank him, thank me. :^D I put in that cite he wanted. -- Zimriel (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, anything about the religion is speculation... even if it is reasonable speculation. Gingermint (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Added some "maybees"[edit]

I added some "perhaps" sort of things into the front part of the article as it was written as though some of the statements were absolute fact. An example is the date of the city's occupation. Though what is stated is reasonable theory, it remains theory until more evidence is available. My edit reflects this. The same is true regarding the influence of the city. The language has to reflect the uncertainty. (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

vine snakes[edit]

vine snakes are snakes that climb vines way high in the sky it is a mystical snake from 4508 b.c.only having a snake this long ago is great fined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


I am not sure if it's an American thing but speaking like this: "Many Maya states would suffer similar fates in the coming centuries. Nearby in the highlands, Xochicalco would be sacked and burned in 900 CE and Tula would meet a similar fate around 1150 CE" - is not the most clear way to express information. Saying something WOULD happen, when clearly it happened a long time ago, is surely just adding tobasco to a thai curry: unnecessary.

This is the past, and not in prose, lets keep it there? ----12/11/13, Tom

I agree that kind of use of "would" is not good encyclopedic writing. I try to rephrase it whenever I encounter it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography format[edit]

The bibliography format is highly idiosincratic. While I appreciate the intention, small caps should only be reserved for the most significant family name, as is sometimes done in Latin languages (because each language has a different position for it; last in Portuguese, middle in Castilan, for instance.

I propose to convert the author=Last, First to the usual last = Last | first = First.

Anyone got a problem with it? (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


There should be a section on the restoration of Teotihuacan. See website

The pictures on this site dramatically demonstrate the extensive modern restoration of the Teotihuacan and should be included. (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This entry needs an overhaul[edit]

Given the importance of Teotihuacan, and the amount known about the site through archaeology, this entry is pretty poor. Few of the topics are up to date, the chronology is not well described or used in the article, and many of the sources are inadequate popular works. I don't have time to work on this myself, and I would hesitate to do that anyway. When I set about improving the "Aztec" page several years ago, the people working on that page really resented having an expert trying to fix errors and improve things, so I gave up. (In fact I posted my own alternative Aztec entry on my website so that there would be at least one authoritative popular article on the Aztecs available online.) I really wish there were a good popular introduction to Teotihuacan on the internet, but this entry does not do the trick, and I wouldn't refer people to it. Michael E. Smith (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, and it would be a great honor and help if you would consider working on the articles you mention. The article on Aztecs has been stale and in a terrible state for many years now. Maybe if you dont have time you could point towards some of the best literature on the topic?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Please include information on the very recent finds in the tunnel. Also, maybe if you go back to the Aztec page, the reception will be more reasonable now, some years later. Kdammers (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I came to this article after reading about the recent discoveries, and I agree that this one is quite below the standard of what readers are now expecting from a Wikipedia article on a major topic. Of course anyone can help, but experts and people very familiar with the topic are very important. I remember reading strange things, maybe 10 years ago, when some people were venting against experts, saying that they are biased and not needed on Wikipedia. I believe that things have changed across Wikipedia. Readers are expecting quality articles, and the standards for what is considered a quality article have increased dramatically. Over the years, many experts have joined as editors and have naturally been recognized as very useful. Still, Wikipedia is a community, and each topic has its own sub-community, so that everybody willing to contribute substantially, including experts, need to find a way to fit in. It is commonly said to be discouraging newcomers, but I hope that people like Michael will accept to contribute again. Olivier (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)