You must not internet much, huh.

The region under discussion did not spring into existence when we discovered it, so it too has a history of civilisation/in-habitation springing back well before 1100AD, should we refer to it all as "ancient". No of course not, that is ridiculous.

Cities and architecture in South and Central America would have been just as advanced if not more so as 11th century analogue's in Europe, as evinced by the actual building under discussion.

When the conquistadors discovered Tenochtitlan in the 16th century they were blown away by it as it was a much larger and impressive city than any they had seen before with three times the population of London.

South America is not some tiny island.

FWIW in many ways South American civilisations were just as advanced as their 11/12th century European counterparts and 11th/12th century England was hardly the hot bed of intellectual freedom and scientific advancement. Knowing too much maths or quoting Plato would probably get you burnt as a witch.

Thinking they were so backward in the 11th century we can call them ancient is what we might call a colonial perspective.

I do though, and yes trying to call 1100AD ancient is that silly. Also the point is just how trivial it is, I can get dying on the hill of is piss sterile, serious business, but this so what, just go my bad and move on.

What is wrong with you all. Post interesting wiki articles, express appreciation, rinse and repeat. Everything else can be relocated to some other thread I don't have to read.

High fives we're only invented in the 1970s:

The "high five" originated from the "low five", which has been a part of African-American culture since the 1920s. It's probably impossible to know exactly when the low first transitioned to a high, but there are many theories about its inception. Magic Johnson once suggested that he invented the high five at Michigan State, presumably in the late 1970s. Others have suggested it originated in the women's volleyball circuit of the 1960s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_five?wprov=sfla1

and we're back on track, nice how magic johnson has defeated aids twice now

Now we know where Yves Klein got his inspiration!

I went down a long rabbit hole with this one yesterday:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_U...%20J.%20Tilden.

My point is not whether or not that monument in Peru is “ancient”. Or whether or not there are much older monuments in the region.. I took issue with comparing raw dates for something built in England to something built in Peru.

There was no cross cultural communication between the two areas, the civilizations started up at different times, one region had access to a ton more other older civilizations to draw on for ideas, etc. It’s a little bit like comparing a civilization on Mars to a civilization on Earth using raw dates.

When Columbus arrived, Mesoamerica and the cultures around Peru we’re in a state something like Mesopotamia - where each was a cradle of civilization and had just started to branch out into other distinct civilizations.

Im not overly familiar with the history of Peru, but a quik wiki hunt seems to absolutely refute everything you say above.

Ill repeat myself that when encountered by Europeans in the 16th century in Tenochtitlan was absolutely mind blowing to the Euro's as it was so large and advanced in its architecture. The Inca's also had a road network stretching 25,000 miles.

Also again, 11th century England was not really that advanced. We are still 300 years from the renaissance.

There are a surprising number of pigment colors with pretty fascinating origin stories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple - A purple dye made from the excretions of sea snails. One of the most expensive colors in the ancient world, and a big reason the color purple became associated with royalty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmine - A red pigment made from crushed insects native to Central and South America, which made it key export driving early Spanish colonization of the Western hemisphere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy_brown - A pigment most popular in the 18th and 19th century made from ground up Egyptian mummies (human and feline)

You may laugh, but have you ever been pestered by a BooHag?

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarine?wprov=sfla1

The Renaissance's most expensive blue, made from crushed up gemstones.

OAFK the cross you're dying on is trying to moderate somebody's appreciation for a culture's achievement. like someone was amazed by something and you were so ****ing pissed that they could be amazed by that when something you find more amazing also exists.

also i don't know why you are so up in arms that there are different definitions of ancient. are you british or something? feels like something's being lost in translation. i've seen so many references to "ancient mayan"" that contextually i can not be making the gravest grammatical/factual misstep in modern times (that SCOTS WIKI **** WAS AMAZING THOUGH!) but yea suzzer says whats implied in my amazement

mummy brown officially coolest color that will ever exist

There is nothing being lost in translation, ancient is a technical term it has an objective fixed non negotiable meaning when talking about history. Something that happened in the 11th century is not ancient, because and this should be apparent to even you, it leaves you with no terminology to describe the thousands and thousands of years that come before the 11th century. If the 11th century is Ancient, what are you going to call something that happened in 1000BC, super duper ancient?

I have to agree. 11th century ain’t ancient times.

What is it with people wanting to fight about words ITT? Although I don't think I'd have used the word ancient for that particular site, the above is definitely not true. Source: I am an historian.

Periodization is not even close to fixed and non-negotiable in history. Some historians reject it entirely, some argue for different cut-off dates, or for interpenetrating eras, and almost all argue that periods are not world-wide, but regional. Almost no historian would talk about "ancient history" as a unified term, and certainly no specialist within it would.

The old divisions of Pre-history/Ancient History/Middle Ages/Modern History are not terms of art in the field. When used at all, they are considered terms of Western history and generally don't apply outside Europe, the Mediterranean basin, and the "Near East." They certainly don't have universally accepted transition dates.

So we will call that sight ancient and pre classic Mayan history super duper duper ancient? One or two dupers do you think, as a historian?

The point being that given ancient is a relative term, that derives all its meaning by being relative, calling something that happened so relatively soon as the 11th century ancient would render that term objectively meaningless, as it cant now find meaning. Cliffs calling something 11th century ancient renders the term meaningless as it cant find relativity in relation to recent history.

Sure if you want to not accept the category of ancient, then that moots the whole discussion, but if you do, then the sight in question is objectively not ancient unless as a historian you want to have the most terrible ontology and methodology of any formal discipline.

Its also worth pointing out that the original poster who posted the sight called it megalithic.

So you have one poster claiming its megalithic and two others insisting its ancient.

Surely I dont have to spell out why that is.

As I said in the above, I would not have used the word ancient for that site, but your claim that ancient is a "technical term with an objective fixed non negotiable meaning when talking about history" is pure nonsense.

I am not a specialist in South America, and what South American history I do have experience with is mostly "age of revolutions." My first instinct on that site would be to call it simply "pre-European contact," or "pre-Columbian" if I were being less PC. I'm sure specialists in the area have more granular periodization names, but I'm not familiar with them.

That said, I'm not taking aim at what to call Sacsayhuamán. I'm taking aim at your ludicrous claims about objective and technical historical periods.

Ok, but do you concede that the field of history or specifically SAH would have problems if they decided to call any event that happened in the 11th century ancient.

And here again you seem to be arguing that you own words and that they have technical meaning that is indisputable. Megalithic just means "having to do with big rocks." Mega = very large (how big is very large, well, that varies by context and personal interpretation). Lithic = adjectival form of "stone."

Generally, megalithic is used for prehistoric large stone monuments or structures. This site is prehistoric, if we use the term in its "before written records" sense. It's a structure, and it uses big stones. It can be considered megalithic.

I mean, if you're going to be pedantic, at least be right.

ETA: and in response to your question above, I don't think South American historians use the term ancient at all. I have heard the pre-contact city-building eras in South America referred to as Classic and Post-Classic, but I don't know if those terms are still in use and what eras they refer to in what parts of South America if so.

How is it prehistoric?

Pre white guy European history?

Something colloquially ancient on the American continent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_Brake