Out of the Incas, the Maya, and the Aztecs, which would you say was the greatest civilization?

Yeah, Incas were inferior to Aztecs.

>Maya + Aztec
>somehow not the same thing

>Inca
>a civilization

As previously stated, the fact that Mayans had an actual writing system puts them above the Incas.

Aztecs are worthless after the dark age monsieur

Teotihuacan.

Incas had one too

This, why is the greatest precolumbian superpower not mentionned?

>muh quipus

You know they weren't.

Inca because they have pic related, and aztecs were some hardcore savages

Aztec stronk

I'm interested on tocapus actually. Gail Silverman has made some interesting research lately. She has supposedly that it resembles the archaic chinese applied to the japanese-like agglutination of quechua.

Why does everything below her neck look fake

A theory about figurative images with no syntax is far away from claiming Incas had a writing system.

Deal with it.

>implying there was no syntax
I'm not the guy who claimed they had. But the research has to start from one of these hypothesis, if there is a writting system to begin with.

Actually Incas had a strong administrative, census and organization system. It was kind of an hybrid between proto-socialism and a divine absolutist monarchy.

Also the army was pretty much organized, spanish and inca sources affirmed that some battles had up to 200000 men on just 1 army group.

Incas, when the spanish came, were a group of less than 100000 people that dominated an empire of 12-15 million.

They were primitive savages doing human sacrifice and shit

Like early bronze age eurangutans duh.

They're not the same thing though. It's like saying a Korean and a chink are the same thing. There are notable differences.

Spanish

That statue was made by some chinese immigrants as gratitude for the Peruvians, if I remember correctly.

The was no systematic human sacrifices in European culture. And the pre-columbians never went beyond the stone age.

>Human sacrifice in germanic peoples, being resorted to in exceptional situations arising from crises of an environmental (crop failure, drought, famine) or social (war) nature, often thought to derive at least in part from the failure of the king to establish and/or maintain prosperity and peace (árs ok friðar) in the lands entrusted to him. In later Scandinavian practice, human sacrifice appears to have become more institutionalised, and was repeated as part of a larger sacrifice on a periodic basis (according to Adam of Bremen every nine years).
>Three thousand bones of young children, with evidence of sacrificial rituals, have been found in Sardinia. Pelasgians offered a sacrifice of every tenth child during difficult times. Syrians sacrificed children to Jupiter and Juno. Many remains of children have been found in Gezer excavations with signs of sacrifice. Child skeletons with the marks of sacrifice have been found also in Egypt dating 950-720 BCE. In Carthage "child sacrifice in the ancient world reached its infamous zenith." Besides the Carthaginians, other Phoenicians, and the Canaanites, Moabites and Sepharvites offered their first-born as a sacrifice to their gods.
Hmm...
>The Incas performed child sacrifices during or after important events, such as the death of the Sapa Inca (emperor) or during a famine. Children were selected as sacrificial victims as they were considered to be the purest of beings. These children were also physically perfect and healthy, because they were the best the people could present to their gods.
>6 child sacrifice victims have been found
You may be right, Incas should have been in the stone age considering their kind just lived over there for just 15000 years. With an european comparison, it's like they were in a 20000AC environment.

Yet, they developed bronze and used it with great variety. They literally developed at a higher rate than "eu"ropeans. They were superior. hehehe

The same thing thing was a joke, but they were pretty much the same civilization. The Aztecs were barbarian late-comers who adapted to the cultural forms of the Mesoamericans.

>6 child sacrifice victims have been found

Is there one more of them?

Incas? lol no.

Wrong. There are millions of quechuas nowadays.
>lol no
Aaaand the eurangutan just lost his mind.

100 failed attempts of goalshifting, yet Inca superiority remains unrefuted. Get over it, monkey.

Pic related superior Inca race.

Mongrel detected.

Butthurt expatriate detected.

Go back to hispachan to troll about muh inca superiority.

Ah that's right. You need your flag hidden to be taken seriously.

Wrong. Flag hidden? So you are from there? I'm assuming you are also an ignorant monkey. Keep the noise at the lowest, chimp.

The mongrel doesn't know about neither colonization eurangutan """"history"""" nor Inca chroniclers. I wonder how will he chimp out this time...

>quechuas are incas
Yeah, and there's millions Gauls in France nowadays, cretin...

Because it is

Wrong. Native unmixed people remain on the mountains. There are also natives non-quechua.

Incas were a civilization you dense moron. They're as extinct as Gauls.

Incas were the high class of an ethnic group which origin is near the Lake Titicaca, Andean mountains. The aymara didn't expand to the territory until several years later.

This Inca ethnic group belongs to the varieties of the quechua ethnic group. The difference of relative ancestry is less than 700 years approximately.

>but they were pretty much the same civilization
No. Look, I'm not going to bother to go over the intricacies and differences between the Nahua (Aztecs) and Maya. Inhabiting regions close to each other and influencing one and other doesn't make them the same civilization. This wouldn't be an accurate way to describe cultures in any other region of the world (ex. Spain and Portugal, France and Germany) and it isn't in this case either. Do more research.

>This wouldn't be an accurate way to describe cultures in any other region of the world (ex. Spain and Portugal, France and Germany) and it isn't in this case either.
>what is Western civilization
Wow. You sure showed me.

Incas; Aztecs are shit. Mayans are okay though.

Mayas,anyone who say otherwise is just being a contrarian.

But that's wrong, you fucking idiot

lol, get a nahua indian and a maya in a room and they wont understand eachother not even the same linguistic family, they are different people like a french from a russian, even both are european.

>western civilization
A cultural appropriation of near east achievements combined with roman empire we wuzzing

How can you like history and be so ignorant?
here is an incan axe.

It's a little more complex than that, the situation is analogous to Sumerian and Akkadian, two unrelated languages that use the same writing system and where the younger language borrows heavily from the older.

youtube.com/watch?v=4oXwlvjld_o

>A cultural appropriation of near east achievements combined with roman empire we wuzzing
muh cultural appropriation
most successful wewuzzers of all time
still an actual sophisticated culture in own right, with many great achievements

The incas were objectively the least barbaric.

Tbh i really like inca culture but this shitposting autist is changing that

I really admire inca architecture and monuments and i think it's amazing they had the logistics to manage an empire through dense jungle and high mountain ranges.

That said it's undeniable that inca civilization was much less urbanized and "developped" than mesoamerican civs.

You can't compare cuzco to farreaching hegemonic and tradecenters like teotihuacan wich as an urban center still challenges our idea of city development today or tenochtitlan wich was in itself one of the most impressive and carefully planned urban realizations in history.

The inca empire was impressive, but still suffered from its location and isolation compared tot other centers of civilization

*Farreaching hegemonic tradecenters

Macchu Picchu was a ceremonial centre where women and some men lived, and the Inca sometimes visited.

Cusco was the city and they had all villages with such architecture all over the empire.

The spanish used the stones as material to build their cities.

What's known of Incas is pretty limited, as the spaniards destroyed all the shit they had on their capital and other locations. Most remaninings have been found on tombs, under foundations...etc.

We just discovered that they had solid numerical system. We just confirmed that they sacrificed children. We just confirmed some basic stuff about their living conditions and organization system.

Numerous findings and chronicles have been restored and found since the last half century. Yet the most numerous remnants have been uncovered since the last 15 years. We know nothing about the Incas. And we are refuting propaganda about them that the spaniards wrote.

50 spergs chimped out about a simple statement. I wonder why could that be...

You adressed literally not one word of My post

It's pretty simple. If you want to know about the Incas just check the chronicles and read books from experts. The peer-review expert bureaucracy is pretty slow.