>>41803834>>41803914>>41803965I don't know how the fuck I missed this, but you don't know what you are talking about at all, hopefully you are still around to catch this.
Yes, "Aztec Civilization" by most definitions existed from the 13th to 16th centuries, but by that point Mesoamerica had had complex socities for nearly 3000 years: The Olmec had stratified towns and early cities with rulers, class systems, long distance trade, monumental archtecture, etc back by 1400 BC. Writing dates back to 900BC, etc. Repeating the "Muh oxford" factoid is as meaningless as saying "oxford predates america": No fucking shit, it only seems like a revelation if you are ignorant and think the Aztec were the first civilization in the area or something:
Secondly, calling them "Stone Age" is just factually wrong under any possible intepretation of it. Taken at face value, it's wrong because the Mesoamericans smelted bronze. It's also wrong, more importantly, because the entire idea of "Stone/bronze/iron ages" are just retroactive ways people split up eruasian history. They aren't stages of advancement socities go through. There are random african tribes that indepedently invented steel, that doesn't make them more advanced then the Minoans or Mesopotamians.
Likewise, in the inverse situation, while most Mesoamerican socities didn't use many metal tools or weapons, they were absolutely comparable and often far outclipsed bronze age socities in most other ways: You have Mesoamerican cities absolutely dwarfing the largest Bronze age cities in size 1000+ years before the Aztec existed; with Teotihuacan for example not just BTFO'd the largest bronze age cities, but giving the largest contemporary Roman cities competition too, covering 37 square kilometers, in which virtually the entire population were housed in fancy stone villas with open air courtyards, frescos, dozens of rooms, etc, see pic
1/?