Talk:Tlatelolco (archaeological site)

INAH
Instituto Nacional de Archeología y Humanidades (sp. arqueología) = Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia? Aille (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. This was a mistake form the original article that I just copied without noticing.·Maunus· · ƛ · 18:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Merged with city article
Shouldn't this be merged with the article on the Aztec city, Tlatelolco (altepetl)? --AW (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. These were intentionally made distinct- this one is about the city /archaeological site, whereas the other (altepetl) is about the state or polity we know by the same name. This latter is not equivalent to and is wider than just the city. You can think of it a bit like the distinction between the city of ancient Rome, and the republic, later empire, of ancient Rome.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 01:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They were in fact split by me a month ago or so after having been tagged for splitting for a long time.·Maunus· ƛ · 05:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But the archaeological site article only talks about the archaeological site, and the altepetl article talks about the city and the state (which are coterminous anyway, right?) I am comparing this to say, Pompeii - there's just one article, not one for the archaeological site and one for the city itself. --AW (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comparing Tlatelolco with Pompeii may be misleading, since the latter did not have a significant independent political entity or statehood associated with it, while the former did. Just to be clear, we have one article about the physical settlement (which is today an archaeological site), and another article about the political state (altepetl) that carried the same name and had the city as its central base. This state/altepetl had&mdash;for a time at least&mdash;an independent existence, with its own rulers and administrators, conducted its own foreign policy, engaged in wars, conquests, expansions (ie controlled territory beyond the city's boundaries) and alliances. In short, we have both a state called Tlatelolco, and a location/city called Tlatelolco, and an article for each of these two distinct concepts, even if one emanated from the other. Consider Venice, the location/city, and Republic of Venice, the state emanating from the city.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

2009 discovery
The article discusses the "2009 discovery of mass grave", but this is misleading. While the discovery was announced in February of 2009, it was actually made late 2008. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed "2009". --BorgQueen (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)