This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I reverted the recent changes that implied Caxcan persists today as an identifiable and recognised ethnolinguistic cultural group. Such a statement would need far better sources than those provided to sustain the claim. Neither CDI nor INALI mention or recognise any distinct Caxcan/Cazcan population or language/dialect, and nor do contemporary linguistic references for Uto-Aztecan or Mexican indigenous langs in general - to the best of my knowledge. Possibly I'm mistaken, but I do not think modern ethnographic sources propose or identify any contiguous population as "caxcan/cazcan".
A passing acknowledgement in an EZLN speech is insufficient evidence. The John P. Schmal reference is misused — saying that there are no doubt genetic descendants living today with Caxcan forebears is a different thing altogether to saying that there is a distinct and recognised culture persisting today. In another place and context, Schmal evidently agrees with the proposition Caxcan has no currency today, stating "as a cultural group, the Caxcanes ceased to exist during the Nineteenth Century." [1].
If more reliable and relevant sources can be found to demonstrate a recognised group identity as Caxcan survives, then glad to reconsider upon presentation of those sources. Until then, let's stick with what the current ethnographic descriptions portray is the case. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 06:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 October 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crowsarecool ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Crowsarecool ( talk) 07:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I reverted the recent changes that implied Caxcan persists today as an identifiable and recognised ethnolinguistic cultural group. Such a statement would need far better sources than those provided to sustain the claim. Neither CDI nor INALI mention or recognise any distinct Caxcan/Cazcan population or language/dialect, and nor do contemporary linguistic references for Uto-Aztecan or Mexican indigenous langs in general - to the best of my knowledge. Possibly I'm mistaken, but I do not think modern ethnographic sources propose or identify any contiguous population as "caxcan/cazcan".
A passing acknowledgement in an EZLN speech is insufficient evidence. The John P. Schmal reference is misused — saying that there are no doubt genetic descendants living today with Caxcan forebears is a different thing altogether to saying that there is a distinct and recognised culture persisting today. In another place and context, Schmal evidently agrees with the proposition Caxcan has no currency today, stating "as a cultural group, the Caxcanes ceased to exist during the Nineteenth Century." [1].
If more reliable and relevant sources can be found to demonstrate a recognised group identity as Caxcan survives, then glad to reconsider upon presentation of those sources. Until then, let's stick with what the current ethnographic descriptions portray is the case. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 06:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 October 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crowsarecool ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Crowsarecool ( talk) 07:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)