Aztec Ruins Unearthed in Mexico City

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americ...eut/index.html

Quote:

---

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (Reuters) -- Mexican archeologists have found what may be the most significant Aztec ruin in decades, with the unearthing of an altar and a monolith in the busy heart of Mexico City, Mayor Alejandro Encinas said on Wednesday.

The 15th-century altar, part of the Aztec empire's main temple, was uncovered last weekend near the city's main Zocalo square along with the 11-foot (3.5-meter) stone slab, most of which is still buried under earth.

"It is a very important discovery, the biggest we have made in 28 years. It will allow us to find out a lot more," Encinas told reporters.
Temple building started in 1375

The altar has a frieze of the rain god Tlaloc and another figure related to an agricultural rite. Archeologists are still unearthing the monolith which they think might be part of an entrance to an underground chamber.

The Aztecs began building the Templo Mayor pyramid-shaped temple in 1375. Its ruins are now only yards from downtown's choking traffic. It was first excavated in 1978 after electricity workers found an eight-ton carving of an Aztec goddess.

Spanish conquistadors destroyed the temple when they razed the city in 1521 and used its stones to help build their own capital.

---

Interesting find. Makes you think about all that ancient history we have yet to discover.

You know, those spanish men where so evil with the poor natives, that they made bets on who could cut in half a person with a single sword blow. Also they ripper children from their mother breats and tossed them of cliffs.I read Fray Bartolome de las Casas description about the slaughter they created. It almost made me cry. He refeace to the natives as gentle lambs.

The Aztecs were most certainly not gentle natives, who culturally practiced cannabalism and human sacrifice, and carved out an Empire in Central Mexico using deciet and brutal take over of local tribes. You have to look at this from both sides, the Spanish were bred for war, from the moment of birth they were trained for it, the Reconquista so washed their minds about the evil and impurity of non Catholics, I'm not surprised that they found the Native Lifestyle appaling and evil.

Although we know now that the Aztecs really weren't evil, they practiced culturally acceptable things, but after freshly booting out the Muslims from Iberia, who were culturally close to the Spanish, its no small wonder that when they saw the Aztec culture it enraged them, that, and the fact that they were riding a massive high from completely and utterly destroying their arch enemies, I think that would tend to give them a superiority complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

The Aztecs were most certainly not gentle natives, who culturally practiced cannabalism and human sacrifice, and carved out an Empire in Central Mexico using deciet and brutal take over of local tribes. You have to look at this from both sides, the Spanish were bred for war, from the moment of birth they were trained for it, the Reconquista so washed their minds about the evil and impurity of non Catholics, I'm not surprised that they found the Native Lifestyle appaling and evil.

Although we know now that the Aztecs really weren't evil, they practiced culturally acceptable things, but after freshly booting out the Muslims from Iberia, who were culturally close to the Spanish, its no small wonder that when they saw the Aztec culture it enraged them, that, and the fact that they were riding a massive high from completely and utterly destroying their arch enemies, I think that would tend to give them a superiority complex.

---

wheter or not you are trained for war doesnt make the deed less or more evil.
I never heard about the cannabalism and human sacrifice was practised around the entire world.

But however would you say the human sacrifice could be allowed then men could say that the conquistadores were also justified to do what they did... or at least some parts of it.

Though that entire period was brutal and so many priceless artefacts were destroyed, molten and turned into bars and or just lost.

Arch enemies and such had very little to do with the conquistadores... they were just drawn by the gold and some by adventures.

Christianity and their monks were the ones that burned aztec books and aztec citizen...

This may be true. But our standards of unacceptable unfortunately does not coincide with what was acceptable and unacceptable then. Yes, the Spanish commited very grievous atrocities. But it happened, and you can't change that.

i know i cant change it... but that doesnt mean i must aprove with it. History is how it is because things happened as they happened...

They praticed human sacrifice as we today try not to be sinners(very scarcely)
Practiced with no malice and no unmoral intent. It was just a way to expres their love toward their gods. Most of the times, the sacrifieced humans voluntered.

i wasnt talking about the human sacrifice more about the slaughter the spanish and other conquerers performed.

well, what the spaniards did during the war to destroy or demoralise the aztecs cannot be labeled as acceptable or unaccepltable, as it is i dunno, i think the word would be hippocritical, to say there are rules for war. so anything done in war cannot really be labeled acceptable or unacceptable. but like after they were destroyed, the monks destroying the books of the aztecs, as the books were considered evil, was unacceptable. it goes against everything god teaches. the bible says that god says every one is equal, yet the conquistadoes under the impression that christianity was the only solution for the wrongs of the world, basically made bets on what someone could do to an aztec, like cut them in half, like someone mentioned earlier. and betting is a sin too, is it not. as wrong as what the spaniards did after the war, im kinda happy that they destroyed the aztecs, because if the aztecs had gotten the tech for gunpowder, they would probably be a major blood thirsty ( due to the large population, even if the majority was from tenochtitlam )power aiming for POW to sacrifice.

i dunno, this might not make any sense, but i was on a raving chant, and had to get it off my chest.

Well we know that any atrocities comitted during war is considered unacceptable, by todays standards. What the Spanish did then, was unacceptable, had they known what we know now, I doubt such things would've occured, or perhaps it would've been even worse. The point I'm trying to make, is that was during the late medieval period/ early renaissance the only thing most people knew in Europe at the time was the followings of Christianity, if it was something deemed unacceptable by the papalcy, then it would've been deemed unacceptable by any other group. Tie this in with the fact, the Spanish recently won their war against the Moors (in the name of Christianity) and having developed a strong national identity, it was their belief that the whole world should look a little more Spanish, if it didn't conform peaceably, it was done with terror and force, which of course they were very successful against Technologically insuperior foes. I'm sure when the Spanish eventually got into Mexico, with the idea in mind of creating a greater Spain for the Monarchy, they weren't so concerned about whether the natives liked it or not, after all, the Spanish model was considered the Greatest in the world at the time, and these people were living in reed shacks, and carried obsidian clubs into battle. The Spanish would have none of that, they viewed these people as being so weak and easily manipulateable, that they would gain no respect from the Spanish and deserved to be conquered. I sometimes wonder if the Spanish truelly felt that the Aztecs were evil, I think that they destroyed these lost relics because they needed an excuse to absorb the Natives into the Spanish Empire as quickly and efficiently as possible, afterall these brutal tactics did work in due time against the Moors, who were considered the equals of the Spanish for centuries, and the Native Americans were considered inferior by the Spanish. Obviously, that is no good excuse for what they did, but the process has repeated itself for centuries, the Egyptians and Sumerians were the first to do such things, and the Germans were the last good example, so I do not doubt that this sort of thing will happen again in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roman_man#3

well, what the spaniards did during the war to destroy or demoralise the aztecs cannot be labeled as acceptable or unaccepltable, as it is i dunno, i think the word would be hippocritical, to say there are rules for war. so anything done in war cannot really be labeled acceptable or unacceptable. but like after they were destroyed, the monks destroying the books of the aztecs, as the books were considered evil, was unacceptable. it goes against everything god teaches. the bible says that god says every one is equal, yet the conquistadoes under the impression that christianity was the only solution for the wrongs of the world, basically made bets on what someone could do to an aztec, like cut them in half, like someone mentioned earlier. and betting is a sin too, is it not. as wrong as what the spaniards did after the war, im kinda happy that they destroyed the aztecs, because if the aztecs had gotten the tech for gunpowder, they would probably be a major blood thirsty ( due to the large population, even if the majority was from tenochtitlam )power aiming for POW to sacrifice.

i dunno, this might not make any sense, but i was on a raving chant, and had to get it off my chest.

---

Wakizashi mostly said it. Killing, soldier vs soldier was not what i was talking about, more about soldiers murdering civilians, not for any purpose but for sheer fun. And that is unacceptable, atleast for me.

Quote:

---

Practiced with no malice and no unmoral intent. It was just a way to expres their love toward their gods. Most of the times, the sacrifieced humans voluntered.

---

Um...we're talking about the Aztecs here. IIRC, they would capture enemies in battle and then have their priests cut their hearts out on top of their temples. What they did was not loving or kind, and people certainly didn't volunteer.

Now, the Spanish did terrible things (though I will remain skeptical of some claims presented here until I see sources), but one shouldn't make the mistake of making the Aztecs out to be cuddly friends of the earth.

CR

There's such a thing as over sympathizing with the victims. The Aztecs were pretty rough on the tribes around them (how do you think they got that magnficent empire). Were the Spanish brutal to them? Sure, no denying that. But the Aztecs were brutal to the people they subjugated. At the end of the day, you can't judge people of that era by our standards, it just doesn't work.

This happens in American history too. What the English, the French, and then in time, the Americans did to the Native Americans was pretty harsh. There's no denying that. But they were pretty harsh right back, too the settlers and to each other. One of the main reasons the English and the French were able to hire Algonquin and Iroquois mercenaries was that they hated each other and had been at war for as long as either side could remember.

History is facts. You can certainly say 'it would be wrong to do that today', but I'm afraid 500 years have passed since Cortez started the Spring Break in the tropics tradition. No amount of handwringing now is going to change that.

Perhaps you could provide the sources for your claims about the Spaniards, The Stranger? I can provide for you the sources for how the Aztecs would pillage a neighboring village, take the daughters and rape them in front of their parents, then right there cut off the arms and the legs, together with the head, and munch down on them for the evening feast. Soldiers murdering civilians for sheer fun indeed.

Pssh...:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Christianity and their monks were the ones that burned aztec books and aztec citizen...

---

The Catholic Church, and especially the religious orders (Franciscans, Jesuits, etc) were the principal advocates and defenders of Mexican indians against Spanish brutality from the beginning right up through Independence.

Also, the Aztecs didn't have books, so it would have been hard for anyone to burn them. What the Franciscans (Fray Bernardino de Sahagún) did do was write down and document indian cultures, resulting in expansive tomes which are still primary sources for research today.

..

The Spanish who came to the new world were often very greedy, and a great many atrocities were committed in the name of greed. Nevertheless, the Spanish objective in Mexico was conquest, not genocide-- and it is worth noting that the great bulk of the Army which conquered Tenochtitlan was indian auxiliaries, and that it was the Txalcaltecs who protected Cortez and his decimated party after the Noche Triste.

The Spanish suffered, too-- in one night known as the Noche Triste, more than half of Cortez's men were lost, along with some two thousand allied Indians. Hundreds of prisoners were sacrified at the temples. Not that the Spanish were not aggressors and conquerers-- they certainly were, and most of them were motivated solely by monetary gain. But you have to look at things in perspective.

It may be worth mention that the Aztecs were aggressive conquerors themselves, making wars, sacrificing thousands of prisoners at a time, making constant war against their neighbors for the sole purpose of capturing more sacrifices, who once poisoned their own emporer (Tizoc) because his wars did not reap enough human flesh.