Moctezuma's Tomb
(From another thread) >>hidden underground in Central Mexico like they did with most of their temples and pyramids which now look like hills in the landscape.
That is pretty much what I saw yesterday. I have wanted to see the place called Moctezuma's tomb, since I first heard about it, as I described on another thread.
My wife's uncle across the mountain in another village is over 90, has prostate cancer, and by all standards should have been dead long ago if he were in a nursing home in the US. Cousin V. calls me several times a week to drive him over, to deal with some issue or another, usually health and pain related. I joke I have to drive for him, because he is too old. This is a joke because he is ten years younger than I am. But, he doesn't like to drive if he can avoid it, especially at night. I drove around 5,000 miles last October, almost to Canada.
Yesterday afternoon, V. called, and said, "Would you like to visit Moctezuma's tomb, then go to see the uncle?" Um, yeah, I think so.
My wife, just back from a month in the States, chose to go, too. Also, V.'s 10 year old son.
We took the highway south, which isn't really aligned north and south which confuses me at times when I am looking at satellite. (Also, when I give a direction here, it is also off by quite a few degrees.) He told me to turn off into a dirt and rock road, rather rough. We followed the road which exists only to allow access by farmers to their crops. A lot of mud, and at times the Sienna would bump something underneath.
He thought the tomb was west of the dirt road. We parked and started walking. When we encountered a farmer and his son planting corn, V. asked where Moctezuma's tomb was. Oops! The man pointed south, not west. After making sure we understood which hill he meant, we went back to the car and drove further.
When we decided further car travel was inappropriate, we parked out of the way and started walking.
I don't want you to think the fields are perfectly flat, because they are not, but their variation is in the range of a meter or two, not hilly - until you really hit a hill at the edge of the fields. The first picture was taken from the tomb to show you what they are like. My car is visible in the distance on my viewer, but it has to be enlarged until the car is no more than pixels, but it isn't especially important.
These fields are roughly 6150 feet above sea level. I forgot my altimeter and am estimating off the GPS.
The hill we were seeking is roughly 6400 fee above the sea.
The second picture is from the base of the hill, and yes, that is a man on top of the tomb. Because of all the growth, it is very hard to get a really good picture overall of the tomb any better than this one, though in future visits, I will try. (You do know there will be future visits, don't you, heh, heh? It is only 7 km from my house.)
When one reaches the top, and studies a while, there is a base, several times wider than the tomb, then the 'tomb' is built up another 30 or so feet. V. said 23 feet, but I think it's more. Next time I will get someone in the picture so I can calculate it better. There are a number of holes in both the base and the top of the tomb, but these may well be the product of those digging for treasure. I am told treasure hunting works better when you are drunk. The confidence level goes way up.
Evidence indicates it was an existing structure, maybe 30 or 40 feet across. It looks at a glance like a pile of dirt and rocks, but a wall is visible on one side. See next picture, that is impossible in nature in my opinion.
V. said it is believed it existed as some sort of structure, and when the 'foreigners' came, they went to work and covered it up, as was stated on the other thread. Other ruins not far away were treated the same way. In some cases, when they remove the fill dirt, the ruins are in fair shape.
Next picture gives a view of the mound from one side, standing outside the base. This sort of small mound sticking up out of nowhere is rare or nonexistent in this area. I came to the conclusion that it is definitely a man-made mound, and as I said, the wall on one side makes it clear it was some sort of structure before the dirt and rocks was tossed on.
A personal theory is, based on the view from the top, it may have been a look-out tower, or conversely a beacon tower. This is apparently on what was a trade route from Oaxaca to Tenochtitlan (currently Mexico City) and not far away is an indigenous fort which operated a protection racket. Er, I mean they provided armed protection (from themselves) if the merchants paid the significant toll. It is believed the tribe lit signal fires at night in high places to guide them in if they arrived at night. Either way, this thing, whatever it is, is strategically located for either purpose.
There are several smaller mounds with the same artificial appearance, no more than a hundred feet away, as if there are smaller buildings underneath. Smaller, of course, but the same man-made appearance, and not consistent with other shapes in these hills.
One of them has several places near the top that look to be made of concrete, see last picture. This is also not something that one finds here. I checked with my nail, and it is not as strong as concrete, I was able to chip off small pieces.
V. is a builder, and he said, "Cal". The term used here for quick-lime, which is the basis for stucco type coverings. I do not know if the ancients had that or cement. They certainly had plenty of material, the hills are made of a form of limestone, closer to travertine marble than the crude limestone I knew in the Midwest. I would not think cal would last this long, but perhaps it was covered with dirt and only recently became visible from rain erosion. It would take an experienced researcher to give us better answers than my wild guesses.
Could Moctezuma be buried inside that mound? Who knows? Out here in the boonies, in older times, oral tradition had a way of steering a straight line for a long time. So, while I am not sticking my neck out to say he is buried there, I will say it is within the realm of possibility, and that it is unlikely we will ever know. But, the name, Moctezuma's Tomb is known by those who live nearby. Yet, V., an inveterate explorer, 58 years old, did not know where it was.
Note: The spelling was not always Moctezuma. A birth certificate in the local church spelled it as Mocteuctzoma, and there were other spellings in early days. In the US it is spelled Montezuma.
Enough, I will add another posting if I can think of it.
(From another thread) >>hidden underground in Central Mexico like they did with most of their temples and pyramids which now look like hills in the landscape.
That is pretty much what I saw yesterday. I have wanted to see the place called Moctezuma's tomb, since I first heard about it, as I described on another thread.
My wife's uncle across the mountain in another village is over 90, has prostate cancer, and by all standards should have been dead long ago if he were in a nursing home in the US. Cousin V. calls me several times a week to drive him over, to deal with some issue or another, usually health and pain related. I joke I have to drive for him, because he is too old. This is a joke because he is ten years younger than I am. But, he doesn't like to drive if he can avoid it, especially at night. I drove around 5,000 miles last October, almost to Canada.
Yesterday afternoon, V. called, and said, "Would you like to visit Moctezuma's tomb, then go to see the uncle?" Um, yeah, I think so.
My wife, just back from a month in the States, chose to go, too. Also, V.'s 10 year old son.
We took the highway south, which isn't really aligned north and south which confuses me at times when I am looking at satellite. (Also, when I give a direction here, it is also off by quite a few degrees.) He told me to turn off into a dirt and rock road, rather rough. We followed the road which exists only to allow access by farmers to their crops. A lot of mud, and at times the Sienna would bump something underneath.
He thought the tomb was west of the dirt road. We parked and started walking. When we encountered a farmer and his son planting corn, V. asked where Moctezuma's tomb was. Oops! The man pointed south, not west. After making sure we understood which hill he meant, we went back to the car and drove further.
When we decided further car travel was inappropriate, we parked out of the way and started walking.
I don't want you to think the fields are perfectly flat, because they are not, but their variation is in the range of a meter or two, not hilly - until you really hit a hill at the edge of the fields. The first picture was taken from the tomb to show you what they are like. My car is visible in the distance on my viewer, but it has to be enlarged until the car is no more than pixels, but it isn't especially important.
These fields are roughly 6150 feet above sea level. I forgot my altimeter and am estimating off the GPS.
The hill we were seeking is roughly 6400 fee above the sea.
The second picture is from the base of the hill, and yes, that is a man on top of the tomb. Because of all the growth, it is very hard to get a really good picture overall of the tomb any better than this one, though in future visits, I will try. (You do know there will be future visits, don't you, heh, heh? It is only 7 km from my house.)
When one reaches the top, and studies a while, there is a base, several times wider than the tomb, then the 'tomb' is built up another 30 or so feet. V. said 23 feet, but I think it's more. Next time I will get someone in the picture so I can calculate it better. There are a number of holes in both the base and the top of the tomb, but these may well be the product of those digging for treasure. I am told treasure hunting works better when you are drunk. The confidence level goes way up.
Evidence indicates it was an existing structure, maybe 30 or 40 feet across. It looks at a glance like a pile of dirt and rocks, but a wall is visible on one side. See next picture, that is impossible in nature in my opinion.
V. said it is believed it existed as some sort of structure, and when the 'foreigners' came, they went to work and covered it up, as was stated on the other thread. Other ruins not far away were treated the same way. In some cases, when they remove the fill dirt, the ruins are in fair shape.
Next picture gives a view of the mound from one side, standing outside the base. This sort of small mound sticking up out of nowhere is rare or nonexistent in this area. I came to the conclusion that it is definitely a man-made mound, and as I said, the wall on one side makes it clear it was some sort of structure before the dirt and rocks was tossed on.
A personal theory is, based on the view from the top, it may have been a look-out tower, or conversely a beacon tower. This is apparently on what was a trade route from Oaxaca to Tenochtitlan (currently Mexico City) and not far away is an indigenous fort which operated a protection racket. Er, I mean they provided armed protection (from themselves) if the merchants paid the significant toll. It is believed the tribe lit signal fires at night in high places to guide them in if they arrived at night. Either way, this thing, whatever it is, is strategically located for either purpose.
There are several smaller mounds with the same artificial appearance, no more than a hundred feet away, as if there are smaller buildings underneath. Smaller, of course, but the same man-made appearance, and not consistent with other shapes in these hills.
One of them has several places near the top that look to be made of concrete, see last picture. This is also not something that one finds here. I checked with my nail, and it is not as strong as concrete, I was able to chip off small pieces.
V. is a builder, and he said, "Cal". The term used here for quick-lime, which is the basis for stucco type coverings. I do not know if the ancients had that or cement. They certainly had plenty of material, the hills are made of a form of limestone, closer to travertine marble than the crude limestone I knew in the Midwest. I would not think cal would last this long, but perhaps it was covered with dirt and only recently became visible from rain erosion. It would take an experienced researcher to give us better answers than my wild guesses.
Could Moctezuma be buried inside that mound? Who knows? Out here in the boonies, in older times, oral tradition had a way of steering a straight line for a long time. So, while I am not sticking my neck out to say he is buried there, I will say it is within the realm of possibility, and that it is unlikely we will ever know. But, the name, Moctezuma's Tomb is known by those who live nearby. Yet, V., an inveterate explorer, 58 years old, did not know where it was.
Note: The spelling was not always Moctezuma. A birth certificate in the local church spelled it as Mocteuctzoma, and there were other spellings in early days. In the US it is spelled Montezuma.
Enough, I will add another posting if I can think of it.
The doctoral students who proved the tie to the family of Moctezuma had access to old records in the State Capitol that I would never be allowed to see.
The date is known, just find the wikipedia for Moctezuma II.
