Aztec, Olmec

[dtpost]

Was wondering if anyone else was researching Aztec, Olmec artifacts, languages, drawings and so on?
From the artifacts that I have studied at college and on the net, Aztec and Olmec seem to be the same origin of people. One thing that stands out are the shields that have a swirling symbol on them both from the aztec's and the olmec cultures, as well as the serpent. The eye of "Ra" shows up a lot as well, which everyone knows refers to the sun god, not to be mistaken for the "All Seeing Eye".

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[piegrande]

I am far from an expert on anything at all. But, I never before ever heard the Olmec and Aztecs came from the same people. Except that we all descend from Africa (and recently there is evidence that may not be true). And, most descended from those who came across the Bering. If this is true, I'd sure like to know more.

The people in Cordoba allegedly descended from the Olmecs and Toltecs (sp?) have a totally different appearance from the Aztecs that I know. I do not find the women from Cordoba to be attractive, though where I live in another state they are known to be descended from Aztecs, and some from Popolocas, they are often gorgeous. As my wife and her sister were at age 18. I have met exactly one attractive woman in Cordoba, though of course this involves personal standards of beauty, not a objective view.

I realize this is not important, just saying.

By the way, DNA testing shows the general move from the east, across the Bering, down through the Americas. But, there is allegedly a tribe in eastern Canada which DNA shows came across the ocean directly. If you can access the DNA migration information, that is your best source of information on who is descended from whom. National Geographic seems to be the information warehouse on DNA migration info.

For example, it has been thought that the Irish were descended from the Celts. But, Dna shows they actually came from Spain 5-10,000 years ago. Thus, since 2/3 of Mexicans have male ancestry from the Iberian Peninsula, as a person of male Irish ancestry, my y-marker data is very close to most of my neighbors here in rural Mexico. I may be something like R1b1b2, more or less, as are the Mexican people of Iberian Peninsula descent, and the indigenous people by memory are Q, but my memory is faulty.

There are several traditional mysteries which have been solved by Dna testing. One example is what happened to the folks on Roanoke Island, where Sir Walter Raleigh only found the word Croaton on a tree when he came back. The Lumbee Indians today have a few male members whose y-markers correspond closely to known descendants of family members of the Roanoke Island settlers, which said family members stayed in Europe.

Another major discovery was proof the European Neolithics did NOT come in and supplant the Paelolithics as we were taught in school. In fact, the Neolithics came in, showed the Paleolithics how to farm, then died out. Almost no one Europe is descended from Neolithics.

To me, one of the most interesting, unproven theories is that the Neandertals did in fact intermarry with humans, but were Rh-negative, so the women only had one baby who survived. Further, the Basque folk do not have much in common with others around them, DNA wise, or language wise. and, the Basque language is missing sounds common to humans, but, the remains of Neandertals shows a voice chamber which agrees with the Basque sounds, not the human sounds. I know not if any of this is true, but the DNA stuff fascinates me like the stuff in the Superstitions fascinates a lot of you.

Sorry, I get all excited about DNA.

 

[somehiker]

Piegrande:
I am one of,certainly,many who have enjoyed reading your posts and viewing your wonderful photos.
There are a number of "artifacts" in the Superstions that do seem to suggest a perhaps forgotten time when the mountains and surrounding area were inhabited,possibly for only a short time by a people with close ties to those that built the civilizations of Mexico and Central America.The knowledge of the name "Moctezuma" and his status by so many of the native spokesmen of the American southwest as well as the common theme of abandonment,warfare and subsequent migrations by the refugees seems to have much in common with the history of Mezoamerica.There seems to me to be a "line" that has been drawn,which must not be crossed by those seeking recognition in some fields of research.On one side of the line stands a group of many young and eager professionals.On the other side of the line lies the many remnants of of the past which,so far, have not been clearly identified or put into the overall context.The line itself,IMHO,is a wall constructed of political,professional,and religious righteousness,stuccoed with a layer of consideration for native concern,regarding what they feel as desecration of sacred locations.It's a line that we non-professionals should also be very careful in crossing,for many of these same reasons.

Regards:SH.

 

[cactusjumper]

Gentlemen,

From "The Diaries Of John Gregory Bourke" you will find this on page 88:

"Sept 25. (1874) Friday. Moved South, by a trifle East down Tonto Creek until within 3 miles of its junction with S[a]lado when we inclined more to the East, crossed Salado, turning due East, about 3 miles and camped at a boiling spring Mesquite Springs. Water good. Day very warm. Sky blue. Marched 27 miles. Had Matizal Mountains on our left and Sierra Ancha on our right all day. Trail very good. Passed old Camp Reno on our Right to-day, also saw two little streams flowing into Tonto Creek from West. Passed a number of old Aztec ruins to-day. Examined one and found it to be the remains of a temple, an outer wall of rock had enclosed a house having a court-yard, in centre of which could still be discerned a three-terraced teocalli, with foundation of an altar(?) on top: an entrance through the house discovered signs of an attempt at making arches."

On the following page, Bourke drew the floor plan of the ruin, and a rendering of the "(Aztec arch.)":

I found this to be a fascinating piece of historical documentation.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Cubfan64]

Gentlemen,

From "The Diaries Of John Gregory Bourke" you will find this on page 88:

"Sept 25. (1874) Friday. Moved South, by a trifle East down Tonto Creek until within 3 miles of its junction with S[a]lado when we inclined more to the East, crossed Salado, turning due East, about 3 miles and camped at a boiling spring Mesquite Springs. Water good. Day very warm. Sky blue. Marched 27 miles. Had Matizal Mountains on our left and Sierra Ancha on our right all day. Trail very good. Passed old Camp Reno on our Right to-day, also saw two little streams flowing into Tonto Creek from West. Passed a number of old Aztec ruins to-day. Examined one and found it to be the remains of a temple, an outer wall of rock had enclosed a house having a court-yard, in centre of which could still be discerned a three-terraced teocalli, with foundation of an altar(?) on top: an entrance through the house discovered signs of an attempt at making arches."

On the following page, Bourke drew the floor plan of the ruin, and a rendering of the "(Aztec arch.)":

I found this to be a fascinating piece of historical documentation.

Take care,

Joe

Joe,

I've always found that to be fascinating as well, and it's on my constantly growing list of places to try to pin down the approximate location of just to spend a few days looking around there.

I personally think that as fascinating as the account is along with the drawing (which I have to say is something that Bourke should be highly lauded for doing), it's equally interesting to me that his account has a feel of being very casual and "matter of fact" doesn't it? As though at that time it was well accepted that the Aztec originated in that area or at least inhabited it? Of course an argument could also be made that perhaps some "refugees" of the Mexico came north and were involved in building the ruins that Bourke saw.

Joe - have you ever run across any other well documented accounts like this? I've often thought it would be terribly interesting to go through the National Archives in relation to military investigations around central and northern Arizona - not only for the sheer educational purpose, but also to try to document other possible runins such as these.

 

[cactusjumper]

Paul,

Like you, I would love to see the site. However, even though Bourke was qualified to make such a judgement, I doubt his conclusions are accurate.
There are a number of "Aztec" ruins in the Southwest which have been found to be, not Aztec.

Still, due to it's era of discovery and Bourke's reputation, I would love to see it.

I believe we could pinpoint it pretty close, using Bourke's notes.

Take care,

Joe

 

[somehiker]

Thanks,Joe,for posting the scan from Bourke's diary.
Here is a link to an ASU page that has a map and a good selection of photos.

http://archaeology.asu.edu/vm/southwest/rpms/tour/tour.htm

Many of Piegrande's photos of the ruins in his area show very similar ruins in the same state of deterioration.
If the US had failed to survive the Civil War,I wonder if the archaeologists who excavated the ruins and studied the artifacts would have called the people that lived on the coasts (Boston,San Francisco),and the people that lived in the interior states (Minn,TX,AZ)....Americans? Or even recognized/acknowledged their origin as several generations of European migrants from the same part of the world.

Here is more.Dry reading,but with some sweet nuggets amongst the gravel.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Tonto+basin+archaeology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Regards:SH.

 

[cactusjumper]

Wayne,

Trade between the natives of the Southwest and the Aztec's, seems pretty much accepted as historical fact. That contact would necessitate face to face meetings on some level. It is unlikely that any lasting presence in either homeland ever took place. I don't believe there are any "authenticated" Aztec structures/ruins located in the Southwest.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Springfield]

Wayne,

Trade between the natives of the Southwest and the Aztec's, seems pretty much accepted as historical fact. That contact would necessitate face to face meetings on some level. It is unlikely that any lasting presence in either homeland ever took place. I don't believe there are any "authenticated" Aztec structures/ruins located in the Southwest.

Take care,

Joe

There are plenty of 'Aztec ruins' in the southwest, at least as originally 'identified' by 19th century ethnologists, scribes, soldiers and adventurers - it was a popular generic term of the times and was later found to be in error. As far as 'real' Aztec ruins (pre-migration) are concerned, well that's a toughie, considering this group left the southwest for the present Mexico City area ca 1100 ce at a time when the structures they abandoned were presumably the same as those of the other pre Columbian natives of the region.

The Mexican Aztecs later traded extensively with north Americans, yes, but whether they established permanent outposts of their own, with structures, is questionable. I guess it's reasonable to speculate that a trade caravan may have established a few shrines here and there, and possibly some simple structures for other purposes, but these might be difficult to ID, given the number of other ruins overwhelming the southwest - many thousands of them in fact. I suppose if some archie found a parrot feather in a floor burial, he might call it an Aztec ruin, but I wouldn't take it to the bank. I have seen some 'Aztec appearing' petroglyphs at certain rumor-laden locations, however, that intrigue the imagination.

 

[piegrande]

I did not mean to address the temporary presence of Aztecs in SW USA. My point was I do not believe there was a common ancestor in modern times between Toltecs; Olmecs, and the Aztecs.

I do not doubt the POSSIBILITY of a temporary presence of Aztecs in the SW. It is not known where the Aztecs came from. Ideas range from Utah, to the Lost Tribes of Israel. I doubt the latter, y-marker DNA would show that in a heart beat, though I still feel eventually DNA is going to give the answer.

Utah, based on some archaeological studies is a POSSIBILITY but I also do not believe the Aztecs knew where they came from, no scholars here in Mexico, and some have access to some really old documents, have said the Aztecs knew. If they came from Utah, they may well have passed through the SW, though how long they stopped would be hard to know.

They wandered around, and some books on the Aztecs tell us when they finally found the eagle and the snake, it was on the lake which is where the center of Mexico City is today. And, they were a rag tag group of people scurrying away from unfortunately unsuccessful attempts to kill them. No one especially liked a group of insane people who ripped the hearts out of living human beings and it makes sense they wandered far and for a long time.

They went to a small island in the middle of the lake, and as long as they stayed there, they were left alone. They started dredging to expand the island, which eventually became very large. Today, you have to travel some distance to find the remnants of that lake. In fact, not desiring much to do tourist things, I have never been to Xochimilco but my family has several times.

Samuel Eliot Morrison, in his Oxford history of the American people, Volume 1, page 37, reported that a female human remains found in Lake Pelican, Minn, had a conch shell from the Gulf of Mexico. It is believed to be perhaps as much as 11,000 years old. So, my view is traders did indeed go long distances in ancient times. Thus, I have no doubt Aztec traders, or independents hoping to take some of their money, went as far north as the SW US. And, it is possible they talked about Moctezuma. I would be surprised at anything else.

I wonder if everyone knows Moctezuma was a family name, not a personal name, it's just that this Emperor was known by his family name. Which in fact was not Moctezuma, that is the modern spelling. I am not sure I have it right, but it was something like Mocteuctzoma. The local church records used several spellings in the 1600's, but that one was one of them. Mocteozoma was another. And, Moteuhoma, sigh. By the 1800's, they used Moctesuma.

The point is, if they use the name Moctezuma in the SW USA, it was not used in his day. But, traders would almost certainly have reported who was in charge down here. Montezuma was the Americanized version.

Moctezuma II was Emperor #9, reigned 1502-1520. His uncle Ahuizotl was #8, and his father #6. Wikipedia says the 5th Emperor, reigned 1440-1469, was his great-grandfather and is now known as Moctezuma I. Here is a family tree of all Emperors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_emperors_family_tree It looks like #7 was also an uncle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292069,00.html tells of the possible discovery of the tomb of Ahuizotl in Mexico City.

Now, my local ruins. It is believed they were built by another Indian nation, which was after 1500, conquered by the Aztecs. At that time, the Moctezuma family had members living here, and they were at times caciques. So, if the Moctezuma wanted a place to bury the Emperor, they certainly controlled the land and could put him wherever they wished.