NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.aol.com/article/mexico-city-mass-grave/338205

MEXICO CITY (Feb. 11) - Archeologists have found a mass grave in Mexico City with four dozen human skeletons laid out in neat lines that could reveal clues about the 16th century Spanish conquest that killed millions.
The investigators found the 49 skeletons, all lying face up with their arms crossed, as they searched for a palace complex in the Tlatelolco area, once a major religious and political center for the ancient Aztec elite and now a district in the north of the sprawling Mexican capital.
"We were completely taken by surprise. We didn't expect to find this massive funeral complex," Salvador Guilliem, in charge of the site for the government's archeology institute, said when the discovery was announced on Tuesday.
Historians think the Aztecs built Tlatelolco in the early 1300s along with the nearby city of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec empire and now the heart of Mexico City, which the Spanish founded after they conquered the Aztecs in 1521.
It is likely the indigenous people buried in the grave died in battle against the invading Spanish or fell victim to diseases that wiped out large swaths of the native population in 1545 and 1576, Guilliem said.
Many Aztec fighters died resisting the Spanish invasion and millions also perished during a four-year epidemic of hemorrhagic fever that began in 1545, killing 80 percent of indigenous Mexicans.
The 13-by-32-foot burial site differs from other conquest-era graves because of the reverential way the bodies were buried, following Christian customs of the time, unlike thousands of contemporary graves at other Aztec cities where bodies were thrown in at random.
"It is a mass grave, but they were very carefully buried," Guilliem said.

Could these people have been victims of religious disregard? Aztecs, buried in a Christian way? Could it be true that they died ressiting the Spanish or due to illnesses carried by the conquerors? It makes me feel ashamed of how cruel my ancestors were during the conquest of the Americas.

Comments?

If they were Aztecs buried in a Christian manner, than the Conquistador's who found them actually had a profound respect for the Aztecs and held them in some regard. They gave them a Christian burial because that is what they being Christians knew; not out of some sort of hatred.

These fossils were placed there by Satan to make us think that Mexicans evolved from burritos.

If they were Aztecs buried in a Christian manner, than the Conquistador's who found them actually had a profound respect for the Aztecs and held them in some regard. They gave them a Christian burial because that is what they being Christians knew; not out of some sort of hatred.

The thing is that these people apparently died during the Conquest and were buried in a Christian way. They weren't really found, they were victims of the Spanish Conquistadors.

http://news.aol.com/article/mexico-city-mass-grave/338205
Could these people have been victims of religious disregard? Aztecs, buried in a Christian way? Could it be true that they died ressiting the Spanish or due to illnesses carried by the conquerors? It makes me feel ashamed of how cruel my ancestors were during the conquest of the Americas.

Comments?

Your friendly local professional archaeologist (and one who just happens to be currently co-editing a volume on the historical archaeology of Latin America with colleagues in Panama and Argentina) writes...

Reading through what little detail is in the story, I think it's probably far too early to interpret why this group were buried the way they were. I wouldn't automatically assume a disregard for local beliefs. It's not inconceivable that they were early converts to Christianity, especially given the tentative association with local elites.

Addressing a couple of your other points...

The conquest of Mexico was a brutal affair - on both sides - but it was never a foregone conclusion. The Aztecs put up a much better fight than the Inca did against Pizarro. Attention is often placed on the destruction of Tenochtitlan, rightly so, but during the preceding siege the Aztecs weren't beyond a bit of brutality themselves. They sacrificed at least 70 Spanish prisoners during the siege, in the usual happy Aztec method of ripping out their still-beating hearts. As ruthless as Cortes was, there's little point in over-romanticising the Aztec Empire. There's considerable evidence that the slaughter of the population of Tenochtitlan at the end of the siege wasn't carried out by Cortes and the Spaniards (though Cortes is said to have personally executed the last Aztec emperor), but rather by his local allies, whose troops numbered in the tens of thousands (I'm sceptical of estimates of up 200,000), and who were long-term enemies of an Aztec state that had tended to sacrifice captives.

The Aztecs almost certainly would have beaten Cortes, but one thing: smallpox. Native America groups had no built-in immunity to the disease, and it had a devastating impact. The disease seems to have broken out in Tenochtitlan after Cortes was forced out of the city and defeated during La Noche Triste (a name which I don't have to translate for you of all people). Cortes was beaten. He'd probably lost half of his troops. And while he fell back on his Tlaxcalan allies, the initiative was with the Aztecs. If they'd been able to follow up their victory, they'd have won. But a 60 day smallpox epidemic would decimate the Aztec population and wipe out most of their military leadership. Moctezuma II's immediate successor Cuitlahuac died after only about 80 days in power, and any contemporary Aztec codex will show you the devastating impact of the huey ahuizotl ('the grey ash'). I've seen figures for a total Mesoamerican death toll through smallpox of between 75-95%. I'm inclined to go for the lower figure, but that's still an awful lot of people - and at this point, the Aztecs were the only native group to have contracted the disease, putting Cortes and his native allies at an immediate advantage. Cortes was responsible for introducing smallpox, but he didn't do so intentionally (smallpox blankets came later, and weren't necessarily a Spanish-specific tactic), and had no idea of what its impact would be.

Summed up, the conquest of Mexico was brutal, and the introduction of smallpox was devastating, but there was enough brutality to go around on all sides, Cortes' victory was by no means pre-ordained, and the conquistadors didn't introduce smallpox on purpose.

I'm not trying to absolve Cortes (who wasn't in fact acting on behalf of the Spanish Crown - his commission had been revoked, and he was legally in mutiny against the crown when he set sail) of his moral responsibility for a considerable amount of unnecessary death, bloodshed, and violence, but there's enough moral culpability to go around that I wouldn't waste too much time feeling morally culpable yourself for a historical event that was far more morally complex than most modern interpretations suggest.

The thing is that these people apparently died during the Conquest and were buried in a Christian way. They weren't really found, they were victims of the Spanish Conquistadors.

Not necessarily.

The article specifically states that they could have been victims of later smallpox epidemics post-dating the initial conquest, in the 1540s and 1560s. In which case they're potentially post-conquest converts, and only indirectly victims in the sense that smallpox was introduced by Cortes' army.

The archaeologists aren't certain of the specific date of death yet; there's a considerable amount of post-excavation work to do yet. On a rough estimate, you expect to spend three times as much post-excavation time working in the lab than you do in the field.

Your friendly local professional archaeologist (and one who just happens to be currently co-editing a volume on the historical archaeology of Latin America with colleagues in Panama and Argentina) writes...

Reading through what little detail is in the story, I think it's probably far too early to interpret why this group were buried the way they were. I wouldn't automatically assume a disregard for local beliefs. It's not inconceivable that they were early converts to Christianity, especially given the tentative association with local elites.

Addressing a couple of your other points...

The conquest of Mexico was a brutal affair - on both sides - but it was never a foregone conclusion. The Aztecs put up a much better fight than the Inca did against Pizarro. Attention is often placed on the destruction of Tenochtitlan, rightly so, but during the preceding siege the Aztecs weren't beyond a bit of brutality themselves. They sacrificed at least 70 Spanish prisoners during the siege, in the usual happy Aztec method of ripping out their still-beating hearts. As ruthless as Cortes was, there's little point in over-romanticising the Aztec Empire. There's considerable evidence that the slaughter of the population of Tenochtitlan at the end of the siege wasn't carried out by Cortes and the Spaniards (though Cortes is said to have personally executed the last Aztec emperor), but rather by his allies, whose troops numbered in the tens of thousands (I'm sceptical of estimates of up 200,000), and who were long-term enemies of an Aztec state that had tended to sacrifice captives.

Oh no, I know there's no point in romanticicing the Aztec. The were a brutal empire, to their own people and to invaders.

The Aztecs almost certainly would have beaten Cortes, but one thing: smallpox. Native America groups had no built-in immunity to the disease, and it had a devastating impact. The disease seems to have broken out in Tenochtitlan after Cortes was forced out of the city and defeated during La Noche Triste (a name which I don't have to translate for you of all people). Cortes was beaten. He'd probably lost half of his troops. And while he fell back on his Tlaxcalan allies, the initiative was with the Aztecs. If they'd been able to follow up their victory, they'd have won. But a 60 day smallpox epidemic would decimate the Aztec population and wipe out most of their military leadership. Moctezuma II's immediate successor Cuitlahuac died after only about 80 days in power, and any contemporary Aztec codex will show you the devastating impact of the huey ahuizotl ('the grey ash'). I've seen figures for a total Mesoamerican death toll through smallpox of between 75-95%. I'm inclined to go for the lower figure, but that's still an awful lot of people - and at this point, the Aztecs were the only native group to have contracted the disease, putting Cortes and his native allies at an immediate advantage. Cortes was responsible for introducing smallpox, but he didn't do so intentionally (smallpox blankets came later, and weren't necessarily a Spanish-specific tactic), and had no idea of what its impact would be.

Understood.

Summed up, the conquest of Mexico was brutal, and the introduction of smallpox was devastating, but there was enough brutality to go around on all sides, Cortes' victory was by no means pre-ordained, and the conquistadors didn't introduce smallpox on purpose.

Agreed, the introduction of smallpox on this affair was a complete accident.

I'm not trying to absolve Cortes (who wasn't in fact acting on behalf of the Spanish Crown - his commission had been revoked, and he was legally in mutiny against the crown when he set sail) of his moral responsibility for a considerable amount of unnecessary death, bloodshed, and violence, but there's enough moral culpability to go around that I wouldn't waste too much time feeling morally culpable yourself for a historical event that was far more morally complex than most modern interpretations suggest.

Upon revising history, it's not that I feel morally guilty of what people like Cortés did. He was an ass even to his own men. He burnt the ships in Yucatán so his men couldn't leave and go back to Spain after his mission was sanctioned by the Spanish Crown. But it is still shameful that they acted the way they did.

"Massive Funeral Complex" would be a good name for a band.

"Massive Funeral Complex" would be a good name for a band.

Form the band, then.

The thing is that these people apparently died during the Conquest and were buried in a Christian way. They weren't really found, they were victims of the Spanish Conquistadors.

to make you feel better you must pay back these countries now.
Don't forget when paying back to divide by territory of former new Spain. And be sure to pay the current governments back. make the one for northern new Spain payable to Barrack Obama.

I'm betting that they were a local powerful family that aided the conquistadors against the locals. It would explain why they were buried in a Xian manner despite being obviously Aztec.

to make you feel better you must pay back these countries now.
Don't forget when paying back to divide by territory of former new Spain. And be sure to pay the current governments back. make the one for northern new Spain payable to Barrack Obama.

http://smile.smilies.nl/460.gif

It makes me feel ashamed of how cruel my ancestors were during the conquest of the Americas.

This is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I have ever heard.

Being ashamed for actions taken by others, hundreds of years before you were ever born, is patently ludicrous. There is no valid justification for it.

This is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I have ever heard.

Being ashamed for actions taken by others, hundreds of years before you were ever born, is patently ludicrous. There is no valid justification for it.

Oh, for the love of Pete! It is not ridiculous to feel ashamed for what your ancestors may have done. You may find it absurd, but it is not.

Oh, for the love of Pete! It is not ridiculous to feel ashamed for what your ancestors may have done. You may find it absurd, but it is not.

Yes, it is.

You are not responsible for it; therefore, there is nothing for you to be ashamed of.

It's one thing to say "That sucks; I wish they hadn't done that." But to feel guilt yourself is groundless.

Yes, it is.

You are not responsible for it; therefore, there is nothing for you to be ashamed of.

On the contrary, I do feel ashamed of it, even if it's not my responsibility. I'm a historian.

On the contrary, I do feel ashamed of it, even if it's not my responsibility.

Then you're behaving absurdly. That's my whole point.

I don't deny that you feel the way you say.

What I deny is that there's any valid reason for you to feel that way.

Not only is it stupid and ridiculous, it's flat-out wrong and evil.

Then you're behaving absurdly. That's my whole point.

I don't deny that you feel the way you say.

What I deny is that there's any valid reason for you to feel that way.

Not only is it stupid and ridiculous, it's flat-out wrong and evil.

Think whatever you want, Bluth.

Then you're behaving absurdly. That's my whole point.

I don't deny that you feel the way you say.

What I deny is that there's any valid reason for you to feel that way.

Not only is it stupid and ridiculous, it's flat-out wrong and evil.

Your children's children will be ashamed you said this...

Could they not be allies of Cortes like the Tlaxcalans rather than Aztecs?

Could they not be allies of Cortes like the Tlaxcalans rather than Aztecs?

Was Neelix among the dead?

Was Neelix among the dead?

Geek.

Was Neelix among the dead?

I hope so, the irritating git that he was.

Geek.

I don't know what you're talking about.

<_<

>_>

Yes, it is.

You are not responsible for it; therefore, there is nothing for you to be ashamed of.

It's one thing to say "That sucks; I wish they hadn't done that." But to feel guilt yourself is groundless.

And what if you were living off the actions of your ancestors?

Say, a Spanish family living the rich life off looted Aztec gold a hundred years ago.

Or maybe an American WWII veteran selling curios and letter openers made out of Japanese bones and passing the proceeds to his children?

Or maybe the descendants of an SS officer doing quite well off the proceeds of gold teeth, art, bullion and other treasures confiscated by people who were subsequently turned into ash?

If they were Aztecs buried in a Christian manner, than the Conquistador's who found them actually had a profound respect for the Aztecs and held them in some regard. They gave them a Christian burial because that is what they being Christians knew; not out of some sort of hatred.

Your not thinking like an Aztec, nor a Conquistador. To be burried according to your enemies custom was a posthumus "F-U." The Conquistadors knew this from way back when it was the Mores v. Muslims. Heck even Vald the Impaler knew it.

If there was ever a civilization that deserved to be taken out, it was the Aztecs. Societies that embrace human sacrifice don't deserve to endure.

Thank God for the Spanish.

Could these people have been victims of religious disregard? Aztecs, buried in a Christian way? Could it be true that they died ressiting the Spanish or due to illnesses carried by the conquerors? It makes me feel ashamed of how cruel my ancestors were during the conquest of the Americas.

I think if they were disregarded, they would have just been chucked into a pit or left by the side of the road or something. It looks like they were pretty well taken care of, maybe they were Indian converts or puppet rulers for the Spanish or something. As for being ashamed, I wouldn't waste time feeling guilty for something you didn't do and couldn't have prevented.

If there was ever a civilization that deserved to be taken out, it was the Aztecs.

I'm right alongside of this sentiment. I don't really think the Aztecs deserve a whole lot of sympathy invested on their behalf.

If there was ever a civilization that deserved to be taken out, it was the Aztecs. Societies that embrace human sacrifice don't deserve to endure.

Thank God for the Spanish.

There is a certain logic to it for a society living in an area of limited resources,. In the absence of contraception it is one way of limiting population to within sustainable numbers. Is there that much difference between sacrificing prisoners of war to your Gods and hanging prisoners of war like Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or with executing criminals?

There is a certain logic to it for a society living in an area of limited resources,. In the absence of contraception it is one way of limiting population to within sustainable numbers. Is there that much difference between sacrificing prisoners of war to your Gods and hanging prisoners of war like Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or with executing criminals?

The Tahitians and Stone Age peoples are said to have managed population control without human sacrifice. They just introduced a sort of immediate post-natal abortion :wink:
As for the second part: something tells me there's a difference between human sacrifice and being Saddam, but it's sorta gut feeling, so don't ask me for explanation. (absolutely no sarcasm here.) Maybe it's because human sacrifice, as opposed to the other mentioned killings, has no rational justification.

Could they not be allies of Cortes like the Tlaxcalans rather than Aztecs?

GoG seems to think it could be that. It's still too early to say, the bodies were just unearthed and the archaeologists aren't disregarding any theories as of yet.

If there was ever a civilization that deserved to be taken out, it was the Aztecs. Societies that embrace human sacrifice don't deserve to endure.

Thank God for the Spanish.

The same God that the Spanish invoked when burning heretics at the stake?

Yes. Thank that God that those barbaric Aztecs were replaced by the far more civilised Spaniards.:rolleyes:

If you were to study some history, you would soon realise that both groups were utterly despicable. The main differences were that the Spaniards had iron while the Aztecs had good hygiene.

If there was ever a civilization that deserved to be taken out, it was the Aztecs. Societies that embrace human sacrifice don't deserve to endure.

Thank God for the Spanish.

The same argument could be made for the current US, with its death penalty and it's laws allowing abortion.

It's all a matter of perspective. I wonder how you'd feel in the if your 'logic' was applied to yourself.

The same argument could be made for the current US, with its death penalty and it's laws allowing abortion.

It's all a matter of perspective. I wonder how you'd feel in the if your 'logic' was applied to yourself.

Er, no, the "same argument" could not be made for the "current US." Capital punishment has nothing to do with human sacrifice. Nor does abortion, and I am by no means defending abortion.

What a silly post. :rolleyes:

The same God that the Spanish invoked when burning heretics at the stake?

Yes. Thank that God that those barbaric Aztecs were replaced by the far more civilised Spaniards.:rolleyes:

Heretics weren't burned as sacrifices. They were burned for defying the Church. Not the same thing.

And burnings at the stake were an aberrant practice that should have been, and was, eventually abolished.

I'm still glad the Spanish overthrew the Aztecs.

If you were to study some history, you would soon realise that both groups were utterly despicable. The main differences were that the Spaniards had iron while the Aztecs had good hygiene.

I've probably forgotten more history than you've ever studied. And bad as the Spanish were, IMO they were still far superior to the Aztecs. Again, they prevailed and I'm glad they did. Vae victis.

Heretics weren't burned as sacrifices. They were burned for defying the Church. Not the same thing.

But equally abhorrent, at least to people who value human life.


I'm still glad the Spanish overthrew the Aztecs.



I've probably forgotten more history than you've ever studied. And bad as the Spanish were, IMO they were still far superior to the Aztecs. Again, they prevailed and I'm glad they did. Vae victis.

News flash; New Mitanni approves of genocide.

Gasp, shock.

Heretics weren't burned as sacrifices. They were burned for defying the Church. Not the same thing.

And burnings at the stake were an aberrant practice that should have been, and was, eventually abolished.

I'm still glad the Spanish overthrew the Aztecs.

Oh, I see. Killing someone to appease your god for the sin of heresy is dramatically different from killing someone to appease your god through sacrifice.

I've probably forgotten more history than you've ever studied. And bad as the Spanish were, IMO they were still far superior to the Aztecs. Again, they prevailed and I'm glad they did. Vae victis.

Trumpetting your own horn makes you look like a bullshitter.

Er, no, the "same argument" could not be made for the "current US." Capital punishment has nothing to do with human sacrifice. Nor does abortion, and I am by no means defending abortion.

What a silly post. :rolleyes:

Yes, the same argument could be made. Capital punishment could certainly be argued to be close to Aztec sacrifice of enemies of their rule. I suspect you are trying to argue that it's the specifically religious overtones that make them so different, but the Spaniards hanging natives in 13s in honour of the Last Supper isn't that different, nor is the practise of baptising infants before smashing their brains in - because dying 'in the light' was better than living 'as a savage'. It's irrelevent anyway, of course - dead is dead.

But equally abhorrent, at least to people who value human life.



News flash; New Mitanni approves of genocide.

Gasp, shock.

Silly boy. Don't you know white people are always right?:rolleyes:

GoG seems to think it could be that. It's still too early to say, the bodies were just unearthed and the archaeologists aren't disregarding any theories as of yet.

reguardless of which theory proved right. the actions of any nation can be balanced by other actions that nation takes throughout their history. nothing for you to be ashamed of.