Post by: Norris on August 24, 2006, 04:26:03 PM
Boiled bones show Aztecs butchered, ate invaders
http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story397.htm
By Catherine Bremer
Skeletons found at an unearthed site in Mexico show Aztecs captured, ritually sacrificed and partially ate several hundred people traveling with invading Spanish forces in 1520.
Skulls and bones from the Tecuaque archeological site near Mexico City show about 550 victims had their hearts ripped out by Aztec priests in ritual offerings, and were dismembered or had their bones boiled or scraped clean, experts say.
The findings support accounts of Aztecs capturing and killing a caravan of Spanish conquistadors and local men, women and children traveling with them in revenge for the murder of Cacamatzin, king of the Aztec empire's No. 2 city of Texcoco.
Experts say the discovery proves some Aztecs did resist the conquistadors led by explorer Hernan Cortes, even though history books say most welcomed the white-skinned horsemen in the belief they were returning Aztec gods.
"This is the first place that has so much evidence there was resistance to the conquest," said archeologist Enrique Martinez, director of the dig at Calpulalpan in Tlaxcala state, near Texcoco.
"It shows it wasn't all submission. There was a fight."
The caravan was apparently captured because it was made up mostly of the mulatto, mestizo, Maya Indian and Caribbean men and women given to the Spanish as carriers and cooks when they landed in Mexico in 1519, and so was moving slowly.
The prisoners were kept in cages for months while Aztec priests from what is now Mexico City selected a few each day at dawn, held them down on a sacrificial slab, cut out their hearts and offered them up to various Aztec gods.
Some may have been given hallucinogenic mushrooms or pulque -- an alcoholic milky drink made from fermented cactus juice -- to numb them to what was about to happen.
TEETH MARKS
"It was a continuous sacrifice over six months. While the prisoners were listening to their companions being sacrificed, the next ones were being selected," Martinez said, standing in his lab amid boxes of bones, some of young children.
"You can only imagine what it was like for the last ones, who were left six months before being chosen, their anguish."
The priests and town elders, who performed the rituals on the steps of temples cut off by a perimeter wall, sometimes ate their victims' raw and bloody hearts or cooked flesh from their arms and legs once it dropped off the boiling bones.
Knife cuts and even teeth marks on the bones show which ones had meat stripped off to be eaten, Martinez said.
Some pregnant women in the group had their unborn babies stabbed inside their bellies as part of the ritual.
In Aztec times the site was called Zultepec, a town of white-stucco temples and homes where some 5,000 people grew maize and beans and produced pulque to sell to traders.
Priests had to be brought in for the ritual killings because human sacrifices had never before taken place there, Martinez said.
On hearing of the months-long massacre, Cortes renamed the town Tecuaque -- meaning "where people were eaten" in the indigenous Nahuatl language -- and sent an army to wipe out its people.
When they heard the Spanish were coming, the Zultepec Aztecs threw their victims' possessions down wells, unwittingly preserving buttons and jewelry for the archeologists.
The team, which began work here in 1990, also found remains of domestic animals brought from Spain, like goats and pigs.
"They hid all the evidence," said Martinez. "Thanks to that act, we have been allowed to discover a chapter we were unaware of in the conquest of Mexico."
Post by: grampster on August 24, 2006, 04:59:43 PM
Oh, yeah.....Leftists. Let's talk, hold hands, apologize and sing songs.
Has anyone seen that large black pot?
Post by: Ron on August 24, 2006, 05:32:09 PM
The only thing worse than my conservative friends longing for the old days (50's) is the silly leftists glorifying ancient culture as superior.
Post by: Guest on August 24, 2006, 05:40:29 PM
Post by: mfree on August 24, 2006, 05:44:27 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on August 24, 2006, 05:45:25 PM
Post by: pawcatch on August 24, 2006, 07:40:25 PM
Was this unacceptable in their culture?Was it illegal at the time?
They were simply defending what was theirs at the time and making use of a resource.
How is this any worse than eating processed junk foods?
Were their heart disease rates any higher than modern-day America?
Or obesity?
Or diabetes?
Seriously,I object to cannibalism and the murder od pregnant women,but how is this worse than what the spanish did?
Post by: Guest on August 24, 2006, 07:54:35 PM
If I had been alive back then I would have killed and eaten every European I saw as well.
Post by: 280plus on August 25, 2006, 12:19:29 AM
Quote
Good for them. Ever look at non-highschool history accounts of the "New World" genocides?
If I had been alive back then I would have killed and eaten every European I saw as well.
I was thinking the same thing. LOL...If I had been alive back then I would have killed and eaten every European I saw as well.
Most people do not realize that at one time in certain portions of the world there was actually TRADE in human flesh and bones. Skulls were pretty big. They literally had places where you could go to just like a deli with human flesh cured and hanging for sale. One term I've heard for it was "long pork". Fingers were considered snack food.
Don't worry, plenty of Europeans made it into the "pot" just not enough, from what I understand Europeans were a little salty from all the salted meats they ate. The CHINESE on the other hand were considered to be much better fare.
OK, who wants a sandwich? (I mean SAMMICH)
Post by: 280plus on August 25, 2006, 12:47:10 AM
Oh, I DID recently see a thing on cannibalism on Discovery IIRC that mentioned a tribe that was passing along a "Mad Cow" type disease from eating human flesh. I think it was in the 50's.
There's STILL a few cannibals out there.
Post by: Iain on August 25, 2006, 01:11:30 AM
Post by: 280plus on August 25, 2006, 01:39:59 AM
Post by: roo_ster on August 25, 2006, 02:28:05 AM
Quote from: pawcatch
I honestly don't see how this degrades the Aztecs.
Was this unacceptable in their culture?Was it illegal at the time?
They were simply defending what was theirs at the time and making use of a resource.
How is this any worse than eating processed junk foods?
Were their heart disease rates any higher than modern-day America?
Or obesity?
Or diabetes?
Seriously,I object to cannibalism and the murder od pregnant women,but how is this worse than what the spanish did?
Was this unacceptable in their culture?Was it illegal at the time?
They were simply defending what was theirs at the time and making use of a resource.
How is this any worse than eating processed junk foods?
Were their heart disease rates any higher than modern-day America?
Or obesity?
Or diabetes?
Seriously,I object to cannibalism and the murder od pregnant women,but how is this worse than what the spanish did?
Quote from: ccwolff
Good for them. Ever look at non-highschool history accounts of the "New World" genocides?
If I had been alive back then I would have killed and eaten every European I saw as well.
I guess you say that I come from the other side of the table on this issue.If I had been alive back then I would have killed and eaten every European I saw as well.
I have zero problem with the way that the conquistadores threw down Aztec "civilization," such as it was. I am glad that such vile, evil practices and beliefs were stamped out and ground into the dust.
If you don't see the problem with how the Aztecs treated prisoners...I would not trust you to watch my dog, let alone make a moral decision of any weight.
Post by: Norris on August 25, 2006, 02:40:06 AM
Quote from: ccwolff
Good for them. Ever look at non-highschool history accounts of the "New World" genocides?
The tribes engaged in genocide and torture long before the Europeans arrived. Many tribes were cannibalistic. It wasn't Whiteys fault.http://www.catherinedold.com/fcannibals.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/06/american.cannibals.ap/index.html
Post by: 280plus on August 25, 2006, 02:45:05 AM
"Food" for thought.
Post by: 280plus on August 25, 2006, 02:46:07 AM
Post by: 280plus on August 25, 2006, 02:47:21 AM
I've always held the perspective of scientific / historic / psychological interest in this subject. I examined it as being a historical fact that I stumbled across and explored further. From it I can see how people like Dahmer, Gein, Sam Berkowitz and all the others can derive the twisted ideas they come up with because it all goes back to the origins of human nature. The question becomes did these tendencies and beliefs develop from within these modern day serial killers independently with no outside influence or were they the result of the twisting of some external historical information they had received somewhere along the way?
Post by: cordex on August 25, 2006, 06:22:43 AM
Post by: 280plus on August 25, 2006, 08:24:00 AM
Post by: JAlexander on August 25, 2006, 08:26:15 AM
Now if we want to talk about someone who really made out like a bandit, there's always Pizarro. Pizarro captured Atahualpa, the ruler of the Inca, and apparently got along with him fairly well. Pizarro told Atahualpa that he could go free if he filled a room with gold to the height of a man (or something like that) and another two with silver. Atahualpa obliged Pizarro, whereupon Pizarro executed Atahualpa. Pizarro did all this with 200 Spaniards, versus the entire Incan army of fifty to one hundred thousand men. Now that is impressive.
It's worth noting that both Nahuatl and Quechua are still widely-spoken languages in Mexico and South America, as are the various Mayan dialects.
James
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 25, 2006, 09:34:36 AM
Quote from: GoRon
So much for the "Noble Savage".
The only thing worse than my conservative friends longing for the old days (50's) is the silly leftists glorifying ancient culture as superior.
Been there, done that. I think old white folks tend to forget some of the racial problems of those days, as well as some of the technological inconveniences they probably used to complain about.
The only thing worse than my conservative friends longing for the old days (50's) is the silly leftists glorifying ancient culture as superior.
Post by: 280plus on August 25, 2006, 11:27:09 AM
Post by: 280plus on August 25, 2006, 11:29:53 AM
Post by: ccwolff on August 25, 2006, 01:54:48 PM
Quote
If you don't see the problem with how the Aztecs treated prisoners...I would not trust you to watch my dog, let alone make a moral decision of any weight.
If you don't see the problem with how the europeans treated the natives...I would not trust you to watch my dog, let alone make a moral decision of any weight.Right back at ya!
Quote
The tribes engaged in genocide and torture long before the Europeans arrived.
As did every other culture on this planet... "Including" Whitey. Point is that does not morally excuse what was done to them by "Whitey".The White man and the Christian god are not superior to any one. In fact by their actions they prove themselves to be just like the "savages".
Sorry if that upsets you.
BTW... The genocide of the "New World" began long before Cortez and the Aztecs.
Try Columbus and the Caribbean. Ever wonder why the people on those islands today have a distinctly black hue...it not because Africans are really good swimmers.
Post by: Guest on August 25, 2006, 02:49:54 PM
Quote from: 280plus
The question becomes did these tendencies and beliefs develop from within these modern day serial killers independently with no outside influence or were they the result of the twisting of some external historical information they had received somewhere along the way?
Or perhaps we all experience these drives and desires but a "normal" and "civilized" person has a set of "filters" (either natural/evolutionary or artificially imposed by their upbringing) that keeps them beneath the conscious mind. People like Dahmer lack that ability.
Post by: garyk/nm on August 25, 2006, 03:43:34 PM
Bones don't talk. Nor do they record photographic images. Making this kind of claim about how a people acted, based on a few bones, is the kind of thing that gets your career flushed down the toilet.
Take it with as many grains of salt as you wish.
Post by: lupinus on August 25, 2006, 06:45:49 PM
By our standards almsot every man up untill a hundred to a hundred and fifty years ago would have been a child rapist. And most through history, including our founding fathers, guilty of keeping people as slaves.
The times you live in dictate what is acceptable. I am sure in a few hundred years at us and consider us barbarions, except for the ones that understand you live by the culture of your times.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on August 26, 2006, 11:59:01 AM
Quote from: ccwolff
BTW... The genocide of the "New World" began long before Cortez and the Aztecs.
Try Columbus and the Caribbean. Ever wonder why the people on those islands today have a distinctly black hue...it not because Africans are really good swimmers.
Columbus didn't intrude on some idyllic splendor. When he landed it was in the middle of an imperialistic attempt by one cannibalistic warrior tribe (Carib) to conquer the entire region. He was welcomed as a potential ally and liberator by their victims (Arawak).Try Columbus and the Caribbean. Ever wonder why the people on those islands today have a distinctly black hue...it not because Africans are really good swimmers.
I recommend the revision to the revisionist trend now ongoing in Archeology and History. For example:
http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/ant/ROYAL-01.ANT
or
"Constant Battles" Steven A. LeBlanc
Post by: 280plus on August 26, 2006, 01:01:04 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 26, 2006, 04:02:57 PM
Quote from: lupinus
I don't judge a people by our modern standards. If you do every major figure in history (or at least the vast majority) would be a sicko freak child molestor slave trading racist murderor. Considering it was at many times in history perfectly acceptable to kill a man for insulting you or in a formal duel your bride was often 12 or 13 and slaves were common place.
By our standards almsot every man up untill a hundred to a hundred and fifty years ago would have been a child rapist. And most through history, including our founding fathers, guilty of keeping people as slaves.
The times you live in dictate what is acceptable. I am sure in a few hundred years at us and consider us barbarions, except for the ones that understand you live by the culture of your times.
Whether the girl is 12 or 22, there's an obvious difference between marrying her and raping or molesting her. The very comparison is outrageous. And it completely ignores that marriage was the only security in life for most women throughout most of history . Not to mention that men often married young, too. It also forgets that childbirth was more dangerous than today, so brides needed to be healthy. And that most women weren't going to college or planning on careers, so they had little reason to wait. Girls today are becoming sexually active at 12, anyhow, but without even the social benefits of marriage. So who's the "barbarion"? [sic]By our standards almsot every man up untill a hundred to a hundred and fifty years ago would have been a child rapist. And most through history, including our founding fathers, guilty of keeping people as slaves.
The times you live in dictate what is acceptable. I am sure in a few hundred years at us and consider us barbarions, except for the ones that understand you live by the culture of your times.
"Almost every man" owned slaves? Not even close. Even so, not all slavery was as bad as that of the transatlantic slave trade of modern times.
I could be wrong on this point, but I'm not sure that killing a man in a duel would be murder, or that killing a man for an insult was ever acceptable in most cultures. But I am sure the modern American culture I live in is barbarous in many ways.
Post by: lupinus on August 26, 2006, 06:16:45 PM
I wasn't comparing child rape and molestation. I said marriage and there are plenty of cases of a girl under 18 having sex with a man over 18, perfectly willingly, and the man getting in trouble for it. I don't advocate breaking the law but my comparison was of willing consensual relations. But then again considering most marriages of the time period were arranged with little if any consent of the girl as young as twelve perhaps it is fairer to say willing teenagers of today have more of a choice then teen girls married off.
As to men marrying young to it depended on class, status, etc. It was not uncommon among the higher edges of society for a man in his thirty's or even forties to marry a girl in her teens, and quite possibly even her young teens. Fathers would sometimes even make their son wait until he had a solid footing in life so that he could command a better wife (and dowry) for his son. Even in the American colonies a girl of 15 or 16 could easily marry a man in his mid 20's.
Marriages among the nobility and upper classes in history have often been far from anything related to love and much more often had more to do with politics, power moves, and money. Daughters in some cultures were seen much as property to advance their fathers position through marriage. Need to get that business partnership? Cement it by marrying your daughter to him or his son. Alliance between countries or factions? Marry off a high born girl to a prince or king or noble. Marriage for love was almost exclusively the domain of the peasants and a fairly modern notion among other classes.
Quote
"Almost every man" owned slaves? Not even close. Even so, not all slavery was as bad as that of the transatlantic slave trade of modern times.
You are partially right. Poor people would be unlikely to own slaves and since most were poor I suppose I was off the mark in saying almost every man. However, slavery was widely accepted as the way of the world up until recent times, and even after slavery was outlawed in many places it took much longer for the practice of indentured servitude to follow suit. You are however wrong in that not all slavery was as bad as the more modern slavery in America, that simply isn't true. Through history domestic slaves were treated well. Domestic slaves can be defined as household or personal slaves- cooks, secretaries, etc. If you study strictly household slaves in America they were treated pretty well to and getting into the masters house was something many slaves would have tried for. On the other hand through all of history labor slaves were never treated well. Regardless of if they worked fields, mines, quarries, etc. They always had a tough time of it, if you were a Roman slave and sent to work the mines you had a life expectancy of about three months. Slavery was never pretty and the rift and treatment of domestic and labor slaves was always as it was. The reason why it seems so different is that our view of slaves in the ancient world, such as Rome and Greece, was that of the domestic slave. And out view of the more modern (pre-civil war America) slave is that of the labor slave, even though there were plenty of domestic slaves as well.Quote
I could be wrong on this point, but I'm not sure that killing a man in a duel would be murder, or that killing a man for an insult was ever acceptable in most cultures. But I am sure the modern American culture I live in is barbarous in many ways.
Culture varied but in many without honor you were nothing, and even in cultures where that wasn't the case dueling was perfectly acceptable. In France and much of Europe right until a few hundred years ago a duel was perfectly legal and even had rules. It varied but the standard rules were basically an insult was committed, a challenge issued, a middle man for each man was chosen, and these middle men decided any terms on behalf of the combatants, and the duel took place a minimum of three days later so that they had a chance to cool down in the event of second thoughts.In other cultures it worked differently. The Vikings (and other barbarian tribes in general) held personal honor very high and had their own system for duels. If two men were going to fight over an insult each man got three shield, if the shield was broken fighting stopped so the man could get his next shield, and depending on terms the fight would go until the three shields wore broken or until one man was dead. There were several variations but that is it in basic. You can see what is actually a pretty fair example of this in the movie The 13th Warrior.
The Sarmatians (earlier inhabitants of Russian steps, similar to the Huns but a different people entirely) would fight duels from horseback and if a scepter holder (basically a nobleman who commanded others) DIDN'T avenge an insult by fighting his reputation was soiled and he had a good chance of loosing the confidence of most of his men. This way of thinking was not uncommon either in the ancient or medieval pagan world. Today what stained your pride at one time could cost you a lot if you let it go.
Through much of history in many cultures personal honor was something you did not insult unless you wanted to fight the man, possibly to the death.
Killing a man in cold blood was not acceptable and was indeed murder, but a formal witnessed duel was perfectly acceptable to the majority of cultures through history.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 26, 2006, 07:46:22 PM
Quote from: lupinus
I wasn't comparing child rape and molestation. I said marriage
If you weren't comparing pedophilia to marriage at a young age, then what on earth was your point? Just admit you were egregiously wrong, and you will save yourself much typing. I don't need to have my intelligence insulted with this lecture on marriage through the ages. Don't worry, though, I'm not much on dueling, either, so I won't expect you to meet me at dawn. I don't know if you can speak of dueling as murder, though. On slavery, yes your analysis seems correct, but the point remains that slavery may in fact have been much preferrable to the alternative in the ancient world; that is, being cut loose to fend for one's self.
Post by: lupinus on August 26, 2006, 07:59:35 PM
Quote
If you weren't comparing pedophilia to marriage at a young age, then what on earth was your point?
That what at one point in history is seen as perfectly natural and acceptable at others can be turned into what is almost pure evil. What you might call pedophilia a few hundred years ago was called a wedding night. Hell in some places it still is perfectly acceptable. If you were speaking of pedophilia strictly in the sense of young girls being more desirable then yes perhaps it is very close, if you are speaking of it from the sense of predation then it is very much different.As to slavery being preferable of course it was if you could get bought by someone who wanted to keep you as a domestic slave, many masters even treated them particuarly well. I for one would rather die, but different strokes for different folks and if someone would prefer to live life as a slave hey more power to um do what makes ya happy.
Post by: Guest on August 26, 2006, 08:11:00 PM
Quote
If you weren't comparing pedophilia to marriage at a young age, then what on earth was your point?
A 40 year old man who has sex with a 13 year old is a pedophile, regardless of what the legal status of their relationship is.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 27, 2006, 04:19:20 AM
Post by: Guest on August 27, 2006, 04:45:27 AM
If an 8 year old is married to a 30 year old, is it ok if they have sex? 10? 12? 6? Where is the line?
If a 40 year old woman has sex with a 13 year old boy, is that ok?
Post by: 280plus on August 27, 2006, 05:11:29 AM
FWIW I can take you to a graveyard right now where a 35 yo man is buried next to his 16 yo wife. 1700's I believe. It was a matter of survival back then. They both had a better chance of survival together. IIRC he died less than a year after she did. The graveyard is said to be haunted, but not necessarily by them.
Coincidentally ditzy 19 yo is leaving for Navy BOOT CAMP Sept 4th so that little problem should work itself out fairly soon.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 27, 2006, 05:28:08 AM
First of all, let's be clear that marriage is much different from run-of-the-mill pedophilia, regardless of age. Marriage comes with commitment, the economic support of the husband, social approval, etc. A publicly-acknowledged relationship, with the blessing of society, certainly is not to be compared with the predator who secretly defiles his victim, then convinces her it's "our little secret." And naturally, a husband is not going to be concerned about covering up any resulting pregnancy - murdering the girl is perhaps the easiest way, and abortions can be dangerous, too.
Of course, that just means it's not as bad, but is it still pedophilia? Perhaps we should first ask: Are 13-year-olds always 13-year-olds?
Physically, I'm going to say "yes." In recent years, some have claimed that girls are actually menstruating at an earlier age, but I don't know if this has been confirmed. If proved, it wouldn't tell us about the maidens of two hundred or two thousand years ago. Perhaps they bloomed even earlier. Is childbirth too dangerous at such a young age? I don't know.
In more metaphysical realms, perhaps 13-year-olds have not always been 13-year-olds. That is, if 13 years is considered adulthood, or at least an eligible age for marriage, the girl of yesteryear is likely to be more mature than her modern counterparts. Consider the girl of 12th century France, or 9th century Turkey, just to choose at random. Throughout her young life, she sees preteen girls becoming wives and mothers. Perhaps she attends the weddings of her older sisters or cousins, as they are married off at 12, 15, what-have-you. I'm not saying it's OK just because others do it. I am saying that the social norms of a society might prepare girls for marriage and adulthood at a much younger age. And this preparation wouldn't be the education of today; it would be caring for infants, domestic engineering, and so forth. It would seem to me such societies went wrong in limiting women to the home, not in marrying them off so early. The latter is simply a consequence of the former.
On the subject of 8 or 6-year-olds, though, can we assume that a girl married at such an age is really married? Can't "married," in ancient societies, sometimes mean "betrothed"? The betrothal was sometimes taken seriously enough, that the couple were spoken of as married, even when the girl still lived with her parents, and a full, legal divorce may have been required to break such an arrangement.
In the same vein, is it pedophilia to marry a very young girl, but wait to consumate the relationship?
Post by: 280plus on August 27, 2006, 05:34:35 AM
Post by: lupinus on August 27, 2006, 05:43:45 AM
Quote
It is for you, Barbara or lupinus, to defend this claim that marrying a twelve-year old is equal to child molestation, regardless of social norms.
That wasn't my claim at all, if that's how it came off my apologies and chalk it up to closing and then opening a store. My claim was that what is considered child molestation today was considered the norm many years ago. Today ANY sexual relation with a person under 18, 16 in some states, is legally and morally considered child molestation and/or child rape. In ancient times there was a very defiant line and understanding between the two, there isn't today.
What we must understand though too, is that was sex in marriage. If some horny 20 something year old deflowered your 15 year old daughter without your consent in some society's (such as Roman) you were within your legal rights to kill him or make him marry her if you were the more cool headed type. While it was perfectly acceptable to marry your daughter off as young as 12 (no not always that young, that was the legal minimum age, 14 or 15 was more common) a random guy just having sex with her was in no way acceptable.
Post by: Guest on August 27, 2006, 06:26:06 AM
Perverts have been around forever. Just used to be easier for them to get away with it.
Post by: 280plus on August 27, 2006, 06:27:12 AM
Quote
If some horny 20 something year old deflowered your 15 year old daughter without your consent in some society's (such as Roman) you were within your legal rights to kill him
Off with his HEAD!! BOTH of them!
Post by: Guest on August 27, 2006, 06:27:16 AM
They are people, with rights. Although those rights were *expletive deleted*it on for centuries, that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Post by: 280plus on August 27, 2006, 06:29:33 AM
Post by: lupinus on August 27, 2006, 06:49:13 AM
They are people, with rights. Although those rights were *expletive deleted*it on for centuries, that doesn't mean they didn't exist.''
As I said a judge a culture by it's culture not by my own. So simply said it depends on the time and the culture. Hell I know a few women that love being owned (even if not in the legal sense since we don't have one) by their husbands. All things are relative to the culture you live in.
In our culture women have rights and are not property, in others they didn't. All depends on where you lived and at what time.
Post by: Iapetus on September 08, 2006, 03:26:13 PM
Quote from: pawcatch
I honestly don't see how this degrades the Aztecs.
Was this unacceptable in their culture?Was it illegal at the time?
They were simply defending what was theirs at the time and making use of a resource.
How is this any worse than eating processed junk foods?
Were their heart disease rates any higher than modern-day America?
Or obesity?
Or diabetes?
Seriously,I object to cannibalism and the murder od pregnant women,but how is this worse than what the spanish did?
I once heard someone say that he couldn't think of two groups of people [the Aztecs and the Conquistadors] who better deserved each other...Was this unacceptable in their culture?Was it illegal at the time?
They were simply defending what was theirs at the time and making use of a resource.
How is this any worse than eating processed junk foods?
Were their heart disease rates any higher than modern-day America?
Or obesity?
Or diabetes?
Seriously,I object to cannibalism and the murder od pregnant women,but how is this worse than what the spanish did?
When it comes to judging other cultures for far off lands and long ago, I think a good thing to consider is whether the people doing things that seem barbaric to us were willing to have them done to themselves.
Contrary to what someone else said, duelling was actually illegal in most places and times. However, it happened a lot anyway, because so many people were willing to risk their lives in duels. If both parties hadn't placed their personal honour higher than their lives, the duels wouldn't have taken place. (The British Army only managed to stop its officers duelling by denying pensions to the wives of those killed in duels, thereby making dying in a duel a dishonourable abandonment of your dependents).
Similarly, at feasts in ancient Celtic society, the great warriors would often fight each other to the death over the best portion of the meat. Not because they were a bunch of thugs who'd kill other people in order to get the best food. But because the best portion of the meat was a special privilege reserved for the greatest warrior, and if you were not willing to die fighting for such an honour, then you couldn't be considered a great warrior. (Besides, the Celts believed life after death was guaranteed, so dying didn't really matter anyway).
So I would say that both these customs, despite seeming barbaric to modern eyes, were reasonable at the time.
On the other hand, the Aztecs conquered neighbouring peoples, and made them pay tribute in the form of tens of thousands of people to be sacrificed. As the Aztecs were killing conquered peoples against their will, rather than willingly offering themselves, I would say that what they were doing was not acceptable. It can't be justified by saying "that was what they did then in Mexico", any more than the Holocaust could be justified by saying "That was what they did in Germany in the 40s".
Incidentally, I believe part of the reason the Spanish conquered the Aztecs so easily was that there were so many other peoples who had been oppressed by the Aztecs, and who willing to ally with the Spanish in order to overthrow their hated enemies.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 08, 2006, 04:13:21 PM
Quote from: Iapetus
...
On the other hand, the Aztecs conquered neighbouring peoples, and made them pay tribute in the form of tens of thousands of people to be sacrificed. As the Aztecs were killing conquered peoples against their will, rather than willingly offering themselves, I would say that what they were doing was not acceptable. It can't be justified by saying "that was what they did then in Mexico", any more than the Holocaust could be justified by saying "That was what they did in Germany in the 40s".
Incidentally, I believe part of the reason the Spanish conquered the Aztecs so easily was that there were so many other peoples who had been oppressed by the Aztecs, and who willing to ally with the Spanish in order to overthrow their hated enemies.
I'm neither a "noble savage" theorist, nor a Spanish empire apologist, and that's about my take on it too.
On the other hand, the Aztecs conquered neighbouring peoples, and made them pay tribute in the form of tens of thousands of people to be sacrificed. As the Aztecs were killing conquered peoples against their will, rather than willingly offering themselves, I would say that what they were doing was not acceptable. It can't be justified by saying "that was what they did then in Mexico", any more than the Holocaust could be justified by saying "That was what they did in Germany in the 40s".
Incidentally, I believe part of the reason the Spanish conquered the Aztecs so easily was that there were so many other peoples who had been oppressed by the Aztecs, and who willing to ally with the Spanish in order to overthrow their hated enemies.
Post by: publius on September 08, 2006, 05:33:57 PM
Quote from: pawcatch
How is this any worse than eating processed junk foods?
Didn't you read it? They BOILED the meat! Boiled! Most processed junk foods are fried. Boiled meat is clearly worse than fried!
Post by: mfree on September 09, 2006, 09:13:34 AM
Being an archaeologist brings with it my respect. But, a forensic anthropologist will indeed tell you that bones *do* talk, and the type and depth of tool marks on the bones, the type of surface changes enacted with boiling versus burning or roasting with meat, and perhaps tooth or gnaw marks tell you exactly how that bone was treated before it was cast off.
Look for a book by a Dr. Maples titled "Dead Men Do Tell Tales". Fascinating stuff.
If there are processing tool marks, gnawing, and human teeth prints in a boiling-softened human bone, it's a safe assumption that the human was eaten by humans. If the bone matches the profile of a neighboring tribe instead of the interred bones of the local tribe, then it's a safe assumption that they were eating their neighbors.
Post by: 280plus on September 10, 2006, 04:23:45 AM
On a side note. He told us about the research facility where they bury corpses to observe the decomposition process. It was named after the guy who initiated that kind of study, his name escapes me but his initials were "B A" so it's called the "B**** A***** Research Facility". The acronym?
"BARF"
Post by: 280plus on September 10, 2006, 04:36:02 AM
Doug Owsley is a Forensic expert at the Smithsonian Institute. One of his other cases involved recovery and identification of WTC and Pentagon remains IIRC.