[Aztlan] Walmart is NOT on the site of Teotihuacan
kim Goldsmith
kiminmexico at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 30 14:14:07 CST 2009
Dear Marcos,
The Resplandor Teotihuacan issue is delicate, and you certainly have the right to your opinion, as do we all. Again, I repeat that soon the controversy will be over, and we will all read about the final decisions in the press.
I must however, remind you (and others, who were once again misled by the press) that the Walmart in San Juan Teotihuacan is neither ON the site, nor visible FROM the site.....not even from the top of the Pyramid of the Sun.
Best,
KIM
--- On Fri, 1/30/09, aztlan-request at lists.famsi.org <aztlan-request at lists.famsi.org> wrote:
> From: aztlan-request at lists.famsi.org <aztlan-request at lists.famsi.org>
> Subject: Aztlan Digest, Vol 38, Issue 28
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 10:00 AM
> Send Aztlan mailing list submissions to
> aztlan at lists.famsi.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> aztlan-request at lists.famsi.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> aztlan-owner at lists.famsi.org
>
> When replying, please change the Subject line of your email
> to match
> the exact topic being discussed, and delete all but the
> most important
> text from previous messages.
>
>
> When replying, please remove all topics not related to your
> reply.
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Only 50/year sacrificed at Tenochtitlan? (D. M.
> Urquidi)
> 2. Re: Only 50/year sacrificed at Tenochtitlan? (Mary
> Hopkins)
> 3. Re: Only 50/year sacrificed at Tenochtitlan? (Mary
> Hopkins)
> 4. Re: Only 50/year sacrificed at Tenochtitlan? (J. L.
> Baker)
> 5. Re: Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?--Indigenous
> counting and its representation (Jerry Offner)
> 6. Re: Only 50/year sacrificed at Tenochtitlan?
> (Dodds Pennock, Dr C.E.)
> 7. Re: Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?--Indigenous
> counting and its representation (Sid Hollander)
> 8. Re: "Teotihuacan In Danger" (Marcos
> Villase?or)
> 9. Reply to Marcos on Teo sound and light show (michael
> ruggeri)
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:35:24 -0800 (PST)
> From: "D. M. Urquidi"
> <deamayaspin at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?
> To: sierradeagua at yahoo.com, Bertrand Lobjois
> <blobjois at gmail.com>
> Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID:
> <986740.8661.qm at web57001.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Folks:
>
> Is it possible that the massive burial was not sacrifices
> per se, but a massive death of a community or of the land
> itself due to unforseen circumstances?
>
> Dea
>
> D. M. Urquidi P. O. Box 49485 Austin, Texas 78765
> http://www.mayalords.org??
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancientamericas/
>
>
> --- On Thu, 1/29/09, Bertrand Lobjois
> <blobjois at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Bertrand Lobjois <blobjois at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?
> > To: sierradeagua at yahoo.com
> > Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> > Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 9:49 AM
> > The Cronicles of Sahagun or Duran explains us that
> some
> > captives made on the
> > battlefield were sacrified for the feast in each
> > neighbourhood in little
> > teocalli... I believe in massive sacrifices for
> important
> > events. Maybe the
> > Spaniard exagerated the number of the victims a little
> in
> > order to favorize
> > the evangelization. But look what happened in the
> feathered
> > serpent's
> > pyramid of Teotihuacan : Sugiyama's work in the
> > 1980-90's showed us that
> > massive sacrifices have existed from early times in
> > Mesoamerican.
> >
> > Bertrand LOBJOIS
> > Universidad de Monterrey
> > Division de Ciencias Sociales
> >
> >
> > 2009/1/27 J. L. Baker <sierradeagua at yahoo.com>
> >
> > >
> > > Related to this discussion are two articles by
> Barry
> > Isaac from 1983 on
> > > Aztec warfare (see references below) in which he
> > reviewed the accounts on
> > > the number of captives taken in battle. His
> results,
> > including the Flowery
> > > War battles were that relatively few individuals
> were
> > actually taken as
> > > captives in warfare. Its been a while since I
> have
> > read the articles, so I
> > > don't recall the exact numbers any more, but
> I
> > want to say that most battles
> > > resulted in less than a 100 captives, with the
> larger
> > numbers around 300 or
> > > so captives. With clear evidence that many war
> > captives were sold into
> > > slavery, this substantially reduces the number of
> > captives available for
> > > sacrifice as well, which fits in well with the
> > argument presented by Baron.
> > >
> > >
> > > Isaac, Barry
> > > 1983 Aztec Warfare: Goals and Battlefield
> Comportment.
> > Ethnology 22:
> > > 121-131.
> > >
> > > 1983 The Aztec "Flowery War": A
> Geopolitical
> > Explanation. Journal of
> > > Anthropological Research 39: 415-432.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jeff Baker
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Aztlan mailing list
> > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> > > Click here to post a message
> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> > > Click to view Calendar of Events
> > > http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://mexiqueancien.blogspot.com
> >
> > Un blog arch?ologique en fran?ais sur la M?soam?rique
> > _______________________________________________
> > Aztlan mailing list
> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> > Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> > Click to view Calendar of Events
> > http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:05:23 -0500 (EST)
> From: Mary Hopkins <mhopkins at fas.harvard.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?
> To: "D. M. Urquidi" <deamayaspin at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Bertrand Lobjois <blobjois at gmail.com>,
> aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID:
> <alpine.DEB.1.00.0901291404210.30221 at ls01.fas.harvard.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> It seems to me that Sugiyama's excavation found large
> numbers of young
> adults. Really unlikely demographic for an accident or
> epidemic. They were
> also bound.
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, D. M. Urquidi wrote:
>
> > Folks:
> >
> > Is it possible that the massive burial was not
> sacrifices per se, but a massive death of a community or of
> the land itself due to unforseen circumstances?
> >
> > Dea
> >
> > D. M. Urquidi P. O. Box 49485 Austin, Texas 78765
> http://www.mayalords.org??
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancientamericas/
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 1/29/09, Bertrand Lobjois
> <blobjois at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Bertrand Lobjois <blobjois at gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?
> >> To: sierradeagua at yahoo.com
> >> Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> >> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 9:49 AM
> >> The Cronicles of Sahagun or Duran explains us that
> some
> >> captives made on the
> >> battlefield were sacrified for the feast in each
> >> neighbourhood in little
> >> teocalli... I believe in massive sacrifices for
> important
> >> events. Maybe the
> >> Spaniard exagerated the number of the victims a
> little in
> >> order to favorize
> >> the evangelization. But look what happened in the
> feathered
> >> serpent's
> >> pyramid of Teotihuacan : Sugiyama's work in
> the
> >> 1980-90's showed us that
> >> massive sacrifices have existed from early times
> in
> >> Mesoamerican.
> >>
> >> Bertrand LOBJOIS
> >> Universidad de Monterrey
> >> Division de Ciencias Sociales
> >>
> >>
> >> 2009/1/27 J. L. Baker
> <sierradeagua at yahoo.com>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Related to this discussion are two articles by
> Barry
> >> Isaac from 1983 on
> >>> Aztec warfare (see references below) in which
> he
> >> reviewed the accounts on
> >>> the number of captives taken in battle. His
> results,
> >> including the Flowery
> >>> War battles were that relatively few
> individuals were
> >> actually taken as
> >>> captives in warfare. Its been a while since I
> have
> >> read the articles, so I
> >>> don't recall the exact numbers any more,
> but I
> >> want to say that most battles
> >>> resulted in less than a 100 captives, with the
> larger
> >> numbers around 300 or
> >>> so captives. With clear evidence that many war
> >> captives were sold into
> >>> slavery, this substantially reduces the number
> of
> >> captives available for
> >>> sacrifice as well, which fits in well with the
> >> argument presented by Baron.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Isaac, Barry
> >>> 1983 Aztec Warfare: Goals and Battlefield
> Comportment.
> >> Ethnology 22:
> >>> 121-131.
> >>>
> >>> 1983 The Aztec "Flowery War": A
> Geopolitical
> >> Explanation. Journal of
> >>> Anthropological Research 39: 415-432.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Jeff Baker
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> Aztlan mailing list
> >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> >>> Click here to post a message
> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> >>> Click to view Calendar of Events
> >>> http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://mexiqueancien.blogspot.com
> >>
> >> Un blog arch?ologique en fran?ais sur la
> M?soam?rique
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Aztlan mailing list
> >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> >> Click here to post a message
> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> >> Click to view Calendar of Events
> >> http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Aztlan mailing list
> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> > Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> > Click to view Calendar of Events
> http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> >
> >
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:00:19 -0500 (EST)
> From: Mary Hopkins <mhopkins at fas.harvard.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org, "D. M. Urquidi"
> <deamayaspin at yahoo.com>
> Message-ID:
> <alpine.DEB.1.00.0901291552520.6010 at ls01.fas.harvard.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I was thinking of the sacrificial victims under and around
> the Feathered
> Serpent Pyramid. That is, to my recollection, the largest
> burial known
> from the site; what stands out about other burials at
> Teotihuacan is
> mostly their scarcity.
>
> I don't offhand remember the number of burials at FSP
> but it was not 2000
> or anything near it. A few hundred, more like. Definitely
> enough to
> establish that large-scale sacrifice took place. The 2000
> would perhaps
> refer to some of the numbers from the Spanish chronicles,
> which as M.
> Lobjois says may have been exaggerated.
>
> The walls across the Avenue of the Dead have been there
> since anyone can
> remember.
>
> MH
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, D. M. Urquidi wrote:
>
> > Mary:
> >
> > I remember those very well, but that was only in
> Teotihuacan in the
> > Palacio on the Road of the Dead (Might have the wrong
> sequence of words
> > here, Do not remember the name of the road in front of
> the pyramids. I
> > do remember though when i first went there, there were
> walls across that
> > road from one side to the other, as if the road was
> once a waterway. I
> > am thinking of the 2,000 that died in one day (not
> found in the palacio)
> > and the priests would have had to lift the knive every
> few seconds to
> > kill so many, for longer than a day.
> >
> > Dea
> >
> > D. M. Urquidi P. O. Box 49485 Austin, Texas 78765
> http://www.mayalords.org??
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancientamericas/
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 1/29/09, Mary Hopkins
> <mhopkins at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Mary Hopkins
> <mhopkins at fas.harvard.edu>
> >> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?
> >> To: "D. M. Urquidi"
> <deamayaspin at yahoo.com>
> >> Cc: sierradeagua at yahoo.com, "Bertrand
> Lobjois" <blobjois at gmail.com>,
> aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> >> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 1:05 PM
> >> It seems to me that Sugiyama's excavation
> found large
> >> numbers of young
> >> adults. Really unlikely demographic for an
> accident or
> >> epidemic. They were
> >> also bound.
> >>
> >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, D. M. Urquidi wrote:
> >>
> >>> Folks:
> >>>
> >>> Is it possible that the massive burial was not
> >> sacrifices per se, but a massive death of a
> community or of
> >> the land itself due to unforseen circumstances?
> >>>
> >>> Dea
> >>>
> >>> D. M. Urquidi P. O. Box 49485 Austin, Texas
> 78765
> >> http://www.mayalords.org??
> >>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancientamericas/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- On Thu, 1/29/09, Bertrand Lobjois
> >> <blobjois at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Bertrand Lobjois
> <blobjois at gmail.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year
> sacrificed at
> >> Tenochtitlan?
> >>>> To: sierradeagua at yahoo.com
> >>>> Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> >>>> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 9:49 AM
> >>>> The Cronicles of Sahagun or Duran explains
> us that
> >> some
> >>>> captives made on the
> >>>> battlefield were sacrified for the feast
> in each
> >>>> neighbourhood in little
> >>>> teocalli... I believe in massive
> sacrifices for
> >> important
> >>>> events. Maybe the
> >>>> Spaniard exagerated the number of the
> victims a
> >> little in
> >>>> order to favorize
> >>>> the evangelization. But look what happened
> in the
> >> feathered
> >>>> serpent's
> >>>> pyramid of Teotihuacan : Sugiyama's
> work in
> >> the
> >>>> 1980-90's showed us that
> >>>> massive sacrifices have existed from early
> times
> >> in
> >>>> Mesoamerican.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bertrand LOBJOIS
> >>>> Universidad de Monterrey
> >>>> Division de Ciencias Sociales
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2009/1/27 J. L. Baker
> >> <sierradeagua at yahoo.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Related to this discussion are two
> articles by
> >> Barry
> >>>> Isaac from 1983 on
> >>>>> Aztec warfare (see references below)
> in which
> >> he
> >>>> reviewed the accounts on
> >>>>> the number of captives taken in
> battle. His
> >> results,
> >>>> including the Flowery
> >>>>> War battles were that relatively few
> >> individuals were
> >>>> actually taken as
> >>>>> captives in warfare. Its been a while
> since I
> >> have
> >>>> read the articles, so I
> >>>>> don't recall the exact numbers any
> more,
> >> but I
> >>>> want to say that most battles
> >>>>> resulted in less than a 100 captives,
> with the
> >> larger
> >>>> numbers around 300 or
> >>>>> so captives. With clear evidence that
> many war
> >>>> captives were sold into
> >>>>> slavery, this substantially reduces
> the number
> >> of
> >>>> captives available for
> >>>>> sacrifice as well, which fits in well
> with the
> >>>> argument presented by Baron.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Isaac, Barry
> >>>>> 1983 Aztec Warfare: Goals and
> Battlefield
> >> Comportment.
> >>>> Ethnology 22:
> >>>>> 121-131.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1983 The Aztec "Flowery
> War": A
> >> Geopolitical
> >>>> Explanation. Journal of
> >>>>> Anthropological Research 39: 415-432.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jeff Baker
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Aztlan mailing list
> >>>>>
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> >>>>> Click here to post a message
> >> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> >>>>> Click to view Calendar of Events
> >>>>>
> http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> http://mexiqueancien.blogspot.com
> >>>>
> >>>> Un blog arch?ologique en fran?ais sur la
> >> M?soam?rique
> >>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Aztlan mailing list
> >>>>
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> >>>> Click here to post a message
> >> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> >>>> Click to view Calendar of Events
> >>>>
> http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> Aztlan mailing list
> >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> >>> Click here to post a message
> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> >>> Click to view Calendar of Events
> >> http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:19:20 -0800 (PST)
> From: "J. L. Baker"
> <sierradeagua at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID:
> <263544.39744.qm at web36808.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> I think there are two separate issues here regarding the
> sacrifices at Tenochtitlan: How many individuals were
> sacrificed in a "normal" year, and how many were
> sacrificed at special events like the dedication of an
> important building.
>
> For many of the arguments used to portray the Aztecs as
> barbaric cannibals, it is assumed that large numbers of
> captives were killed on a regular basis. Saying that in most
> years 50 or so were killed, with a couple hundred killed
> during a single ceremony once or twice in a person's
> lifetime doesn't really support the cannibalistic
> argument.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff Baker
>
>
> --- On Thu, 1/29/09, Mary Hopkins
> <mhopkins at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > From: Mary Hopkins <mhopkins at fas.harvard.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?
> > To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org, "D. M. Urquidi"
> <deamayaspin at yahoo.com>
> > Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 1:00 PM
> > I was thinking of the sacrificial victims under and
> around
> > the Feathered
> > Serpent Pyramid. That is, to my recollection, the
> largest
> > burial known
> > from the site; what stands out about other burials at
> > Teotihuacan is
> > mostly their scarcity.
> >
> > I don't offhand remember the number of burials at
> FSP
> > but it was not 2000
> > or anything near it. A few hundred, more like.
> Definitely
> > enough to
> > establish that large-scale sacrifice took place. The
> 2000
> > would perhaps
> > refer to some of the numbers from the Spanish
> chronicles,
> > which as M.
> > Lobjois says may have been exaggerated.
> >
> > The walls across the Avenue of the Dead have been
> there
> > since anyone can
> > remember.
> >
> > MH
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, D. M. Urquidi wrote:
> >
> > > Mary:
> > >
> > > I remember those very well, but that was only in
> > Teotihuacan in the
> > > Palacio on the Road of the Dead (Might have the
> wrong
> > sequence of words
> > > here, Do not remember the name of the road in
> front of
> > the pyramids. I
> > > do remember though when i first went there, there
> were
> > walls across that
> > > road from one side to the other, as if the road
> was
> > once a waterway. I
> > > am thinking of the 2,000 that died in one day
> (not
> > found in the palacio)
> > > and the priests would have had to lift the knive
> every
> > few seconds to
> > > kill so many, for longer than a day.
> > >
> > > Dea
> > >
> > > D. M. Urquidi P. O. Box 49485 Austin, Texas
> 78765
> > http://www.mayalords.org??
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancientamericas/
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 1/29/09, Mary Hopkins
> > <mhopkins at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Mary Hopkins
> > <mhopkins at fas.harvard.edu>
> > >> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed
> at
> > Tenochtitlan?
> > >> To: "D. M. Urquidi"
> > <deamayaspin at yahoo.com>
> > >> Cc: sierradeagua at yahoo.com, "Bertrand
> > Lobjois" <blobjois at gmail.com>,
> > aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> > >> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 1:05 PM
> > >> It seems to me that Sugiyama's excavation
> > found large
> > >> numbers of young
> > >> adults. Really unlikely demographic for an
> > accident or
> > >> epidemic. They were
> > >> also bound.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, D. M. Urquidi wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Folks:
> > >>>
> > >>> Is it possible that the massive burial
> was not
> > >> sacrifices per se, but a massive death of a
> > community or of
> > >> the land itself due to unforseen
> circumstances?
> > >>>
> > >>> Dea
> > >>>
> > >>> D. M. Urquidi P. O. Box 49485 Austin,
> Texas
> > 78765
> > >> http://www.mayalords.org??
> > >>
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancientamericas/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --- On Thu, 1/29/09, Bertrand Lobjois
> > >> <blobjois at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> From: Bertrand Lobjois
> > <blobjois at gmail.com>
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year
> > sacrificed at
> > >> Tenochtitlan?
> > >>>> To: sierradeagua at yahoo.com
> > >>>> Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> > >>>> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009,
> 9:49 AM
> > >>>> The Cronicles of Sahagun or Duran
> explains
> > us that
> > >> some
> > >>>> captives made on the
> > >>>> battlefield were sacrified for the
> feast
> > in each
> > >>>> neighbourhood in little
> > >>>> teocalli... I believe in massive
> > sacrifices for
> > >> important
> > >>>> events. Maybe the
> > >>>> Spaniard exagerated the number of the
> > victims a
> > >> little in
> > >>>> order to favorize
> > >>>> the evangelization. But look what
> happened
> > in the
> > >> feathered
> > >>>> serpent's
> > >>>> pyramid of Teotihuacan :
> Sugiyama's
> > work in
> > >> the
> > >>>> 1980-90's showed us that
> > >>>> massive sacrifices have existed from
> early
> > times
> > >> in
> > >>>> Mesoamerican.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Bertrand LOBJOIS
> > >>>> Universidad de Monterrey
> > >>>> Division de Ciencias Sociales
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2009/1/27 J. L. Baker
> > >> <sierradeagua at yahoo.com>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Related to this discussion are
> two
> > articles by
> > >> Barry
> > >>>> Isaac from 1983 on
> > >>>>> Aztec warfare (see references
> below)
> > in which
> > >> he
> > >>>> reviewed the accounts on
> > >>>>> the number of captives taken in
> > battle. His
> > >> results,
> > >>>> including the Flowery
> > >>>>> War battles were that relatively
> few
> > >> individuals were
> > >>>> actually taken as
> > >>>>> captives in warfare. Its been a
> while
> > since I
> > >> have
> > >>>> read the articles, so I
> > >>>>> don't recall the exact
> numbers any
> > more,
> > >> but I
> > >>>> want to say that most battles
> > >>>>> resulted in less than a 100
> captives,
> > with the
> > >> larger
> > >>>> numbers around 300 or
> > >>>>> so captives. With clear evidence
> that
> > many war
> > >>>> captives were sold into
> > >>>>> slavery, this substantially
> reduces
> > the number
> > >> of
> > >>>> captives available for
> > >>>>> sacrifice as well, which fits in
> well
> > with the
> > >>>> argument presented by Baron.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Isaac, Barry
> > >>>>> 1983 Aztec Warfare: Goals and
> > Battlefield
> > >> Comportment.
> > >>>> Ethnology 22:
> > >>>>> 121-131.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1983 The Aztec "Flowery
> > War": A
> > >> Geopolitical
> > >>>> Explanation. Journal of
> > >>>>> Anthropological Research 39:
> 415-432.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Jeff Baker
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> Aztlan mailing list
> > >>>>>
> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> > >>>>> Click here to post a message
> > >> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> > >>>>> Click to view Calendar of Events
> > >>>>>
> > http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> http://mexiqueancien.blogspot.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Un blog arch?ologique en fran?ais sur
> la
> > >> M?soam?rique
> > >>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Aztlan mailing list
> > >>>>
> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> > >>>> Click here to post a message
> > >> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> > >>>> Click to view Calendar of Events
> > >>>>
> > http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > >>> Aztlan mailing list
> > >>>
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> > >>> Click here to post a message
> > Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> > >>> Click to view Calendar of Events
> > >> http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >_______________________________________________
> > Aztlan mailing list
> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> > Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> > Click to view Calendar of Events
> > http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:13:36 -0600
> From: "Jerry Offner" <ixtlil at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?--Indigenous counting and its representation
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID: <380-22009153031336932 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> And we're back...to Aztec human sacrifice and
> cannibalism. And the Mayanists thought they had it rough
> with the transient Apocalypto thing. A flash by now already
> in the can. Not even on pay cable anymore.
>
> For Aztec specialists, it is by now an ongoing Apocalypto
> of several centuries. What about Aztec accomplishments in
> other areas? It would be nice to see those also, even if
> less frequently than the cannibalism thing. There has been,
> for example, a recent study on Aztec accomplishments and
> expertise in land surveying and mathematics. Three Aztec
> specialists from different fields worked on this for quite
> some time:
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=aztec-math-uses-hearts-and-arrows
>
> but it does not get this kind of attention and even the URL
> involved has to mention hearts and arrows. Hmmm.... And
> which study tells us more about the Aztecs in their own
> terms that we didn't already know?
>
> Still, this latest effort, apparently by a Maya specialist
>
> http://www.precolumbian.org/talk0109.html
>
> boldly moonlighting into the intricacies of Nahua culture,
> ethnohistorical sources and historiography (a bit thicker
> jungle than most people know), seems to be one of limiting
> the largest claimed numbers to more realistic, or at least
> smaller, ones.
>
> Such an inquiry travels very, very well worn ground but
> there is always a chance of better understanding, especially
> with in depth research into the culture itself. Perhaps the
> investigator could consider or has considered the indigenous
> numbers reported as emanating from a vigesimal (20-base)
> system and as being transcribed from a Nahua writing system
> that had sometimes positional notation and sometimes
> notation based on iconographic representation and sometimes
> both working in combination--i.e. perhaps the investigator
> could understand the culture in its own terms--you know, the
> anthropological thing. 80,400, for example...how did that
> number get read? (20 x 20 x 201, maybe they slipped a digit
> or position or two or misread a glyph or two?; even the
> Spanish source using 136,000 = 20 x 20 x 20 x 17 seems
> vigesimally based; or 80,000 = 20 x 20 x 20 x 10; 20,000 =
> 20 x 20 x 50 and so on for the other numbers). If skull
> racks, some of which we know were in stone, were in fa!
> ct being reported on or otherwise prompting these numbers,
> should not the numbers have three dimensions or factors,
> rather than four or five and how do you choose the right
> factors from the reported numbers?; what are the skul count
> dimensions of the existing stone skull racks, etc.).
> Another approach to consider is that 20 or 400 or 8000 in
> Nahuatl could mean--very roughly translated "a
> bunch" "a whole lot",
> "innumerable", "golly, really a whole
> lot" or as they say in Texas "a ton of") in
> the same way we might say in English "there must have
> been a thousand of them there" or "that must have
> cost them a million dollars." I don't see any
> evidence of these issues in Lloyd Anderson's kindly
> presented report, but perhaps it was present and he could
> elucidate further. Perhaps the investigator could write the
> list briefly about her investigation of this aspect of the
> data. It is a problem that needs solving or at least some
> measure of convincing constraining of the range of poss!
> ible answers and I hope she and others continue to work it
> up. Probabl
>
> y we'll find that It wasn't as bad as we thought
> and that it was worse than we imagined--like so many other
> things in life.
>
> As for savagery, here is a deliberately obscure fact about
> one of our respected icons of civilization, Julius Caesar.
> While mopping up remnant Gallic resistance, following the
> seige of Uxellodunum believed to be near modern Dordogne in
> France, Julius Caesar ordered the hands cut off all the
> surviving warriors. Quite cruel and quite a burden on the
> relatives of those who did not choose suicide. (I
> don't however, think this is why Caesar famously said
> "the entirety of Gaul is divided into three
> parts"). And Western civilization has got a million
> more where that came from...creepy gallows humor included.
>
> The Aztec, in their seemingly unending Apocalypto, have by
> now suffered through "modern" interpretations of
> nutritional cannibalism, battlefield cannibalism and
> absolute cannibalism-deniers just in recent times so maybe
> this study will help convince us we have had by now our
> fill--at least for a while. Rergarding the Aztecs--what
> else is on our plate?
>
> Oh well, I seem to have an appetite for different
> information regarding the Aztecs and we can leave it at
> that. As those Romans always said: "De gustibus non
> disputandum est."
>
> Jerry Offner
>
>
>
> Jerry Offner
> ixtlil at earthlink.net
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:06:36 +0000
> From: "Dodds Pennock, Dr C.E."
> <ced22 at leicester.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?
> To: "aztlan at lists.famsi.org"
> <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
> Message-ID:
> <F0C0BFC5AF6F71479C404955AE1C9C0C0120957E43F5 at EXC-MBX1.cfs.le.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> Firstly, my thanks to Lloyd for taking the time to send us
> his notes on Joanne Baron's paper. I would very much
> like to have heard it, but am on the wrong side of the
> Atlantic!
>
> I have recently conducted a similar survey of the
> statistical material as part of a study for a collected
> volume on Latin American homicide, which will hopefully be
> published in the next year or so, and wanted to just add a
> few points to the data mentioned in Lloyd's original
> post. My apologies for taking a little while to do so, as I
> know the debate has moved on somewhat, but it is the
> beginning of the semester here with all it's
> accompanying work madness! (For which reason, please also
> forgive the hasty way in which this is compiled.)
>
> I should say, first of all, that I very much agree with
> Jerry Offner's call that we should try and recognise the
> Aztecs for something other than human sacrifice and in fact
> my own book (Bonds of Blood: Gender, Lifecycle and Sacrifice
> in Aztec Culture), which is just out - please forgive the
> shameless plug! - concentrates on the everyday life of the
> Aztecs, trying to understand how they were able to live with
> such spectacular violence without being dehumanised by it.
> My study of the following material is part of a larger
> article assessing whether Aztec violence can legitimately be
> considered 'mass murder', and placing it in the
> context of debates such as those over Apocalypto.
>
> I should say that I would be very happy to be corrected on
> any of the following points if others have traced the
> material further.
>
> - The citation of 20,000 per year for Zumarraga I believe
> is from Prescott but I could only trace it as far as
> Torquemada, who claimed in his Monarchia Indiana that
> Zumarraga had written in a letter that 20,000 were
> sacrificed per year. Prescott claims that Zumarraga ?states
> that 20,000 victims were yearly slaughtered in the capital.
> Torquemada turns this into 20,000 infants?. If anyone has
> traced the original letter I'd be keen to know. I
> believe that Las Casas and Ixtlilxochitl
>
> - The figure of 80,400 for the Great Temple in 1486 is from
> Dur?n. (To help complete your notes!) Sherburne Cook
> calculated, however, that allowing two minutes per
> sacrifice, a maximum number of victims for this event is
> around 14,100. Codex Telleriano-Remensis claims that 20,000
> people were sacrificed at this event. (Incidentally, Hassig
> plausibly, but rather vaguely estimated that ?between 10,000
> and 80,400 persons? were probably sacrificed at the
> dedication.)
>
> - Ixtlilxochitl claimed that one in five children of Aztec
> tributaries were killed each year.
>
> - My own work concentrated on trying to obtain a figure for
> Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco specifically, rather than Central
> Mexico as a whole. My analysis of the Florentine Codex
> suggests an annual total of approximately 500 victims in the
> annual calendar. In a single round of festivals, 87 separate
> instances of human sacrifice occurred, with victims ranging
> from one to a helpfully indeterminate number. In most cases
> where we know the figure, the numbers were at the lower end
> of the scale, usually between one and five victims. It is
> possible that on some of these occasions, such as the
> festival of Tlacaxipeualiztli when an unspecified number of
> warrior captives were sacrificed, that large groups may have
> been killed, but these were the exception rather than the
> rule.
>
> A figure of around 500 victims in the usual cycle seems
> likely, plus a smaller or larger number of additional
> victims sacrificed during additional festivities and the
> variable parts of the ceremonies depending on the year. It
> is also possible that some of the sacrificial rituals may
> have been conducted independently in each of the calpulli
> districts of the city, which would mean that the estimate of
> 300-600 victims might be multiplied by twenty. Some of the
> festivals were clearly city-wide events focused on the
> Templo Mayor, and lesser temples had smaller locally-based
> rituals, so to extrapolate directly is probably
> inappropriate, but some multiplication to allow for local
> events does seem reasonable.
>
> Allowing for such variations, the usual average at around
> the time of the Spanish invasion seems likely to have been
> in the low thousands. It is impossible even to estimate
> numbers of sacrificial victims prior to this period with any
> accuracy, but the later fifteenth century, when the borders
> of Aztec influence were expanding, seems to have been the
> peak of sacrificial practice in Tenochtitlan with an annual
> number of victims of perhaps between 1,000 and 20,000.
>
> - One problematic aspect of this which has not been
> addressed in the debate thus far is the issue of the
> pre-contact population. Both early sources and later studies
> sometimes make reference to death tolls as a proportion of
> population and, without accurate pre-contact figures, this
> muddies the water still further.
>
> - Looking at the evidence for sources regarding the
> tzompantli skull racks, it is Gonzalo de Umbr?a, who along
> with Andres de Tapia, supposedly counted 136,000 skulls.
> Naturally this is impossible, but Tapia does claim that he
> and Umbria counted the poles and multiplied them by the five
> skulls hung between beams, which makes it much more
> plausible. Although I remain sceptical, the annual number of
> sacrifices extrapolated by Cook from Tapia?s figures is not
> incompatible with my other calculations. Presuming that the
> tzompantli began being used at the same time as the temple
> in 1487, thirty-two years before Tapia?s account, Cook
> calculates an average of 4,250 sacrifices per year, or 3,630
> if we deduct 20,000 deaths for the dedication itself. As the
> 1487 ceremony only marked the inauguration of the latest
> stage in the construction of the Templo Mayor, there is no
> reason to presume that the tzompantli which Tapia saw was
> contemporaneous with the temple and so it is entirely poss!
> ible that the tzompantli had been in use for years
> beforehand, a circumstance which would significantly reduce
> the yearly average. Certainly an annual number of victims of
> 1,000 ? 20,000 remains in line with the limited evidence
> which accounts of the tzompantli provide suggesting a
> possible figure of 400 ? 8,000 sacrifices per 100,000
> population per year.
>
> - I would also echo Jeff Baker's comments that there
> seems to be a significant discrepancy between
> 'normal' sacrificial levels and those associated
> with major festivals and events.
>
> Do please forgive any inclarities here - this has been
> quickly compiled before getting down to marking exam
> scripts!
>
> Caroline Pennock
> -------
> Dr Caroline Dodds Pennock
> Lecturer in Early Modern History
> School of Historical Studies
> University of Leicester
> University Road
> Leicester
> LE1 7RH
>
> email: ced22 at le.ac.uk
> http://www.le.ac.uk/history/people/ced22.html
> ________________________________________
> From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org
> [aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org] On Behalf Of
> ECOLING at aol.com [ECOLING at aol.com]
> Sent: 27 January 2009 19:41
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Subject: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at Tenochtitlan?
>
> On 10 January, 2009, at the Pre-Columbian Society Meeting
> at the University of Pennsylvania Museum,
> Joanne Baron, PhD student in Anthropology gave a very
> important talk
> <<
> Noble or Savage?
> Western Representations of Human Sacrifice among the Aztecs
> >>
>
> This is only a very rough account of the talk and
> discussion afterwards.
> All faults are my own. [Lloyd]
>
> Baron considered several questions:
> Number of victims
> Extent of cannibalism
> What did the idols look like?
> Natives' reaction to Spaniards
> Why sacrifice was practiced
> And whether natives were treated as noble or savage.
>
> She focused on the first of these questions.
> She first reviewed how some current public presentations
> presented the question of how many were sacrificed.
> Josh Bernstein on the History Channel was checking out some
> larger numbers claimed, as to whether these were even
> physically
> possible to process so many in a reasonable time. The
> answer: no.
> But Bernstein did not focus on the earliest sources of
> information.
>
> A chief virtue of her talk was a very careful survey of
> exactly what
> each of numerous writers had actually said about the
> question of
> how many were sacrificed at Tenochtitlan or in Central
> Mexico.
> She paid careful attention to sources of information,
> citations and
> attribution (or lack thereof), and similar questions.
>
> The discussion afterwards focused in on what Cortez said
> and what Bartholome de las Casas said, because they were
> the closest to having direct information, rather than
> getting
> it second-hand, third-hand, fourth-hand, etc.
> Notice the trend line as pointed out by Baron
> (my notes are not complete here but give a good idea;
> a "??" means either that source did not give an
> estimate,
> or quite likely my notes failed to record what Baron said.
> I am not independently claiming anything which I do not
> explicitly label as mine, and have checked none of the data
> here. I am only reporting what my notes contain,
> and a few comments on those notes.)
>
> 50 / year per temple, 3000-4000 total (what area?)
> (Hernando Cortez)
> <50 overall (Bartolome de las Casas)
>
> ?? (Anonymous Conqueror, was with
> Cortez)
> ?? (Bernal Diaz de Castillo, soldier
> with Cortez)
>
> 2000 up to 8000 men a day on special occasions
> (Duran, Dominican Monk)
>
> 80,400 for the great temple in 1486
> (who? my notes incomplete)
>
> ?? (Mun~oz Camargu -- his father fought
> with Cortez;
> his mother was a Tlaxcalan
> noblewoman)
>
> Then there is a gap of around 200 years until later
> writers:
> 12,210 on one day for one temple
> Antonio de Leon y Gama
> 20,000 per year (Zumarraga quoted by Gordon)
> 50,000 per year (Gom/n... quoted by Gordon)
> 60,000 per year (number Gordon settles on)
> ...
> William Prescott notes inconsistencies regarding 1486,
> Torquemada, Ixtlilxochitl (no citations any of these)
> Baron noted I think a very large number given by Prescott,
> in the hundreds of thousands, and since Prescott's work
> was widely distributed, it had a
> great influence on views of the Aztecs in later works.
>
> Prescott was also the one who popularized the idea that
> the Spaniards were regarded as descendants of Quetzalcoatl.
> Other accounts seem to say some peoples of the area knew
> perfectly well that the Spaniards were men.
>
> Baron made a major point of the complete lack of citations
> of sources
> or of the nature of evidence regarding number of
> sacrifices,
> (in Prescott? and) among later writers.
>
> 1000 to 3000 per temple, thousands of temples,
> so 250,000 (Michael Harner)
>
> Estimates are impossible (Davies 1979)
>
> 80,000 in one day too much physically to process
> (Josh Bernstein on History Channel)
>
> Among the codices there is disagreement,
> 80,000 given in 3 codices,
> 20,000 given in the Telleriano-Remensis
> One soldier said he counted 136,000 skulls
> (which of course could not be true,
> it would take too long to count)
>
> There was also a citation from Demarest quoted by Baron.
> I Lloyd am a linguist, and am very sensitive to
> presuppositions.
> In that quotation, Demarest used the word "the"
> in contexts
> which presupposed large amounts of violence, without
> actually
> asserting the claim or providing citations for it.
> Perhaps the
> climate established by Prescott and others has made it more
> likely that the public and even archaeologists simply
> assume that
> the largest numbers cited for sacrifices are actually valid
> estimates .
>
> *
>
> Our discussion after the talk focused on Cortez, for
> obvious reasons,
> and on archaeology as another source of information.
> Cortez could have had direct information from conversations
> with Montezuma or others at the time.
> Cortez writes of his visit to the temple that
> he requested that there be no more sacrifice,
> and that from then on, the people stopped the sacrifices.
> [Cortez had some need to please the Spanish Crown]
> Bernal Diaz del Castillo had an opposite account of the
> visit,
> that Montezuma felt the need to expiate his own error of
> having admitted the Spaniards to the Great Temple.
>
> In any case, if we restrict ourselves to Cortez's
> account
> where he could have talked with people who knew the actual
> numbers,
> the number he gives is 50. Extrapolations to all of the
> Aztec
> realm, or all of Central Mexico, could not be based on
> direct
> observation or even on conversations with people who
> themselves
> had direct knowledge. We cannot assume that all of the
> many
> temples in central Mexico had as many sacrifices as did
> Tenochtitlan, since it was the capital of the largest and
> most
> aggressive state of the time.
>
> So all we know for sure is that Cortez wrote 50/year for
> Tenochtitlan.
>
> [Lloyd speaking in the next two paragraphs.]
> Bartolome de las Casas was of course defending the Indians,
> and so his report of less than 50, everything included,
> is surely biased towards the low side.
>
> In the light of the failure of later writers to give
> citations to their sources of information,
> large numbers like 250,000 must be considered to be
> pulled out of a hat for reasons specific to the writers
> or their anticipated audience.
> Thus they are surely irresponsible, and to the extent
> that these writers even implicitly lead readers to believe
> they
> have reliable sources for their claims, they have been
> lying.
>
> That does not mean we know the answer, just that the only
> *written* reports we have suggest 50/year for the Great
> Temple
> of Tenochtitlan is the only *reliable* information we have
> in written form.
>
> *
>
> How about archaeology? Baron has not attempted to sift
> this information. Members of our audience pointed out
> that a substantial number of warriors underneath the
> Temple of the Sun at Teotihuacan were lined up carefully
> in rows, so this may not have been sacrifice. Other clues
> from archaeology can point one way or another,
> and this all needs a study devoted to it. A member of our
> audience said he had asked an archaeologist working at the
> excavations of the Templo Mayor in Mexico City,
> and the reply was that in all the years of work there,
> they have found only 130 (sacrifices? bodies?).
> None of these tidbits can lead directly to an answer to the
> main
> question considered in the talk and in this AZTLAN message.
>
> *
>
> One other question got shorter discussion in Baron's
> talk:
> Were the Aztecs nobles or savages? Las Casas was the
> first
> to say that human sacrifice was not unique to the Aztecs.
> Three early chroniclers found nothing savage in this.
>
> After the US-Mexican war, there was a big split,
> Mexican authors thought the Aztecs were noble,
> North American authors considered them Barbarians.
> After WW II, there were less racial explanations.
>
> (There was a 1979 Dumbarton Oaks conference volume,
> from which people can gather the approach of that time.)
>
> Overall, this gives a good lesson in how much reports of
> the
> exotic "other" are changed by the desires of
> later writers or
> audiences. How much utter falsehood gets presented as
> fact, both by professionals and in the public media.
>
> We can be grateful to Joanne Baron for doing the hard work
> of finding all of the citations she did, and tracing the
> path
> of an idea through time and through different authors.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lloyd
>
> Lloyd Anderson
> Ecological Linguistics
> PO Box 15156
> Washington DC 20003
> ecoling at aol.com
> 202-547-7683
>
>
>
> **************
> A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2
> easy
> steps!
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
> cemailfooterNO62)
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Click to view Calendar of Events
> http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
>
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:20:00 -0600
> From: Sid Hollander <sid.hollander at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Only 50/year sacrificed at
> Tenochtitlan?--Indigenous counting and its representation
> To: AZATLAN <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
> Message-ID:
> <5a64c8ee0901300620x3f12a841pf1eb0a65eafd42de at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Jerry Offner offers more reasons to focus on sacrifices
> than not! The fact
> that you/we can not answer the questions definitively is
> sufficient reason
> to seek the answer. The focus (if indeed it is a focus) on
> one aspect over
> another is, I believe, a reflection of our own society. If
> I asked the list
> to either name 10 serial killers or 10 famous
> mathematicians and one word
> describing their contribution I would not be surprised by
> the results, would
> you? But that will not drive this list to the math history
> books nor will
> it stimulate more studies directed towards math. The same
> is true with
> sacrifices. Will the history profs of the future direct
> study away from the
> Holocaust in favor of German engineering in spite of the
> small time slice of
> history involved.
>
> --
> Sid Hollander
> AP 117
> Admin. Siglo XXI
> Merida, Yucatan
> Mexico CP 97310
> 52-999-941.00.21
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:32:29 -0500
> From: Marcos Villase?or <villas at anawak.com>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] "Teotihuacan In Danger"
> To: kiminmexico at yahoo.com
> Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID:
> <5394FB86-03DF-4525-9538-0616E39B31D5 at anawak.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes;
> format=flowed
>
> I respectfully disagree. Teotihuacan is the most important
>
> archaeological site in the Estate of Mexico and perhaps in
> the entire
> country. Having grown up in Mexico and witnessed the lack
> of respect
> that governments show towards the past, I find that to my
> dismay,
> that Teotihuacan is now used as an ideological battle
> ground for neo-
> liberals to pursue their "pan y circo" policies.
>
> To make Teotihuacan into a disco light show is demeaning to
> us all,
> if Teo needs help then it is the obligation of the governor
> Pe?a
> Nieto to do his best to bring real jobs to Teo, but to bank
> on a
> light show, specially after the construction of a wallmart
> within the
> site, when all it does is mar the view of this magnificent
> site is
> folly Mexican style.
>
> Marcos Villasenor
>
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2009, at 2:23 PM, kim Goldsmith wrote:
>
> > Contrary to "amarillista" press, the
> Teotihuacan Archaeological
> > Zone is NOT in danger. As decided by the Mexican
> Government and
> > agreed upon by the Consejo Arqueol?gico (INAH),
> "Resplandor
> > Teotihuacan" (a sort of light show with an
> informational script
> > that is read along with it) is being carried out.
> >
> > Any "damage" to the monuments was actually a
> series of lightly-
> > intrusive bolts that were anchored in the modern
> cement on the
> > monuments - - in NO WAY affecting the pre-hispanic
> architecture.
> > Nonetheless, after protests by some investigators,
> alternative
> > lighting methods were agreed upon and are now being
> set in place.
> >
> > This is not the first time Teotihuacan has had a
> "light and sound
> > show", and it is not the only large cultural
> monument (either in
> > Mexico or other parts of the world) to have such an
> attraction.
> >
> > "Resplandor" is meant as an attraction that
> will increment jobs in
> > all the seven municipios around the site. It is part
> of a larger
> > "Tourist Corridor" (in an area that is far
> enough away from San
> > Juan that it is not anywhere near the old prehispanic
> city
> > boundaries) that is meant to bring more visitors to
> the area, hence
> > more jobs for the local citizens.
> >
> > One of the biggest problems in tourism at Teotihuacan
> is that
> > people use Mexico City as a base, come out during the
> day, visit
> > only the site (NOT the neighboring towns), and then go
> back to the
> > D.F. to spend the night. Now with something to
> actually DO at
> > night, more people will spend at least one night in
> the neighboring
> > towns, incrementing the need for different services
> that only the
> > creation of new jobs can fulfill.
> >
> > "Resplandor Teotihuacan" is NOT damaging
> anything. It will be a
> > powerful force in economically lifting the surrounding
> areas. As
> > an archaeologist myself, I believe that often times we
> are guilty
> > in our zeal of wanting to keep everyone and everything
> stagnant in
> > time. As an Anthropologist, I realize that there are
> living
> > cultures that need to be heeded and nourished.
> "Resplandor" is a
> > program that will accomplish just that.
> >
> > KIM
> >
> > Kim C. Goldsmith, Ph.D.
> > Archaeologist and Member of the Teo. Community for 28
> years
> > Teotihuacan
> > MEXICO
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Aztlan mailing list
> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> > Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> > Click to view Calendar of Events
> http://research.famsi.org/events/
> > events.php
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:39:13 -0600
> From: michael ruggeri <michaelruggeri at mac.com>
> Subject: [Aztlan] Reply to Marcos on Teo sound and light
> show
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID:
> <1044C3CD-45E4-4B3C-8D60-AE0A5F422670 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed;
> delsp=yes
>
> Hi Marcos,
>
> I posted two news articles about the proposed sound and
> light show at
> Teotihuacan. INAH has agreed to shelve these plans and all
> of the
> adjustments they made to the monuments have been taken down
> and all
> holes have been repaired. So the sound and light show
> controversy is
> over for the moment.
>
> I do not think they will re-visit this very soon given the
> dismantling
> of the equipment and repairs being carried out.
>
> Mike Ruggeri
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> Click here to send a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>
>
> End of Aztlan Digest, Vol 38, Issue 28
> **************************************
More information about the Aztlan
mailing list