They did have beasts of burden - Llamas, right? Or were those not used that way? I always assumed they were.
Llamas were purely South American. The Incas and earlier civilizations used them as beasts of burden, but they weren’t found north of the Andes. North American Indians only had people and dogs to carry or drag burdens.
Would you still feel that way if you heard tales of ritualistic human sacrifice happening there? :eek:
These do rather tend to discourage tourists.
Indeed!
The fact that goods were traded between North American amerinds and the Aztecs does not ipso facto mean they knew of each others’ cultures. The Roman and ancient Chinese traded, but had no direct contact at all; trade was conducted through many intermediaries (such as the Sogdians who ran much of the Silk Road for a long time).
That said, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if there was direct trade between the Aztec coastal trading cities (such as the aforementioned Tulum) and amerind cultures elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico (modern Louisiana and Florida, say) - whether they allowed that contact to permeate into inland Azteca proper I don’t know - trading cultures tended to fiercely protect their routes and endpoints.
Yes, the Aztecs for example had a caste of long-distance trader/spies known as “Pochteca”.
From what I’ve read, it seems that these traders were organized into guilds that were part of the state bureaucracy.
From what I understand the Aztecs knew of the peoples of what is now the US south-west, but thought of them as basically not very interesting barbarians (“chichimecs”) - indeed, the Aztecs themselves allegedly originated from there.
What is interesting is that the high civilizations of mesoamerica and peru appear to have been more or less completely ignorant of each other.
Nitpick: Aztecs lived in what we call Mexico now. Mexico is in North America.
Good observation-the Incas and the Azteks would probably have despised eachother. Of course, contatc would be difficult-that 60 mile Darien Gap in Panama precluded overland contact.
And neither folk were seafaring people.
As for the pueblo dwellers of Northern New Mexico-they were urban people..perhaps they knew enough to stay away from the (blood thirsty) Aztecs.
He was (obviously) slightly later than the period you’re asking about, but in the late 1520s or so Cabeza de Vaca tried to explore some of what became the USA. The expedition met with disaster and he ended up walking from somewhere near Galvaston in Texas back to the Spanish-held Mexico City. It took him years as he travelled from one community to the next but it was always along well-established trading routes the locals used.
iirc from his later book, the closer he got to Mexico City, the more the locals knew about it, and the Spanish occupiers. Which is what you’d expect!
Actually their are language similarities between the Aztecs, the Ute, and Hopi. And, Aztecs were probably as blood thirsty as many ancient and modern people, but remember our understanding of them comes primarily from the writings of priests who learned the language, with the intent of conversion.The translations and reports then were made through a veil of prejudice, antagonism and the desire to eradicate all things Aztec.
Remember also, that many reports about the Aztecs were in an effort to justify invasion, genocide and colonization. The Spanish ironically killed millions more in their effort to spread their love of Christ religion in the new world.
Why on Earth would that have precluded contact in pre-Columbian times? The Darien Gap is a barrier today because it has no roads suitable for motor vehicles. But even today there are foot trails, and people cross all the time. In fact, it would have been much less of a barrier in pre-Columbian times because the area was heavily settled and under cultivation. Balboa rode across Panama on horseback through cornfields, not by slashing his way through virgin jungles.
Panama in pre-Columbian was a route for the diffusion of culture between the Americas. Maize/corn and other crops originated in Mexico and passed into South America through Panama, and cassava and other crops went the other way.
Artifacts and crops could pass from group to group through trade and other contact, but people generally could not. Panama for example was made up of dozens of small chiefdoms that were frequently at war with one another. Any traveler would have to run a gauntlet of having to seek permission to pass from the territory of one chief to the next, and before he went too far he would be unable to speak the language. Direct long distance trade by land was generally not possible.
True, but there is plenty of independent evidence of the importance of human sacrifice in Aztec culture in their monuments and sculptures, much more so than either the Maya and Inca (whom the Spanish would also want to discredit).
I always thought the historical relative non-bloodthirstyness of the Maya throughout their history was a trifle overstated in the modern literature. For example, Chichen Itza is liberally covered with nasty imagry depicting human sacrifice in various forms and is adorned with a rather massive “skull rack” platform (decorated with carved stone skulls).
Though admittedly, the style at Chichen Itza is said to be a result of diffusion from the Mexica region in the terminal classic/early postclassic, and of course the fall of the city long predates the Spanish. And compared to the Aztecs, pretty well anyone would appear relatively non-bloodthirsty.
Certainly, the classic Mayan imagry was much, much less grimly focussed on human sacrifice - much more prevelent was images of Mayan aristocrats offering up auto-sacrifices of their own blood.
Although traditionally depicted as not going in for that sort of thing, the Mayans may well have practiced human sacrifice, and were fairly bloodthirsty themselves, but not nearly on the horrific scale of the Aztecs. And as you say, the Mayan site with the most evidence of sacrifice is one influenced by the Mexica.
The Incas practiced human sacrifice, but usually of single or a few individuals on remote mountain peaks. Nothing like the gory public spectacles of the Aztecs.
My take on the Aztecs was that, as an “outsider” ethnicity that took over the center of Mexica civilization reasonably recently, they took on a longstanding mesoamerican-culture-area practice of human sacrifice and ramped it up in frequency to an ambitious degree. My own impression is that the main purpose of this was, essentially, state terrorism.
The same dynamic probably accounts for the relative prevelence at Chichen Itza, though of course no one knows for sure. The speculation is that the use of Mexica imagry indicates actual outsiders ruling the city.
In sum, human sacrifice had always been a part of mesoamerican religious and political life, but only became a major part when some ambitious faction set about conquest - and usually outsiders to the established “civilized” powers.
Something similar occurs among the pre-Inca peoples of Peru. For example, the Moche seemed to have a positively Aztec approach to human sacrifice: