Massive Aztec human skull rack found in Mexico City

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Archeologists have discovered a massive ceremonial skull rack from the heyday of the Aztec empire in the heart of Mexico City, a find that could shed new light on how its rulers projected power by human sacrifice, the team said on Thursday.

The skull rack, known as a tzompantli in the Nahuatl language of the Aztecs, was used to display the bleached white craniums of sacrificed warriors from rival kingdoms, likely killed by priests atop towering temples that once stood nearby.
news.yahoo.com...

Interestingly enough a Cathedral was built next to it or more likely ontop of it perhaps as a means of subduing the Aztec religion ,but before we point fingers and say bad Aztec.. bad boy!!, keep in mind most civilizations around the world had varying degrees of death cults, some on a massive scale some smaller,example Rome's Gladiatorial games was more than just guys duking it out in the arena it had religious overtones, the royals of Kmt and Kush also killed a lot of their servants and officials to serve them in the afterlife..ditto for the non Abrahamic rulers in other parts of Africa this would involve hundreds of people, in China especially under the Shang and pre Buddhist rulers this was also the case.

originally posted by: Spider879
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - ,example Rome's Gladiatorial games was more than just guys duking it out in the arena it had religious overtones, the royals of Kmt and Kush also killed a lot of their servants and officials to serve them in the afterlife..ditto for the non Abrahamic rulers in other parts of Africa this would involve hundreds of people, in China especially under the Shang and pre Buddhist rulers this was also the case.

I don't recall any of the others putting the skulls on display though, that requires real panache, they beat the Goth movement by years

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Spider879
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - ,example Rome's Gladiatorial games was more than just guys duking it out in the arena it had religious overtones, the royals of Kmt and Kush also killed a lot of their servants and officials to serve them in the afterlife..ditto for the non Abrahamic rulers in other parts of Africa this would involve hundreds of people, in China especially under the Shang and pre Buddhist rulers this was also the case.

I don't recall any of the others putting the skulls on display though, that requires real panache, they beat the Goth movement by years

True they also wore the flayed skins of their enemies, they were gully that.

It is almost impossible to comprehend the bloodthirsty culture that the Aztecs seem to have had. I look away in horror when I try to read some of the reports that come out.

Its just unfathomable. How could a culture become an empire when it treated it human resources in such a terrible manner?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Its just unfathomable. How could a culture become an empire when it treated it human resources in such a terrible manner?

Are we talking about the Aztecs or the USA here ?

a reply to: Marduk

Careful now....no one built empires while abusing humankind with more fervor than the British Empire.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
It is almost impossible to comprehend the bloodthirsty culture that the Aztecs seem to have had. I look away in horror when I try to read some of the reports that come out.

Its just unfathomable. How could a culture become an empire when it treated it human resources in such a terrible manner?

Yes, How?

hmmmm

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Marduk

Careful now....no one built empires while abusing humankind with more fervor than the British Empire.

I thought the sins of the fathers only applied to the bible

a reply to: Marduk

well, there's no way someone could know as much about Sumer as you without being 100 years old.

Its funny how humans tend to see difference in religious sacrifice and differs to war, they claim one logical and the other illogical, yet both are based on ideals.

a reply to: Marduk

You have knowledge on sumer topic?

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: Marduk

You have knowledge on sumer topic?

Apparently 100 years worth, so not that much

a reply to: Marduk

Where did they come from? My research conclusion is Indus Valley, trade route, clay, pottery?

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: Marduk

Where did they come from? My research conclusion is Indus Valley, trade route, clay, pottery?

Who is the they?? Sumerians or Aztecs.

a reply to: Spider879

Sumerians, Aztec was just a brutal religious group, that with every new king had to kill thousands of people just to show who is boss. Oh remembered we still do that and call it idealism. sry

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: Marduk

Where did they come from? My research conclusion is Indus Valley, trade route, clay, pottery?

They were native to Mesopotamia, the build up to their classic civilisation took around 2000 years in what we now call the Ubaid culture (ca. 6500 to 3800 BCE)
en.wikipedia.org...
Assyriologists used to believe that they were an invading tribe from the North, because at first in the early days of Mesopotamian archaeology. it looked like they just suddenly appeared as a fully fledged civilisation out of nowhere. Then they dug deeper and found out that they simply built new cities atop the old ones. This theory has an overwhelming amount of evidence.

I also heard that the Harappan civilisation was named as a possible mother culture, but in reality, direct large scale trade between the two didn't start until Sargon the Great.

a reply to: Marduk

But history refers to them as black heads, Sargon was just another pawn in the transition change, Golden age, fourth dimension with time, logistics for war. The Assyrians were just used as labour, building the observatory of Babel, instead of going nomad warlord over small oasis water resources. I connected the Sumer to harappa, and the navagraha.

Swap from ashur to sargon in religion, then to Judaism.

Do you believe the Harappa used them as labour?

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: Marduk

But history refers to them as black heads, Sargon was just another pawn in the transition change, Golden age, fourth dimension with time, logistics for war. The Assyrians were just used as labour, building the observatory of Babel, instead of going nomad warlord over small oasis water resources. I connected the Sumer to harappa, and the navagraha.

Swap from ashur to sargon in religion, then to Judaism.

Do you believe the Harappa used them as labour?

Harappa didn't exist when Sumerian city states were founding, so I think its a little unlikely

Southern Mesopotamia was populated by fishing and hunter gathering nomads, then farming happened.

By the Bronze Age, wild food contributed a nutritionally insignificant component to the usual diet. If the operative definition of agriculture includes large scale intensive cultivation of land, mono-cropping, organized irrigation, and use of a specialized labour force, the title "inventors of agriculture" would fall to the Sumerians, starting c. 5500 BC. Intensive farming allows a much greater density of population than can be supported by hunting and gathering, and allows for the accumulation of excess product for off-season use, or to sell/barter. The ability of farmers to feed large numbers of people whose activities have nothing to do with agriculture was the crucial factor in the rise of standing armies. Sumerian agriculture supported a substantial territorial expansion which along with internecine conflict between cities, made them the first empire builders.

en.wikipedia.org...
English isn't your first language is it ?

a reply to: Marduk

English isn't your first language is it ?

No

The ability of farmers to feed large numbers of people whose activities have nothing to do with agriculture was the crucial factor in the rise of standing armies.

Oh wow, your link is something i have missed, pushes back everything with thousands of years on my part. I was stuck at Sargon and the sumerians.

originally posted by: yulka

a reply to: Marduk

English isn't your first language is it ?

No

The ability of farmers to feed large numbers of people whose activities have nothing to do with agriculture was the crucial factor in the rise of standing armies.

Oh wow, your link is something i have missed, pushes back everything with thousands of years on my part. I was stuck at Sargon and the sumerians.

Sargon was Akkadian in the same way that Jesus was Christian


Most of the clues about Sumerian origins can be found in Eridu founded ca. 5400 BC
en.wikipedia.org...

Eridu was formed at the confluence of three separate ecosystems, supporting three distinct lifestyles, that came to an agreement about access to fresh water in a desert environment. The oldest agrarian settlement seems to have been based upon intensive subsistence irrigation agriculture derived from the Samarra culture to the north, characterised by the building of canals, and mud-brick buildings. The fisher-hunter cultures of the Arabian littoral were responsible for the extensive middens along the Arabian shoreline, and may have been the original Sumerians. They seem to have dwelt in reed huts. The third culture that contributed to the building of Eridu was the nomadic Semitic pastoralists of herds of sheep and goats living in tents in semi-desert areas. All three cultures seem implicated in the earliest levels of the city.