posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 03:54 PM
"This photograph was claimed by one source to be from Tikal (forgot the link I found regarding that claim. I add it later). The one problem with
this is that the images of the Lords of Tikal are dressed much different than this character."
I agree. I spent a lot of time during my last two vacations at Tikal, Calakmul (which is only now really being investigated), Altun Ha, Cahal Pech,
and other Belizean sites. That drawing doesn't "look" Mayan at all.
"Muaddib, I know exactly what you're talking about, I can't quite get my finger on it, but I believe it was an Aztec or Olmex city that was
built on a lake, they used the water somewhat similar to a moat. I'm not really sure if it sank, but it became desolate, after the spanish
You may be talking about Tenochtitlan, the largest city of the time, which was built on a lake. However, Tenochtitlan did not sink or disappear; it
still exists, with a population of bout 19 million, making it the second largest city in the world. It is no longer called Tenochtitlan, but Mexico
City, and you can still go for boat rides on the moats at Xochimilco.
There was an Olmec city about thirty or so miles northeast of Mexico City. However, there was no lake or moat there, and it was already deserted when
the conquistadores arrived. the Aztecs referred to it as Teotihuacan, "The Place where Men became Gods".