Lateknight
Banned
It possible that some of the Aztecs were from the southwestern publeuo groups before they came to central Mexico?
Are the Aztecs a Anasazi descended group?
- Thread starter Lateknight
- Start date
Well, Aztecs were probably related to Oasisamerica's peoples, giving the Uto-Aztecan linguistic kinship. But I don't think we can safely say they came from a distinct and identified people.
More likely, Aztec ethnogenesis involved several different Uto-Aztecan groups from Oasisamerica and/or Aridoamerica, moving from these regions before Anasazi formed their own cultural structures (and possibly identity), as the involved migrations are said to have happened in the VIth century.
Even there, Aztec as an ethnonym is quite vague and seems to designate people that came from a Urheimat as a whole, rather than a specific group as Mexica.
Aztec as an identity is developed about the result of a migration (mythical, mythified, historical), and couldn't have existed before this migration as such.
So, I'd go with no, as a people, while at least an important part of the humans groups that formed Mexica and Aztecs shared an old kinship with Anasazi trough common ancestry. Or at least, it's what I gathered of the question.
More likely, Aztec ethnogenesis involved several different Uto-Aztecan groups from Oasisamerica and/or Aridoamerica, moving from these regions before Anasazi formed their own cultural structures (and possibly identity), as the involved migrations are said to have happened in the VIth century.
Even there, Aztec as an ethnonym is quite vague and seems to designate people that came from a Urheimat as a whole, rather than a specific group as Mexica.
Aztec as an identity is developed about the result of a migration (mythical, mythified, historical), and couldn't have existed before this migration as such.
So, I'd go with no, as a people, while at least an important part of the humans groups that formed Mexica and Aztecs shared an old kinship with Anasazi trough common ancestry. Or at least, it's what I gathered of the question.
My understanding is that the descendants of the Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloans are generally believed to be the various Puebloans peoples - Hopi, Zuni, Tewa-speakers, etc. Nahuatl is related to languages like Ute and Commanche, which were spoken in the American Southwest by nomadic peoples who were culturally distinct and probably hostile to the Puebloans. Indeed, along with Na-Dene peoples like the ancestors of the Navajo and Apache, these groups probably had a lot to do with why the Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloans lived in their famed cliff dwellings.
No direct connection between the Aztecs and the Anasazi.
Chaco has place name in Toltec and was a trading partner, though probably an indirect one. There is a hint evidence of a Mexican connection to formation of Ancient Pueblo society. Zuni oral tradition states that the people of Chaco split into two. One group going south and the rest becoming ancestoral Puebloans.
The best canidates for "southern decendants" is probably Casas Grande/ Paquimé in Chihuahua which seem to have a combination of Mexican traits (Ball Courts, trade goods) and Puebloan influence, most notably a strait longitude line from Chaco and Aztec in New Mexico, simular trade goods (Macaws) etc.
They traded south with the Aztecs but was abandoned circa 1450. Late enough to trade with the Aztecs but early enough to miss the Spanish.
But they are not Aztecs.
This is an older theory. The evidence seems to suggest civil disorder among the various Puebloan groups leading to the competition for resources exacerbated by drought and the related collapse of the Chacoan system of food redistribution. A good analogy I heard from one SW archeologist was the old Anasazi homeland became a prehistoric 90's Yugoslavia.
There also seems to have been a religous evolution in the 1300 to 1500s in the midst of this civil disorder, notably the adoption of the Kachima religous system and change in cultural values from hierarchical to communal. Chaco seems to be highly hierarchical and not a very nice place; cannabalism, 50% child mortality rate among the masses, and legends of a "witch" living in Pueblo Bonito called the Great Gambler. This is before the droughts.
In contrast, the Bandilier, 500 years later had around a 10% child mortality rate, a higher standard of living, and a more distributed power structure.
Chaco has place name in Toltec and was a trading partner, though probably an indirect one. There is a hint evidence of a Mexican connection to formation of Ancient Pueblo society. Zuni oral tradition states that the people of Chaco split into two. One group going south and the rest becoming ancestoral Puebloans.
The best canidates for "southern decendants" is probably Casas Grande/ Paquimé in Chihuahua which seem to have a combination of Mexican traits (Ball Courts, trade goods) and Puebloan influence, most notably a strait longitude line from Chaco and Aztec in New Mexico, simular trade goods (Macaws) etc.
They traded south with the Aztecs but was abandoned circa 1450. Late enough to trade with the Aztecs but early enough to miss the Spanish.
But they are not Aztecs.
This is an older theory. The evidence seems to suggest civil disorder among the various Puebloan groups leading to the competition for resources exacerbated by drought and the related collapse of the Chacoan system of food redistribution. A good analogy I heard from one SW archeologist was the old Anasazi homeland became a prehistoric 90's Yugoslavia.
There also seems to have been a religous evolution in the 1300 to 1500s in the midst of this civil disorder, notably the adoption of the Kachima religous system and change in cultural values from hierarchical to communal. Chaco seems to be highly hierarchical and not a very nice place; cannabalism, 50% child mortality rate among the masses, and legends of a "witch" living in Pueblo Bonito called the Great Gambler. This is before the droughts.
In contrast, the Bandilier, 500 years later had around a 10% child mortality rate, a higher standard of living, and a more distributed power structure.
A lot of this I picked up at lectures while living in New Mexico.
However a few books include.
Anasazi America David Stuart is probably the best overview. It does some very cool things like putting a Neolithic farming society in modern economic terms.
Sacred Land, Sacred View is technically about the Navajo. However there is a lot of crossover in Navajo and Pueblo thinking (and I'm of the view that many Navajo are descendants of Pueblo refugees who assimilated into the Dine after the 1680 Pueblo revolt and the 1694 Spanish reconquest of New Mexico).
The Pueblo Revolt by David Roberts tells you much about the agendas in SW archeology and history as well as actual history.
There are a couple more I need to look up but that's off the top of my head.
However a few books include.
Anasazi America David Stuart is probably the best overview. It does some very cool things like putting a Neolithic farming society in modern economic terms.
Sacred Land, Sacred View is technically about the Navajo. However there is a lot of crossover in Navajo and Pueblo thinking (and I'm of the view that many Navajo are descendants of Pueblo refugees who assimilated into the Dine after the 1680 Pueblo revolt and the 1694 Spanish reconquest of New Mexico).
The Pueblo Revolt by David Roberts tells you much about the agendas in SW archeology and history as well as actual history.
There are a couple more I need to look up but that's off the top of my head.