|
Montezuma Castle |
The Aztecs and Montezuma Castle
The magnificence, majesty and mystery of Montezuma Castle(1st edition - October 2005) by A.O. Kime Montezuma Castle is an imposing and majestic cliff dwelling in central
Arizona dating back to the 12th century. Although some call it an ‘ancient
high-rise apartment building’ due to its height (five stories) and 20 rooms,
that is misleading because it implies times were peaceful, on the contrary… it was
more a fortress to fend off attacks. Although it was abandoned in the 15th
century, its majesty seems to have remained. So regal, so stately, so proudly
standing erect... seemingly a silent proclamation from the Middle Ages about
its 800 year-old claim. Haughty, confident, yet enveloped with poignancy too
it seems, nestled protectively, the desert breeze whispering... I am Aztec, I am
Aztec. At ground level 100 feet below Montezuma Castle, there once existed another high-rise thought to have been a six story structure with 45 rooms. The elements consumed it over the centuries however, and perhaps a fire, only the base of the walls remains today. In addition, seven miles northeast is ‘Montezuma well’… which actually is a spring at the bottom of an immense limestone sinkhole. At the bottom is a 50 feet deep crystal-clear pond 350 feet across flowing a million-plus gallons daily. The misunderstandings over Montezuma CastleDue to a literal interpretation, it has been mistakenly reasoned by many people that since Montezuma couldn't possibly have built this cliff dwelling, having been built centuries before, whoever named it did so in error. Not so, it was not meant to imply Montezuma built it, or built during his reign, he is merely a symbol of the Aztec people. At the time, Montezuma (Moctezuma II) was the name most associated with the Aztecs due to the fact he was the emperor when Hernán Cortés arrived in Mexico in 1519. Montezuma was also noted for his naïveté which lead to the defeat of the Aztec Empire in 1521. After having been held in captivity by the Spanish a short while, Montezuma was killed in June of 1520. The Spanish in the 1700s knew of his death and so too the Americans in the 1800s... yet, independently, they both were calling dwellings and pueblos in Arizona either Montezuma castle, house of Montezuma, palace of Montezuma or "some Montezuma town". It was simply a case of naming places after a famous person known to be associated with it... the naming of mines after King Solomon in Biblical times is an example. Therefore, in calling it Montezuma Castle does not imply they thought it was built after the fall of the Aztec Empire in Mexico. Actually, the mighty question once was, and still should be... did the Aztecs build it sometime before their demise? Chronologically however, this means 2-3 centuries before the Aztecs became the dominate force in Mexico (late 1300s to 1521). So, were the Aztecs a cohesive civilization in Arizona during the 12th century? While archaeologists say it was the Sinagua indians who abandoned Montezuma Castle in the 1400s, the last to occupy it, uncertainty and confusion still exists as to which culture actually built it. Science has stated there were five pre-Columbian civilizations in the Southwest… the Anasazi, Hohokam, Sinagua, Salado and the Mogollon. Of these, some believe the Hohokam built it while others credit the Anasazi and/or the Sinagua (which some archaeologists consider ‘Western Anasazi’). Virtually nothing is known about any of them however, but for good reason.... these are only 'given' names to represent a people otherwise unknown. This is done based on the differences in the artifacts found (cultural differences). It is a common practice... similarly the 'Clovis people', likewise a representational name, are often said to have existed at any location where large spear points are found. Aside from the Clovis, the Anasazi are considered the oldest of these mythical civilizations (if not to consider the growing belief in pre-Clovis peoples). While there is value to labeling, the use of representational names, some given names are misleading and reminiscent of Greek mythology. Some are not misleading though, for example, 'Clovis' is clearly not an 'indian-sounding' name nor are 'Basketmaker II', 'Pueblo IV', or 'Archaic people'. Any novice would know they are representational. On the other hand, names such as Anasazi, Hohokam, Sinagua, Salado and the Mogollon are 'indian-sounding' and give the impression they were actual tribes (or civilizations). It implies fact rather than conjecture and creates, in effect, make-believe history. The public would be better served if 'fabled' accompanied their use... such as the 'fabled Sinagua'. Three of these five names, the Anasazi, Hohokam and the Mogollon, while essentially the same culturally, were created to represent effectively the same people but which occupied three different regions. The first Europeans arriveThe first Europeans to see Montezuma Castle (Spanish) may have occurred as early
as 1583 when 15 men lead by Antonio de Espejo set out from Chihuahua, Mexico to
rescue two friars in New Mexico. On their return trip, they ventured into the
Verde Valley on their way to locate a mine some Hopis had told them about. The
mine was supposedly in the vicinity of what is now Jerome, Arizona.
Antonio de Espejo later wrote:
Again in 1598, an expedition of eight men plus their Hopi guides was led by
Marcos Farfán de los Godos into the general area. Their purpose was to reassess
the mine in Jerome which the 1583 expedition wasn’t particularly impressed with.
However Farfán’s expedition found instead rich veins of ore within the mine and
staked out several claims. While the accounts of their trip seemingly described
the Verde Valley, there was no mention of any prehistoric ruins. The first Americans arriveFur trappers in the early 1800s were the first Americans to enter the area
and a few accounts suggest they worked the Verde River and nearby Beaver Creek.
In 1826 and again in 1829 groups of trappers led by James Ohio Pattie and Ewing
Young were in the general area but they made no mention of any prehistoric
ruins. The '29 group was comprised of 40 men which included the legendary kit
Carson.
Lieutenant Whipple added this:
In 1864, the large spring seven miles from Montezuma Castle was first called ‘Montezuma well’ by King S. Woolsey during his second expedition against a band of troublemaking Apaches, he chronicled:
Public awareness of the Aztecs in the 1800sThe best-selling book Conquest of Mexico written by historian Walter
Hickling Prescott in 1843 added to the public awareness of the Aztecs. Prescott,
after whom the first capital of Arizona was named, dwelled heavily on the Aztecs in
his book. Interestingly he wrote "The Aztec character was perfectly original
and unique. It was made up of incongruities apparently irreconcilable . . . the
extremes of barbarism and refinement". Of Montezuma’s “hard fate”
Prescott uncharacteristically admitted, is "wholly indebted for his
portraiture to the pencil of his enemies".
However many historians believe much said about the Aztecs by their Spanish conquerors was highly exaggerated... or untrue. There are doubts the Aztecs practiced cannibalism and doubts Montezuma was stoned to death by his own people as his jailers claim. While the Aztecs were later ‘officially’ discounted by archaeologists as the pueblo builders of the Southwest, there is a high probability politics entered into it. Naming places associated with Montezuma was creating a controversy and the following passage gives a sense of the prevailing tone.
Comparing cultural differences to determine ancestry is more an art than a science however and is highly prone to error. A lot of differences can pile up after a few generations… especially when distanced in a faraway land with different resources. The works of a single creative individual within a tribe can skew an analysis. In fact, there could be hundreds, if not thousands, of unknown contributing factors which, if known, could unravel an assessment. Who were these ancient pueblo builders anyway?So… did the pueblo builders consider themselves Aztecs or not? After all,
their name should not be determined by what outsiders call them, but what they
called themselves. Well, unfortunately they left no calling cards, no name on a
mailbox, but the institutional habit of titling an unknown people spreads
misinformation… especially if it is possible they essentially belong to another
tribe. So what does ‘essentially’ entail? Does that mean they essentially haven’t
been an independent tribe long enough? Less than 100 years? 500? 1,000? Or can you
call a tribe by another name which split the scene the week before? When does one
become an Aztec or cease to be one? In Spanish, the name Sinagua means ‘without water’, Salado means 'salty'...
named after the Salt River (Rio Salado in Spanish), Anasazi means 'the ancient
ones', Hohokam means either ‘ancient ones', 'departed ones’ or 'those who have
gone' and Mogollon is in reference to the Mogollon Rim, a central Arizona
mountain range which the Spanish named after Juan Ignacio Flores Mogollon, a
colonial governor. These are hardly names a tribe would pick for themselves.
Having been a victim of this trend, the 'Papago Indians' of central Arizona
have recently gotten people to start calling them what they call themselves…
the ‘Tohono O'odham’ (pronounced Tóno-oōhtam). Now that’s the way it
aught to be done… let the American Indians decide who they are. The politics behind the naming of tribesWith the Aztecs being strongly associated with Mexico for centuries, deeply
ingrained in its history, it is doubtful the U.S. Department of Interior would be
happy to hear the Aztecs were once in the American Southwest. More accurately, they
wouldn't want anyone else to hear about it, especially the Aztecs, a possible
shuffling around of the indian reservations they'd think. It would also be an
unwanted territorial tie with Mexico... however symbolic. If the Aztecs did ever
return in mass, although highly doubtful, the state governments in Arizona and New
Mexico wouldn't like it, the Christian religions wouldn't like it and in fear of
Montezuma's revenge, the Apaches wouldn't like it. Such talk of the Aztecs would
have been more-so troublesome in the 1800s however... to the world it would
have made harder to justify Manifest Destiny. A lot of special interests, it seems,
would like to keep the Aztecs out of the picture. Who knows, maybe some
acknowledgements would pacify the Aztec gods... otherwise scheming to shift Manifest
Destiny into reverse. In a position to know and the Aztec exodusIn order to separate fact from fiction, one must first understand the idea the Aztecs were the pueblo builders of the Southwest originated with the Spanish. Nearly a century before the Americans came, a 1762 Catholic account entitled 'Rudo Ensayo' refers to the Casa Grande ruins as the “house of Montezuma". Casa Grande is about 140 miles south of Montezuma Castle between Phoenix and Tucson. With the nearly San Xavier del Bac Mission having been in Tucson since 1699... the Spanish were in a position to know the truth of the matter. In that same Catholic report, purportedly the author thought "the Aztecs had built it while on a sojourn before their travels ultimately took them to the Valley of Mexico" (quote from the National Park Service). If this was the prevailing Spanish belief some 240 years ago, they surely had solid reasons for this belief. If anything, in light of the Catholic hatred for the Aztec culture, it's a wonder the Spaniards mentioned Montezuma at all. Later, in 1775, Franciscan friar Pedro Font called Casa Grande the "palace of Montezuma.". There seems to be even more evidence the Aztec were the pueblo builders... virtually every indian settlement in Arizona was abandoned between 1350 and 1450 and this coincides exactly with when the Aztecs came to power in Mexico (late 14th century). Furthermore, although it is only legend, the word 'Aztec' means "someone who comes from Aztlán". Unfortunately no one knows where Aztlán is located and legend has it as only 'an unknown location north of Mexico'. Arizona and New Mexico are, of course, north of Mexico. While admittedly there is a lack of solid evidence, nonetheless it seems only logical that due to the increased frequencies of droughts archaeologists say these indians were experiencing, increasingly prolonged, and quite possibly due to the rigors of continually warring with the Yavapai and Apaches (real tribes), a mass exodus to Mexico surely occurred. A mass exodus to Mexico explains the abandonment of villages and the complete disappearances of these southwestern peoples. Archaeologists would be quick to discount this theory however... too many differences in tool-making, art and building techniques they'd say. It would be the same thing they have been saying for 150 years. That story has found its way into the history books and is now etched in stone it seems. While perhaps hundreds of books have been written about this subject, scholarly books, books far exceeding the intellectual level of this article, nonetheless this exodus theory, which almost certainly must have been put forth in some of these books, obviously has not yet flown. In that this exodus theory has not yet flown should be curious... if is far more an affront to reason to claim whole civilizations are able to completely disappear. It is archaeological mythology for children. The mass exodus could have been preceded by smaller groups to first survey and then begin establishing themselves. It may have taken several decades before this 'forward base' was able to accommodate a large influx of people. In the meantime, the 'forward base' people were adapting their methods to fit their new environment. Local artisans surely influenced and further educated these already experienced builders. For a civilization to quickly modernize and suddenly get creative is nothing new. The ancient Greeks did it... so did the Persians, Egyptians and Japanese. According to legend, although legends can easily be twisted, this is the common theme from all the variations ... when the Aztecs arrived in the Anahuac Valley (Mexico), having come from the north (Aztlán), they were effectively considered 'uncivilized' in the opinion of the indigenous peoples. One version has it that the Aztecs "wanted to learn", especially from the highly advanced Toltecs who were considered the "originators of culture". The Aztec arrival dates mentioned were the 1200s to the mid 1300s. There was more to the legend but these were the important points for this article. History can testify to one point certainly... that the Aztecs did learn, learned well, and rapidly catapulted themselves into being the most advanced civilization in the Americas. It is time to quit telling our children that civilizations can vanish into thin air. A.O. Kime
These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
Ask your bookstore for titles by A.O.
Kime This website and contents are explained in our Introduction >TOP >HOME ... the place of smoke signals from the spirit world |
A.O. Kime articles —AGRICULTURE
|
|
|