> Why? What makes you thing the food chain in the South was different from the > North? > RT
Simple RT, there were no Aztecs in South America. The food chain may have been the same regarding the dominant tribe, but they weren't Aztecs. The Aztec civilization didn't even reach the southern end of Mexico (which is considered North America). They had made a mess of the northern part of the Mayan culture, and a previous culture that I don't remember the name of offhand, but nothing to do with that part of the world below what is now known as Panama (and they didn't even come close to there either). The Incan civilization bore as much resemblance to the Aztec as the Austro Hungarian to the Druids. Compare Machu Pichu to the Mayan temples yet visible, and to the Aztec a bit to the north. Mexico, where the Aztecs and Mayans were, is in the range of 15 to 30 degrees North latitude, the Incan Empire ranged from about 10 to 40 degrees South latitude. To suggest that they were one is to suggest that in those times there was ready communication between North Africa and southernmost Africa - and with an isthmus in between. Too often the Eurocentric apply their concept of distance to the rest of the world. The Equator runs through the narrow part of of Africa, and the widest part of South America. NYC is on a parallel with Naples and Madrid, we are southern. London parallels Edmonton. Tierra del Fuego is far south of the Cape of Good Hope, yet the Andes almost reach it. You are right, in all cultures there has been a food chain of the powerful versus the weaker, but my point was that the naming of the Aztec as the superior (and the using of documentation on their practices) has nothing to do with the practices in the South American native empires, perhaps similar, but not derived. There is no indication of human sacrifice in the Incan empire in the sense of the Aztec temples dedicated to it, although I'm sure one could find other indications of that formerly universal practice. Best, Jon
