9 ms·

Note that although 'Aztec' sounds super old, they were actually a civilisation from as recently as 1300 to 1550 or so, so not nearly as long ago as it sounds, a

Note that although 'Aztec' sounds super old, they were actually a civilisation from as recently as 1300 to 1550 or so, so not nearly as long ago as it sounds, and actually relatively contemporary To Elizabeth.

dominotw 5y ago
oxford university is older than aztec civilization.
adolph 5y ago
Elizabeth I (7 September 1533 – 24 March 1603)[a] was Queen of England and Ireland from 17 November 1558 until her death in 1603. Sometimes called the Virgin Queen, Gloriana or Good Queen Bess, Elizabeth was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I To 21st-century eyes, [court astrologer John] Dee's activities straddle magic and modern science, but the distinction would have meant nothing to him. He was invited to lecture on Euclidean geometry at the University of Paris while still in his early twenties. He was an ardent promoter of mathematics, a respected astronomer and a leading expert in navigation, who trained many who would conduct England's voyages of discovery. Meanwhile, he immersed himself in sorcery, astrology and Hermetic philosophy. Much effort in his last 30 years went into trying to commune with angels, so as to learn the universal language of creation and achieve a pre-apocalyptic unity of mankind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dee
- FredPret 5y ago
  If you fully believe in the Biblical God, that behaviour kind of makes sense
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure that the Bible portrays "a pre-apocalyptic unity of mankind" as being a desirable or achievable goal.
    - nwatson 5y ago
      I agree, but the recently rising "Seven Mountains Mandate" sub-section of Evangelicals think otherwise, and are convinced their job is do dominate the seven areas of human culture and "bring heaven to earth", and part of that is to unify humankind under a not-so-tolerant theocracy. A portion of them also are into dreams and visions as a means to new revelation, and are largely Q-inspired and conspiracy-minded as well.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    If you fully believe in the Biblical God, then both sorcery and astrology are forbidden, IIRC.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Fezzik 5y ago
      According to the Bible witchcraft/sorcery is 1) real and 2) punishable by death: ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch (sorceress) to live.’ Exodus 22:18. Sorcery and astrology are certainly frowned upon: ‘The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord has not permitted you to do so.’ Deuteronomy 18:9-14.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        Ex 22:18, as I understand specifically (in the original text not the English translations) uses a term that refers specifically to a woman who casts evil spells (which is pretty close to the common understanding of “witch” but not with the more general interpretation you have imposed on it.) The OT, as I further understand, contains a number of different prohibitions of very specific magical practices in the source language, most of which are highly genericized in most English translations. (There's also a specific enumeration of the parts of the Jewish law that remain in force for Christians in Acts 15, and most of the probibitions under discussion here don't fall within its scope.)
        bobthechef 5y ago
        Whether there is an explicit biblical condemnation (I don't know, but I would be surprised if there weren't) is not relevant, at least not to a Catholic. Sola scriptura is the province of Protestants.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Add Isaiah 8:19-22 to the mix. It pretty clearly condemns consulting spiritists and mediums. (Depending on your definition of the English word "sorcery", that may count.)
  - as300 5y ago
    Sure, but didn't pretty much every English person those days? I feel the real interesting point is that he was interested in the unknown, and back in those days they didn't have the modern distinctions between what we now consider as natural and supernatural. Seems that if you want to make progress in human knowledge, you assume the risk of doing things that appear frivolous or just stupid in hindsight.
    - neaden 5y ago
      Reminds me of Jack Parsons, one of the most influential rocket scientists and co-founder of Jet Propulsion Labs and committed Thelemite occultist. Or John Murray Spear, a clergyman from the 1800s who campaigned for women's equality, rights for workers, abolition, and getting rid of the death penalty. He also believed he was talking to Ben Franklin's ghost and tried to build what was essentially a robot Jesus.
      - aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
        >tried to build what was essentially a robot Jesus Lol! I had to look this up, and indeed it’s true: http://www.danbaines.com/blog/tag/New+Motive+Power http://www.danbaines.com/blog/tag/New+Motive+Power
      - tkgally 5y ago
        And Isaac Newton: “English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton produced works exploring chronology, and biblical interpretation (especially of the Apocalypse), and alchemy. Some of this could be considered occult. Also, Newton described himself as a ‘natural philosopher’, and his work is grounded in Aristotelian metaphysics. Newton’s scientific work may have been of lesser personal importance to him, as he placed emphasis on rediscovering the wisdom of the ancients. In this sense, some historians, including economist John Maynard Keynes, believe that any reference to a ‘Newtonian Worldview’ as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...
        5y ago
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    I don't see how you could have possibly come to that conclusion. At all. Superstition and the occult have always been condemned by the Church as irrational and immoral[0]. This sounds like one of those vague anti-Christian sentiments from the Enlightenment that somehow remains fashionable to this day. In spirit, modern science is closer to the occult in the sense that mastery over nature is a major motivation for its pursuit. [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm
- ctoth 5y ago
  This guy is incredibly interesting! I really liked the book John Dee and the Empire of Angels: Enochian Magick and the Occult Roots of the Modern World[0] which explores his life, contributions to science, and obviously the occult side as well. It also links in Parsons, which someone downthread mentioned. Unfortunately, the book has this to say about the mirror: The large obsidian mirror that is often associated with Dee, an Aztec cult artifact dedicated to Tezcatlipoca brought back from the New World after the conquest of Mexico by Cortés, which has long been on display at the British Museum,54 may not have been used at all, nor has it been conclusively shown that the mirror even belonged to Dee. If the black mirror was Dee’s, it may have come into his possession at Louvain or through a Spanish courtier.55 Of the other objects in the British Museum attributed to Dee’s use, it is likely that only the three wax seals actually belonged to him; the crystal ball and gold engraving of the “Vision of the Four Castles” are probably later acquisitions by collectors from other magicians or antiquarians who reproduced them from Casaubon’s printing of A True & Faithful Relation.56 [0]: https://smile.amazon.com/John-Dee-Empire-Angels-Enochian/dp/1620555891/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=john+dees+angels&qid=1634174693&sr=8-1 https://smile.amazon.com/John-Dee-Empire-Angels-Enochian/dp/...
djur 5y ago
If Dee obtained the mirror around 1580, it had only been 60 years since the Spanish dissolved the Aztec Empire, and it's entirely possible that the Nahuas continued to make obsidian mirrors for some time after that (although the Spanish would have recognized it as a non-Christian practice to be stamped out, surely). To him, it could have been approximately as ancient as a John F. Kennedy campaign button is to us.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  > although the Spanish would have recognized it as a non-Christian practice to be stamped out, surely As an occult practice, it may have been discouraged at least, but to say "non-Christian" makes it sound like one arbitrary practice extirpating another. Rather, the Christian view (and certainly the Catholic view) is one opposed to superstition and the occult on the grounds that superstitions are irrational and immoral and thus opposed to the good of those who engage in them[0]. It is one thing for there to exist varying customs that are more-or-less arbitrary w.r.t. the signifier (greetings, for example), but the signified is no longer arbitrary. [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Rather, the Christian view (and certainly the Catholic view) is one opposed to superstition and the occult on the grounds that superstitions are irrational and immoral and thus opposed to the good of those who engage in them. As a Catholic, even I recognize that essentially the entirety of Catholic practice is superstition from the perspective of anyone who doesn't either take Catholicism as a priori true on authority or (arguably equivalently) have a personal divine experience justifying Catholicism experientially. If one is not Catholic to start with, it as easy to dismiss Catholic practice on the same argument as presented above against superstition as it is for Catholics to do so for non-Catholic superstitions.
    - thatguy0900 5y ago
      Even if you are a non catholic Christian catholic practice seems very occult and superstitious.
LeoPanthera 5y ago
For context, the University of Oxford was formed considerably before the Aztecs, in around 1096. (So long ago that records are not reliable.)
- rburhum 5y ago
  Random related fact, too, the oldest university in the Americas is San Marcos (Lima, Perú) which was founded in May 12, 1551; 1 year after the history books mark the end of the Aztec civilization.
  - Mizza 5y ago
    Time is weird. Oxford University is 200 years older than the start of the Aztec civilization.
    - AlotOfReading 5y ago
      This is a bit like saying Oxford is 800 years older than the Italian civilization. It's more confusing than it is useful.
    - labster 5y ago
      And for 300 years, Oxford University shared the planet with the Roman Empire.
      - ithinkso 5y ago
        Well, if you mean Byzantine Empire (East Roman Empire with the Constantinople as a capitol) then absolutely massive amount of things shared it's time with it because it has fallen in 1453, even Columbus shared the planet with it. But at this point, maybe incorrectly but surely, 'Roman Empire' is synonymous with antiquity so the republic and early empire, I think that even if year 495 counts here then it's borderline
        dotancohen 5y ago
Jensson 5y ago
> Note that although 'Aztec' sounds super old Does it? I always felt Columbus was pretty young history and I associate Aztecs with him. Not sure how the time period where we had guns and ships good enough to cross the great seas can be seen as super old, great civilizations had already existed thousands of years at that point.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  It feels older than it is, because it's largely prehistoric.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    In what way is the Aztec empire prehistoric? You mean they feel old because they were primitive relative to Europe at the time? But that is known history, Europe were so far ahead technologically that they managed to conquer the whole world starting with Columbus and ending at WW2. We are living at the end of that era now, we still see the effects of Europe and its colonies dominating world politics but it is getting weaker.
    - mkmk 5y ago
      I believe the parent comment means prehistoric as a technical term that means “before written history”. The Aztecs had no written language equivalent to what we’re using here, and instead used ideographs. They did, however, record history cartographically!
      - AlotOfReading 5y ago
        Aztec script is a bit more complicated than simply ideographic. There's a whole bunch of syllabaric stuff we don't fully understand as well. Regardless, defining "prehistoric" around the presence of so-called complete writing (scripts that can represent any spoken statement) leads to a lot of really silly situations, especially in the new world. For instance, did the Aztecs suddenly become historic as soon as the Spanish showed up? If so, why didn't the Mayan script (which is also complete) count? If it's that the Aztecs who couldn't write simply weren't historic yet, does that suggest the vast majority of Europeans who also couldn't write were prehistoric? Either way, it's a terrible definition. As an archaeologist, I use "prehistoric" to describe really old fossilized crap. Anything newer is historic.
justshowpost 5y ago
> 'Aztec' sounds super old It rather sounds super primitive and savage. With human sacrifices and stuff. And yes, that stone mirror was polished by slaves. Oh, those columbus day inspired pages...

dominotw 5y ago

oxford university is older than aztec civilization.

adolph 5y ago

Elizabeth I (7 September 1533 – 24 March 1603)[a] was Queen of England and Ireland from 17 November 1558 until her death in 1603. Sometimes called the Virgin Queen, Gloriana or Good Queen Bess, Elizabeth was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I To 21st-century eyes, [court astrologer John] Dee's activities straddle magic and modern science, but the distinction would have meant nothing to him. He was invited to lecture on Euclidean geometry at the University of Paris while still in his early twenties. He was an ardent promoter of mathematics, a respected astronomer and a leading expert in navigation, who trained many who would conduct England's voyages of discovery. Meanwhile, he immersed himself in sorcery, astrology and Hermetic philosophy. Much effort in his last 30 years went into trying to commune with angels, so as to learn the universal language of creation and achieve a pre-apocalyptic unity of mankind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dee

FredPret 5y ago
If you fully believe in the Biblical God, that behaviour kind of makes sense
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure that the Bible portrays "a pre-apocalyptic unity of mankind" as being a desirable or achievable goal.
  - nwatson 5y ago
    I agree, but the recently rising "Seven Mountains Mandate" sub-section of Evangelicals think otherwise, and are convinced their job is do dominate the seven areas of human culture and "bring heaven to earth", and part of that is to unify humankind under a not-so-tolerant theocracy. A portion of them also are into dreams and visions as a means to new revelation, and are largely Q-inspired and conspiracy-minded as well.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  If you fully believe in the Biblical God, then both sorcery and astrology are forbidden, IIRC.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Fezzik 5y ago
    According to the Bible witchcraft/sorcery is 1) real and 2) punishable by death: ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch (sorceress) to live.’ Exodus 22:18. Sorcery and astrology are certainly frowned upon: ‘The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord has not permitted you to do so.’ Deuteronomy 18:9-14.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      Ex 22:18, as I understand specifically (in the original text not the English translations) uses a term that refers specifically to a woman who casts evil spells (which is pretty close to the common understanding of “witch” but not with the more general interpretation you have imposed on it.) The OT, as I further understand, contains a number of different prohibitions of very specific magical practices in the source language, most of which are highly genericized in most English translations. (There's also a specific enumeration of the parts of the Jewish law that remain in force for Christians in Acts 15, and most of the probibitions under discussion here don't fall within its scope.)
      - bobthechef 5y ago
        Whether there is an explicit biblical condemnation (I don't know, but I would be surprised if there weren't) is not relevant, at least not to a Catholic. Sola scriptura is the province of Protestants.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Add Isaiah 8:19-22 to the mix. It pretty clearly condemns consulting spiritists and mediums. (Depending on your definition of the English word "sorcery", that may count.)
- as300 5y ago
  Sure, but didn't pretty much every English person those days? I feel the real interesting point is that he was interested in the unknown, and back in those days they didn't have the modern distinctions between what we now consider as natural and supernatural. Seems that if you want to make progress in human knowledge, you assume the risk of doing things that appear frivolous or just stupid in hindsight.
  - neaden 5y ago
    Reminds me of Jack Parsons, one of the most influential rocket scientists and co-founder of Jet Propulsion Labs and committed Thelemite occultist. Or John Murray Spear, a clergyman from the 1800s who campaigned for women's equality, rights for workers, abolition, and getting rid of the death penalty. He also believed he was talking to Ben Franklin's ghost and tried to build what was essentially a robot Jesus.
    - aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
      >tried to build what was essentially a robot Jesus Lol! I had to look this up, and indeed it’s true: http://www.danbaines.com/blog/tag/New+Motive+Power http://www.danbaines.com/blog/tag/New+Motive+Power
    - tkgally 5y ago
      And Isaac Newton: “English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton produced works exploring chronology, and biblical interpretation (especially of the Apocalypse), and alchemy. Some of this could be considered occult. Also, Newton described himself as a ‘natural philosopher’, and his work is grounded in Aristotelian metaphysics. Newton’s scientific work may have been of lesser personal importance to him, as he placed emphasis on rediscovering the wisdom of the ancients. In this sense, some historians, including economist John Maynard Keynes, believe that any reference to a ‘Newtonian Worldview’ as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...
      - 5y ago
- bobthechef 5y ago
  I don't see how you could have possibly come to that conclusion. At all. Superstition and the occult have always been condemned by the Church as irrational and immoral[0]. This sounds like one of those vague anti-Christian sentiments from the Enlightenment that somehow remains fashionable to this day. In spirit, modern science is closer to the occult in the sense that mastery over nature is a major motivation for its pursuit. [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm
ctoth 5y ago
This guy is incredibly interesting! I really liked the book John Dee and the Empire of Angels: Enochian Magick and the Occult Roots of the Modern World[0] which explores his life, contributions to science, and obviously the occult side as well. It also links in Parsons, which someone downthread mentioned. Unfortunately, the book has this to say about the mirror: The large obsidian mirror that is often associated with Dee, an Aztec cult artifact dedicated to Tezcatlipoca brought back from the New World after the conquest of Mexico by Cortés, which has long been on display at the British Museum,54 may not have been used at all, nor has it been conclusively shown that the mirror even belonged to Dee. If the black mirror was Dee’s, it may have come into his possession at Louvain or through a Spanish courtier.55 Of the other objects in the British Museum attributed to Dee’s use, it is likely that only the three wax seals actually belonged to him; the crystal ball and gold engraving of the “Vision of the Four Castles” are probably later acquisitions by collectors from other magicians or antiquarians who reproduced them from Casaubon’s printing of A True & Faithful Relation.56 [0]: https://smile.amazon.com/John-Dee-Empire-Angels-Enochian/dp/1620555891/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=john+dees+angels&qid=1634174693&sr=8-1 https://smile.amazon.com/John-Dee-Empire-Angels-Enochian/dp/...

djur 5y ago

If Dee obtained the mirror around 1580, it had only been 60 years since the Spanish dissolved the Aztec Empire, and it's entirely possible that the Nahuas continued to make obsidian mirrors for some time after that (although the Spanish would have recognized it as a non-Christian practice to be stamped out, surely). To him, it could have been approximately as ancient as a John F. Kennedy campaign button is to us.

bobthechef 5y ago
> although the Spanish would have recognized it as a non-Christian practice to be stamped out, surely As an occult practice, it may have been discouraged at least, but to say "non-Christian" makes it sound like one arbitrary practice extirpating another. Rather, the Christian view (and certainly the Catholic view) is one opposed to superstition and the occult on the grounds that superstitions are irrational and immoral and thus opposed to the good of those who engage in them[0]. It is one thing for there to exist varying customs that are more-or-less arbitrary w.r.t. the signifier (greetings, for example), but the signified is no longer arbitrary. [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Rather, the Christian view (and certainly the Catholic view) is one opposed to superstition and the occult on the grounds that superstitions are irrational and immoral and thus opposed to the good of those who engage in them. As a Catholic, even I recognize that essentially the entirety of Catholic practice is superstition from the perspective of anyone who doesn't either take Catholicism as a priori true on authority or (arguably equivalently) have a personal divine experience justifying Catholicism experientially. If one is not Catholic to start with, it as easy to dismiss Catholic practice on the same argument as presented above against superstition as it is for Catholics to do so for non-Catholic superstitions.
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    Even if you are a non catholic Christian catholic practice seems very occult and superstitious.

LeoPanthera 5y ago

For context, the University of Oxford was formed considerably before the Aztecs, in around 1096. (So long ago that records are not reliable.)

rburhum 5y ago
Random related fact, too, the oldest university in the Americas is San Marcos (Lima, Perú) which was founded in May 12, 1551; 1 year after the history books mark the end of the Aztec civilization.
- Mizza 5y ago
  Time is weird. Oxford University is 200 years older than the start of the Aztec civilization.
  - AlotOfReading 5y ago
    This is a bit like saying Oxford is 800 years older than the Italian civilization. It's more confusing than it is useful.
  - labster 5y ago
    And for 300 years, Oxford University shared the planet with the Roman Empire.
    - ithinkso 5y ago
      Well, if you mean Byzantine Empire (East Roman Empire with the Constantinople as a capitol) then absolutely massive amount of things shared it's time with it because it has fallen in 1453, even Columbus shared the planet with it. But at this point, maybe incorrectly but surely, 'Roman Empire' is synonymous with antiquity so the republic and early empire, I think that even if year 495 counts here then it's borderline
      - dotancohen 5y ago

Jensson 5y ago

> Note that although 'Aztec' sounds super old Does it? I always felt Columbus was pretty young history and I associate Aztecs with him. Not sure how the time period where we had guns and ships good enough to cross the great seas can be seen as super old, great civilizations had already existed thousands of years at that point.

BurningFrog 5y ago
It feels older than it is, because it's largely prehistoric.
- Jensson 5y ago
  In what way is the Aztec empire prehistoric? You mean they feel old because they were primitive relative to Europe at the time? But that is known history, Europe were so far ahead technologically that they managed to conquer the whole world starting with Columbus and ending at WW2. We are living at the end of that era now, we still see the effects of Europe and its colonies dominating world politics but it is getting weaker.
  - mkmk 5y ago
    I believe the parent comment means prehistoric as a technical term that means “before written history”. The Aztecs had no written language equivalent to what we’re using here, and instead used ideographs. They did, however, record history cartographically!
    - AlotOfReading 5y ago
      Aztec script is a bit more complicated than simply ideographic. There's a whole bunch of syllabaric stuff we don't fully understand as well. Regardless, defining "prehistoric" around the presence of so-called complete writing (scripts that can represent any spoken statement) leads to a lot of really silly situations, especially in the new world. For instance, did the Aztecs suddenly become historic as soon as the Spanish showed up? If so, why didn't the Mayan script (which is also complete) count? If it's that the Aztecs who couldn't write simply weren't historic yet, does that suggest the vast majority of Europeans who also couldn't write were prehistoric? Either way, it's a terrible definition. As an archaeologist, I use "prehistoric" to describe really old fossilized crap. Anything newer is historic.

justshowpost 5y ago

> 'Aztec' sounds super old It rather sounds super primitive and savage. With human sacrifices and stuff. And yes, that stone mirror was polished by slaves. Oh, those columbus day inspired pages...