Archaeologica.org

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070801/sc_ ... IB5gEiANEA
I'm not sure I quite get this story. The "main pyramid" of the city is pretty hard to miss, and has been so for a long time (at least since they dug it up way back when). Cuitlahuac was the ruler of Tenochtitlan, therefore implying they mean Mexico City centre. Itztapalapa is some way away. Main pyramid of Itztapalapa sure but er...

... did I miss something.
My computer blew up on Monday, and I'm now on a brand new one with a screen the size of Bolivia. Everything looks strange and unfamiliar and nothing makes sense.

War Arrow wrote:
Another enormous pyramid found

"enormous"?
Afaik no sizes are mentioned in that article. So "enormous" is your wishful thinking.

My computer blew up on Monday, and I'm now on a brand new one with a screen the size of Bolivia. Everything looks strange and unfamiliar and nothing makes sense.

That's what you get when you don't buy Apple.

Seems like "razing" a pyramid would be an awful lot of work and the conquistadores were not known for being big workers.

Everything looks strange and unfamiliar and nothing makes sense.

W/A, you missed your meds. Take care of that and we'll check out the pyramid, OK?

Minimalist wrote:Seems like "razing" a pyramid would be an awful lot of work and the conquistadores were not known for being big workers.

True but those temples were a handy source of building material.
Oh.. and "enormous" wasn't my thinking wishful or otherwise. If it was comparable in size to the one at the centre of Tenochtitlan (as suggested in the report, then it's pretty obvious that it's of a fair old volume.

Indeed. The bulk of the building materials used for Mexico City's Roman Catholic cathedral was probably 'mined' from existing nearby buildings. So, if there was another pyramid – IF! – then chances are it will have been 'reïncarnated' in more recent buildings and been 'hidden in plain sight' in Mexico City's daily life all through the centuries!