[AlotOfReading]

For one thing, the words you want are "Maya" and "Nahua". "Mayan" is the language family and "Aztec" refers to various things, none of which are what you want.

They're also definitely unrelated to the mound cultures except for the broadest possible relationships like existing on the same continent.

[westurner]

How are pyramid-building cultures definitely unrelated to mound-building cultures?

Cahokia Mounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia :

> Today, the Cahokia Mounds are considered to be the largest and most complex archaeological site north of the great pre-Columbian cities in Mexico.

Chicago was a trading post further north FWIU, but not an archaeological site.

"Michoacan, Michigan, Mishigami, Mizugami: Etymological Origins? A Legend." https://christopherbrianoconnor.medium.com/michoacan-michiga...

Is there evidence of hydrological engineering or stonework?

It's not clear whether the megalithic Sage Wall in MT was man-made, and sort of looks like the northern glacier pass it may have marked.

FWIU there are quarry sites in the southwest that predate most timelines of stonework in the Americas and in Egypt, Sri Lanka / Indonesia, and East Asia; but they're not further north than Cahokia Mounds.

In TN, There are many Clovis sites; but they decided to flood the valley that was home to Sequoyah - who gave written form to Cherokee and other native languages - and also a 9500-year old archaeological site.

This says the Clovis people of Clovis, New Mexico are the oldest around: https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/paleoindians-in-te...

The Olmecs, Aztecs, and Mayans all worked stone.

From where did stonework like the Osireon originate?

[AlotOfReading]

> How are pyramid-building cultures definitely unrelated to mound-building cultures?

You're asserting a causal relationship, not a functional or morphological similarity. You haven't made an argument for that yet.

> This says the Clovis people of Clovis, New Mexico are the oldest around

They aren't. Pre-clovis is well established at this point. I'm not sure you intend this with your phrasing, but maybe this will be useful. Archaeological cultures like Clovis don't name a "people" because the actual humans or may not have shared unified identities. Type sites also just represent a clear example of the broader category they're naming rather than anything about where things originated.

There's also thousands and thousands of years separation between Clovis Mexica, Mound cultures, or the Maya, so unless you make an argument I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you think all lithics are the same?

> The Olmecs, Aztecs, and Mayans all worked stone.

1) you've made the same naming mistake again and 2) this isn't an argument for anything.

[westurner]

How far north did which peoples' ancient building methods culturally diffuse and in what years on which calendars; relative to Cahokia Mounds as one of the oldest ancient sites in the United States, perhaps Sage Wall MT, and NM and climate?