I was reading a book about the Spanish conquest of Mexico, and the author talks about the cruel human sacrifice (allegedly) carried out by the Aztecs. According to him, a young man was selected, and kept in luxury for a few years-then he was led to the top of a pyramid, where the was held down to an alter, and priests ripped him open with flint knives. His heart was hacked out, and then burned in sacrifice to the gods.
My question: was anything like this EVER witnessed by the Spaniards? Or is it a tall tale, told by the Spanish priests (no doubt to vilify the Aztec religion)? The ised sounds too fantatic-the victim WILLINGLY goes to his death?
Plus, didn’t the Aztecs realize that killing the young was not exactly a good idea?
I understand that the Spanish burned a largenumber of Aztec documents-so s there any proof to support the stories about this custom?
According to my history/anthropology professor: Aztec culture was so successful because they had a warrior, must-kill mentality. They killed everyone else as they conquered the continent. Eventually there was no one left to kill, so in order to uphold their religion and maintain social order, they started sacrificing themselves. But for the most part of their history, they sacrificed enemies.
Now, whether that’s true, and to what extent, I can’t vouch.
Now what, an Aztec human sacrifice denier?
Aztec human sacrifice is extremely well attested, being depicted in numerous surviving artworks and described in great detail by the Aztecs themselves after the conquest. Killing the young wasn’t a problem, any more than was the killing in innumerable contemporary European wars.
Human sacrifice seems to have been common in many pre-Colombian American socieites, possibly (my WAG theory only) because it was necessary as a means of population control in the absence of large domestic animals generating epidemic disease.
I don’t think ralph is questioning the fact that the Aztecs were bloodthirsty savages, but is questioning the “young man going willingly to his death” bit.
Just because the boy was kept in luxury doesn’t mean he was willingly there. What age are we talking here? Would the kid even be cognizant of what he was in for? As for human sacrifices in general? Yes, Aztec human sacrifice, particularly of prisoners of war, is well attested.
Unquestionably true. It is attested to not only by Spanish accounts (and by the Aztecs after the Conquest) but a large amount of archeological evidence. Human sacrifice was very common among Mesoamerican cultures, including the Maya and the earlier civilization based at Teotihuacan.
The Aztecs, however, made it a centerpiece not only of their religion and also their politics. Most sacrifices were not Aztecs, however, but captives captured in battle or tribute provided by subject peoples. According to some accounts, the Emperor Ahuitzotl inaugurated the Great Temple at Tenochtitlan in 1487 with the sacrifice of 80,000 captives from provinces in revolt.
The religious theory was that the Aztec gods had to be fed with blood to be kept happy. But the mass killings also served as a Reign of Terror to keep the Aztec’s subject peoples cowed, and at the same time eliminate the elite rulers and warriors from these groups. Aztec rule was based on periodic holocausts designed to intimidate the subject populations.
The Wiki article Human sacrifice in Aztec culture - Wikipedia
is quite detailed.
While the article doesn’t really mention voluntary sacrifice of the fatal variety, it says it was common for ordinary people to make lesser offerings such as thorns dipped in their own blood. They also offered extravagant material sacrifices.
Given the importance of sacrifice to the Aztec culture, it doesn’t seem too implausible that some individuals would be willing to offer their lives.
Is it possible that a prospective victim could have been drugged, or gotten drunk? The Aztecs did have an alcoholic beverage made from the maguey plant that they presumably could have used for this purpose.
Was it the Aztecs who had that ritual where a young man and woman were made to have sex and then had a heavy slab dropped on them, or did I just make that up?
For some corrections:
1: The Aztecs didn’t even dominate all of what we’d call Mexico, much less a Continent. They held central Mexico. That was it. They had a really nice defensive site for their capital, but it was heavily dependant on controlling the surroundings.
2: They were not Ancient unles you consider the 15th century ancient. The Aztec domination was actually quite recent historically and only lasted a century or so. And it probably would have broken down before too long anyhow, as they’d basically pissed off everyone around them.
This also somewhat leans against the idea that the Aztecs really believed their gods needed all the blood, too, since such huge sacrifices were also fairly new. They had never been possible before, and the Aztecs apparently used them as an excuse to weaken their neighbors every year. Ritual cannibalism was also a part of it, as traces of human remains have been found in the cooking pots and food storage of Tenochtitlan Aztecs of all social castes.
The other Mesoamerican cultures (like the “peaceful” Maya) also practiced human sacrifice, but not to the extent of the Aztecs. Some of the Aztec sacrifices were willing, but most were prisoners–tribute from subjugated peoples. So those peoples were glad to help Cortez, because they were tired of the Aztec excesses.
Study history, prehistory, anthropology, etc., & you’ll learn that all our ancestors got up to a lot of bloody business. My own people just slit the victims’ throats & tossed them in the nearest bog. And they never, ever, built anything as amazing as Tenochtitlan. (The wonders of which were recorded by the very same Europeans who witnessed what happened on the teocallis.)
(Shall we review the history of 20th Century Europe here? The pinnacle of Western Civilization that served up two world wars–with several side orders of genocide.)
Some (reasonably well-respected) archaeologists have made the case that institutionalized cannibalism was actually essential as a source of protein in the relative absence of livestock raised for meat and with a population too large to support with hunting. I’m not convinced, but it’s an interesting idea.
Not heard of this one before. But they did have the fun one where the victim was flayed alive and the priest then wore their skin.
The historic records are silent on whether he then asked if anyone would fuck him, hard or otherwise.
Right. See, if the Aztecs had been civilized, like say, the Romans, they wouldn’t have slit the throats of captives. They would have made the captives slit each others throats in a stadium for the amusement of the civilized conquerors. Or maybe just turned lions on them. But anyway, you understand the key difference between civilization and barbarism is that it’s in a stadium not on a pyramid.
They really do this in Houston? :eek::eek::eek:
Yes watch this documentary The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. 
Human sacrifice was certainly a key part of Aztec religious practice; it wasn’t just a slur by the conquistadors (who were plenty bloodthirsty themselves in bringing Christianity to the New World). Most of those slain in Aztec ceremonies were POWs or criminals, although there were some willing and highly-honored victims. Most Aztec wars were not terribly bloody in and of themselves, as they were more about establishing dominance and capturing prisoners for later sacrifice than slaying hordes of one’s foes on the battlefield.
For a very readable and well-researched novel that explores virtually every aspect of Aztec society before and during its fall, I highly recommend Gary Jennings’s Aztec.
Yuck! But wouldn’t this have caused kuru and other prion diseases? Is there any evidence of these being present in Aztec culture?
Maybe they didn’t eat the brains…
Eating human beings doesn’t cause kuru… eating someone infected with kuru causes kuru.
So if prion diseases hadn’t appeared in Central America then no, eating people wouldn’t give you a prion disease. Also, if the people the Aztecs were eating were largely non-cannibals then even if there was a prion disease in the area the non-cannibals would be much less likely to have it.