Ah but does it count as one or two victims?
You don’t want to screw up the count. The elder gods don’t like that.
Note that the Mayans had ritual self-sacrifice. Not usually to the death, but VIPs like the high priest or the king would go out in public and shed their own blood, in extremely gory ways that you really don’t want to know about, for the gods. Yes, they were generally doped to the gills.
I agree that the history supports the reports of Aztec human sacrifices. But think of what this involved-the victim was usually a young man (and most likely, NOT willing). Four priests held the poor guy down-while the man with the obsidian knife ripped into his guts. Severing several arteries meant that blood was spurting everywhere-making hands slippery…meanwhile the victim is screaming like a banshee!
It must have been a horrible spectacle-and wold have made me lose my lunch. Imagine doing this to hundreds of people? Added to the fun is the fact that many dying people lose sphincter control-so you have the added attraction of feces spilling out. So blood everywhere, a terrible smell, and a screaming dying victim…and the area running with blood and body fluids.
Not my cup of tea.:eek:
That’s possible, at least with “domestic” sacrifices. Captured foreigners would not likely have been granted such a mercy.
[QUOTE=]
Could some of the victims have been high on some ceremonial libation?
[/QUOTE]
What kind of stuff would they have been high on? Does opium grow in that area?
Cocaine does. And alcohol is pretty universal.
Several varieties of psilocybean mushrooms grow in the area.
None of those really numb pain. In fact cocaine would make it worse probably .
And every year people are voluntarily nailed to crosses in imitation of Christ, yet they aren’t panicking when it’s done.
I never said it wasn’t painful, I said not all the sacrifices were unwilling. It was an honor to be some types of sacrifice and there are reports of such people going willingly to their death, believing their sacrifice would benefit everyone and send them directly to their heaven equivalent. This is not incompatible with being in pain, or even screaming a bit.
Frankly, getting your heat cut out with a big knife was probably quicker and more merciful than some of the tortures the European legal systems were still subjecting people to at the time of contact with the Aztecs. Look up the definition of “drawing and quartering”, for example.
Nope, cocaine is a painkiller. Plastic surgeons like to use it for facial surgery because it both kills pain and reduces bleeding at the same time.
I would think you’d panic out of pure reflex, even if you did do it volunteerily. And besides, I doubt they’d allow a sacrificial victim to get doped up first.
Depends on what the sacrifice is for - the Aztecs had a very complex list of methods. Some types required a conscious victim, some required the victim be clubbed over the head first. The Wikipedia article is a good introduction.
I was a Spanish major in college and I remember reading a book called Aztec by Gary Jennings which was very informative and gripping. I recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about the Aztecs.
Also, I think some people are forgetting the cultural context within which these sacrifices were being conducted. It was a great honor and many “victims” were willing. Their gods were cruel and demanding by our modern standards but if you remember what some of the more extreme Christian practitioners used to do (self-mutilation, hair shirts, flagellation, pilgrimages on your knees carrying a large wooden cross, etc) you can see that we can’t judge a culture’s actions from another place and time by our own standards.
I honestly think they were just very sadistic people and made up a religion to justify it. I mean they burned people alive , disemboweled them alive, ripped their hearts out, sealed them into chambers and starved them to death. They also drowned kids and insisted they cry first because that’s what the water god wants. It’s just blatant sadism.
No, it may have been an “honor” for the pretty young girl to be publicly killed (and then eaten) but the Aztecs chiefly reserved this kind of “honor” for the people they dominated in war. It was absolutely a message: mess with us, and we’ll do horrible things to you. As well, the Aztecs were possibly trying to cull the male population of their victims’ tribes.
Do you honestly think this was the only instance of brutality in the history of humanity? Actually, the human sacrifices sound pretty mild compared to a lot of other practices out there. We’re a pretty messed up species. Look at the Holocaust, for example.
Yes I would say it is probably the most brutal thing I have ever heard of. The holocaust doesn’t compare to it. They were killed with cyanide gas which is pretty quick and painless compared to being disemboweled alive.
The first problem with this post is that a large number of them were killed with bullets and not gas. A large number of them were also screaming children, which per your previous post was an example of especial horror.
The second is that disemboweling living people was not confined to the Aztec empire. Another poster mentioned drawing and quartering. You need look no further than that Wikipedia article for an example of that atrocity in a European culture.
Finally, you can put together any number of cruelties that are unique to a specific civilization and say that because no other carried out that exact set that they are uniquely cruel. I don’t believe the Aztecs used thumb screws or the rack. How do you quantify the cruelty of the rack against the cruelty of ripping out someone’s heart?
What it comes down to is that there have always been terrible things visited upon people by other humans. Where we’re fortunate is that most of the people that post here don’t have experiences with those things. But if you were to follow your family tree back far enough, regardless of your race, you’re probably going to find both victims and villains.
People are people, sadly. The Aztecs do stand out in terms of sheer numbers of sacrifices ( though the numbers remain disputed ) in the pre-modern world. But whether it sacrificing children to Baal-Hammon, torturing witches in Bamberg or Nazis conducting medical experimentation, you’ll find no shortage of mans inhumanity towards man throughout history.
As a forensic pathologist I’ve taken out a lot of hearts, although not how the Aztecs probably did it. As others have said the heart is attached only at one end and it slides around in the pericardial sac. The aorta is the toughest attachment, and its pretty strong. It takes a lot of force,such as that from a high speed crash, to rip it. Someone could probably do it with a grab and very stout yank, perhaps while bracing their feet on something for leverage, but over and over again? I doubt it. Not to mention the slipperiness. I doubt (but of course I don’t know) that it was a barehanded extraction.
if I was to be tasked with developing a protocol for efficient, rapid, repeated heart extraction, I would start, as others have said, with a subdiaphragm approach, cutting a wide opening across most of the upper abdomen, using a wide sharp knife held horizontally, with one side as close as possible to the bottom front of the rib cage. This would allow access to the heart from both sides. After cutting that opening, I would plunge the knife upward just left of center in the chest cavity until the tip reached the area of the aorta attachment. At the same time I’d reach my other hand up the other side of the chest cavity and grab the heart with that hand. Once the heart was in my grasp, I’d sweep the blade (a blind cut) several times back and forth across the area of attachment while pulling down on the heart with my other hand. I’m sure it would take some refinement to work out the nuances, but with a good sharp obsidian knife I bet it could be done in less than 15 seconds. The danger for the operator would be the risk of cutting his own (the heart-holding) hand.