Talk:Human sacrifice in Aztec culture

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lenaviersen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ultimate source

On April of 2008 I said in this talk page here :

“An academic told me that the book based on the September 2007 seminary on Aztec sacrifice, with 28 international specialists, celebrated in the Museum of the Templo Mayor… will be published by the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. But it won't be available until this October.”

Well I was outside Mexico but now I have purchased a copy of the work, published by both the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

El Sacrificio Humano en la Tradición Religiosa Mesoamericana is a 600-page, academic treatise authored by 28 scholars on the subject: Mexican, European and American archeologists and anthropologists. Published in 2010, I guess this can be the ultimate source for this article. Some new archeological evidence corroborates the 16th century claims of the Spaniards.

For the moment suffice it to say that it is unanimous among all of these scholars that the Mesoamerican sacrifices were real.

Cesar Tort 18:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reverted a very large edit which included a lot of information from an article by Burhenn and other by Harner. The material was problematic for the following reasons 1. They repeat the highest estimates of the occurrence of cannibalism, figures that have been highly criticized and are not considered realistic by most mainstream scholars. 2. They give undue weight to the outdated ecological theory of aztec cannibalism which has been roundly criticized and rejected by the vast majority of mainstream scholars. 3. The materials was uncritically reported with no commentary or attribution which makes the article selfcontradictory since the ecological view is mentioned and rejected elsewhere in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Human Sacrifice?

There is actually very little evidence of human sacrifice and it all comes from the Spanish, virtually. The main "victims" were prisoners of war, or criminals and the so-called human sacrifice was mostly a way of applying the very strict laws of the Aztecs. There were many crimes punishable by death and this was where the idea of human sacrifice came from. If an outsider went to Europe at the same time they would have concluded they had extensive human sacrifice as they would burn people at the stake and use various methods of torture and executions all in the name of christ and so it was indeed human sacrifice. There were a couple of skeletans found at the base of the temple of Quetzalcoatle in Teotihuacan, but we do not know if these were victims of justice, or true human sacrifice. The Spanish had to justify their raping of the princesses and the horrible carnage they had inflicted upon the innocent population of Mexico. They laid siege to Tenochtitlan and starved the 250,000 to the point they were eating the plaster off the walls all for the love of Gold. This is the most barbaric act in the history of mankind and so they had to come up with some reasons for why they would kill millions of people and rape the women and generally terrorize and entire civilization all in the name of GOLD. This is such a travesty and there is no archaeological evidence to support the theory of human sacrifice and this article is just lies.

They talk of skinning Spanish alive- wouldn't you?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.206 (talk • contribs)

"There is actually very little evidence of human sacrifice and it all comes from the Spanish, virtually."

Wrong. See what I tagged as the “ultimate source” for this article in my 27 November 2013 comment above. Leonardo López Luján, the coordinator of that book, said in a Reforma interview that the evidence of Mesoamerican sacrifice appears even in pre-Hispanic items. "...and also evidence in wall paintings, steles, graffiti and vessels are testimony to the range of human sacrifice. There is [pre-Hispanic] iconographic evidence of the sacrifices at Teotihuacan, Bonampak, Tikal, Piedras Negras and the Borgia, Selden, and Magliabechiano codex—and irrefutable physical evidence in the form of blood particles drawn from the sacrificial daggers." (my translation)

—Cesar Tort 21:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, there is plentiful evidence of human sacrifice in Mesoamerica, including representations in prehispanic codices, on ceramics etc. There is a recent pc trend to downplay this, but the evidence is certainly there. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• There are no scholars working with ancient Mesoamerica that doubt the existence of human sacrifice. The only element that is being discussed is the scale of it. I don't see the existence of a "pc trend to downplay it" either, at least not outside the New Agey parts of the Mexica identity movement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I recently heard an interview with Elizabeth Graham, as I recall, who said there was no evidence of human sacrifice among the Maya (OK, not Aztec, but still...). The interviewer cut her short unfortunately, but I was certainly puzzled by the statement, given the wealth of evidence. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Mayans and Aztecs were different people, different place, different time. The Mayan civilization fell centuries before the Spanish arrived. They are not thought to be as violent as the Aztecs, but they did practice non-fatal blood-letting as sacrifice. DonPMitchell (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Maya civilization was still in existence when the Spanish arrived, various Maya kingdoms had diplomatic contacts with the Aztecs, and both the Maya and the Aztecs certainly practiced human sacrifice. A bit off topic in a talk page about Aztecs, but we have two articles on Maya sacrifice - Sacrifice in Maya culture and Human sacrifice in Maya culture. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's an article by that same Elizabeth Graham: [1] ... and here is an article in Quartz advising us to be skeptical of perspectives like that of Elizabeth Graham: [2]. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

How absurd to claim accounts of human sacrifice were just invented by the Spanish. I notice the English and French didn't claim North American indigenous people engaged in large-scale human sacrifice and cannibalism. So why would the Spanish make the claim about Central American cultures? Are Spanish imperialists just more inclined to lie than the English/French? Or is the real answer you don't like the idea of human sacrifice and so prefer to believe it was all - the codexes and journals and dozens of independent reports as well as archeological studies - invented to smear the Aztecs and Mayas. 2603:7000:2703:74:2083:EF7B:AE6E:B65 (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Throughout history dehumanizing victims, opponents, etc.., propaganda that demonizes those on the other side is quite common in order to justify atrocities committed by those who make these sort of claims. 157.211.216.193 (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Weekend??

I am only an interested reader with no expertise in mesoamerican culture. However, in the "The antecedents of Mesoamerican sacrifice" section, it ends with writing "This ritual would go on for a whole weekend so as to please the gods." To even a casual reader, what does "weekend" means in Aztec calendar? 2001:44B8:184:AC01:9D16:3D19:32C1:63B5 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There of course is no concept corresponding to weekend in the Aztec calendar. Probably someone inserted that as a joke.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Only one scholar is criticized

Only the cannibalistic explanation is criticized. If that theory is thoroughly debunked, why not remove it or demote it to brief paragraph? Currently cannibalism is both the largest and first listed. The other two theories have no criticisms listed beyond the presence of other theories. Don't they deserve the same critical treatment? Is there no middle-ground archaeologist that could be cited as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.95.90.248 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent point. And the counter-claims are ridiculous. The hunger for protein explanation for cannibalism makes the most sense. Why would New World cultures engage in large-scale cannibalism just to make the leaders look fearsome? Old World civilizations engaged in most of the same brutalities as in the New World - and yet did not develop large-scale cannibal rituals. The only other explanation is something like, New World cultures just liked to kill and eat people for no particular reason, just an idea that caught on. Which is absurd. Hunger for protein is far and away the most parsimonious - and least racist - explanation. 2603:7000:2703:74:2083:EF7B:AE6E:B65 (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)