The roots of Aztec human sacrifice - gruesome but nifty

[Gez]

Why not? It certainly seems credible.


After all, the most classical answer to overpopulation and lack of resources is war, which is another way of sacrificing dozens of thousands of people without any apparent rationality. If the Aztec Empire was politically too stable for wars, then sacrifices were a good compromise.

They could also have developped bloodsports, though.

 

[The_lurkeR]

Environmental determinism has been really big since Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and while I don't at all disagree that the environment plays a huge role in the development and collapse of civilizations, I think you cross a line when using environment to explain away the development of cultural traditions. In particular, the closing lines of the article is utterly offensive to me:

So, under population pressure widespread kidnapping, murder, and cannibalism - as the author himself puts it maintaining foreign populations as livestock - are acceptable and rational responces?
...snip....
Whatever the case may be, it doesn't render the decision to develop a cannibal empire "acceptable".

Celebrim, I'm not trying to start an argument, but nowhere does the author of the article ever state that the practice is in any way "acceptable". He merely suggests that there may have been a rationale, however twisted it may be, behind the practice beyond plain "maniacal" bloodlust.

Anyways it's definately an interesting article, food for thought, one might say... (Sorry had to do it ) Thanks for linking it RangerWickett. The first person account quoted was definately creepy.

I don't remember using it before, but cannibalism would definately be a nice way to freak out players. Especially if they were forced to watch a ceremony like that. How would they react if they were instead guests of the cannibals at the time?

If you wanted to go with the Eberron example... what about a scene like in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The party is seated at a large feast as guests, and instead of the monkey brains dessert, it's humans, or halflings or something?

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, I'm not trying to start an argument, but nowhere does the author of the article ever state that the practice is in any way "acceptable".

Hey, if you want, try to start an argument. This is exactly what the author says:

Gruesome as these practices may seem, an ecological perspective and population pressure theory render the Aztec emphasis on human sacrifice acceptable as a natural and rational response to the material conditions of their existence.

No, pardon me for be so simplistic and all, but that to me looks exactly like that arthur saying that the practice is in some way acceptible. I mean, after all, I may not be reading into it what complex idea that the author intended to say, but what he literally says is that the practices are rendered acceptable, natural, and rational if only one adopts a 'ecological perspective' and understands 'population pressure theory'. I didn't exactly invent the word. It's right there in the conclusion. Moreover, he says that these practices seem gruesome, as if somehow it is a failing on the part of the reader to adopt a value neutral stance toward mass human sacrifice, torture, and cannibalism.

I just think that is taking intellectual distance from your subject just a wee bit too far.

He merely suggests that there may have been a rationale, however twisted it may be, behind the practice beyond plain "maniacal" bloodlust.

Because it is a much more limited statement, that statement is much easier to defend, but you wanting him to have said that in order to make it easier for you to defend the author doesn't mean that that is what he said. He says that, but he doesn't merely say that. Besides which, it is not at all clear to me that twisted rationale and maniacal bloodlust are mutually exclusive. The argument that the author applies to the Aztecs is not one which the author would apply to an individual. I seriously doubt anyone here would defend a serial killer by saying that abusing murdering and eating people was a rational, natural, and acceptable response to sexual repression and social alienation bought about by a failure to create meaningful social contact with ones peers. But those are the author's words and his judgment of a society of serial killers, and the need for appropriate intellectual distance from the object of your study does not validate that sort of judgment.

Societies can go collectively crazy. We saw that occur all through 20th century. I seriously doubt that people would defend any of the 20th centuries great massacres as being 'natural', 'rational', and 'acceptable' responces to whatever vague academic theories one might have. Let's put it into concrete terms. There are alot of areas of the world today that are suffering from population pressure on a scale beyond what the Aztecs could have possibly imagined, and suffer from widespread malnutrition. If those societies began murdering and eating 1% of thier population annually, would you say that, "Gruesome as these practices may seem, an ecological perspective and population pressure theory render [those activities] acceptable as a natural and rational response to the material conditions of their existence?"

 

[davidschwartznz]

That theory has been for the most part discreditted in the nearly 30 years since that article was written. There are a number of factors, but I think the most telling is the fact that there still exist in Mexico people who eat the same traditional diet as the Aztec would have and show no signs of nutritional deficiency.

Yes, there was cannibalism among the Aztecs, but it was confined to the upper classes (nobles, warriors, priests) and therefore would not have helped the average Mexica. Most historians now believe that the practice of cannibalism in this case was purely ritualistic. The Aztecs used the heart and heads for ceremonial purposes, ate the limbs (perhaps to 'recycle' the warrior's strength), and fed the rest to zoo animals.

Which is not to say that this hypothesis couldn't make an interesting basis for a fantasy culture.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Note that this article dates to 1977, way before Guns, Germs, and Steel in 1999. 'Environmental determinism' has been around in varios forms for a long time now. Though here it mostly works off the anthropoligical theory that all cultural phenomena are, in effect, forms of social technology hidden behind meaning. A useful theory, but not, I think, the best we can do and it often overlooks just how irrational people can be.

It's an interesting article but the fact that he starts with an anthropological premise and then finds the evidence to support it doesn't do a lot for its credibility in my eyes. There might very well have been a dietary aspect to the practice, for instance, but that doesn't change the fact that it was also propitiating the gods. Sacrifice is a far older and broader institution then just this one ecological niche.

I'd be very interested in Fusangite's take on this, he's done a fair amount of professional reading into the cultures of the Valley of Mexico. I think it's very interesting that the article doesn't mention avocados, high fat and high protein, as an essential part of the Aztec diet.

Certainly, his evidence that cannibalism took place as a wide spread and critical institution in Aztec society is more compelling than his evidence it was a dietary necessity.

The Anasazi theory I'd heard was that the Anasazi were cannibalizing people as a means to control the immigrants through terror.

 

[Andre La Roche]

That theory has been for the most part discreditted in the nearly 30 years since that article was written. There are a number of factors, but I think the most telling is the fact that there still exist in Mexico people who eat the same traditional diet as the Aztec would have and show no signs of nutritional deficiency.

Yes, there was cannibalism among the Aztecs, but it was confined to the upper classes (nobles, warriors, priests) and therefore would not have helped the average Mexica. Most historians now believe that the practice of cannibalism in this case was purely ritualistic. The Aztecs used the heart and heads for ceremonial purposes, ate the limbs (perhaps to 'recycle' the warrior's strength), and fed the rest to zoo animals.

Which is not to say that this hypothesis couldn't make an interesting basis for a fantasy culture.

Exactly what I was about to say. I'll also add a few other things to the mix here that have been used to discredit Harner's rather harmful article (I say harmful because it's lack of . One were the drowning cults, who would sacrifice people by drowning them (and these sacrifices were off-limits for cannibalism). If the ritual emerged as a need-based one, it's doubtful that the drowning sacrifices would have been so numerous.

Secondly, the sacrifices were done in a very regularly and calendrical manner. The aztecs had three calendars, one which was an 18 month solar calendar, the other a ritualistic calendar of 260 days. When overlaid on one another, the two formed a third calendar (this third one came into completion when both of the calendars started over again). So this third calendar, as you can imagine, stretched for decades. It's hard to believe that with a decades long calendar, with sacrifices keyed to specific times, that the aztecs somehow knew exactly when they'd need to cannibalize each other down the line.

Finally, there was a wonderful source of protein that's abundant in south America that's easy for Westerners to overlook because of our cultural biases: insects. Insects are eaten in many areas of the world where what we consider "traditional" protein sources are in a deficiency, and records show that they were even eaten by the Aztecs as well. Thus, the Aztecs had plenty enough protein to sustain themselves on without eating each other.

Just pointing all this out because it's fairly important to discredit a study that implicitly exists to justify colonialism. But again, it does make for a really cool fantasy culture.

 

[The_lurkeR]

Hey, if you want, try to start an argument. This is exactly what the author says:


No, pardon me for be so simplistic and all, but that to me looks exactly like that arthur saying that the practice is in some way acceptible. I mean, after all, I may not be reading into it what complex idea that the author intended to say, but what he literally says is that the practices are rendered acceptable, natural, and rational if only one adopts a 'ecological perspective' and understands 'population pressure theory'. I didn't exactly invent the word. It's right there in the conclusion. Moreover, he says that these practices seem gruesome, as if somehow it is a failing on the part of the reader to adopt a value neutral stance toward mass human sacrifice, torture, and cannibalism.

I just think that is taking intellectual distance from your subject just a wee bit too far.

The way I read that initially is that he's explaining how it was acceptable from the Aztecs perspective, but I can see what you're saying here and concede that he does in a way say it is acceptable.

Because it is a much more limited statement, that statement is much easier to defend, but you wanting him to have said that in order to make it easier for you to defend the author doesn't mean that that is what he said. He says that, but he doesn't merely say that. Besides which, it is not at all clear to me that twisted rationale and maniacal bloodlust are mutually exclusive. The argument that the author applies to the Aztecs is not one which the author would apply to an individual. I seriously doubt anyone here would defend a serial killer by saying that abusing murdering and eating people was a rational, natural, and acceptable response to sexual repression and social alienation bought about by a failure to create meaningful social contact with ones peers. But those are the author's words and his judgment of a society of serial killers, and the need for appropriate intellectual distance from the object of your study does not validate that sort of judgment.

I don't think that your individual serial killer analogy is germane. If instead you take the example of 1972 Andes plane crash passengers, or of the Donner party settlers who were trapped in the California mountains in the winter. Both cases where people would not normally have turned to cannibalism, but did for survival, which is closer to what the author of the article is suggesting. Although as others have stated, his evidence to base that on may be lacking.

Societies can go collectively crazy. We saw that occur all through 20th century. I seriously doubt that people would defend any of the 20th centuries great massacres as being 'natural', 'rational', and 'acceptable' responces to whatever vague academic theories one might have. Let's put it into concrete terms. There are alot of areas of the world today that are suffering from population pressure on a scale beyond what the Aztecs could have possibly imagined, and suffer from widespread malnutrition. If those societies began murdering and eating 1% of thier population annually, would you say that, "Gruesome as these practices may seem, an ecological perspective and population pressure theory render [those activities] acceptable as a natural and rational response to the material conditions of their existence?"

You're right in that I don't think I would use his words, but it would certainly be understandable.

 

[GrayIguana]

The Anasazi theory I'd heard was that the Anasazi were cannibalizing people as a means to control the immigrants through terror.

That sounds familiar too. I think that the verzion I heard/saw (I think it was PBS), was that this a section of Aztec warrrior/priest class invaded Anasazi territory and held the natives captive via cannibalism/terror behavior. Granted, we'll never really know, but it's interesting.

 

[Nareau]

On the question of : "What other ecological forces might shape cultures in a fantasy world?", a few biggies come to mind immediately:

Dragons, Undead Scourges, Gods, Evil Wizards, Demons, and Magical Catastrophes.

All of these can cause the kind of widespread damage as drought and famine found in real-world history. On the other hand, Create Food and Water, Create Water, and Plant Growth can help to alleviate the catastrophic effects of natural disasters.

Of course, not all of these are "ecological" in nature. But in general, the ecology of fantasy worlds is pretty much the same as those found in the real world. I guess it really depends on what you mean by "ecology".

Cannibalism, slavery, child abuse, genocide--these all fit into a special class of atrocities that have a profound impact on our sensibilities. While they can make for extremely compelling campaigns, they certainly fit into the "adult" classification of gaming themes.

Spider

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Functionalism is the term for the anthropological style that the paper seems to be working in.