Talk:Aztecs/Sacrifice

Moved a lot of text about "human sacrifice" into Human sacrifice in Aztec culture
Please look at the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article.

I have merged text from both the Aztec article and the old (pre-redirect) Aztec religion article into the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article.

I tried to reorganize the merged text and eliminate redundant text. However, the whole Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article needs extra eyes to read it over and check for accuracy, consistency and general copyediting.

Thanx.

Richard 09:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where is that info from ????? most of this is plainly wrong. Aztc had no shamans, nor did had a daily sacrifice, not the believe in souls nor the popol vu is the aztec bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ma out of town and I had little time to correct it... Can you elase restore the previous version? at least until next week when i can review te text?.. PLEASE Nanahuatzin 02:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to make the revert that you requested but it appears you have already fixed the problems you were complaining about. The text you deleted was stuff that I found in the old Aztec religion article.  I had no way of knowing whether it was correct or not.  I was a little suspicious because I had never heard of the "Popol Vuh" before.  However, since I am not an expert in this area, I fi~gured I'd let someone who was an expert decide.  Is there such a thing as a "Popol Vuh"?  If so, what is it?
 * Richard 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes i started to clean it, became a bit overanxious, there are still several contradiction in the article. I Think i will to take time to check all mesoamerican related articles... The popol vuh is a text form the Quiche (better known as Maya)... Nanahuatzin 02:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are too many changes, and too fast... The section onf aztec religion, know implies that human sacrifice was a myth... It was not a myth. But he actual figures had been exagerated in popular literature.

Those are diferentet things. The actual number of sacrifices is hotly debated. There is little info about it in the primary sources ,and some of the figures are higly improbable. So it is not the fact of human sacrifice waht is debated... . Can you help my to correct it? Nanahuatzin 02:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * AAAGH!!! My profuse apologies if I contributed to that stuff being in the Aztec and Human sacrifice in the Aztec culture articles. The only explanation that I can think of is that it might have been in the last version of the Aztec religion article before it was merged into Aztec mythology.  I assumed that the last version would have been the best but the last version apparently included this POV stuff that asserted that human sacrifice never happened.  I should have read more closely before I chose the version to use.


 * I think things look better now. If not, let me know and I will try to fix it.  Hope you had a "Feliz Semana Santa".


 * Richard 08:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to understand what you said above about the Aztecs not having shamans. The text mentioning shamans is still in the Aztec religion article in the "Bloodletting" section.  Is any of the text in the "Bloodletting" section valid?  In other words, is it just the stuff about the shamans that is wrong or should we just remove the whole "Bloodletting" section?


 * Richard 08:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * shamanism is mainly a method of healing between naturalistic religions, instead the aztec had priest, those dedicated to healing were "ticitl" who had little to do with religion. While Shamans existed in small towns, they were looked with suspiction by the priest.
 * I do not know if the claims of bloodletting and endorfins are right. I would like to found the original source of this before comiting to the article. While bloodleting was used by the aztec, specailly priest, the most common form, was to offer maguey torn tainted in blood, which would involved only small quantities of blood. Nanahuatzin 14:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, double check the info before commiting to the main article. There is a lot about the aztec in the wikipedia that i have not cheked in a long time. For example, the info deniying the human sacrifice, was  reworded from my own writting.... with soo much movement in the wikipedia, sometimes it,s dificult to cope with new adtitions. I am not a schollar, but an enginner, so i try to understand and double check everything before putting it here, so i move a bit slowlly. I have been adding to this article for almost a year and a half... :) Nanahuatzin 19:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Peoples, I have a question. Why is everyone so intent on making it clear that indians are perfect in every way, shape and form? These people made human sacrifices for crying out loud! Yet your still pressing that its the europeans that are savages. I still can't believe how they portray those angelic native north americans at school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.89.104 (talk • contribs).

Child sacrifice in Aztec culture?
Please take a look at Child sacrifice article which claims that " a very important part of the (human sacrifice) ritual included the sacrifice of young children."

Really? How come this is not mentioned in any of the Aztec-related articles?

--Richard 09:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is. Child sacrifices are mentioned in the sources as the preferred sacrifice to raingods such as Tlaloc and Chaac.•Maunus• •ƛ• 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources mention that "crying children" were offered to Tlaloc. The Excavations in the main temple have revealed a dozen of children skeletons in offerings to Tlaloc. A characteristic of those bodies, is that all were sick children, and according to the patologist, they had sicknesses that caused constant crying. But still.. the number of victims that atchologist have found still is several zeroes lower than the numbers claimed.... Nanahuatzin 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK... but what do you think of the sentence in the Child sacrifice article? The whole article is poorly written and so it is no surprise that this sentence is also poorly written.  The reader is left with the impression that child sacrifice was an important part of Aztec culture.  It might be worthwhile to improve the description in the Child sacrifice article so that it more accurately describes what is known about the practice.  --Richard 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Child sacrifice was a very important part not only of Aztec culture but of many ancient cultures as well: South American, European, African and Asian. Have you read this WP article, Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures? One of the most recognized sources for such sacrifices is the voluminous book by Bernardino de Sahagún. —Cesar Tort 00:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on assurances from Maunus, Nanahuatzin and Cesar Tort, I am no longer questioning the truth of the assertion. I am not an expert and would not be so bold as to assert that I knew the truth one way or the other. What I am trying to draw everyone's attention to is the fact that there is a difference between the impression you get from reading the Child sacrifice article and the one you get from reading the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article. Child sacrifice is mentioned only in passing in the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture and the reader is left with the impression that child sacrifice is not a central feature of Human sacrifice in Aztec culture. Contrast this with the assertion in the Child sacrifice article. I think it behooves us to present a consistent story in both articles.

--Richard 08:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Child sacrifice was indeed a central feature of human sacrifice in Aztec culture. Have you noticed that Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures is different from the article Child sacrifice? Have you read the first one?


 * I am copying and pasting a table of the Spanish Wikipedia article depicting the Aztec calendar and the many sacrifices performed each year. I’ll leave the words in Spanish. However, I’ll translate the Spanish words for “children”, “boy” and “girl”. They appear red bold-typed on the column at the far right:


 * —Cesar Tort 09:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That table exists in english also. In fact I made it in english and someone adapted it into spanish introducing a lot of unsourced material of dubious veracity. For a look at the real thing see Aztec religion•Maunus• •ƛ• 10:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The above table is not the same table that appears in the Spanish article of the Calendario azteca.  Again, we are talking of two distinct articles. The above table is mostly based on the pages 44-45 of the September-October 2003 issue of the journal Arqueología mexicana. —Cesar Tort 11:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Presently I am re-reading The Conquest of New Spain. There are instances in Bernal Díaz’s first-person narrative of child sacrifices in small Indian towns when he and other soldiers are making their hard way to Tenochtitlan.


 * By the way, I have added red fonts on the table above for emphasis.


 * —Cesar Tort 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cesar, I am fine with accepting that child sacrifice is an important part of the Aztec religion and culture. The point that I am trying to raise everybody's attention to is that a reader would only understand this if he/she read Child sacrifice or Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures. If he/she read Aztec, Aztec religion or Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, the impression he would get would be that "Yes, maybe child sacrifice happened but it wasn't a central feature of their religion. Human sacrifice, yes.  Child sacrifice, not that central."

What I'm looking for is a consensus to take the phrasing of the Child sacrifice or Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures articles and copy them over to the Aztec, Aztec religion or Human sacrifice in Aztec culture to provide a more consistent exposition.

--Richard 05:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with your concerns that readers of the articles Aztec, Aztec religion and Human sacrifice in Aztec culture won’t get the picture.


 * Good idea to take some phrasing of the article I recently edited and just insert the template {main|Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures}


 * After all, since I’m re-reading Bernal Díaz and de Sahagún I may help you all in expanding the articles or sections on human & child sacrifice in pre-Columbian America.


 * On the other hand, Human sacrifice in Aztec culture needs a major overhaul. I could provide some help in that article as well.  However, my native language is Spanish.  I guess someone among you could do a better English editing?


 * —Cesar Tort 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your offer of help is much appreciated. If you are willing to write in English or Spanish, I am happy to edit th English or translate the Spanish.  My Spanish is not very strong so I would prefer you wrote in English but I can translate moderately sophisticated Spanish.  I may need help with a word here or there or understanding what a phrase means.


 * What kind of an overhaul did you have in mind for Human sacrifice in Aztec culture?


 * --Richard 14:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just take a look at this part of the opening sentence in Human sacrifice in Aztec culture —:

No first-hand, eyewitness accounts by Europeans of actual human sacrifice are known, although there exist some first-hand eyewitness accounts of the remains of alleged human sacrifices. In addition, there are a number of known second-hand accounts of human sacrifice written by Europeans told to them by Aztecs. Based on these observations, Europeans understood human sacrifice to be practiced throughout the Aztec empire and in particular at Tenochtitlan. [my bold type]

This is very misleading (“alleged”). Bernal Díaz recounts many instances of human sacrifices even in non Mexica towns. The soldiers actually saw some dead bodies with the chest opened even before they reached Tenochtitlan. “Europeans understood…” is an understatement to say the least. The evidence for human sacrifice before and during the Conquest, and in Colonial times, is overwhelming, especially after the findings of modern archeologists. Not even the most renowned of the Mexican indigenistas (fans of Indian themes) and scholars, such as Miguel León-Portilla, deny this. In fact, since the Maya towns were the last to be conquered by the Spanish they continued the practice. They even captured, tortured and sacrificed a couple of Spanish teenagers in the middle of the 16th century, well after the fall of Tenochtitlan. And if Jacques Soustelle is right, the practice continued underground as late as the 19th century. Even in the 20th century it has been reported that some Indians used the hearts of non-sacrificed, dead people to ask for rains (this is not sacrifice of course, but it says a lot about a millenarian Indian tradition).

One more thing: it has not been demonstrated, as some WP articles state, that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice to a greater extent than, say, the Mayas or other Mesoamerican cultures. If the Aztecs appear crueler it’s only because the Mexica was the best studied of all Mesoamerican civilizations. After the Maya writing was deciphered and the book The Blood of the Kings published in the middle 1980s, it has become more and more apparent that the Mayas were, at least, as cruel as the Aztecs (more cruel in my view since the Mayans tortured the victims for extended periods before sacrificing them). Also, the practice of skinning the victims goes back as far as Teotihuacán.

Since human sacrifice was widespread not only in Mesoamerica but in South America as well, I would start moving the page from Human sacrifice in Aztec culture to Human sacrifice in pre-Columbian America. The Incas and other peoples in Peru were notorious for performing sacrifices too.

—Cesar Tort 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would oppose such a move. While it hasn't been documented that the aztecs practiced human sacrifice on a greater scale than other cultures (although it is the predominant view among scholars), aztec sacrificial practices are much, (MUCH) better documented than for any other precolombian culture. This fact alone makes it relevant to have an article dealing only with aztec human sacrifice. Coupled with the fact that the existence of human sacrifice among the aztecs is much more known to the general public, and much more riddled with pseudo-facts, sensationalism, misunderstandings and mythologization than the religious practices of other precolumbian the need for an article on human sacifice specifically among the aztecs become evident. This does not mean however that we shoudln't have an article about human sacrifice in precolumbian societies in general, nor does it mean that the current article on Human sacrifice in Aztec culture is a good article. It is not and it should be completely rewritten from reliable sources and articles by well respected scholars, that should be extremely carefully selected. (In my opinion Arqueología mexicana is not such a source)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok: I agree with you that the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article should not be moved (though a more general article on Human sacrifice in pre-Columbian America merits consideration).

But why do you think that Arqueología mexicana is not a reliable source??? It’s the official journal of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (National Institute of Anthropology and History). It is true that it is sold in magazine shops. But the same is true of very scholarly Mexican magazines such as the now defunct Vuelta edited by Octavio Paz and Letras Libres edited by Enrique Krauze. In Mexico this is common.

—Cesar Tort 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * because Arqueología Mexicana presents popularisations of archeological and historical topics based on research published in peerreviewed journals. We should use these articles directly. Also Arqueología is a magazine that focuses on what people want to read - this means that it is prone to sensationalism- which is exactly what a topic like human sacrifice doesn't need. In short it is a third hand source and I think that for this topic we should stick with first and second hand sources so that we can reference exactly which sources say what and which scholars have interpreted this in which way.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Arqueología mexicana is a far cry from, say, the popular Mexican magazine Muy Interesante. Arqueología mexicana is not sensationalistic at all. I mentioned Vuelta and Letras Libres because those magazines and Arqueología mexicana were, or have to be sponsored by, cultural institutions. Otherwise nobody would buy them. Arqueología mexicana is similar to National Geographic, but most Mexicans do not read cultural magazines.

And it is untrue that Arqueología mexicana is prone to sensationalism. In fact, the above-mentioned September-October 2003 issue of Arqueología mexicana is the only one I am aware of that devoted the entire issue to the subject of human sacrifice. And the editorial staff did it for one simple reason.

On July 2003 El País Semanal, a Sunday supplement of the Spanish newspaper El País, published an article by Matthias Schulz in which he labeled as “demonic” and “brutal” the Mesoamerican practice of human sacrifice. This caused quite a stir among the Mexican indigenistas. And it was supposed that Arqueología mexicana, the official journal of the INAH which treats pre-Columbian cultures respectfully, would publish a rebuttal.

However, since it is a serious journal, Arqueología mexicana asked only knowledgeable scholars to contribute. For instance, the piece on Mayan human sacrifice in that 2003 issue was written by renowned Mayanist David Stuart.

Even Miguel León-Portilla, a major indigenista and pre-Hispanic scholar in Mexico who knows náhuatl, wrote the first article of that issue. León-Portilla didn’t deny the historicity of the sacrifices; he only tried to explain them.

Therefore Arqueología mexicana is obviously a reliable source.

—Cesar Tort

Brainwashing of human sacrifice victims
User:Maunus reverted this edit as being an "unreferenced claim"
 * However, there is evidence that this notion of "honour" was really one of fatalistic brainwashing, as victims identified for sacrificial murder were frequently put through many pre-murder rituals in which they were symbolically "murdered" until they "came to terms with" or otherwise accepted their fate (cf. A History of Warfare, by John Keegan).

Looks like there is an attempt to provide a reference. Doesn't mean that it is a good reference but I think the edit might deserve more attention than just reversion on the basis of being "unreferenced". Maunus, could you explain why you reverted the edit?

--Richard 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It represents a POV that is already predominant in the article. It doesn't cite what the "evidence" that supports the claim is. It references a non-specialist book and doesn't provide a correct citation. In order for this particular claim to be included it requires that it states


 * 1) that only some part of the scientific environment argues that this is the case.
 * 2) which part that is, that is referencing names and works of mesoamerican scholars who have argued this.
 * 3) which sources their arguments is based on.
 * 4) the alternative viewpoints.
 * ·Maunus· · ƛ · 08:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Maunus. Just wanted to provide the editor with the requirements he needs to fulfill in order to back up the claim if he so chooses.
 * --Richard 08:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)