Talk:Human sacrifice in Aztec culture/Archive 1

Maya kings in an Aztec article?!
"During social or environmental stress, the Maya kings would make a wound on their tongue or on their penis, and pass a piece of rope through it.[17] If this supreme sacrifice failed it was believed the entire dynasty could fall."

Does the source state that the practice was Mayan (and therefore not part of the Aztec culture) or was it a transcription error by whoever wrote it on wiki?


 * There's an image here of Maya blood-sacrifice that doesn't appear particularly relevant. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've cut a short paragraph and image and copied them below:

During social or environmental stress, the Maya kings would make a wound on their tongue or on their penis, and pass a piece of rope through it. If this supreme sacrifice failed it was believed the entire dynasty could fall.


 * Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

18 monthly festivities?

 * Aztecs practiced it on a particularly large scale, sacrificing human victims on each of their 18 monthly festivities.

Does this mean they had 18 festivities every month, or there was 18 months in the calendar and there was 1 each of those months, or perhaps something else? --Fxer 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the azteca had 18 months of 20 days each one... the last 5 days were special, considered bad days, nothing was done on those days. Nanahuatzin

When it says that the sacrifices were meant to be voluntary, does that include the sacrifices of prisoners?
 * Not exactly meant, but "supossed" to be voluntary. According to tradition, when an aztec would capture a warrior he would greet him with the words "welcome my son". If we believe  the aztec and other peoples acount, recopilated after the conquest, War prisoners seem to be fairly well treated, and some of them could became slaves.. with all the rights of an aztec slave (see aztecs), which means they could have a lot of liberty.  There is even a story from Tlaxcala, (see flower war) about a tlacaltec warior that was capture, then became an aztec captain, and then instead of get his liberty, he asked to be sacrificed. Personally i don't think all the captive accept their sacrifice, some accounts i have read suggest prisoners were drugged, so people believed it was voluntary.   Maybe  we will never get the exact details, although recent excavations in the Main temple may show new light in this issue.  If you think the redaction of that part should be changes to reflect this, please do it.Nanahuatzin 07:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Link
The externally linked paper by James Q. Jacobs appears to be a grad student essay for a course. I'm not necessarily objecting to linking it, but shouldn't we identify it as such? - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Might be worth looking online to see if we can come across some of those journal articles he cites. - FrancisTyers 07:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Expanded article by merging in text from Aztec religion
Please go to Talk:Aztec and read the comment titled "Moved much of the "Religion" section to Aztec religion article".

Merged in text from the Aztec religion article. Subsequently restructured merged text and removed redundant passages.

Richard 09:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Article still needs cleanup

 * the article still need cleaning, i have removed a lot of duplicate info, but still lack coherence. Can you help me with that? Nanahuatzin 19:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm glad to but, frankly, I've read this stuff so many times that it's hard to give it a good solid read. Can you identify specific passages that you think need work?  Thanx.
 * Richard 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * mainly its a problem of style. Still it fells that each part was wrote separatelly, and the times of the verbs are not correct.. But it,s beyond my english... Just still it does not seems right.

Estimates of scope of sacrifice
Nanahuatzin,

I found this text at the beginning of the section...

"While Cortes and his men reported some gruesome stories of these sacrifices, none of them actually claimed to be a witness. Cortez even acepted that all this had been reported to him by others, not specifing his sources."

Did you write this? If not, what is your opinion of it?

Richard 09:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * yes i wrote it, although later i realized that i had writting almost the same at the begining of the article, where i cite the source. Actually Cortez cited his sources so "not specifing his sources" is wrong.. The conquererors had little oportunity to actually wittness human sacrifice, in Tlaxcala they had not permision to be near the tempels, and in Tenochtitlan the first things they do, was to forbid sacrifice. LAter, Diaz del Castillo, the only one that actually claimed to be a witness, saw it from at least 5 km away (durgin the siege of the city, he saw a human sacrifice in the main temple, but... he was not in Tenochtitlan, but in the shore of the lake). So the "gruesome stories of these sacrifices" by the conqueror seem to have little basis. Most of them were recolected later. A lot has been write about it, but a lot of the stories had little basis. That is why i always try to verify the sources. I have some work to so, so, in the afternonn i will answer your other question...  :)

Nanahuatzin 21:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the point of quibbling over whether or not Cortez had reliable informants regarding human sarcrifice by the Mexica. The fact is, human sarcrifice was a central part of Mexica culture, regardless of what Cortez did or did not say.


 * The quibbling comes from the fact that the cortez is ussually cited as a first acount witness to assert the number of sacrifices. While Human sacrifice was a central part on most mesaomerican cultures. The number of sacrifices has been greatly exagerated. Neither Cortez or Diaz del Castillo actually claimed to be witness. Nanahuatzin 11:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tlaloc requires tears of the young
Please review the last sentence of this paragraph. Is this supported in the documentary evidence?

Tlaloc was the god of rain. The Aztecs believed that, if sacrifices weren’t given to Tlaloc, the rain wouldn’t come and their crops wouldn’t grow. Another thing that was believed to happen if sacrifices weren’t given to Tlaloc was that the leprosy and rheumatism, diseases believed to be caused by Tlaloc, would infest the village. The Aztecs believed Tlaloc required the tears of the young and as a result sacrificed thousands of children at once so their tears would wet the earth.

--Richard 04:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Made by Karina Diaz

So far the archeologist have found about 99 children sacrified to Tlaloc in the offerings of the "Templo mayor," covering about two centuries of sacrifices, so the numbers of "thousands at once" is a bit exaggerated. Children were sacrified only when rains were late. All the children were sick, and the antropologist have concluded, they had the kind of sickness that would make them cry constantly, so the second part is correct. (source: "Sacrificio de niños en honor a Tláloc. by antropologist Juan Alberto Román Berrelleza) . http://www.conaculta.gob.mx/saladeprensa/2002/25mar/tlaloc.htm Nanahuatzin 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The tears represent the rain that would fall. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article makes it clear that there is no reliable information as to the amount of victims. If a hundred victims of human sacrifice are found, it stands to reason many, many children were sacrificed. Its not like we will find all of their poor remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.157.10 (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Restored Tlaloc section
User:Tevus deleted the Tlaloc section on the grounds that it seemed POV. I agree that sacrificing "thousands of children" sounds like hyperbole. We need a citation to back up that claim.

--Richard 06:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Arguing with itself
There are two places where a single paragraph (or a single sentence) seems to be arguing with itself. "As a comparison, at the Dachau concentration camp, working 24 hours a day with modern techonology, 4,200 prisoners a day were executed, but this is an apples and oranges comparison because Dachau was not a death camp, so there would be fewer executions than at someplace like Auschwitz. …Another figure used is from Bernal Díaz del Castillo, the Spanish soldier who wrote his account of the conquest 50 years after the fact. In the description of the tzompantli, a rack of skulls of the victims in the main temple, he reports to have counted about 100,000 skulls. However, to accommodate that many skulls, the tzompantli would have had a length of several kilometers, instead of the 30 meters reported, unless it was stacked in several rows." (Italics mine.) I assume that what is happening is that two sources are arguing with each other. Neither is cited. Both should be, and it should be explicit who says what. - Jmabel | Talk 20:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote the originals of this, but it have been edited and corrected several times, by people arguing on both sides, so it leaves a paragraph that argue with itself. This is a hightly controversial point, so i think it will be continually edited and reedited.


 * The modern reconstructions of the Tzompantli allow for a stack of 5 vertical rows and 10 rows deep and the skulls were apart by aprox 1 meter. Based on this, the tzompamtli would have to be at least 2 to kilometers long. In the space allocated (acording to the recontruction in the National Museum of antropology) there was only space for about 1,500 skulls. This agrees with the excavations of the Tzompantli of tlatelolco that found 800 skulls. The original cite of this was W. Arens, "The man eating  myth", but he calculated 100 km long, I change it, since his estimates are clearly wrong, he calculated just a linear row. Arens took his estimates from Nigel Davies "The human sacrifice", but i don´t have that book to see the original cite.


 * At its peak, Auschwitz executed about 37,250 prisioners a month. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p21_Widmann.html) or about 1242 daily, using gas chambers, or shooting them (puting several prisioners in row, to kill each row with just one bullet to be more eficient). At the end of the war, both Dachau and Auschwitz were death camps. Maybe the comparision is a bit gross, i will apreciate your opinion. But the point of this comparision is: It takes time to kill so much people. Could really a bunch of priests with stone knieves be more efficient than gas chambers and fire arms?. ...


 * I am an engineer, and i am used to work with numbers. I am surprised on how easily those big numbers have been acepted withouth challenging it´s feasibility.


 * through the article i have been stressing the imprecition of all estimates, citing the lower and higher estimates, so the reader could apreciate this by itself.


 * While W. Arens has some of the best arguments for a lower estimate, not all agrre with him.

Nanahuatzin 05:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to verify the statistics for Auschwitz, but the sources vary wildly, from 1200 to 23,000 daily i will try to correct the figures, as soon as i found wich are generally considered correct... Nanahuatzin 07:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Auswitch &rarr; Auschwitz - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So far most of the sources I have found, does not cite how they got their figures. But i think this can be used as a cite:


 *   "* * * During July 1944, they were being liquidated at the rate of 12,000 Hungarian Jews daily, and as the cre-matory could not deaI with such numbers, many bodies were thrown into large pits and covered with quick lime." (L-161) source: official Polish Government Commission Report on the Investigation of German crimes in Poland, report Auschwitz Concentration Camp (6161)"  (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/jewspers3.htm)


 * this was presented as "Document L-161, Exhibit USA 292" in the Nuremberg trials http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/tgmwc-02-20-04.shtml


 * Seem this is the closest to an oficial figure. The earlier I found of 1242 is from an revisionist source, while the figure of 23,000 does not cite cources. Nanahuatzin 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So where does 19,200 in the article come from? If 12,000 is what we have that is citable, then that is what we should be saying. - Jmabel | Talk 19:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * At first it seemed it was from a reliable source, until i tried to check how it was obtained, so i began to check the diferent sources  :(...Nanahuatzin 01:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just cut any references to auschwitz and the holocaust all together, it really is less than relevant in this context. you could just say that the numbers given by early chroniclers are exaggerated and quote a respectable a scholar who is also of that opinion. Comparing with Auschwitz and making new arguments is coming close to original research as well. Maunus 20:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * mhhh.. i think i need to understand the concept of "original research". I will read again the guidelines.. By the way... Good work. Nanahuatzin 01:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I'm confused... is there any reliable source that compares the rate of Aztec human sacrifices with the killing rate of Nazi concentration camps? If not, then this comparison qualifies as original research even though the comparison may be useful for illustrative purposes. I understand that this may be a bit of a "hard line" on what is and is not original research but I think this is what the policy intends in saying "no original research". --Richard 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen the original research issue come up before. In my opinion, an encyclopedia such as this one necessarily juxtaposes information that may never have been juxtaposed before, and it is counterproductive to building an encyclopedia to condemn that as original research. If there are referenced figures for both, I don't see any issue in mentioning the comparison.--Curtis Clark 04:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this juxtaposition of information, if not having been done by a previous scholar, constitutes a new argument in a scientific discussion. This means that it should be published in a scientific discussion about human sacrifice and not in an encyclopedia. Also I don't think the comparison is relevant or necessary.Maunus 06:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Every time an article uses more than one source, we juxtapose information that may not have previously been combined. People are starting to carry "NOR" to a fanatical extreme. At this rate, there will be no room for any thought in writing articles. Is it also inappropriate "original research" when we conclude that when our various sources write Cortez, Cortés, Hernán Cortez, etc. they are all talking about the same person?


 * It seems extremely useful to the reader to compare the scale of something of which they mostly have no knowledge (reports of Mesoamerican human sacrifice) we make a comparison to something the scale of which is meaningful to people who live in our time. This is no more "original research" than juxtaposing the size of two cities. - Jmabel | Talk 01:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may weigh in here, I'm not sure what good it does to compare this to Auschwitz. I will have to disagree with the respected Jmabel in that very few readers know anything about Auschwitz other than it was a Nazi death camp, and some don't even know that.  In fact, as pointed out above, we don't even have reliable death statistics for Auschwitz, much less the Aztecs.  So how can we compare??  My 2 pence, Madman 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

More weirdness
And now there have been edits (including a rather unencyclopedic "he was most certainly NOT the sun god") that directly contradict earlier material without providing any new sources. This is a topic about which I know little, so all I can do is raise a flag here.

Would people please discuss this stuff on a talk page, rather than making big, unreferenced changes in the article? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * J, those unencyclopedic edits you refer to were made by te anonymous 151.200.189.62. If you feel an edit is unencyclopedic (etc) just go ahead and change/improve/revert it.  Please!!  Wait are you waiting for?  : ) Madman 14:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The wording was unencyclopedic, but sometimes this is exactly how we get corrections on substance. That's why I raised the flag. - Jmabel | Talk 04:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, Joe. Madman 15:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, consider opening a dialogue with User:151.200.189.62 to understand what the basis of the assertion is. This anon user has made very few Wikipedia edits and may not be aware of how things are done in Wikipedia.


 * I was going to make an argument about assuming good faith since it appears that some of the anon's edits to this article may be good. At least, no one has reverted them yet.


 * However, upon checking the anon's contributions, I see that he/she has made very few and the most recent one before these edits was this edit to the Aztec article which was reverted. I will leave a note on the anon's Talk Page suggesting that he/she discuss future edits on the Talk Page of the article before inserting them.


 * In the light of the "human food a staple of the Aztec diet" edit, it behooves us to check this anon's recent edits to this article carefully for supportability. This task requires someone more knowledgeable than me.


 * --Richard 14:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources? Blood libel?
Like in most detailed accounts of Mesoamerican human sacrifice, most statements are made without any references to primary sources. In many ways, this subject, treated at length by Eurocentric authors, is equivalent to a detailed encyclopedic article on the veracity of child kidnapping and ceremonial sacrifice by the Jewish community, aka the infamous Blood Libel. The fact stands that the Spanish used the Blood Libel extensively in the years leading up to the Jewish Expulsion of 1492, the same year the "New" World was "discovered". Is there any surprise that we find that Spanish authors slanted their presentation of Aztec society?

Thus, without providing reliable sources, and this article is largely devoid of references, we are contributing to the modern equivalent of a Blood libel.

NoraBG 13:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, let me see. So far, comparisons between the Aztecs and the Nazis and between the Aztecs and the Jews.


 * To respond to your concerns, we certainly do need references and, in fact, it is the To Do at the top of this page. Jump in and help.


 * However, there is absolutely no doubt that the Aztec and most Mesoamerican cultures practiced human sacrifice so to suggest that the whole concept is made up and say that this article is "the modern equivalent of a Blood libel" is just plain way-out-in-left-field weird. Madman 15:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Stake burnings, hangings, electrocutions, lethal injections are all some of the ways Western society has killed people in normal society with the attendance of a "ceremonial" priest. What anthropological basis do we have for calling one a state-sanctioned human sacrifice and the other a state-sanctioned execution?  The whole point is that the presentation is one-sided, full of conjecture, surmise and lacking in credible sources or any sources at all for that matter.  Lack of sources is a serious problem that will plague this article for a while.  The only reason it is acceptable here is because this is a pro-"western" politicized slant on "barbaric" meso-american societies.  And by your logic, you would require a Jew to prove that the Blood Libel is true before responding??
 * NoraBG 15:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We call the Mesoamerican practice of state-sponsored ritual murder "human sacrifice" because that is what it is called in the academic literature and it is Wikipedia policy to use standard terminology. The facts are that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice.  It is our challenge to write a balanced NPOV article detailing this practice.
 * Obviously you feel strongly about this subject, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We would encourage your contributions as long as they do not push any agenda, but attempt to dispassionately gather and summarize existing research into the subject.  Madman 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If they are facts, then how about citing some sources. NoraBG 16:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with Madman2001)


 * To answer the question about sources: This content of this article was factored out of Aztec religion which was factored out of Aztec. The sources got left behind because of laziness and ignorance of the editor doing the factoring (me).  We need someone familiar with the sources to copy over the appropriate sources which support the content of this article.


 * To answer this question "What anthropological basis do we have for calling one a state-sanctioned human sacrifice and the other a state-sanctioned execution?", I would answer that the line between the two is tenuous but the putative difference is that one is a sacrifice of an innocent for the good of the state and the second is the execution of the guilty as punishment and ultimate restraint as a consequence of a transgression. In Aztec society (it is claimed), those who were sacrificed were not criminals but the best members of society (+ also those vanquished in battle).  Not just anyone was acceptable, those who were sacrificed had to be from a Nahuatl culture.


 * If you wish to argue that state-sanctioned executions are a form of state-sanctioned human sacrifice, that is your prerogative but that argument belongs elsewhere (e.g. in Capital punishment) but not here. This is a viable argument but it is unclear what its relevance is to this article.


 * That having been said, I think User:NoraBG makes some worthwhile points.


 * First, what is the evidence that human sacrifice was practiced "throughout the Aztec empire". Do we have evidence from multiple sites or is it just based on post-Cortes Spanish sources?  Is it possible that human sacrifice was practiced only only at the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan?  How do we know how widespread the practice was?


 * A similar challenge can be made against the assertion that human sacrifice had been practiced in Mesoamerica for millenia. How do we know this?


 * Secondly, User:NoraBG is right in saying that this article lacks primary sources. That is not to say that the content of the article cannot be grounded in primary sources, just that none of those sources are provided at the end of the article.  I would guess that we could ground the material in some of the Aztec codices as well as various commentaries by Spanish contemporaries of Cortes including Cortes himself.  Can someone more familiar with these sources help by providing the appropriate references?


 * Finally, we need to go to the heart of User:NoraBG's challenge which is to claim that human sacrifice did not occur at all and is, in fact, blood libel. Is it at all plausible that the allegation of human sacrifice was completely a fabrication of the Spanish starting with Cortes?  If we can cite such challenges to the very existence of the practice, we should mention them.  Thus, the answer to NoraBG's assertion "by your logic, you would require a Jew to prove that the Blood Libel is true before responding", I would say "No. Wikipedia policy on verifiability would require that the charge of Blood Libel be sourced to a reliable source.  If you can find a reliable source who argues that human sacrifice in Aztec culture is a form of Blood Libel, we can include the argument in the article.  In fact, we should include the argument if it represents a significant body of opinion.  We are not obligated to assert that this argument is valid and we are justified in characterizing it as a minority opinion if we have reason to believe that this is true.  However, we are not able to insert it at all without the reliable source.


 * --Richard 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added quite a number of references as well as removing some of the sillier "verification needed". I will leave the rest to you, Richard. Madman 02:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Madman but I'm not knowledgeable enough for this task. Someone else with access to the sources will have to do it.

I'm finding it a challenge to locate first-hand or eye-witness accounts of human sacrifice. Can any scholar help with this? NoraBG 10:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are very few extant pre-conquest documents (see Aztec codices) and these are primarily pictorial. Thus, most documents about the Aztecs are tainted by the potential of Spanish influence.  That is, the documents were either written by Spaniards or Spaniards using Aztec sources.  Madman is our resident expert on the Aztec codices.  He can help you with the details of what they say.  (P.S. to Madman, I left a note on Talk:Aztec codices for you that is unrelated to this thread.)


 * Also, try leaving a message for User:Nanahuatzin who is a Mexican Wikipedian has been studying with primary sources and has expressed reservations about the reported scale of human sacrifice in Aztec culture. He believes the number may be a lot smaller than is widely reported.  (In other words, the blood libel goes more to the scale than to the actual fact.)  We've discussed this in various Talk Pages (e.g. Talk:Aztec but it is probably easier if you just start a new dialogue with him and ask him to summarize his position. Sorry, I didn't realize his perspective was already discussed in the article.  Feel free to contact him regarding this or any other section of the article.


 * I would be happy to include any non-mainstream perspectives on this issue as long as it can be sourced to a reliable source. Nanahuatzin is a highly valued contributor to Aztec-related articles but we've had to warn him against turning his personal expertise into original research.  We really need to be able to reference a scholar (even one with a minority opinion) who holds this view.


 * Look at it this way. If we put Nanahuatzin's perspective in the article without a reliable source, people would argue "How can we rely on information about Aztec civiliztion generated by a metallurgical chemical engineer?  What credentials does he have to speak on this topic?".  And we would be unable to counter that argument.


 * --Richard 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you immensely for your suggestions, Richardschusr. I understand perfectly the need for referenced sources and understand the difference between cited positions and original research.  That is all well and good.  I would like to simply focus on getting sources for the many descriptive assertions in the current article.  Rather than reference popular written accounts of which there are many, I am only asking for primary references for three quite specific things:
 * 1.) statements about eye-witness accounts;
 * 2.) statements that indicate both numerical, temporal and spatial extent of human sacrifices;
 * 3.) statements that assume ritualistic human sacrifice instead of post-mortem funerary rites, as when human remains are found without eye-witness accounts.
 * NoraBG 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone with a university subscription to JSTOR can easily source primary evidence of human sacrifice - tons of articles under Google scholar, search terms = aztec human sacrifice evidence. (Mounds of bodies dug up with clear indications of ritual murder etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17:09, 14 September 2006 69.251.241.26 (talk • contribs)


 * I blush at your characterization of me, Richard.
 * NoraBG, as Richard states, nearly all primary sources were either written by Spaniards or were written by Aztecs under Spanish supervision. See Aztec.  Some of the pre-Hispanic codices (of which they are very few) are primarily tonalamatls and they do contain some information about human sacrifices (check out the image in tonalamatl).
 * I think it's a mistake to only look for eye-witness accounts. The archaeological record contains the most incontrovertible evidence of human sacrifice.  There are online references in this article itself detailing recent archaeological findings.  Also, check out the tzompantli article.
 * Primary sources are certainly good, but scholarly articles and books, of which many are referenced in this article, help put the primary evidence in perspective. Mr or Ms 69.251.241.26 mentions that above.
 * Hope this gives you a lead, Madman 17:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Selection of primary sources
Regarding primary sources/eyewitness accounts of Aztec human sacrificial practices:

There are a few surviving direct narratives from sources on the Spanish side who were participants in the expeditions of Grijalva and Cortes (ie first-hand external descriptions of the Mexica, other Nahua peoples and the conquest itself). These include Cortes himself, Juan Diaz, Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Andreas de Tapia, Francisco de Aguilar, Ruy Gonzalez and the Anonymous Conqueror. To these we may add the likes of Martyr d'Anghiera, Lopez de Gomara, Oviedo y Valdes and Illescas, who while not in Mesoamerica themselves wrote their accounts based on interview and direct testimony of those who were, and figures such as Las Casas and Sahagun who were later in Mesoamerica but also had access to direct testimony. To the best of my knowledge all of these narratives mention and describe the practice as something actually witnessed by them, either in the act or very shortly afterwards. Some examples:
 * Juan Diaz (who was on the 1518 Grijalva expedition, and wrote his Itinerario de Grijalva before 1520) describes the witnessed aftermath of a sacrifice on an island off the Veracruz coast; in his Verdada Historia Bernal Diaz (who was also with Grijalva) corroborates (J.M. Cohen trans., pp. 37-38) "on these altars were idols with evil looking bodies, and that very night five Indians had been sacrificed before them; their chests had been cut open, and their arms and thighs had been cut off, and the walls were covered with blood... At all this we stood greatly amazed, and gave the island the name of the Isla de Sacrificios", and later after landing on the coast they come across a temple dedicated to Tezcatlipoca where "that day they had sacrificed two boys, cutting open their chests and offering their blood and hearts to that accursed idol".
 * Bernal Diaz continues with many more such descriptions from his exploits on the later Cortes expedition. Arriving at Cholula, they find "cages of stout wooden bars...full of men and boys who were being fattened for the sacrifice at which their flesh would be eaten" (p.203). Reaching Tenochtitlan itself, he describes the sacrifices at the Templo Mayor there :"They strike open the wretched Indian's chest with flint knives and hastily tear out the palpitating heart which, with the blood, they present to idols...they cut off the arms, thighs and head, eating the arms and thighs at ceremonial banquets. The head they hang up on a beam, and the body...is...given to the beasts of prey" (p.229).
 * Cortes describes similar events in his Letters, for eg "Y que les tomaba sus Hijos para los matar, y sacrificar á sus Idolos".
 * The Anonymous Conqueror's Narrative of Some Things of New Spain and of the Great City of Temestitan details Aztec sacrifices in his resume of that venture- see particularly Ch. XV, online here.

True enough, these spanish accounts may often contradict one another in places and on details, and their reliability can also be generally suspect for various reasons. Their professed horror at the practice may also be a bit ironic given the conquistadors' own prediliction for casual torture and execution. Even so, I'd say just about every single 16th C. spanish source mentions the practice, for the Aztec as well as other conquest-era Mesoamerican cultures.

For contemporary indigenous descriptions and mentions, there are numerous illustrations in central mexican codices such as the codices Rios, Tudela, Telleriano-Remensis, Duran, and Sahagun's Florentine- see for eg here.

For Mesoamerica as a whole, accumulated archaeological, iconographical, osteological and (in the case of the Maya, written) evidence indicates it was widespread across cultures and periods, dating back to at least the mid-Formative (ca 600 BCE and earlier).

For osteological analyses interpreted as being of sacrificial remains, see for eg Hammond (mid-Formative Cuello), Cowgill  (Classic Teotihuacan) and Tykot  {postclassic Kaqchikel) remains. See also here, skeletal remains of sacrificed infant from an interrment at El Manati, early/mid Formative site near the Olmec centre of San Lorenzo.

For a selection of illustrations of sacrifices on Classic era Maya ceramics and inscriptions, see here and here.

The Aztecs and other Mesoamerican cultures are hardly unique in this respect, human sacrifice is is known for very many other regions and cultures throughout history.--cjllw | TALK  05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. In various places i have put my reservations, not in the amount and character of the human sacrifice. For example, while is comon to find that the aztec made a daily sacrifice to the Sun, so it would not raise without it. But if we search a source of this, we found from Duran and Sahagun that the Aztec only made sacrifice yn the festive days, only one for each month. Huitzilopochtli need the sacrifice to survive not each day, but each cicle of 52 days. Unofrtunatelly, primary sources are tricky to use, since we are nos specialist (something i took some time to understand). The same is for the number of sacrifices claimed both by the aztec and the spaniard. Simply the numbers involved do not make sense. for example, the base of the tzompantli of Tenochtitlan sitll survices, and it could hardly contain more than 300 to 400 skulls... While the archeological findings show that human sacrifice existed, but:
 * "It's now a question of quantity,'' said Lopez Lujan, who thinks the Spaniards -- and Indian picture-book scribes working under their control -- exaggerated the number of sacrifice victims, claiming in one case that 80,400 people were sacrificed at a temple inauguration in 1487.

"We're not finding anywhere near that ... even if we added some zeros,'' Lopez Lujan said.  http://www.livescience.com/history/human_sacrifice_050123.html Nanahuatzin 16:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First-hand, second-hand
"In addition, there are many known second-hand accounts of human sacrifice related by Mexicas to Europeans." Does this mean to say that these accounts were second-hand on the part of the Mexicas who related them, or first-hand on the part of the Mexicas who related them and second-hand on the part of Europeans who wrote them down? - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant it to read the latter of the two. There are no writings by any European witnessing human sacrifice.  However, there are some writings by Europeans re-telling descriptions given to them by individual Mexicas who allegedly did witness such events. NoraBG 00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is true. Both Bernal Diaz and Cortés describe human sacrifice. Nahuatl language sourcees talk very openly about human sacrifice and even ritual cannibalism (the florentine codex even has a recipe in nahuatl for how human flesh was prepared)Maunus 06:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it would not be correct to say "There are no writings by any European witnessing human sacrifice". For eg, and in addition to the refs I gave above, in Diaz's True History he relates how when they were being escorted around Tenochtitlan by Moctezuma and came across the Templo Mayor, the priests (papas) were in the process of conducting some sacrifices atop the structure. When the Spanish climbed up, they saw "the blood which had been spilled that day" and braziers in which "they were burning the hearts of three Indians whom they had sacrificed that day" (pp. 234-236). In the battles which ensued when the Spanish were later expelled from the city during La Noche Triste after Moctezuma's death, the Aztec forces flung at them the severed heads, hands and flayed skins of captured Spanish and Tlaxcalan soldiers who had just been sacrificed, in a (no doubt successful) attempt to instill fear as they fought their retreat. When during the later siege and slow advance along the causeway from Tacuba, Diaz (from a distance) "...saw our comrades who had been captured in Cortes' defeat being dragged up the steps to be sacrificed....the papas laid them down on their backs on some narrow stones of sacrifice and, cutting open their chests, drew out their palpitating hearts which they offered to their idols before them." (pp.386-387). Diaz can and has been criticised for over-dramatisation and exaggeration, but it's most likely a matter of degree, not if or whether.--cjllw |  TALK  09:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The above references are emblematic of the problem. In the first Diaz reference it is related how the Spaniards come upon evidence of human sacrifice having taking place previously earlier in the day.  Most other near experiences of human sacrifice are removed in time either a few days before or at best earlier in the day. That's the confounding detail in tracing the history; actual first-hand witnessing of the ritual is missing in written accounts.  In the latter and infamous Diaz reference, written many years after the "experience", in the comfort of Spain, he gives his position in the city in relation to the Templo Mayor.  Because we know the relative location of these buildings he was describing as having witnessed, it is believed that the passage is problematic at best because he could not have witnessed such events from the large distance across the city (>1 km).  Are there any better references folks? NoraBG 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you seem so eager to put the idea of Aztec human sacrifice into doubt. If you read any nahuatl sources at all you will see that it is clear that the aztecs did sacrifice people, and that they weren't ashamed or shy to tell about it. Human sacrifice also figures prominently in pre-columbian iconography in all of mesoamerica. I see no need to put in doubt the numerous conquistador and native accounts of human sacrifice, and anyway those doubts are not shared by the scholarly community. There is an overwhelming consensus that aztecs and other mesoamerican cultures practiced human sacrifice. Maunus 20:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes; total overhaul needed
The recent and extensive changes by anon under the guise of "correcting inaccuracies" have in their turn introduced a fair few of their own. I am reluctant at the moment to simply reverse these as there were some alterations which could be useful, or at least are no worse than the previous state; however, the article is now quite a mish-mash of differing points of view, much unsourced/unattributed material and assertions which go beyond (in one direction or the other) what mainstream scholarship would hold.

For eg, the lead now opens with a the boldly-asserted figure of 20k sacrifices as if it were something established, when clearly (and as noted further on in the article) estimates vary quite considerably. There are numerous other factual problems or at least misinterpretations, both recently introduced and pre-existing. It is going to be a long haul to clean this article up, and separate out the differing POV voices which have been at work here, and particularly the extremes (ie 'there was no/minimal human sacrifice, it's all libel' vs 'it was rampant, nasty and led inevitably to their downfall') need to be carefully toned-down and placed into overall context.

It's hard to know where to begin, but as a first step we should demand of each main statement explicit, accessible and multiple citations, and ensure that where there's a margin for interpretation (ie most of the topic) it is put in terms of "sources X, Y and Z maintain that...; however A, B and C contend..." instead using terminology implying areas of contention as disembodied facts.--cjllw | TALK  08:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * These persistent inaccuracies are simply part and parcel of over 500 years of careless, blood libel perpetrated by genocidal Euro-Americans waging cultural war against native inhabitants. The entire subject suffers from lack of neutral POV and rigorous analysis. Even the moniker of "Aztecs" is an academic European term with overt political intentions. I went ahead and reverted.  Nothing is ever lost. NoraBG 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a POV tag to the article. You only switched the previous biased version with your own equally biased version. Your ideas about bloodlibel against native americans are simply not up to the scientific standard: there are innumerable pieces of evidence for widespread human sacrifice throughout Mesoamerica from the preclassic period and up untill the conquest, as well as several first and second hand accounts by early sources, in fact it is mentioned in 95% of early accounts whther they were written from a native or a conquistador pov - the aztecs were not ashamed of their earlier practices and wrote about it many times. As for the choice of nomenclature Aztec is chosen because it is the most commonly known term, and because it was in use before the spaniards arrived.Maunus 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I only reverted to what was already there before; I would not call the previous version my POV. NoraBG 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to go through this article with my style guide. The puncuation, espcially of commas, drives me bonkers ( for example see Tezcatlpoca- to the Aztecs, he was...) I don beleive that every introductory statement like that should be offset with commas. I will pause before adding serial commas. In Tezcalpoca sorcery and distiny could benifit from the serial comma, and from my education I prefer the comma if the items are a unit, but there is a lack of consensus so i will defer. I have already made some minor edits and will continue to work on style SuicideRun 12:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you should wait untill the actual content is up to scratch. I expect about half of this article to be culled when I get the time to fix it up. (also: the name of the god is Tezcatlipoca)Maunus 15:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Need section about popular culture
In this section discussion about perception due to media,esp mel gibsons new film.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly, though I wouldn't see that as a priority action- per the above there's considerable rework to be done on the scientific, let alone popular media, account. Also, Apocalypto is supposedly Maya.--cjllw | TALK  06:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just now deleted that section. It really has nothing to add to this article.  In fact, one of my pet peeves (he says, getting up on the soapbox) is the user who attempts to relate everything to the here-and-now, like the recent additions to the Mesoamerican ballgame article that talked about the Super Bowl and rock concerts.  Madman 02:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Verify source
I have substituted several of these "verify sources" by Muy Interesante references. Muy is a Spanish monthly of scientific vulgarization, not a peer-reviewed magazine, but it had an article covering a lot on Mesoamerican human sacrifices. If Muy is not enough and you want to reintroduce "verify sources", include an HTML comment on what you want. Perhaps, Template:verify source is not really what is intended.

Incidentally, in many places Muy and this article use very similar wording and order. Maybe there are common sources. --Error 01:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, it seems a circular reference, seems they are citing wikipedia, withut refering to their sources.... For example I see you put "muy" to a text i put from the book "Burning water"  from Laurette Sejourne. The wording is mine,but  the information is from Sejourne. (note: i lost the book. so i had not been able to put the correct cite..). I better wait unitl Maunus have time to clean the article.  Nanahuatzin 06:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In don't accept muy interesante as a reference to this article. This kind of journal does not provide factuality but rather sensationalism. Also the online link wasn't useful except as an advertisement for themagazine since you didn't link directly to the aztec article (it doesn't even look like you can read the article online) The material is sufficiently controversial to require really good reliable and vrifiable sources. I have removed the muy interesante reference. Ideally I would like this article to use as a reference a scholarly book by a respected mesoamericanist author dealing specifically with the scope and methods of human sacrfice in mesoamerica. I haven't found such a book yet, however. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but are you sure that you want Template:Verify source instead of Template:cn or other?
 * Besides if you remove Muy references, either remove them all or at least leave the one which the publication details. Now we have several "Muy" references to an empty line.
 * I also make a note of this, as it may orient somebody searching for bibliography:
 * In the Further reading section, there is Los huesos humanos. Manipulación y alteraciones, M.C. Botella, I. Alemán and S. Jiménez, Editorial Bellaterra, Barcelona, 2000. ISBN 84-7290-132-7.
 * -- Error 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Muy text is "La etnóloga mexicana de origen francés Laurette Séjourné, que durante cuatro décadas estudió los restos de Teotihuacán para el Instituto Nacional mexicano de Antropología e Historia sostenía que aquellos asistentes que se atrevían a gritar o sollozar cuando se producía un sacrificio sufrían duros castigos. [...]"
 * --Error 22:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

opening paragraph
I already explained my reasons why the opening paragraph should be modified in this talk page. —Cesar Tort 00:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it!! I support your efforts.  Madman 01:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

rewrite
If there are no objections, today I will place a re-written version of this article. Otherwise please tell me and I would place instead the rewritten version in my subpage for discussion there. —Cesar Tort 09:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it!! This article has long needed a complete rewrite. I support your efforts. Madman 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul performed
I performed a radical cull on the article for the following reasons:


 * The former incarnation of this article was very long-winded, unencyclopedic and replete of syntactic inaccuracies. It had several repetitious passages written in redundant prose. Therefore, I removed whole paragraphs and sentences.


 * For example, I eliminated a long Sahagún quotation and a comment about it in the former section “A political tool” (renamed “The political explanation” in the present incarnation of the article).


 * For readability purposes, I also removed some unnecessary words in Náhuatl language and left instead the English equivalent.


 * In the case of the criticism of Sahagún’s and other chroniclers recounts on cannibalism, if such criticism is to be considered seriously they ought to appear in a separate article, Cannibalism in pre-Columbian America, not in this article on human sacrifices.


 * I removed all references of the unscholarly Mexican magazine Muy Interesante, and some books as well.


 * With the exception of the Tezcatlipoca victim, who was brainwashed for a whole year to offer himself voluntarily for sacrifice, I unmercifully removed the passages that spoke of the sacrifices as “voluntary”, glamorous or even “glorious”. This idealization of human sacrifices is unencyclopedic.


 * Several bibliographical references were “hanging” without actual mention in the Notes or References sections. I removed them.


 * I relocated some sections, for example, the “Assessment” section was placed at the end of the article.


 * I removed some passages about the speculations and miscalculations and statistics of sacrifices: far-fetched stuff for an encyclopedic article.


 * I added several notes to comply the {fact} requests or citations needed. However, since I am still researching the subject of human sacrifice for the book I am writing, with due time I may add the specific pages for the sources I mostly used, like those of Sahagún, Christian Duverger and others.


 * Some quotations of Bernal Díaz, Cortés and others seem to have been amateurishly translated by an editor from the original Spanish. Since I don’t have the translated books in my personal library I hope that, in the future, another editor quotes the translated texts directly from the published books in English.


 * Re the References section I removed the ones unrelated with the text. Regarding the Notes section, if the editors who created the article are still around it would be nice if they added the specific sources.


 * I removed a large part of the “Cannibalism” section. Tomorrow I will re-insert the moved material in a new article: Cannibalism in pre-Columbian America, which is already linked to the present article. The cannibal subject is enormous, controversial and merits an article of its own, especially because there is evidence of cannibalism among some of the pre-Columbian tribes of the lands that today are the U.S., and South American tribes as well.


 * An apology note: for an entire hour I tried to figure out how to insert the endnotes properly. Since WP is not a paper encyclopedia, endnotes such as those stating “Ibid.” or “Op. cit.” are not recommended. I don’t master WP as other wikipedians do. I would appreciate if another editor more fluent with the WP language rewrites those endnotes properly.


 * The present article is still a rough draft which needs lot of work. For example, I have not checked the external links of the previous incarnation of this article which still appear here.


 * Finally, as stated in Talk:Aztec, my language is Spanish. A native English speaker could correct my syntax.

While I research human sacrifices for my book, I will be willing to cooperate with you all to improve the page.

—Cesar Tort 04:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hail, Cesar!! We bow to you.
 * Wonderful and very very much needed work. This article was (to me) the worst large Mesoamerican article here in Wikipedia, often a source of contention, very uneven, and poorly documented.  I will try to spend some time this weekend cleaning up sources and other clean-up.  Just a fantastic job on a difficult subject!!!!!  Madman 12:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How about semi-protection?
CJLL or other admin type: Since every (or nearly every) edit by a non-registered user results in reversion, and since this article seems an especially inviting target due to the subject matter, I'm thinking that it might be best to semi-protect this article, particularly now that it's been cleaned up. That semi-protection has worked wonders over at Olmec. My 2 pence, Madman 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree: this article is the ideal target and fair game for vandals. What is the procedure to request semi-protection? —Cesar Tort 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I disagree. While Madman2001 is right about the fact that almost every edit by non-registered users is vandalism, it is still Wikipedia philosophy to allow anonymous edits.  Semi-protection is intended to stop a sudden rash of attacks or a steady, continuous high rate of vandalism.  At least one admin has suggested that 10-15 vandalisms in a 24-hour period is the threshold where semi-protection is warranted.  The level of vandalisms appears to be on the order of 1 a day.  I would leave it unprotected for now.  If the rate of vandalism increases dramatically, we can ask for a teporary semi-protection.  --Richard 19:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * agree with Richard. We don't know if Lopéz-Austin or Ortíz-Motellano or Leon Portilla are going to contribute anonymously tomorrow.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK: points taken :) —Cesar Tort 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions, please
I have been copyediting the article (as you note above, Cesar, it always helps to have a second set of eyes) and am not sure about the meaning of these three sentences:
 * Laurette Séjourné commented that human sacrifice would place a strain among the Aztecs. (What kind of strain? "Between" or "among" or "to some"??} They admired the Toltec culture and claimed to be followers of Quetzalcoatl. (I don't understand how this is related to the previous sentence.) Séjourné points out that there were harsh penalties for those who dared to scream or faint during a human sacrifice. (I don't understand how this is related to the previous sentence but it could be related to the first sentence.)

Thanks, Madman 21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Harsh penalties for screaming or fainting while being murdered ?? Harsh penalties like what ?Eregli bob (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn’t write those sentences, only edited them. I was tempted to remove the whole thing since it is not really germane to that section and a bit obscure. However, I will remove it now. Thanks for calling my attention to this one and please feel free to make as many observations of this kind as you please. —Cesar Tort 21:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"In situ?"
What is intended by the phrase "in situ" in the following sentence?


 * While Hernán Cortés and his soldiers reported the stories of human sacrifices, none of them were permitted to watch in situ the sacrificial rite.

"In situ" means "on site" or "on location" right? But this suggests that they were able to watch it "from afar". I think the sentence is not benefited by the use of the phrase and would be improved by either simply removing the phrase or choosing a different one. However, the decision is based on what the original intent was.

--Richard 14:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK: I removed the sentence. —Cesar Tort 14:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as an FYI, "in situ" was incorrectly used in the sentence, as the term refers to something being in their original place, undisturbed, and so on - i.e., archaeological features or artifacts are in situ when found, or are left in situ for photos. Removing the words would have retained the intent of the sentence, but no biggy. -- Oaxaca dan 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Image talk: help needed
Two image related questions: Thanks, Madman
 * I'm not comfortable with the image from Apocalypto, because (a) it is not Aztec, (b) it does not really contribute to the matter of human sacrifice since it shows nothing of the sort, and (c) it is not historical. But I'm not uncomfortable enough to remove it.  Thoughts??
 * I added an image from the Codex Telleriano-Remensis (Commons page here) showing sacrifices made during the drought of 1450 - 1454. However, I am mystified about who the central figure with the deer glyph is.  Moctezuma I was ruler then, but according to our article, that is not his glyph.  Could it be Tlacaelel who was supposedly responsible for the increased sacrifices during this time?  Any insight would be appreciated.


 * The figure there is Nezahualcoyotl, the ruler of Texcoco. To me it seems more likely that the bodies represent deaths due to the drought rather than sacrifices, though. --Ptcamn 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you think that that is a coyote and not a deer? And you think it's not showing sacrifice but just general death? Hmmm, I did wonder at the images, since I didn't see any direct signs of sacrifice myself, but the website that I had pulled the image from (alas, i don't have a copy of Telleriano-Remensis on my bookshelf) said it was sacrifice.  I believe I should remove the image.  Anybody else?? Madman 23:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, the full Codex Telleriano-Remensis is available online at the FAMSI website. (But it's not a particularly nice-looking copy, unfortunately.) --Ptcamn 23:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I pulled the image mentioned above and inserted one showing the ritual sacrificial gladiatorial combat victim. I also decided to just pull that entire section on Apocalypto. Neither the photo nor the section shed any light on Aztec human sacrifice (in my opinion). Madman 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. But I'd like to keep at least the moved section here:

In the climax of Mel Gibson's film Apocalypto, a feathered Mayan priest violently tears out the hearts of captives rising them upwards as offerings to the Sun-God Kukulkan. Some critics have argued that the rite looked more similar to an Aztec sacrifice.


 * —Cesar Tort 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably needs a rewrite though. a) It's not the climax. It's about mid-way. b) I don't think Kukulkan is a "Sun God". I could be wrong. c) It's not obvious that the observation that the rite looks Aztec is necessarily a criticism. It's not necessarily a bad thing. d) It would be nice to get the name of the actor who plays the priest. (And the photo could actually depict the sacrifice...) --Ptcamn 02:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right: Kukulkan is the Mayan Quetzalcóatl, not the sun-god. In a moment of the priest's speech, it appears that he is talking about the sun-god though (I’ve to watch the film again).

The user who suggested to insert an Apocalypto section was HalaTruth above. As far as I understand the literature, the Gibson sacrifice looks both Mayan and Aztec. Perhaps Madman feels its inclusion makes the article look less serious.

Thoughts?

—Cesar Tort 03:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just felt that the entire section and the photo was out of place. It supplied absolutely no information on "Human sacrifice in Aztec culture".   Madman 03:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (I was typing this as Madman made his comments): I would agree with the section's deletion, as it doesn't add anything to the specific topic of this article. If we were talking about a article on Maya sacrifice, it would be relevant, at least in the over Aztec-ization of Maya human sacrifice (e.g., the scale at which it was performed) and the presentation of that as fact to the public. -- Oaxaca dan 03:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK with the removal. But after the hieroglyphs were deciphered the scholars’ views about the Mayans changed radically. Since you seem to know some Spanish, I will quote from a 1991 issue of Octavio Paz’s journal a few words by Mayanist Michael D. Coe:



—Cesar Tort 04:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation issue
I'm not convinced the recent categorisation of this article into and  is appropriate. The term murder at the very least implies an illegitimate action that is out-of-bounds of that society's mores, while the little which can be known about the pre-Columbian attitudes to the practice suggests that this was not the case (or that some levels of the society at least accepted its necessity). Without being a rampaging extreme cultural relativist, I don't think that meanings of these terms in modern society translate quite so fluidly for these classifications to apply, or be helpful.--cjllw | TALK  07:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounded pretty much as cultural relativism. Now that I am re-reading Sahagún and others I see that some of the captives who would be murdered and flayed fainted before reaching the temple; and their captors dragged them from their hairs to the sacrificial site.


 * If this is not violence and murder what is it? You seem to be siding the rulers of the Aztec empire, not its victims.
 * —Cesar Tort 07:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Murder is a question of legislation. Human sacrifice in aztec or any other Mesoamerican society is no more murder than capital punishment in a modern day state. The violence category may be appropriate (although I don't feel such a category is justified at all). You have to take care that you don't fall into the classical trap of believing blindly what the primary sources say and that you don't turn these topics into sensationalism. It is not a question about siding with victims or "murderers" it is a question about giving a fair, objective and balanced treatment of an historical topic.·Maunus· · ƛ · 08:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Human sacrifice in aztec or any other Mesoamerican society is no more murder than…

Aztec human sacrifice was murder for, say, the Tlaxcaltecas that complied a lot about the Aztec raids in their towns.


 * The violence category may be appropriate (although I don't feel such a category is justified at all)… don't turn these topics into sensationalism 

I merely copied and pasted those categories from the Human sacrifice article to this one.


 * You have to take care that you don't fall into the classical trap of believing blindly what the primary sources say

It is not a matter of belief. Archeology in my own Mexican town has proved to be the best smoking gun of all!


 * It is not a question about siding with victims or "murderers" it is a question about giving a fair, objective and balanced treatment of an historical topic.

Objective and balanced treatment doesn’t mean it’s unfair to label as violence or murder what happened to the Indian victims.

—Cesar Tort 08:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not right. The Tlaxcaltecs also sacrificed people, and knew full well that everybody had a risk of dying that way, in fact every civilization in Mesoamerica in 2000 years had sacrificed humans before the aztecs had sacrificed people. To label a bimillenial tradition of an entire cultural area as murder is at best ignorant. It appears you have already fallen into the trap I warned you about: the sources are always an expression of a viewpoint, and history is written by the victors, also ethnohistory - the Tlaxcalteca had a lot to gain from making the Mexica look bad, and it is well documented that they did. Sahagúns informants were Tlatelolca who had a century old gripe with the mexica. Reporting the statements of primary sources as "truth" without qualification or criticism is simply naïve. It is not aquestion of a smoking gun - we all know that human scrifice took place - what we don't know is how the practice was envisioned by those who practiced, why they did it, how often.  No matter what kind of archeological evidence is found in your town it cannot constitute evidence for statements about the nature of sacifice in aztec society - it can only say that someone was sacrifice and how. The why's and the wherefores need to come from an interpretation of the findings. And it is the interpretation that is liable to be coloured by sensationalism or the interpreters personal opinion - that is what you are doing. You think human sacrifice was horrible and chose to call it shocking murder - you cannot say with any right that that is an objective statement or that it gives us any information about how the practice was viewed by those who engaged in it. And yes it is unfair to label a cultural practice as murder - the term "murder" is an expression of a viewpoint and a value judgement, namely a wrongful killing of someone. This article should not take a viewpoint but should neutrally present facts. If your feelings about the topic are too strong to detach your self from your personal viewpoint and preent facts neutrally I suggest you step back for awhile.·Maunus· · ƛ · 10:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not right. The Tlaxcaltecs also sacrificed people… It appears you have already fallen into the trap I warned you about: the sources are always an expression of a viewpoint, and history is written by the victors, also ethnohistory - the Tlaxcalteca had a lot to gain from making the Mexica look bad…

I knew perfectly well that the Tlaxcaltecas practiced sacrifice, but this is irrelevant.


 * And yes it is unfair to label a cultural practice as murder - the term "murder" is an expression of a viewpoint and a value judgement, namely a wrongful killing of someone. 

The Aztecs’ neighbors considered as criminal the raids the Aztecs performed for sacrificial purposes. Even the Aztecs themselves considered criminal the capture of one of their merchants when he went outside Tenochtitlan and was cannibalized by some of their neighbors. Only the perpetrators —whether Tlaxcaltecas, Aztecs or otherwise— saw their sacrifices as non-criminal, though the very same act was considered criminal from the other side. (And this was long, long before Sahagún arrived.)


 * what we don't know is how the practice was envisioned by those who practiced…

It is pretty well known how the perpetrators envisioned the practice, and how the victims envisioned it: as anyone who has read the sources, some of them translated directly from Nauha, can see.


 * To label a bimillenial tradition of an entire cultural area as murder is at best ignorant… You think human sacrifice was horrible and chose to call it shocking murder - you cannot say with any right that that is an objective statement

This stuff of yours is cultural relativism at its very worst!


 * And it is the interpretation that is liable to be coloured by sensationalism or the interpreters personal opinion - that is what you are doing. 

You didn’t say a word about the fact that I copied and pasted the “violence” category I found in Human sacrifice. Also, I didn’t label the culture as murderous in the article itself, only in the categories section.


 * If your feelings about the topic are too strong to detach your self from your personal viewpoint and preent [sic] facts neutrally I suggest you step back for awhile

And this is an ad hominem rant. Even if I were an emotionally blind Mr. Spock I would be able to recognize, by pure logic, violence as violence and murder as murder. Your Indigenista feelings, not mine, are too strong to detach yourself from your personal viewpoint. And those are misguided Indigenista feelings by the way. As stated above, many Indians considered the sacrifices performed on their people by their enemies as something very wrong and criminal.

You have removed the categories of violence and murder without further discussion in this page. What can be done with this kind of behavior?

I hope that other editors will comment on this subject.

—Cesar Tort 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the category violence with a more adequate category "Religion and violence" which is a subcategory to the supercategory violence, if you look at the other articles categorised "murder" you will see that this article would be the odd one out in that category which is why I removed it. As for your accusations of e being "indigenista" I can only say tha anyone who knows my edithostory will see how ludicrous such a claim is. I have argued against indigenista viewpoints on this very page which you could have read if you had bothered to read older discussions (NoraBG doubted that human sacrifice even took place in Mesoamerica and that it was all blood libel against the indians). Also as a person who can in fact read the sources in the original language (nahuatl) and who is trained in doing it critically I can tell you that it is by no means "well known" that any mesoamerican cultures found human sacrifice to be criminal no mater where it was practiced - your claims are wild and unsupported. This will be the last I will contribute to this discussion as I feel what has been said speaks volumes and it will serve as a basis for any editor to judge for themselves. I will however keep on monitoring "human sacrifice" related articles and keep on working towards outbalancing the two opposing viewpoints trying to paint precolumbian cultures as either saints or angels, so that we may end up with a soewhat neutral representation of history.·Maunus· · ƛ · 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * if you had bothered to read older discussions (NoraBG doubted that human sacrifice even took place in Mesoamerica…

Actually I not only read the whole talk page, but printed and re-read it, which is now in one of my ring-binders. (I also read the flaming WP archives of other articles on sacrifice, such as the child sacrifice in Carthage.)


 * As for your accusations of e being "indigenista"…

I didn’t mean that you are a bona fide ignorant like NoraBG. I only meant that, like my Indigenistas countrymen Miguel León-Portilla, Beatriz Barba, Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, Guillermo Tovar and Yolotl González, while you all accept the historicity of the sacrifices at the same time take offence when someone labels as murderous the pre-Columbian cultures.

But not every Mexican intellectual has been an Indigenista in this sense. In his book Posdata Octavio Paz wrote:




 * I can tell you that it is by no means "well known" that any mesoamerican cultures found human sacrifice to be criminal no mater where it was practiced…

I didn’t mean that the cultures found sacrifice criminal, only that some Indians considered the raids on their towns as criminal, as anyone who has read some of the primary sources can see.


 * This will be the last I will contribute to this discussion

Good!

—Cesar Tort 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * CT, there is nothing much wrong with cultural relativism, it is a cornerstone of anthropological and ethnohistorical research, and properly understood is not the same thing as moral or ethical relativism. It's not about taking "sides". Uncritically projecting one's own value system upon another's culture may tell you something about contemporary attitudes, but is not helpful (in fact tends to impede) in the understanding of historical cultures.


 * It can hardly be doubted that the Aztec and other pre-Columbian cultures could be as venal, self-serving and disdainfully cruel as any other, past or present, in certain aspects. There are few if any cultures which come up all smelling of roses. However, you don't have to be an 'indigenista' to appreciate that our role as editors here is only to describe the practice as it is understood by citeable research sources, and not to sensationalise or imbue it with personal views on its ethics. This extends to how the article is categorised. Capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, killing animals for meat, are all labelled "murder" by some, yet their legitimacy is treated differently from state to state even today, and it would be problematic to generically categorise these as such (and presently they are not).


 * If is a supercat of  then it is entirely redundant, in any case.


 * By your own account you "...didn’t mean that the cultures found sacrifice criminal", so assigning this to a category implying criminality or illegitimacy (in the context in which it occurred) does not seem warranted. As far as whether or not "..[only some] Indians considered the raids on their towns as criminal", if they can be located than accounts of the populace's attitudes could be mentioned and expanded in the text, similarly for the conquistadors' responses.


 * Your parting crack at Maunus is a little uncalled for. As someone who's made many extensive and valuable contributions to the info on pre-Columbian cultures and languages to this encyclopaedia, he's as welcome as anyone to comment. So far, I see no-one else endorsing your proposed categorisation.--cjllw | TALK  04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong from a moral stance, cjllw. And you didn’t say a word about what Mexican winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, Octavio Paz, stated about the Aztec culture. Paz had moral stature; many wikipedians don’t (just take a look at my user page).

I’ve not been the only editor who believes that cultural relativism is an abomination. This sort of discussion has happened before. In this flaming debate a moral editor stated:

Cultural relativism is crap, believed only by idiots, ignoramuses, anthropologists and historians. The Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly rejects cultural relativism.

BTW, it would be easy to quote from primary sources the complaints of the Indians who considered criminal the Aztec raids. But I guess I’m pretty done with these articles.

—Cesar Tort 05:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Cool down everybody, please and observe WP:CIVIL.

Cesar Tort, you may earnestly believe that "cultural relativism is crap" but there's a fine line between stating your POV and denigrating those who don't agree with you. I understand that you didn't write the quoted sentence but your quoting it here and on the edit summary suggests that you agree and I think it's time for you to cool off and consider the importance of mutual respect and collegiality to the Wikipedia community.

Everybody, please take a break and look for a way to find compromise and consensus rather than contention and conflict.

--Richard 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed: it’s time for a break for civil chat with English tea. However, please, please take a look at this non-flaming article about cultural relativism:


 * Thanks!


 * —Cesar Tort 05:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (Breaks promised silence:)And you take a look at WP:NPOV.·Maunus· · ƛ · 08:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

CT, Since I've nowhere indicated what my own 'moral stance' on this may be -not because I lack one, but because it's kinda irrelevant for the purposes of discussing the article- I don't know on what basis you've formed that opinion. That (long-departed) 'moral editor' with a line in invective you've quoted from above was also fond of statements such as "Papuans are dumber than Europeans because they don't use electricity", "Primitives are not capable of rationality like we are", and "The primitive cultures are a failure. We should let them die...and not try to preserve this grotesque example of dead-end cultural evolution". You probably don't yourself support this eugenic rhetoric, but if this is where dogmatic moral absolutism leads us, I for one won't be following.

As far as the quotation from Paz goes - well, was the Aztec society really so inordinately blood-soaked as to be an aberration of history? Sounds like hyperbole to me, it'd be no effort at all to compile a list of cultures and practices throughout history into the modern age where the scale of human suffering rivalled or exceeded even the most calamitous estimates of Aztec sacrifice (even if lacking in its 'theatricality'). Maybe the truly aberrant cultures are those with fewer such episodes on their account. Anyway, in context Paz is probably more concerned with cautioning against romanticising the past, which in fact I do not disagree with.

I was only trying to make the point that the article needs to treat sensibly a topic that is frequently over-sensationalised, and that there is no need to editorialise in the article or its categorisation. Your moral editor evidently thought otherwise and that adopting the NPOV policy abdicates moral responsibility. I would have to disagree.--cjllw | TALK  07:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not read the whole discussion. Just skimming it makes my head hurt.  My personal stance would be that we should not classify human sacrifice in Aztec culture as murder because "within the mores of that culture", it was not considered murder.  I'm sure they had their own definition of murder which constituted killing "outside the mores of that culture".


 * That said, I recognize that categorization discussions are much more difficult than text discussions because categories are by their nature "black and white". Either an article is in the category or it's not.  There's no room for saying "Well... by our standards, we would consider it murder but, by their standards, they wouldn't so it really depends on which lens you are using to look at this phenomenon through".


 * Cesar, would you be willing to go with a solution that does not put this article in the "Homicide" category (or whatever category is at issue) but that does discuss in the text of the article the finer points of why this is murder when viewed from a 21st century perspective? Some of the points about compulsion could be brought up in this discussion.


 * Note, however, that we would not be able to put any opinions that arise from any of our personal views of the topic. We would have to look for the published views of anthropologists, historians and other reliable sources and cite them.  If this topic is worth getting into a pissing match over, then surely some experts in the field have also thought about these issues and have ventured forth an opinion or two.


 * --Richard 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I've nowhere indicated what my own 'moral stance' on this... 

You certainly did it when you advocated the abomination called cultural relativism.


 * "Papuans are dumber than Europeans…", "Primitives are not capable of rationality like we are", and "The primitive cultures are a failure. We should let them die...and not try to preserve this grotesque example of dead-end cultural evolution". You probably don't yourself support this eugenic rhetoric.

Of course I support it! Indeed, Ark is my hero in Wikiland even though I arrived here long after he left.

And by the way the word eugenic is misleading. Ark wasn’t talking about race but about the infanticidal childrearing methods among the Papuans. In fact, in one of my books I will label those guys who killed and ate their babies as “exterminable Neanderthals”. And it hurts me a lot that, while many people would accept that killing children in Auschwitz was wrong, when the same is done by parents in a tribal society then a schizophrenic double standard is used (“cultural relativism”). If the Nazis were “exterminable” —and I admire Eisenhower’s hate of them— why the hell wouldn’t the infanticidal Papuans be exterminable as well? It looks like you are identifying with the perp. As I said above, most wikipedians are not moral people and, like Ark, I will probably leave this entire wiki adventure pretty soon.


 * it'd be no effort at all to compile a list of cultures and practices throughout history into the modern age where the scale of human suffering rivalled or exceeded even the most calamitous estimates of Aztec sacrifice (even if lacking in its 'theatricality'). 

Agreed: the Assyrians and Genghis Kahan’s hordes committed heinous crimes; the Canaanites and the later Carthaginians burned alive their babies: a worse death that the Aztecs’ infanticidal practice, sure. All those cultures deserved extermination. I’m glad that the Romans won the Punic wars.


 * There is no need to editorialise in the article or its categorisation. Your moral editor [Ark] evidently thought otherwise and that adopting the NPOV policy abdicates moral responsibility. I would have to disagree. 

NPOV is inherently immoral. Just take a look at the angry letter I wrote to Jimbo here.


 * My personal stance would be that we should not classify human sacrifice in Aztec culture as murder because "within the mores of that culture", it was not considered murder. I'm sure they had their own definition of murder which constituted killing "outside the mores of that culture".

Again: this is the extreme moral abomination known as cultural relativism and I really don’t want to engage anymore with people that hold such Nazi views (pace Godwin's Law). After all, within the mores of the German culture of the early 1940s the ethnic cleansing was not considered murder; the Germans called it pacification. Am I supposed to fall in a state of folie à deux with that fucking German culture? Furthermore, I have stated innumerable times that the victims of the Aztec raids considered murderous those raids (even though they themselves practiced sacrifices on their own: the whole Mesoamerican culture was a serial-killing culture).


 * Cesar, would you be willing to go with a solution that does not put this article in the "Homicide" category

Yes! Forget that I exist! Forget the whole thing and never discuss it again! (and in my case, give up Wikipedia).


 * Note, however, that we would not be able to put any opinions that arise from any of our personal views of the topic. 

I never wrote my own opinion in the article: that Mesoamericans were serial killers. Paz’s opinion, on the other hand, is heresy in the academia but it deserves a place in the article (I’m glad that he, and not my Neanderthal Indigenista countrymen, won the Nobel Prize though).


 * We would have to look for the published views of anthropologists, historians and other reliable sources and cite them. 

Most of the anthropologists and historians’ views are “fucked” according to Ark, Lloyd deMause and the rest of the psychohistorians. But there are at least a few of them who have written harsh words about the sacrifices, infanticide and cannibalism and not only among the Mesoamericans but about many other cultures as well. They’re not cultural relativists but moral absolutists.

The relativists still dominate the academia. It’s my prediction that the psychoclass that composes most present-day anthropologists and historians will die before the 23rd century. The paradigm will shift and psychohistorians will take over. Murderous cultures will be seen as we see today the Third Reich. Unfortunately I won’t be alive by then.

Good bye.

—Cesar Tort 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to write from a moralist viewpoint I reccomend Conservapedia.·Maunus· · ƛ · 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven’t read my user page. I don’t like Christianity or conservatism at all!! —Cesar Tort 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read the emotional outbursts on your userpage and I realize you probably don't agree with most of their viewpoints but a least you'll agree with them that cultural relativity is an abomination and that NPOV is amoral.·Maunus· · ƛ · 21:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For the first time I don’t understand what are you talking about. Is this sarcasm or am I missing something? —Cesar Tort 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cesar, I think it would be a loss to Wikipedia if you leave. You have strong opinions and I would wish that you would express them more civilly but I think your opinion deserves to be heard AND expressed in relevant articles. Even if La Paz is a minority opinion, we should incorporate it into relevant articles as long as we characterize it as a minority opinion.

I agree with you in part that we must not excuse the acts of our ancestors. However, I think we must understand our ancestors for who they were and who we are. They were immoral and we are also immoral although perhaps in different ways and in ways that we may not understand and be ready to accept as being immoral. You cannot exterminate all our immoral ancestors because we evolved from them. We would have to exterminate ourselves as well.

They are part of our past and they are part of who we are. We can only hope to understand them better (without excusing them) and, in so doing, understand ourselves better as well.

Who knows what our descendants will think of us in 1000 or 2000 years. Maybe they will consider abortion to be murder. Maybe they consider world hunger and undernourishment to be murder. Maybe "assisted suicide" will be considered murder. Maybe it will not.

In any event, getting back to the categorization debate, the problem is that "murder" has multiple meanings. Is war murder, is ethnic cleaning murder, is capital punishment murder, is abortion murder? Some would say these acts are murder. Others would say that "murder" has a legal definition and these other acts may be wrong but that it is a strong POV statement to characterize them as murder. And others would find moral justifications for each of these acts.

It is not Wikipedia's job to identify "THE TRUTH" and then present it. That is an impossible and futile effort. We can only hope to represent "human knowledge" in all its varied and flawed aspects. Yours is one truth. Other people have a different opinion. You are sure that they are wrong. Guess what, they are sure that you are wrong. We can only present all significant POVs and then let the reader decide.

--Richard 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Richard: It is not *my* truth what the Indians felt about the raids. They felt they were murderous raids as Bernal Díaz recorded. I am not pushing the pov that we have to categorize this article in that category though. I really don’t care. I was just complaining about the moral standards of the editors.


 * Regarding what you say about our ancestors I agree. I would probably have been a serial killer had I been born here, in Tenochtitlan, 500 years ago. Octavio Paz (not “La Paz”) wrote:




 * Elliot Weinberger has translated much of Paz’s stuff in English. However, I only have his works in Spanish and wouldn’t dare to translate it myself. I apologize in advance to curious readers who in the future may be fascinated about the above flaming but don’t understand Spanish.


 * Our descendants won’t consider assisted suicide murder, but we may speculate that they’ll consider a crime to allow the abusive parents to breed like rabbits, as millions presently do. But this soap-boxing goes beyond discussion of the improvement of the page.  If I do anything else here it won’t be to argue about categorization. As I said, at least for me that discussion is over.  Besides expanding this page needs to re-arrange the endnotes like the other Mesoamerican articles.  I don’t know if I’ll have the time to do it.


 * And I still think that NPOV is amoral. For instance, eugenics was accepted in society a few decades ago. Now it’s considered a pseudoscience. Had Wikipedia existed then, the minority opinion (that eugenics was not science) would have to be marginalized due to the “due weight” policy. But this scenario *is* happening today with the WP psychiatry articles: a discipline that in the future will be recognized as pseudo as the eugenics movement.


 * —Cesar Tort 19:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the discussion of how other Mesoamerican peoples viewed the Aztecs?
Cesar, while I still do not think that this article should be in the Category:Murder, I wish to point out that I was not able to find any of what you've written above in the article text. As I've stated above, I think it is easier to get across the nuances of how other Mesoamerican peoples in the Aztec empire viewed the need to provide victims for human sacrifice. You've alluded to this, I think you said it was in Bernal Diaz's writings. Can you write a section about this for the article? --Richard 22:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, I don’t want to argue any more whether or not it’s pertinent to categorize sacrifice as murder. I just got upset above because of our fellow editors’ standards (“relativism”).


 * Re Bernal Díaz I will type one of the many Indian complaints in his book. If you have the English version you can find it in chapter XLVI.


 * When the Spanish reached the town Cempoal the Indian chief which had to pay tribute to the Mexicas complained, according to Díaz:




 * This is only one passage of the many towns that complied about the raids. But this one was not even a raid: Cempoal was already a tribute town. Though the episode was not a Flower War it gives the picture that the tribute of giving one’s own sons for sacrifice, or watching the raping of the women and daughters by the Aztecs, was something that the people of Cempoal considered criminal.


 * —Cesar Tort 01:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bernal Diáz is not an unproblematic source. Firstly Bernal Dàz never leanerd to speak or understand an indian language - his account is only based on his iterpretation of events that he didnt fully understand. Secodnly it was written down around 40 years after the events when he was an old man living as an encomendero having lots of indian slaves that he abused. At the same time his encomendro was within the bishopric of Bartolomé de Las Casas with whom he had many disputes concerning the legitimacy of the conquest and the way the indians were treated. Bernal díaz' book is full of Conquest apologetics, just like Cortés' lettes - they are simply trying to justify their conquest of teh ztecs and what better way to do this than by painting them as an evil people and making it look like the spaniards liberated the indian towns from the evil aztecs. Secondly it s obvious that peoples that are subject to the aztecs would take the chance and ally themselves with the new comers against the state that conquered and subjugated them - it has always worked like that in Mesoamerica. A power is only a power untill its subjects form an allianc to overcome them. The subjugated cities themselves had an interest in making the aztecs look worse than they were and to convince the spaniards into helping them against them. You guys are just eating up Bernal Díaz' words uncritically - you shouldn't use primary sources at all if your aren't trained in how to use them critically. Furthermore it is basically OR. You should find scholarly works that interpret the sources and cite them instead of interpreting the sources yourself.·Maunus· · ƛ · 09:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. So what do the scholars say?  While I undersand and accept your points above, I'm not convinced that these criticisms result in the scholars having a different opinion from what is written in the article.


 * Are there sources that suggest that the victims were given up willingly? Is this an NPOV situation where we need to say that some sources say victims were given up willingly and others say they were not?


 * --Richard 14:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that you can dig up quotes from primary sources that say anything you want them to say. The question for a scholar is to weight them up against eachother in a balanced way. There are sources that say that sacrificial victims were willing. The most common viewpoint is that they often were to a degree - there are many examples of Mesoamerican stories of heroes who meet their death bravely and without remorse - for example the story of Tlacahuepantzin a tlaxcaltec who was considered a hero among the aztecs for his brave acceptance of defeat, and also the K'iche drama of the Kiche knight who after valiant battle wilfully submits to his fate at the sacrificial altar. The florentine codex contains accounts of how the good, respectable sacrificial victim would meet his fate without tears or screaming. The florentine codex was not written by aztecs, Sahagúns informants were tlatelolca - one of the peoples subjugated by the aztecs.
 * Cesár tort has openly admitted that he works on an agenda - this means that we cannot rely on him to pick sources that present mesoamerican reality or even the status of scholarship in a non biased way - he has even sated above that NPOV is immoral. NPOV is a basic tenet of wikipedia! As you can see from his answer below his only way to understand history is assuming that historical people thought and felt the same as he does - Fact is he doesn't know the first thing about how people five hundred years ago in a culture completely different from his felt or thought about the events in their life. Diáz did not know the language of Cuba and it is completely evident from his work that he had no understanding of or skills in any other mesoamerican language. Contrary to what Cesar states most scholars only use Bernal Díaz with the greatest caution simply because his account is written from memory almost fifty years after the events took place. This is simply a question of tendentious editing from User:Cesar Tort, he even manages to stick in Lloyd de Mause for christs sake, hardly a mesoamericanist scholar. And yes the article needs to be mended towards an NPOV.·Maunus· · ƛ · 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this an NPOV situation where we need to say that some sources say victims were given up willingly and others say they were not?

What a question! Generally people don’t want to be sacrificed.

Díaz knew the native language of Cuba and some speculate that he learnt a little Nahua. He is considered a reliable source among most scholars.

While a couple of French scholars, like the Mexican Indigenistas, used to idealize the Aztecs a few decades ago, some American scholars are now expressing similar views to Díaz, like the author of Cannibal Kingdom. There are more moderate authors, like David Carrasco, but still very different from those who idealize.

And BTW, Díaz didn't like his boss Diego Velázquez's use of the natives as slaves.

—Cesar Tort 16:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Two minor points
Re the recent citation request I didn’t quote Sahagún (“sighted for”). I found the text as it is today. Perhaps it is a bad translation from the original Spanish, chapter XXIV of Historia General de las cosas de Nueva España. The text reads:

As to Richard’s starting subsection, “According to Bernal Diaz, the chiefs of the surrounding towns would complain on numerous [times] to Cortes about…”. English may not be my native language, but isn’t the word in brackets missing in the text?

—Cesar Tort 05:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not intending to provide a literal English translation of the Spanish text that you provided but rather a general description of what I imagined Bernal Diaz's basic point was. The reason I wrote "on numerous occasions" was because you wrote "one of the many Indian complaints". Thus, I extrapolated the Spanish text that you provided to be representative of the other "many Indian complaints". You are welcome to refine, expand and otherwise correct what I wrote. I only wrote it because you seemed to be hesitant to write it and I figured it would be easier for you to fix something that was badly written once it was written than for you to come up with a "perfect" sentence yourself.

--Richard 06:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But you actually wrote "towns would complain on numerous to Cortés". The word "occasions" is missing. —Cesar Tort 06:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, you're right. I fixed it. --Richard 06:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As I promised above: Bye bye
Maunus idealizes my town’s culture and I have no time to argue an obvious point anymore.

Yes: there were some Mesoamericans heavily indoctrinated that believed that dying in sacrifice was the passport to a better life at the Sun (like some present-day terrorists believe that to die in martyrdom is passport to heaven). But those Mesoamericans were not the majority.

I don’t side the Spanish. It hurts that the most beautiful city of the world, Tenochtitlan, was razed by them. My pov is simple: compassion for the Indian victims. In fact, my father composed a musical oratory in honor to Bartolomé de las Casas, the champion for the Indian rights against the excesses of the Spanish Conquest. But Maunus wants us to believe that, before the Conquest, people felt different about sacrifice than us. If that were true there would have been no need for Flower Wars. Despite all of its anachronisms and historical inaccuracies, Gibson’s Apocalypto gives the picture of what the raids were. The point of these perennial wars was, clearly, to capture victims for sacrifice by force.

If you want to believe, like Maunus, that people wanted to be flayed, burned alive, decapitated or that children wanted their nails torn out and to cry all their way to immolation, please go ahead!

Maunus et al are quite scholars on the aseptic, left-hemisphere brain subjects such as the science of language and the diverse Maya languages. But when it comes to the holocaust perpetrated in the country where I was born, he idealizes it.

I could easily go now to my library and cite the source that says that Díaz learnt a native language. If it wasn’t the Cuban it was another one: I read this about a week ago and the memory of having read it is still fresh. But it would be futile and I have already lost my patience. The above-mentioned book by David Carrasco is moderate; it may be good to demonstrate that present-day scholars take the XVI century primary sources seriously.

I’m afraid that I shall now unwatch this article from my list, which means I won’t even see whatever is posted here from now on. However, I’d like to write this as a friendly parting word: Can anyone translate what I posted above about what Sahagún really said (instead of the unsourced quotation “sighted for”)? That is the only citation requested for the moment.

—Cesar Tort

·Maunus· · ƛ · 09:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) You do not know what the majority of mesoamericans felt.
 * 2) I don't want you to believe that the indians felt differently about sacrifice than we do, I want you to acknowledge that we don't know how they felt, and that the only way we can come closer to guessing at how they felt is by the responisble and balanced use of the extant sources, not by a psychohistorical reconstruction of their emotional states.
 * 3) Flower Wars are no longer thought to have been waged primarily to supply sacrificial victims, thats another point of the article that has o be changed.
 * 4) I have nowhere stated what I believe the sacrificial victims to have felt - I call straw man.
 * Yes, Davíd Carrasco is a good scholar and we should include wat he has to say.

Unclear sentence
Either there's a clause missing, or something else remiss with the following sentence:
 * Lloyd deMause has argued that, like present-day self harmers, the Aztecs also practiced bloodletting from cuts made with obsidian knives or bone needles on fleshy parts of the body..

In what respect is deMause apperently claiming Aztec bloodletting resembles "present-day self harmers"? It starts off "deMause has argued.." but then no argument follows. IMO it's debatable whether deMause's views, whatever they may be, are all that relevant or notable here.--cjllw | TALK  08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I stated above that I wouldn’t argue anymore. However, just as Maunus wrote last Thursday: “Breaks promised silence” after he had written: “This will be the last I will contribute to this discussion”, now I also break my promised silence :)


 * You are right: the argument in the text is missing. Psychohistorians have written a lot about human sacrifice. Whether for you or the WP community their views are notable enough to include them in the present article I cannot ascertain though.


 * DeMause accepts some of the psychiatrists’ observations about mental behaviors, including self-harming. But unlike present-day psychiatrists psychohistorians are not bio-reductionists. The argument of the psychogenic theory of self-harming, including Mesoamerican self-harming, is complex. Perhaps the best way to present it is just to copy and paste part of a lively, albeit rather long, discussion from this talk page:

The scientific foundation of the locus of control shift is Piaget and developmental psychology. We know several things about the cognition of children age two to seven. I summarize this as kids think like kids. Young children are self-centered. They are at the center of the world, and everything resolves around them. They cause everything in the world and they do so through magical causality. They do not use rational, analytical, adult cognitive strategies and vocabulary.

Imagine a relatively normal family with a four year-old daughter. One day, the parents decide to split up and dad moves out. What is true for this little girl? She is sad [...].

Using normal childhood cognition, the little girl constructs a theory to explain her field observation: “Daddy doesn’t live here anymore because I didn’t keep my bedroom tidy.

This is really a dumb theory. It is wrong, incorrect, inaccurate, mistaken and preposterous [...]. This is how normal kids think. But there is more to it than that [...]. The little girl thinks to herself, “I’m OK. I’m not powerless. I’m in charge. I’m in control. And I have hope for the future. Why? Because I have a plan. All I have to do is to tide up my bedroom and daddy will move back in. I feel OK now.”

The little girl has shifted the locus of control from inside her parents, where it really is, to inside herself. She has thereby created an illusion of power, control and mastery which is developmentally [i.e., attachment] protective.

Colin A. Ross explains that this is normal and happens in many non-abusive, though dysfunctional, families. He then explains what happens in extremely abusive families:

Now consider another four year-old girl living in a major trauma family. She has the problem of attachment to the perpetrator big time. What is true of this little girl?

This other girl is powerless, helpless, trapped, and overwhelmed. She can’t stop the abuse, she can’t escape it, and she can’t predict it. She is trapped in her family societal denial, her age, threats, physical violence, family rules and double binds. How does the little girl cope? She shifts the locus of control.

The child says to herself, “I’m not powerless, helpless and overwhelmed. I’m in charge here. I’m making the abuse happen. The reason I’m abused is because I’m bad. How do I know this is true? Because only a bad little girl would be abused by her parents” [...].

So, in near-psychotic families:

The locus of control shift is like an evil transfusion. All the evil inside the perpetrator has been transfused into the self, making the perpetrator good and safe to attach to —the locus of control shift helps to solve the problem of attachment to the perpetrator. The two are intertwined each other.

The grown up child psychiatric patient in Ross clinic is now a self-harmer (“I am evil” said one of these patients) ( BTW, I have visited that clinic in Dallas and I have seen such patients). She hasn’t reversed the locus of control shift since her childhood. Ross claims that his therapy —the reversal— has cured many self-harmers.

Of course, the above is Ross’ text, not deMause’s. I quoted it only because it was easier for me to copy and paste something that has already been posted in WP than from the printed material I have of psychohistorians. However, the above illustrates how deMause considers self-harming too, including Mesoamerican self-harming and self-harming in the Old World. Since Mesoamericans belonged to the psychoclass called early infanticidal childrearing, the surviving siblings of the sacrificed children internalized a homicidal super-ego.

For psychohistorians the average Mesoamerican lived in a family at least as abusive as those who, in today’s world, produce self-harmers.

—Cesar Tort 18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Scratched comment
I have copied this discussion here from my Talk Page so that all editors can read it and comment on it if they wish. --Richard 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re your comment you removed—:


 * All of this is very interesting and should be documented somewhere, maybe even in this article. Wherever we choose to document it, we must make very clear the distinction between mainstream historical analysis and the viewpoint of the psychohistorians.
 * One thing that I'm a bit confused about though is the use of "self-harming" as applied to Mesoamericans. Are we claiming that the Mesoamericans were "self-harming" in the sense of an individual using an obsidian knife to harm himself or are we saying that the entire society was "self harming" in their use of human sacrifice? I think it's the latter but I think the text is unclear as to what is meant and is more likely to be read in the former interpretation.
 * --Richard 19:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the first interpretation was the correct one (and BTW the Aztecs didn’t self-harm with obsidian knives but with maguey thorns; the obsidian knives were used for human sacrifice). If the distinction was unclear it's because I was only responding to cjllw. On the other hand, psychohistorians do believe that Mesoamericans internalized murderous drives due to their childrearing practices. —Cesar Tort 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeh, I had forgotten about the maguey thorns when I wrote my comment and then remembered it a few minutes after I saved the comment. I realized that was what you were referring to and not human sacrifice. That's why I scratched the comment.


 * The implication, however, is that the sentence belongs elsewhere (e.g. in Aztec religion) and not in Human sacrifice in Aztec culture.


 * --Richard 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, since psychohistorians talk more about murderous drives due to early infanticidal childrearing (a couple of hours ago I overhauled that article since it was pretty awful —I had never read it carefully!) than self-harming, any mention, however brief, about psychohistory belongs more to the human sacrifice articles than to religious articles. —Cesar Tort 06:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But this goes back to my original point. "Self-harming" by means of maguey thorns belongs in Aztec religion.  Psychohistorical analysis of human sacrifice belongs in Human sacrifice in Aztec culture.  Human sacrifice is not "self-harming" except if viewed from a familial or societal perspective.  It requires a different concept of "self" than is typically meant when the phrase "self-harming" is used. --Richard 16:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that the word "self-harming" is not used in the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article. Perhaps you changed the text?  In any event, I'm fine with the current text.  My major concern was the concept of human sacrifice as self-harming although I understand that it can be construed that way.  If human sacrifice is to be presented as self-harming, you really need to connect the dots for the reader as the average person will not necessarily follow the line of logic. --Richard 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I was just confused since the short section about the “psychological explanation” which mentions deMause is not the same sentence that cjllw called our attention to, which I responded with that long Colin Ross quotation. This subject belongs to Aztec religion (though it’s a bit blurred now after Madman2001 inserted the Maya self-harming image; I have no objections about that image though).


 * On the other hand, the “psychological explanation” section which also mentions deMause belongs to the human sacrifice article.


 * I have been corresponding with deMause the last few days and incidentally I mentioned the wiki article on Aztec sacrifice. He seems to have read it, and he very briefly commented it: “My theory is that all wars, including Bush's, are for the purpose of providing the Killer Motherland with children's tears. Like the Aztecs”. I think I can find a printed source for this but I don’t want to make any changes until consensus is reached in the talk page about whether our fellow editors consider sufficiently notable psychohistorians’ views as to allow a short section on it (as short as it is today).


 * —Cesar Tort 18:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I consider all of this to be a lot of claptrap and psychobabble. However, since I have a strong commitment to WP:NPOV, I won't object to its inclusion as long as it is adequately sourced, explained clearly for the average reader and not given undue weight (i.e. it is characterized as one perspective rather than "THE TRUTH"). --Richard 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can consider it whatever you may want to, but Ross’ views on self-harming have scientific foundations, as can be seen in the italicized paragraphs of this talk page. —Cesar Tort 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose that the psychohistorian's approach is no more or less noteworthy than other sidebranches of historiographical methodology, such as Marxist, deconstructivist, revisionist, or whatever. However, to the best of my knowledge psycho-historical analyses do not feature in any subfield of Mesoamerican research literature, and so I'd say any mentions here need only be brief and placed in such a context that the reader is aware they are a non-standard or 'outside' interpretation. From what I have seen Mr. DeMause is not and does not represent himself as an expert on Mesoamerican cultures and history, or indeed on any specific cultural setting.


 * I think we are all agreed that the DeMause and Aztec bloodletting sentence belongs in another article, with Aztec religion being the most suitable and presently existing candidate. The actual argument being made still needs identifying- is deMause arguing something specific to the Aztec practice, or is it only an interpolation made from a supposition concerning the childhood-derived psychological motivations of 'self-harming' in general?


 * In either case, I wonder whether the "early infanticidal childrearing psychoclass" classification is extended to all of the myriad other cultures and religions worldwide, of all ages, where some form of mortification of the flesh is known- flagellant monks in their cells, penitents with hairshirts, ascetics on starvation rations, Easter processionals on crucifixes in modern-day Philippines, Mexico, and elsewhere? As a symbolic demonstration -of piety, or of fealty to the state and society, or (in the case of the elite) of their fitness to rule by divine association-, the Aztecs with their maguey thorns and the Maya with their stingray barbs are more akin to these, and hardly more shocking. I dunno if the psychohistorian viewpoint allows for any other motives than the pyschodrama recounted by the Ross extract, above.--cjllw | TALK  09:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes: a brief mention of the psychohistorians’ views sounds ok. It’s true that deMause is no Mesoamerican scholar, but it’s also true that psychohistorians constantly refer to child sacrifice in their writings (sometimes mentioning Mesoamerica).


 * Moving the self-harm stuff to the other article is ok with me but I’d prefer that other editors do it.


 * If a culture doesn’t practice child sacrifice it does not belong to the category early infanticidal childrearing. Psychohistorians even label with a different name the cultures that didn’t sacrifice but that exposed their babies, late infanticidal childrearing: such as the ancient and far less barbarous Greece and Rome. This is the psychogenic reason why these guys developed intellectually and not the other ancient cultures. Most people in the Old World were schizoids (remember The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?).


 * —Cesar Tort 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to move it myself, only I'm not sure I entirely grasp deMause's point here- is he saying that Aztec ritual bloodletting is motivated by the same pyschoses he attributes to present-day self-harmers, or....?--cjllw | TALK  04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He is stating precisely that, though there is a major difference between he and Julian Jaynes, the author of the above-mentioned book. Both believe that people in the Old World were far more dissociated than us.  The average Aztec was a self-harmer that used maguey thorns for identical causes —poor parenting— that some modern men and women are self-harmers, as explained in Ross’ psychodrama above.  —Cesar Tort 05:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of protein => cannibalism
I think this "widely discredited" theory barely deserves mention here and, if it is included, does not deserve to be given the emphasis of being mentioned explicitly while "other theories" are not. If this is mentioned, then the "revenge for infanticidal childbearing" theory might as well be mentioned here also.

--Richard 19:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The “lack of protein” theory is pretty dumb. One of the reasons it was discarded is simple: several tribe societies were cannibals even though there was plenty of animal protein in their milieu. The reasons of cannibalism must be searched for elsewhere. However, I ignore how serious that theory was once taken by the academia as to ascertain whether it merits further discussion. —Cesar Tort 20:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * it is dumb. The reason why it dserves mention is that it is very often repeated in the popular media . Much more often than either the psychological and political explanations which are in my view equally dumb.And the psycho-social theory is mentioned in the lead as well.·Maunus· · ƛ · 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether dumb or not there is still the "religious interpretation" of David Carrasco, City of Sacrifice: The Aztec Empire and the Role of Violence in Civilization. —Cesar Tort 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is also the account of Cabeza de Vaca The Account: Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca's Relation which states "Five Christians who had taken shelter on the coast become so desperate that they ate one another... The Indians were quite upset by this happening and were so shocked that they [Indians] would have killed the men had they seen this happening." This statement from an eyewitness account of the time would suggest that the native population didn't take kindly to cannibalism. Granted, this was in North America rather than Mexico, but there is evidence which suggests healthy trade between the nations. I find it hard to believe the North American "Indians" would trade with Aztecs if they practiced cannibalism 71.141.91.49 08:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the theory is discredited, there should be a journal reference for that in the article. Calling it "pretty dumb" is not very helpful, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.187.187.130 (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't call it dumb but provides references to the most important rebuttals.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aah, OK. I never got any further than the introduction, where the only reference was to the initial theory. I tend to associate references with discussion, so I assumed that was the last word of it. The internet is giving me some dangerous reading habits... Sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.187.187.130 (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lead
Cesar Tort moved a couple of paragraphs that I had written out of the lead and into its own secion. I did however have a specific purpose in mind when I chose to put it in the lead. Namely to make the lead comply with the following passus in the WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." The controversies are just about the most important aspect of this article and a reader who reads only the lead should be aware of the controversial nature of the topic as well as the main viewpoints. This is why the paragraphs that are now in the "Controversies" section should be returned to the lead section. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 20:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * Agree in principle but I think only the second paragraph should be restored (copied) to the lead. The "lack of protein" theory doesn't belong in the lead because it has been "widely discredited".  If we need another example of controversy then it should be about the controversy over the numeric scale of human sacrifice as discussed some time ago by Nanahuatzin.  --Richard 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But even if the paragraphs are returned above my guess is that they should be placed below the "Controversies" section. What do other editors think about it? —Cesar Tort 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep the controversies section as is and copy the first paragraph back to the lead, adding in the "scale of human sacrifice" issue if you feel competent to write about it. --Richard 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Cannibalism for protein theory in my opinion deseves mention in the lead exactly because it has been widely discredited after being first widely believed and propagated by the popular media. You can still sometimes see it mentioned in popular science journals. This is why it should be in the lead and explicitly debunked while the other theories that are fringy but haven't been discredited yet shouldn't.·Maunus· · ƛ · 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I defer to Maunus' expertise. Restore it all. --Richard 20:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But why shouldn't those para. appear under the heading Controversy even if moved above? —Cesar Tort 20:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * because having it all appear twice would be ...well... redundant.·Maunus· · ƛ · 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about a single Controversy section placed under the Lead. —Cesar Tort 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to a controversy section outside of the lead - as long as the lead also contains an outline of the controversies of the topic and as long as the contents of such a controversy section is not the same as the outline of the controversies in the lead but rather a more in depth treatment of them. Although I do think that the controversy and different interpretations are pretty well covered already.·Maunus· · ƛ · 21:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already relocated it. Is it ok now? —Cesar Tort 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No the controversy section was after the lead not in it. I have moved the section into the lead now and left the controversy section in situ. Now it just states the same thing twice - but I expect that the controversy section in time will become a a more in depth treatment. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 07:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense at all to repeat the same thing twice. One of the two, preferably the fist one, must be moved. —Cesar Tort 08:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it makes no sense at all to repeat it. But as I stated before there has to be a summary of the controversies in the lead in order for it to comply with wp:lead. I leave it up to you to either write a functional controversy section that is not a copy of the lead paragraphs or delete the controversy section all together.·Maunus· · ƛ · 09:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If sound references are not cited for the claim that—:

"To emphasize the fact that human sacrifice was practiced is seen by many present-day indigenous groups as an attempt to subject them to a kind of 'blood libel' which could undermine their efforts to have their human rights respected by the governments to which they are subject."

I believe that the whole section ought to be moved again to the Controversy section at the end of the article. —Cesar Tort 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Graphic
An old history teacher of mine I once knew at the Cuyamaca Community College told me that the Priests tried their best to make the sacrififce as graphic as possible whilst keeping the victum alive to "please" the gods. If thats true than the credibility of the so called exagerations should not be questioned since they are not so. Tourskin.
 * The credibility of that statement depends on just how old you "old history teacher" was. If he was old enough to have seen it himself he may have a point, otherwise he doesn't. We simply don't know a lot of details about the number of sacrificial victims nor how "graphically" it was done.·Maunus· · ƛ · 20:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How Outrageous
For the Aztec or to kill that many people per year is OUTRAGEOUS! Do you know how many they would have to kill per minute? According to the numbers their up there with the Nazi, and they had machine guns, while the Aztecs had clubs! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.42.78 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I took the liberty to correct the spelling above ("Outragious"). —Cesar Tort 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

YOU SHOULD NOTE
You should note that even before the Spanish knew of the Mexica, they were torturing killing jewish and muslim peoples, plus during the Spanish-Mexica war many millions of christians were being burned at the stake in Europe... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.165.241 (talk • contribs)


 * WP is no soapbox (I'm no defender of intolerant Spain; anyway, "millions" is innacurate). —Cesar Tort 03:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This an article about human sacrifice & the Aztec culture, and not about Spain. Take it over there, please.  Madman 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * can I remove these exchanges? —Cesar Tort 03:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No reason to. They can be archived.·Maunus· · ƛ · 09:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as they don't stray into messing up article mainspace. The same anon made more curious comments at Talk:Maya calendar...these things don't require responses.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 15:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

evil
the aztecs were evil.

Has any historian of means ever considered that what was interpreted as sacrifice by Spanish speaking Catholics might have been merely capitol punishment? We cannot know of their laws as the Church considered all writing EXCEPT latin to be demonic and burned the libraries of the Aztecs. They may have "sacrificed" murderers, rapists, thieves, or even dissidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.27.247 (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure there is plenty of contemporary evidence to suggest that innocents were also being sacrificed. This doens't neccesary prove they were evil eithier. --Jtd00123 (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Aztecs had libraries only in alternate universe of the politically correct. Meishern (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As a completely POV aside, I'm inclined to agree- it was institutionalized torture/murder and no person with any reasonable degree of empathy can disagree. Apologists often say "It was just their culture" but that doesn't make it any more right. It's sad that mesoamerican societies fell in the way they did but you can't disagree that it was... karmic, to say the least. 69.137.60.87 (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Population Control, the need for human protein in their diet etc., etc., anything except the idea of evil as being a reason for human sacrifice. These people were evil, that is the best explanation why they did it. This society was almost wiped out from the diseases brought from Europe, and this is just a few years after the record number of over 80,000 they sacrificed in a 4 day period, with a 250,000 sacrificed estimate per year. Well...it is lower than the amount of abortions in the U.S. per year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sahagun reference needs clarity
It is very hard to check claims made becase the citation is not complete. In the Huehueteotl section the claim is made that newlyweds were sacrificed by burning followed by heart extraction. I challenged this claim and was referred to Sahagun, op cit p.83. However, when I look at the relevant entry, the ceremonies in Xocotl Huetzi, this sacrifice is not mentioned. There is a problem with the initial Sahagun citation in that the volume is not given. I have Sahagun's "Historia Genral de las Cosas de la Nueva Espana" in a number of editions (including the 12 multivolume Florentine Codex). The edition cited, published by Porrua, is the 2006 edition, but it is just a reissue of the original 1956 edition, I have the 1969 edition and it is in four volumes. The festivities of Xocotl Huetzi ,in which sacrifices to Xiuhtecuhtli (Huehueteotl) the fire god, are described, is in Sahagun,B. 1969. Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva Espana. A. M Garibay, ed. Book 2 Ch X, vol. 1, pp. 120-122. Mexico: Porrua. Unless the 2006 Porrua edition is a 1 volume abridgment a citation to p. 83 would not refer to this festival. This claim still needs a verifiable citation.Itzcoatl (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree.•Maunus• • ƛ • 18:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've left a note for the provider of that cite (Cesar Tort) asking him to clarify the source/edition/passage. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 04:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay: I had no longer this page on my watchlist.

My Porrua 2006 edition is indeed one sole volume of 1061 pages: the twelve books plus several intros & long appendix (the size of the Times New Roman letters seems #10). I quote from page 83:



—Cesar Tort 06:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It would be a good idea to standardize the endnotes; for example, the multiple citations to a single volume to avoid confusion. Alas, every time I try to do it I mess up the page (the last time I did I messed up this article's endnotes! :) —Cesar Tort 06:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for that clarification, CT. And yes, agreed that the endnote referencing style here needs a good overhaul...will see if I can make a start on it. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 11:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for for providing the citation. As I surmised you were using a 1 volume edition, nevertheless my cite above i.e. ch X, Book 1 is the passage you cite. Again, as I suspected it says nothing about sacrificing newlyweds, Thus, I will delete that claim because it is not supported.Itzcoatl (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops! That claim has been removed already, I missed it.Itzcoatl (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed it and explained in CJLL's talk page what could have happened with that claim. Cheers. —Cesar Tort 03:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatl,
I have heard about the absence of human sacrifices at his temples, when they compared him to the war gods, he has been represented as the one used moreso with the toltecs and teotihuacanos...Domsta333 (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Estimates of the scope of the sacrifices
Michael Harner's stats look a bit unrealistic. 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 (Nuevas perspectivas sobre el sacrificio humano entre los mexicas), will be published by the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. But it won't be available until this October. With such data I hope the real scope of the sacrifices according to 21st century scholarship may be more fairly estimated (and added to the article). Meanwhile the tapes of the seminary are unavailable to me. Anyone got a better source than Harner's? —Cesar Tort 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An anonymous editor has removed the paragraph on estimates. I reverted but I agree that it should be corrected with more conservative figures. Unfortunately, I have learned that the book about the above-mentioned seminary won't be published until 2009. —Cesar Tort 22:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, when those conference proceedings come out they should prove to be a highly valuable reference, look forward to its publication. In the meantime, perhaps some quotes from the press conferences given at the seminar could be worked in. López Luján has given some representative quotes, I believe. From this article in Diario de Mexico, speaking of the Templo Mayor excavations he's quoted as saying: "“sólo hemos encontrado restos de 127 personas en todas las épocas, es muy probable que encontremos más pero nunca vamos a llegar a los números exagerados por los conquistadores”. Re the alleged many thousands sacrificed at the dedication: "...los especialistas han demostrado es que es totalmente imposible matar a esa cantidad de personas". I think there was a longer version of this article published by La Jornada, can't seem to find it on their website now but it is reproduced here. In this one he goes on to say that although there's clear evidence for the practice, “nunca vamos a llegar a los números exagerados por los conquistadores y los religiosos españoles, que tenían una misión que era la de la conquista militar y religiosa”.
 * I think one of the notes in the lead para is an oblique ref to López Luján's summation, but it may be worthwhile in the absence of estimated figures from the conference to expand a bit more on his quoted view. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes: I added the López-Luján reference in the lead. However, I'd wait until publication is available. I don't trust La Jornada: an extreme leftist paper which often says stupid things. Specifically, like most Mexican anthropologists, López-Luján is on the far extreme, diametrically opposed POV to Michael Harne's. For instance, López-Luján idealizes child sacrifice in Mesoamerica. I believe that both he and Harne are dead wrong. Fortunately there were many other international experts on Aztec sacrifice in the symposia (the Mexican press gave voice almost only to López-Luján). I phoned the Templo Mayor yesterday asking for publication date. Once we get the forthcoming book it will be much easier to see how the other scholars stand on Aztec sacrifice. Meanwhile I for one have to be patient… Cesar Tort 07:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever La Jornada's editorial stance, it's not their editorial we'd be using, & I presume their reporters cld be relied upon at least to accurately transcribe what the researchers said at the press briefing. I'd guess that since López Luján has been leading the Templo Mayor excavations for the past few seasons, he'd be the one put forward to give the conference sound-bites to the press. Anyways, like most conferences the presented papers most likely covered a range of views, and once available we could update to reflect whatever range they came out with. Maybe one of the more public-access minded contributors will put something up online, but otherwise we'll be waiting for the publication. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 03:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I read a few abstracts. Generally speaking, non-Mexican scholars idealize less than Mexicans. This is understandable if we take into consideration that many Mexican academics who study anthropology are nationalists. On the other hand, I liked the abstract of what an American scholar in the symposium believes about the whys of the practice. López-Luján's voice does not speak for all. David Carrasco, Hispanic in origin but who works in an American university, attended the meeting and what I have read about him differs from the nationalists' POV. Remember Octavio Paz, quoted above: " ¿Y por cuál ofuscación del espíritu nadie entre nosotros —no pienso en los nacionalistas trasnochados sino en los sabios, los historiadores, los artistas y los poetas— quiere ver y admitir que el mundo azteca [he was writing specifically about human sacrifice] es una de las aberraciones de la historia?" That's why I will be patient and await for the much delayed publication. —Cesar Tort 04:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is watching over this page?
I have just done a quick reading of the recent changes by Randomnahua and 124.185.151.120 and it looks that no scholar has this article under his/her watchlist. Am I wrong? I see no reverts or copyedits to such recent changes. A couple of weeks ago I even had to revert obvious vandalism after 24 hours of the perpetrator's changes. Nobody seemed to notice it. Why? --88.5.181.150 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies that I don't know the full process. I did my MA on Aztec human sacrifice and a couple of journal articles so I guess I am a scholar of some level (moreover, this field has been a lifetime passion for me)... The bits I added are from my own work, that were peer-reviewed at the time (with very high grades) and which I thought might be useful for your Wikapedia article. The comments are based, as you can see from the references, mostly on the actual early source materials on Aztec religion. I am happy if someone wants to edit it back or put it into a format it is supposed to go into, or dialogue with me on this - Randomnahua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.13.246 (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've left a welcome message in your user page. Please read it & take notice how to sign your posts in talk pages. Thanks and welcome again. --Thantalteresco (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Mayans were not predecessors of Aztecs
This is a big mistake. Although at some point both cultures shared a common Toltec background, Aztecs came from the North and had very little contact with Maya until late into the establishment of the Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.153.123 (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that they were? (also it is not correct that the Aztecs had little contact - they had a lot of contact with the mayans for example the Huastec's and the trading Chontal Mayans of Tabasco)•Maunus• ƛ • 22:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maunus: "Aztecs had not developed the fully written language of their predecessors, the Mayans" And please realize I am saying they had little contact AT FIRST, to dispel the idea that Mayans were predecessors of the Aztec culture. Of course they had a lot of contact.... when the Aztec empire was well established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.153.123 (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hassler and political correctness
Should the PC postmodernist gloss of Peter Hassler really be in the introduction, consisting most of the first paragraph? This is a fringe view/attempted whitewash. It should be mentioned in the article, but not in the first paragraph.


 * Not sure exactly what you're referring to. I would agree that the article is a bit strong on the "well, it could be this way, or perhaps the other way" perspective.  If you have any specific recommendations, put them out here or actually edit the article.  Madman (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

comparision to european crimminal/religious deaths
for perspective, a few numbers on, say, how many witches were killed in Europe ? I'm trying for some number which sort of compares the aztecs to europeans; I know this is difficult Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.10.169 (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)