Talk:Human sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures/Archive 1

question
What exactly are they doing for their gods? Are they asking for help and the child is payment or are they asking for forgiveness and the child is some sort of bribe?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.116.127 (talk • contribs)

Moved page
I have moved the page from Capacocha to Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures since I have added substantial info about other child sacrifices in non-Inca, pre-Columbian cultures, such as the Aztec.

Now, a section about the Maya child sacrifice ought to be added.

—Cesar Tort 22:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Already added. —Cesar Tort 06:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

crying children
I have no access to the source that claimed they torn the nails of the children. but the Sahagun text refers to "niños llorones", that is children that cry contantly. So far the forensic analysys of the children found under the great temple shows that most of them were sick children. Most of the sickness foudn were the kind that cause a child to cry constantly. But i do not know how to explain this in correct english... Nanahuatzin 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It’s because the author, Christian Duverger, was talking about the sacrifices performed at night at the mounts near Tenochtitlan; not in the temple. Duverger wrote his book in French and it was published in 1979. Fondo de Cultura Económica (FCE) translated it to Spanish in 1983, and it’s still in print in Mexico. This is the FCE translation:

Los suplicios. En el contexto de las violentas estimulaciones presacrificiales, creo que conviene dejar un lugar a la tortura, justamente porque sólo es practicada por los aztecas antes del sacrificio humano. La tortura no está obligatoriamente integrada al preludio sacrificial, pero puede ocurrir. El arrancar las uñas a los niños que debían ser sacrificados al dios de la lluvia es un buen ejemplo de tortura ritual. Por medio de los sacrificios del mes Atl caualo, los mexicanos rendían homenaje a los tlaloques, y llamaban la lluvia; para que el rito fuera eficaz, convenía que los niños lloraran abundantemente en el momento del sacrificio. (La flor letal, pages 128-29)


 * The Florentine Codex further explains, and this is my own translation from Spanish: “When the priests took the children to kill them, if they cried and poured many tears, then they became happy: it was the signal that water would not be in short supply that year”.


 * —Cesar Tort 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks this is a theme i have explore little. the text imlicates that torture could ocurred, but it was not esential. The archeologist that made the excavations on the main temple, comment  that their findings of the sickness on the children confirmed the accounts of "niños llorones", which probably was the ussual way to assured the children were criying. Good work. Nanahuatzin 08:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes: I have read three books by Eduardo López-Moctezuma, the headperson of the team that made excavations in the temple.


 * However, those are the sacrifices at the temple, which represent a tiny fraction of children sacrifices among the Aztecs. Like its Inca counterparts far down the South, most of Aztec children sacrifices were done at the mounts around Tenochtitlan, some of them in the night. The Florentine Codex describes this rite very far from the walls of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan.


 * —Cesar Tort 09:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Cesar
Cesar, congratulations on all the work you've put into this article. Very solid. Madman 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Madman. There’re a lot of misguided, though bona fide people, who mistake blood libels with actual historical info; and I was dismayed to see this anti-historical trend among some people here in Mexico.


 * —Cesar Tort 03:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't child torture and child sacrifice abuse???
An editor removed yesterday this article from the category "child abuse" stating in edit summary: "that categroy [sic] comes off as unsupported bias". In the article you can read that, before killing the children, the Aztecs tortured them:

Tlaloc required the tears of the young so their tears would wet the earth. As a result, priests made children cry before the infanticidal ritual sacrifice, sometimes by tearing off their nails [my emphasis]

Is the said editor kidding??

—Cesar Tort 12:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You have been told before that an encyclopedia is not the right place to make subjective value judgements, also when it is a judgement with which most or all people will agree. If value judgement is allowed here then how can we say that editors writing about politics or history must present facts without bias? An encyclopedia is to present facts as precisely as possible - it is up to the readers to judge whether they find those facts pleasant or unpleasant, we are not supposed to tell them what to think. •Maunus• • ƛ • 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That’s not for you to judge: wikipedians who discuss the category issues will pass judgment in the future as to whether torture and killing a child (or an adult) is abuse.
 * Also, there’s no subjectivity at all to consider torture as torture, sacrifice as sacrifice and abuse as abuse. In fact, in the abuse article’s box torture is considered a form of abuse.
 * What do other editors besides Maunus think of this subject? —Cesar Tort 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked I was a fully licensed wikipedian and allowed to partake in all discussions here. The guy who removed the category was also a wikipedian. Or do you only want to hear from wikipedians who agree with you?•Maunus• • ƛ • 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that abuse, usually physical…. directed at a child was/is child abuse? Isn’t this kind of straight forward? I fail to see how labeling child torture and child sacrifice as (child) abuse, is making a subjective value judgment. I may be wrong but in any case I found this information very enlightening. Thank You. --cc 02:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How and when is decided that child abuse is an exact science? Historical facts of child sacrifice as described by Cesar Tort lies at the foundation of today's child abuse. It's of great importance that such facts are mentioned in child abuse. Immortale 11:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How can torturing and killing a child NOT be child abuse? The century old problem is that people/cultures do not call the abuse of power over children by its proper and justified name. When mistreatment is inflicted on adults, it is called torture; when mistreatment is inflicted on a child, it is distorted and played down. All over the world, abusive, cruel behavior still is justified as "discipline," above all in order to beat children. Adults, whose nails are torn out and who are being beaten and murdered, know that they are being tortured and that it is wrong. Children have human rights like everyone else, and their rights should be even more protected and enforced because they are powerless, defenseless and vulnerable. They certainly have the right that inhuman behavior against them is labeled truthfully and appropriately: as abuse and torture. dadreval

I really don't see how anyone can argue that child sacrifice is not child abuse. This should be a no-brainer. An easy test of this concept would be to try to imagine yourself, as a child, being sacrificed! 24.97.205.11 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maunus, I don't think that Cesar was questioning your status as a "fully licensed Wikipedian." He is trying to seek out opinions from a wide range of viewpoints in order to determine consensus.  For what it's worth, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines abuse as "physical maltreatment" and torture as "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure."  A few things seem clear: First, that torture is a subset of abuse (this is how the abuse article makes it seem).  But secondly, torture seems to have a neutral definition (it's easy to recognize "intense pain"), but the definition of abuse is subjective ("maltreatment" according to whom?).  Still, I would lean toward including torture under the abuse category.  Fishal 19:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As a surviving european version of the little "niños llorones", (apologies for lack of spanish)  and now a very objective adult, it doesnt take too much intelligence to know that tearing the nails off children to make them cry is utter abuse of barbaric proportions. How can anyone possibly question this. Any form of inflicted pain upon a child whether it is cutting out their hearts as history reveals or simply hitting/spanking today is violent and cruel. --Karindgrs 06:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What a sudden interest in the assignation of categories on wikipedia - nice. I welcome Cesar Torts friends from |primalforum to Wikipedia and hope they will contribute positively to building consensus on other topics as well. Consensus and the moral majority has spoken go ahead and reinsert the category. •Maunus• • ƛ • 08:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don’t be sarcastic, Maunus. All of us abhor Jerry Falwell’s moral majority. But we do care about children’s rights and, as Orwell stated, “He who controls the past controls the future”. That’s why we are concerned about how people perceive ancient history, especially the history of child abuse. Hadn’t our good friend User:Bookish betrayed us, you would never have posted the above link. —Cesar Tort 08:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While Maunus was perhaps a tad uncivil, he's right, Cesar, to say that angling for supporters on a message board is inappropriate. I arrived here from the note you left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, which is fine (See WP:DR).  However, advertising Wikipedia to outsiders to strengthen your case is expressly warned against in theSock puppet policy.  The people from the message board are considered Meatpuppets, and are "not regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community."  While I agree with your opinion in this particular issue, it does not seem that you are acting in good faith.  Fishal 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I answered to Maunus’ message in my talk page stating that my friends are not voting in the category articles pages. So technically (correct me if I’m wrong) we haven’t violated WP policies yet.  On the other hand, we haven’t, and won’t, revert the removal of the “child abuse” category from this article.


 * At any event, thanks for informing me of the policy. We won’t contrive something like that again.


 * This said, I hope that other editors, established wikipedians, take care of the categorization issues of these articles once this affair is cooled down.


 * —Cesar Tort 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All right; I'm sorry that I was quick to point fingers. You strongly believe in this, and it seemed like a natural next step.  You're right, the issue will eventually get resolved, and in the meantime it's really just a minor categorization issue.  Fishal 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, including child sacrifice within the category of child abuse seems reasonable to me. There's no point in editorializing about long-past practices, but the connection Cesar Tort made seems just common sense. Llajwa 00:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, it may be a bit late to weigh in here, but I think I've got an overall solution:

1) Whether or not the action (sacrifice) is abuse/murder/wrong is dependent on whether the action is good for the children.

2) There is evidence to suggest that the sacrificed were often (conveniently) believed to have benefits in the afterlife that made up for the inconvenience of being sacrificed

3) We cannot assume that these horrible, mind numbing actions are abuse without categorically rejecting that these religious beliefs are false

4) However we can discuss the interpretation of these actions by different groups (eg. colonial authorities/missionaries, anthropologists etc.)

5) As a concluding note, it should be realised that Western European civilisation gave very little rights to children and failed to develop a legal concept of child abuse until fairly recently. While the actual experience and reality of abuse isn't socially constructed the definition/interpretation of it by outside, analytic authorities (eg. courts, mayan priests, wikipedians) is culturally dependent. So, this can be tied into strong value statements about child abuse and even first-hand accounts of the experience of being abused (if properly cited etc.) in this context.

--Hrimpurstala (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What did those being sacrificed think?
Did those chidren who would be sacrificed have any knowledge of what was going to happen to them or were they clueless up until the moment it happened? It seems even some should have been curious with the elaborate lead up to some of the killings. And if they did know were they ever willing participants?

Minshullj 23:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We are not supposed to chat about the subject here. But if you feel that it should be mentioned in the article it’s ok.


 * As to your question, how could they be "willing participants" if they cried along the way to their immolation?


 * —Cesar Tort 00:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there are no eyewitness accounts to the practice or testimonials from any participants, the written sources are post factum and post-conquest, and pre-conquest imagery and human remains are open to multiple interpretations, it would be speculation to say what any participant thought or felt.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Article states: "Tlaloc required the tears of the young so their tears would wet the earth. As a result, priests made children cry before the infanticidal ritual sacrifice". But of course: it's too speculative to asume the children were suffering. Maybe they were happy kids :) —Cesar Tort 03:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The question posed was not whether or not they were 'happy', but to what extent they had any idea of what was in store. My point is only that we don't really know, just as we don't really know how accurate or otherwise those graphic post-conquest tales of the practice may or may not be. Neither Duran nor Sahagun nor any of the others claim to be witnesses, or claim that their nahua informants were witnesses. An awful lot of what appears in those sources is evident hearsay. While some secondary analyses of the sources are prepared to take their descriptions at face value, others are much more circumspect and aware that these sources are not simple reportage, & open to the influence of other motives. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 09:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, we do have eyewitness accounts. The practice of child sacrifice (among other things) continued into the colonial period, and we have testimonies of people who were brought to the Spanish authorities for it. The Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca by Kevin Terraciano (ISBN 0-8047-3756-8) has some examples. --Ptcamn 11:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeap! Ptcamn is right. Take a look at the article by Martha Ilya Nájera-Coronado in Arqueología mexicana, "El sacrificio entre los mayas en la Colonia". Two teenagers were roasted, one of them still alive, after the Conquest.  Also, small kids were sacrificed by heart extraction and in 1696 the rite was performed with adults as well. Jacques Sosutelle mentions that even in the 19th century the chamula Indians sacrificed a man by heart extraction. —Cesar Tort 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, most interesting, and thanks for the corrections. I was unaware of those particular colonial-era reports, and was wrong to generalise- mea culpa. I had in mind more the lines of evidence surrounding pre-Columbian practices, and the sources the present article draws upon. I don't know whether those newly-mentioned ones will assist in answering the original question. I think the point about the descriptions in Duran, Sahagun, Diaz, Olmos &c. not being regarded as literal or explicit eyewitness testimonials still stands, as far as I can ascertain.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 05:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Renamed page to reflect contents
I have moved this page back to "Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures since that is what the article is about. I think it's a good article (perhaps even a Good Article with some work) and tight.  So, let's have the title that accurately reflects the content.  Thanks, Madman (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And thank you for the moving back. I've already removed the hatnote in the Aztec sacrifice article since it's no longer needed. Cheers. —Cesar Tort 06:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed this paragraph
I removed the following material from the article:


 * The Southern Cult or Mound Builders, of the Southeastern United States may have also practiced human sacrifice, as some artifacts have been interpreted as depicting such acts. Early European explorers reported witnessing mass human sacrifices.

First, it doesn't fit the "child sacrifice" theme of the article, but even worse it only references web pages. While these are nice web pages (better than most), I think we need to have a more solid (e.g. academic) reference for these claims. The Wikipedia article on the Southern Cult says nothing of this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thanks, Madman (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong, but I don't remember having added it. And yes: in a topic such as this academic references are important. We don't need blogs: there's plenty of evidence of child sacrifice in RS. Incidentally, have you read infanticide, which I massively edited a few months ago? —Cesar Tort 17:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)