Talk:Aztecs/Cannibalism

From memory, Harris as well says that human meat was a reward for the elite not a fundamental part of the diet. Also, for Harris eating bugs and nearly everything available was a mark of a lack of protein. Insects give less protein per, than European beasts. -- Error 03:50, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I recommend the following article for more information on Aztec cannibalism:

Ancient Mesoamerica "Aztec Cannibalism" 16 (2005), 1-10 Barry L. Isaac -- User:Error 17:17, 7 Mar 2006 (UTC)

About Harris. I think he takes many of his claims from Harner: 1. M. Harner, Am. Ethnol. 4, 117 (1977); New York Times, 19 Feb. 1977, p. 25C; ibid., 3 March 1977, p. 32B; Nat. Hist. 86 (No. 4), 47 (1977); Smithsonian 8, 24 91977).

He claims that anthropophagy was an ecological necessity.

He probably thinks of insects as a last resource of food, but I believe that is a case of ethnocentrism. In modern Mexico, even with cattle and pigs available, we still have insects in our diet. They are considered a delicacy, not a last resource. In some cases children are in charge of collecting insects. I'm sorry, I edited this and in the last sentence, it said "recolecting"... I guessed it meant that the children were in charge of collecting insects, but if I am wrong, please fix this.

Here is an excellent rebuttal of his article--

In fact, some of the malnutrition of present-day Indians in Mexico and Guatemala can be attributed to the substitution of European foods, which are less nutritious, for traditional items. I do not understand this sentence. It contradicts itself.

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/aztecs/montellano.htm

Also there is only one original source that mentions they consume human flesh. The Aztec who wrote that says that only the flesh of the palm of the hands were sent to the capturing warrior. He also mentions that the flesh was accepted and discarded, to be replaced by turkey. Maybe he changed the facts, but it is interesting to note that in his writings there is no hint that he thought there was something wrong about that.

So far there is no archaeological evidence of anthropophagi. I think we should take into account the criticisms of W. Arens in his book, "The Man Eating Myth"

I found this from Harris:

http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/mamerica.html

About the word "are", people within the confines of the city, who still speak nahuatl, still considered themselves Aztecs. Even now, some of the organization of the Aztecs survives in these towns.

Nanahuatzin

• Cannibalism and human sacifice

This is a complex theme.

first, as W. Arens point, there is no correlation between human sacrifice and Canibalism. The human sacrifice has been a comon practic int all the world, ans in mesoamerica it was common. The aztecs gave us their accouns of the human sacrifice, but as i pointed, they are veryr probably inflated, to be used as a war propaganda. It was Tlacaelel who introduce the "necesity" of human sacrifice to garanted the existence and sustend of the Sun. He was trying to gave the aztecs a reason to be contantly in war to be able to grow.

The size of the zempoantly was reported by Dias, and confirmed by the excavations, what it was not confiormed was the number os skulls. AS a comparition, in the zempoantli of Tlatelolco, that was as important as the Tenochtitlan, excavations only found 300 skulls.

On canibalism. If you read Cortez, he hardly mention canibalism, which is strange since he was writing on the spot, and shurelyy this was important. The accounts of canibalism start mainly with Bernal Díaz del Castillo, who wrote several years after the conquest (as a soldier he was probably illiterate, so he did not take notes), and if you read carfully, you will find that he did not say he was a witness. Also you will notice that although he never learned the native languages, he wrote not only what the indians said, but what they thought....

In contrast, the moumental work of Bernardino de Sahagun, who wrote in nahuatl with the help of the survivors, hardly mention canibalism

Based on this, slowlly the acounts on the aztec canibalism grew, but it was the work of Prescot, who popularized the concept of "the cannibal kingdom".

Now, in this century with "Cannibals and Kings" by Marvin harris, the story began. then in "The ecological basis fo the aztec canibalism" Michael Harner acussed his colleages of diminishing the extent of the canibalism between the aztecs.

Also there is the book by Barbara price "Desmytification, Enriddlemente , and Aztec Canibalism: a Materialistic reoinder to Harner".

I'm a little confused here, maybe partly by misspellings. I can find a few online references to an anthropologist named Barbara Price who has written on Mesoamerica, but I can't find a title even resembling this. Maybe it's just a journal article, not a book? Nanahuatzin, could you check your references here & see if you can get the exact title, and preferably an ISBN? I'd like to follow this one up. -- Jmabel 05:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes i have a lot of mispellings... I have tried to pronounce the title of this article but i can,t.... ;) Price,Barbara J. 1978 "Demystification, Enriddlemet, and Aztec Canibalism: A Materialistic Rejoinder to Harner" American Ethnologist 5:98-115 Nanahuatzin 08:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

is interesting that all this books have been writting with the little evidence i have describes. Harnes was convinced that the "ecological necesity" was enough proof. But there is the excellent refutation by montellano http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/aztecs/montellano.htm

In Mexico, you will hardly find a mention of canibalism by any schollar, so Harnes acused them of hide the evidence. but there is no evidence to hide. W Arens, in his book "the man eathing myth", wrote that looking for evidence on canibalism he was aproched by othere colleagus, asking him to share wathever he found since they have found nothing. An a sutend who was writting a thesis reported him taht her teacher were acussing her of "hidding the evidence".

Now, i am not a scholar, but as you may see. There are more words than evidence to sustent the case of the aztecs as the "canibal kingdon". It seem that they resort to some forms of ritual canibalsim, but they did not enjoyed.

• • his was supposed to be eaten, but it was discarded and replaced with turkey." If this practice was universal, then "was supposed to" is problematic. Who supposed it so? In other words, who was in on this and who was presumed to be deceived?

The fragment i put comes form the original source, we can only specualte about it,s meaning, since is the only aztec acount that i have found that speaks of canibalism. But if take in acount the works of Sejourne and Portilla...

A mayor acount on the aztec canibalism comes from Father Duran, he was a dominican priest who grew in Mexico, after the conquest. He was conviced that tha aztecs whe one of the los tribes of israel and the Hummand sacrifice and canibalism wer proof of that. Duran, was convince like many europenas of their time, that conteporary jews still made humans sacrifece to obtain blood. Duran wrote three books, Book of the gods and rites, The ancient calendar, and "the aztecs". He had acces to the survivers of tenochtitlan, and his books are an important source of infomration, but we need to remeberd that he was trying to proobe that aztecs were the evil descendents of Israel....

Diego Durán. Historia de las Indias de Nueva España y islas de tierra firme, published posthumously in the 19th Century. What's this thing about "three books"? Clearly you know much more than me on the Aztecs, but here I think you are wrong. -- Jmabel 05:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

mmmh.. Yes, the source i took refer to a manuscript called the aztecs.. but seems there is a error there, i check another biography (my old histoy book from school) and get this:

Fraile dominico, estudioso de la cultura y de la historia prehispánica. Nació en Sevilla. Antes de cumplir 7 años fue traído a Tezcoco por su padre que era calcetero y zapatero. En 1554 tomó los hábitos monacales y en 1556 hizo profesión como fraile predicador. En 1559 funge como presbítero. En 1561 pasa a la región de Oaxaca. De regreso al centro del país, radica en el convento de Chimalhuacán Atenco, donde elabora su "Libro de Dioses y Ritos Indígenas". En 1579 concluye su "Calendario" y en 1581 termina de redactar la "Historia de los Indios de Nueva España e Islas de Tierra Firme", su obra más importante desde el punto de vista histórico. En esa época ya era vicario en Hueyapan. En 1587 enfermó gravemente cuando estaba en el convento de Santo Domingo en la Ciudad de México y a finales de ese año o a principios de siguiente, murió. Su obra de recopilación ha llegado a ser considerada de valor fundamental para conocimiento de las antiguas tradiciones, sobre todo las de Tezcoco. I also found this book: -- Fray Diego Duran,"Book of the Gods and Rites and the ancient calendar" trans adn eds F. Horcasitas and D Heyden. Norman. University of Oklahoma Press. Nanahuatzin 07:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The institution of human sacrifice and much of the aztec religion, was "created" by Tlacalel. Sejourne and Portilla think that the upper clases were consient of this forgery. So they did not take all this seriously. If we read the aztec poetry we will find that they speak of questions that were suposed to have been answered by their religion, like afterlife, meaning of life. Sejourne even found some hints of horror to the human sacrifice. But this is highly speculative, i am not sure it here is enough evidence for this claims.

Nanahuatzin

Check out this article. Should we expand it or delete it? If nothing else, the title is too long. It should be Cannibalism in pre-Columbian Mexico. However, I'd like your opinion on whether that is a promising topic for an article or if this should just be treated in the Aztec and Maya articles.

--Richard 08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It contains no information beyond what is already in Human sacrifice in Aztec culture so I decided to "be bold" and REDIRECT it there. Madman 08:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I found it just as I was about to log off and go to bed so I didn't have time or energy to really think about it. I figured it had to go but I wasn't sure exactly what to do with it.

--Richard 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)