![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this versionofAztec was copied or moved into Human sacrifice in Aztec culture with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lenaviersen.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
On April of 2008 I said in this talk page here :
Well I was outside Mexico but now I have purchased a copy of the work, published by both the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
El Sacrificio Humano en la Tradición Religiosa Mesoamericana is a 600-page, academic treatise authored by 28 scholars on the subject: Mexican, European and American archeologists and anthropologists. Published in 2010, I guess this can be the ultimate source for this article. Some new archeological evidence corroborates the 16th century claims of the Spaniards.
For the moment suffice it to say that it is unanimous among all of these scholars that the Mesoamerican sacrifices were real.
Cesar Tort 18:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
I reverted a very large edit which included a lot of information from an article by Burhenn and other by Harner. The material was problematic for the following reasons 1. They repeat the highest estimates of the occurrence of cannibalism, figures that have been highly criticized and are not considered realistic by most mainstream scholars. 2. They give undue weight to the outdated ecological theory of aztec cannibalism which has been roundly criticized and rejected by the vast majority of mainstream scholars. 3. The materials was uncritically reported with no commentary or attribution which makes the article selfcontradictory since the ecological view is mentioned and rejected elsewhere in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
There is actually very little evidence of human sacrifice and it all comes from the Spanish, virtually. The main "victims" were prisoners of war, or criminals and the so-called human sacrifice was mostly a way of applying the very strict laws of the Aztecs. There were many crimes punishable by death and this was where the idea of human sacrifice came from. If an outsider went to Europe at the same time they would have concluded they had extensive human sacrifice as they would burn people at the stake and use various methods of torture and executions all in the name of christ and so it was indeed human sacrifice. There were a couple of skeletans found at the base of the temple of Quetzalcoatle in Teotihuacan, but we do not know if these were victims of justice, or true human sacrifice. The Spanish had to justify their raping of the princesses and the horrible carnage they had inflicted upon the innocent population of Mexico. They laid siege to Tenochtitlan and starved the 250,000 to the point they were eating the plaster off the walls all for the love of Gold. This is the most barbaric act in the history of mankind and so they had to come up with some reasons for why they would kill millions of people and rape the women and generally terrorize and entire civilization all in the name of GOLD. This is such a travesty and there is no archaeological evidence to support the theory of human sacrifice and this article is just lies.
They talk of skinning Spanish alive- wouldn't you?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.206 (talk • contribs)
"There is actually very little evidence of human sacrifice and it all comes from the Spanish, virtually."
How absurd to claim accounts of human sacrifice were just invented by the Spanish. I notice the English and French didn't claim North American indigenous people engaged in large-scale human sacrifice and cannibalism. So why would the Spanish make the claim about Central American cultures? Are Spanish imperialists just more inclined to lie than the English/French? Or is the real answer you don't like the idea of human sacrifice and so prefer to believe it was all - the codexes and journals and dozens of independent reports as well as archeological studies - invented to smear the Aztecs and Mayas. 2603:7000:2703:74:2083:EF7B:AE6E:B65 (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I am only an interested reader with no expertise in mesoamerican culture. However, in the "The antecedents of Mesoamerican sacrifice" section, it ends with writing "This ritual would go on for a whole weekend so as to please the gods." To even a casual reader, what does "weekend" means in Aztec calendar? 2001:44B8:184:AC01:9D16:3D19:32C1:63B5 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Only the cannibalistic explanation is criticized. If that theory is thoroughly debunked, why not remove it or demote it to brief paragraph? Currently cannibalism is both the largest and first listed. The other two theories have no criticisms listed beyond the presence of other theories. Don't they deserve the same critical treatment? Is there no middle-ground archaeologist that could be cited as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.95.90.248 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply