The Meanings & Functions of the Aztec's Cannibalistic Sacrifice

Study the meaning and functions of cannibalistic sacrifice in Aztec society, making reference to both religious and biological issues.

Is it possible that sacrificial cannibalism evolved so as its once secondary functions super-ceded the original religious purpose?

Introduction

‘The eyewitness accounts of Cortes and his fellow conquistador, Bernal Diaz [ 1519 ], leave no doubt concerning the ecclesiastical meaning of the dreadful visages portrayed in stone. The Aztec gods ate people. They ate human hearts and they drank human blood. And the declared function of the Aztec priesthood was to provide fresh human hearts and human blood in order to prevent the remorseless deities from becoming angry and crippling, sickening, withering, and burning the whole world.’

( Harris, 1978. p99 )

From the study of Aztec mythology it becomes clear that these peoples believed human sacrifice to be the only way in which to ensure the appeasement of their gods, and the continued cycle of the sun. However, there are those whom believe the Aztecs’ agenda for human sacrifice did not have religion as its sole objective, that by their actions they were seeking to advance their country by biological, military or even economic gains. By the time of conquest, for example, the strategic military functions which sacrificial cannibalism served were becoming increasingly important. Whilst it is clear that Aztec sacrifice did not have a purely religious function within their society, it is my personal belief that all other purposes which it served remained secondary to that religious function.

Traditions Of Cannibalistic Sacrifice

‘The Aztecs were not the first Mesoamericans to sacrifice human beings. We know that the Toltec and the Maya engaged in the practice, and it is a reasonable inference that all steep-sided flat-topped Mesoamerican pyramids were intended to serve as a stage for the spectacle in which human victims were fed to the gods. Nor was human sacrifice an invention of state-level religions. To judge from the evidence of band and village societies throughout the Americas and in many other parts of the world, human sacrifice long antedated the rise of state religions.’

( Harris, 1978. P102 )

The cannibalistic sacrificial practices, which were so abhorrent to the invading Spanish, were by no means a purely Mesoamerican phenomenon. Sacrificial activities have persisted in religion throughout recorded history. ( Sagan, 1974: p50 ) Reports from missionary travellers clearly detail both the Iroquois of North America and the Fijians engaging in cannibalistic practices whereby they would eat the bodies of their enemies ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P28 ).

A Jesuit priest, Father Antonio Blasquez, wrote in 1557 of the Brazilian Indians’ enjoyment of the practice of cannibalism; he stated that these people find “their happiness by killing an enemy and afterwards, for vengeance, to eat his flesh… there is no other meat they like better.” ( Harris, 1986. P210 ) There is even gratuitous mention of cannibalism in Ayurvedic physiology, where ‘corpulence is a sign of power’ ( Zimmerman, 1982: p160 ).

However, the ritualistic style in which the Aztecs performed their sacrifices, their reasoning behind their activities, and the sheer scale of human life put to death because of this reasoning certainly makes them unique.

‘Nowhere else in the world had there developed a state-sponsored religion whose art, architecture, and ritual were so thoroughly dominated by violence, decay and disease. Nowhere else were walls and plazas of great temples and palaces reserved for such a concentrated display of jaws, fangs, claws, talons, bones and gaping death heads’

( Harris, 1978. p99 )

Marvin Harris points out in his 1986 work ‘People Eating’ that the Aztecs were the only state society which not only did not suppress the act of cannibalism, but actively encouraged it, involving it in ritual purposes integral to the country’s religious worship. ( p225 ) To many, this makes the Aztecs something of a mysterious and complicated puzzle, seeing their being civilised peoples whom practised religious cannibalism as something of an oxymoron.

“The Aztecs developed a literate, complex culture, and, yet, they

practiced cannibalism to a very limited degree. But they are the only known exception to the rule that cannibalism is practiced only by primitive societies.”

( Sagan, 1974: p1-2 )

The Aztecs had an extensive knowledge of mathematics and astronomy, skills which they had utilised in the production of a highly accurate eighteen month calendar . As we have today, this calendar had fifty-two cycles in a three-hundred and sixty-five day year. ( Web Ref. 7 ) They also had a complex state system in operation, having united Technochtitlan, Texcoco and Tlacopan into the Triple Alliance in 1430, and succeeded in bringing decisive state-control into an area previously wracked with political uncertainty and characterised by fierce fighting. ( Brumfiel, 1983: pp266-9 )

Theirs was an advanced, complex and well-oiled state, wholly deserving of the term ‘civilised’. There are even those whom believe that the Aztecs’ practices of sacrificial cannibalism were direct contributors towards their civilisation ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P193-4 ), and that religion was only an instigating factor whose secondary functions and profits eventually super-ceded its original purpose. Certainly, it grew in scale over the years from very modest beginnings…

The Scale of Aztec Sacrifice

The accounts of the Spaniards, Cortes and Diaz, whom arrived in Mexico in 1519 to be greeted by the last of the Aztec kings – Moctezuma II– describe with great detail the overwhelming sights and smells which they experienced on visiting the twin temples of Thaloc and Uitzilopochtli. ( Harris, 1978. pp99-100 )

‘The walls and floor of the temple [ of Uitzilopochtli ] “were so splashed

and encrusted with blood that they were black” and the “whole place stank vilely.” In Thaloc’s Temple too, everything was covered with blood, “both walls and altar, and the stench was such that we could hardly wait for the moment to get out of it.”

( Harris, 1978. P 100 )

Diaz also noted the neat racks of human skulls in the city plazas, writing that in the plaza of Xocotlan he estimated there to be over ‘one hundred thousand of them.’ However, recent research has modified this estimate to a more modest sixty thousand, because of the constraints the size of the skull rack would have placed on numbers. ( Harris, 1986. P106, 226 ) Sixty thousand skulls nevertheless remains an astonishing number – the Aztecs were not known for being conservative in these areas. The annual number of victims of the Aztecs’ butcherous religious practices was estimated as being between 15,000 and 25,000. ( Harris, 1986. P225 )

On special occasions, such as the 1487 dedication of the pyramid of Tenochtitlan, Spanish chroniclers wrote of a team of executioners whom worked for four solid days in order to ‘despatch’ the four lines of prisoners, each of which reportedly stretched for two miles. From this information, Sherburne Cook, allowing two minutes per sacrifice, estimated the number of victims to have been 14,100 for that one event. This figure has since been challenged by a cardiovascular surgeon, one Francis Robiscek. He feels that an ‘experienced surgeon’ would need only 20 seconds per victim, which would put the death toll up to 78, 000. ( Harris, 1986. P106, 227 ).

The very scale of the Aztec sacrifice has overwhelmed many, not least the invading Spaniards whom were horrified at the grotesque level of state-organised genocide which they found under Moctuzema II. Cortes himself barred the practice, and cleansed the bloody temples, lending further weight to the belief that he was the returning god Quetzalcoatl. ( Reeves Sanday, 1986; pp169-71 ) Some recent writers have questioned whether human sacrifices in such numbers were in fact necessary, pointing out that Aztec mythology revered a man-god whom did not feel it was necessary at all. In place of human sacrifice, Quetzalcoatl instead designated quail, snakes, large grasshoppers and butterflies as suitable creatures. ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P189 )

‘Even one sacrifice to the bloodiest goddess in the Hindu pantheon, Kali, would keep the goddess happy for a thousand years (Kalika Purana, in Campbell, 1962; p6). This would not prevent her worshippers from attempting to make her very happy, but even at their most enthusiastic, Kali looked like a tea granny compared to Huitzilopochtli… The scale of sacrifice displays a strong disregard for life except as a tool to display power in the taking of it.’

( Web Ref. 1 )

Sacrificial victims included the children of ‘commoner families’, slaves, and certain special youths ( males and female ) whom were chosen for this role as representations of the gods / goddesses. ( Harris, 1978. p101, 225 ) However, the majority were prisoners or war.

In order to provide their hungry gods with nourishment, the Aztecs established the ceremonial Xochiyaoyotl, or "flowery war." This was ongoing between themselves and their neighbours in the Valley of Puebla-Tlaxcala, and the captured warriors on both sides would be sacrificed to the respective gods. To fight in the Xochiyaoyotl and to die for your god (s) was considered to be a great honour for these warriors. Those whom died in battle or on the sacrificial stone would gain a place in the flower-filled Tonatiuhican, "the house of the sun," which was the highest ‘level’ of paradise in the after-life. ( Caso, 1958: p14, 58 ) ( Davies, 1980: p96 )

Religious Symbolism In The Sacrificial Act

According to Aztec mythology, chaos reigned on earth as Four Suns in turn presided over the world, each characterised by one of the four elements which eventually destroyed it. 4 Atl, the Fourth Sun, was ruined by a ‘great deluge’. From the body of a terrible monster which swam in these waters, the gods created a new earth. However, the crying monster refused to allow the earth to flower or bear fruit unless the earth was ‘soaked with blood and fed with human hearts’. After Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl had thus revived the universe, they initiated the recreation of humanity via autosacrifice of the gods, and created the Fifth Sun, under which we live today. However, the sun and moon were unable to move, and the gods sacrificed themselves in order that they should ensure the motion of these heavenly spheres. Thus it was ingrained in Aztec mythology that humans should sacrifice themselves for the sake of the sun, as had their gods, and for the earth – only in such sacred rituals would the cosmos be invigorated. ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P179-180-1 )

Although Huitzilopochtli – the Sun God - was not the only god whom needed to be provided with human hearts and blood, he was the only one whom required nourishing all year round. There were other ritual styles and manners of execution ongoing in Anahuac however - different gods demanded differing sacrifices. The God of Hunting would have his victims pierced with arrows, those victims for the God of Fire would be burnt, and the Rain God often had his victims drowned. ( Davies, 1980: p171 )

Each sacrifice would begin with the taking of a victim. If he were a prisoner-of-war, the rites would begin with the warrior saying: “He is as my beloved son.” To this the prisoner would reply: “He is as my beloved father.” Thus the captive offered is as though the warrior’s own child. ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P19 ) Because of this, he does not eat any of the victim in the post-sacrifice rituals, saying “Shall I perchance eat my very self” - instead pieces of the body are passed around to the captor’s blood relatives atop a bowl of stew of dried maize called ‘tlacatlaolli’. ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P172-3, 185 )

“Human sacrifice with its associated cannibalism was the means by

which the Aztec gained access to the animating forces of the universe.”

( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P7 )

Sacrifice to the Sun God took place on the summit of a great pyramid, flat-topped, with sheer sides. As the victim climbed the pyramid steps, was sacrificed at the zenith, and then rolled down the Western side, his / her course paralleled that of the sun rising and setting in the sky. ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P19 )

The victims would be led up the steps “by the hair of the tops of their heads”, which was the principle location of the life-force tonalli, a force which according to Aztec belief - linked man with divine will. ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P175 ) It was this ‘animating spirit’ on which the universe was thought to run. ( Web Ref. 1 ) The other two life centres were the heart – teyolia - -and the liver – ihiyotl; humans needed these three centres to function in harmony with each other, so as to maintain good health. ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P175 ) The gods also needed the life-giving force of these spirits…

“Without proper nourishment the gods could not work on behalf of humans. The gods depended on sacrifice for energy. Without it the sun would not come up, the sky would fall down, and the universe would return to its original state of chaos. The gods depended on the humans and the humans depended on the gods.”

( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P19 )

The victim, at the zenith of the pyramid, would be stretched backwards over a sacrificial stone called the techcatl, which ‘was believed to have dropped down from the heavens’. His head and limbs would be held by five priests, while a sixth, wielding the tecpactl which ‘was divinized as the knife god’, cut open the victim’s chest and tore out his heart. This, dubbed the ‘precious eagle-cactus fruit’ was held aloft towards the sun, and then placed in a basin beneath a statue of Huitzilopchtli as the priest would smear the idol’s lips with blood. ( Brundage, 1979: p210-1 ) ( Murdock quoted in Sagan, 1974: p55 ) ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P169 ) In this way, the tonalli in the blood of the victim would give energy to the universe, and Huitzilopochtli would receive nourishment and a message from his people in the teyolia, the heart’s ‘divine fire’. ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P175 ) ( Carrasco, 1990: p68)

To use your teyolia in such a way was considered to be a great honour by the Aztecs; as a result of this, and also their desire to ensure the tone of the message sent in the teyolia, the intended victim would be very well-treated prior to his/her death. ( Web Ref. 11 )

‘This act kept the sun on its daily course, increased the stature of the captor, and conferred godhood on the captive, assuring him a place in the house of the sun and the joy of accompanying the morning sun on the first part of its daily journey for a period of four years. There was no feeling of hate or cruelty in sacrificial slaughter and the victim willingly accepted death on the sacrificial stone.’

( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P176-7 )

After the heart had been removed, the body would be decapitated, then tipped off the techcatl and sent rolling down the west-side of the pyramid. ( Brundage, 1979: p210-1 ) ( Murdock quoted in Sagan, 1974: p55 ) ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P169 )

The victim had now become an ‘eagle-man’ - cuauhtecatl – and his spirit had joined the sun. ( Brundage, 1979: p215 ) The remains of his human body would be variously disposed of; the head would be taken to a skull rack– a purpose-built latticework structure – whilst the trunk of the body, one chronicler suggests, was fed to the animals in the royal zoo. ( Harris, 1986. P226 ) The other body parts - the arms, legs and thighs - would be served in a ‘ceremonial banquet’ the next day, held by the captor for his ‘kinsmen and friends’. ( Murdock quoted in Sagan, 1974: p55 ) ( Web Ref. 2 ) This feasting served a ‘communion’ purpose – by eating the body of one whom had been made an honorary god, the Aztec nobles were themselves accessing the divine forces of the universe. In this feasting – as well as in the mythology of the two groups - there is a noted similarity between the Aztec and Christian religions. ( Web Ref. 13 )

Murdock, on page 396 of his work ‘Our Primitive Contemporaries’, writes of the parallels between this Aztec rite of cannibalism post-sacrifice, and that of the Eucharistic sacrament. Both are partaking figuratively of the body and blood of their God, and both are inspired ‘by an identical emotion and conception’. Sagan ( 1974: p66 ), in commenting on this, wishes the reader to remember that whilst the inspiring emotion might be the same, the concept is not – unlike the Aztecs, the Christian religion is one of love. However, both are agreed that the Aztec practice of cannibalism had its roots firmly in religion, an idea which has since been disputed.

Nutritional-Value Theories for The Evolution of Cannibalistic Sacrifice in the Valley Of Mexico

The bodily remains of human sacrifice were, traditionally, eaten, as Harner of The New School has pointed out. ( Harris, 1978. p109 ) His suggestions, first proposed in 1977, that the Aztecs neither repressed cannibalism nor sought to domesticate large herbivores because human flesh was their simplest source of meat, was greeted with incredulity as well as applause. ( Harris, 1986. P229 )

‘The Aztec priests can legitimately be described as ritual slaughterers in a state-sponsored system to the production and redistribution of substantial amounts of animal protein in the form of human flesh. Of course, the priests had other duties, but none had greater practical significance than their butchery.’

( Harris, 1978. p109 )

Many anthropologists found the idea that the Aztecs went to war, and to the effort of the construction of their hugely ornate and costly religious temples, solely so as they could eat other people, wholly risible.

Ortiz de Montellano has also studied these people at great length, and has found that, although the Aztecs’ only domesticated sources of animal food were turkeys and dogs, they also hunted wild animals for food. Their diets therefore included ‘deer, armadillo, thirty varieties of waterfowl, pocket gophers, weasels, rattlesnakes, mice, fish, frogs, salamanders… grasshoppers, ants, and worms’ ( Harris, 1986. P230 ). Further study on Aztec diet has also added tropical fruits and vegetables, iguanas, turkeys, dogs, quail, pheasant, hares, fish eggs, water flies, corixid water beetles, and even tadpoles. ( Web Ref. 1 )

Montellano notes that the Aztecs would have been better off that today’s ‘average Mexican’, as, eating corn, beans, chia, and huauhtli - foods the Aztecs received in tribute – they would have been well nourished. He feels that the estimated Tenochtitlan population of 300,000 would have been comfortably fed simply by a combination of the tribute offered to them ( enough for 60,000 to 150,000 ), and the yield of their chinapas agriculture (enough to feed 180,000). Yet Montellano also notes a wide variety of miscellaneous other Aztec food sources. The divergence of such a menu also suggests there were insufficient numbers of one or two nutritious species – such as pigs or sheep – to satisfy the population as a whole. Extensive hunting of native animals would have led to the great depletion of their numbers in Mexico. ( Harris, 1986. P231 )

Thus it appears that whilst Michael Harner’s idea is an intriguing one, it must ultimately be discarded. Essential amino acids would be acquired by those nobles whom practised ritualised cannibalism, but these would simply be supplementing an already nutritious diet. That the Aztecs did not eat the trunk of the body ( Harris, 1986. P226 ) (Sagan, 1974: p55 ) ( Web Ref. 2 ) also suggests that they were not practising cannibalism for its’ nutritional benefits.

At times of resource stress such as the terrible famine of the fifteenth century, the levels of human sacrifice did increase, but so as to pacify the angry gods. De Montellano found that in other areas, the Aztecs showed conventional responses to resource stress, expanding their technological, agricultural and military strategies. ( Web Ref. 1 )

“The Aztec feared that when the gods became hungry their destructive powers would be unleashed against humanity. To keep the mystical forces of the universe in balance and to uphold social equilibrium, the Aztec fed their gods human flesh. By the act of consecration the sacrificial victims were incarnated as gods. Through eating the victim’s flesh, men entered into communion with their gods, and divine power was imparted to men.”

( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P7 )

It is this element of the sacrifice which Reeves Sanday ( 1986: Pp15-18 ) feels that Harris overlooks, in his suggestions that the Aztecs turned to and continued the practice of cannibalism, so as to allow themselves meat – vital fats and proteins - in a country where game was scarce. It is clear that nutritional-biology was not a key factor in Aztec sacrificial cannibalism, neither in its instigation nor its evolution. However, the Aztecs’ necessity for a ready supply of victims, and the social structures which sacrificial cannibalism held in place, made for a civilised society adept at waging profitable wars. Is it possible that these secondary aspects to the sacrificial rituals actually became more important to Aztec society than the religious functions which they originally served ?

Other Purposes Sacrificial Cannibalism Served

Sacrificial cannibalism served several purposes secondary to its primary religious function; it made the Aztecs a threatening nation-state to others, encouraged them in conquest, and also reinforced their social structure.

‘The prime food of Huitzilopochtli was not, however, the prime food of the people. The consumption of human flesh, Huitzilopochtli's leftovers (Harner, 1977), functionally established the nobles as divinely privileged and empowered.’

( Web Ref. 1 )

One of the only ways to improve ones social standing in Aztec society would be to capture warriors on the battlefield – one would then be assigned noble status. Nobility was strongly tied in to sacrifice, as it was the nobles whom captured sacrificial victims for Anahuac, or even died for their gods. These people would be rewarded by eternal paradise. As Sahlins agrees, the Aztec system of human sacrifice conditioned the structure of their empire ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P20 ). However, reinforcing the social structure of Aztec society could have never become the primary function of sacrificial cannibalism, because the fluid system of class movement which it encouraged was not universally popular, as it allowed the lower classes to gain noble status by dint of their military prowess.

It has also been suggested that the Aztecs were practising their own form of eugenics with their ritual sacrifices, which would remove ‘surplus males’ from society. Their less-skilled warriors would be killed in their Xochiyaoyotl ( “flowery war” ) battles, leaving the ‘top seed’ to reproduce – thus the Anahuac were ensuring their future generations as prodigious fighters. ( Web Ref. 2 ) Sherburne Cook suggested that the Aztec methods of war - so as to minimise lives lost on the field and maximise the numbers of prisoners for sacrifice – and their religious practices ‘were part of a system for regulating population growth.’ However, these theories do not explain why more females were not sacrificed so as to control the population, or why the slaughter of enemies could not be partaken on the battlefield. ( Harris, 1978. pp107-8 ) Neither would have prompted the practice of religious cannibalism, nor would they have proved the prime reason for its continued practice. Population control of the Aztecs enemies’ is a far more likely postulation – their religion demanded a vast death toll from the surrounding areas of conquered states. In this way the Aztecs could drain their neighbours manpower, and defend themselves against future attacks. toll the deaths of the best fighters ( Web Ref. 1 ) However, the human sacrifices initially demanded by the gods were very small – population control cannot have been the instigatory reason for sacrificial cannibalism in Aztec society. Despite this, the effectiveness of this method of population control cannot be disputed, and it is conceivable that war under religious pretexts did become of at least equable import to the Aztecs. The Aztec success rate in war, and the fate of their enemies in sacrifice, could be used to threaten its own countrymen and its enemies into suitable behaviour. ( Web Ref. 1 )

Dignitaries from enemy cities and the Three-City League were invited to partake in the sacrificial celebrations in the Valley of Mexico – they would have attended feasts, dances and sexual orgies, as well as being required to witness the sacrifices. Those slaughtered in the sacred rituals demanded by the gods would serve as striking visual testimonial to the power of the Aztecs, and would send out a clear message of terrifying power to their honoured guests.

( Reeves Sanday, 1986: p173. ) ( Web Ref. 1 )

Conclusion

Marvin Harris believed that human sacrifice originated as an accidental ‘by-product of luck on the battlefield’, but was then institutionalised by the ‘church’. ( Harris, 1978. p105 ) This is unlikely to be true for the origins of Aztec sacrifice, given the history of human sacrifice in Mesoamerica, but ought to be considered as one possible plausible beginning. However, the fact remains that, however the ritual practices originated, whether by accident or design, they prevailed in this culture. Their evolution was primarily due to religion, and despite the burden which these practices placed on the state ( in terms of capturing, feeding and accommodating prisoners, etc. ), these practices were retained out of necessity. In order to ensure the ‘social and cosmological well-being’ ( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P32 ) of the universe, the gods needed human sacrifice, and the Aztecs needed to go to war for them. It is believed that the Aztecs did not found their civilised empire in spite of their sacrificial practices, but because of them.

‘Had the Aztec adopted the antisacrificial policy of Quetzalcoatl, it is doubtful that they would have succeeded in building an empire, for this empire depended on the hearts and blood of their neighbours.’

( Reeves Sanday, 1986. P193-4 )

The Aztec practices of sacrificial cannibalism originated in their society for religious reasons, and grew in scale as a response to natural disasters such as famine. Their zeal in obtaining bodies for sacrifice assured the Aztecs’ wealthy political position in Mesoamerica; it is possible that by the time of the Spanish conquest, the associated profits for the state which resulted from their religious wars were becoming more important to these people - with regards to the prevalence and scale of human sacrifice - than the religious meanings themselves. Certainly a transition had taken place; war and its profits were more important at this time than ever before. Nevertheless, it was religion on which all these activities were founded, and religion, with its associated mythology, had never had a greater significance to the Aztecs than at this time.

Bibliography

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 1983. ‘Aztec State Making: Ecology, Structure and the Origin of the State’. From: ‘American Anthropologist’ vol. 85. Pp261-279

Brundage, Burr Cartwright. 1979. ‘The Fifth Sun’. Austin: University of Austin Press.

Carrasco, David. 1990. ‘Religions of Mesoamerica’. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers.

Caso, Alfonso. 1958. ‘The Aztecs: People of the Sun’. Trans. Lowell Dunham. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Davies, Nigel. 1980. ‘The Aztecs: A History’. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Harris, Marvin. 1978. ‘The Cannibal Kingdom.’ From ‘Cannibals and Kings: The Origins Of Culture.’ London: Collins.

Harris, Marvin. 1986. ‘People Eating.’ From ‘Good To Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture.’ London: Allen & Unwin

Reeves Sanday, Peggy. 1986. ‘Divine Hunger.’ New York: Cambridge University Press

Sagan, Eli. 1974. ‘Cannibalism: Human Aggression and Cultural Form.’ New York: The Psychohistory Press

Zimmerman, Francis. 1982. ‘The Flesh of the Eaters of Flesh.’ Pp159-171 From: ‘The Jungle and the Aroma of Meats’. Berkeley: University of California