Cortes had help from the neighboring tribes. Being constantly raided for sacrifice fodder understandably had them a little piqued.

That's what all the "poor oppressed" etc stuff forgets. The Spanish didn't have enough men to actually overthrow/defeat those cultures - they just seemed like less of an a-hole than the native a-holes were.

(And, given they probably didn't engage in human sacrifice, they probably were.)

Missions etc weren't built by force.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
There are many examples other than kuru.

I was not aware of that. What examples?

Pretty much as I thought.

I asked the ’net myself and the answer was that if the victim (consumee) were diseased with something like trichinosis, then failing to handle and prepare the corpse properly could result in the consumer becoming infected: like many other common examples involving eating other animals such as pigs that have nothing to do with blanket, common taboos against human cannibalism.

I read an excellent book back in college about this called "The Hummingbird & The Hawk" by R.C. Padden written ca. 1968. I'm sure we've learned a LOT more since but this was in an archaeology class so definitely an academic look vs. a pop culture one. Amazon has used paperback copies available. I might still have mine and happy to loan it out if so; it was a fascinating read (and not super lengthy).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PGT,

quote:

The Hummingbird & The Hawk" by R.C. Hadden

Padden?

That looks like an interesting book. Thanks for the recommendation.

The question of whether the Aztecs practiced cannibalism piqued my interest because I hadn’t heard it before reading VDH’s book, and it caused me to question why.

I have great respect for Victor Davis Hanson as an historian, and find it difficult to believe that he would repeat an ancient claim without good justification. But it’s still possible that the claim which was evidently made mostly by the Spanish invaders was false, as was the claim that cannibalization wasn’t limited to the Aztecs in the area. Could it have been that although the undeniable human sacrifice was horrible, adding a false claim that not only were people killed to satisfy pagan gods, the victims were eaten! as well was intended as further justification for the treatment of the conquered?

On the other hand, could there be a different reason why most histories about the Spanish conquest don’t mention the practice of cannibalism even if true because that would undermine someone’s agenda? I.e., the Spanish were the bad guys in the story and we don’t want to lessen the impact of that tale by pointing out that the Aztecs were pretty nasty themselves—to the point that the Spanish probably could not have defeated and destroyed them without massive help from their other native neighbors who had been their victims for so long?

Thanks for the responses.

quote:

Originally posted by Tooky13:
Mel Gibson's movie Apocolypto vividly portrays the human sacrifices practiced by the Aztecs.

That movie was about the Myans not Aztecs, but I get your point, the human sacrifice scenes were brutal....

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

The Hummingbird & The Hawk" by R.C. Hadden

Padden?

Indeed; I shouldn't leave my reading glasses in the kitchen lol

Yes, this was a known practice of the Aztecs. A central tenet of their culture.

The rituals invoked barbaric murder, cooking, and eating the victim’s flesh. I believe a ceremony/event could involve hundreds, maybe thousands, of sacrifices.

And no, it is not the same as Christian communion.