[Aztlan] on the rightness or wrongness of human sacrifice-

[Dodds Pennock, Dr C.E.]

Dear colleagues,

Just three points which I wanted to pick up that this interesting discussion has raised: the 'slaughter' of surrounding peoples, the flowery war, and the question of 'willing' sacrifice. To quickly address the first - we must not forget there is evidence for the existence of a shared tradition amongst the cities of the Valley of Mexico. One must take care not to over-generalise, but it is clear that human sacrifice forms a point of correspondence between many of the various peoples. Don Carlos Ometochtzin, who was famously burnt at the stake by the Inquisition in 1539, during his trial likened the regional differences in religion to the differences in doctrine and practice between different Christian religious orders, each with their ‘own way of sacrificing, their own way of praying and of offering’. Whilst the expansion of Tenocha influence during the fifteenth and early sixteenth century certainly seems likely to have led Tenochtitlan to become a 'net importer' of victims during the period, Aztec warriors were also sacrificed in other cities. 

On the flowery war, just a brief additional point to what has been said already. Chimalpahin suggests that in the early years, the ‘flower wars’ which were designed specifically for the taking of captives, saw noble captives from both sides spared from sacrifice whilst their less fortunate, and less aristocratic, comrades were offered up to the Sun. He claims that after 1415, as the Aztecs’ military ambition and focus escalated, nobles also became part of the deadly game of war and were expected to go to their deaths if captured. 

The evidence on the 'willingness' of individuals to go to sacrifice suggests a wide variety of responses. I will leave aside  for the moment the death of individual warriors through events such as the 'gladiatorial' sacrifice (which seem significantly more likely to have been implicated in ideals of honour and ideal afterlife - making the parallels with seppuku and martyrdom more helpful). Looking at the mass sacrifice of captives, what little evidence we do have suggests a whole range of attitudes. 

The Florentine Codex states:
"And when some captive lost his strength, fainted, only went continually throwing himself on the ground, they just dragged him.
But when one made an effort, he did not act like a woman; he became strong like a man, he bore himself like a man, he went speaking like a man, he went exerting himself, he went strong of heart, he went shouting. He did not go downcast; he did not go spiritless; he went extolling, he went exalting his city." (Book 2, Chapter 21). 

This wide range of responses seems highly likely. Even if (and it's a big 'if') we accept that some victims believed that their sacrificial death would lead them to a privileged afterlife, and even sought after it, then individual reactions to their approaching death would undoubtedly have varied considerably. The Aztecs naturally wished to present sacrificial death as an honourable, even a desirable, fate, but the reality of consent is a complex one and the feelings of victims are difficult to reach. 

Francisco de Aguilar, one of the original conquistadors who later became a Dominican monk, claimed to have witnessed human sacrifice himself and recalled that that the ‘men and women who were to be sacrificed to their gods were thrown on their backs and of their own accord remained perfectly still’. There are many ways we might read this stillness (if indeed it occurred) and the possibility of misinterpretation by Aguilar of course remains, but there seems little motivation for this eyewitness to deliberately distort the event in a fashion which would lessen rather than magnify its horror. 

There are a number of incidents where the complicity of victims does seem greater. We are told, for example, that the ixiptla of Tezcatlipoca roamed freely throughout the city for the year before his death, and supposedly chose the very moment at which he was to die. Juan de Pomar, the mestizo great-grandson of the ruler Nezahualcoyotl wrote: ‘it was never found out, whether anyone of those that were chosen for this had fled, for to flee seemed a thing unworthy of men that represented such great majesty as this idol, so as not to be held as cowardly and fearful with perpetual infamy, not only in this land, but also in his own, and so they wished first to die to earn eternal fame, because they held to be glory and a happy end’. This is clearly a far from simple question, but I thought some colleagues may find these additional sources interesting. 

Best wishes,
Caroline
-------
Dr Caroline Dodds Pennock
Lecturer in Early Modern History
School of Historical Studies
University of Leicester
University Road
Leicester
LE1 7RH

email: ced22 at le.ac.uk
http://www.le.ac.uk/history/people/ced22.html