The earliest accounts of Aztec human sacrifice come from the Spanish Conquistadores and the early Catholic missionaries. Horrified by what they saw, they justified their own actions as God’s will against a godless barbarian people. However, depending on the personal bias or religious belief of the writer, historical accounts and interpretations of this practice often differ wildly. In The Conquest of Mexico Prescott argues that the Aztec practice of human sacrifice justified the total destruction of Aztec civilization. That such ritual sacrifices did take place on a large scale is not in doubt. The Franciscan missionary-ethnographer Sahagun gives us graphic descriptions of the religious ceremonies and forms of sacrifice as described by the Aztecs themselves.
Estimates of the numbers actually sacrificed differ widely. Bernal Diaz del Castillo claimed to have seen 100,000 skulls on the skull rack in Tenochtitlan alone. Bishop Zumarraga reported 20,000 sacrifices annually; Gomara over 50,000; Acosta more than 5000 - even 20,000 - on certain days. Other estimates reach astronomical heights. However, Bishop Las Casas, a supporter of the Indians, put the numbers around a few hundred. The actual figure probably lies somewhere between the extremes.
Recent time-motion computer simulations have cast serious doubts on the numbers reported by the Spaniards. For example, the skull rack reported by Bernal Diaz would have had to be many times larger than it actually was to hold that many skulls. Reports by the Spaniards are suspect because they wanted to make the Aztecs look as bad as possible to justify the Conquest. One could argue of course that two or three human sacrifices would have been sufficient, so, why thousands? But this is a logical fallacy; for if 20,000 human sacrifices are wrong, then one is equally wrong.
The Aztecs are sometimes charged with cannibalism. Cortés reported that he had captured an Aztec who had a roasted baby all ready for breakfast. For some people at least the evil character of the Aztecs was set for all time. However, ritual cannibalism, in which warriors eat the flesh of a conquered enemy to acquire his spirit or strength, has been well-attested in many societies around the world.
Some argue that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism because of a protein deficiency in their diet as a result of increased population and decreased animal protein supply. However, it is highly doubtful that the Aztec diet was any more deficient than the Tarahumara or others. Moreover, beans have a higher protein content than most meats and the combination of beans and tortillas makes a excellent protein complement. In Book 12 of the Florentine Codex Sahagun lists dozens of edible waterfowl and animals available to the Aztecs long before the Spaniards arrived. During the siege of Tenochtitlan bodies were lying about the streets. The people starved but did not eat the bodies. Finally, it does not follow that human sacrifice would be the best means of assuring adequate protein in the diet, because the upper classes who had the greatest access to protein sources also had almost exclusive rights to ritual cannibalism, whereas the lower classes with less available protein had least access.
The Spanish Conquest and its aftermath eventually killed far more people than the Aztecs ever sacrificed. We may recoil in horror at the thought of tearing the living heart out of a human being as a sacrifice to the gods but most of us do not think like Aztecs. Few people live their religion as devoutly as did the Aztecs. They were in fact a highly moral people. Moreover, we accept many things that would have horrified an ancient Aztec. We sit in our living rooms and watch newscasts of events even more violent than ritual human sacrifice but we are far enough removed from the event not to feel directly involved.
Death by violent means is death, whether by stabbing, bullets, explosions, or having your heart torn out on a sacrificial altar. However, if you were an Aztec you would at least have the satisfaction of knowing that you were fulfilling the will of the gods and would receive your just reward.
Is one method of killing better than another? Or does it depend on the numbers killed? Kill one person, you are a murderer, kill a million you are a conquering hero. Alexander the (so-called) Great wept when he found he had no more empires to conquer. Does that make him a victorious conqueror or a dangerously spoiled child out of control? Was Cortés a hero or simply a greedy murderous villain? In assessing the Aztec practice of human sacrifice we should try to maintain a balanced view. If you are going to condemn one side for atrocities, assign equal blame to the other side, if warranted.
