Understanding Aztec Cannibalism
Abstract
This essay seeks to examine the problem of explaining religious phenomena which appear very strange by focusing on a specific example, the Aztec complex of human sacrifice and cannibalism which reached its greatest intensity in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Three scholarly approaches to this complex are described and evaluated in regard to explanatory power and evidential support: (1) an approach which explicates the Aztecs’ own mythic self-understanding (historically likely but lacking much explanatory value); (2) an approach which tries to identify conscious and rational policy choices on the part of Aztec leaders (less likely but with greater explanatory power); (3) a materialist approach emphasizing ecological factors that sustained human sacrifice and cannibalism (poorly supported by evidence but with substantial explanatory power). Though each of these explanatory strategies achieves some success, our puzzlement about Aztec human sacrifice and cannibalism persists. These efforts to make Aztec beliefs and practices appear coherent or rational do not keep them from being an affront to our notions of what it is to be human or overcome our surprise at horrendous violence inflicted without apparent hatred of the victims. There remains little danger that we shall explain away either Aztec violence or any other religious phenomenon.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Despite the rich ethnographic record of Aztec ritualized human sacrifices in Central America, no osteological evidence of cannibalism has been identified on the human remains associated with these sacrifices.
“However, despite the rich ethnographic record of Aztec ritualized human sacrifices in Central America documented throughout representations and codices (Burhenn, 2004;Ortiz de Montellano, 1978;Read, 1998;Sahagún, 1950Sahagún, -1982)), no osteological evidence of cannibalism has been identified on the human remains associated with these sacrifices.”
From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Burhenn, 2004
Cites
Ortiz de Montellano, B. R. (1978) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.200.4342.611 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bello, S. M. (2025) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-024-09676-3 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“…despite the rich ethnographic record of Aztec ritualized human sacrifices in Central America documented throughout representations and codices (Burhenn, 2004; Ortiz de Montellano, 1978; Read, 1998; Sahagún, 1950–1982), no osteological evidence of cannibalism has been identified on the human…”
- Authors
- Burhenn, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (US)
- Corresponding author
- Burhenn, Herbert
- Venue
- Archive for the Psychology of Religion
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-14
- ISSN
- 0084-6724 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6121
- OpenAlex
- W2122976347
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archive for the Psychology of Religion (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Violence, Religion, and Philosophy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › General Arts and Humanities › Cultural and Mythological Studies
- Keywords
- human sacrifice, Aztec religion, Aztec mythology, religious violence, Aztec Empire
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review