On Lies of Aztec Human Sacrifice

page: 10
46
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Now, about these Aztecs...

There's this two-dollar word I learnt from Harlan Ellison (not scraping acquaintance; got it from one of his essays in a Hollywood SF fanzine), thanatopsis. For 0.02¢ or less you can find a definition of it here.

Anyway, it seems to me – doubtless terribly influenced and propagandized by what old Blue Cage Avatar would call the Lie of History – that the poor Aztecs were infected with thanatopsis to a degree.

Consider, for example, those confounded crytals skulls* and the legend of Quetzalcoatl.

And then that relentless outward expansion** that supplied victims*** for those altars.

And – never mind if they were metaphorical or allegorical or simply phantasmagorical: those images. Aztecs created them, right?

These guy were obsessed with death.

You know, early civilizations generally tended to be. Check out the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Greeks (whose myths grew progressively less thanatoptic as their civilization progressed).

It's understandable. People in those days didn't live long. A man was still young at twenty, but he knew he would be old at forty, and probably wouldn't last till then anyway. The anomie we feel today when we are young was unknown to them. They were all too aware that they didn't have much time, and were fascinated by the oncoming terminus.

The Aztecs probably took it a bit too far. But the Old World knew this too; it is reported (by the Greeks) that the Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed children to their gods. In my own country, there was one lot who sacrificed virgins by throwing them off a mountaintop (not many, really; one a year, I think
) until the British put a stop to the practice. The British were always being party poopers like that.

But – what was I on about? oh yes – I think it's pretty clear the Aztecs sacrificed people. Maybe not so many of them. But even one a year is enough, isn't it?

I have ancestors who participated in those sacrifices****.
 

*The real ones, I mean. There are a couple of real ones, aren't they?
**A bit like the Spaniards really, except the hidalgos were projecting power a long, long way and most of their actual puissance on the spot was a front.
***Or converts, if our good friend halfoldman is to be believed, and it's certainly a possibility – at least for some of the victims.
****Probably.




posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
One thing that leads me to believe that they were chopping off heads is that they played one of the most violent sports in the history of the world. I think it was called Poctapoc. Even if the game's gore has been exaggerated, it was still full of carnage.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
It would not matter if we found bones of an entire sacrafical party still on an alter with blades clutched in their skeletal hands our intreped defenders of Aztec innocence would swear it was a life saving surgery in progress. No doubt our hero Aztec Priest /Doctor was cut down by savage Spanish rapists who then defiled the dead bodies by placing them in the position of "kiling a victim". All so that they could justify their piliaging to the Europeans back home who gave all sorts of crap about the plight of indigenous jungle dwellers.


There is WAY to much projection of modern sensibilities on to the past in this thread.
The Conquistadors didnt give a rats hind quarters what the "man on the street" thought about what went on in far flung jungles. They wanted gold and they were willing to kill to get it. They didnt have to invent anything about the Aztecs. The Aztecs didnt measure up to what "civiliized" was in their minds so they were "savages" and could be handled accordingly.

The defenders of the Aztecs are making an error here. I think most people here on ATS are more than willing to question the interpretations of historical evidence that modern scholars profess to be fact. That said ,however there is an extream amount of hair splitting going on here, Most of us putitng forth the "sacrafice" case seem to be willing to accept the numbers stated are most likely exagerations. Set aside the reasons for this I think its safe to say the numbers cant have been sustained. The opponets of the "sacrafice" case however are simply brushing aside anything presented as evidence. Professing it to be tainted by the Spanish source and putting forth the arguement that while "killing" or "punishment" may have occured it was not "sacraficing".

So I can end this thread right now. Yes you are right they didnt "sacrafice" anyone. It was all just "killing". They just "killed" a lot of prisoners and criminals. They saved all the official sanctioned "killing" for special days in the year. Then the offical government office holders would execute all those "criminals" in public.
I am so glad that this thread was started so that we could get that all cleared up.Thank you for getting me to see the error of my ways in thinking that the Aztecs were backward religious murderers. I now know them to be the backward elitist government murderers that they truely were.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ

Maybe a boat of Sumerians or Babylonians arrived and taught them how to be cannibals like their pagan priests were at the time. That is where we get our word cannibal. The Babylonian high priests ,the Peter ( great interpreter) were forced to eat the flesh of their human sacrifices too.
The word for priest in Babylonian is Cahna-Bal.

Most cultures had at one point or another the offering of blood without mortal death.

edit on 22-7-2012 by BIHOTZ because: fix
edit on 22-7-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

where in the world did you get the idea that cannibal comes from anything related to the babylonians? the world cannibal comes from the word caníbales a spanish name for the carib people in the caribbean, and since spanish is not in anyway related to akkadian the word used would be something like ēntu or enu or dingr.
the rest of this is nonsense, the babylonians have never been shown to eat human flesh, come on now.

down with disinfo.
edit on 28-7-2012 by demongoat because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
After speaking with several experts I will have to go with the gory society theory. It seems that many "historical" documents have some fiction. Like the parts about virgins. Virgins seem to be mentioned a lot. On theory suggests that the population may have become comprised of 90% females due to a proven genetic phenomenon. So yeah, virgins might have been everywhere and disposable. One new discovery is that supposed sacrificial remains proved to be war deaths, between rival groups, the Spanish, and others.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by coyote66
 


You obviously don't understand the fair comparison I made. Again the Spaniards had steel weapons and steel armor. Steel was more durable than obsidian. and steel was stronger and less likely to be penetrated than leather. My comparison is more than appropriate for the situation the Spaniards and the Aztecs were in. I see with your bewilderment about my comparison you understand the technology gap that I presented it is the exact same type of massive gap the Aztecs were left with.

You are talking about a blowgun and darts that yes would have been successful it had been able to penetrate the armor which I doubt it could. The buckshot however from a musket or an arrow from a crossbow would have easily penetrated the leather armor the Aztec warriors were using.

I didn't even bring in the notion of horseback warfare which also helped the Spaniards. I agree the Spaniards had a psychological advantage which is why Montezuma at first welcomed Cortez into the city thinking he was Quetzlcoatl, but that got Montezuma killed. The Spaniards also had an advantage due to the Texoco tribe joining the fight.

In a battle of Spring tension like technology in the bow vs gunpowder technology in the muskets and cannons, the gunpowder would win easier. So yes it is like having a machine gun in a musket battle.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by denynothing
 


So the Aztecan didnt had metals, so what, the darts (thank you) didnt even need to penetrate the Spanish metal armor. They were covered with poison, remember? And of the most lethal kind of poison on earth too. All they needed to aim were the neck, arm or legs. It would be enough to paralyze or kill their enemy.

But consider the Aztec dudes didnt know how to process metal at that day, how did they manage to decaptivate and or to rip hearts out of someones chest? With bamboo tools? Oh, that would be in Asia.

And the muskets, those silly muskets couldnt even hit a bottle from a 5 feet distance. And I dont think they were able even to penetrate a leather armor either, in a single shot.

And the horses, are you even aware that, that part of America is in fact the heaviest tropical rainforest on earth? Using horses to fight a battle in a thick populated jungle full of all sorts of plants and trees, and who knows whats in it? The terain was nothing like the Spanish subtropical half desert scenery. It was a totaly alien battlefield for the Spanish invaders.

The only fearsome weaponry the Spanish could brought with them would be the cannons. So no, I dont think they had very much adventage back then against the locals.
edit on 20-8-2012 by coyote66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Alexander2533
 


www.youtube.com...

about otsi the ice man but if it can butcher a deer im sure a sharper blade in practiced hands could remove a heart in the fashion that is depicted in their carvings and records

www.woosterglobalhistory.org...

this site has various links to obsidian blades

www.woosterglobalhistory.org...


‘To evaluate procedures that could have produced the lesions described here, and to gain further insights, three approaches to the heart were replicated by [names of personnel excluded by Beachcombing to prevent google-induced blushes] of the Medical Forensic Service in Mérida (Yucatán) on modern cadavers. Bifacial obsidian knives were used for horizontal and parasternal transthoracic accesses and a subthoracic transdiaphragmatic access [figures given] following the specific indications provided by the authors. The bodies were laid down in an overextended position to replicate the iconographic representations. Tests were also performed to distinguish whether liver and other internal organs’ disembowelment could have taken place instead of heart removal and where potential marks would have been left on the skeleton.’ Briefly, then, members of the staff of the Medical Forensic Service in Mérida (Mexico) took three corpses. The staff pinioned the corpses out on the table in the style of illustrations of Mayan sacrifices (‘overextended position’). They then proceeded to remove the heart from the three corpses, following a different technique on each body, employing Mayan cutting instruments (‘bifacial obsidian knives’) instead of scalpels. They also removed the liver and other organs. All this was done to see whether marks were left on the skeleton. And boiled down even further… C. 2006, for the first time in perhaps half a millennium, Mayan sacrifices were carried out in Mérida. Now, make no mistake, the experiment worked. Vera and Andrea were able to show that the skeletons that they had studied had very likely had their heart removed in a sacrificial ceremony. They were also able to reconstruct the technique used to remove the heart: it transpires a short and painful one with priests holding the victim in place.
above text is from this source www.strangehistory.net... near the bottom of the link so it seems that yes scientists have replicated the process and it was and is possible to remove a heart as well as other organs in this fashon

www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil...

boards.straightdope.com... few interesting links from posts on that site

www.elcamino.edu... that one seems to be more supportive of the ops claims but ill post it here for those intrested as well



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I'M BACK! Haha.


Sorry for being away for such a long time, thanks for so much support and challenges to this theory. And thanks for all those flags and comments.

In case some of you are still into that heart, the conquistadors gave us descriptions of quite ridiculous procedures, I'm not saying Aztecs weren't capable with their technology for it, but it's just been put in a drama thing by the conquistadors, heart removal isn't so easy or hard, conquistadors just created drama out of that, a drama where Aztecs were almost represented as people who took out the heart with one move! Haha, but that doesn't matter, as Aztecs did not do such things, and as human sacrifice is just a lie.

Anyway, I would love if we continue all this discussion, as I think we all are onto something.

Now, I gotta see all those comments, I will need some time!



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 


Man, I am not saying it's not possible. I was really, really skeptic in the beginning, but now I am not so skeptic. I am just saying that Spaniards have placed so much drama over that.
edit on 16-10-2012 by Alexander2533 because: Grammar!



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by demongoat
 


I didn't notice this before....BUT....you seem to think the world came into existence a couple hundred years ago...

Where do you think the Spanish got THEIR word which evolved from????

You do know WIKI is not the end all be all.....right?



If the wine of the communion table became actual blood, to drink it would be forbidden by the Bible, Deuteronomy 12:16; Acts 15:20. Many Christian martyrs have lost their lives rather than partake of the idolatrous mass, in which the priest claims to literally have the power to create God. The Council of Trent proclaimed that belief in transubstantiation was essential to salvation. In offering up the mass, the priest believes he is actually sacrificing Christ, a renewal of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The Bible, however, says Christ gave His life by one sacrifice for ever, Hebrews 10:10-14, 9:25-28.

After the priest blesses the bread (thinks he changes it into Christ), he places a wafer in the center of a sunburst stand called the monstrance. Catholics bow and worship this wafer god. Likewise, in Egypt, a cake was consecrated by a priest and was supposed to become the flesh of Osiris. Similar rites occurred in Mithraism and in ancient Mexico. Heathen priests ate a portion of all sacrifices. In cases of human sacrifice, priests of Baal were required to eat human flesh. Thus we have the word, “cannibal,” which comes from “Cahan-Bal,” priest of Baal.

www.jesus-is-savior.com...

that is just one source of many...

Where in the world did you get the notion that Caribbean people in the 1400´s INVENTED cannibalism. We had the practice in every culture and place in the world. That is more propaganda trying to make native people out to be savages.

Whether they did or not is irrelevant. The word comes from ancient Mesopotamia, and referred to the priest of BAAL....who practiced the sacrificial ingestion of flesh, real or perceived....which is where Christians get their practice from....but that is another story...


edit on 18-10-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by coyote66
 


Sorry I just saw this, still wanted to respond.

Any historian will argue that the Spaniards had a gigantic advantage over the Aztecs. I mentioned already the benefits of steel. The benefit of the Texoco tribe that helped the Spaniards conquer the Aztecs. You bring up horses and how they wouldn't be effective in a jungle. Sure I'll buy that argue I know not much about horses and jungles so maybe you have a point. Thats only if the fighting was in the jungle which it wasn't. The fighting happened in the city of Tenochitclan a metropolitan city that rivaled many cities of its day, it was set up around streams that flowed through the city but horses easily could have gotten into the city and been useful in the city.

The Spaniards wore armor that was much akin to the armor of european knights. Meaning head to toe steel plate with chain mail. That meant that the elbows, knees, neck, and all other joints were thoroughly protected. That means no the darts would not have killed the Spaniards, just like the obsidian would not have pierced the steel armor. The steel weapons easily penetrated the leather armor of the Aztecs.

If you do not think that the Spaniards had that much of an edge then the fighting should have been fair, it wasn't. The Aztecs had to work very hard to kill just one Spaniard, while the Spaniards easily killed Aztecs.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Obsidian is a very hard material. Meaning it is also very brittle. The number of human sacrifices estimated by early archeologists were ridiculous. A very brittle material like that wouldn't be able to withstand such a life cycle, it would eventually crack. Especially considering that those knives weren't as sharp as the scalpel knives that are used today in modern surgery.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

insanemobster60
Obsidian is a very hard material. Meaning it is z very brittle. The number of human sacrifices estimated by early archeologists were ridiculous. A very brittle material like that wouldn't be able to withstand such a life cycle, it would eventually crack. Especially considering that those knives weren't as sharp as the scalpel knives that are used today in modern surgery.

You really have no idea what you are talking about,.
You know they had more than one knife. And you obviously don't realize that the finest scalpels are made from OBSIDIAN. Obsidian will provide an edge far sharper than any steel blade.
The savage nature of Aztec sacrifice wasn't a product of European minds, the Aztecs themselves tell us how many people were sacrificed, and it not like they were the only meso American culture to do so.
edit on 17-10-2013 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   

punkinworks10

insanemobster60
Obsidian is a very hard material. Meaning it is z very brittle. The number of human sacrifices estimated by early archeologists were ridiculous. A very brittle material like that wouldn't be able to withstand such a life cycle, it would eventually crack. Especially considering that those knives weren't as sharp as the scalpel knives that are used today in modern surgery.

You really have no idea what you are talking about,.
You know they had more than one knife. And you obviously don't realize that the finest scalpels are made from OBSIDIAN. Obsidian will provide an edge far sharper than any steel blade.
The savage nature of Aztec sacrifice wasn't a product of European minds, the Aztecs themselves tell us how many people were sacrificed, and it not like they were the only meso American culture to do so.
edit on 17-10-2013 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)


I'm sure they had more than one knife, but how easy was it for them to manufacture such a high amount of obsidian knives? Were the Obsidian knives they manufactured nearly as sharp as the Scalpel knives of today. I know Scalpel knives are made of Obsidian. But you do realize that brittle materials crack very easily. Especially after a few cycles.





new topics
top topics
 
46
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join