"For a long time, it was commonly held by Mayanist experts that the 'pacific' Maya of Central America and southern Mexico did not practice human sacrifice. However, as more images and glyphs have come to light and been translated, it appears that the Maya frequently practiced human sacrifice in religious and political contexts." Source: Thought Company.
"...Far to the north, the Aztecs would become famous for holding their victims down on top of temples and cutting out their hearts, offering the still-beating organs to their gods. The Maya did cut the hearts out of their victims, as can be seen in certain images surviving at the Piedras Negras historical site. However, it was much more common for them to decapitate or disembowel their sacrificial victims, or else tie them up and push them down the stone stairs of their temples."
"A tower of human skulls unearthed beneath the heart of Mexico City has raised new questions about the culture of sacrifice in the Aztec Empire after crania of women and children surfaced among the hundreds embedded in the forbidding structure." Source: Reuters (July 2017).
"Archaeologists have found more than 650 skulls caked in lime and thousands of fragments in the cylindrical edifice near the site of the Templo Mayor, one of the main temples in the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan, which later became Mexico City."
Next video shows some of the ruins and artifacts of Templo Mayor. Several documentaries about the temple can be found on YouTube, but most of them are only available in Spanish.
The Aztecs weren't the first MesoAmerican civilization to practice human sacrifice -- the earlier Olmecs are also thought to have butchered people on top of pyramids -- but the Aztecs took the practice to "an unprecedented scale," according to the Ancient History Encyclopedia, which goes on to point out that the early stories about Aztec bloodthirstiness were probably exaggerated by the Spanish in an attempt to justify their own brutality against the natives.
"Blood-Drenched Altars will be a surprising, if not indeed a shocking, revelation to modern readers. For here is contained the key to understanding Mexico. Tracing the history of Mexico from its very beginnings, the author outlines the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Indians under Montezuma and exposes the lie that the Spanish destroyed a flourishing Indian civilization. Rather, this book shows how they ended an Aztec reign of terror over the other Indian tribes, highlighted by human sacrifice and cannibalism on an unprecedented scale--some estimates being 80,000 a year sacrificed and as many as 20,000 at one festival." -- from the back cover of Blood-Drenched Altars.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested not only in getting both sides of the story but in reading history as it was written before political correctness polluted our entire culture. Whether you accept the Catholic version of events or not, there's no doubt that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice on a massive scale:
"Conducted at specially dedicated temples on the top of large pyramids such as at Tenochtitlan, Texcoco and Tlacopan, sacrifices were most often carried out by stretching the victim over a special stone, cutting open the chest and removing the heart using an obsidian or flint knife." (Ancient History Encyclopedia) Next video demonstrates how this could have been done.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the conquistadors and the priests who followed them exaggerated the numbers of Aztec sacrificial victims. After all, it's unlikely that the Spanish actually counted the people being led to the tops of pyramids to have their hearts torn out. But if archaeologists are still digging up "towers of human skulls" in Mexico City, it's obvious that the Aztecs were killing a lot of people. Their brutality against their neighbors was one of the main reasons the Spanish had no trouble defeating the Aztec Empire.
This latest discovery doesn't "cast new light" on the Aztecs. Rather, it confirms once again what we already know about them.
"Buluc Chabtan was the Mayan god [of] war, violence, and sudden death (not to be confused with regular death which had its own deity). People prayed to him for success in war, to avoid sudden death, and just on general principles because you don't want to be on his bad side. Blood was seen as nourishment for the gods and a human life was the ultimate gift to a deity." Source: Thought Company.
"...In Mayan art, Buluc Chabtan is usually portrayed with a thick black line around his eyes and down one cheek. It's also common for him to be in images where he's setting fire to buildings and stabbing people. Sometimes, he is shown stabbing people with a spit which he uses to roast them over a fire. He's often pictured with Ah Puch the Mayan god of Death."
Comment: I've written a lot of scathing posts about these mobs of so-called pagans who swarm all over Stonehenge for the equinoxes and solstices, but I'm too apathetic this year to crank out another long screed mocking them for their improvised rituals, costumes, drum circles, and all the other New Age anachronisms they indulge themselves in during these gatherings. What the hell. I guess they're not doing any harm as long as they don't completely trash out the site like they've done in the past. (More here.) After all, Stonehenge may have been, among other things, an ancient cemetery.
These winter-solstice events should include feasts, however. According to English Heritage, "[t]he winter solstice may have been more important than the summer solstice for the people who built and used Stonehenge. Excavations at Durrington Walls suggest that people held huge feasts around this time of year."
The events should probably include sacrifices as well, both animal and human, though the evidence for sacrificial rituals at Stonehenge is apparently still kind of sketchy. According to The Daily Mail (2015), "animal sacrifice, feasting, dancing, and religious rituals" were conducted on the Salisbury Plain around the monument, and National Geographic reported in 2009 that "evidence that Druids possibly committed cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice—perhaps on a massive scale—add weight to ancient Roman accounts of Druidic savagery."
According to Caesar, "the Gauls are extremely superstitious; and so persons suffering from serious diseases, as well as those who are exposed to the perils of battle, offer, or vow to offer, human sacrifices, for the performance of which they employ Druids. They believe that the only way of saving a man's life is to propitiate the god's wrath by rendering another life in its place, and they have regular state sacrifices of the same kind." -- Caesar, The Conquest of Gaul [VI.16].
Modern neopagans are too civilized for that kind of thing, however, which is the main reason they can never be real pagans. I have a feeling that most of the people in these gatherings would run away screaming if they ever found themselves in the presence of the ancient gods of Stonehenge.
Comment: The Eucharist or Holy Communion is clearly an act of symbolic cannibalism, so it's not too surprising that the Romans, acting on vague reports of Christian rituals, would have accused the new cult of practicing actual cannibalism.
The negative Roman view of the early Christians was partly based on distorted rumors about their practices. For instance, the Christians were accused of incest because they called each other "brother and sister." And the charges of cannibalism were especially repulsive.
The Romans would have associated the stories of how Christians ate the flesh and drank the blood of their god with sieges, barbaric eastern cults and legends from Greek mythology: the Thyestean Feast, for instance, in which Atreus killed Thyestes' sons, cooked them and served them to their unknowing father. The stories aren't the same, of course, but the difference between the Communion and real cannibalism would have been lost on the practical-minded Romans.
In this case, it's hard to blame the Romans because the new religion did practice cannibalism. Symbolic cannibalism. And it still does.
Christians do what they can to obfuscate this strange practice, but it's hard to explain away the real significance of what they're doing. When Christians take communion, they are participating in an act of ritual magic in which the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. If that isn't symbolic cannibalism, I don't know what is.
Ritual cannibalism, whether it's symbolic or real, is designed to produce a spiritual transformation. For example, warrior societies often believed -- and some still believe -- that they could absorb the power of their enemies by eating them. In the same way, the follower of a god could literally absorb the spirit and power of the god through an act of sacred cannibalism.
The Communion, a ritual with ancient pagan roots, is surrounded by a fog of mystery and mystical jargon designed to obscure its real meaning, and some theologians, in typical fashion, defend it by claiming that it simply can't be understood. According to the New Advent, for instance, "the Church honors the Eucharist as one of her most exalted mysteries, since for sublimity and incomprehensibility it yields in nothing to the allied mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation." [Emphasis added]
In other words, Christianity is a mystery religion.
The connection between the Eucharist and cannibalism is so clear that theologians are compelled to try to explain it away using doubletalk, hairsplitting and paradox to deny the obvious:
"If Catholics believe the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Christ, then they believe they are eating human flesh and drinking human blood," according to The Catholic Thing (2011). "But while holy Communion does involve eating human flesh and blood, it is not true that it is cannibalistic."
In other words, cannibalism is not cannibalism, which, by definition, is the eating of human flesh by another human being.
The article goes on to make several arguments against the idea that the Communion is actually a form of ritual or symbolic cannibalism, but none of them are very convincing. For instance, cannibals supposedly only eat the dead, but "the Eucharist is life." Therefore, the Communion can't be cannibalistic. Likewise, "the Eucharist is the whole body and blood of Jesus Christ [but] cannibals only take part of their victims." Apparently, you're not a cannibal if you eat the living and clean your plate.
Most of the arguments here are based on mysticism. For example, the Communion isn't cannibalistic because "when a Catholic receives the Eucharist, he is receiving not just flesh but glorified flesh, a resurrected and transfigured 'super body' that foreshadows the new reality of a new Heaven and a new earth." I'm not sure that this is much of an argument, though. It makes it sound like the Eucharist isn't just cannibalism, but the glorified cannibalism of a super-body with transcendental powers.
I could go on with this, but why bother? Eating human flesh and drinking human blood is obviously cannibalistic even if the flesh and blood are purely symbolic. The truth is that the Eucharist is an act of theophagy -- "feeding on a god" -- with roots in very ancient, pre-Christian fertility rituals. Theophagy is "the act of eating one's god, either literally or symbolically," according to the Free Dictionary. And millions of Christians eat their god on a regular basis around the world.
It's not surprising to find a ritual like this at the very heart of a religion which originated as a mystery cult in Hellenized Israel.
"A 4,300-year-old city, which has a massive step pyramid that is at least 230 feet (70 meters) high and spans 59 acres (24 hectares) at its base, has been excavated in China, archaeologists reported in the August issue of the journal Antiquity." Source: Live Science.
"The remains of numerous human sacrifices have been discovered at Shimao [the name given to the city]. 'In the outer gateway of the eastern gate on the outer rampart alone, six pits containing decapitated human heads have been found,' the archaeologists wrote."
Discovered in 1965, a series of mass graves at the prehistoric city of Cahokia [near St. Louis, Mo.] reveal "one of the most extravagant acts of violence ever documented in ancient America: A thousand-year-old pit found under a tall earthen mound, lined from corner to corner with skeletons — 53 in all — neatly arranged two bodies deep, each layer separated by woven fiber mats." Source: Western Digs (2013).
Note: "The victims all appeared to be women, mostly in their late teens or early 20s. Evidence suggested they were strangled, or perhaps cut at the throat, at the edge of their shared mass grave, and then interred, meters away from an ornate burial of two men thought to be clan elders, political leaders, spiritual guides, or all three."
More pits discovered on the other side of the burial mound contained "some 270 human remains, each betraying signs of various degrees of violence — from having their jaws broken to being buried alive." So much for the image of the peaceful Native Americans.
"Preparatory: An animal was led to the altar, usually in a procession. The participants assembled in a circle, rinsed their hands in lustral [purifying] water, and took a handful of barley grain from a basket. Water was sprinkled on the victim to force it to 'nod' agreement to its own sacrifice. The main sacrificer (not necessarily a priest) then cut hair from the victim, put it on the altar fire, and uttered a prayer which defined the return that was desired [...] for the offering. The other participants threw forwards their barley grains.
"The kill. The victim's throat was cut with a knife; larger victims had been stunned with a blow from an axe first. Women participants raised the cry known as ololyge [shrill cry]. In Attic practice, it was important to 'bloody the altar;' small animals were held over it to be killed, the blood from larger ones was caught in a bowl and poured over it."
Treatment of the meat. There were three stages to the treatment of the meat after the sacrifice. "First the god's portion, typically the thigh bones wrapped in fat with (in Homer) small portions of meat cut 'from all the limbs' set on top, was burnt on the altar fire. Wine was poured on as it burnt. [...] Then the entrails were roasted on skewers and shared among all the participants. Finally the rest of the meat was boiled and distributed [...]; in contrast to the entrails, this boiled meat was occassionally taken away for consumption at home, though a community feast on the spot was the norm. Omens were often taken both from the burning of the god's portion and from the condition of the entrails."
Comment: Blood sacrifice, especially animal sacrifice, was an integral part of religious practice all over the ancient world. This is something that modern "neopagans" don't seem to grasp. A true pagan revival would necessarily mean a revival of these ancient rituals and it would also mean dropping all of the "belief systems" of modern paganism.
Real pagan religions, especially in the Mediterranean region, were entirely ritualistic. They weren't dogmatic or ideological. For instance, adherents didn't have to subscribe to a particular set of teachings like they do with Christianity. They didn't have to be a believer to sacrifice to the gods; this is why Roman aristocrats who thought the gods were superstitions for the masses could serve as priests without being hypocrites.
Modern neopagans will never take the step into real paganism, however. They're too "civilized," whatever that means, so they will never advance beyond the stage of role-playing when they get together at sites like Stonehenge to celebrate the solstices and equinoxes. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on your point of view.
Notes: "Around a hundred bodies have been found in ... Irish bogs to date, some male, some female, and those of children too. Some were thought to be there by accident, perhaps as a result of falling into the bog and drowning. Others were considered to be formal (and some not so formal) burials, and others appear to be rather more sinister." Source: Irish Central.
The ritual sacrifice dramatized in this video shows the execution of Old Croghnan Man, a bog body currently on display in the National Museum of Ireland, which, among other things, has an exhibit called Kingship & Sacrifice. According to the museum's website, "The exhibition is centred on a new theory that connects human sacrifice with sovereignty and kingship rituals during the Iron Age. Research has indicated that other material connected with these rituals include: items of regalia; items associated with equestrian [horse] procession; weapons; feasting utensils; boundary markers; items associated with corn and milk production, such as quern stones and butter deposits known as ‘bog butter’."
"After decades of historians denying that the Carthaginians sacrificed their children as described in Greek accounts, a new study claims to have found ‘overwhelming’ evidence that the ancient civilisation really did carry out the bloodthirsty practice." Source: Daily Mail (2014).
"Carthaginian parents ritually sacrificed young children as an offering to the gods and laid them to rest in special infant burial grounds, according to a team of international researchers."
Note: These sacrifices were supposedly carried out at the Tophet, a sacred precinct in Carthage. According to Wikipedia, "'Tophet is a term derived from the Bible, used to refer to a site near Jerusalem in which Canaanites and Israelites sacrificed children. It is now used as a general term for all such sites with cremated human and animal remains."
The Tophet in Carthage was the location of the necropolis and the temple of the goddess Tanit, the principle goddess of the Phoenicians and one of the two main figures in Carthaginian religion along with her cult partner, the chief god Baal Hammon.
The remains of sacrificial pyres, animals and young children have been unearthed at the Tophet, but the experts are still arguing over whether the children were sacrificed or died from other causes. If they were sacrificed, it's possible that some of them were substitutes for other children. It's also possible that the animals, in some cases, were sacrificed in place of children. According to Wikipedia, "[t]here is a clear correlation between the frequency of deposition of child remains and the well-being of the city" and the practice of child sacrifice by the Carthaginians is supported by ancient literary accounts.
One way or another, a lot of remains have been uncovered:
"The area covered by the Tophet in Carthage was probably over an acre and a half by the fourth century BCE, with nine different levels of burials. About 20,000 urns were deposited between 400 BCE and 200 BCE, with the practice continuing until the early years of the Christian period. The urns contained the charred bones of newborns and in some cases the bones of fetuses and 2-year-olds. These double remains have been interpreted to mean that in the cases of stillborn babies, the parents would sacrifice their youngest child." (Wikipedia)
2018 Stonehenge Winter Solstice Celebrations
Comment: I've written a lot of scathing posts about these mobs of so-called pagans who swarm all over Stonehenge for the equinoxes and solstices, but I'm too apathetic this year to crank out another long screed mocking them for their improvised rituals, costumes, drum circles, and all the other New Age anachronisms they indulge themselves in during these gatherings. What the hell. I guess they're not doing any harm as long as they don't completely trash out the site like they've done in the past. (More here.) After all, Stonehenge may have been, among other things, an ancient cemetery.
These winter-solstice events should include feasts, however. According to English Heritage, "[t]he winter solstice may have been more important than the summer solstice for the people who built and used Stonehenge. Excavations at Durrington Walls suggest that people held huge feasts around this time of year."
The events should probably include sacrifices as well, both animal and human, though the evidence for sacrificial rituals at Stonehenge is apparently still kind of sketchy. According to The Daily Mail (2015), "animal sacrifice, feasting, dancing, and religious rituals" were conducted on the Salisbury Plain around the monument, and National Geographic reported in 2009 that "evidence that Druids possibly committed cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice—perhaps on a massive scale—add weight to ancient Roman accounts of Druidic savagery."
According to Caesar, "the Gauls are extremely superstitious; and so persons suffering from serious diseases, as well as those who are exposed to the perils of battle, offer, or vow to offer, human sacrifices, for the performance of which they employ Druids. They believe that the only way of saving a man's life is to propitiate the god's wrath by rendering another life in its place, and they have regular state sacrifices of the same kind." -- Caesar, The Conquest of Gaul [VI.16].
Modern neopagans are too civilized for that kind of thing, however, which is the main reason they can never be real pagans. I have a feeling that most of the people in these gatherings would run away screaming if they ever found themselves in the presence of the ancient gods of Stonehenge.
Posted at 07:00 AM in Ancient Britain, Commentary, Culture, Paganism, Prehistory, Religion, Ritual Sacrifice, Stonehenge, Videos | Permalink