This is technically history as well as science. Even though it was published in 1978, it actually refers to the cannibalistic practices of the Aztecs, whose empire was taken over by Cortes in 1521 when the Spanish conquistadores first came to the New World. If you’ve never heard of the Aztecs (who referred to themselves as ‘Mexicas’, and who are also referred to as the ‘Nahua’), they are usually known to history as a warrior culture, famous for the use of human sacrifice and cannibalism. There was a vast aristocracy (25{9f43b4361d9a125bc126dd2a2d1949be02545ec69880430bc4fed2272fd72da3} of the main population of the capital), an honor which could only be earned with valor in combat.
The one thing the Aztec empire was really known for was human sacrifice. This was a pretty common practice in mesoamerica, but apparently the Aztecs took human sacrifice to an entirely new level. It is estimated that they sacrificed between 1 and 5 PERCENT of their population PER YEAR. Of course, many theories arose as to why this number was so incredibly high (example, the population of the capital city, Tenochtitlan, was estimated at around 300,000, which mean you’d sacrifice 15,000 people per year). And of course, many of those sacrificed were also EATEN by the ruling class.
So why cannibalism? What drives people to eat each other? For a while, the predominant theory about Aztec cannibalism was that the Aztec people could not obtain enough protein from their primarily corn and bean diet, and therefore, they had to eat each other, and this was highly ritualized to make it ok. A Dr. Harner publicized this theory in the New York Times in 1977.
And here’s where we get to what I like about old science. While many people think that science in former years was more formal in correspondance than today, Dr. Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, in his response to Harner, is so pointed you can almost see him looming over the other guy and screaming “YOU ARE WRONG!!! EPIC FAIL!!!” How many people these days would come out and say in Science “I think Harner’s thesis is FLAWED.” Usually, people say, it might have some flaws, or there are some alternate interpretations, or…but no. FLAWED. Ouchie.
And there are other good things about this paper, for example “assume that all victims are 60 kg males consisting of 16 percent protein with a digestability of 90 percent…skillful butchering would give a 60 percent dressed yield.” It’s impressive how seriously these people take their calculations, though also a bit frightening…
Ortix de Montellano. “Aztec Cannibalism: an Ecological Necessity?” Science, May, 1978.
So I’ll just repeat that top bit for effect: 1-5{9f43b4361d9a125bc126dd2a2d1949be02545ec69880430bc4fed2272fd72da3} of the entire human population sacrified per year. Some eaten. Mostly prisoners of war, women, and children.
Ortiz (I’m going to call him Ortiz, and I hope doesn’t mind the informality, but ‘Ortiz de Montellano’ is a wretched thing to type over and over) provides tables galore to show that cannibalism was NOT in fact necessary to fulfil the protein requirements of the Aztec empire, and in fact couldn’t even provide a significant part of the protein in the diet. Even better, he provides examples of nutrition and information that states that the Aztec empire was not, as everyone seemed to think, an Empire on the perpetual edge of starvation. The Aztec people had lots of sources of protein, even without domesticated animals, including insects, fish, iguanas, armadillos, and lots of ducks and other waterfowl. Not only that, the way corn tortillas are traditionally prepared actually enhances both their protein and calcium content, not to mention the fact that beans have a substantial amount of protein as well.
Harner’s idea was that great famines, of which the Aztecs suffered at least two during the building of the empire, drove the rise of cannibalism as a dietary supplement. Ortiz points out that there are two main reactions to famine, neither of which are cannibalism. First, intensify your growing. Second, snatch the food from people around you who have some. There is a lot of evidence that the Aztecs used both of these methods to great effect (one of the things in this article that wowed me is the fact that Tenochtitlan was on an island in the middle of a lake. The citizens actually had growing platforms around the city, made of mud scooped from the lake bottom and set on stilts, to do their own farming, so their crops never dried out and were always near a source of irrigation. Now that is some cool old-school innovation.)
The next point Ortiz makes is this: if the common man is fighting, and fighting bravely, and giving himself willingly up to sacrifice after combant, WHY would they be sacrificing themselves if it was only for dietary reasons? You can bet I would be running like hell from being a prisoner of war if I knew I was going to be someone’s dinner. Not only that, but sacrifices were distributed as meat only to those of high status, but how would those people earn their high status in combat without adequate protein in the first place?
And finally, Ortiz makes what I consider to be a very important point, though he doesn’t play it up as much. During Cortes’ siege of Tenochtitlan, much of the populace actually starved to death before he won the city. The native chroniclers of the time spend a lot of time talking about how bodies were lying in the streets, without proper burial, and being eaten by animals. If human meat were really a common source of protein for these people, it is very unlikely that the Aztecs would have starved to death inside their city.
No, cannibalism wasn’t about protein or starvation. It was, in fact, about religion. Human sacrifice was believed to appease the gods,and was tied to certain times of year (NOT times of scarcity, as would be expected if cannibalism were a dietary supplement). Sacrifice of prisoners of war was common, the Aztecs were the ‘chosen people’, and it was their job to prevent the end of the world by offering human sacrifices to the sun god. Not only that, the fate of someone in the afterlife didn’t depend on how you lived, it depended on how you DIED. To die in war was the best possible thing, but to be a religious sacrifice ran a close second, with definite admission to paradise.
And why the cannibalism? The body of a sacrifical victim was believed to be sacred, and “eating their flesh was the act of eating the god itself”, and believed to put you in contact with spiritual beings, much like the other Aztec practice of ingesting psilocybin. Often, sacrifical victims were dressed to resemble specific gods, and were almost always supposed to be “without blemish” to be pleasing to the gods.
And the takeaway message from this paper: if you’re ravenous, human meat contains rougly 16{9f43b4361d9a125bc126dd2a2d1949be02545ec69880430bc4fed2272fd72da3} protein, very close to that of lean beef. But if you only eat the arms and legs (as was traditional in Aztec practice), you’re only getting 1.81kg of protein total. It’s not worth it. Stick to the corn and beans.
B. R. O. de Montellano (1978). Aztec Cannibalism: An Ecological Necessity? Science, 200 (4342), 611-617 DOI: 10.1126/science.200.4342.611
