RELIGION

Even had the Spaniards not virtually obliterated indigenous written history in the area, it still might not be possible to understand the reasons for the massive scale of human sacrifice at Tenochtitlan, since the practice was rationalized, consciously or unconsciously, by religion.

The Aztec religion would take a 'book report' type paper itself, and that would only be a cursory overview. The important element in relation to human sacrifice, very briefly, is that the universe was thought to run on an energy called tonalli, "animating spirit". This word comes from tona, "to make heat or sun". It nourished the gods, and kept the sun moving. Throughout Aztec religion there is great emphasis on motion, and motion is driven by tonalli. In humans it is located in the blood stream. When a man is frightened, it concentrates in the heart. The gods' thirst for it is perpetual. It drives the universe. Without it, everything stops.
(Graulick, 1988. Ingham, 1984)

It seems to be a clear rational for human sacrifice. Huitzilopochtli is a particularly thirsty war god and the primary god of the Aztecs. Quetzalcoatl, on the other hand, was opposed to human sacrifice. ...because of his love for his people, Quetzalcoatl allowed only the sacrifice of snakes, birds, and butterflies. Yet, if myth admitted objection to human sacrifice, it argued even more forcefully in favor of the practice by making it the wish of the reigning gods of the cosmos: the three sorcerers had driven Quetzalcoatl from Tula precisely because he was against human sacrifice. (from Codice Chimalpopoca, 1945, in Ingham 1984)

While writing primarily from a materialist perspective, I do not wish to suggest that religion (spiritually or psychologically interpreted) plays no motivational role in human behavior. The emphasis on the role of a 'higher power' in 12 step programs for every major addiction is sufficient evidence to the contrary. And interpreting the past based on material culture does not necessarily mean that the interpretation must a priori be materialistic if the evidence suggests otherwise. For example, while there can be a clear argument made for political advantage accruing to the successor of a diseased King who builds a conspicuously impressive burial monument to his memory (Hayden, 1993: pg. 286), a materialist interpretation is not as clear cut when the bodies of non-noble sacrifice victims are disposed of with care and attention in the absence of any central figure of importance, seemingly for their own sake, as was the case in the Late Preclassic burial mound excavation at Chalchuapa, El Salvador (Fowler, 1984). Fowler suggests that the remains may be of war captives, but they were accorded more dignity in burial than was shown Aztec victims. Grave goods were few, but the bodies of 13 of 33 were coated with red hematite, and 24 of the burials were covered with bark cloth. While "chiefs and their supporters" could collude "to use the power of the sacrifice to demonstrate their own achievement of power" (Hayden, 1993), I would suggest that ceremonial burial and the cost in time/energy it
entails reflects a religious dimension absent in the disposal of the bodies of Aztec victims. Throwing the body down the stairs and chopping off the arms and legs for possible later consumption and throwing the trunk to the animals in the zoo (Harner, 1977) seems a most unceremonious ceremonial. Further, the consumption of human flesh was a prerogative of the gods. By sharing in it, especially costumed as gods, the nobles served the very secular interest of enhancing their 'godlike' image and authority. "The commoners, by contrast, did not dress like the gods or share in cannibalistic meals" (from Duran, in Ingham, 1984).

As well, religious motivation is inadequate to explain the degree to which human sacrifice was practiced. Quetzalcoatl didn't think it was necessary at all. Religious necessity can be served symbolically, or else a single human sacrifice can be imbued with very great significance, as in the case of Roman Catholicism. Even one sacrifice to the bloodiest goddess in the Hindu pantheon, Kali, would keep the goddess happy for a thousand years (Kalika Purana, in Campbell, 1962; pg. 6). This would not prevent her worshippers from attempting to make her very happy, but even at their most enthusiastic, Kali looked like a tea granny compared to Huitzilopochtli. The Aztec practice went beyond what was required by religious necessity. If human life had been as sacred to them as it was to Quetzalcoatl it would have been a very different religion. The scale of sacrifice displays a strong disregard for life except as a tool to display power in the taking of it.