Divinity Atlas

Sacred Correspondences
Sources

Aztec Cannibalism: An Ecological Necessity?

Citation Formats

General Reference

APA Style

BibTeX

Aztec Cannibalism, An Ecological Necessity?, by Bernard R. Ortiz de Montellano, published in Science in 1978, is a peer reviewed critique of the widely publicized theory, advanced by Michael Harner and popularized by Marvin Harris, that Aztec human sacrifice and cannibalism functioned as a response to protein scarcity. Ortiz de Montellano, trained in both chemistry and anthropology, argued the nutritional math behind the protein hypothesis does not hold up against the actual scale of Aztec sacrifice and the available alternative food sources. Its strength is that direct quantitative rebuttal in the same journal and idiom the original ecological materialist argument used, a specialist checking another specialist's numbers rather than a general objection. Its limit is that it is one contribution to a debate that continued well past 1978, with later scholars proposing other explanations for Aztec human sacrifice beyond both the protein hypothesis and this article's own critique, so it should be read as refuting one specific theory rather than settling the wider question of why the practice occurred.

Facts
Citation
Author
Bernard R. Ortiz de Montellano
Publisher
Science, volume 200, number 4342, pages 611 to 617
Publication Year
1978
URL
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.200.4342.611
Source Type
peer-reviewed article
Assessment
Reliability Tier
1
Reliability tier 1: a peer reviewed quantitative rebuttal published in the same leading journal as the theory it critiques, a specialist checking another specialist's numbers.
Notes
The rebuttal to the protein-scarcity explanation of Mexica sacrifice. Argues that tribute and chinampa agriculture fed Tenochtitlan, that the flesh went to the elite rather than to the poorly fed, and that the practice peaked at harvest rather than in scarcity.
Claims Backed By This Source (17 claims)

This source backs 17 claims across the atlas. As facts: 10 well-attested, 1 popular myth - corrected. As cited relationships: 3 holds. Plus 3 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.

Disposition By Topic

  • Sources, 8 claims: 8 well-attested.
  • Studies, 4 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 popular myth - corrected, 1 holds, 1 general references.
  • Years, 4 claims: 2 holds, 2 general references.
  • Articles, 1 claims: 1 well-attested.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.

View At A Past Year

The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.