Ancient Mesoamerica, 16 (2005), 110

Copyright 2005 Cambridge University Press. Printed in the U.S.A.

DOI: 10.1017/S0956536105050030

AZTEC CANNIBALISM
Nahua versus Spanish and mestizo accounts in the Valley
of Mexico

Barry L. Isaac
Department of Anthropology, McMicken College of Arts and Sciences, 481 Braunstein Hall, PO Box 210380,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0380, USA

Abstract
This article engages the debate about Aztec cannibalism principally through the analysis of three accounts of cannibalism by
trickery set in the Valley of Mexico. These three tales are practically the only form in which cannibalism appears in the major
Nahua (indigenous Nahuatl-speaking) writings of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The stories portray cannibalism
as shocking, even abhorrent, to Aztecsrather than as customaryand as a stratagem for humiliating an enemy or provoking a
community to war. The contemporaneous Spanish writings, in contrast, are replete with allegations of customary cannibalism,
while the major mestizo (Nahua mother and Spanish father) authors are divided in their treatment of the subject. The three-way
critical comparison (Nahua, mestizo, Spanish) raises the possibility that the idea of customary cannibalism originated in Spanish
culture and was then transmitted to the indigenous population during post-Conquest religious conversion and Hispanicization.

Spanish) writers of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. To anticipate, these stories of cannibalism by trickery intended
to provoke or humiliate political enemies are practically the only
form in which cannibalism appears in the writings of the Valley of
Mexicos two prominent early Nahua scholars, Hernando Alvarado Tezozomoc (1980, 1998) and Francisco de San Antn Mun
Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin (1965, 1983, 1991, 1997). In fact,
apart from these three stories, there are only three terse, passing
mentions of cannibalism in their entire oeuvre (Chimalpahin 1991:
89, 1997:1:146147, 2:97; also in Tezozomoc 1998:132); as we
shall eventually see, one of these latter instances is clearly mythological, while the other two allege that Aztec conquest of a particular town put an end to cannibalism there. The contemporaneous
Spanish writers, in contrast, recount versions of two of the three
stories of cannibalism by trickery but also liberally lace their narratives with allegations of institutionalized (customary, enjoined)
cannibalism in connection with a great many religious and political events (Durn 1971:79, 92, 133, 176, 191, 199, 212, 216, 227,
259, 386, 428, 432, 444, 463, 1994:10, 78, 105, 139, 141, 192,
193, 233, 250, 272, 276, 407, 435, 474, 542; Motolina 1971:33,
51, 53, 62, 65, 79; Sahagn 19701981:Book 1:42, Book 2:3, 24,
48 49, 54, 184, 193, Book 4:35, Book 9:64, 67). Of the Valley of
Mexicos two prominent mestizo authors, one (Ixtlilxochitl 1975
1977) is even more reticent than the Nahua writers, while the
other (Pomar 1986) alleges cannibalism but on a very minor scale
compared with the Spanish writers. These NahuaSpanish
mestizo differences raise important questions for the evaluation of
ethnohistorical sources on the subject. Furthermore, the Nahua
accounts shed important light on the ideological context of Aztec
cannibalism, regardless of whether we conclude that the accounts

Anthropologists have largely neglected the subject of Aztec cannibalism for the past 20 years, for two apparent reasons. First,
the ecological model of Aztec cannibalism boldly advanced by
Michael Harner (1977) and Marvin Harris (1977:147168), anthropologys only major attempt to date to theorize the subject,
was swiftly and thoroughly destroyed by area specialists (summarized in Petrinovich 2000). Second, William Arenss widely
influential The Man-Eating Myth (1979) called into question all
previous reports of cannibalism, largely bottling up the subject
until fresh evidence could be marshaled (Arens 1998; Barker
et al. 1998; Brady 1982; Goldman 1999; Petrinovich 2000; Pickering 1999).
Recent research has vigorously challenged Arenss stance, especially for Melanesia (Goldman 1999) and the U.S. Southwest
(Turner and Turner 1999; cf. Kanter 1999). There are also two
fresh developments regarding Aztec cannibalism, both ethnohistorical studies. First, Christy Turner and Jacqueline Turner (1999:
464 ff ) have attempted to demonstrate that cannibalism diffused
to the prehistoric U.S. Southwest from central Mexico, the Aztec
heartland. Second, I have shown that indigenous belief in preHispanic cannibalism is reported in 40 (38%) of the 105 surviving
15771586 Relaciones Geogrficas for central Mexico (Isaac 2002).
This article engages the cannibalism debate through the analysis of three stories of cannibalism by trickery in the Valley of
Mexicoone each in Xochimilco, Chalco, and Tenochtitlan
because they point up sharp contrasts among the major Nahua
(indigenous Nahuatl speaker), Spanish, and mestizo (Nahua

E-mail correspondence to: barry.isaac@uc.edu

Isaac

of it represent actual customary practice or a post-Conquest reinterpretation of the past.

A caveat is in order: This article concerns cannibalism allegedly carried out by humans, not by gods. The latter is alleged in
two of the Nahua sources used here, both of which state that
Huitzilopochtli, the Mexica patron deity, and his sister ate human
hearts and even ate their mother and uncles (Chimalpahin 1997:
1:83; Tezozomoc 1980:225, 229, 1998:35). These allegations of
godly cannibalism in mythological time strike me as being in a
different class from the allegations of cannibalism by humans in
historical time and thus require a separate analysis.
THREE STORIES OF CANNIBALISM BY TRICKERY
Story 1: Human Stew for the Rulers of Xochimilco
Both of the major sixteenth-century narrators of the Aztec empires
development from the viewpoint of its capital of Tenochtitlan
Diego Durn and Tezozomocrelate versions of the first story.
Durn, born in Spain circa 1537 but reared in Tetzcoco, the erstwhile Aztec empires second-ranking city, was a Dominican friar
who completed his Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espaa in 1581
(Durn 1994). Tezozomoc was a Nahua historian descended from
Tenochca kings (Mariscal 1994:xxixxxi). Born circa 1520 in Tenochtitlan, he was the maternal grandson of Moctezuma II (r. 1502
1520), under whom his father was a provincial governor, and the
patrilineal great-grandson of King Axayacatl (r. 14681481). He
completed his major historical work, Crnica mexicana, in 1598
(Tezozomoc 1980). Both Durn and Tezozomoc apparently drew
on a now lost manuscript referred to by moderns as the Crnica X
(Barlow 1945; Bernal 1994).
The events of interest here purportedly occurred circa 1430,
following the successful 14281430 rebellion of the Tenochca
(the people of Tenochtitlan) against the Tepaneca empire (Isaac
1983b). The Tenochca then began to assemble the Aztec empire,
bringing themselves into conflict with the other major city-states
of the Valley of Mexico lakes, including Xochimilco, whose leaders decided to resist absorption rather than capitulate. Hiding their
intentions, the Xochimilca continued to allow free access to the
Tenochca, including their market women. In the meantime, the
leaders planned a dinner, at which they would decide strategy.
Tezozomoc (1980:272) tells the story of the banquet this way:
Within a few days, the Mexica [Tenochca] women went to the
Xochimilco marketplace to sell . . . things reaped from the lake,
and ducks of all types. The Xochimilca Indian women washed
very well the izcahuitle [red water worm, a delicacy] and stewed
the very well-washed ducks and cleanly carried it [the stew] to
the Government Palace for the principal men to eat, and when
they began to eat, it was very tasty and, continuing with their
meal, they then found in their bowls heads like those of children, [and] human hands and feet, and [human] guts. Shocked
and frightened, the Xochimilcas began to shout, saying, I have
told you, Lords, how bad and perverse these Mexicas [Tenochca]
are, that with these very things and others they subdued the
Azcapotzalca Tepanecas and Coyoacan, with these lies and
tricks. Let us do our best against them: Prepare and equip yourselves, Lords of Xochimilco, as the time has come.

Note that it was the women of Xochimilco, not those of Tenochtitlan, who did the careful washing of the food. If the latter had done
it, we could infer that the washing of the izcahuitle and ducks was
performed punctiliously to disguise the ritual washing of human

meat (Sahagn 19701981:Book 2:141, 162168, Book 9:45, 61

66) secretly placed in the pots. That not being the case, we are left
with the more prosaic interpretation that the careful washing of the
banquet ingredients was merely a narrative element intended to indicate that everything had been thoroughly inspected and nothing
found amiss during the preparation of the meal. Thus, Tezozomocs
narrative provides no explicit mechanism for the insertion of the
human parts into the stew, although we could reasonably speculate
that he intended the reader to infer sorcery (Durn 1994:214222;
Sahagn 197081:Book 4:101106).
Durns version omits both the careful cleansing of the food
before cooking and the suspenseful element of the diners finding
the human parts in the bottom of their bowls after having enjoyed
the tasty stew. Rather, Durn has the delicacies in the dishes
mystically turning themselves into human body parts as soon as
the diners are seated, before they have eaten anything. Thus, the
diners are terrified by the mysterious transubstantiation of their
dinner into a pottage of recognizable human parts, not by having
eaten the broth of a human stew, as implied by Tezozomoc. Overall, the surreal and picaresque in Tezozomocs account becomes
explicitly supernatural in Durns (1994:105):
In their terrorfor nothing like this had ever been seen or
heardthe Xochimilcas called their soothsayers and asked what
this meant. The soothsayers answered that it was an ill omen
for it meant the destruction of the city and the death of many.
The lords of Xochimilco, appalled at this, cried out, Ah, friends,
we are lost! There is no remedy for us. People of Xochimilco,
prepare to die, because the glory of our city will perish as did
that of Azcapotzalco and [neighboring] Coyoacan!

It is important to note that neither version of this story says that

the Xochimilca ate human flesh as such. In Tezozomocs version,
the Xochimilca ate its brothwhich, he notes sardonically, was
very tastybut stopped eating, shocked and frightened, when
they encountered the human parts in the bottom of their bowls. In
Durns version, the would-be diners ate nothing at all, as they
were terrified by the transubstantiation that occurred before them
as soon as they were served. Accordingly, we are left to wonder
about the true basis of the Xochimilcas shock and fear. Was it the
discovery of human body parts in their bowls (Tezozomoc) or the
transubstantiation of soup components (Durn)? In other words,
was their reaction simply the equivalent of our own upon discovering, say, a mouse in our soup (or, worse, of seeing a lump of
floating tofu turn into a mouses head)? Or were they shocked
and frightened (Tezozomoc) or terrified (Durn) that human flesh
per se had been served (or made to appear) as foodthat is, by the
very possibility of cannibalism? For however tempting it is to
privilege this latter possibility, we have no empirical basis for
doing so. What we can say is that cannibalism occurs in Tezozomocs version of this story, in which the Xochimilca enjoyed the
very tasty broth before discovering that it had been derived, in
part, from the juices of human meat.
Another important matter left unspecified is the provenience
of the body parts in Tezozomocs version. (In Durns version,
they originated by supernatural action.) Were they Xochimilca?
Tenochca? Of unknown persons? Was provenience (in-group vs.
out-group) even an issue here in producing the shock and terror?
We cannot say.
Before moving on, we should note that the foregoing story of
cannibalism by trickery from Tezozomocs Crnica mexicana is

Aztec cannibalism
one of only two references to human (versus godly) cannibalism
in his oeuvre. It is, in fact, the only instance if we accept that the
other work historically attributed to Tezozomoc, the Crnica mexicyotl, was instead written by Chimalpahin (Schroeder 1997).
Durn, in contrast, seems obsessed with cannibalism.
Story 2: Ambassador Stew for King Moquihuix
Story 2 comes to us from the indigenous historian Domingo Francisco de San Antn Mun Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin (born
1579), a descendant of the fringe nobility of Chalco at the south
end of the Valley of Mexico. Chimalpahin, as he is usually known,
wrote his extensive histories over the years 16081631. Although
acquainted with the other major Nahua and Spanish/mestizo scholars of his day in the Mexico City area, Chimalpahin drew on some
singular source materials, such as the Chalco histories collected
by his grandfather and other Chalca elders who had lived in preHispanic times (Lockhart 1992:387388; Schroeder 1991:14
21). He was also exceptional in his day because he wrote for an
indigenous, not a Spanish, audience (Schroeder 1997:10, note 20).
The incident of interest purportedly occurred in 1469 or 1473
and stemmed from an attempted coup against the Aztec King Axayacatl of Tenochtitlan by Moquihuix, ruler (tlatoani, king) of
Tlatelolco, Tenochtitlans next-door sister city (Garduo 1997:
110 119; Isaac 1986:338341). Hoping to enlist allies, Moquihuix sent emissaries to various cities both within and beyond
the Valley of Mexico. He had reason to think that Chalco would
join him, as the Aztecs had conquered it only in 1465 after a
20-year war (Isaac 1983b:123124). The Chalca wanted no part
of it, however, and Moquihuixs four ambassadors were taken
prisoner (Chimalpahin 1965:207):
Neither of them [the guards] wanted to give aid to Moquihuix
to try to conquer the Tenochcas. Rather, they arrested the Tlatelolco ambassadors on the spot, tied their hands, put them face
down in a canoe, stuck a roll of reeds in their mouths, and all
night went to and fro in their canoes. The following day . . ., the
Chalcas took them before King Axayacatzin [in Tenochtitlan].
They were hanged with a rope around their necks, in front of
this ruler . . ., the same day they were presented to him. Once
they were dead, they were bathed in order to boil them in a pot,
and they were taken to Chalco to cook them there; Moquihuix
and various other Tlatelolcas [dignitaries] were invited to a
banquet so that they would come and eat their own ambassadors, not knowing that they had been killed by the Tenochcas. . . . This incident determined that, during [the next] five
years, the Tenochcas and Tlatelolcas made war.

In a humorous retelling elsewhere, Chimalpahin (1997:2:47 49)

set the banquet in Tenochtitlan and had King Axayacatl asking the
Tlatelolca the next morning, Our friends, have you eaten? When
they replied, We have eaten, ruler, Axayacatl informed them
that they had eaten their own men. The Tlatelolca fled and then
arrayed themselves for battle.
It is important to note that the executed messengers were bathed
in order to boil them (emphasis mine). In other words, they were
given the ritual cleansing that was preparatory to certain human
sacrifices that Spanish sources say were followed by the eating of
the bathed victim (e.g., Sahagn 19701981:Book 2:141, 162
168, Book 9:45, 61 67).
Two other aspects of this story are important to note. First, it is
one of only three instances of human (versus godly) cannibalism in

3
Chimalpahins published writings; the other two, as we shall see,
likewise fail to portray cannibalism as an institutionalized (customary, enjoined) practice. Second, I am unable to find this particular
story in any other authors work. Tlatelolcos rebellion against Tenochtitlan is widely reported in the literature, but only Chimalpahin includes the cannibalism element, which must have been unique
to the elders whom he or his grandfather consulted in Chalco.
Story 3: Genital Soup for Captain Tlahuicole
Story 3 is set in Tenochtitlan, and both Durn (1994:448) and
Tezozomoc (1980:643 645) relate versions of it, but the only account that contains the element of cannibalism comes to us from
Tlaxcala. Although the pre-Hispanic Tlaxcalteca shared most cultural features, including the Nahuatl language, with the Aztecs of
the Valley of Mexico, Tlaxcala was never conquered by the Aztec
empire, which adjoined it on all sides. In other words, unlike
Stories 1 and 2, which were narrated by Valley of Mexico (Aztec)
sources, Story 3 as a tale of cannibalism by trickery originates in
territory that was still outside the Aztec empire when the Spaniards arrived in 1519. If they had arrived perhaps only 1 or 2 years
later, however, Story 3 would be seen as an Aztec story, because
the Aztec empire was clearly on the verge of conquering the whole
Tlaxcala region in 1519 (Isaac 1983a). Furthermore, the story is
set in the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan and attributes cannibalism
by trickery to the Tenochca, not to the Tlaxcalteca.
The cannibalistic version of this story was written down by the
sixteenth-century historian Diego Muoz Camargo, a Tlaxcalan
mestizo (Spanish father, Tlaxcalan-Nahua mother) who selfidentified as a Spaniard (Acua 1984:13). He included the story in
the Tlaxcala City Relacin Geogrfica (Acua 1984), completed
in 1584. Much later, it was published in abridged form known as
Historia de Tlaxcala (Muoz Camargo 1892), the source more
often consulted today.
The story concerns Tlahuicole, a famed Tlaxcala war captain
in the second decade of the sixteenth century. He was a heroic
man of terrible and great strengths, who realized feats and deeds
that seem incredible and superhuman (Muoz Camargo 1892:
125). At last, he was captured by the army of neighboring Huexotzingo, at that moment the enemy of Tlaxcala (Isaac 1983a:423
425). Wishing to ingratiate themselves with the Aztecshistorically
their dire enemies but momentarily (ca. 15171518) their allies
the Huexotzinca caged Tlahuicole and took him to Tenochtitlan,
where they presented him to King Moctezuma as a great trophy
(Muoz Camargo 1892:126). The expected fate of a captured enemy soldier at the hands of the Aztecs (or of the Tlaxcalteca or
Huejotzinca, for that matter) was ritual sacrifice, but Moctezuma
so admired Tlahuicole that he offered him command of a large
segment of the Aztec army. Tlahuicole accepted and distinguished
himself greatly in a six-month war against the Tarascan empire to
the west (i.e., in the opposite direction from Tlaxcala), in the
present state of Michoacan (Muoz Camargo 1892:126127). At
the end of this war, Moctezuma gave Tlahuicole the choice of
remaining an Aztec army officer or returning to Tlaxcala, but
Tlahuicole felt he could exercise neither option: the former would
mean betrayal of his nation, because it would eventually bring
him into combat against Tlaxcala; the latter would bring disgrace,
not only because he had escaped heroic sacrificial death, but also
because he had served already in the (enemy) Aztec army. Accordingly, he asked to be sacrificed. Muoz Camargo (1892:127128)
continues the story thus:

Isaac
When Moctheuzoma [sic] saw that he [Tlahuicole] wanted only
to die, he ordered that this wish be fulfilled, and so a week
before he was to die they made for him great festivities, dances,
and banquets, according to their ancient rites, and in these banquets they made for him, it is said that they fed hima shameful thing that is seldom toldhis wifes genitals [natura] cooked
in a soup; because, as he had lived more than 3 years in Tenochtitlan, his favorite wife went to see him to make her life
with him, or die with her husband, and thus the two of them
died in captivity.

Muoz Camargo leaves us wondering about the cause of the shame:

the eating of human flesh per se? The eating of ones wife? The
eating of womens genitalia? The eating of the flesh of ones ingroup? Alternatively, was Tlahuicoles eating of his wifes genitals shameful to the pre-Hispanic Nahua peoples or only to the
Hispanicized Muoz Camargo and his post-Conquest audience?
We receive no help with these matters from the Tenochtitlan
versions of Tlahuicoles captivity and death by Durn (1994:448)
and Tezozomoc (1980:643 645). As their accounts are very similar, I shall report mainly from Tezozomoc, whose difficult work
will be less accessible to most readers. Tezozomoc says that
Tlahuicole was captured by Tenochca (not Huexotzinca) troops on
direct orders of King Moctezuma and that, when Tlahuicole was
presented to him, King Moctezuma offered him consoling words
and finerybut not the military command reported by Muoz
Camargo (1892:126127). In captivity, Tlahuicole cried every
day upon remembering his wives, saying, Is it possible, my women,
that you shall never again see my eyes? (Tezozomoc 1980:645).
Moctezuma was so disgusted by his trophy captives sentimental
whimpering that he sent him this message (Tezozomoc 1980:645):
Tell him that he has given great affront to illustrious [Aztec]
blood, and that Moctezuma says so, and that I say that he should
go to his land [Tlaxcala], that such is my will, that his fear of
dying gives offense to all the principal Mexica men of this
court, [and] that he should go to see the ones he cries for night
and day.

Tlahuicole stopped crying, even stopped talking, but he was not

offered an honorable death. Instead, he was released under a general ban against feeding him. In vain, he begged from house to
house. Finally, desperate to recover his honor, he hurled himself to
his death off the main temple pyramid in Tlatelolco, tumbling
down the steep steps in the fashion of a sacrificial victim. In death,
he was honored by the Tlatelolca, who sacrificed him (Tezozomoc
1980:646).
The Tenochtitlan sources (Durn and Tezozomoc) corroborate
both the existence and the live capture of Tlahuicole, as well as
the esteem in which his enemies held him, as narrated in the Tlaxcalan source (Muoz Camargo 1892). However, they present a
radically different version of the famed Tlaxcaltecas captivity
and death. Most important, neither Durn (1994) nor Tezozomoc
(1980) offers any hint of either feasts or cannibalism. Did none
occur? Or were these events simply not recorded in the now disappeared Crnica X upon which Durn and Tezozomoc both drew
heavily (Barlow 1945; Bernal 1994)?
Recently, Michel Graulich (2000) attempted a symbolic analysis that gives a positive interpretation to the cannibalism element
in the Tlahuicole story. He interprets Muoz Camargos version as
an iteration of the myth of the gods who, at the beginning of the
Fifth Sun (the Aztec epoch), voluntarily sacrificed themselves to

become companions of the sun. In this framework, Tlahuicole was

fated to nourish eternally the masculine morning sun, while his
wife was to nourish the feminine afternoon sun. His wife is sacrificed and thus is a heroic woman. . . . Her husband, before dying, participates in her death and eats her feminine essence. . . .
He acts as if he had conquered-sacrificed her himself (Graulich
2000:9394). But what about the Tenochtitlan versions (Durn,
Tezozomoc), which do not contain the cannibalistic element? Unfazed, Graulich changes gears to concentrate on their inclusion of
Tlahuicoles suicide in Tlatelolco (Tenochtitlans subordinate sister city) and his longing for his wives (an element denoting cowardice or lack of manliness). By pining for his favorite wife, the
cowardly Tlahuicole . . . let himself be absorbed symbolically by
his wife, but the brave [Tlahuicole], to the contrary, ate la natura
[the genitals] of his wife (Graulich 2000:96), thereby absorbing
her. In this symbolic sense, the cowardly Tlahuicole of the Tenochtitlan versions is likened to Tlatelolcos Moquihuix (of Story 2),
who was given to inserting his forearm into his wifes vagina,
thusly allowing himself to be partially swallowed by her (Graulich 2000:9596). Tlahuicoles suicide ties him to the mythologized Toltec man-god Huemac, who also killed himself after his
defeat and exile. That Tlahuicole ended his life in Tlateloco, which
was subordinate to Tenochtitlan, ties him to the moon rather than
the sun, to the feminine rather than the masculineand, by implication, to the weak or cowardly rather than the strong or brave.
Death in Tlatelolco also ties Tlahuicole with Moquihuix (of Story 2),
a king given to women as was Tlahuicole and as was Huemac of
Tollan [Toltec Tula] . . . a king [Moquihuix] who made war against
Mexico [Tenochtitlan], was defeated and [like Tlahuicole] killed
himself by throwing himself off the great pyramid of Tlatelolco
(Graulich 2000:95; cf. Chimalpahin 1997:1:139, 2:51; Durn 1994:
260; Tezozomoc 1980:393).
After all this zigzagging from one symbolic or temporal context to the next in an effort to wrap both versions of the Tlahuicole
story into one or another of central Mexicos mythological
shroudsand, especially, to link symbolic feminine absorption of
a man (Tenochtitlan version) with cannibalistic feminine absorption by a man (Tlaxcalan version)Graulich (2000:97) poses the
question, Which of the two versions corresponds to the facts?
Astonishingly enough, he opts for the Tlaxcalan version (by Muoz
Camargo), finding it less improbable because it was less reshaped [menos remodelada] by mythological thinking (Graulich
2000:97).
The Three Stories Compared
The three storiesthe only such Nahua narratives of which I am
awareshare several basic elements. First, they involve cannibalism by trickery. Second, the trickery is originated by the Tenochca
rulership against their political enemies. Third, the purpose of the
trickery is humiliation and/or provocation of the enemy. Fourth,
the stories seem intended to shock or amuse their audience by
posing the consumption of human flesh as horrifying or incongruous. In other words, the clearly institutionalized custom portrayed
in these stories is political trickery, not cannibalism.
The political content of all three stories deserves emphasis,
because Aztec cannibalism is usually presented almost entirely in
terms of its religious meanings (Carrasco 1999). In Story 1, the
Xochimilca elders were goaded into armed resistanceLet us do
our best against them: Prepare and equip yourselves, Lords of
Xochimilco, as the time has come (Tezozomoc 1980:272)

Aztec cannibalism
rather than allowed the chance to incorporate peaceably into the
new Aztec empire, as was sometimes done (Smith 1986). Defeating and subduing a bellicose Xochimilco justified the Tenochca
expropriation and distribution among their own nobles of large
amounts of that city-states highly productive chinampas, or raised
fields (Durn 1994:112115; Monjars-Ruiz 1980:117118, 134
138, 144, 156; Tezozomoc 1980:276). In Story 2, cannibalism by
trickery brought into the open the smoldering Tlatelolca plot, forcing the Tlatelolca to begin the uprising prematurely (and disastrously for them). Finally, the enveloping political context of Story 3
is the long and costly flowery war between the Aztecs and the
Tlaxcala area (Isaac 1983a).
Their similarities notwithstanding, the three stories also display important differences that complicate their interpretation in
terms of the larger and controversial subject of the empirical existence or nature of Aztec cannibalism. For instance, if we had
only Story 2 and Story 3, we could conclude that the horrifying or
incongruous element was simply the eating of the flesh of persons
of the in-group. In Story 2, the Tlatelolca were tricked into eating
their own ambassadors; in Story 3, Tlahuicole was tricked into
eating his own wifes genitals. Story 1, however, is problematical
for that interpretation, as the provenience of the human parts in
the stew at the banquet in Xochimilco is left unspecified. Nevertheless, those human parts almost certainly were not derived from
sacrificed captive Xochimilca, because the eventual war between
Xochimilco and Tenochtitlan had not yet begun.
Similarly, if we had only Story 2 (Moquihuix) and Story 3
(Tlahuicole), we might conclude at first blush that they would be
shocking or incongruous only to a post-Conquest audience, as neither of those two accounts reports shocked reactions by the alleged
victims of the trick. Furthermore, as we have seen, Graulich (2000)
has argued that Tlahuicoles eating his wifes genitals in the Tlaxcalan version of Story 3 was a positive element in the pre-Hispanic
context. However, a close reading of Story 2 reveals that shock or
humiliation is implied, because the victims of the trick were moved
to declare war: [t]his incident determined that, during [the next] 5
years, the Tenochcas and Tlatelolcas made war (Chimalpahin 1965:
207). In both versions of Story 1 (Xochimilca rulers), in contrast,
the shock of the victims is explicitly related; also, Tezozomocs version has this incident provoking the Xochimilca to initiate war: [p]repare and equip yourselves, Lords of Xochimilco, as the time has
come (Tezozomoc 1980:272).
Turning to another dimension, if we had only Story 1 (Xochimilca
rulers) and Story 3 (Tlahuicole), we could conclude that the trickerys shock value lay in the lack of ritual preparation of the human
flesh for consumption. Although Tezozomocs version of Story One
includes the punctilious washing of the banquet ingredients purchased from the Tenochca market women, we have seen that
we cannot reasonably construe that element as signifying the ritual
bathing of human flesh. In Muoz Camargos version of Story 3
(Tlahuicole), we are told that the great festivities, dances, and banquets preceding Tlahuicoles death were performed according
to their ancient rites (Muoz Camargo 1892:127), but these rites
are not explicitly connected with the preparation of his dead wifes
genitalia for inclusion in the banquet soup. In Story 2 (Moquihuix),
however, the ritual preparation of the human flesh is explicit: [o]nce
they were dead, they were bathed in order to boil them in a pot
(Chimalpahin 1965:207). In other words, even though the flesh was
to be eaten unknowingly by a man the Aztec king wished to humiliate, the bodies from which the flesh was to be cut were ritually
bathed (Sahagn 197081:Book 2:141, 162168, Book 9:45, 61 67).

5
This is an extremely important passage, as it means that the tricks
shocking or repulsive character did not reside in the victims eating
unconsecrated human flesh. Rather, the crux of the matter would
seem to be that he ate the flesh of his in-group or even of his own
kinsmen or courtiers.
Finally, these stories enable us to say unambiguously that, under
some circumstances, the eating of human flesh was unacceptable. It
was this quality that enabled the Aztecs to humiliate their enemies
and even goad them into launching war by tricking them into eating
human flesh (or its broth, as in Story 1). Of special interest is that
even ritual preparation (as in Story 2) did not always remove the
stigma from the eating of human flesh. Also, the eating of the flesh
of the in-groupor, at least, of known associateswas apparently
repulsive (as in Story 2 and perhaps in Story 3), even if it had been
ritually washed. Furthermore, simply the unexpected appearance
of human flesh (as in Story 1) in an alimentary context could be
shocking and frightening. This last aspect, especially, should put to
rest any notion that the Aztecs were gustatory cannibals who lusted
for human flesh as a delicacy (Durn 1994:141, 233, 272, 407, 474;
cf. Muoz Camargo 1892:141142).
THE NAHUA AUTHORS
Present-day assertions about cannibalism as an institutionalized
(customary, enjoined) practice in the Aztec core area derive almost exclusively from the famous sixteenth-century Spanish ethnographies by Durn (1971, 1994), Motolina (1971), and Sahagn
(19701981), which are liberally sprinkled with allegations of the
practice. Modern scholars typically set aside the contemporaneous Nahua writings in this regard, for they do not offer up these
titillating allegations. In fact, the Nahua authors have very little to
say about cannibalisman eloquent reticence, in my viewand
what they do offer often does not corroborate the Spanish writings.
For example, Tezozomocs lengthy Aztec history, Crnica mexicana, which covers 478 pages measuring 9 inches 6.5 inches in
the 1980 edition used here, includes only one account of human
(vs. godly) cannibalismStory 1, which reports cannibalism by
trickery to provoke a war. The absence of allegations of customary
cannibalism in Tezozomocs Crnica is surprising when we compare it with Durns parallel Historia, which contains some fifteen
passages alleging customary cannibalism, including some of the
most sensationalistic in all of the ethnohistorical literature (Isaac
2002:208 ff ). What makes this comparison especially apposite is
that these two authors city/empire histories are so similar in structure and overall content that modern scholars have long held that
they both used a now lost Crnica X as their primary document
(Barlow 1945; Bernal 1994).
In the other treatise traditionally attributed to Tezozomoc,
Crnica mexicyotl, only one line alludes to human (vs. godly)
cannibalism, and it is included in a story that covers a single
paragraph in its entirety. The context is the appointment by the
Aztec King Axayacatl of a Tenochca named Huitzillatzin as the
first ruler (tlatoani ) of Huitzilopochco, a city near Chalco. As
the Nahuatl text is identical in both the version attributed to Tezozomoc (1998:132) and that recently attributed to Chimalpahin, I
will cite the English translation provided for the latter (Chimalpahin 1997:1:146147):
[Huitzillatzin] went to rule in Huitzilopochco, now San Mateo
[Churubusco]. He began the rulership there; Axayacatzin, ruler
of Tenochtitlan, installed him as ruler there. It is said, it is

Isaac
thought, that at first [before then] no one was ruler there; they
only existed; and the Huitzilopochca were people-roasters.

Chimalpahin (1997:2:97) retells this terse story in another document, with this slightly different wording, providing additional
insight: [i]t is said that at first [earlier] there was no ruler there;
they were still cooking people in Huitzilopochco. But later, in
Axayacatzins time, rulership began there. To my thinking, the
clear implication of the story is that the custom of cooking people, which the Huitzilopochca were still doing up to Aztec
King Axayacatls time, ended when (But later . . .) Axayacatl
installed a Tenochca-Mexica ruler there. In short, as I read the
story, it says that the Aztecs ended cannibalism in Huitzilopochco
by imposing good government.
In fact, Chimalpahins oeuvre is highly similar to Tezozomocs
regarding the subject of cannibalism, although the two authors
employed very different styles. Tezozmocs (1980) chronicle of
the Aztec empire is a loose narrative that facilitates storytelling,
whereas Chimalpahins (1965) main history of Chalco is structured in the succinct annals format. Nevertheless, Chimalpahin
managed to insert Story 2, in which the Aztec (Tenochca) King
Axayacatl ordered the Chalca nobles to trick Moquihuix of Tlatelolco into eating his own ambassadors.
Interestingly enough, Story 2 is one of only three inclusions of
human (vs. godly) cannibalism in Chimalpahins prolific writings
on Chalco and its close neighbors (Chimalpahin 1965, 1983, 1991,
1997). The second instance consists of a single, disapproving sentence about the Olmeca-Xicalanca of Chalchiuhmomozco (later,
Amaquemecan, Second Chalco), whose sorcerers directed their
powerful nahuals (supernatural counterparts), which could travel
unseen inside the clouds, to eat the people of [Old] Chalco in the
year 1258 (Chimalpahin 1991:89). We have already covered the third
instance, which is the terse reference to cannibalism in nearby Huitzilopochco in a twice-repeated story (Chimalpahin 1997:1:146
147, 1997:2:97) that I interpret as saying that the Aztecs ended the
practice there by installing their own governor over the city.
Also of interest are two famous early annals, written in Nahuatl
using Latin script, of whose authors we know only that they were
Spanish-educated Nahuas. The Anales de Tlatelolco (1980), written circa 1530, contain no mention of cannibalism, even though
they include some fifteen passages on human sacrifice, one of
which is about dismemberment (to bury the head in one place, the
heart in another, and the other remains elsewhere) (Anales de
Tlatelolco 1980:35), and one about cutting the ears off captives
(Anales de Tlatelolco 1980:41). The more prolix and gossipy Anales
de Cuauhtitlan (1975), written circa 1570 and covering the history
of Cuauhtitlan, barely outside the Valley of Mexico (to the northwest), mention cannibalism only onceto attribute it to the ancient Chichimeca, who ate their captives back in the days when
they were so primitive that they still lacked temples (Anales de
Cuauhtitlan 1975:30).
THE MESTIZO AUTHORS
The Valley of Mexicos best-known late-sixteenth- and earlyseventeenth-century mestizo historian is Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl, born circa 1578. Ixtlilxochitl, as he is usually called to
emphasize his indigenous and noble descent, had a Spanish father
and maternal grandfather but was a direct descendant of the famous Tetzcoco (Acolhua) kings Ixtlilxochitl (d. 1418), Nezahualcoyotl (d. 1472), and Nezahualpilli (d. 1515). His known writings

date to the period 16001640 and consist of histories of his city,

polity, and people, totaling some 560 pages in their modern edition (Ixtlilxochitl 19751977). His style is comparable to that of
Tezozomoc and Durnthat is, prolix and given to storytelling.
Yet his work includes only a single mention of cannibalism (Ixtlilxochitl 19751977:1:290), in which he attributes the custom to
barbarous northerners:
There are many kinds of Chichimecas [northerners], some more
barbarous than others, and some indomitable who wander like
gypsies and who have neither king nor lord except that the
most capable is their captain and lord; and others, who eat one
another. The likes of them [estos tales] are not of the lineage of
those of this land [Tetzcoco].

Juan Bautista de Pomar (b. ca. 1582) was also from Tetzcoco
and also claimed descent from Nezahualcoyotl and Nezahualpilli,
although his father was Spanish (Acua 1986:3536). Pomars
Relacin de Texcoco was composed circa 1582 as a component
of the 15771586 Relaciones Geogrficas of New Spain. His coverage of cannibalism is restricted to the annual festivals of the
gods Tezcatlipoca, Huitzilopochtli, and Xipe in Tetzcoco. Of the
first two, Pomar (1986:62) wrote that, after the human sacrifice,
the body
was then given to the owner, who was the one who had captured
him. And, in this way, they sacrificed all that there were [available] for sacrifice on that day. Once finished, the other priests
gathered up all the hearts, and after cooking them, they ate them;
so that this very important member of the human entrails was
assigned to those priests, servants of the Devil. . . . And the bodies, after being taken away by their owners, were cut into pieces
and cooked in great pots and were sent throughout the city and to
all the neighboring towns, until nothing of it [the body] remained, in very small pieces, each less than a half-ounce, as gifts
to the chiefs, lords and principal men, and majordomos and merchants, to all manner of rich men from whom they [captors] wished
to elicit something, without there remaining anything of the body
for them [captors] to eat, because it was prohibited to them except for the bones, which they kept as trophies and a sign of their
strength and courage, putting them in their house, in the part where
everyone entering could see them. Those to whom a piece of this
meat was presented gave them capes, shirts, skirts, rich feathers,
precious stones, slaves, maize, gold lip- and ear-plugs, shields,
[and] war vestments and appurtenances, each as he wanted to or
was able, not so much because those pieces of meat had any value,
since many [recipients] did not eat it, as by way of reward for
bravery, so that they [captors] became rich and prosperous.

Of the Xipe festival, Pomar (1986:65) wrote only, And the body
was carried away to do with it what I have said earlier, except that
it was skinned, and a poor Indian dressed in the skin, turned insideout, and went about begging with it . . . [for] twenty days.
In summary, the first of the two mestizo authors, Ixtlilxochitl,
is very like the major Nahua authors Chimalpahin and Tezozomoc
with respect to the topic of cannibalism: he barely mentions it. He
is also like the Nahua authors of the Anales de Cuauhtitlan (1975:
30), whose sole mention of the practice was designed to relegate it
to the distant past, thereby severing any connection between it and
their own ethnic or political group (cf. Anales de Cuauhtitlan
1975:30).
The other mestizo author, Pomar, is more like the Spanish
writers, alleging customary cannibalism in connection with cer-

Aztec cannibalism
tain religious rites. It is worth noting that Pomars Relacin was
clearly influenced by the manuscripts of the Spanish friar Diego
Durn (Acua 1986:35, 38), who seems obsessed with cannibalism. Durn (1994:233, 272, 474) alleged gustatory cannibalism
that sometimes involved the massive consumption of thousands of
human offerings at a time (Durn 1994:407), to the point at which
the bellies of the lords were gorged with that human flesh (Durn
1994:474) or they were satiated with human flesh (Durn 1994:
41)an extremist view among his contemporaries (Isaac 2002).
In comparison, Pomar was quite restrained, even claiming that
many of the recipients of the small piece of human sacrificial
flesh did not eat it (Pomar 1986:62). Pomar is also much more
measured than Tlaxcalas famous mestizo writer, Diego Muoz
Camargo, referred to in Story 3 (Isaac 2002:207 ff ). Like Muoz
Camargo, though, Pomar clearly self-identified as Spanish; both
men employed the phrase a nuestro modo [in our manner] to
refer to Spanish culture (Acua 1986:36).
EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCES
The three sets of authors covered in this article show clear differences in their treatment of cannibalism. The Spanish authors make
frequent allegations of customary cannibalism. The Nahua authors, in contrast, make very little mention of human cannibalism
and never as an institutionalized practice; to the contrary, they
present it as repugnant, frightening, or hostile. The mestizo authors are divided, one being like the Spaniards, although much
more tempered, and the other, like the Nahua authors. Explaining
these differences at the historical distance of over four centuries is
not easy, and we should avoid the temptation to lapse into either
posthumous mind reading or literary deconstruction that amounts
to filling in the spaces between the lines of their oeuvre. Nevertheless, we can reasonably explore some aspects of the colonial,
bicultural context of their writings. Although we can, at best, only
narrow down the range of possible explanations, the exercise is
worthwhile because it helps avoid facile solutions.
In the first place, the Spanish authors were Catholic friars devoted to instituting Catholicism in New Spain. Doing so required
the destruction of indigenous Nahua religious beliefs and practices, which they regarded as the work of the Devil, a conviction
that grew stronger during the sixteenth century (Cervantes 1994:
1516, passim). Furthermore, the Spaniards had entered the New
World expecting the unusual and the fantastic to be the norm in
remote corners of the world, and they tended to see exactly
those very things they had gone out to find: giants and wild men,
pygmies, cannibals and Amazons, women whose bodies never
aged and cities paved with gold (Cervantes 1994:6). The early
friars also justified their own roles by attributing the worst motives and practices to the Indians, including cannibalism. The Nahua
authors, in contrast, did not fully share this cultural background
and institutional forces.
At the same time, the fact that the Spanish writers were Catholic friars should not lead us to exaggerate the religious distance
between them and the Nahua and mestizo authors. All of them
were practicing Catholics. Chimalpahin was employed for 30 years
or more as a copyist and, probably, a fiscal at the church of San
Antonio Abad in Mexico City (Schroeder 1997:5). Tezozomoc
was interpreter for the viceregal court (Audiencia Real) in Mexico
City (Mariscal 1994), a position that would have required a strong
Christian identity. The same requirement would have obtained in
the case of the mestizo author Ixtlilxochitl, who held some of the

7
highest colonial positions open to Indians or mestizos: governor
of Tetzcoco (16121613), then judge-governor of Tetzcoco (1612
1614), of Tlalmanalco (16161618), and of Chalco (16191622).
He later served as interpreter for the Indian Court (Juzgado de
Indios) in Mexico City for at least a decade before his death in
1650 (OGorman 1975:1736). Furthermore, both Tezozomoc and
Ixtlilxochitl unambiguously expressed their Catholic religious
convictionsand condemnation of indigenous religionin their
books. Tezozomoc (1980:629) referred to Aztec priests as ministers of the great Lucifer, king of hell; he also pointedly condemned human sacrifice (Tezozomoc 1980:451, 488, 503) and
routinely referred to pre-Hispanic deities as demonios (demons,
devils). Ixtlilxochitl called the Toltecs, the revered cultural ancestors of the Tenochca-Mexica (Aztec) nobility, this blind and perverse idolatrous people (Ixtlilxochitl 19751977:1:278) and
labeled Tezcatlipoca and Huitzilopochtli, the principal Mexica deities, false gods (Ixtlilxochitl 19751977:1:273). He claimed
that his own illustrious ancestor, Acolhua (Tetzcoco) King Nezahualcoyotl, many times said that Huitzilopochtli, god of the Mexica, and the [their] idols were demons that had them fooled
(Ixtlilxochitl 19751977:1:405) and that Nezahualcoyotl and his
successor son, Nezahualpilli, spoke out against human sacrifice to
the Tenochca-Mexicas false gods, calling them mute stones
and sticks that had no power whatsoever (Ixtlilxochitl 19751977:
2:124125, 181, 185). Furthermore, he purported that Nezahualcoyotl regarded as false all the gods adored by the people of this
land, saying that they were nothing but statues of demons that
were enemies of humankind (Ixtlilxochitl 19751977:2:136). If
Tezozomoc and Ixtlilxochitl had believed that the Aztecs practiced customary cannibalism, would they not have condemned it,
too? I believe they would have, whether out of deeply held religious conviction or in furtherance of their high (but necessarily
insecure) standing in Colonial government.
Perhaps a more important cultural difference between the Spanish and the Nahua/mestizo authors is their respective standing in
relation to the Nahua community and its pre-Hispanic culture.
Two possible lines of inquiry leap out of this circumstance: (1)
self-censorship; and (2) a deeper understanding of Nahua religion.
The motive for self-censorshipin the form of omission (Tezozomoc, Chimalpahin, Ixtlilxochitl) or a tempered inclusion (Pomar)
of customary cannibalism in their reportswould have been to
avoid portraying their indigenous ancestors, and those of fellow
Nahua, in a negative light. We have already implied the main
argument against this explanation: all of these men had to be overtly
enthusiastic Christians to maintain their prominent Colonial positions, which would have been buttressed by their subscription to
the idea of pre-Hispanic customary cannibalism. Furthermore, as
we have seen, Tezozomoc and Ixtlilxochitl made a point of criticizing pre-Hispanic religious practices but omitted any reference
whatsoever to customary cannibalism. Chimalpahin is of interest
in this regard, as well. He made his living by working for the
Catholic church, which would have been pleased if he had alleged
pre-Hispanic customary cannibalism, but he did not. In short, selfcensorship by the Nahua/mestizo authors does not strike me as a
strong explanation of the differences between them and the Spanish authors.
The second possibilitythat the Nahua and mestizo authors
had a superior understanding of pre-Hispanic religionis more
promising. Even the mestizo authors would have had a maternal
Nahua enculturation not available to the Spanish authors. Also,
the mestizo and Nahua authors were from eminent indigenous

8
families who remained prominent after the Conquest, giving them
easier access than the Spaniards to indigenous oral and written
traditions. Indeed, we know from their writings that all four were
able to conduct extensive interviews with Nahua elders and to
examine historical documents (both pre- and post-Conquest) in
these elders possession. Their easy access to such materials was
extremely important, because some 60 to 80 years had passed
between the Spanish Conquest, which spelled the end of purely
Nahua religious practice, and the writing of their accounts of preHispanic society. What I am building up to is the possibility that
their deeper and more nuanced understanding of pre-Hispanic
Nahua religion led them to question the Spaniards assumed linkage between human sacrifice and cannibalism. This linkage is
deeply entrenched in Western thought and seems to have been
unquestioned among the sixteenth-century Spanish friars. It is also
reported for a minority of Nahua communities late in that century.
Of the 105 communities of central Mexico for which the 1577
1586 Relaciones Geogrficas reports still exist, thirty-two (30.5%)
made the linkage between cannibalism and human sacrifice, eight
(7.6%) alleged cannibalism in the absence of human sacrifice,
twenty-nine (27.6%) reported human sacrifice but not cannibalism, and thirty-six (34.3%) reported neither practice (Isaac 2002:
206). The reasons for this variability are unclear, but it is important
to keep in mind that Catholic friars had heavily missionized the
Nahuas for two generations by the time the Relaciones Geogrficas were compiled (Isaac 2002:218; Starr 1990:266).
CONCLUSION
Aztec cannibalism is a controversial topic because we cannot yet
answer the question: do the early Colonial-period reports of it
reflect actual behavior or merely a post-Conquest reinterpretation
of tradition? Ethnohistorical documents will never settle that question (Isaac 2002:220221). Rather, the answer must await the
application of the type of advanced (but still controversial) technical methods now beginning to be employed in the U.S. Southwest (Billman et al. 2000:166167; Dongoske et al. 2000:184
185; Lambert et al. 2000:402 404). Only ethnohistorical analysis,
however, can reveal the extent to which the practiceif its presence is convincingly demonstratedwas institutionalized and who
ate whom and why, where, when, and how.
To date, the question of cannibalism in Mesoamerica has been
clouded by sloppy and sensationalist analysis in both archaeology
and ethnohistory. In archaeology, cannibalism is often asserted when
other explanations are equally plausible. By way of illustration,
butchering marks on human bone can result from the extraction of
trophy bones rather than the removal of flesh for cooking; human
bone that appears cooked may instead be the residue of an incomplete cremation; skeletal disarticulation may reflect secondary burial
rather than the remains of a meal; human bones can find their way
into midden deposits through such prosaic processes as urban ex-

Isaac
pansion and renewal or the casual disposal of unknown previous
occupants remains; and so forth (Bullock 1991, 1992; Cid Beziez
and Torres Sanders 1995; Guilliem Arroyo 1998; Kanter 1999;
Romn Berrelleza 1990:4550; cf. Turner and Turner 1999:1054).
At the same time, ethnohistorical analyses often suffer from
incomplete or selective use of documentary resources. Either the
search ends when one or more resources are located that support
the conclusion (cannibalism!) the researcher was predisposed to
draw, or only a few sources (typically the Spaniards Durn and
Sahagn) are employed to the exclusion of others. This article has
shown that a very different picture of Aztec cannibalism emerges
when we employ the Nahua and mestizo resources, which are
typically overlooked entirely, alongside the more familiar works.
The broad-scale comparison employed here allows us to see
that Aztec cannibalismif it indeed existed empiricallywas a
polysemous practice, with meanings not restricted to the institutionalized ritual contexts alleged almost exclusively by the Spanish sources. Most important, it was disapproved and frightening,
even repulsive, to Aztecs under certain conditions. Accordingly,
as trickery it was as a political stratagem against ones enemies,
especially to goad them into war. Interestingly enough, the sources
show one instance in which Aztec rule apparently ended the practice of cannibalism. At a more general level, the absence of accounts of institutionalized Aztec cannibalism in the major Nahua
writingseven in the case of Tezozomoc, who used the same
basic source as Durn to write a treatise of similar length on the
same subject but without any of Durns assertions of cannibalism
should make us cautious about siding with the Spaniards (and
some mestizos) in assuming widespread customary Aztec cannibalism. Indeed, NahuaSpanish source comparisons open the possibility that the Spanish allegations stem from Spanish, not Aztec,
culture and were then transmitted to the indigenous population in
the course of Christianization and Hispanicization, as suggested
by Starr (1990; Barker et al. 1998; Pickering 1999).
It is important to remember in this last regard that no eyewitness
accounts of Aztec cannibalism exist. Although there is a famous
passage in Bernal Daz del Castillo (1956:436 437, 1977:2:39
40) that is often cited as an eyewitness report of cannibalism, the
physical circumstances of the moment rule it out. At best, he could
have seen the sacrifices, followed by the tumbling of the bodies down
the pyramid steps and, perhaps, their dismemberment at the base of
the pyramid, a routine practice for the eventual extraction of trophy
bones (Durn 1994:162; Sahagn 19701981:Book 2:59 60, Book
8:75). Even his statement about the butchering was probably just an
inference based on subsequent information or background knowledge, however, as Daz del Castillo was standing several hundred
yards away. His view of the Tlatelolco pyramids base, the butchering site, would have been impeded not only by distance but also
by an urban landscape and the military action that had caused the
Spaniards to retreat to a position near to our quarters before the
sacrificial event began.

RESUMEN
Conocemos la antropofagia azteca principalmente por medio de la obra de
los frailes espaoles (especialmente Durn, Motolina, y Sahagn), quienes
no tenan la ms mnima duda de que fuese el consumo de la carne humana
parte integral de la cultura azteca. Muy al contrario, los escritores nahuas
del Valle de Mxico del siglo XVI y principios del XVII (especialmente
Tezozomoc y Chimalpahin) apenas mencionan el canibalismo, y cuando s
aparece el tema en la obra de ellos toma la forma casi exclusiva de unos

relatos del canibalismo por engao. En cada caso, el engao fue perpetrado por la nobleza tenochca contra sus enemigos polticos para humillarles y/o incitarles a la guerra. Lejos de ensear el canibalismo como
costumbre aprobada e institucionalizada, estos cuentos lo presenta como
un comportamiento asqueroso o horroroso. En otras palabras, no es el
canibalismo sino el engao poltico lo que presentan los autores nahuas
como costumbre institucionalizada, es decir, normal y aprobada. Los dos

Aztec cannibalism
famosos historiadores mestizos del Valle de Mexico ocupan una posicin
intermedia respecto al tema de la antropofagia, parecindose o a los escritores nahuas (Ixtlilxochitl) o a los espaoles (Pomar).
No es nada facil explicar las diferencias entre los tres tipos de autores
(nahuas, mestizos, espaoles). El hecho de ser frailes los autores espaoles
poco les diferencia de los autores nahuas y mestizos, los cuales tambin
eran catlicos muy aferrados. Por ejemplo, Chimalpahin serva de copista
y muy probablemente de fiscal de la iglesia de San Antonio Abad por ms
de treinta aos. Tezozomoc e Ixtlilxochitl eran funcionarios coloniales en
puestos pblicos que les habra exigido una fuerte identidad catlica, y los
dos denunciaron la religin indgena en sus obras escritas. Tezozomoc les
llam demonios a los dioses aztecas y denunci a los sacerdotes aztecas
como ministros del gran Lucifer rey del infierno; tambin se proclam
contundamente en contra del sacrificio humano. Ixtlilxochitl, por su parte,
llam a los toltecas esta gente ciega y perversa idlatra y a Huitzilo-

9
pochtli y Tezcatlipoca falsos dioses y demonios que les traan engaados, y a sus dolos piedras y palos mudos que no tenan poder ninguno
y demonios enemigos de la vida humana. Igual a Tezozomoc, Ixtlilxochitl conden contundamente el sacrificio humano. No obstante todas estas denuncias a la religin azteca y las proclamaciones de su propia fe
catlica, ninguno de los tres autores (Chimalpahin, Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc) les atribuy nunca a los aztecas el canibalismo institucionalizado
(es decir, aprobado). El presente artculo plantea que esta omisin se explica tanto por la gran profundidad de su entendimiento de la religin
indgenade manera que no se engaaron por la metfora y el simbolismo aztecascomo por su cuestionamiento de la mentalidad europea
que insista en que la costumbre del sacrificio humano necesariamente
implicaba la antropofagia. Es esta misma suposicin la que les lleva a los
arquelogos e historiadores modernos a plantear el canibalismo a preferencia de las explicaciones alternativas y hasta ms factibles.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank the University of Cincinnati for granting me the sabbatical leave
(winterspring 2001) during which most of the research for this article
was completed. The final product was greatly improved by the careful

critiques of John F. Schwaller and Christy G. Turner II. William R. Fowler

and James H. McDonald also made helpful criticisms. As always, Hugo G.
Nutini offered encouragement and suggestions for improvement.

REFERENCES
Acua, Ren (editor)
1984 Relaciones geogrficas del siglo XVI: Tlaxcala, Tomo I. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.
1986 Introduction. In Relaciones geogrficas del siglo XVI: Mexico,
Tomo III, pp. 23 44. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico,
Mexico City.
Anales de Cuauhtitlan
1975 In Cdice Chimalpopoca: Anales de Cuauhtitlan y leyenda de
los soles, translated by Primo Feliciano Velzquez, pp. 3 68. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.
Anales de Tlatelolco
1980 In Anales de Tlatelolco y Cdice de Tlatelolco, edited by Heinrich Berlin, pp. 176. Ediciones Rafael Porra, Mexico City.
Arens, William
1979 The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
1998 Rethinking Anthropophagy. In Cannibalism and the Colonial
World, edited by Francis Baker, Peter Hume, and Margaret Iversen,
pp. 39 62. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Barker, Francis, Peter Hulme, and Margaret Iversen (editors)
1998 Cannibalism and the Colonial World. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Barlow, Robert H.
1945 La Crnica X: Versiones coloniales de la historia de los mexica
tenochca. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropolgicos 7:6587.
Bernal, Ignacio
1994 Appendix: Durns Historia and the Crnica X. In The History
of the Indies of New Spain, translated by Doris Heyden, pp. 565577.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Billman, Brian R., Patricia M. Lambert, and Banks L. Leonard
2000 Cannibalism, Warfare, and Drought in the Mesa Verde Region
During the Twelfth Century a.d. American Antiquity 65:145178.
Brady, Ivan A.
1982 The Man-Eating Myth. American Anthropologist 84:595 611.
Bullock, Peter Y.
1991 A Reappraisal of Anasazi Cannibalism. Kiva 57(1):516.
1992 A Return to the Question of Cannibalism. Kiva 58(2):203205.
Carrasco, Davd
1999 City of Sacrifice: The Aztec Empire and the Role of Violence in
Civilization. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Cervantes, Fernando
1994 The Devil in the New World: The Impact of Diabolism in New
Spain. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, Francisco de San Antn Mun
1965 Relaciones originales de Chalco Amaquemecan, translated from
Nahuatl by Silvia Rendn. Fondo de Cultura Econmica, Mexico
City.

1983 Octava relacin, translated from Nahuatl and edited by Jos

Romero G. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.
1991 Memorial breve acerca de la fundacin de la ciudad de Culhuacan, translated from Nahuatl and edited by Vctor Castillo F. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.
1997 Codex Chimalpahin, Vols. 1 and 2, translated from Nahuatl and
edited by Arthur Anderson and Susan Schroeder, with Wayne Ruwet.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Cid Beziez, Jos Rodolfo, and Lilian Torres Sanders
1995 El sacrificio humano y la sacralizacin de espacios y elementos
arquitectnicos en Teotihuacan. Anales de Antropologa 32:5271.
Daz del Castillo, Bernal
1956 The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico, translated and edited by
Alfred P. Maudslay. Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, New York.
1977 Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva Espaa, 7th ed.
Editorial Porra, Mexico City.
Dongoske, Kurt E., Debra L. Martin, and T. J. Ferguson
2000 Critique of the Claim of Cannibalism at Cowboy Wash. American Antiquity 65:179190.
Durn, Diego
1971 Book of the Gods and Rites, and The Ancient Calendar, translated and edited by Fernando Horcasitas and Doris Heyden. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
1994 The History of the Indies of New Spain, translated by Doris
Heyden. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Garduo, Ana
1997 Conflictos y alianzas entre Tlatelolco y Tenochtitlan, siglos XII
a XV. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City.
Goldman, Laurence R.
1999 From Pot to Polemic: Uses and Abuses of Cannibalism. In The
Anthropology of Cannibalism, edited by Laurence R. Goldman, pp. 1
26. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, CT.
Graulich, Michel
2000 Tlahuicole, un hroe tlaxcalteca controvertido. In El hroe entre
el mito y la historia, edited by Federico Navarrette and Guilhem
Olivier, pp. 8999. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.
Guilliem Arroyo, Salvador
1998 Desmembramiento ritual en un petroglifo del templo mayor de
Tlatelolco. In Iconografa Mexicana, I, edited by Beatriz Barba de
Pia Chan, pp. 137146. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City.
Harner, Michael
1977 The Ecological Basis for Aztec Sacrifice. American Ethnologist
4:117135.
Harris, Marvin
1977 Cannibals and Kings. Random House, New York.

10
Isaac, Barry L.
1983a The Aztec Flowery War: A Geopolitical Explanation. Journal of Anthropological Research 39:415 432.
1983b Aztec Warfare: Goals and Battlefield Comportment. Ethnology 22:121131.
1986 Notes on Obsidian, the Pochteca, and the Position of Tlatelolco
in the Aztec Empire. In Economic Aspects of Prehispanic Highland
Mexico, edited by Barry L. Isaac, pp. 319343. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
2002 Cannibalism among Aztecs and Their Neighbors: Analysis of
the 15771586 Relaciones Geogrficas for Nueva Espaa and Nueva
Galicia Provinces. Journal of Anthropological Research 58:203224.
Ixtlilxochitl, Fernando de Alva
19751977 Obras histricas, vols. III, edited by Edmundo OGorman.
Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.
Kanter, John
1999 Anasazi Mutilation and Cannibalism in the American Southwest. In The Anthropology of Cannibalism, edited by Laurence R.
Goldman, pp. 75104. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, CT.
Lambert, Patricia M., Banks L. Leonard, Brian R. Billman, Richard A.
Marlar, Margaret E. Newman, and Karl J. Reinhard
2000 Response to Critique of the Claim of Cannibalism at Cowboy
Wash. American Antiquity 65:397 406.
Lockhart, James
1992 The Nahuas after the Conquest. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Mariscal, Mario
1994 Prlogo. In Crnica mexicana (Hernando Alvarado Tezozomoc), edited by Mario Mariscal, pp. vxlv. Universidad Nacional
Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.
Monjars-Ruiz, Jess
1980 La nobleza mexica: Surgimiento y consolidacin. Editorial Edicol, Mexico City.
Motolina (Fray Toribio de Benavente)
1971 Memoriales: Libro de las cosas de la Nueva Espaa y de los
naturales de ella. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.
Muoz Camargo, Diego
1892 Historia de Tlaxcala, edited by Alfredo Chavero. Alfredo Chavero, Mexico City.
OGorman, Edmundo
1975 Estudio introductorio. In Obras histricas, Fernando de Alva
Ixtlilxochitl, Tomo I, edited by Edmundo OGorman, pp. 1257. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.

Isaac
Petrinovich, Lewis
2000 The Cannibal Within. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Pickering, Michael
1999 Consuming Doubts: What Some People Ate? or What Some
People Swallowed? In The Anthropology of Cannibalism, edited by
Laurence R. Goldman, pp. 5174. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, CT.
Pomar, Juan Bautista de
1986 Relacin de Texcoco. In Relaciones geogrficas del siglo XVI:
Mxico, Tomo III, edited by Ren Acua, pp. 45113. Universidad
Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.
Romn Berrelleza, Juan Alberto
1990 Sacrificio de nios en el Templo Mayor. Instituto Nacional de
Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City.
Sahagn, Bernardino de
19701981 General History of the Things of New Spain, Books 112,
2nd ed., edited by Arthur Anderson and Charles Dibble. School of
American Research, Santa Fe, NM.
Schroeder, Susan
1991 Chimalpahin and the Kingdoms of Chalco. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
1997 Introduction. In Codex Chimalpahin, Vol. I, translated and edited by Arthur Anderson and Susan Schroeder, with Wayne Ruwet,
pp. 313. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Smith, Michael E.
1986 The Role of Social Stratification in the Aztec Empire: A View
from the Provinces. American Anthropologist 88:7091.
Starr, Jean
1990 Zapotec Religious Practices in the Valley of Oaxaca: An Analysis of the 1580 Relaciones Geogrficas of Philip II. In Historia de la
religion en Mesoamrica y areas afines, edited by Barbro Dahlgren,
pp. 253270. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico
City.
Tezozomoc, Hernando Alvarado
1980 Crnica mexicana, 3rd ed., edited by Manuel Orozco y Berra.
Porra Hermanos, Mexico City.
1998 Crnica mexicyotl, 3rd ed., translated from Nahuatl by Adrin
Len. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.
Turner, Christy G., II, and Jacqueline A. Turner
1999 Man Corn: Cannibalism and Violence in the Prehistoric American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.