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
AuthorBernard R. Ortiz de Montellano
PublisherScience, volume 200, number 4342, pages 611 to 617
Publication Year1978
URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.200.4342.611
Source Typepeer-reviewed article
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
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. NotesThe 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.
Popular myth - corrected
1Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
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.