his chapter argues that the term ‘sacrifice’ is a tendentious colonial misnomer that has become an automatic description for any act of killing in ancient Mesoamerica and still haunts the studies... Show morehis chapter argues that the term ‘sacrifice’ is a tendentious colonial misnomer that has become an automatic description for any act of killing in ancient Mesoamerica and still haunts the studies of Indigenous religions. Tracing its origin in the early colonial accounts one finds that this denomination (as ‘sacrifice-to-the-devil’ in combination with cannibalism) was used by the Spaniards in a systematic propagandistic fasion as part of the demonisation of the Aztec and other Mesoamerican cultures with the aim of justifying the colonial invasion. Many descriptions are evidently no eye-witness testimonies but based on hearsay and imagination. In a number of cases it is even doubtful that people were killed. In other cases, the killings, though maybe caried out in a ritualised context, seem not to have been actually first and foremost ‘sacrifices’, but rather forms of death penalty, execution, political murder or other instances of (in principle secular) homicide. In order to construct this hostile image, the colonial accounts misrepresented socially sanctioned killings, confusing them with religious acts such as ancestor worship and specific funerary customs, as well as with the frequent self sacrifice (bloodletting). There is an important, though often overlooked, parallel with the contemporaneous accusations of “witchcraft” against innocent women in European societies. But where modern scholarly consensus holds that the allegations of the witch craze were unwaranted, in the case of the “human sacrifice’ contemporary studies (also our own) have often still reproduced the terminology of the colonial demonisation. After 500 years it is time for a decolonial historical critique. Show less
This paper argues that the term ‘human sacrifice’ in the case of Ancient Mexican cultures is a tendentious colonial misnomer, which has become an automatic description for any act of killing in... Show moreThis paper argues that the term ‘human sacrifice’ in the case of Ancient Mexican cultures is a tendentious colonial misnomer, which has become an automatic description for any act of killing in ancient Mesoamerica and still haunts the studies of Indigenous religions. Tracing its origin in the early colonial accounts one finds that this denomination (as ‘sacrifice-to-the-devil’ in combination with cannibalism) was used by the Spaniards in a systematic propagandistic fasion as part of the demonisation of the Aztec and other Mesoamerican cultures with the aim of justifying the colonial invasion.Many descriptions are evidently no eye-witness testimonies but based on hearsay and imagination. In a number of cases it is even doubtful that people were killed. In other cases, the killings, though maybe caried out in a ritualised context, seem not to have been actually first and foremost ‘sacrifices’, but rather forms of death penalty, execution, political murder or other instances of (in principle secular) homicide.In order to construct this hostile image, the colonial accounts misrepresented socially sanctioned killings, confusing them with religious acts such as ancestor worship and specific funerary customs, as well as with the frequent self sacrifice (bloodletting).There is an important though often overlooked parallel with the contemporaneous accusations of “witchcraft” against innocent women in European societies. But where modern scholarly consensus holds that the allegations of the witch craze were unwaranted, in the case of the “human sacrifice’ contemporary studies (also our own) have often still reproduced the terminology of the colonial demonisation. After 500 years it is time for a decolonial historical critique. Show less
The painting Landscape of the West Indies at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, is attributed to Jan Mostaert from Haarlem (ca. 1475-1555 / 56). Several identifications have been... Show moreThe painting Landscape of the West Indies at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, is attributed to Jan Mostaert from Haarlem (ca. 1475-1555 / 56). Several identifications have been proposed for the region that is represented and for the event that takes place there (a conflict between Spanish conquerors and an indigenous people that defends a great mountain). After critically reviewing the existing hypotheses, this article continues the path indicated by Martínez de la Peña (1970) and Peter Mason (2015, 2017), who have identifiedseveral details of the painting as typical of the Canary Islands and its original inhabitants. This article proposes that the mountain of central importance in the painting corresponds to the Roque Bentaiga of Gran Canaria, that the striking stone arch is the nearby rock formation called “Ventana del Bentaiga” and that the snow-topped mountain in the background must be the Teide, a volcano on the neighbouring island of Tenerife, visible from this area. The conclusion is that the painting depicts the battle that took place at this site in 1483 between the troops of the Spanish conquistador Pedro de Vera and the Canaries who opposed them with fierce resistance. Show less
