muscular power and backs of men, they could have had but little internal trade or commerce.
All authorities, furthermore, agree that human sacrifices constituted an essential part of their religion, and that, as a nation, they were addicted to cannibalism, and probably forced the adoption of its practice among the contiguous nations whom they invaded and possibly subjugated. But "cannibalism," as M. Charney remarks, "had its rise among tribes having no cattle, no hunting-grounds, and having for their maintenance only vegetable food, or an insufficiency of food; and, if the phenomenon is observed among civilized nations, it is exceptional, as in famine, or as in cities reduced to extremities by a protracted siege."[1]
Prescott assigns to the Aztec city of Mexico a population of three hundred thousand, and sixty
- ↑ "We find cannibalism in America at the time of the conquest among the Caribs; in the islands of the Pacific, where the natives had for their only sustenance cocoanuts and fish; and in Australia, where the soil was so poor that not only was man a cannibal, but he was furthermore constrained to limit the population. But no tribe, however savage, having at hand—whatever the trouble might be of securing the prey—bears, reindeer, horses, or oxen, is ever cannibalistic. Now, the natives of Central America and Mexico at the time of the conquest were cannibals, though the time had gone by when necessity compelled them to be such. They were farmers; cultivated several species of grain, and derived from the chase, and from animals, food sufficient to support life. Why, then, were they cannibals? The reason is, though they would not themselves account for it in that way, that they were complying with religions tradition."—M. Charney, "North American Review," October, 1880.
