Talk:Aztecs/2002-2004

This is an archive of entries made to Talk:Aztec from 2002 to 2004

--Richard 05:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made significan changes in the article aobut aztec, but english is not my native language, so problably it needs a mayor revision...

I hope someone would take care of it.

thanks.

Nanahuatzin

I added some material on the aztecs after the conquest, i am planing to add two entries. Society and Slavery i hope you will find this usseful.

Nanahuatzin 09:01, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cannibalism
From memory, Harris as well says that human meat was a reward for the elite not a fundamental part of the diet. Also, for Harris eating bugs and most everything available is a mark of lack of proteins. Insects give less protein per effort than European beasts. -- Error 03:50, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Are"
The first paragraph of this article begins "The Aztecs are a Mesoamerican people..." Note "are", not "were". Is this intended as an assertion that "Aztec" is a meaningful category for a present-day people? The article would not seem to bear this out. Shouldn't we change this to "were"? -- Jmabel 04:46, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

About Harris. I think he takes much of his claims form Harner: 1. M. Harner, Am. Ethnol. 4, 117 (1977); New York Times, 19 Feb. 1977, p. 25C; ibid., 3 March 1977, p. 32B; Nat. Hist. 86 (No. 4), 47 (1977); Smithsonian 8, 24 91977).

He claims that antropophagy was an ecological necesity.

Probably he thinks in insects as a last resource source of food, but I believe this is a case of etnocentrism. In modern Mexico, even with cattle and pigs available, we still have insects in our diet, they are considered a delicacy not a last resource food. In some cases children ares in charge of recolecting, since they are easily recolected.

Here is an excelent rebutal of his article. With this commnet

In fact, some of the malnutrition of present-day Indians in Mexico and Guatemala can be attributed to the substitution of European foods, which are less nutritious, for traditional items, 

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/aztecs/montellano.htm

Also there is only one original source that mentions the consume of human flesh. The aztec who wrote that says only the flesh of the palm of the hands were sent to the capturing warrior, but he also mentioned that the flesh was acepted and discarded to be replaced for turkey. Maybe he changed the facts, but is interesting to note that in his writings there si no hint of showing that he tought there was something wrong about that.

So far there is no archeological evidence of antropohagy.I think we should take into account the criticisms of W arens in his book, "The man eating myth" I found this from Harris:

http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/mamerica.html

About the word "are", people in the perifery of the city, who still speaks nahuatl, still considered themselves as aztecs. Even now, some of the organization of the aztecs survives in this towns.

Nanahuatzin --- I am translating this page for Bahasa Melayu wikipedia, but i did not found any other referance to Tlacalel, except in 1 web page. I have a few books on Aztec, but Tlacalel was not mentioned. Is Tlacalel a new published info? Anybody can clarifiy. Yosri 13:21, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please help me edit
I've just done a pretty good copy-editing pass through the article. I believe I have significantly improved the English without changing anythin substantive. There is a lot good in the article. However, there are many things in the article I find confusing, or simply un-encyclopedic as they stand. I believe they are all, or mostly, substantively correct, but need more scholarly working through. I am starting a list of questions (below), the answers to each of which will probably result in an edit. I'm an experienced editor, but not at all expert on the Aztecs, so I need someone to help me out here. By the way, my Spanish is near-fluent, so if it's easier to answer me in Spanish, feel free. (But please don't try answering in Nahuatl...) -- Jmabel 03:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * A lot of this is now answered below at . I'm in the process of incorporating his (very useful) answers into the article. It sounds like he really knows this stuff (with the one unfortunate aspect that he knows it so well that he is a little vague in his sourcing!). -- Jmabel 20:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) I'm taking the liberty of striking through questions that I believe have now been addressed. -- Jmabel 05:50, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Judging by Nanahuatzin's remark about 3 paragraphs above, I think it would be correct to say, near the top of the article Although there are Nahuatl-speakers nowadays who identify as themselves as "Aztecs", this is an article about the Aztecs during the period when their empire dominated much of what is now Mexico, not about the contemporary ethnic group. Does anyone have a problem with that? (Also, does anyone know if we have an appropriate article about these contemporary Nahuatl-speakers?)
 * In the section "Legendary":
 * It is very hard to sort out what is stated as fact and what as legend. (As I understand it, even the location "Anahuac" is not one that clearly refers to a specific, identifiable piece of geography). Does anyone know what in this section is considered established fact and what is not? Can anyone reference sources for this? It could all be a lot clearer, but I can't just write it clearly, because I don't know the facts myself.
 * "...who they seem to have partially confused..." Who was confused, and according to what source?
 * "The fifth age lived due to the sacrifice of a hero..." What does it mean for an age to "live"? I suspect there is a better word.
 * "Tepanec lord Tezozomoc": May I assume that "Tepanec" is an ethnic or tribal designation (and that it's probably worth an article of its own?).
 * In the section "Rise of the Aztecs":
 * Is Chimalpopoca's uncle Itzcóatl the same Itzcóatl who became emperor?
 * "son Axayacatl (1469) surrounded the kingdom of Axayacatl" Is this really right? He conquered an already existing kingdom whose name was the same as his own?
 * In the section "The Empire":
 * The section starts, "The Aztec Empire is not completely analogous to the empires of European history," but then the article does not say anything to indicate how it differed. In fact, the very next sentence is, "It was ethnically very diverse," which would be something it would have in common with all European empires, not something different. I would expect this first statement to be followed by a list of differences from European empires, or one salient difference, or something. Otherwise, it's just a blind assertion.
 * In one paragraph we say, effectively the the Emperor was called "huey tlatoque". Then in the next paragraph we use "tlatoani", presumably as a synonym. Were they both used? Do they mean exactly the same thing? (We translate "huey tlatoque" but not "tlatoani").
 * We say nothing to position Tlacalel in time. When was he?
 * Yosri says above that he cannot substantiate Tlacalel. Is there a source for this apparently important figure? Is his existence generally accepted, controversial, or what?
 * the acounts of Tlacaelel come form the "Ramirez Codex", the "mexicayotl cronicle" and form the works be Fernadndo de Alva Ixtlixochitl.
 * "Male children went to school at age 15." Meaning, I presume, "starting at 15"? Or do I misread? Either way we should be more specific. And how long did they go to school? And was this universal, or only in the capital, or what? Who taught in the school?
 * "It is interesting to note that much has been said about a lack of proteins in the Aztec diet, but there is little evidence to support it." OK, so, who has said "much" about this topic? And who has refuted them?
 * In the section "Sacrifices":
 * So, we start with "Aztecs are notorious for their religious human sacrifice that they performed in great numbers..." (emphasis mine). "Notorious" is a strong word, but we don't cite a single claim to that effect. I believe its true enough, but deserves citation.
 * I thihk this could be changed to "For the Europeasn the most striking feature of the aztecs was the human sacrifice. This was a common practice in Mesoamerica, and south america, but the aztecs make sacrifices on an almost daily basis. Duran makes an almos daily description of the main festivities of the aztecs, and what kind of sacrifice required. Also special sacrifices were made on special days like the reconstrution of the main temple. But the real numbers of human sacrifices ys very dificult to estimate, they have been estimated from as little of 350 a year (0ne daily, and none in the last days of the calendar) to several thousend (argg... 1000).  Then only number that provided the aztecs, claims 100,000 in four days is physcally imposible.
 * Done -- Jmabel 05:58, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the paragraph goes on to more or less refute the claim, but contains very confusing phrases like "...they reported that they sacrificed..." Who reported to whom? By what means (books, stone tablets, what?)
 * "Some scholars believe that it is more probable..." Again, who? Not to be snide, but "Some scholars" could mean anything from 3 precocious 8-year-olds to the leading authorities in the field! This is not encyclopedic sourcing. These are "weasel words."
 * Similarly, in the next paragraph "...instead of the 30 meters reported." Reported by whom? If by Díaz himself, this should read "...instead of the 30 meters he reported" (although if that is the source, then you can bet that a conversion into meters is a bit conjectural, since the meter was several hundred years in the future). If not, then by whom?
 * Is "Zompantli" a proper noun or a common noun?
 * This paragraph is particularly confusing:
 * Aztecs waged "flower wars" to capture prisoners for sacrifices they called nextlaualli, "debt payment to the gods" so that the sun could rise every morning. Harvard professor David Carrasco has compared this practice to "bringing home the war" in modern television.
 * "Flower wars" is presumably a translation, but of what? And why were they called this?
 * Guerras floridas :) --Error 02:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * So it's a Spanish-language term, not Nahuatl? And does it have a clear etymology, since it's obviously not literal? -- Jmabel 16:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I have heard it in Spanish. I suppose the original is Nahuatl, but don't know it. -- Error 02:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Where does David Carrasco claim this? This is a "half-sourced" statement on something where I'd expect a specific source. Also, is "bringing home the war" Carrasco's own phrase? Because the more common English (U.S. Vietnam-era radical protestor slogan) would be "bringing the war home." And I'm not sure I see the analogy. "Bringing the war home" meant confronting people with the horrors of war so they would oppose it. Clearly that is not literally what was happening here. Is Carrasco perhaps claiming that it was a means of showing people the glory of triumphant war so they would support it? With this poorly sourced statement, I have nowhere to go to find out what Carrasco may actually have said.


 * Similarly, the Marvin Harris comment is also unsourced beyond his name.
 * Harris comments on Aztec cannibalism in at least Our Kind and Cannibals and Kings. --Error 02:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The list of specific reports of cannibalism is mostly very good. Two questions, though:
 * Shouldn't "Ramirez" be "Ramírez"?
 * "This was supposed to be eaten, but it was discarded and replaced with turkey." If this practice was universal, then "was supposed to" is problematic. Who supposed it so? In other words, who was in on this and who was presumed to be deceived?
 * In the section "Downfall":
 * May we assume that the anonymous Aztec poet wrote in Nahuatl? And is there any story on how this poem came to survive?


 * I see some good sourcing on diet here in the Talk page. Can someone try getting some of that into the article, maybe a References section?

Again, none of this is to say that what is there is bad. I wouldn't be putting in the effort of this close a reading if I didn't think this had a lot of potential. -- Jmabel 07:53, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Answers from Nanahuatzin
Nanahuatzin 09:27, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC): Hi.

This are very good point and i will try to answer them, before to commited then to the main articule.


 * I think you are correct, this is an article about the historical Aztecs. There is already an articule about then nahuatl language that need more infor about modern nahuatl speakers. but...

Aztecs was their tribal name, they called themselves mexicas, (the "x" sould be prononuced like "sh": mesheecas) by intructions of the priest Huitzil, when they decided to by diferenciated from the other nahuatl tribes. In all the nahuatl texts, they called themselves mexicas. It was not until 1810 when the name aztecs was used by hiistorians, following the example of Alexander of Humboldt and then it was popularized by Prescot.

While some ubicate this mythic place in the state of Nayarit (where there is a place called Aztlan), Nobody is shure is this was a real place. The nahuas priests used a very esoteric language with double meanings, for example, Aztlan, menas, palce of the storks. But Stok is the simbol of white, and white is the symbol of origin. So, Aztlan, "could be" translates as "the place of origin" ....
 * I think there is no problem with the ubication of Anahuac, as refers to the land around the old Texcoco lake ( drained by the spaniards during the "colony"). What is problematics is the ubication of Aztlan, the mitic place where the seven "nahuatlacas" tribes cames. (The aztecs were the last one).


 * There is a big problem with toltecs. In the nahual legends, the toltecs were the originators of all culture, and the aztecs seek every fragment of knowledge that came form them, they called toltecs to all artisans and to the cultures peoples. In the leyends the ubicate the origin of toltecs and the cult of Quetlzaolcotl to the mythic city of "Tollan". Aztecs used the term Toltecayotl as a sinomim of culture.

To the aztecs, the city of Tollan was the reaminings of what they called "Teotihuacan" (the place of the gods). But In 1941, the "Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología" (see laurete sejourne) decided that Tollan, was the small city of "Tula" in the state of hidalgo, because the fall of this city (xi century) was more recent so that the aztecs could have learn from the survivors, Teotihucan has been deserted for many centuries. So they coold have not learned from the descents of the Teotihuacans. And the estimated dates of the aztec legends could not be placed int times of teotihuacan.

But the city of tula is very smal to have originated the leyend of "Toltecs", there is a link between Tula and teotihuacan, maybe te city was formed the the survivors of teotihuacan, where the cult of Quetalcoatl originated. Now the Mexican Historian Enrique Florescano, from the Mexican Academy of History, with some speciallist from the CIT (Center of Teotihuacan Studies) claim that Teotihuacan was the first Tollan, and his point of view has benn slowlly acepted by mexican historians.

As you see, everyone seems to be confused...

Now, i did had not paid atention to this, but it was not a hero, but a god.. (Nanahuatl or Nanahuatzin). The legend that describes these events is called "the legend of the fifth sun"
 * Instead of age you could used "creation"...

I would correct this as: "one of these describes four great ages o creations, preceding the present world, each of which ended in a catastrophe. We are living in the fifth sun, called Nahui-Ollin, which means 4-movement (this is the name of year it will end). The other suns were created by the main gods, but in the fifth creation, nobody want to do it, so the gods decided that one of them had to be sacrifice to be the Sun. Eventually it was the smallest and humble of the gods "nanahuatl" ( the full of sores) who ran in to a fire to be consumed to be the sun. Eventually all the gods sacrifice themselves to give life to this creation. This events were ubicated in the city of teotihuacan. 


 * About Tepanec:

there were originally seven nahuatl (nahuatlacas) tribes. The TEpanecs were one of them. uhmm i cant remember the name of the other ones, i will search for them...


 * Tlatoque/tlatoani. You are right there is a confusion of terms. Tlatoque refers to one of the upper clases, Hue Tatloque can be translated as  "great chief", this was the general title between the nauhas, but the aztecs called their huey Tlatoaque: Tlatoani (speaker) or Huey Tlatoani.


 * Empire: it was not an empire in the traditional european sense, the conquered people, was not under the govement of the aztecs, but rather they had to pay tribute. So it was never an unity, that is why it collapsed so easilly, it,s clossed analoge to the Asirian empire (See war and civilisation, by A. Tombye there is a mention of this).


 * Could it be War and Civilisation by Arnold J. Toynbee? -- Error 01:45, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Clearly it's Toynbee. I already wrote that in the article, as I've been incorporating this material. Didn't think it needed further comment. But when I read this, I scanned right past the book title; I'll add that. -- Jmabel 04:32, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, the aztec had no hereditary nobles, the status of the aztec "pillis" depend on their war abilities. Only those that had taken prissiones could be considered "pillis". To be elected as Tlatoani, requiered to have taken about 17 captives in war. But of course, the sons of the pillies had access to a better resources and education, so it was easy for them to became pillis. Eventually the titles may became hereritary, like in the maya.


 * Tlacaelel. The most important source of the story of Tlalacelel comes from the "cronica mexicayotl" from Fernando Alvarado Tezozomoc. This is the cristian name of an aztec noble, adter the conquest, he learn to write ant the european style and he wrote a nahuatl cronique of the aztec history. Most of the names and cronology of the aztecs comes form here. Later it was discovered he makes several mistakes in the dates, but is one of the most important sources on aztec history.

Tlacaelel (manly hearth) was nephew of tlatoani Itzcóatl, and brother of Chimalpopoca and Motecuhzoma I Ilhuicamina. His title was "Cichuacoatl" and could be describes as Consuellor, but as Alvarado wrote "what Tlacaelles ordered, as soon as it was done".


 * " His son Axayacatl (1469) surrounded the kingdom of Axayacatl and took control of Mixtecs and Zapotecs. "

This shoudl be: ''Axayacatl conquered the surround kingdom of Tlatelolco, (his sister was married to the Tlatoani of Tlatelolco, but he delarde that she was mistrested), after taht he conquered the Matlazinca, and the cities of Tollocan, Ocuillan, and Mallinalco. He was defeated by the tarascos in Tzintzuntzan (the first great defeat of the aztecs, and they took it very seriouslly), but then recovered and took control of the Huasteca region (mixtecs and zapotecs). ''

This sould be a complete section.
 * Aztec education...

Until the age of fourteen, the educations was in charge of their parents. After that age they could chose between two institution, the Calmecatl and the Tepochcalli. There are contradictory information about this, usualle the Calmecatl was reserved for the sons and daughters of the pillis (nobles) and the Tepochcalli was reserved for the rest of the people... but some accounts said they could chose where to study.

The Tepochcalli was dedicated to the practical need. The boys received military education, but also they receive agricultural and handcraft education. The girls were educated in the crafts of home and children raising.They were not teach to read or write.

The calmecatl was dedicated to form leaders (tlatoques), priests, schollars/teachers (tlatimini) and codex painters (tlacuilos). They study the rituals, the reading of the codex, the calendary, the war habilities adn the songs (poetry).

It semm that comon people prefer the Tepochcalli, since a warior could advance more readilly with his millitary habilities, insted of the slow way if a priest or a tlacuilo.

This is a complex theme.
 * CAnibalism and human sacifice

first, as W. Arens point, there is no correlation between human sacrifice and Canibalism. The human sacrifice has been a comon practic int all the world, ans in mesoamerica it was common. The aztecs gave us their accouns of the human sacrifice, but as i pointed, they are veryr probably inflated, to be used as a war propaganda. It was Tlacaelel who introduce the "necesity" of human sacrifice to garanted the existence and sustend of the Sun. He was trying to gave the aztecs a reason to be contantly in war to be able to grow.

The size of the zempoantly was reported by Dias, and confirmed by the excavations, what it was not confiormed was the number os skulls. AS a comparition, in the zempoantli of Tlatelolco, that was as important as the Tenochtitlan, excavations only found 300 skulls.

On canibalism. If you read Cortez, he hardly mention canibalism, which is strange since he was writing on the spot, and shurelyy this was important. The acounts of canibalism start mainly with Bernal Díaz del Castillo, who wrote several years after the conquest (as a soldier he was probably illiterate, so he did not take notes), and if you read carfully, you will find that he did not say he was a witness. Also you will noticed that alotugh he never leaarn the native languages, he write not only what the indians sais, but what they tought....

A mayor acount on the aztec canibalism comes from Father Duran, he was a dominican priest who grew in Mexico, after the conquest. He was conviced that tha aztecs whe one of the los tribes of israel and the Hummand sacrifice and canibalism wer proof of that. Duran, was convince like many europenas of their time, that conteporary jews still made humans sacrifece to obtain blood. Duran wrote three books, Book of the gods and rites, The ancient calendar, and "the aztecs". He had acces to the survivers of tenochtitlan, and his books are an important source of infomration, but we need to remeberd that he was trying to proobe that aztecs were the evil descendents of Israel....


 * Diego Dur&aacute;n. Historia de las Indias de Nueva España y islas de tierra firme, published posthumously in the 19th Century. What's this thing about "three books"? Clearly you know much more than me on the Aztecs, but here I think you are wrong. -- Jmabel 05:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * mmmh.. Yes, the source i took refer to a manuscript called the aztecs.. but seems there is a error there, i check another biography (my old histoy book from school) and get this:


 * Fraile dominico, estudioso de la cultura y de la historia prehispánica. Nació en Sevilla. Antes de cumplir 7 años fue traído a Tezcoco por su padre que era calcetero y zapatero. En 1554 tomó los hábitos monacales y en 1556 hizo profesión como fraile predicador. En 1559 funge como presbítero. En 1561 pasa a la región de Oaxaca. De regreso al centro del país, radica en el convento de Chimalhuacán Atenco, donde elabora su "Libro de Dioses y Ritos Indígenas". En 1579 concluye su "Calendario" y en 1581 termina de redactar la "Historia de los Indios de Nueva España e Islas de Tierra Firme", su obra más importante desde el punto de vista histórico. En esa época ya era vicario en Hueyapan. En 1587 enfermó gravemente cuando estaba en el convento de Santo Domingo en la Ciudad de México y a finales de ese año o a principios de siguiente, murió. Su obra de recopilación ha llegado a ser considerada de valor fundamental para conocimiento de las antiguas tradiciones, sobre todo las de Tezcoco. I also found this book: --  Fray Diego Duran,"Book of the Gods and Rites and the ancient calendar" trans adn eds F. Horcasitas and D Heyden. Norman. University of Oklahoma Press. Nanahuatzin 07:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In contrast, the moumental work of Bernardino de Sahagun, who wrote in nahuatl with the help of the survivors, harldy mention canibalism

Based on this, slowlly the acounts on the aztec canibalism grew, but it was the work of Prescot, who popularized the concept of "the canibal kingdom".

Now, in this century with "Cannibals and Kings" by Marvin harris, the story began. then in "The ecological basis fo the aztec canibalism" Michael Harner acussed his colleages of diminishing the extent of the canibalism between the aztecs.

Also there is the book by Barbara price "Desmytification, Enriddlemente, and Aztec Canibalism: a Materialistic reoinder to Harner".


 * I'm a little confused here, maybe partly by misspellings. I can find a few online references to an anthropologist named Barbara Price who has written on Mesoamerica, but I can't find a title even resembling this. Maybe it's just a journal article, not a book? Nanahuatzin, could you check your references here & see if you can get the exact title, and preferably an ISBN? I'd like to follow this one up. -- Jmabel 05:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes i have a lot of mispellings... I have tried to pronounce the title of this article but i can,t.... ;) Price,Barbara J. 1978 "Demystification, Enriddlemet, and Aztec Canibalism: A Materialistic Rejoinder to Harner" American Ethnologist 5:98-115 Nanahuatzin 08:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

is interesting that all this books have been writting with the little evidence i have describes. Harnes was convicend taht the "ecological necesity" was enough proof. But there is the excellent refutation by montellano http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/aztecs/montellano.htm

In Mexico, you will hardly find a mention of canibalism by any schollar, so Harnes acused them of hide the evidence. but there is no evidence to hide. W Arens, in his book "the man eathing myth", wrote that looking for evidence on canibalism he was aproched by othere colleagus, asking him to share wathever he found since they have found nothing. An a sutend who was writting a thesis reported him taht her teacher were acussing her of "hidding the evidence".

Now, i am not a scholar, but as you may see. There are more words than evidence to sustent the case of the aztecs as the "canibal kingdon". It seem that they resort to some forms of ritual canibalsim, but they did not enjoyed.


 * his was supposed to be eaten, but it was discarded and replaced with turkey." If this practice was universal, then "was supposed to" is problematic. Who supposed it so? In other words, who was in on this and who was presumed to be deceived?

The fragment i put comes form the original source, we can only specualte about it,s meaning, since is the only aztec acount that i have found that speaks of canibalism. But if take in acount the works of Sejourne and Portilla...

The institution of human sacrifice and much of the aztec religion, was "created" by Tlacalel. Sejourne and Portilla think that the upper clases were consient of this forgery. So they did not take seriosly all this. If we read the aztec poetry we will find that they speak of questions that were suposed to have been asnwered by their religion, like afterlife, meaning of life. Sejourne even found some hints of horror to the human sacrifice. But this is higly speculative, i am not shure it here is enough evidence for this claims.


 * Aztec poetry.

The fragment I put comes from the relation called "Informantes Anonimos de Tlatelolco" recopilated in 1521.

There are several colletions of aztec poetry (In xochitl In cuicatl, flower and song), they were collected after the conquest some of them can be traced to the autors (Netzahualcoyotl, Cacahuatzin etc). The poetry was the only ocupation worthy of a warrior in times of peace.


 * the most important collection of poems is "Romances de los señores de la Nueva España" probably by Juan Bautista de Pomar (Tezcoco 1582), he was the great granson of Netzahualcoyolt Tolatonai o f Texcoco. He was raised as cristian, but he still spoke nahuatl and wrote in european caracters (the title was written in spanish). This was translated by Angel Maria GAribay K., teacher of Leon Portilla

In the basement of the "Templo mayor" there was the "house of the eagles", where the aztec captains spent some of their time, the could drink a foaming chocolat, a good cigar, and make poetry contest. The poetry was acompanied by percusions (teponaztli). Leon Portilla, the most renown translator of nahuatl, coments that is in this poetry where we can find the real tought of the aztecs, indepent of the "oficial" version of the aztecs.

in this poems there are themes that are repeted over and over. ¿is this life real?, ¿is there an afterlife?, ¿can we aproach the giver of life?, ¿are we living on a dream? .

"the feather of quetzal will broke, the paintings will fade the flower will die

¿will they exist in the house of the giver of life?"

Cuacuatzin, lord of Tepechpan. 

Vagueness
"Mexica is a term of uncertain origin. Some say it was the old Nahuatl word for the sun. Others say..." Some? Others? Does anyone have any references for who says this? -- Jmabel 21:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nanahuatzin 12:59, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC): Probably no even the aztecs knew the meaning, since the priest use a language with double meanings. Leon Portilla suges this:

"México significa "Ombligo de la Luna" en Náhuatl. Esta palabra viene de Mexitli que esta compuesta de metztli (Luna) y xictli (ombligo)."

the oficial menaning (in our history books, i can acertain from who), is:

el origen de la palabra es que deriva de de Mexictli, nombre dado al dios Huitzilopochtli, "el colibrí del sur" que condujo a los mexicas hacia la región lacustre de centro de México. Mexictli se compone de las raíces metl (maguey), xictli (ombligo) y el locativo co, su traducción sería "en el ombligo del maguey", lo cual nos habla del sentido mitológico que a esta planta le dieron las culturas prehispánicas.

moved from article
' Harvard professor David Carrasco has compared this practice to "bringing home the war" in modern television. '


 * I would like to hear some explanation about this, and thus additions to/rewrite of this information if it is to return to the article. Sam Spade 05:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would try to found more about the "guerras floridas" - Nanahuatzin

Nanahuatzin 21:04, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) hi Jmabel, i will try to be more precise ont he source, is, a bit difficult, since it,s from material i have read many years ago. Thanks for the time you are taking to put some sense on this material :)

More edits?
Nanahuatzin, I've simply transcribed your phrase "He was defeated by the tarascos in Tzintzuntzan" into the article, but I have no idea what you mean by "tarascos". My only association for that is that a "tarasca" is a kind of dragon! Is this a Mexicanism that I don't know? Or a proper name? or what? -- Jmabel 21:14, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nanahuatzin 07:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) hi Jmabel...

I keep forgeting that we (in Mexico) learn most of this in first grade school, but this is completly new for almost everybody else :)

Tarascos is the name given by the spaniard to the purepecha people, they were a people that lived in what is now the state of Michoacan, their main city, Tzintzuntzan, was in the lake of Patzcuaro. The language of the tarascos is unrelated to any other mesoamerican culture, so their origin is unknown. They were very independient and agresive people, they were begining a military expansion when they clash with the aztecs, they could defeted then in battle, but they could not push further their fontiers..

This are their other main cities: http://www.inah.gob.mx/zoar/htme/za013.html

I Think i will have to create a litle entry about them...


 * Wikipedia has an article at Tarascan, the most common English language name for the people, with redirects there from "Trascos" and "Purépecha". With the first mention of a native nation or people in an article, I'd say go ahead and wikilink it. We might have an article on it, and if we don't we probably should. A tip: Remember that such proper names ("Aztec" etc) are usually capitalized in English. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:54, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * thanks, i will do it, i didnt knew that spellig, i will do as you sugest.Nanahuatzin 06:10, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Two sentences without sense
This doesn't make sense: "Also could be declared a slave anyone who tried to prevent the escape of a slave, unless he were a familiar of the master." I'm assuing that "familiar" here is the Spanish word meaning "family member" but surely one was not punished for preventing the escape of a slave?

Neither does this: "If he step on human excrement outside the market, or if he asked protection in the royal palace or a temple." It's not even a sentence, it's an if-clause without a then-clause, and I, for one, can't guess the then-clause.

-- Jmabel 23:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, i mean to write "relative"..., and yes.. you could be declare slave if you tried to prevent a slave to be free...
 * "Also, as strange as it sounds, people could be declared a slave if they tried to "prevent" the escaping of a slave, unless he were a relative of the master." Nanahuatzin 02:41, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * " Also a slave could be declared free, If he step on human excrement outside the main market, or if he asked protection in the royal palace or a temple. This last one was for the slaves that use the wood collar that marked bad slaves" (presumably Nanahuatzin)

I'm still not sure I get this thing about stepping on human excrement. By "outside the main market" do you mean to say "anywhere except the main market" or "immediately outside the main market"? And do you have any idea how such an odd law would have arisen? And I'm not sure what you mean here by "this last one." Meanwhile, I will clarify in the article the thing about preventing a slave from escaping. -- Jmabel 05:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, Sahagun is not very clear on this, now you understand why he was not shure if this could be called slavery? :).  . Now. about this thing about the excrement, i tried to write it in short, but it seem i only confuse all the story..


 *  "If a slave went to the market (Tianquiztli) with his master, he could run over the walls of the market. If near the wall, he could step on human excremente, he could go to the judges and asked to be freed. then the judges would cleand him/her, gave him new clothes (hile he used his master clothes, he was still slave) and then they went to his master, to inform his that the ssalve was free, thanks to his/her resources.". Also i forgot to mention that war captives were never sold as slaves.


 * Thanks for the corrections :)

Nanahuatzin 10:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm still finding that confusing in a couple of places. Nanahuatzin, can you give me the (presumably Spanish-language) original of that paragraph you are quoting? -- Jmabel 23:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don,t have a copy of Sahagun at hand, but will copy from "MAnuel Orozco y Berra", LA civilizacion Azteca, 1860.

 Recobrabase la libertad por uno de estos medios: si estando el esclavo en el mercado lograba burlar la vigilancia del amo, huia, pasaba las bardas del Tianquiztli y mas allá ponia el pie sobre excremento humano, se presentaba ante los jueces de aquella forma, y refiriendoles el caso, les pedia le librasen del cautiverio, supuesto asi estaba determinado por la ley: los magistrados le lavaban todo el cuerpo, ponianle ropas nuevas, le presentaban  a su amo diciendole, que aquel se habia librado por su industria, y asi asistido por la ley habia cesado de ser esclavo. Al ver huir a su siervo, el señor daba grandes voces a la gente para que le detuviesen; mas cuanto mayores voces daba, tanto mas se precavian los espectadores de poner estorbo al que huia, porque la ley condenaba por esclavo a toda persona que impedia que un hombre recobrara su libertad.

Si el amo se enamora la esclava, o el ama del esclavo, y constaba, porque tenian hijos o de porque manera autentica seguiase su matrimonio, saliendo los agraciados de la condicion servil. Quedaba tambien libre, quien antes de la segunda venta, podia volver el precio por el que habia sido comprado. Estando con la collera al cuello (por incorregible), si podia meterse en el palacio o casa de los reyes, volvia a su antigua libertad; ninguno podia atajarles los pasos, pena de ser reducido a la servidumbre, fuera del amo o de sus hijos. Era costumbre entre los señores, a su muerte, dar por libres a los esclavos que habian hecho señalados servicios: los demas eran ciervos de sus herederos.

El señor no poda vender al siervo sin su consentimiento. Cesaba este privilegio si el esclavo sera perezoso, mal mirado, o huia de casa. entonces el amo lo amonestaba una, dos o te veces delante de testigos. Si aun permanecia incorregible, ponianle collera, distintivo de su mala condicion y entonces podia venderle a las personeas o en los mercados.

...

La collera era una pieza de madera, que ajustando al cuello, terminaba en dos argollas por la parte posterior por estas pasaba una vara larga, ligada a otra exterior de manera solida. LA collera no solo era simbolo de su mala conducta, sino tambien impedia huir entre la gente o psar por lugares estrechos.

Los compradores de los esclavos de collera se informaban del numero de ventas que habia psado, y si despues de cuatro ventas aun no enmendaba, podian ser vendidos al sacrificio. (estos esclavos eran de mayor precio, pues no debian tener defecto fisico) 

In general, slaves were better treated than the common people. They were under the care of their master, they lived in the main house, and were provided for all their needs. Probably this was the reason why some slaves wished to stay slaves... Nanahuatzin 20:23, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

In the above, there is a reference to "las bardas del Tianquiztli". I know several meanings for "barda", ranging from a poet to a type of horse armor. None of them seem obvious to me here. Do you have any idea of the sense of this? -- Jmabel 23:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

IN Mexico, barda means "wall"... :) ... By the way... I Mexico we have a saying "te brincaste la barda", when someone does something extraordinary. Maybe this is the origin... Nanahuatzin 02:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I was trying to summarize the story about slaves... but it seems that unless you go in full, it does not make sense....Nanahuatzin 02:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Quite. Thanks on "barda". My Spanish is mostly Iberian with a little Cuban and Rioplatano. I'm often thrown by specifically Mexican or Central American usages. A little inconvenient, because I now live on the West coast of the US, where of course that's what one mostly hears. -- Jmabel 04:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Nanahuatzin, you just now changed "marketplace of Tianquiztli" to "marketplace or Tianquiztli". The previous had the sense of saying that Tianquiztli is the name of the marketplace. The new version suggests that Tianquiztli is something other than the marketplace. If so, what is it? It's a Nahuatl word not used anywhere else in the article, so I have no idea? Or did you mean to write "marketplace, or Tianquiztli" which would have the same meaning as what it replaced? -- Jmabel 06:55, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Jabel. Tianquiztli means marketplace, i did not ralized how important a coma is :) ...  There were small marketplaces, and one very big marketplace so ussually Tianquiztli refers to the big one. But all were called the same. Even now we used the word "tianguis" for small itinerant markets.

Nanahuatzin 07:36, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's go for "Tianquiztli (marketplace)", which should be totally clear. I've edited. -- Jmabel 17:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel:

thanks for the revision of the text, it much better. Nanahuatzin 00:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Two more confusing phrases
Nanahuatzin, when I went to edit your latest, there are two phrases that make no sense:


 * 1) "The city had to ball games."
 * 2) "...had the right to take the blanquet of the public"; I'm guessing "blanquet" is "blanket", but even so I can't make sense of it.

Could you try restating these, either in English or Spanish, and I'll take it from there. -- Jmabel 15:37, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry.. i think i was more tired than i tought...


 * The city had two buildings dedicated to the ball game....

on the second, i think I will need to explain a bit more:


 * ... the traditional clothes of the aztecs include a blanket . White for the macehuals, and full of color (with feathers ans sometimes jewels), for the pillies, This were expensive (twenty blanket was the price of a slave), the player who could pass the ball through the ring, had the right to take am many blankets of the public as he wish.

I want to add a small section about aztec clothing....

thanks Nanahuatzin 20:59, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

War captives?
In the article, it is mentioned that "slaves" don't include war captives. War captives were obviously important in Aztec society, since promotion in the millitary was dependent on capturing large numbers. What happend to them? crazyeddie 07:31, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Nanahuatzin will probably want to weigh in with his superior knowledge to mine on this, but my understanding is that (1) human sacrifice was chiefly sacrifice of war captives and (2) prior to (or in lieu of) sacrifice, war captives were slaves after a fashion, but knowing that they were likely to be killed, and lacking the several possibilities of eventually gaining their freedom, they were less useful than ordinary slaves. Nanahuatzin, is that about right, or am I missing something? -- Jmabel 07:44, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Well, from the article, it sounds like the Aztecs didn't sacrifice that many people. Granted, what few people they did sacrifice were war captives and serial-runaway "slaves". So the remaining war captives were probably used as slaves of some sort. The "slaves" were actually members of Aztec society, which explains why all the escape hatches. Here's what I'm getting of the classes of Aztec society: the millitary elite, the "peasants" (who seem to be like the plebians of Rome - citizens, but little influence in policy), "slaves", and true slaves that came from conquest. Except for the "slaves", seems reasonably similar to the classes of Classical Europe. Were the children of the war captives born free I wonder? Of course, they probably still wouldn't be considered Aztec. Probably need a better term to seperate "slaves" from war captives. Citizen-slaves vs foreign slaves? I'd imagine that citizen-slaves were more into skilled labor, and that the "foreign" slaves (not real happy with that term) were more menial - plantation labor, if the Aztecs has such a thing. crazyeddie 16:36, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I've pinged Nanahuatzin, and he will presumably answer and clarify. -- Jmabel 17:52, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * There is no easy answer for this question, i have ask me the same question. But, the main purpose of war captives, was sacrifice, so far i have not found any mention they were used for anything else. And, If needed, the aztec could ask for a labor force on the the conquered cities.


 * According to sahagun, war captives were well feed, and well treated. They were considered as "guest". When an aztec took a prisioner, he should say "welcome my son" and his prissioner would be considered his (unwillingly) guest, until the day of sacrifice. Also, prisioners usually were wounded in the legs (so they could not escape), and need to be treated. So probably they could not be used as a labor force. Also they would have to be feed for many months until the day of sacrifice.


 * Based on Pomar and the Ramirez Codex, there seems to be only two festivities where prisiones were sacrified. For Tezcatlipoca, and Huitzilopochtli. But no one mentions how many where sacrified... and they insist sacrifice were done only in festive days. There were several kind of sacrifices, so probably in those two festivities, hundreds of prisioners could be sacrified. But again, we have no reliable information on this. Some prisioners could be freed acording to their courage


 * I found an interesting acount in Pomar (that i should include in the part of canibalism). After a prisioner was sacrified, the body was given to the warrior. He would boil the body, to separate the meat. He would cut it in very small pieces (about half ounce), and send them to important people (tecutlis, captains, and pochtecas) sometimes in other cities, as a gift. This meat was consideres with no intrinsec value (it was thrown away), but in return, the warrior would get fine blankets, jewellery, slaves, fine fatheres etc. So, a prisioner could have the value of several slaves.


 * This of course put an important question... How many prisioners they took and sacrifice?. But I have not found any data or even a guestimate of this. But the account of Pomar shows a prisioner for sacrifice was very valuable and each warrior had to make the most posible profit of it. this also (my guess, not to be took too seriuoslly) could means it was hard to take a good prisioner, specially since they should have to be a nahuatl speaker, and in good conditions. So they could be candidates for sacrifice.


 * Sorry if i cant be more helpfull, but there seems to be a lot of contradictory evidence, or missign evidence.


 * About slaves. The rules on slaves, probalby were diferent on slaves who were not of nahuatl origin, this was probably the case of the slave women given to the spanish people.

Nanahuatzin 09:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I followed the link to flower war, which seemed to have a bit more information. Also, I didn't notice some information elsewhere in the article. It sounds like war captives were taken from the warrior class, and with the restriction on Nahuatl speakers, would have to be from the Empire or a closely related people. I'm thinking that it might have been a rather extreme method of culling the millitary down to an elite. The canibalistic thing, extrapolating from what little I know of other cultures' customs, would then be purely symbolic. (A less bloody example would be Christian Communion.) Basically a way of absorbing the warrior's power. There was that bit about blood sacrifice being neccessary to keep the sun moving, and that the sun itself was the result of the weakest of gods. I doubt that canibalism was ever a signifigant part of the diet. The millitary cull theory would explain why the professional soldiers could capture so many prisoners and still have fairly low sacrifice rates, even if a relatively small proportion were released for bravery.

From the sounds of it, the Aztecs wouldn't have much use for high amounts of slave labor. I was thinking that they were an elite who got their food from a captive slave population. (Until quite recently, 90+% of the population was involved in food production, so understanding where a culture gets its food is a big step in understanding the culture.) Instead, it looks like they just took food from surronding cities and villages. Even the citizen-slaves were part of the elite. No wonder their neighbors didn't like them. 66.189.228.239 19:53, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oops- forgot to log in. crazyeddie 20:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So do either of you feel this calls for any edits? -- Jmabel 20:32, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hello.. Your conclusion are interesting, so far i have found two acounts on canibalism that can be traced directly to aztec sources. Ramirez and Pomar. They are contradictory, but somehow similar. According to Ramirez, part of the flesh of the hands was given to the warrior (not the body), this was accepted, but not consumed, since it was usually repalced with turjey. Pomar coments the warrior had the body, but he only would keep the bones, to exhibit as prizes. Small parts of meat would be send as gift, but this meat was considered with no (nutritional?) value. It seems was more a systems of regards to the warrior. Finally, all this was designed to have a powerfull elite.

A study from the National Intitute of antropology, sugest that only 20% of the population of Tenochtitlan was involved directly in production of food. Each calpulli had a piece of land, and all the food was owned by the calpulli. Some of the people, worked full time in the lands, and others were speciallized in other kind of work. Until today, some small towns in Mexico used this kind of prodution. This comunal lands are important part of their culture. (The mexican revolution was partly caused by big landowners who robbed the comunal lands)

Of course, also the aztecs received big quantities of food. This, and the eficiency of the chinamaps, would explain this 20%... :-0

With all this, aztecs get the hate of other nahuatl people. This was an important reason fo their defeat... With all good and bad of their civilizations...

There still so much to add... but i don,t want to write a book :) I am trying to give a broad view if the culture, taken in account their point of view...

Nanahuatzin 04:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about the car?
Someone should make a disambiguation page and write something about the Pontiac Aztec. Personally I think it's fugly and I was curious to see if they'd discontinued it yet :D


 * At such a time as someone sees fit to write about the vehicle, the article will be at Pontiac Aztek, which has Pontiac links to it. -- Infrogmation 21:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Triple Alliance"?
The following sentence was recently and anonymously edited (addition indicated here by italics):
 * The modern usage of the name Aztec as a collective term, applied to all the peoples linked by trade, custom, religion, and language to the Mexica state, the Triple Alliance, was suggested by Alexander von Humboldt.

I've never heard "Triple Alliance" used in this relation. I'd welcome a clarification and/or citation. Lacking that, I will revert it. -- Jmabel 18:39, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Triple alianza is a very standard term of reference for the alliance between Tenochtitlan, Tacuba, and Texcoco that allowed the Mexicas to kick some serious Azcapotzalco butt impose their hegemony in the valley and beyond. What I don't know is how useful the reference is to it there, in those terms you quote (and Mexica redirects here, anyway). –Hajor 03:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Just so you know, I appreciate the effort put into this article. It is, like so many, a very sad story of Spanish conquest. I came to this page to learn of the differences in cultures between Aztecs and Incans, and whether there was trade between the two groups. While I did not see anything that addressed this particular question, I was moved by the story of the Aztec empire. My interest, embarassingly enough, stems from my interest in Incan music, played by modern bands on flutes, guitars and drums. Is there similar cultural remains of the Aztec empire?


 * Most of nahuatl culture was wiped, that included the music. Some of it remains in the music fo "concheros" or aztec dancers. They dance in the churches to the virgin of Guadalupe, what they thinks are aztec dance. But it,s dificult to know. Also you must search in "chichimeca" music. Nanahuatzin 23:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)