Talk:Tlaltecuhtli

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2018 and 15 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pestocavatappi. Peer reviewers: Benitocpf, Kathleenvoight.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

NOT a goddess
The article identifies the Tlaltecuhtli as a "goddess". Actually Tlaltecuhtli is an earth GOD. The name is an agglutination of the two Nahuatl words "Tlal" - earth and "Tecuhtli" - lord. Only males are lords. According to Alfonso Caso* There were four earth gods - Tlaltecuhti who was male and three earth goddesses - Coatlique, Cihuacoatl and Tlazolteotl. "ique" means lady, "cihua" is woman so these are female names. "Teotl" means god so this could be either gender.


 * Caso, Alphonso (fifth printing 1978) The Aztecs: People of the Sun Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN0-8061-0414-7 pp. 52-56 OCLC 58-11603

If nobody argues about this, I'll change it and add the citation. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete


 * Nobody argued about this edit for two years so I corrected the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Once again two IP editors have changed it to make Tlaltecuhtli female. It looks like this is the same editor in Spain. In my opinion, the article is balanced and cites reliable sources for both sides of the story. Adding words like "most" to the opinion that the editor favors is prejudicial and adds nothing to the article. Caso's opinion is based on the post-classic codices such as the Codex Bodley, so he's a secondary source. I'm not so sure about Miller and Taube who seem to be interpreting the iconography, rather than referring to primary sources. I don't have Miller and Taube so I'm unable to confirm this. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Taube in Aztec and Maya Myths University of Texas Press 1 edition (1993) Karl Taube ISBN-13: 978-0292781306 p.37 says "Although the name Tlaltecuhtli means earth Lord, this being is actually dually sexed and is often described as female.". However he doesn't use any footnotes that refer to primary sources such as post-conquest codices, so I lean toward interpretation of iconography.

There's a problem with the reference in the article: Miller and Taube 1993 is ambiguous. It might be several publications. I'm guessing that what it refers to is The gods and symbols of ancient Mexico and the Maya: An illustrated dictionary of Mesoamerican religion. Taube 1993 as above is listed in the notes but not Miller and Taube 1993. There's no preview of The gods and symbols of ancient Mexico and the Maya on google books. I ordered a copy of it so I will be able to figure out what this refers to. This would show if, for example, some post-conquest codex says that the God has both genders or if this is Miller's interpretation of the iconography. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I bought a copy of Miller and Taube. I added a note quoting them as saying that Tlaltecuhtli is either female or both. They give only vague assurances for their contention that Tlaltecuhtli is feminine and cite their interpretation of the iconography. They say in the appendices that their main source for Aztec religion is the Florentine / Sahagun codex. The next step would be too look this up in Sahagun. It might be online. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I added more information on Miller and Taube's interpretation of the iconography of this god as female. It's possible that Duran or some other reliable source agrees with them. Perhaps someone with access to an excellent library could look for this but since Miller and Taube don't refer the reader to any primary or secondary source, they are not a reliable source. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation
It looks to me like the IPA pronunciation has the emphasis on the wrong syllable. In Nahuatl the emphasis is invariably on the second-to-the-last syllable. In this case the "cuh". I.E. tlalteCUHtli. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"Cuh" isn't a syllable. It represents /kw/. The stressed syllable is TEKW. Seyakat Ketsalkowat (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Miller and Taube
Miller and Taube are art historians - NOT anthropologists. Their books are NOT reliable sources. They're full of nonsense that is contrary to mainstream scholarship including their own interpretations of iconography, careless or lack or research and speculation. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Since these two don't use any footnotes it's impossible to find the primary sources that they might have used to reach these conclusions. Adding their opinions to the article added many un-referenced statements like the mis-statement of the god's name in Nahuatl, the complete crap that the god in the center of the Stone of the Fifth Sun isn't Tonatiuh and the statement that "scholars" think that the god had two genders. I know you did this as an assignment in school. I wish that professors wouldn't assign editing Wikipedia to their students, rather it would be better for Wikipedia if experts in the field would edit the articles - citing RELIABLE sources. It's a shame that there is so much crap written about Aztec mythology. It makes it really hard to maintain a good article. Rather than tag the article with numerous 'citationneeded's I reverted all of your rewrite of the article and ask you to discuss it here. Do yourself a big favor and look for reliable sources. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also read the above section "NOT a goddess". Senor Cuete (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Right — Miller and Taube specialize in the history of art, and are interpreting pieces of art that feature Tlatlecuhtli. I would classify their research as mainstream scholarship and believe that their interpretations of iconography are better than nonsense. I don't think it's fair to say it's "complete crap" that the deity in the center of the Sun Stone could be Tlatlecuhtli — it's someone else's opinion that it's Tonatiuh, and I was clear that that's one historian's interpretation. Many scholars have speculated that the deity is either female or dual-gendered, and it seems irresponsible to completely negate that debate on the basis of Caso's book. As for sources: I looked at Aztec Codices and carvings that featured Tlatlecuhtli (primary sources — I would love if you had other suggestions that I, or Miller and Taube, could look at), and a few books and articles by respected scholars in the field of Mesoamerican art/anthropology (but again, I would love a list of the reliable sources that informed your expert opinion). Please let me know your thoughts. Pestocavatappi (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Their interpretations ARE nonsense and contrary to mainstream scholarship. Just making something up like the god in the stone of the fifth sun is Tlatlecuhtli and then publishing it as fact is WP:FRINGE. It's not a secondary source. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Miller and Taube isn't a secondary source. "Many scholars have speculated that the deity is either female or dual-gendered..." "Many scholars" is weasel words. "Speculated...". Speculation is not encyclopedic. The paragraph about the fact that the god is really masculine was fair and balanced and reflected the fact that Miller and Taube is crap. You looked at codices and decided that the god is feminine? This is original research - not allowed on Wikipedia. Also you added un-referenced text saying that "her name means 'The one who gives and devours life.'" This is crap. His name is an agglutination of the Nahuatl words "tlal(li)(earth) and tecuhtli(lord - masculine) - literally "earth lord". Caso at least gets his information from the codices. I could go on and on but the point is that you should look for reliable sources. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If your problem is with the use of "speculated" or "some scholars," I will change that to cite the exact sources. I believe that Miller and Taube also got their information from codices and Aztec primary sources, as did Caso — which is what makes the debate so interesting, that three respected scholars can make different secondary interpretations using the same sources. You're right to point out that the deity's name translates literally to "earth lord." It's also important to point out that the deity is nearly always depicted in a female birth-giving posture, and wears traditionally female garb. I will change the section on the gender debate to more fully reflect Caso's interpretation. I didn't mean to imply that the deity's gender was my own interpretation, only that after reading the secondary literature there seemed to be more arguments for female gender. I don't think you can call a paragraph "fair and balanced" (an important part of the Wikipedia guidelines) when dismissing one side of the argument as "crap." I think we should work to collaboratively edit the section on the gender debate, because we both have strong arguments on each side. I am going to add back in the other sections that I had in the post originally, please let me know how I can improve them to reflect research that you've done. I used the pronouns "she" "her" and "hers" throughout my recounting of the creation narrative since that was the language used in the sources I consulted, but that is not to say that there is a definitive interpretation of the deity's gender. Clara 17:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestocavatappi (talk • contribs)
 * NO - Miller and Taube DIDN"T get this idea from the codices. In their bibliography they list the Florentine Codex as their source for information about the Aztec dieties. This god is not mentioned in this codex so they DID get this idea by interpreting the iconography. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In their bibliography, Miller and Taube also list the Codex Borbonicus and the Histoyre du Méchique (which they quote in their passage on Tlaltecuhtli), both 16th-century primary sources which explicitly discuss Tlaltecuhtli. At your prompting, I also looked at other secondary sources that discuss the deity's gender — Leonardo Lopez Lujan's Tlaltecuhtli, published following the discovery of the monolith in Mexico City, and Lucia Henderson's dissertation on the multi-faced aspect of the deity. From these sources, I have pulled more of the scholarship regarding the gender debate. You're right — Wikipedia is at its best when written by the experts. Clearly people feel strongly about this aspect of Tlaltecuhtli, and the multiple representations speak to the deity's importance in the pantheon. I also added several images to the article, one of which depicts Tlaltecuhtli in male garb, and one in female. I have also cited primary or secondary sources on every point presented. If you have further issues with my edits, I would be happy to give you my email address or Mary E. Miller's so we can discuss the topic further. Clara 20:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestocavatappi (talk • contribs)
 * You cite the Florentine Codex but with no volume or page number. The English translations are in 12 volumes. I have the first book, the gods, and this god is not in it. Where do you see this god in Sahagun? Maybe it's in Book 3: The Origin of the Gods? Your library should have this. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My citation of Tlaltecuhtli appears in Book 6 (Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy), Chapter 3 in a description of the prayers offered to Tezcatlipoca when war was waged. Sahagún describes Tlaltecuhtli's connection to the sun, and demand for blood offerings. Clara 02:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestocavatappi (talk • contribs)
 * Then you should add a volume and page number to your citation. Also if you can't add a page, etc. to the Histoire de Mechique then your citation is invalid. Unfortunately there isn't an English translation of this reference. You apparently have access to the library of a major university. Maybe it's there. Can you speak French? Senor Cuete (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My citation does include the Florentine Codex volume number and page (Book 6, page 13). The full text of the Histoyre du Mechique is available online in JSTOR or at persee.fr, but unfortunately I don't think it has been edited or translated into English. I accessed the source in French and referenced Chapter IX, La créacion du monde (The creation of the world), which begins on page 34 of this version of the manuscript. I've updated my citations to reflect this. Clara 16:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestocavatappi (talk • contribs)

Just want to point out that "tēuctli" doesn't mean "lord" or "señor." Those are just approximations to the genderless Nahuatl title. A better rendering is "esteemed personage" or "noble." In fact, in The Bancroft Dialogues, older women are addressed as "notēcuiyo" or "my noble" several times. Seyakat Ketsalkowat (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tlalcihuatl.svg

Sorce?
2nd paragraph, it says according to a sorce, ....... Could you name the source? 73.20.50.209 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)