Talk:Aztec mythology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] AZTEC/Mexhika culture and knowledge currently appearing in Wikipedia.
Contemprary scholarship regarding anthropoligical and historical references to "gods/goddesses" is incorrect. Aztec anthropomorphic imagery is simply that, a representation of a concept that is given a human form. The concept is "energy" (and multiple energies), consequently anyone seriously interested in understanding the culture should not confuse or misunderstand the meanings. This is not pantheon of "gods."
By...13 Kiawitl in 3 Toxtli, Tlalpilli: Tekpatl
- Could you elaborate on that? I know little of Aztec mythology, and I'm not sure how to resolve what you say with the description of these "not-gods". How do beings that are "just" concepts flay themselves, have relationships, and otherwise act like people do? There seems to be some corporeal aspect to these deities. How else could Montezuma believe that Cortez might be Quetzalcoatl? --Xanzzibar 00:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's going to be very difficult (and potentially confusing) to extricate all these anthropomorpic images of energies from the conceptual framework of Gods and Goddesses for a general audience. Surely we could still use the vernacular if some clues as to its insufficiency are also conveyed. The most helpful contribution would probably be to add a thoughtful and clearly-written explication in the Aztec mythology article to communicate current scholarship on the sociological/anthorpological/theological nature of these anthropomorphic images for which we have no suitable nouns. I am certainly not the one to write it. I'm told that the Codex Chimalpopoca is a good starting place. Dystopos 03:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge accomplished
Removed redirect from Aztec religion and reconstituted Aztec religion article from history and merged in text extracted from Aztec#Religion
Please go to Talk:Aztec and read the comment titled "Moved much of the "Religion" section to Aztec religion article" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 13 April 2006.
[edit] 'Legendary heroes and kings'
Under the above-named subsection in this article, two of the three listed (Moctezuma & Cuauhtémoc) are historical (ie, actual) personages- I wonder therefore if it's entirely appropriate to mention them here. They could only be regarded as "legendary" figures in the more general or colloquial sense of 'well-known, even famous', and are not legendary in the sense of being mythical which is how I would interpret what is meant by this subsection. Perhaps they could be regarded as being somewhat iconic figures, but this would really only be in latter-day terms, not from the perspective of the historical Aztec civilization which is what this article relates to.
Are there any particular reasons for their inclusion here, or, if not, any objections if they were to be removed?--cjllw | TALK 23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Historicaly figures should not be called "legendary" unless the usage is clearly metaphorical. Here it is not. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, those two now removed. Thanks.--cjllw | TALK 02:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)