Talk:Aztec cuisine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Mesoamerica / Aztec  (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Aztec (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Mexico (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Good article Aztec cuisine has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes.
2. Factually accurate?: A good article must contain in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements. The article contains too few inline references to meet this standard. For instance, the quotation "Our sustenance suffers, ..." and the statements about the value of cacao beans are not attributed.
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes.
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.
5. Article stability? Yes.
6. Images?: Yes. However, the caption of the "Spirulina" image lacks the reference to its source that the other images have. Sandstein (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Sandstein (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

2. I'll bolster the references for the quote and some other things when I get access to Coe when the university libary opens again next week.
6. The facsimile of the Florentine Codex is in the same library as Coe. I'll check the folio number next week.
Peter Isotalo 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add a further concern: the article uses only two different secondary sources and does not discuss at all which primary sources the information rest on. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to find more works on Aztec cuisine, but Coe and Ortiz de Ortellano were the only ones I could find. To the best of my knowledge there isn't all that much written on the subject. Coe's in particular draws on many other writers and is fairly recent.
Exactly what kind of discussion of primary sources are we talking about here?
Peter Isotalo 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sources on Aztec duisine are predominantly two: the Florentine Codex and knowledge of modern indigenous cuisine extrapolated to the precolumbian situation. This should be mentioned and discussed. Plus ideally the information provided should be traced to one of those sources.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The Florentine Codex is crucial, yes, but there are also plenty of accounts from Spanish conquistadors and missionaries. There's probably a lot to be extrapolated from ethnological studies of modern Mexican cuisine, but Coe focuses mostly on texts and archaeological evidence. As far as I can tell, source are specified throughout the text, but I don't feel a lengthy discussion of primary sources is within the scope of this article.
Peter Isotalo 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Note I have to concentrate on studies for about two weeks. A reprieve until after January 21 would be greatly appreciated.

Peter Isotalo 14:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Long lead[edit]

To me, this article seems to have an excessively long lead (the bit before the first main heading). I have neither the time nor the expertise to improve it, but thought I would note it here so that other editors may have a chance at improving it. me_and (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed some information about beverages which was is repeated in the main body of the article. Does it still seem too long?
Peter Isotalo 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination passed[edit]

Because the issues mentioned above have generally been addressed, the article has passed good article nomination. Congratulations! Sandstein (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate the input.
Peter Isotalo 08:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Aztecs Legal age for drinking was 60 yrs old , or else they would be sentanced to death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.8.175.195 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Blowing on maize??[edit]

An Aztec woman blowing on maize before putting in the cooking put, so that it will not fear the fire. Florentine Codex, late 16th century.

Fellow Mesoamericanists: To my eye, the squigglies in front of the woman in the Florentine Codex look like speech scrolls, and that she is actually speaking or (in my opinion) singing. I have added a "[citation needed]" to the caption. Any insight anyone?? Madman (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the paragraph right next to the picture. It's explained in Coe. There is nothing in there about singing or talking to maize before it is cooked.
Peter Isotalo 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We should verify this in the florentine codex not in Coe. It does indeed look like speech scrolls. Coe is not a particularly reliable translator of Nahuatl. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm also thinking that Coe might have misinterpreted. How can we check with the Codex?? Madman (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The Florentine Codex is written in Nahuatl and Spanish as far as I know. There are fascimile editions and I'm pretty sure there are modern Spanish editions. The picture I scanned has a folio reference you can look up if you wish to make your own conclusions.
Peter Isotalo 06:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Btw, is there any reason we should believe that breathing and speaking would be illustrated differently? Are the examples of "breathing scrolls"?
Peter Isotalo 04:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly a possibility! I'm hoping Maunus, Nahuatl scholar that he is, will have some insight into how to check the Codex itself. Thanks for your concern, Peter. Madman (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If you have trouble getting hold of a facsimile, I can get you photos of selected folios from the edition at Stockholm University Library.
Peter Isotalo 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
being in the outback at the moment I cannot check the florentine codex untill July :( .·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
July is fine with me. It's not a big deal -- obviously the woman is forcing air out in conjuction with the maize, and the details of how she's doing it can wait. What "outback" are you in, pray tell, Maunus ol' chap? And how do you have an Internet connection?  : ) Madman (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Im in Hueyapan, Morelos and I probably could find a copy of the florentine codex, but I would need to know where to look and it would cost me a few days of travel. In Denmark I know where to go. Hopefully July will also see uploads of new photos from Chalcatzingo, Xochicalco, Tenayuca, Santa Cecilia Acatitlán, Malinalco and the Templo Mayor.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Maunus, hope the research travel 'n' all is going well, & look forward to seeing those pics.

It looks like Sophie Coe gets that quote about Aztec women breathing on maize so it "would not fear the fire" directly from the Dibble & Anderson translation of the Florentine, so the words at least can be considered authoritative.

But that passage comes from Book 5 (p.184), so I guess the question is whether this particular illustration from the codex accompanies the text, or whether it comes from another place in the codex (in which case, it might be depicting something else).

The img is captioned as coming from Book 1 (f.347R) of the Florentine - can this be validated? I thought Book 1 of the codex was where various Aztec deities were described, and that it did not contain observations on daily custom and the like...?

On a side note, looking around I was interested to find a current syllabus on Ancient Middle America from University of Minnesota, Duluth, which refers to and uses some of the material in this article (see here), including this very illustration and its caption(!) --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cannibalism[edit]

Cannibalism, regardless of whether it took place in certain rituals, has *nothing* to do with cuisine.

Cuisine is (according to our very own wiki page): a specific set of cooking traditions and practices, often associated with a specific culture.

While cannibalism may be considered a (religious) "tradition" or "practice", it still does not qualify:

Cooking is the process of preparing food by applying heat. and: Food is any substance, usually composed of carbohydrates, fats, proteins and water, that can be eaten or drunk by an animal, including humans, for nutrition or pleasure.

This clearly does not include substances that are eaten or drunk for purposes other than nutrition or pleasure. For example, although various poisons have at times been eaten by humans for the purpose of building immunity, these are not considered food.

Cannibalism, to whatever extent it was practiced if at all, was most certainly not practiced for the purposes of nutrition or pleasure. Human flesh was never food, and the preparation of it was never cuisine. Furthermore, this information is already available in another article. It doesn't need to be duplicated here, certainly when it is not pertinent to the topic. See: Cannibalism_in_pre-Columbian_America —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accius (talkcontribs) 22:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You tried removing this information before[1] and was reverted with a valid argument.[2] Though it was civil of you to provide a more detailed explanation, the argument is still valid. The information is included in this article not to present cannibalism as a part of normal Aztec cuisine, something made perfectly clear in the text, but to dispel a popular myth. It's comparable to information about how spices were not used to disguise the taste of spoiled food in medieval cuisine. Whether unusual types of food intake, such as rituals, should be considered to be part of cuisine is worth discussing, but it's not a valid argument for removing this info entirely.
Peter Isotalo 10:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your argument, and now understand the reasoning for including this. However, before your explanation, the article appeared to be presenting cannibalism as an actual part of cuisine, despite the refutation of the myth that it was resorted to out of nutritional need. I still think the clarity of this could be improved. And as long as we're dispelling myths, I think it deserves mention that there is skepticism as to whether, even in rituals, cannibalism was actually practiced often or at all. I would have to find sources, but I know there is some thought that the human flesh was swapped out for more typical meat (e.g. fowl) before consumption. Also, since this topic is more thoroughly covered with its own article, it may be better to put a brief explanation dispelling myths of widespread nutritional cannibalism, followed by a link to the main article for more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accius (talkcontribs) 21:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the existence of ritual cannibalism among the Aztecs was something fairly uncontroversial among scholars. I mean, don't even sources based on accounts by the Aztecs themselves describe cannibalism? I don't want to comment either way, though, since I haven't read much about the matter. If you have sources that can make the article more nuanced, please don't hesitate to present them.
I don't know if I personally agree that the current text presents cannibalism as anything like "an actual part of cuisine", though. I mean, it does begin with the the very unambiguous statement about "ritual cannibalism". But if you have ideas on how this should be improved suggestions are most welcome.
Peter Isotalo 16:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have moved Cannibalism to its own section, since it is not a "dietary norm", and to subsection it as such would provide the suggestion that it was a routine part of the diet, rather than a ritualistic practice. I understand that the contents of the section itself explain this, but it still belongs under its own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.130.170 (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Omnivorous or Vegan?[edit]

In paragraph three it says that Aztecs consumed an impressive variety of animals, and then under the section food, paragraph one it is said that they were mostly vegetarian? Which is it? What percentage of the diet was derived from plants, and, what percentage is required to literally be vegetarian? If you eat any animal meat at all does that not preclude the description vegetarian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.221.84 (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Their diet was mostly vegetarian, although the elite had more meat than the poor. Your diet can be mainly vegetarian without you being a vegetarian. But the article really doesn't make this clear at all, especially the lead. See [3], [4], [5] and [6]. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

I'm not going to nominate this article for a GAR at this point, but it is in serious need of in-line citations. Tezero (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)