|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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Contemprary scholarship regarding anthropoligical and historical references to "gods/goddesses" is incorrect.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)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, thus mainstream information regarding the aztec religion (such as that taught in mexican universities) is good enough. This isn't an article about the "Mexica" movement.
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.
'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.
- 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)
Chivas should be here
Everybody must get stoned
I came across this from somewhere (but can't recall a source...): Xumantunich, called "stone maiden", described as fertility goddess. This belong here, or at Maya gods? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Afraid not, it's not a Nahuatl/Aztec term. Xunantunich is a Maya site in present-day Belize, meaning something akin to "woman (of) stone". But that's a name of more recent origin, and the supposed 'ghost' legend going with it in not an authentic precolumbian Maya belief or deity.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Last paragraph previously stated: Our age (Nahui-Ollin), the fifth age, or fifth creation, escaped destruction due to the sacrifice of Nanahuatl (the smallest and humblest of the gods) who transformed himself into the Sun by leaping into a fire.
This is factually incorrect. The myths themselves state that we are currently in the 5th age. The myth regarding the sacrifice of gods was related not to how the destruction of the 5th age was avoided, but in fact how it was created. I only cited one source here, but multiple sources point to this, including colonial documents. Paragraph corrected to reflect the actual myth. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mesoamerican Archaeologist
Table in Creator gods section
The table is problematic. Tezcatlipoca was an Aztec deity as were the others but no reliable source is cited to claim that they were "tezcatlipocas" and the individual articles about them don't say that they were. The contention that they were some form of the smoking mirror god is contrary to mainstream scholarship. The table should be deleted and replaced with a list of these gods without the contention that they were Tezcatlipocas and their association with the directions unless a reliable source can be found. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete