Talk:Aztecs/2007-1

Grammar Mistake

The last sentence in the history section called "Spanish Conquest" states:

"All this changed rapidly and the native population were soon forbidden to study by law..."

'Were' should be changed to 'was', since 'population' is singular.

24.218.175.211 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly corrupt term of AZTECS

When are thinking, intelligent people going to relegate the false term Aztecs to the recycle bin and return the rightful and historically correct name "Mexica" ( Meh shee ka ) back to the Mexican collective. The "coined " name A*^@#% is not only a fabricated term but even more insidious, is the manner which it is used to rob the modern Mexican of his/her cultural soul and link to an acient time of accomplishment and achievement. Rather, it used in tandem with those childlike crude pictographs, (now determined to be painted on Spano/European parchment ) to bash the Modern Mexican relentlessly to codify the Spanish invasion of a people whose level of human endeavor was the equal of the worlds- thought to be "Great Civilizations". I would agree that the primary responsiblilty lies with their namesake but first things first. We must begin with the first step.The term "Ancient Mexicans" MUST become the norm when speaking of Pre-Euro America. Remember, America, Canada the Mexican Border are historically speaking nascent terms. The ancient Mexican language Nahuatl was at one time used as a common language and second language by Native and Tribal peoples from Central America to the Oregon border and beyond.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.197.134.210 (talk • contribs).

Stop being so hysterical. Apparently this is the Amerindian version of Afrocentrism. The term Aztec for those you call Mexica is as valid as calling the Japanese Japanese rather than Nippon-jin. The word for the empire and culture which was based in modern day Mexico City is AZTEC. Get used to it.

P.S. The same way Turin, Italy should be Turin, not Torino any more than Italy should be renamed Italia in English. Chiss Boy 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia, at its best, reflects scholarly consensus. It does not attempt to enforce a particular view. The claim that some consider "Aztec" to be an insidious fabrication should be researched, incorporated into the article, and properly cited. The claim should not be used as a basis for changing the article unless scholarly consensus among anthropologists makes the change desirable. --Dystopos 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The modern use of aztec, versus mexica is explained in the article. More than a fabrication, it has to do with the search of identity of a nation. Portilla has an interesting reflection on this: Miguel Leon Portilla. (2000). "Aztecas, disquisiciones sobre un gentilicio". Estudios de la cultura nahuatl. There si nothing insiduous, in it. Nanahuatzin 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite certian you're right. But if the idea that it is insidious is a significant minority point of view, the facts surrounding those claims should be addressed in the article. --Dystopos 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

plea

--71.196.227.118 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Is there anyone to help me! I'm doing a model of chinampas and I don't know how to do it. If you know how to do it write e-mail to by this address (mgl_art_girl@yahoo.com). Thank you!

Area

I think the area of the Aztec empire at it's greatest should be included in the article? Does anyone know the area of the empire in sq km or sq ft??? Thanks. Mmace91 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Aztec empire wasn't a territorial empire but a tributary empire and so didn't have actual borders or a connected territory at any point in its development. The territory seen in the map is really the extent of it's political hegemony - not land that was directly under aztec control.Maunus 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can we get a lock on this page? The same User IP's keep vandalizing it Mogg flunkie 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I semi-protected in response to this. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Aztec Architecture

The Aztec Templo Mayor, A Visualization, by Antonio Serrato-Combe, University of Utah Press, 2002

Aztec drinking age wrong?

The section on Aztec diet states "Getting drunk before the age of 70 however was forbidden.", but a few lines down you find "A study by Montellano[12] shows a mean life expectancy of 37 (±3) years for the population of Mesoamerica."

Could someone confirm that first number? The reference given is not very convincing. Milosj 17:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do know that only elderly people who were no longer supposed to contribute to society were allowed to drink. I don't know if there was a specific age and if so what it was exactly. I have also read that there were very differing rules for commoners and nobles. I suggest to leave it as is - it is definitely closer to the truth than the edit of the anonymous user who inserted 20 years as the aztec drinking age. As for the life expectancy 27 isn't that low for a preindustrial society (in fact 37 was the life expectancy of a western european around 1900)- and taking into consideration a probably high infant mortality many people would live to more than 70 years of age.Maunus 17:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A mean life expectancy of 37 does not preclude that some individuals get to live longer.

Today in the US the expectancy is about 70 years, yet it has 71,000 individuasl over 100 years old. Aztec were strict people, while drinking alocholic beverages was allowed, to get drunk was only allowed to those that had been able to survive to old age, and therefore were worty of it. Nanahuatzin 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are Russian centarians and probably some sub-Saharan Africans over 100 years old, too, even though there average lifespans (for men) are around 50 years. Average lifespan is AVERAGE lifespan. Chiss Boy 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just revert another insertion about the drinking age... It seems that the distinction between drinking an aloholic beverage, and getting drunk (intoxicated?) is difficult to accept... Maybe we need to change the paragrah a bit to explain it...Nanahuatzin 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection removed

I've turned off the semi-protection, as the vandalism mini-storm on related articles seems to have abated. At least, until the next time some class somewhere is assigned to write an essay on the topic...--cjllw | TALK 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not. ffm 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

missing reference

I was very much surprised not to find a reference to Rudolf van Zantwijk: The Aztec Arrangement (U. of Oklahoma Press), which has the most thorough discussion of Aztec social structure ever published. I believe it should at least be added to the bibliography.86.87.62.150 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check out this diff

I'd like your opinion on these edits to the Siege of Tenochtitlan article by User:24.60.246.211. I'm reverting his edits but I wanted to get some corroboration that the edits in question should be reverted. --Richard 06:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

none of the versions are very good. But his version is in fact better. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

What the hell does "Aztec" mean?

The first line of the article states:

The Aztecs is a collective term used for all of the Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican peoples under the control of the Mexica, founders of Tenochtitlan, and their two principal allies ...

But the Nomenclature section makes it seem like "Aztec" and "Mexica" are synonyms, and the empire was populated by more than just Mexica. It then says that:

In this article, the term "Mexica" is used to refer to the Mexica people up until the time of the formation of the Triple Alliance. After this, the term "Aztecs" is used to refer to the peoples who made up the Triple Alliance.

If that's the case, then why does the article focus so much on the Mexica, not pointing out anywhere that the other two thirds of the Triple Alliance were not Mexica: Texcoco was an Acolhua city and Tlacopan was Tepanec.

Finally, we have this line:

In 1810 Alexander von Humboldt originated the modern usage of "Aztec" as a collective term applied to all the people linked by trade, custom, religion, and language to the Mexica state and the Triple Alliance.

Which sounds like he probably means Aztec to refer to the Nahuas. (I'm not sure if he would've included the Tlaxcalans though.)

So which is it?

• Aztec = the inhabitants of the entire empire?
• Aztec = the Triple Alliance?
• Aztec = Mexica?
• Aztec = Tenochca?
• Aztec = Nahua?

I'd almost suggest ditching the term, not because it's "scholarly corrupt" as someone else said, but because it seems too vague to be useful. We really need to get our definitions sorted. --Ptcamn 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• What does "Romans" mean? --Dystopos 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The term doesn't have one single definition, that doesn't mean the term should be ditched however it just means that its different uses should be mentioned. Etymologically aztec should be used for the tribes from Aztlán, this includes the Tlaxcalteca. However due to the usage where the Triple alliance has been equated with the aztec empire it has also acquired the meaning of denoting the primary members of the alliance. The cities under their control are not usually called aztec although it is often said that they were under aztec control. I think the prevalent usage in modern times is to refer to 1. in history/archeology when referring collectively to the members of the triple alliance 2. in linguistics when referring to the languages of the aztecan branch of uto-aztec (synonymously with Nahua). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I'd definitely keep the term. "Aztec" has a nice ring to it. But what have they ever done for us?

I read somewhere that some spaish guy said that all people that were linked to Tenochtitlan by religion, trading, or language, were Aztecs. Must've been ALOT of Aztec then... 219.89.43.227 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Child sacrifice in Aztec culture?

Please take a look at Child sacrifice article which claims that " a very important part of the (human sacrifice) ritual included the sacrifice of young children."

Really? How come this is not mentioned in any of the Aztec-related articles?

--Richard 09:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is. Child sacrifices are mentioned in the sources as the preferred sacrifice to raingods such as Tlaloc and Chaac.•Maunus• •ƛ• 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources mention that "crying children" were offered to Tlaloc. The Excavations in the main temple have revealed a dozen of children skeletons in offerings to Tlaloc. A characteristic of those bodies, is that all were sick children, and according to the patologist, they had sicknesses that caused constant crying. But still.. the number of victims that atchologist have found still is several zeroes lower than the numbers claimed.... Nanahuatzin 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... but what do you think of the sentence in the Child sacrifice article? The whole article is poorly written and so it is no surprise that this sentence is also poorly written. The reader is left with the impression that child sacrifice was an important part of Aztec culture. It might be worthwhile to improve the description in the Child sacrifice article so that it more accurately describes what is known about the practice. --Richard 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Child sacrifice was a very important part not only of Aztec culture but of many ancient cultures as well: South American, European, African and Asian. Have you read this WP article, Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures? One of the most recognized sources for such sacrifices is the voluminous book by Bernardino de Sahagún. —Cesar Tort 00:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on assurances from Maunus, Nanahuatzin and Cesar Tort, I am no longer questioning the truth of the assertion. I am not an expert and would not be so bold as to assert that I knew the truth one way or the other. What I am trying to draw everyone's attention to is the fact that there is a difference between the impression you get from reading the Child sacrifice article and the one you get from reading the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article. Child sacrifice is mentioned only in passing in the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture and the reader is left with the impression that child sacrifice is not a central feature of Human sacrifice in Aztec culture. Contrast this with the assertion in the Child sacrifice article. I think it behooves us to present a consistent story in both articles.

--Richard 08:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Child sacrifice was indeed a central feature of human sacrifice in Aztec culture. Have you noticed that Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures is different from the article Child sacrifice? Have you read the first one?

I am copying and pasting a table of the Spanish Wikipedia article depicting the Aztec calendar and the many sacrifices performed each year. I’ll leave the words in Spanish. However, I’ll translate the Spanish words for “children”, “boy” and “girl”. They appear red bold-typed on the column at the far right:

N°	Nombre mexica del mes y equivalentes gregorianos	Deidades y sacrificios humanos
I	Atlacacauallo (del 2 de febrero al 21 de febrero)	Tláloc, Chalchitlicue, Ehécatl	Sacrificio de children y cautivos a las deidades del agua
II	Tlacaxipehualiztli (del 22 de febrero al 13 de marzo)	Xipe Tótec, Huitzilopochtli, Tequitzin-Mayáhuel	Sacrificio de cautivos; luchadores; danzas del sacerdote usando la piel desollada de las víctimas
III	Tozoztontli (del 14 de marzo al 2 de abril)	Coatlicue, Tlaloc, Chalchitlicue, Tona	Tipo de sacrificio: extracción de corazón. Enterramiento de pieles humanas desolladas. Sacrificios de children
IV	Hueytozoztli (del 3 de abril al 22 de abril)	Cintéotl, Chicomecacóatl, Tlaloc, Quetzalcóatl	Sacrificio de una doncella; de boy and girl
V	Toxcatl (del 23 de abril al 12 de mayo)	Tezcatlipoca, Huitzilopochtli, Tlacahuepan, Cuexcotzin	Sacrificio de cautivos, extracción del corazón
VI	Etzalcualiztli (del 13 de mayo al 1 de junio)	Tláloc, Quetzalcóatl	Sacrificio por ahogamiento, extracción de corazón
VII	Tecuilhuitontli (del 2 de junio al 21 de junio)	Huixtocihuatl, Xochipilli	Sacrificio de extracción del corazón
VIII	Hueytecuihutli (del 22 de junio al 11 de julio)	Xilonen, Quilaztli-Cihacóatl, Ehécatl, Chicomelcóatl	Sacrificio de una mujer ataviada con los atributos de Xilonen; decapitación y después extracción de corazón, incineración
IX	Tlaxochimaco (del 12 de julio al 31 de julio)	Huitzilopochtli, Tezcatlipoca, Mictlantecuhtli	Sacrificio por inanición en cueva o templo
X	Xocotlhuetzin (del 1 de agosto al 20 de agosto)	Xiuhtecuhtli, Ixcozauhqui, Otontecuhtli, Chiconquiáhitl, Cuahtlaxayauh, Coyolintáhuatl, Chalmecacíhuatl	Sacrificios a los dioses del fuego asando a las víctimas
XI	Ochpaniztli (del 21 de agosto al 9 de septiembre)	Toci, Teteoinan, Chimelcóatl-Chalchiuhcíhuatl, Atlatonin, Atlauhaco, Chiconquiáuitl, Cintéotl	El sacrificio a Toci culminaba con el sacrificio de una mujer por decapitación: era desollada y un joven vestía su piel; sacrificio de cautivos por despeñamiento, extracción del corazón
XII	Teoleco (del 10 de septiembre al 29 de septiembre)	Xochiquétzal	Sacrificios por fuego, extracción de corazón
XIII	Tepeihuitl (del 30 de septiembre al 19 de octubre)	Tláloc-Napatecuhtli, Matlalcueye, Xochitécatl, Mayáhuel, Milnáhuatl, dioses del pulque, Napatecuhtli, Chicomecóatl, Xochiquétzal	Children , dos mujeres nobles, extracción de corazón y posterior desollamiento y canibalismo ritual
XIV	Quecholli (del 20 de octubre al 8 de noviembre)	Mixcóatl-Tlamatzincatl, Coatlicue, Izquitécatl, Yoztlamiyáhual, Huitznahuas	Sacrificio por golpeo en piedra, decapitación y extracción de corazón
XV	Panquetzaliztli (del 9 de noviembre al 28 de noviembre)	Huitzilopochtli	Sacrificios masivos de cautivos y esclavos por extracción de corazón
XVI	Atemoztli (del 29 de noviembre al 18 de diciembre)	Tlaloques	Sacrificios de Children, y esclavos por decapitación
XVII	Tititl (del 19 de diciembre al 20 de enero)	Tona-Cozcamiauh, Ilamatecuhtli, Yacatecuhtli, dios del infierno, Huitzilncuátec	Sacrificio de una mujer: se le extraía el corazón y se le cortaba la cabeza
XVIII	Izcalli (del 8 de enero al 27 de enero)	Ixozauhqui-Xiuhtecuhtli, Cihuatontli, Nancotlaceuhqui	Sacrificio de víctimas representando a Xiuhtecuhtli y sus mujeres (cada cuatro años), y cautivos. Hora: noche, Fuego Nuevo
	Nemontemi (del 28 de enero al 1 de febrero)	Cinco días aciagos; no hay rituales, ayuno general

—Cesar Tort 09:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That table exists in english also. In fact I made it in english and someone adapted it into spanish introducing a lot of unsourced material of dubious veracity. For a look at the real thing see Aztec religion•Maunus• •ƛ• 10:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above table is not the same table that appears in the Spanish article of the Calendario azteca. Again, we are talking of two distinct articles. The above table is mostly based on the pages 44-45 of the September-October 2003 issue of the journal Arqueología mexicana. —Cesar Tort 11:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Presently I am re-reading The Conquest of New Spain. There are instances in Bernal Díaz’s first-person narrative of child sacrifices in small Indian towns when he and other soldiers are making their hard way to Tenochtitlan.

By the way, I have added red fonts on the table above for emphasis.

—Cesar Tort 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cesar, I am fine with accepting that child sacrifice is an important part of the Aztec religion and culture. The point that I am trying to raise everybody's attention to is that a reader would only understand this if he/she read Child sacrifice or Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures. If he/she read Aztec, Aztec religion or Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, the impression he would get would be that "Yes, maybe child sacrifice happened but it wasn't a central feature of their religion. Human sacrifice, yes. Child sacrifice, not that central."

What I'm looking for is a consensus to take the phrasing of the Child sacrifice or Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures articles and copy them over to the Aztec, Aztec religion or Human sacrifice in Aztec culture to provide a more consistent exposition.

--Richard 05:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with your concerns that readers of the articles Aztec, Aztec religion and Human sacrifice in Aztec culture won’t get the picture.

Good idea to take some phrasing of the article I recently edited and just insert the template {main|Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures}

After all, since I’m re-reading Bernal Díaz and de Sahagún I may help you all in expanding the articles or sections on human & child sacrifice in pre-Columbian America.

On the other hand, Human sacrifice in Aztec culture needs a major overhaul. I could provide some help in that article as well. However, my native language is Spanish. I guess someone among you could do a better English editing?

—Cesar Tort 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your offer of help is much appreciated. If you are willing to write in English or Spanish, I am happy to edit th English or translate the Spanish. My Spanish is not very strong so I would prefer you wrote in English but I can translate moderately sophisticated Spanish. I may need help with a word here or there or understanding what a phrase means.

What kind of an overhaul did you have in mind for Human sacrifice in Aztec culture?

--Richard 14:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just take a look at this part of the opening sentence in Human sacrifice in Aztec culture —:

“ No first-hand, eyewitness accounts by Europeans of actual human sacrifice are known, although there exist some first-hand eyewitness accounts of the remains of alleged human sacrifices. In addition, there are a number of known second-hand accounts of human sacrifice written by Europeans told to them by Aztecs. Based on these observations, Europeans understood human sacrifice to be practiced throughout the Aztec empire and in particular at Tenochtitlan. [my bold type] ”

This is very misleading (“alleged”). Bernal Díaz recounts many instances of human sacrifices even in non Mexica towns. The soldiers actually saw some dead bodies with the chest opened even before they reached Tenochtitlan. “Europeans understood…” is an understatement to say the least. The evidence for human sacrifice before and during the Conquest, and in Colonial times, is overwhelming, especially after the findings of modern archeologists. Not even the most renowned of the Mexican indigenistas (fans of Indian themes) and scholars, such as Miguel León-Portilla, deny this. In fact, since the Maya towns were the last to be conquered by the Spanish they continued the practice. They even captured, tortured and sacrificed a couple of Spanish teenagers in the middle of the 16th century, well after the fall of Tenochtitlan. And if Jacques Soustelle is right, the practice continued underground as late as the 19th century. Even in the 20th century it has been reported that some Indians used the hearts of non-sacrificed, dead people to ask for rains (this is not sacrifice of course, but it says a lot about a millenarian Indian tradition).

One more thing: it has not been demonstrated, as some WP articles state, that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice to a greater extent than, say, the Mayas or other Mesoamerican cultures. If the Aztecs appear crueler it’s only because the Mexica was the best studied of all Mesoamerican civilizations. After the Maya writing was deciphered and the book The Blood of the Kings published in the middle 1980s, it has become more and more apparent that the Mayas were, at least, as cruel as the Aztecs (more cruel in my view since the Mayans tortured the victims for extended periods before sacrificing them). Also, the practice of skinning the victims goes back as far as Teotihuacán.

Since human sacrifice was widespread not only in Mesoamerica but in South America as well, I would start moving the page from Human sacrifice in Aztec culture to Human sacrifice in pre-Columbian America. The Incas and other peoples in Peru were notorious for performing sacrifices too.

—Cesar Tort 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose such a move. While it hasn't been documented that the aztecs practiced human sacrifice on a greater scale than other cultures (although it is the predominant view among scholars), aztec sacrificial practices are much, (MUCH) better documented than for any other precolombian culture. This fact alone makes it relevant to have an article dealing only with aztec human sacrifice. Coupled with the fact that the existence of human sacrifice among the aztecs is much more known to the general public, and much more riddled with pseudo-facts, sensationalism, misunderstandings and mythologization than the religious practices of other precolumbian the need for an article on human sacifice specifically among the aztecs become evident. This does not mean however that we shoudln't have an article about human sacrifice in precolumbian societies in general, nor does it mean that the current article on Human sacrifice in Aztec culture is a good article. It is not and it should be completely rewritten from reliable sources and articles by well respected scholars, that should be extremely carefully selected. (In my opinion Arqueología mexicana is not such a source)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok: I agree with you that the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article should not be moved (though a more general article on Human sacrifice in pre-Columbian America merits consideration).

But why do you think that Arqueología mexicana is not a reliable source??? It’s the official journal of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (National Institute of Anthropology and History). It is true that it is sold in magazine shops. But the same is true of very scholarly Mexican magazines such as the now defunct Vuelta edited by Octavio Paz and Letras Libres edited by Enrique Krauze. In Mexico this is common.

—Cesar Tort 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

because Arqueología Mexicana presents popularisations of archeological and historical topics based on research published in peerreviewed journals. We should use these articles directly. Also Arqueología is a magazine that focuses on what people want to read - this means that it is prone to sensationalism- which is exactly what a topic like human sacrifice doesn't need. In short it is a third hand source and I think that for this topic we should stick with first and second hand sources so that we can reference exactly which sources say what and which scholars have interpreted this in which way.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Arqueología mexicana is a far cry from, say, the popular Mexican magazine Muy Interesante. Arqueología mexicana is not sensationalistic at all. I mentioned Vuelta and Letras Libres because those magazines and Arqueología mexicana were, or have to be sponsored by, cultural institutions. Otherwise nobody would buy them. Arqueología mexicana is similar to National Geographic, but most Mexicans do not read cultural magazines.

And it is untrue that Arqueología mexicana is prone to sensationalism. In fact, the above-mentioned September-October 2003 issue of Arqueología mexicana is the only one I am aware of that devoted the entire issue to the subject of human sacrifice. And the editorial staff did it for one simple reason.

On July 2003 El País Semanal, a Sunday supplement of the Spanish newspaper El País, published an article by Matthias Schulz in which he labeled as “demonic” and “brutal” the Mesoamerican practice of human sacrifice. This caused quite a stir among the Mexican indigenistas. And it was supposed that Arqueología mexicana, the official journal of the INAH which treats pre-Columbian cultures respectfully, would publish a rebuttal.

However, since it is a serious journal, Arqueología mexicana asked only knowledgeable scholars to contribute. For instance, the piece on Mayan human sacrifice in that 2003 issue was written by renowned Mayanist David Stuart.

Even Miguel León-Portilla, a major indigenista and pre-Hispanic scholar in Mexico who knows náhuatl, wrote the first article of that issue. León-Portilla didn’t deny the historicity of the sacrifices; he only tried to explain them.

Therefore Arqueología mexicana is obviously a reliable source.

—Cesar Tort

Just checking...

Found the following text in the Tenochtitlan article]]

Sahagún reported that the city also had beggars (only crippled people were allowed to beg), thieves and prostitutes. At night, in the dark alleys one could find scantily clad ladies with heavy makeup (they also painted their teeth), chewing tzictli (chicle, the original chewing gum) noisily to attract clients. There seems to have been another kind of women, ahuianis, who had sexual relations with warriors. The Spaniards were surprised because they did not charge for their work.

Is this text encyclopedic?

--Richard 07:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

not really, although it is probably not untrue. It would require a full citation for it to be includable though. --·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But the question is... how bad is it? Should we delete it and wait for someone to add it with the appropriate citation or should we just slap a "citation needed" tag on it? --Richard 02:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One citation is apparently Book X, p.89 of the Florentine ("..but the bad women, those called harlots, [show] no fine feeling, quite publicly they go about chewing chicle along the roads, in the market place clacking like castanets"; eng. trans. from Dibble & Anderson's edition, as reproduced in Wimmer [1]). The refs to staining their teeth with cochineal and general appearance may be found there also. Don't know however about the distinction of "another kind of women", though- it seems the term āhuiyani served for courtesan, prostitute generally.

Probably best to rewrite it, maybe use the direct quote from Sahagun, and add the cites.--cjllw | TALK 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually thinking about it a little more, it probably doesn't need more than a sentence or at most two in the Tenochtitlan article itself (and would not be sufficiently important for main Aztec article mention). If these observations belong anywhere in detail it would be the Aztec society article.--cjllw | TALK 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I don't want to wheel war, but unprotecting this doesn't seem to be working out that well (9 instances of vandalism, from separate sources, in 7 hours). As much as not everybody being able to edit is unfortunate, I think the most practical option is for the page to be re-semi protected. What do other people think? Picaroon 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, lets leave it for a day and see what happens. If the vandalism is bad on the 30th then I think we'll have to reprotect before April 1. Picaroon 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, with the first instance of vandalism occurring literally within five minutes of the semiprotection being lifted. It's just one of those topics where it's odds-on that on any given day there'll be some class of bored kids out there supposed to be 'researching'. However, the article is reasonably closely monitored by a number of folks and most inappropriate edits are quickly reverted, although it is an ongoing pain. While personally I can see the evident convenience of leaving semiprotection on, it should probably be left in reserve to be applied for brief periods when there's a mini-storm in progress.--cjllw | TALK 00:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed & lacking

Although this article is rated as a "good" article, I feel that some citations are needed, particurly in aztec society. Some of the citations are sparse from eachother. Like one section will have the appropiate citations, while the one below it has none. Xuchilbara 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Brainwashing of human sacrifice victims

User:Maunus reverted this edit as being an "unreferenced claim"

However, there is evidence that this notion of "honour" was really one of fatalistic brainwashing, as victims identified for sacrificial murder were frequently put through many pre-murder rituals in which they were symbolically "murdered" until they "came to terms with" or otherwise accepted their fate (cf. A History of Warfare, by John Keegan).

Looks like there is an attempt to provide a reference. Doesn't mean that it is a good reference but I think the edit might deserve more attention than just reversion on the basis of being "unreferenced". Maunus, could you explain why you reverted the edit?

--Richard 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It represents a POV that is already predominant in the article. It doesn't cite what the "evidence" that supports the claim is. It references a non-specialist book and doesn't provide a correct citation. In order for this particular claim to be included it requires that it states

1. that only some part of the scientific environment argues that this is the case.
2. which part that is, that is referencing names and works of mesoamerican scholars who have argued this.
3. which sources their arguments is based on.
4. the alternative viewpoints.

·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Maunus. Just wanted to provide the editor with the requirements he needs to fulfill in order to back up the claim if he so chooses.

--Richard 08:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to Spanish conquest of Mexico

User:Havermayer just made three edits to Spanish conquest of Mexico. The first is unobjectionable but the following two should be checked. I know that there is some doubt as to whether or not Moctezuma considered Cortes to be a god. I don't know what Sahagun said on the topic. Please review Havermayer's recent edits and comment or edit accordingly.

--Richard 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)