Open main menu

MergeEdit

Shouldn't this article be merged with Aztec, since they are one and the same people? Mexica, was the original name, Aztec a term coined by Alexander von Humboldt, but they both refer to the same tribe. --the Dúnadan 03:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Aztecs were Mexica, but not all Mexica were Aztecs. Tlatelolco was a separate Mexica state that fought with Tenochtitlan (and lost). --Ptcamn 05:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think equating Aztec with Tenochca is a common usage. Actually a usage more consistent with everyday usage would be to say that all nahua are aztecs and the Tenochca and Tlatelolca are also Mexica.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly — the Tlaxcalans were Nahuas, but certainly not Aztecs. The definition of Aztec (as I discussed at Talk:Aztec#Terminology) is kind of vague. But in any case, it's not synonymous with Mexica. --Ptcamn 17:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
ME Smith defines Tlaxcalteca as Aztecs. The etymology of Aztec being persons form Aztlan also include Tlaxcalteca. "Aztec" is such a shitty term and ME Smiths definition is the one that comes closest to making sense since laypeople don't distinguish between Aztecs and other nahua speaking people, linguists sometimes call Nahuan for aztec etc. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 17:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
True, yet Aztec already talks about the differences between the two terms (Mexica/Aztec), and how the other Nahua tribes fit into the definition. Moreover, since in some (if not most) cases Mexica and Aztec are synonymous, that article already elaborates on the history and culture of the Mexica and, therefore, this article is redundant.In fact every section is linking to that of the Aztec. There is no need to have two articles with the same content, if one already explains the nuances of both terms. Unless we remove all detailed references for the Mexica in Aztec, so that the existence of a second article is justified, it makes no sense to keep this particular article, and in my opinion, being almost synonymous, you cannot remove all detailed references for the Mexica in Aztec.
--the Dúnadan 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Is there any information in this article which is not in the Aztec article?? Madman 00:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
None really. Even the etymology of the word Mexica is already included in that article. If that is the case, I think this article should be deleted. However, considering the recent dispute concerning the name of the article at Talk:Aztec, I propose that we include both terms in the leading paragraph at Aztec and in bold characters, properly defined. --the Dúnadan 00:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think is a good idea to delete mexica. The difference between terms is palpable. First Aztec is a false term that embody a lot of cultures, we have a analogy with the term Greek. There are cultural difference between a Mexica form his other Aztec cultures. Following the talk:aztecI'm agree that points in common will be address in a Nahua - Aztec - mexica fashion we only need time to add it to the article Cuellared (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My opinion would be Keep. It is a very important term, since it is the basis for the name of the present Mexican republic and based on the name of the Mexican heartland, among other things. Compare Latium, Latin. This information was not in the main page on Mexico until a few minutes ago. The article on Mexico references "Aztec" only in passing (2 paragraphs on the entire pre-Columbian history of Mexico!) and contains hardly any information on the transition between the Aztec and New Spain territories, making it seem as if the native civilization simply vanished entirely when Cortes arrived!
Anyhow, while there were several votes in support for a merge, there's no actual consensus that any of the terms are synonymous given the arguments stated, but given the extremely advanced age of this proposal, I'll "be bold" and remove the tag.Yclept:Berr (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mexicatl - gente del ombligo, a foreign term used to describe Nahuatl speaking culture in Valley of Mex?Edit

I can't remember the source now, but in searching for the origin of the word "mexica" I remember running across a Spanish reference detailing how a foreign group (Maya?) called the people of the Valley of Mexico "Mexica." I believe this to make sense to me. In this sense, the Tenochca, and every other Nahuatl speaking political group, such as Azcapotzalco, Xochimilco, etc, are all Mexican. This may even be true of earlier cultural/political groups, such as Teotihuacan or Cuicuilco, etc. Thus, it is very likely -- and there seems to be no evidence to the contrary -- that there was a pervasive Nahuatl-speaking cultural group which dominated pre-Spanish Valley of Mexico, who were synonymously known as "Mexica," and later as "Mexicanos" by the Spanish. "La lengua Mexicana" is definitely Nahuatl. But "Aztec" is not a historical term -- it is a meta-historical term coined by a later historian (Humbolt?) who latches-onto a mythological/historical origin of the Tenochca and thus coins the term. But, since "Aztec" is not a technical term, it may be used to refer to many groups, as it often is. The way I see it, the Tenochca are the people of the state of Tenochtitlan; Mexica (or Mexicanos) are the larger Nahuatl speaking cultural group in and around the Valley of Mexico, and those culturally linked to these groups, such as at Colima, Atitlán (Central America,) Cempoala, etc., and "Aztec" is a Western concept of any unspecified Mexica group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbarka (talkcontribs) 07:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Return to "Mexica" page.