Talk:Florentine Codex

Latest comment: 7 years ago by David Shalloway in topic Date of completion?

Proposed split

edit

Makes sense to me. Splitting into Florentine Codex and General History of the Things of New Spain would help distinguish between these related sources, & it's probably a worthwhile distinction to draw. Only suggestion, would be for the split-off article to go under its Spanish title Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España, with the english translated name redirecting (naturally enough) to there. Then, just a hatnote on both articles to cross-link and delineate the two, should do it. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


Yes, agreed. The original title of Fray Bernardino de Sahagun's work is Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva Espana. It was preserved in the Florentine Codex, and is better known by that name, but I argue that good scholarship means its original name be preserved. Also worth noting is that he acted as the director of these documentation projects; Native Mesoamericans served as scribes and illustrators. Bernardino wrote much, but not all. For a good overview, see Miguel Lopez-Portillo, Bernardino de Sahagun: First Anthropologist (University of Oklahoma Press, 2002). 15 October 2009 (kdw)


Use of psychedelic drugs among Aztecs

edit

I have valid references regarding Florentine Codex's mentions of recreational use of teonanacatl (psilocybin mushrooms) and peyote among Aztecs. Can I add these, or do you think it's not so important? Wawawemn (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply


Ethnographic Methodologies section

edit

The claim that Bernardo is "The Father of American Ethnography" is probably a little over the top. In fact,several parts of this article, added by Jtasarz, need to be wikified. They currently come across (to me, anyway) as original research. That said, the content itself is excellent, and should be preserved. If anyone wants to help with this project, contact me on my talk page. Jtmorgan (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Date of completion?

edit

Is the date of completion given as 1569 a typo? I don't have access to the reference cited, but the other online sources I have seen, as well as Terraciano, Ethnohistory. Volume 57, Issue 1, pp. 51-72, gives the date as 1579. David Shalloway (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply