Jump to content

Talk:Quetzalcōātl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Quetzalcoatl)

Small Change

[edit]

I added a reference and some language denoting that the name Quetzalcoatl is excessively difficult to separate from various ancient leaders and the ancient sky-god.68.18.115.56 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)RoyalE[reply]

Question

[edit]

Can someone who knows something about this put in the standard pronunciation of Quetzalcoatl - it is hardly a common sequence of characters in english and I for one have no idea how to say it!HyDeckar 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it is pronounced (roughly) as Ketz'-al-KWA"-tul or Ketz'-al-ko-AH"-tul. But I'm by no means an expert. Verification, anyone? 71.231.102.185
Ketz'-al-ko-Ah"-tul is fairly accurate according to my expertise which, of course, may not be considered of much value by some :P Jicannon 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ket-zal-ko-a-teh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.241.90 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its Kehts-coh-aht, the "tl" 'silent- at least the "l" is. Online version of his name sounded out here: http://members.aol.com/maroic/quetz.wavXuchilbara 23:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not it is NOT. the Final <l> is not silent it is unvoiced like the welsh <ll> but not silent. Also you leave out syllables willy nilly.The pronunciation is: kɛtsalˈkoːatɬ. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm mexican, and I can proudly tell you nahuatl is my mother language. First of all, you need to know there are several nahuatl dialects among us mexicans. I highly suggest you Orizaba's nahuatl. In Mexico we call it the high level nahuatl. We know there are a lot of mistakes in the others. For example: The word "Huey-TL-alpan" among the others is pronounced "Huey-T-alpan" which is clearly mistaken, because it came from: Huey(big or in this case Mountain's top), and TLal-li(that is earth or in this case place). If you pronounce it T-alli, it has no sense. Now, the TL in high level nahuatl is mute. Let me explain you clearer, how would you say in english S-H(sh), and then the T-H(th)? Then how would you say LH? Follow me? When you say the TL in nahuatl actually you should say TLH. Now, the word "Quetzalcoatl" is pronounced KE-TZAL(the tz is strong as in German)COHUA-TLH. Another mistake among the other nahuatl dialects is that they say kOAtlh instead of kOHUAtlh.

Now, it is amazing, but even between mexicans nobody knows or mentions the philosophical meaning of the concept eagle-feathered. You must know the eagle among the Aztec people was the soul, and then the snake was the body. In other words it was the fight between trascendental world against none trascendental world, the spiritual world against the material world. We say the gods tided both in one fight. Only by diying while fighting against the material, your soul would sprout like a flower into a new iluminated form of life and Xochipilli "the lord of the flowers" would receive your soul's sprout. That is why the flowerish battles among aztec people.

I recomend to you guys the book of Laurette Sejourne called "Thought and religion in ancient Mexico". This book suited indeed my demands. Ciao

Miscellaneous old talk

[edit]

I changed the "In archeology" section title to "In paleontology". This section is pretty weak and could possibly be removed altogether. Nevertheless it is potentially worthwhile to link to an important paleospecies which derives its name from the MesoAmerican deity. Thoughts?

For clarity, I removed a statement about juvenile quetzals having vestigial claws "like pterosaurs". Bird wings and pterosaur wings are, broadly speaking, non-homologous, except at the base level of derived tetropod forelimb and any comparison between the two is misleading. Also, I'm pretty sure that the author was probably confusing another South American bird the hoatzin whose juvenile stage is well known to express two claws. Anyone with information about vestigal claws in the Quetzal should repost it with proper citation.


I removed the sentance at the end of the last paragraph reading "He was believed to be originally Aztec." Believed by who? This doesn't make sence to me. The Feathered Serpent Deity is pan-MesoAmerican, going back to the pre-Classic, centuries before the Aztec are known to have existed as a distinct people. -- User:Infrogmation

I changed the spelling of Texcatlipoca to the more common Tezcatlipoca. When I have the time though I'd like to add a lot more comprehensive stuff about the devision between Ehecatl and Topiltzin, and have pages about the entire Topiltzin epic including Mixcoatl and Huemac. -- Erosenfield

Just refining some of the information: Quetzalcoatl was the morning star Venus, whereas his brother, Xolotl was the evening star Venus. As the morning star, Quetzalcoatl was known as Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli (say that three times fast).

Consider revision

[edit]

The "serpent" depicted in Yaxchilan Lintel 25 is NOT considered to be that of Quetzalcoatl/Kukulcan/"feathered serpent". Rather, it is a "vision serpent" out of whose mouth is emerging a warrior/god, probably an impersonation by the Yaxchilan ruler "Shield Jaguar" a.k.a., Itzamnaaj B'alam II. If anything, the "god" that is depicted here is Tlaloc, the Aztec/Teotihuacan god of Storm/Rain/Warrior. The "vision" is created through the bloodletting sacrifice of the women depicted next to the serpent, Lady K'ab'al Xook, wife of Shield Jaguar. In another lintel, she is depicted pulling a barbed rope through a hole in her tongue. Furthermore, since this page is on Quetzalcoatl, which is strictly speaking a Central Mexican, and more specifically Aztec, diety, the image should also be Aztec. There are Maya depictions of what is generally considered the equivalent diety, Kukulcan, but putting that up on this page would be akin to posting an image of Jupiter (god) on the page for Zeus. I wish I could provide a link to an image of Quetzalcoatl in the public domain, but I can't. If I do come across one, I will come back. See Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube (2000) "Chronicles of the Maya Kings and Queens" page 125 for further info on Yaxchilan Lintel 25 Rawhead

Thanks for your erudite feedback! Yes, the "Vision Serpent" has been recognized for about a quarter century now, so that's not new. As "Quetzalcoatl"/"Kukulcan" mean (with the metaphorical use of "Quetzal feather") "divine/sacred serpent", I've been one of those who thought that the "Vision Serpent" was an aspect of "Kukulcan", but if recent scholarship agrees that this particular divine feathered serpent is a different one from the more famous Divine Feathered Serpent, I'll accept that. The article rather waunders from talking about the specific Aztec Quetzalcoatl to Divine Feathered Serpent Diety in MesoAmerica in general, do you have any suggestions on improving it? Also, if we keep this illustration on the Yaxchilan article, do you have a reccomendation on how it should be captioned? Thanks, -- Infrogmation 06:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, since there probably are as many interpretations of iconographic motifs as there are art-historians and iconographers, I can't and won't say that there's a consensus on the I.D. of the Yaxchilan Lintel 25 serpent. Also, I would be wary of attributing anything predating the Terminal Classic Period (A.D.800-1000) in the Maya region as being Kukulcan/Quetzalcoatl/"feathered-serpent". The spread of the Quetzalcoatl "cult" seems to occur fairly late, after the fall of Teotihuacan. Full incorporation of it in the Maya world occurs at, e.g., Chichen Itza, firmly Terminal Classic/Early Postclasssic Period. A quick review of the literature, however, informs me that current scholarship I.D. the Yaxchilan Lintel 25 serpent as equivalent to the Teotihuacan "War Serpent" (see, for example, Karl Taube [2000] "The Turquoise Hearth" in Carrasco, Jones, and Sessions eds., Mesoamerica's Classic Heritage: 274). The War Serpent occurs in conjunction with the Teotihuacan "feathered serpent" on the Temple of the Plumed Serpent (a.k.a., Quetzalcoatl temple/pyramid), but is considered distinct from the latter. Also, while the Plumed Serpent is generally considered ancestral to the Aztec Quetzalcoatl, the War Serpent has been suggested to be ancestral to the Aztec Xiuhcoatl (fire serpent). All in all, I think what's being depicted in Yaxchilan Lintel 25 has more to do with war/warrior sybolism (with Tlaloc there as well), which would also slightly be at odds with Quetzalcoatl, not generally considered as a war-god. I would also like to point out that the serpent on that lintel is, well, not really feathered ;-). In terms of captioning, I would go along with Martin and Grube. It is Tlaloc, probably impersonated by the then ruler of Yaxchilan "Shield Jaguar" emerging out of the mouth of a Mexican-style "War Serpent" as part of a vision conjured up by Shield Jaguar's wife, Lady Xook. If that's too long, something like "Vision of a Mexican War Serpent and Storm God Tlaloc". Something along those lines. In terms of improving this article, you might want to check out Miller and Taube (1993) An Illustrated Dictionary of The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya and its section on Quetzalcoatl. Short but concise history of the diety. Great book as well. More if I come up with anything. Rawhead 06:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Typical offering

[edit]

What would people worship quetzalcoatl for? and what would they give as a sacrifice?

Uhh, Quetzalcoatl.... And they would offer HUMAN sacrifices. I'm not sure WHAT they worshipped for, but it was probably for some war thingy.... They did go to war alot... [sabrinaneo]

There is some (not insignificant) discussion of Quetzalcoatl initiating the banishment of human sacrifice. The Deity's association with a Jesus-like character is consistent with this, and sacrifices are inconsistent with the new paradigm of consciousness that Quetzalcoatl initiated (ie. spirtual, love-based consciousness rather than fear-based sacrificial consciousness) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.65.148 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sabrinaneo, Huitzilopochtli and others were the main human-sacrificers. It was a part of Aztec legend that Quetzalcoatl refused human sacrifices, and instead only wanted small animals like Butterflies, frogs, etc.Quetzalcoatl himself was a Creator God, Wind God, God od the Morning Star, and patron of various other things. 68.98.14.19 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzalcoatl-Cortes Connection

[edit]

I changed the short paragraph stating that Moctezuma believed Cortes to be the returning Quetzalcoatl to reflect modern (post-1970) research on the topic. Really, no one believes anymore that anybody worshipped Cortes as a god for any significant length of time. Any worship that may have existed was cut short real quick when Cortes and his men captured Moctezuma (if he was so willing to hand over the city to a returning god, why did he have to be captured?), attacked a group of unarmed, dancing celebrants, and stopped on their way out to grab the treasure from the temples (see Bernal Diaz del Castillo).

I wish you could clarify who is "no one"... So far here in Mexico i haven´t read anything like that... Moctezuma was not captured by Cortez, he surrender and little by little his liberty was taken away. It is true that from the aztecs accounts recopilated by Sahagun, we can be certain that the aztecs in general did not considerer the spaniards as gods for a long time... But we can´t be shure about Moctezuma and his people. Most of the oficials of Moctezuma were his former students, and it seems they were loyal to hims until de end. Sahagun recopilated the following words of Moctezuma when he meet Cortez: " My lord, you have taken fatigue, you have been tired: now to this land you have been arrived. You hare here now in your city: Mexico. You have come to sit in your chaair, in your trhone. Oh, for a little time it has been taken in reserve for you, it had been keep for you, by the one that are not longer here, your substitutes. The lords Izcoatzin, Motecuhzamatzin the old, Axayac, Tizoc, ahuzotl. oh, only for a little time they keep it for you, the dominated the city of Mexico. Under their back, under they was the people. ¿ should they see, should they know what they left for you?. I wish one of them could see wath y see coming from you. I the least, the sruviver of our lords. No, it is not a dream, i did not wake form a dream. I did not see it on a dream, i am not dreaming. I have see you knwo, i have put my eyes on your face. Five or ten days i have been in anguish, i have my sight to the place of mistery. You have come between clouds, between fog. This is what our lords told us, the rulers, those who have take goverment of your city. That you would came to your sit on your throne, that you would come here. Now, come here, take rest, take posesion of your royal houses, give food to your body. Now it has been done, take your land, my lord" (florentine codex book XII chapter XI). Nanahuatzin 04:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This section needs to be gutted. If you're going to put something in that contradicts Nicholson you really need to provide a citation. What I see here is a hypothesis trumping established research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsm sf (talk • contribs) 01:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few sources cited of the many sources that contradict Nicholson's ideas. Quite frankly Nicholsons ideas about Quetzalcoatl was outdated more than a decade ago.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Quetzalcoatl expected to return as a white god? Some groups, such as the LDS see this as evidence that Christ visited America

Not as a white god.. but as a bearded god. Ce Acatl, the priest of Quetzalcoatl though his face was so hideous that he let his beard grow to hide it, lated he covered his face with a mask. Quetzalcoatl was not white, rather, his esoteric color was white. Nanahuatzin 04:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I...zach harris believe that the Aztecs believed Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ

Uh...well, thats probably incorrect "Zach".

The article states that Quetzalcoatl called 12 men to reign in his stead, yet no citations are listed. As Zach pointed out, some people believe Quetzalcoatl to be Jesus Christ and it is highly probably that the aforementioned statement was added to give more credibility to certain religious beliefs rather than having been based on fact. Can anyone cite any credible references of Quetzalcoatl calling 12 men to reign in his stead?

ugh...look pal, Quetzalcoatl was the "white god" or his color association was "white". Jesus on the other hand was probably black or dark-skinned despite his "European Look". I mean- it happens all the time. Look at Juan Diego a Native American of Mexico- why do they depict him as a Euro-Spanish look? Hmmm...I wonder...

You know what? Jesus was probably as dark as the mesoamericans. Jesus was a semitic Jew, meaning he probably had brown skin, and probably had curly hair. The dude had a tan in the wintertime, and got dark brown during the summers. The mesoamericans had brown skin, and probably had straight hair. Tan in the winter, and brown in the summer.

Jesus skin-color regardless, Quetsalcoatl is believed to be the mesoamerican interpretation of Christ. The fact that Quetzalcoatl itself existed before Christ is explained by the fact that Christ was spoken of before His first coming to the Earth (Genesis 3:15 KJV is the first I've come across, referring to Christ as a son of Eve who shall smite the head of Satan, a reference to the belief that Christ atoned for all sins, setting back Satan's plans to lead away the children of men). The inclusion of the LDS interpretation is completely understandable, and its inclusion into this article is not as partisan as some believe.21:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Sagittarius Flame

Quetzalcoatl's color association was white...he wasn't a "light-skinned person". The evidence here is "Black Tezcatlipoca" and "White Tezcatlipoca" or "Black Quetzalcoatl" "White Quetzalcoatl". Plus- serpents(in most cases) are considered "evil" by Christians because of their associations with the devil. Plus Quetzalcoatl ruled over the morning star (Venus) or what some have called Lucifer. So if one could assume that Quetzalcoatl/Kukulkan is actually in fact, Jesus of Nazareth- one could assume that he is also the devil. And isn't human sacrifice considered satanic? Some point out that the temples bear resemblence to the ones in the Middle East...but if you look at them, study them- you'd realize the construction is different, the purpose is different, and the meaning is different. And besides that information, the worship of Quetzalcoatl predates Christian tradition by at least 2,000 years with the Olmecs. To say that Christ and Quetzalcoatl are one in the same is just another attempt to take advantage of people's ignorance.
Your arguments are fascinating in that they reference enough to sound intelligent, yet fall apart quickly under any degree of scrutiny. For instance, the "serpents(in most cases) are considered 'evil' by Christians" inference is remarkable because it completely disregards the fact that the Christian interpretation of Quetzalcoatl assumes that the story is a highly modified retelling of a real event and being by a very different culture. Thus the more common Christian connotation of serpents as evil (very common, especially in the Old Testament) is irrelevant. It is very common in ancient languages to see a mysterious or then new concept given a name based on the best description available with then existent terms.
I am not trying to prove the veracity of Quetzalcoatl as Christ, but merely point out that such an interpretation is not as far fetched as you've implied, and therefore has a place in this article. 75.162.194.81 (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of Quetzalcoatl and his "Whiteness" or lack there of is often in the same context of "is Jesus white? black? how about Cleopatra?" However, the only viable argument I have ever heard was from a local Professor who stated that it is quite possible that he would be considered returning as something akin to white, due to their knowledge of prisms, color, or a combination of both. That being said, outside of the fantastical beliefs of the LDS, I am sure that it would just add gas to an unusable fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.246.145 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the Cortés believed himself to be a God, it's that when Quetzalcoatl was banished, he vowed that if he ever returned, he would destroy the Aztec. Quetzalcoatl was described as fair skinned & bearded, and when he departed he left in a boat which headed south. It is not surprising then that the Aztec, if only briefly, believed that bearded, pale-skinned people arriving in large boats, might be Quetzalcoatl & company. The clincher in all of this is that Moctezuma II presented 2 large gold calanders to Cortés as a gift. Cortés had them melted down into blocks. Why would he give Cortés calendars? Unless of course, these were to appease "Quetzalcoatl" and to say: "We haven't forgotten what you taught us." Quetzalcoatl was credited with instructing the Aztec in all aspects of mathematics & astronomy. A calendar would be a logical gift. See: Hancock, Graham "Fingerprints of the Gods" chapter 14.Thewayofthegunn (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very spurious flimsy interpretation of events that took place. There's little evidence or information on what sort of gifts were given. But assuming it’s true, it might have been what were traditionally given and not hold any particular significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'The Tlaxcalteca, along with other city-states across the Plain of Puebla, then supplied the auxiliary and logistical support for the conquests of Guatemala and West Mexico while Mixtec and Zapotec caciques (Colonial indigenous rulers) gained monopolies in the overland transport of Manila galleon trade through Mexico, and formed highly lucrative relationships with the Dominican order in the new Spanish imperial world economic system that explains so much of the enduring legacy of indigenous life-ways that characterize southern Mexico and explain the popularity of the Quetzalcoatl legends that continued through the colonial period to the present day.'
This is a long paragraph that doesn't really support what it claims at the end. The myth that Quetzalcoatl was meant to represent a person was invented decades after the events took place and was merely intended for self aggrandizing purposes, nothing more nothing less. 157.211.216.193 (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

This really needs an image, can anyone find a useable one? HighInBC 01:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can find alot, but I don't know the basics of Wikipdia, I only joined a few days ago.... If anyone can tell me how, that would be great. [Sabrinaneo]

Three artifacts and a photo from 1964 of Quetzacoatl are available. They can be veiwed at http://callyourownufo.blogspot.com Getreal 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Charles[reply]

Bad Words

[edit]

In this article, it had the word P**** in it.... My class is doing a report right now, and there are many young children looking at this, and I think you should consider revising this. Thank you. Penis is not a bad word, what kind of education are you giving your children?

NOTICE: This IP address is used by over 600 people, so please think about this. WE NEED THIS SITE! DO NOT BLOCK US! Thank you.

What sinonimous of penis would you find acceptable?... i did not tought it were considered a bad word... Nanahuatzin 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just suggesting that you could change it or somthing, especially the link. Quite a few people clicked on it and got suspended.... :Person:

just curious... suspend by who?.. is your school using some kind of censorware?.. Let my think what i can put instead. Nanahuatzin 06:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, there is not only that (but the program doesn't work to well), but a few other programs to tell what you go on.... And some staff members from the school thought they were going on bad website or something... Thanks. :Person:

So I see you have changed it. Thank you very much.

How stupid is that? Penis is a part of the human body- nothing to be offended/ashamed of! What? Don't you guys have Sex Ed? Geez!

Learning about bloodthirsty sacrifices before sex?
Actually yes... i would be more ashamed of have to depend on the whoms of a censorware program... Nanahuatzin 02:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "penis" shoud not be censored any more than the word "vulva" or "hand" or "nose" or "foot". It's just a body part! -john

  • Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Please review Wikipedia's content disclaimers at Wikipedia:Profanity (though "penis" is not an example of profanity, it is a scientific term for a human body part). If your school does not permit you to browse websites which use non-euphemistic biological terms like "penis" or "vagina", then simply use a different reference utility; you can find plenty of other pages on Quetzalcoatl on the Internet. -Silence 17:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Somebody has placed a few immature fragments amidst the text; would somebody clean that up? I can't figure out how to otherwise I would. Just search for the word "booogus" and "haveing". Yes, perhaps a bored child (I hope). Nice page otherwise, appreciate the knowledge.

I have no idea how old you are, but I would recommend talking to your school about the issue. Since any "bad" site would certainly have more objectionable words than 'penis' they might consider removing legitimate biological terms from their ban-list. If you have any classes in biology (or even just science in general), how could they expect you to avoid such terms? At the very least, if they get onto you about it, show them that it was just a WP page you were looking at. They could also explicitly add Wikipedia to an allowed-sites list.
EDIT: Oops, just noticed this is three years old...I guess he has probably graduated by now, eh? :)

65.81.145.48 (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzalcoatl is not an Ideogram

[edit]

The name comes from two words: quetzal meaning "something beautiful/precious" thus represented as a feather and the second word they used was suppouse to mean twin, which is pronounce "cuatl" by the nahoas, not having a simbol for it they choosed the "coatl", the snake, for it's similar pronunciation resulting on "beautiful twin" or "precious twin"

BALDERDASH! Quetzalcóatl is the Náhautl agglutinative form of quétzal (resplendant quetzal - a tropical bird of the trogon family) and cóatl (snake). Where in the world can one come up with such nonsense? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.67.161.230 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This is for the dual nature of the god, which was the representation of the morning and the evening star, later on the nahoa culture conquered the quiche and mayan, imposing their own religion, where the mayan translated the name literally and not as the original idea which was already lost, for they were conquered for warriors not priests

On the other hand, the leyend of Quetzalcoatl returning was not an omen, but a story the wise men told to teach the cycle of the morning/evening star- the site below can explain it better http://www.johnpratt.com/items/astronomy/eve_morn.html

Now, Moctezuma was a former priest, it's unlikely the he could confuse the story with an omen, maybe Doña Marina, who may have been familiar with the story, told it to Cortez and he interpreted it as he pleased

If Moctezuma showed great respect for Cortez, was simply because the spaniards had defeated all the tribes who opposed'em and survived every ambush they set upon them

And let's not forget that the spaniards came under attack even as they were guests of Cortez (not Cortez himself, but a camp/colony he left behind) and that Moctezuma while being his prisoner attempted to betrayed him with a fleet that came from Cuba to arrest Cortez for he was in conflict with the governor of the island, this is why he sent the gold of Moctezuma from Mexico to Spain instead of from Cuba, which was the Spanish head colony at the time

Without nothing else to add I'd like to appologize for my orthography, cose english is not my mother tongue

best regards: Edgar Briones Palomo edgar_briones@hotmail.com

Ketsakoatl

[edit]

I removed:

in Nahuatl: Ketsalkoatl; in Spanish: Quetzalcóatl

Ketsalkoatl would be a possible modern spelling, but the speakers of the modern Nahuatl dialects don't worship Quetzalcoatl. In the language of the people who did worship Quetzalcoatl, Classical Nahuatl, it is spelled Quetzalcoatl, the same as English and Spanish. --Ptcamn 01:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal (from Amphithere)

[edit]

Recent Edit

[edit]

I removed this phrase "although the idea that he was Jesus ignores the long history of the cult" because it seemed to violate the neutrality standards.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.187.0.164 (talk • contribs) 22 July 2006.

IPA

[edit]

Someone should add the IPA pronunciation for "Quetzalcoatl". Mo-Al 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd kind of like the common phonetic pronunciation since I, along with >99% of people on the planet, do not know IPA... 65.81.145.48 (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think both should be added, personally. I only know IPA well enough to know vaguely where to find things, and I'm curious about that "tl" sound at the end. 208.92.110.210 (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzalcoatl's Authority?

[edit]

The reason being that Quetzalcoatl called one man, to whom he gave his rights, privileges, and powers, to administer in his religious duties who took on the name of the Deity, to show that the power had been given to him -- This from the "Cult" section of the article. In my readings on Quetzalcoatl I have not yet run into a reference of this incident. I suggest the line be removed unless someone can find a valid reference. --Mapache 03:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, it is likely this passage was included along with the "12 representatives" selection (already removed) in an attempt to validate certain religious beliefs. Because I have personally found no reference to Quetzalcoatl calling one man, to whom he gave his rights, privileges, and powers and no one else has supplied a reference, I will remove the line until such a citation can be found. I also removed the next line, as the past removal of the 12 representatives along with taking out this line makes it confusing and nonsequential. Again, if anyone can find a reference to any of this, feel free to put it back in the article.Mapache 21:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Modern culture references

[edit]

If any of these "references" are relevant they should be put in the text. Most of them are not however, neither informative, noteworthy or interesting. I have cut the section from the article per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and suggest than any relevant material be worked into the actual text.

Modern media

[edit]
  • In the Barry Sadler series "Casca", a character cursed by Christ on Golgotha to walk the Earth until the second coming, two of the trips the main character took was to Mexico. His first trip invoved him being sacrificed, obviously surviving and the people thinking he was their forerunner of Quetzalcoatl. The second took place as a conquistadore with Cortes and though he could of helped them they had continued the sacrificing of humans which he had told them to stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.246.145 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of a song from the Swedish symphonic metal group Therion on the album Lemuria (2004). The song is about Quetzalcoatl as God of the Sun.

I fashion my crown from Quetzalcoatl's quills

Build my palace in the jungles of Brazil
In the summertime come my children

For I hail Draco, king of dragon men

  • In the computer game Rise of Legends, there is a playable race called Cuotl. There are also air units in this race's army called 'Quetzals'.
  • In the video game Final Fantasy VIII, Quetzalcoatl is a lightning-based elemental creature that can be summoned into battle, however spelled "Quezacotl" due to character-space limit. It is also the name of one of the servers in Final Fantasy XI.
  • In the computer game Serious Sam: The Second Encounter, Kulkulkan is the end boss of the Mayan levels.
  • In the video game Culdcept, Quetzalcoatl is a powerful yellow creature card of "strange" rarity that gives +10 strength to creatures with the first strike ability.
  • In Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel Faust Eric, the people of the Tezumen Empire worshipped a creature described as a "feathered boa" called Quezovercoatl. He is described as half man, half chicken, half jaguar, half serpent, half scorpion and half mad (a total of three homicidal maniacs).
  • In the Star Trek Animated Series episode How Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth Captain Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise run into a being who claims to be Kukulkan the ancient god of the Mayan and Aztec peoples of Earth. He states he is actually a very long-lived benevolent entity who wants the humans to worship him just as the Mayans and Aztecs did centuries ago when he had visited Earth's distant past and influenced Mesoamerican cultures.
  • In the 1992 PC-based Star Trek: 25th Anniversary video game, the crew of the Enterprise meets Quetzalcoatl in one of the game episodes, "Feathered Serpent". In this episode, Kirk and crew encounter Quetzalcoatl, and then must deal with a Klingon fleet pursuing him as a "war criminal".
  • In the comic book Tom Strong an alternate dimensional empire is run by an Aztec-like culture. Their main method of maintaining their empire is an advanced computer modeled after Quetzalcoatl. Eventually this computer gains sentience and creates its own multi-dimensional theocracy.
  • The 1982 movie Q (also known as Q: The Winged Serpent) placed Quetzalcoatl in the setting of contemporary Manhattan, as an essentially generic monster behind a series of killings.
  • The manga Spriggan depicted Quetzalcoatl as a being who assisted Yu Ominae and the Sasakura sisters in sealing the power of the Mask of Palenque.
  • In the 1980's the book "The Lost Realms" by Zecharia Sitchin about the study of the archaeologist's findings in the pyramids from Central America as well as from Peru, depict Quetzalcoatl as an extra-terrestrial that promised to come back in the 20th century. In Latin-America some believe that the promised become true when there were massive UFO sightings reported in Mexico during the 6th solar eclipse (July 11, 1991). Today esoteric groups sometimes called "Mexicanistas" have mixed the cult of Queztalcoatl with modern esoteric practices.
  • A 1996 X-Files novel by Kevin J Anderson entitled "Ruins" also centres on Quetzalcoatl, and speculates that the god was in fact an extra-terrestrial.
  • In the Stargate SG-1 episode "Crystal Skull", the giant mist alien who appears at the end of the episode identifies itself as Quetzalcoatl. As with other races in the series, such as the Goa'uld and the Asgard, there is no clear indication as to whether the alien inspired the legend or was merely playing on it.
  • In the video game Fahrenheit, the main characters are in pursuit of a serial killer who is a shaman of the Maya faith and commits the murders in order to evoke the Maya god Quetzalcoatl.
  • The Mountain Goats, the stage name for American singer/songwriter John Darnielle, has several songs revolving around Quetzalcoatl.
  • In the classic French/Japanese anime The Mysterious Cities of Gold, statues of Quetzalcoatl appear as a recurring plot device. Typically the statues offer some written clue to help the show's protagonists on their quest for the seven cities of gold. As for Quetzalcoatl himself, not much is revealed. Yet in Ep. 23, "The Jade Mask," the character Tao translates some hieroglyphics on the wall of a temple: "A long time ago, in the land of the Mayas, there lived a man who was very intelligent, and he understood the heaven and the earth. He was called the Winged Serpent." It is additionally inscribed that he "built a gigantic furnace," which is later revealed to be a nuclear reactor.
  • Chris Heimerdinger's fictional novels: Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites: The Feathered Serpent, Part One and Part Two, explore the idea of the legend of Quetzalcoatl having been inspired by the visitation of Jesus Christ to the America's after his death and resurrection in Jerusalem.
  • In the sequel to Atlantis: the Lost Tales, Beyond Atlantis, the player must save a Maya nation by gaining the Chulel, or life-force, of Quetzalcoatl, in order to avoid the bloody sacrifices needed to gain the Chulel of Tezcatlipoca.
  • Mercedes Lackey's "Diana Tregarde" mystery, Burning Water centers around Tezcatlipoca, but features Quetzalcoatl as his antithesis.
  • In the games and the animated shows/movies of Pokemon a dragon type similar in appearance to Quetzalcoatl can be found named Rayquaza.
  • In the Digimon card game and franchise their is a digimon named Quetzalmon clearly based on the god.
  • In the animated series Jackie Chan Adventures, a statue of Quetzacoatl is animated through the power of the rat. The statue is humanoid in appearance, with scaly skin and multi-coloured wings, and possesses control of solar energy, the wind, and all plant life. Upon its animation the statue confuses the character Jade with the Mayan goddess of the moon and the character El Toro with the devil.
  • In an episode of the 80s animated series The Real Ghostbusters, the crew ventures into an ancient Aztec pyramid looking for Quetzacoatl, which to them is a powerful spirit that must be contained. There are also minor versions of the spirit in the episode known as coatls.
  • In The Aztecs, a Doctor Who story from the 1960s, the TARDIS visits Mexico at the time of the Aztecs. Quetzecoatl is referenced regularly.

In paleontology

[edit]

The late Cretaceous pterodactyloid Pterosaur Quetzalcoatlus was named after Quetzalcoatl.

[edit]


Maunus 14:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism

[edit]

Some Mormon guy told me that Mormons believe Quetzacoatl was Jesus which seems to be the case:

Quetzalcóatl is the name of Jesus as recorded by the Aztecs. The Maya and the Quichés referred to Jesus as Kukulkán and Gucumatz.

Mormon scriptures unearthed in the most ancient of ruins of Teotihuacán predict Jesus' first coming as a snake-god clad in precious feathers. This is often cited my Mormon scholars as further evidence that the book of mormon is true (as if it were needed).[1]

So that should be put in. I don't know where to put it though. --24.57.157.81 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but the phrase "Mormon scriptures unearthed in the most ancient of ruins of Teotihuacán predict Jesus' first coming as a snake-god clad in precious feathers" is simply incorrect. No records from the ruins of Teotihuacán are accepted as part of LDS scripture, and in any case neither the Book of Mormon nor any of the LDS standard works make any reference to Jesus as a feathered snake-god. There is some speculation among Mormons that the stories of Quetzalcoatl might be a garbled remembrance of an event recorded in the Book of Mormon (namely, the coming of Jesus to the Americas), but it is just that--speculation, not doctrine. 71.231.102.185
Agreed. This is part of Mormone folklore, and the similarities are striking especially considering the complete ignorance of the founders of the Mormon movement with respect to ancient Mesoamerican history, but it is nothing more than speculation. As a lifelong member of the LDS Church I have heard this referenced many times, but never by any church leader or in any official way. Just stories and explanations by other church members, usually by those who had served missions in central America. I think the paragraph could stand to be expanded slightly, but a dedicated article would be inappropriate as it is not LDS doctrine. If it were to be expanded it should be specifically pointed out that it is not official doctrine, and that the interpretation of the name comes from the fact that the Book of Mormon account of Christ's visit indicates that he descended from the sky (normally exclusively the domain of birds) but he walked around (which somehow gives us the snake reference). Something like that. It's been years since I've heard someone explain it. But more interesting to me is the parallels of the teachings of Quetzalcoatl and Christ, as well as the concept of returning again in the future. The Hopi connection is certainly cause for additional speculation, considering the historical claims of the Book of Mormon regarding the Lamanites and ancient Americans. Further connections can be seen by those who want to in Polynesian traditions, Japanese holidays, and Chinese characters. But it's all just fascinating speculation. 75.162.194.81 (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to have this page link to a new page such as Quetzalcoatl as Jesus or something. Despite the beliefs of the Mormons, this article refers to the god of the Olmec, Toltec, Maya and Aztec mythologies. I very much doubt the Maya believe that they were one entity, and it could be deemed offensive to their culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tranquilo man (talk • contribs)

I'd have to disagree with splitting this off. While it should be handled with care it belongs as part of this article if this article is going to have a "in modern times" section at all. Yes, it can be offensive to some but is it really any more offensive than Christians claiming Jesus is the Jewish Messiah? Or Muslims claiming Jesus is "merely" a one of the prophets? Any discussion of religion risks offending someone. The key isn't pretending it isn't so, the key is exercising restraint and appropriate labeling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.150.188 (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfectly balanced and appropriate attitude. You know, in my humble opinion. :) 75.162.194.81 (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to make this page specifically about the Aztec god, and separate the info about serpent-gods in Mesoamerica in general into another article. Thoughts? --Ptcamn 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes! put the other at Feathered serpent (deity).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this page should discuss the Quetzalcoatl diety, but instead lists the origins of the entire feathered serpent cults. Also, I very much doubt that the page needs the "Mormon Culture" section as it does not pertain to the mythology of Quetzalcoatl. I'm still divided on whether or not the "Quetzalcoatl-Cortes" myth should remain...·Tranquilo_man·
Mesoamerican cultures all had a feathered/plumed serpent-like deities...so I think it would be best to give a list of sorts of different serpent gods with the whole historical aspect. As far as the "Mormon Culture", I think that it should be mentioned (briefly) as it is a bit interesting, but has nothing to do with the Mesoamerican mythologies or the people who worshipped and continue to hold their beliefs in high regard. It seems a bit offensive...and insulting to everyone's intellegence. It would be as if saying Quetzalcoatl was in fact Buddha, Krishna, Zeus or some other religious leader/figure/god. Definite split! ---Wetcha


I also vote for the split. Perhaps adding a "feathered snake god" disambig would also be a good idea. The section about Mormons should definately be a separate article, and could easily be linked to in any of the deities articles. ~ MagicChelle

In modern times

[edit]

I have removed the first 2 sentences of this section as they are un-cited. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some rural parts of Mexico, there still exists a belief that in some caves, near certain towns, there lives a monster, a great feathered snake that can only be seen by special people[citation needed]. The monster must be placated for there to be plentiful rain. The feathered snake is also still worshipped by Huichol and Cora Indians.
The cult of Quetzalcoatl has been more or less idealized, and the image of a "white god" has become part of the popular culture[citation needed].


"Contemporary esotericism and parallels in non-Mesoamerican cultures" section

[edit]

First off that is just too long of a title. Second off, I think the proper way to address this is New Age and Neopaganism. As you can see Quetzalcoatl is very popular in "New Age".

Xuchilbara 17:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's a bit of a mouthful, but (IMO) at least it has the merit of being more accurate and descriptive than the former title ("In modern times", which to me would be misleading as these snippets have v. little to do with any actual continuance of the pre-Columbian concept, but are rather just modern co-opting of the 'name and feel'). Happy to hear any alternative suggestions, tho' I don't think lengthy section titles are too much of a problem, as long as they capture the contents' essence. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


it doesn't really need to be split. For someone like me who was searching for any and all info about Quetzalcoatl, this was pretty much what I wanted. Enough to know where to look for more, and not so much I was exhausted before I finished reading. Leave it alone as far as making it less informative goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.219.131 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prpose to move this material ito an article title Quetzalcoatl (New Age) or somesuch.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with Manus. Maybe a small section on this one, that also links to the main New Age side would be a great idea. Xuchilbara 19:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine by me. Any approach that demarcates between the authentic tradition and the modern recycling of the name would be a welcome improvement.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should have a disambiguation page separating the creation god, from the warrior god, and from the various leaders that took the name Quetzalcoatl on themselves. 68.18.115.56 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)RoyalE[reply]

Quetzalcoatl unimportant according to Maunus and Boone p. 68?

[edit]

It is questionable and unencylopedic to make such an assertion in the lede, and offer as citation, only "Boone, p. 68." Please quote the citation. 70.248.202.145 (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-eminence of the Temple of the Feathered Serpent, Teotihuacan "most generally known by the term Quetzalcoatl, from the Nahuatl language of the much-later Aztec peoples" is an example of why I question whether Boone or any other reputable scholar actually proposes that Quetzalcoatl was not pre-eminent in the Aztec pantheon. Even a quick glance at reports about Aztec Religion shows Quetzalcoatl and Tlaloc to have generally been regarded as more important than--or 'superior to' if you will--most other gods and goddesses in the pantheon. Please quote the Boone p.68 citation, it would be nice to know exactly what Boone states in this regard. 70.248.202.145 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding the sentence in question. Neither the article as it is, nor Boone (nor I) have stated that Quetzalcoatl is unimportant but only that he was not "the supreme god of the aztecs" but occupied a place in the Aztec Pantheon together with the other highly important gods such as Tlaloc, Huitzilipochtli and Tezcatlipoca. Contrariwyse t your edit summary I have read quite a few studies of Aztec religion, none of which suggest that any one god of the Aztecs should have functioned as a "supreme deity". I wonder if your reason for finding the citation badly quoted is that you haven't looked in the bibliography of the article? The page in question os from Boones 1989 article "Postscript: Huitzilopochtli and Quetzalcoatl", Incarnations of the Aztec Supernatural: The Image of Huitzilopochtli in Mexico and Europe. The American Philosophical Society, 85–89" Find the article and see for yourself. Thats what i'm going to do. As for Teotihuacan and the temple of Quetzalcoatl you should be aware that we don't know much about teotihuacano culture for example we don't know what language they spoke or how their religious system was structure - it is more than likely that their feathered serpent deity is not the same as quetzalcoatl. And given your preoccupation with temples as a reflection of preeminence how do you interpret the fact that the aztecs didn't have a temple dedicated to quetzalcoatl at all? ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I meant "less important" not "unimportant" in my choice of title for this section. And I soon learned that yes, you've read quite a few studies of Aztec religion (I glanced at your userpage after making that remark in my edit summary). Thank you for the reminder that the Boone article is possibly/probably available online, I'll look it up right away too. Again, it is the semantics of the following sentence which I find unacceptable, it makes it seem like Quetzalcoatl was a low-ranking god in the pantheon, when the evidence at Teotihuacan and elsewhere, strongly indicates otherwise. Quetzalcoatl evidently was considered superior to most of the others.
'"Today Quetzalcoatl is the most well-known Aztec deity, and is often thought to have been the principal Aztec god. However, Quetzalcoatl was just one god in a pantheon of gods, not considered superior to the others.[1]" 70.248.202.145 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that the lead was downplaying quetzalcoatls importance both within Aztec mythology and in mesoamerica as a whole. I have taken steps to ammend this I hope you agree that it is an improvement.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's meant to be page 86 actually, not page 68. That's a typo. Here's what Boone says:
"In the sixteenth century the chroniclers described Quetzalcoatl simply as one among the dozen or so principal Aztec deities ... The early chroniclers did not, however, exalt Quetzalcoatl above other gods. This remained, as Jacques Lafaye has successfully established in his Quetzalcoatl and Guadalupe, for the Mexican Creole thinkers of the seventeenth century and later, who linked Quetzalcoatl with the Apostle St. Thomas and saw in the Aztec god a force of incipient monotheism and Christianity."
It's available on Google Book Search as well as JSTOR. --Ptcamn (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Boone: p. 68.

Identity?

[edit]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was always under the assumption that Quetzocoatl was a human ruler who merged with a blue serpent to form a diety that created all civilization by means of agriculture (maiz). He was disgraced by his people because of drunkeness and immorality so he left them, heading for the East. The Aztecs believed that he would return from the East on a floating mountain or floating house (which is why the arrival of Cortez confused Montezuma II). Do I have something wrong here? HopieG (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a common interpretion, which is presented in a number of early sources however the scholarly consensus is that the history of quetzalcoatl is mostly a myth which probably does not have any historical foundations. The article however needs to state this clearer than it does now.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claro. Ok thank you! I will look into this a little further.- HopieG * Green Day's Biggest Fan 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HopieG (talk • contribs)

Venus?

[edit]

Hola otra vez:

I have been studying Aztec and Maya mythology for several months now (since I moved to Mexico last year) and I have never heard of Quetzacoatl being associated with the planet Venus. I would like to see some proof of this (perhaps a link to a site or something). Muchas gracias HopieG * Green Day's Biggest Fan 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs Citations -- and checked for veracity.

[edit]

"Around 3113 B.C. according to texts of ancient Sumerian cuneiform tablets, the Egyption God Thoth was exiled from Egypt by a sort of troublemaking rival named Marduk who wanted above all else to be the supreme God of Earth. Thoth as many know, designed and built the Great Pyramid. All of this according to brilliant scholar of the cuneiform tablet writings (of which there are many thousands relating the stories of ancient gods and goddesses) Dr. Zecharia Sitchin whose book The Lost Realms tells of the story of the arrival in La Venta of this god Thoth accompanied by his African helpers, obviously of negroe lineage, either warriors or miners. According to data mentioned in this monograph so-called Quezalcoatl brought a certain amount of civilization including corn and the calendar. These African persons are shown doing mining using a strange flame-thrower like device. At any rate they became the Olmecs and were one of the earliest civilized peoples in that area. The "smoking gun", other than the prognathous features of the great head sculpures, was a vase made in the shape of an elephant, when there has never been an elephant population in Mexico. But when Dr. Sitchin pointed this out, the Museum quickly hid the ancient artifact from view. Thoth is also described in connection with a serpent which is a symbol and definition of a wise person. Thoth was one of he wisest of the Egyptian pantheons. having power of life and death according to the tablets. According to Dr. Sitchin, Thoth eventually became known as "Quesalcoatl" the winged feathered serpent. Thoth instituted the first calendar in Mesoamerica starting in 3113 B.C. which is the date he arrived. Thoth was the reigning deity in Egypt at that time and Marduk wanted to be the head god, so that is where the conflict started." Jhaerlyn (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for checking, just wholesale deletion. Far from being a "brilliant scholar", "Dr" Zecharia Sitchin has zero credibility, and his populist fiction-masquerading-as-history is utterly ignored by all in any research discipline. Passage is removed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs grammar fix -- "would"

[edit]

In English, "would" tends to be a marker for the subjunctive and, as with many of the comments in the discussion, tends to mark something either in the future or something that is not 100% certain. Therefore in the paragraphs about the various cultures like Toltec, if they conflated Quetzalcoatl with their own gods, this either definitely happened in the past or it "might have" happened. Suggest changing "would" in these places to an indicative past tense or to "might have." 4.249.198.252 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative interpretations

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the 'Alternative Interpretations' section in the Quetzalcoatl article, it suggests that the LDS Church has corrupted the account of Jesus Christ. Being an LDS Christian, this is pretty offensive to me and to the 13+ million other Mormons around the world. I would appreciate it if somebody would edit this, to make the article sound somewhat unbiased. For example, 'corruption' could be changed to 'addition.' Thanks. Richinsk (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you may be misreading that sentence. I believe that what it intends to say is that some LDS proponents/scholars have suggested that the native american folklore/mythology concerning quetzalcoatl may be a 'corrupted' retelling of the Jesus Christ story—ie, a version of some story that is considerably altered from the original, having been passed down through the centuries and across cultures, in the process consequently altered via a 'chinese whispers'-type mechanism. Presumably, these claims are intended to bolster the historicity of BoM events vis-a-vis pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. It is not saying that the account of Jesus Christ as held/retold by the LDS churches itself is a "corruption"—either negatively, or in the everyday sense of 'considerably altered'.
I suppose the sentence could be rewritten for clarity, but first it'd be better to get some actual source(s) to demonstrate that notable/quotable LDS scholar sources have made this inference. In the scheme of this article the LDS angle/interpretation is only a minor part, don't think the whole thing needs more than a sentence or two.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Reworded and clarified.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

[edit]

Hello all,

I recently joined Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check and stumbled across the article here. I want to explain my edits and first say that I know very little about the subject, so I hope I haven't stepped on any toes here. Just trying to be bold and increase the quality.

I noticed a bad disputed tag from a user User:Rudraksha108 and changed it so it would format correctly, but I had to guess a little bit about what their complaint was and I moved it to a more appropriate place.

I found several cites backing up the statement that Quetzalcoatl opposed human sacrifice. If more are needed or if the scholar I chose is not reputable, please let me know as there are many others.

I was unable to find any cites regarding the "Mexicanistas" in English and though I can read Spanish, I'm not entirely fluent and it's late. I hope someone else can provide a citation for these

I changed the words around in the statement about Moctemzuma/Cortes. I'm guessing from reading the discussion above that this may be controversial. This statement was uncited and I found copious cites to back up my wording so I added one. I'm happy to add more cites or, if people can provided contradictory cites, add the controversy to Wikipedia disputes.

I'm very tempted to add something to the Mormonism section, though again, it is clear this is controversial and needs more discussion before I do so. However, it is clear that Quetzalcoatl does show up in Mormon literature and, in my opinion, that issue merits mention in this article. We just have to make sure we get it right. -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzacoatl, Thoth and Enoch

[edit]

There ought to be more research on links between Quetzacoatl and Thoth. The idea in comparative religion is that Quetzacoatl is a Meso-American version of Thoth, while Thoth is merely an incarnation of Enoch. Therefore, since Enoch has a close relationship with Jesus, we can say that there can be a real interfaith dialogue between indigenous religions and Christianity. ADM (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

revisionist history and speculation instead of historical record

[edit]

I'm a little put off by this section about the supposed controversy of the quezcoatl/cortes issue. There is no controvery. There is established historical record. Instead, you have some fringe nobodies, who possibly wrote this wiki section, who have inserted nothing but speculative garbage. Just because most sources come from the spanish means nothing other than their objectivity to be questioned. Nonetheess, if you have no contemporary proof you cannoy assert everything the spanish wrote was complete fiction and propaganda, like this section maintains. In short, the section the highly biased and should probably be removedm, with a single paragraph of a revisionist view of this incident in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the historical record is not quite as definitive on this point as you may suppose. Far from being 'fringe nobodies', eminent & qualified scholars such as Matthew Restall, James Lockhart and the others clearly cited maintain this, and with much good evidence in support. If there is a majority view of this issue held by contemporary historians who professionally study Mesoamerican cultures, it would be this version.
Since no-one here or elsewhere is asserting "everything the spanish wrote was complete fiction and propaganda", this straw-man objection carries no weight. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that's called hyperbole. We have established historical record. That is what you include in encyclodpedias, not speculative nationalistic/ethnocentric garbage some guy made up without a shred of evidence, which stinks more of bigoted propaganda than professional, academic opinion. This isn't a question of inclusion, but more a question of weight. You have a sprawling, speculative section on all of one or two guys "theories" that they did not actually think cortes was a some kind of deity. This is a fringe theory that has zero historical backing, deserving very little wieght and inclusion in the article. Most hysterical is the statement that some academics still believe X" part. Ridiculous. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong. We don't have an established historical record thats the problem. IF we were to write an account of the life of quetzalcoatl here as if he were a real person we'd be elevating myth to the level of historical fact. There are no scholars worth citing in mesoamerican studies to day who would take the accounts of the life of quetzalcoatl as if they represented actual truth. You seem like you haven't read any studies of mesoamerican history published since 1960.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Historical record is that which has been written down-- recorded. It's not also the best or most fair accounting of events, but it is the historic record nonetheless. And it is established, and it it does say that Cortes was believed to be a divine being. Like it or not, that's the historical record. You want to give equal weight to revisionist history and fringe theories. I've also now got an electronic copy of the cited work by Alan Knight(and it's not called "mexico" it's called "mexico: the colonial era", and yet I cannot at all substantiate the quotes/positions being attributed to several people in this wiki. It's not found in Knight's works. They will be deleted soon if I do not find them and this whole section gutted.66.190.29.150 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Knight is not an authority in this area - Lockhart, Restall, Gillespie, Smith, et cetera are. And you are completely wrong about which historical trend consitutes fringe here. While it is true that this branch of research started out as revisionist when it toppled the naive literalist imterpretations of mesoamerican sources beginning around 1960 it had already become completely mainstream around 1990 and apart from people who are not familiar with post 1960 scholarship (or chose to ignore it) nobody advocates literalist interpretations of mesoamerican sources anymore. I do agree however that this article coul do a much better job at stating both the lietaralist interpretation and all the bjections to it found in modern scholarship. In fact this article is in dire need of a rewrite - but not from the perspective that you suggest. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Knight is not an authority, why is being cited as an authority for offering the supposed opinions of all those persons whom you just listed? Check the wiki. Knight is the cited source for all of those. Why? I don't believe these arguments have been presented in a citable form by those people in question, and they probably have not even offered those arguments at all. It seems as if someone just threw out a bunch of meso-america(and "womens studies" laughably enough) history related academics and claimed they made a certain positions known when in fact they have not. You cannot say these people have said something and not cite it, and you sure can't say they say something and cite something that also does not saying/confirm it, obviously, which appears to be the case here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry - I'll give you the quotes from those people. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking

[edit]

I've reworked the citations and biography that was in a confusingly mixed style. I have added several of sources that wil be important to implement the necessary improvements to the articles contents. Important are the seminal work of H.B. Nicholson and David Carrasco who represent the "historicist" tradition and the "revisionist" responses by Restall (the review of Nicholson), Townsend, Gillespie and Florescano. Equally important for reconstructing the history of quetzalcoatl worship is the article by Ringle et al. about the spread of quetzalcoatl worship throughout mesoamerica in the epi-classic period. I will begin to undertake the reworking of the page shortly. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Maunus. Great work on intiating this overdue rewrite, looks in much better shape.
In the 'Moctezuma controversy' section (could do with a better section title), there's a sentence (beginning "Most documents expounding this theory..") that could be interpreted as suggesting Cortes' letters home to Charles V support the notion that Moctezuma & his court mistook Cortes for the returning Quetzalcoatl. However, my understanding is that in his letters Cortes never once mentions Quetzalcoatl, nor does he write he was taken for one of the gods (teules). Similarly Bernal Diaz's Verdad historia also fails to mention this apotheosis (I think he even has a section someplace where he has Moctezuma saying outright that he knew them to be mortal men who could bleed & die like anyone else; wld have to check it again). Both Cortes and Diaz do give diplomatic & deferential versions of Moctezuma's welcoming speech like the rest of the text indicates, and at most have Moctezuma acknowledging the conquistadors as "descendents of men who had once ruled Mexico", as Restall puts it. There's probably scope to separate out the two levels of this idea- Spanish mistaken as actual gods, as opposed to Spanish being diplomatically addressed as equals/descendants of departed legendary Aztec ancestors.
The Quetzalcoatl-Cortes connection definitely needs coverage here. But probably the article on Cortes himself, if not the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire one, would be better places to go into more detail. Come to think of it, if we had the time/inclination coverage of the whole matter could be set up into its own article. There'd certainly be the material to sustain one, and since we need to at least mention the episode in half-a-dozen or more different related articles, that would be one way of keeping the detailed accounting of the episode consistent and in a central place. The corresponding section in Cortes' article presently tries to have it both ways, for instance. Thoughts? (can't think of a satisfactory article title, ATM).
Re citation method- happy to go with the harvard/parenthetical method you've cleaned this up to use. If you intend keeping up this method in this article, it can be set up (via {{harv}} I think) to hyperlink btw the inline parenthetical cite and the corresponding bibliographical reference. If that's your intention then will give it a go, not sure if it works with the {aut} template- will see. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to go to work on individual sections shortly. Actually I was thinking of converting thr parenthetical notes into <ref> tags since many of the parentheses have so many references in them that it disturbs readability. You are right about the letters of cortés not mentioning Quetzalcoatl - but they were the source for the misunderstanding nonetheless since Cortés did cast himself in the role of a returning lord to whom motecuzoma willingly hands the crown (Cortés chaplain Gómara readily turned this into the popular version of the returning god).·Maunus·ƛ· 13:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose some of those parenthetical refs are taking up half a line or more, so converting to ref tags wld be neater. OK, thanks.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for new article Structure

[edit]

Below is my proposal for a new article structure:

  • Lead
    • The Feathered-serpent deity in Mesoamerica:
      • Depiction & iconography
        • visual representation in monuments, artefacts, murals, (pictographic) codices, etc.
          • common identifying motifs & elements. symbolic interpretations thereof
          • examples & site distribution (Teo, Cacaxtla, Xochicalco, etc)
          • development of imagery over time (increasing anthropomorphism, etc)
      • cognates in other cultures
        • in other mesoamerican cultures (antecedants, parallels)
        • non- or peripheral-mesoamerican cultures (eg puebloan)
    • The Cult of Quetzalcoatl among the Aztecs
      • role in religion/mythology
      • creation accts
      • calendar patron (eg as ehecatl-quetzalcoatl)
      • ritual observances, feasts, etc
  • Quetzalcoatl as ruler of the Toltecs
    • The historicist vs. revisionist debate
      • The mythification of Topiltzin
      • The return of Quetzalcoatl as a saviour
  • Modern interpretations of Quetzalcoatl

·Maunus·ƛ· 03:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Couple of other subtopics that might be addressed and slotted in somewhere (prob already intended in that structure):
  • mentions/descriptions in historical source docs
--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty to move your points into my structure where they fit. I think sources should be discussed separately for the God and Toltec ruler sections.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. And nice work on the rewrite commencement.
How do you think we should deal with the existing separate article, Feathered Serpent (deity)? Naturally there's a good deal of overlap, but I spose I can see the case to maintain an article on the generic concept, as well. Thoughts?--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

I have noticed that an etymology of the word "Quetzalcoatl" is missing and the definition that is given in the begining of the article is sketchy while I have seen people challenge this etymology of "feathered serpent." Coatl does mean "serpent" but the tricky part is in the prefix Quetzal- which does not always mean "feathered" exclusively since in some context it means the bird by that same name while in another it can mean just one feather or a set of them. The word Quetzal comes from "quetzalli" (quetza- + -lli) and that word comes from "quetzac" which means: "to stand up." Following this train of reasoning, then, Quetzalcoatl would have somewhat the definition of: "Standing Serpent" or "Upright Serpent." Check with these references:

  • Andrews, J. Richard (2003). Workbook for Introduction to Classical Nahuatl, rev. ed., p. 248, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Karttunen, Frances (1983). An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl, p. 210, Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Domingo Francisco de San Antón Muñón (1997). Codex Chimalpahin, ed. and trans. by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Susan Schroeder, pp. 74–75, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Sahagún, Bernardino de (1981). Florentine Codex: Book 1 - The Gods, ed. and trans. by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble, 2nd ed., rev., p. 42, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzalcoatl and Viracocha?

[edit]

I'm curious as to whether a section —or separate article— ought to be created comparing Quetzalcoatl with the Inca deity Viracocha.

At first glance, they seem to share many similar traits:

--They both arrived and left via the waterways. --They are both described as having white skin, and bushy beards. --They are both also described as pacifists hailing from a primeval age, following a great flood or other cataclysmic event.

Could this be enough to start a new Wikipedia topic exploring new dimensions to the Quetzalcoatl myth? I mean, there already is a section on LDS dogma on him apropos Jesus Christ. A possible connection with Viracocha is clearly no bigger a leap. Pine (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that the beliefs of Quetzalcoatl leaving and returning by the ocean and having beard and white were not part of the precolumbian belief system about quetzalcoatl but were added later by christian, mostly franciscan scholars who wanted to believe that the Americas had been cathechized before. I don't know whether the same is the case for the myths of Viracocha but it might very well be - and anyway it completely removes the basis of the comparison you make.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article would have to be based on what reliable sources say about such a comparison, we couldn't make any comparisons as editors as that would be WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunately not likely to be a problem there are swathes of literature about any possible comparison of "evidence" for "white gods" atlantis, space men and jesus in the americas.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt replies!

Let me first say that this conversation has greatly opened my eyes. I never should have guessed that the similarities I mentioned concerning Quetzalcoatl & Viracocha were first spoken of after Columbus. As a side note, the articles on both Viracocha and Hopi mythology (concerning Pahana) also cast doubt on said traits. I am not convinced, though, that cross-references of historical figures —and qualities attributed to them over time, that are well documented— constitute Original Research. I do agree, however, that Wikipedia is definitely not the place for speculation or hypotheses.

Do either of you believe that maybe there ought to be a Wikibook listing and comparing these likely post-Columbian embellishments of pre-Columbian figures? It might actually serve an academic purpose. Pine (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about what wikibooks is and does you'd have to ask over there. I think that a page such as Quetzalcoatl (Alternative speculations) might be a possible article that could contain all of the Mormon stuff as well as the speculations about of Quetzalcoatl as the apostle thomas, a spaceman from atlantis, a lost viking or similar.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aztec emperor did not believe Cortes was Quezacoatl

[edit]

It was the aztec people that belived that. The Aztec Emperor knew that Hernan cortes was a messenger from another king from a faraway land. He just failed to realise that the message was to take him prisoner and take over his empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.103.12 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feathered serpent page, merge?

[edit]

Hi I just realised that there is a feathered serpent page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_Serpent that seems very similar, any reason for why they are not merged? Zakster22` (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are two different topics? QUetzalcoatl is the Aztec feathered serpent deity, but other cultures have had similar deities with different names.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern-day interpretations

[edit]

Shouldn't this section be removed as WP:FRINGE?

No, that is not what Fringe means, we just have to make sure it doesnt get more than its due weight. I think a short section at the end including all of this is enough.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dedicating an entire subsection to the Ahmadiyya speculations is more than undue weight to that fringe view. Unless Ahmadiya beliefs have been mentioned in non-Ahmadiya sources about Quetzalcoatl they dont merit inclusion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feathered dinosaur link?

[edit]

Feathered dinosaurs are no longer fringe theory, please either add a link in see also or info on theories they saw live dinos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.14.161 (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quetzalcoatl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connect this article with articles discussing other iterations of indigenous american feathered, winged, and horned serpents?

[edit]

Although now many people seem to think that "native americans" stop at the borders of the contiguous USA, the reality is that thanks to extensive trade networks there was a strong and consistent level of interaction between various regions of mesoamerica and the US. Particularly, the Southwest comes to mind, and serpents such as Avanyu and Palulukang. With Palulukang specifically, it is worth noting that several Hopi clans hail originally from what is now Mexico, and as such could have brought aspects of the Mesoamerican feathered serpent with them, hence the connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil dogbear (talk • contribs) 05:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quetzalcōātl&oldid=1230199397"