Aztec gods

[severin]

I've noticed that a lot of Aztec gods have the letters 'teo' in their names. For example, Teoyaomqui, Cinteotl, Huehueteotl (and many more). The last one means 'old old god'. This part of the name - teo - is translated 'god' or sometimes 'spirit'. It's very similar to the Greek 'theo', also meaning god and from there, the Latin 'deus'.

Is this in interesting coincidence? I'm not suggesting anything, just curious.

 

[Donks]

Is this in interesting coincidence? I'm not suggesting anything, just curious.

I'd say so. I did a quick google and even bumped into the nahuatl word for atheist (amoteoni & ateoni), though I don't know if the Aztecs had that concept or if it is a modern construct. You could check other Native American languages, to see if they share the 'teo' root.

 

[Z]

Well, do recall that many terms that we understand from the Aztecs were written by Spanish historians, and not by the Aztecs themselves.

For example, 'Aztec' was a term used by the historians to describe this tribe; they called themselves, the Mexica (hence, the origin of the word 'Mexico').

It is entirely likely that these 'Aztec' names are simply Spanish inventions which choose to mix roots and stems - just like a modern English speaker might refer to a City of Gods as 'Theopolis'. Then have these invented names change hands a few times between the Aztecs and the Spanish, and you get the 'telephone game' with their names.

Besides, we all know that Cinteotl's real name was Bob.

 

[LibraryLady]

Is this a good place to mention my current favorite book title?

You wouldn't want to be an Aztec sacrifice! : gruesome things you'd rather not know. By Fiona Macdonald. Franklin Watts,
Pub Date: c2001.

 

[David Carroll]

zaayrdragon wrote:

Well, do recall that many terms that we understand from the Aztecs were written by Spanish historians, and not by the Aztecs themselves.

For example, 'Aztec' was a term used by the historians to describe this tribe; they called themselves, the Mexica (hence, the origin of the word 'Mexico').

It is entirely likely that these 'Aztec' names are simply Spanish inventions which choose to mix roots and stems - just like a modern English speaker might refer to a City of Gods as 'Theopolis'. Then have these invented names change hands a few times between the Aztecs and the Spanish, and you get the 'telephone game' with their names.

The Spainsh conquerors did not condescend to learn the tongues of the "godless heathens" they enslaved. Rather, they taught Spanish and writing to Indians and used them for translation. To the best of my knowledge, none of the Nahuatl names were in any way invented by Spaniards although they did end up incorporating corruptions of Nahuatl words into Spanish. One example would be the native food tamalii, which became, en Espanol, tamale.

The name Aztec alludes to the Mexica's origins. It means "the people from Aztlan" which is the original home of the Mexica. In their long travels to their ultimate destination in Tenochtitlan, the Azteca paused for many years in a city called Coatepec (Snake Hill). It was there that they split apart into two tribes. A splinter group of the Azteca decided to follow the god Huitzilopochtli and left the remainder of the tribe to wander once again. Huitzilopochtili is also known as Mexi and it is thus that his followers became the Mexica. Upon founding their city and establishing their empire the Mexica gave their name to the Valley of Mexico and, ultimately, to the modern nation. When Cortez was making his allies among the enemy of the Mexica, they referred to their hated foes by the name of their origin. Thus the Spanish and all other foreigners returned to the Mexica their original name of Aztec for posterity although the descendants of these proud people still refer to themselves as Mexica.

As for the OP's question, teo (as in Teotihuacan, which the Mexica named long before any European made contact) bears no etymological relationship to dio, deus, or theo.

 

[severin]

Thanks for that.

As for the OP's question, teo (as in Teotihuacan, which the Mexica named long before any European made contact) bears no etymological relationship to dio, deus, or theo

I didn't think there was any link, just that it's curious that theo and teo sound so similar.

 

[Meadmaker]

Thanks, David. Cool stuff.

But, call them Mexica or Aztec, I still don't like them. There's only so much slack I'll cut for people who are different from me, and cutting out hearts is where I draw the line.

 

[David Carroll]

But, call them Mexica or Aztec, I still don't like them. There's only so much slack I'll cut for people who are different from me, and cutting out hearts is where I draw the line.

You might be interested to know that for the natives' part they were horrified by the cruelty of the Spaniards, particularly by their habit of burning those with whom they had dispute alive. That in addition to the conquistadors' pleasure in the raping of Indio women and random acts of cruelty such as torturing, dismembering, and feeding them to their dogs caused the Aztecs and others to regard Spaniards as horrifying barbarians, devils even. I guess one man's barbarity is another man's status quo. At least the Mexica's cruelty was largely ritual. The Spaniards were just sadists.

 

[sackett]

You might be interested to know that for the natives' part they were horrified by the cruelty of the Spaniards, particularly by their habit of burning those with whom they had dispute alive. That in addition to the conquistadors' pleasure in the raping of Indio women and random acts of cruelty such as torturing, dismembering, and feeding them to their dogs caused the Aztecs and others to regard Spaniards as horrifying barbarians, devils even. I guess one man's barbarity is another man's status quo. At least the Mexica's cruelty was largely ritual. The Spaniards were just sadists.

Well. . . The Aztecs also burned some of their human and animal sacrifices. Other New World civilizations also had lurid ways of sending people to the Great Milpa in the Sky. I'm not going into detail on this.

I've always been struck by the similarities between the Spanish and the Aztecs. The Aztecs fed the sun and other gods with victims, assuming that the spirits of the sacrificed dead would in some way partake of the divine. The Spaniards snuffed people to save their souls, following the doctrine of Santification by Blood -- or, if that didn't work, at least executing them would condemn them to Hell, safely out of the Church's hair.

 

[David Carroll]

sackett wrote:

Well. . . The Aztecs also burned some of their human and animal sacrifices. Other New World civilizations also had lurid ways of sending people to the Great Milpa in the Sky. I'm not going into detail on this.

Yes, some suffering was deemed necessary to please some of the gods and once a year in the month of Xocotlhuetzi and once again every 52 years for the New Fire ceremony, victims were thrown onto a pyre in sacrifice to Huehueteotl, the god of fire and the hearth. Some notable differences from the Spanish practices though are that the victims were drugged or anesthetized before immolation and then dragged out and killed in the usual fashion long before succumbing to the flames, thus not suffering to the same extent as the Spaniard's sacrifices. It was the Spaniards' callous indifference to the suffering of their victims along with the frequency of and baffling motive for the events that disgusted the natives.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, yeah, the Spanish Conquistadores weren't exactly the models of human behavior either.

So one side cut out people's hearts. The other side burned them at the stake.

Not much to choose from, there.

 

[severin]

Meanwhile, back at home, the Inquisition was having its own special kind of fun.