Talk:Florentine Codex

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica articles

Books C‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Mexico

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

	Indigenous peoples of the Americas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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]