Home Arts NOTES
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

NOTES

View more publications by University of Texas Press
To Publisher Page
On the Lips of Others
This chapter is in the book On the Lips of Others
147NOTES Preface1. Charles Gibson, “Structure of the Aztec Empire,” 376.2. Michael Smith and Frances Berdan, “Introduction,” 6.3. Hernán Cortés, Letters from Mexico, 47. Cortés also spells the name “Mutezuma.” Other sixteenth-centur y permu-tations of the spelling include Motezuma, Moteçuma, Mutizoma, Moteuhçoma, Moteuczoma, Motecçuma, Mo-tecuma, Moctezuma, Monteçuma, Motençuma, Monte-zuma, Muntesçuma, Motecuçoma, Motecuzuma, Motecuh-zoma, Motecuhçoma, Motecucoma, Moctheuzoma, and Moteuhcçcoma.4. “Motecuhzoma” follows sixteenth-centur y conven-tions, especially in the work of Bernardino de Sahagún and Diego Durán. Introduction1. The terms “hieroglyph” and “pictograph” are used somewhat interchangeably in modern scholarship, as are the terms “name sign” and “name glyph” (though the latter is used more often to refer to sculptural inscriptions). Both “hieroglyph” and “pictograph” fall within the broad cate-gor y called signs, though “hieroglyph” applies to images that have multivalent significations whereas “pictograph” refers to images with narrower, more literal signification. Elizabeth Hill Boone (Stories in Red and Black: Pictorial Histories of the A ztecs and Mixtecs, 28–35) explains that Aztec pictography is semasiographic, referring to signs that are not phonet-ically bound to a particular language but “communicate information directly to the reader within the structure of their own system [of language]” (30). This definition re-solves some of the historical usage of “hieroglyph,” though with some discontent when considering Mesoamerican literacy and esoteric knowledge. For an analysis of West-ern discourse on the term “hieroglyph” and how it inter-sects with Mesoamerican images and writing, see Byron Hamann, “How Maya Hieroglyphs Got Their Name: Eg ypt, Mexico, and China in Western Grammatolog y since the Fif-teenth Centur y.” I work from the assumption that personal names were articulated across languages (e.g., ‘Angr y Lord’ is used only as a translation, while ‘Moteuczoma’ is the personal name) and maintain that the term “name glyph” reaches further into the nuances of Aztec pictography that are revealed by this particular king’s name and its represen-tation. Indeed, I argue that Moteuczoma’s name glyph is not only phonetic when communicating his personal name but also semasiographic when emblematizing his particu-lar brand of rulership.2. Emily Umberger, “Aztec Sculptures, Hieroglyphs, and Histor y,” 69 –71. See also Umberger’s article “A Reconsider-ation of Some Hieroglyphs on the Mexica Calendar Stone,” 350–352.3. The following assessment of Aztec sculptural st yle draws primarily from H. B. Nicholson, “Major Sculpture in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico”; and Emily Umberger, “Histo-ria del arte e Imperio Azteca: La evidencia de las esculturas.” For the relationships bet ween st yle and ideolog y across media associated with imperial expansion, see Emily Um-berger and Cecelia F. Klein, “Aztec Art and Imperial Expan-sion”; and Emily Umberger, “Art and Imperial Strateg y in Tenochtitlan.” For the st ylistic relationships bet ween relief car ving and manuscript painting, see Donald Robertson, Mexican Manuscript Painting of the Early Colonial Period: The Metro-politan Schools, 10–11; Nicholson, “Major Sculpture,” 119 –120; and Elizabeth Hill Boone, “Towards a More Precise Defini-
© 2021 University of Texas Press

147NOTES Preface1. Charles Gibson, “Structure of the Aztec Empire,” 376.2. Michael Smith and Frances Berdan, “Introduction,” 6.3. Hernán Cortés, Letters from Mexico, 47. Cortés also spells the name “Mutezuma.” Other sixteenth-centur y permu-tations of the spelling include Motezuma, Moteçuma, Mutizoma, Moteuhçoma, Moteuczoma, Motecçuma, Mo-tecuma, Moctezuma, Monteçuma, Motençuma, Monte-zuma, Muntesçuma, Motecuçoma, Motecuzuma, Motecuh-zoma, Motecuhçoma, Motecucoma, Moctheuzoma, and Moteuhcçcoma.4. “Motecuhzoma” follows sixteenth-centur y conven-tions, especially in the work of Bernardino de Sahagún and Diego Durán. Introduction1. The terms “hieroglyph” and “pictograph” are used somewhat interchangeably in modern scholarship, as are the terms “name sign” and “name glyph” (though the latter is used more often to refer to sculptural inscriptions). Both “hieroglyph” and “pictograph” fall within the broad cate-gor y called signs, though “hieroglyph” applies to images that have multivalent significations whereas “pictograph” refers to images with narrower, more literal signification. Elizabeth Hill Boone (Stories in Red and Black: Pictorial Histories of the A ztecs and Mixtecs, 28–35) explains that Aztec pictography is semasiographic, referring to signs that are not phonet-ically bound to a particular language but “communicate information directly to the reader within the structure of their own system [of language]” (30). This definition re-solves some of the historical usage of “hieroglyph,” though with some discontent when considering Mesoamerican literacy and esoteric knowledge. For an analysis of West-ern discourse on the term “hieroglyph” and how it inter-sects with Mesoamerican images and writing, see Byron Hamann, “How Maya Hieroglyphs Got Their Name: Eg ypt, Mexico, and China in Western Grammatolog y since the Fif-teenth Centur y.” I work from the assumption that personal names were articulated across languages (e.g., ‘Angr y Lord’ is used only as a translation, while ‘Moteuczoma’ is the personal name) and maintain that the term “name glyph” reaches further into the nuances of Aztec pictography that are revealed by this particular king’s name and its represen-tation. Indeed, I argue that Moteuczoma’s name glyph is not only phonetic when communicating his personal name but also semasiographic when emblematizing his particu-lar brand of rulership.2. Emily Umberger, “Aztec Sculptures, Hieroglyphs, and Histor y,” 69 –71. See also Umberger’s article “A Reconsider-ation of Some Hieroglyphs on the Mexica Calendar Stone,” 350–352.3. The following assessment of Aztec sculptural st yle draws primarily from H. B. Nicholson, “Major Sculpture in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico”; and Emily Umberger, “Histo-ria del arte e Imperio Azteca: La evidencia de las esculturas.” For the relationships bet ween st yle and ideolog y across media associated with imperial expansion, see Emily Um-berger and Cecelia F. Klein, “Aztec Art and Imperial Expan-sion”; and Emily Umberger, “Art and Imperial Strateg y in Tenochtitlan.” For the st ylistic relationships bet ween relief car ving and manuscript painting, see Donald Robertson, Mexican Manuscript Painting of the Early Colonial Period: The Metro-politan Schools, 10–11; Nicholson, “Major Sculpture,” 119 –120; and Elizabeth Hill Boone, “Towards a More Precise Defini-
© 2021 University of Texas Press

Chapters in this book

  1. Frontmatter i
  2. Contents v
  3. Illustrations vii
  4. Preface ix
  5. Acknowledgments xi
  6. Introduction 1
  7. The Two Moteuczomas 12
  8. Fame and Transformation 26
  9. The Royal Icon 38
  10. Resonances of the Speech Glyph 58
  11. Visibility and Invisibility of the Name Glyph 79
  12. Absence and Presence of Body 101
  13. The Chapultepec Portrait 118
  14. Colonial Reflections on Aztec Portraiture 133
  15. Conclusion 143
  16. NOTES 147
  17. BIBLIOGRAPHY 169
  18. INDEX 183
Readers are also interested in:
https://doi.org/10.7560/766686-014

Chapters in this book

  1. Frontmatter i
  2. Contents v
  3. Illustrations vii
  4. Preface ix
  5. Acknowledgments xi
  6. Introduction 1
  7. The Two Moteuczomas 12
  8. Fame and Transformation 26
  9. The Royal Icon 38
  10. Resonances of the Speech Glyph 58
  11. Visibility and Invisibility of the Name Glyph 79
  12. Absence and Presence of Body 101
  13. The Chapultepec Portrait 118
  14. Colonial Reflections on Aztec Portraiture 133
  15. Conclusion 143
  16. NOTES 147
  17. BIBLIOGRAPHY 169
  18. INDEX 183
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 24.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.7560/766686-014/html?licenseType=restricted&srsltid=AfmBOorBrqBgfBvphljA1y0WPkEYujtFx2HYDmrNjMP-To2LpNdTSq7j
Scroll to top button