Eruditorum Press

Beneath the stones, the beach; beneath the beach, Cthulhu

Skip to content

Elizabeth Sandifer

Elizabeth Sandifer created Eruditorum Press. She’s not really sure why she did that, and she apologizes for the inconvenience. She currently writes Last War in Albion, a history of the magical war between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. She used to write TARDIS Eruditorum, a history of Britain told through the lens of a ropey sci-fi series. She also wrote Neoreaction a Basilisk, writes comics these days, and has ADHD so will probably just randomly write some other shit sooner or later.Support Elizabeth on Patreon.

23 Comments

  1. .
    January 31, 2011 @ 12:44 pm

    Doctor/Barbara shipping? Ewww – the man is a fossil (although for some reason I found his and Cameca's romance kinda cute – research shows that Hill and Hartnell were actually closer in age though).

    Reply

  2. Elizabeth Sandifer
    January 31, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

    The thing is, Hartnell was only 56 when The Aztecs came out. He was the same age that Kevin Costner, Kelsey Grammer, Gary Sinese, Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thorton, and Denzel Washington are today. He was playing the Doctor as a fair bit older than he actually was, aided, admittedly, by ill health at the time.

    Reply

  3. Aaron
    January 31, 2011 @ 5:59 pm

    I find this all much less odd given that the character of The Doctor is at his youngest here. Much more odd is his (the 10th Doctor) much later love affair (if you choose to call it that) with Rose. There is a significantly wider age gap there. Not to mention Madame du Pompadour…

    All of this, I'm sure, will be discussed in due course.

    Reply

  4. Andrew
    January 31, 2011 @ 7:09 pm

    Thank you for your commentary on the problematics of the Doctor's questionably pro-colonial adventure, here. I'm wondering if there's not something that continues in the creepy White Man's Burden vein all throughout the series; as you mentioned previously, the Doctor is unapologetically anthrophilic. The Time Lords are obviously more advanced than humans – which means we are, roughly, the noble savage to him, and the companions are a select few he chooses to save from their ignominious "slow path." To what extent are we meant to engage with the series on the level of Time Lord & Co (or, to put it another way, even though British citizens are put into the role of companion, to what extent are Time Lords stand ins for European colonizers, and humanity problematically positioned within the objectified role of the subaltern)?

    Reply

  5. Elizabeth Sandifer
    February 1, 2011 @ 6:43 am

    @Aaron – Yes, though not for quite a while – The Doctor Dances, basically, being the place where, to my mind, the Doctor's sexuality is finally established.

    Reply

  6. Elizabeth Sandifer
    February 1, 2011 @ 6:52 am

    @Andrew – To an extent. Except that the Doctor effectively renounces Time Lord society in favor of human society – implicitly at first, and eventually explicitly. Which complicates things somewhat. I think you can probably read the Time War in part as a reframing of World War II, with the Time Lords in the place of the declining British empire and the Daleks in their usual position as Nazis. The fact that the Doctor ultimately sells out both species seems to me a rejection of the colonial paradigm as it applies to himself. Indeed, his endorsement of Autloc in this story in many ways mirrors his eventual solitude and permanent estrangement from his own species.

    So yes. I think somewhere along the line, and I'll be keeping a close eye on when, eventually the Doctor's position shifts fully from the colonial position of the Time Lords (which he has already left, clearly in part out of a love for humanity, though he has not yet moved past) to a position of special integration with humanity.

    Reply

  7. Steve H
    May 4, 2011 @ 2:31 pm

    Andrew, you say that "The Time Lords are obviously more advanced than humans – which means we are, roughly, the noble savage to him."

    I think this is to misunderstand the concept of the noble savage. The Doctor may describe humans as his favourite species but there's no suggestion that this stems from a sentimental idealising of our (relative) primitivism compared to the Time Lords.

    Indeed, we often see the Doctor being angered by the more primitive aspects of our behaviour and he's at his most romantic about humanity when hailing our curiosity, our adaptability and our drive to transcend the station which nature has assigned us – things whose absence in Time Lord society frustrates him.

    Reply

  8. SK
    August 21, 2011 @ 1:45 pm

    Is there a serious suggestion here that the desire to end human sacrifice is 'problematic'?

    I mean, the idea that this might change history so that the Spanish don't wipe out the Aztecs is rather reaching, but even if we assume that the Spanish would wipe out an Aztec culture that didn't practice human sacrifice, wouldn't it be worthwhile to make those last few decades human-sacrifice-free ones?

    I mean, obviously you're not saying, 'Human sacrifice is okay because it's part of their culture' because that would be the worst kind of liberal relativism (though that itself is something that Doctor Who is not totally immune from — at least not when we come to the New Adventures).

    Reply

  9. Elizabeth Sandifer
    August 21, 2011 @ 1:59 pm

    I'm not sure the statements "Aztec human sacrifice was wrong" and "enlightened White Europeans should have made them stop" are even remotely equivalent. That is to say, while I am comfortable with the assertion that human sacrifice is fundamentally wrong, I'm less convinced that there is any possible way for an outsider to a culture practicing human sacrifice to externally impose the end of human sacrifice. I think there's a strong case to be made that the end of a practice like human sacrifice has to emerge primarily from the culture itself as opposed to from enlightened outsiders. This isn't so much an ethical issue as a pragmatic one – attempts to forcibly impose culture seem, generally speaking, disastrous.

    So while the ethical intent on Barbara's part is sound, the tactics are not only flawed but demonstrate a fundamental failure to understand the nature of the situation.

    Reply

  10. Elizabeth Sandifer
    August 21, 2011 @ 2:00 pm

    But more broadly, I'm here attacking the show for suggesting that the reason the Aztecs fell to the Spanish was the sin of human sacrifice. Which is an obscene claim.

    Reply

  11. SK
    August 21, 2011 @ 11:30 pm

    Oh, if all you're saying is that Barbara was idealistic and foolish — that she had the right idea, but there was no way she could possibly have implemented it in practice — then that's certainly true.

    Indeed the serial itself points out that her attempts are well-meaning but doomed (it's practically the whole point of the story) so again I'm not quite clear why that's 'problematic'.

    (Though even Barbara doesn't think that ending human sacrifice will necessarily save the Aztecs: she does say that maybe if they don't practice human sacrifice, the Spanish wouldn't wipe them out quite so thoroughly. Which, given that the Spanish pretty much wiped out every culture they touched, can easily be read as another product of her unpractical idealism).

    Reply

  12. Dan
    November 14, 2011 @ 3:09 am

    Interesting discussion. I must admit I didn't think of it as racist while watching recently; though it's probably not going to work to impose an end to the practice externally, does it makes sense for Barbara to have a go, particularly when she's been able to infiltrate their society and appears as an insider? (Also her being a history teacher might explain some of her confidence – knowing there are thirteen Aztec heavens suggests a deep knowledge of Aztec history.) Perhaps in the position she finds herself in she has a moral duty to try and prevent at least the sacrifices in front of her.

    But as soon as you remember the corresponding colonial history, it's easy to find echoes which are problematical. The Spanish ended human sacrifice, but destoyed the whole civilisation. However, maybe a few crack time agents (STS?) could have done some real good for the Aztecs, and then it would be the case that Barbara/Yetaxa had been the bringer of a new moral code.

    So is the Eruditorum's reading dependent more on the historical contexts echoed in the story than the story itself?

    But what I was actually going to comments on, not entirely unlinked, was whether it too easy to say that the Doctor is consistent to make his speeches about non-interference to Barbara because the Doctor is the one who knows what he's doing when influencing events and Barbara doesn't? Even this early it doesn't seem out of bounds. The Doctor has seen something you cannot change or at least not without excessive risk, and demands complete disciplined detachment of his companions in front of the horrors they're forced to witness.

    I have just come across this and finding it very interesting. I would like to buy the printed book when it comes out.

    Reply

  13. Ted Slampyak
    December 28, 2011 @ 1:55 pm

    There's one aspect of The Aztecs that I think you're overlooking, one that makes it almost unique in the entire series. When the Doctor states, "You can't rewrite history! Not one line," he means that literally. You can't. Not that you mustn't, or that you shouldn't, but you simply are unable to. He tells Barbara that since they already know that the Aztecs will be practicing human sacrifice when the Spanish arrive, it's impossible to stop them from doing it now. And he gives her total freedom to try, knowing she will fail. Not must, or should, but simply will.

    This idea of the immutability of history is one that obviously was abandoned in subsequent stories, like the Time Meddler, and wasn't touched upon again, except perhaps in the Jon Pertwee Day of the Daleks, until Steven Moffet's Blink, with the Doctor's confidence that the "timey-wimey" stuff will stay unchanged and ultimately sort itself out.

    Reply

  14. Lawrence Burton
    August 13, 2013 @ 8:17 am

    Sorry, just found this. You seem to concentrate an awful lot upon the characters of the Doctor and companions despite their being medium rather than subject, but anyway, I suppose they're the ones with the logo and the action figures, so I guess that's what matters to people…

    "…set in the 14th century, at least a century before Cortes came along, the shadow of European colonialism and its attendant socio-economic issues hangs explicitly over this story,"

    Well possibly according to the script, but nevertheless wrong. The story cannot have occurred at any time prior to Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin's inauguration in 1502 (for reasons given in a moment). Tenochtitlan was only formally founded in 1325, and wouldn't have had architecture anything like as expansive as that crudely suggested in the show until at least the mid 1400s.

    Oh, they weren't called Aztecs either, but then that's probably a spurious observation given that neither would they have spoken BBC English, and Autloc – a priest who doesn't seem to understand even the basic theological mechanism of sacrifice is essentially the guy who can't speak a word of English becoming editor of the New York Times, but yes, allegory blah blah blah…

    "Gibson took such care to depict the culture accurately…"

    I'd love to know where you came by this claim, because really, I can assure you that he didn't.

    …and finally, Cyril?

    Finally, Esther, Dan wrote that "knowing there are thirteen Aztec heavens suggests a deep knowledge of Aztec history."

    Actually it doesn't. It suggests she's read one fairly basic book as this is hardly obscure information. Furthermore, quite aside from the slightly ludicrous premise of any Mexica falling for the old incarnation routine, particularly given that there were no female priests in Mexica society (at least not of the kind Barbara purports to be). There were nine Mexica heavens (echoing the nine levels of the underworld) up until the theology was revised by Motecuhzoma II at some point between 1502 and 1506, supplementing the heavens with four additional layers in order to correlate with changes to the calendar which were necessary in order to move the 1506 new fire ceremony to 1507 (1506 was anticipated as a famine year, hence unlucky). This is all in Hassigs' Time, History & Belief in Ancient Mexico – Hassig's writing is a mess in many respects (particularly the night God cycle) but he was on the money with this one; also it can be observed by comparing sculptures and carvings from before and after the recalibration. So, to get to the point, had Barbara answered 'thirteen heavens' during the 1400s or earlier, she would have been recognised for what she was, a foreigner pulling a fast one. Interestingly enough, Tlohtoxcatl is immediately suspicious which is why, to my mind, he's the good guy in this story (heh heh), as distinct from Mr. Is-it-a-reincarnated-priestess-even-though-there's-no-such-thing-or-is-it-a-1960s-schoolteacher-perhaps-we-will-never-know – and give the guy his credit, it does rain as he promised at the end of the story.

    Not going to comment on sacrifice, human or otherwise, given that the story itself doesn't really address it except in terms of a poorly quantified moral dilemma for visiting white people.

    One day I may write an essay about this – discussing Lucarotti's Aztecs as a story about Aztecs rather than – you know, the Adventures of the Doctor Who Telly Man.

    Reply

  15. Henry R. Kujawa
    June 4, 2014 @ 3:25 pm

    A fascinating story, particularly the scenes with Hartnell.

    The most frustrating thing for me, as usual, is watching a complicated, twisted plot like this slowly tangle itself up, and not being able to help wondering, if some of the characters might have been able to handle things better. Key among them being Ian, who all too easily just falls into what's pushed on him, and does it with a bit of arrogance. Imagine how things might have gone if, instead, he'd actually made an effort to convince Ixta he was NOT an enemy, NOT a rival, had NO interest in replacing him as head warrior, and in fact wasn't any kind of warrior at all, but merely a visitor, an observer, who would very soon be leaving the same way he came, so why not be friends while he's here, and learn from each other? (Not enough "drama" there, of course.)

    Ixta, of course, is a brutal, violence-prone IDIOT who has no clue he's being used by Ltoxl, for his own gains, and not Ixta's at all. Just another soldier off to war for the sake of politicians who have no interest in veterans benefits afterwards.

    Reply

  16. John Seavey
    November 19, 2014 @ 2:49 pm

    I'll be honest, when I go back and rewatch it I don't see it as a "Laws of Time" speech. I see it as the Doctor quite honestly telling Barbara that a ruler who tries to change deeply ingrained customs of their people, without the force of arms to back it up, is invariably destroyed by the people that supposedly submit to their authority. Barbara-as-Yetaxa is no more likely to be able to end human sacrifice than Akhenaten was to be able to convert Egypt to sun worship, or Mary Queen of Scots was to restore England to Catholicism. The institutions which hold power are often far stronger than the people who supposedly hold supreme authority, and Barbara just doesn't have the ability to put the brakes on a practice that is both deeply-felt and politically expedient.

    In that sense, Barbara is being portrayed as unintentionally racist; she's convinced that she can just fix things by virtue of her superior intellect and knowledge, and instead finds herself outmaneuvered and nearly killed by the politically astute and entirely correctly suspicious Tlotoxl. And as most point out, it's extremely naive of her to believe that her changes would "save" the Aztecs from the Spanish conquistadors anyway. They were in it for loot, plunder and pillage of a wealthy civilization–there's no reason to believe they'd be any nicer if the Aztecs were less-feared warriors.

    Reply

    • Nathan
      September 5, 2020 @ 11:21 pm

      Yeah, the Spanish wanted gold, which the Aztecs had in some quantity. There was no reality in which the Spaniards weren’t going to conquer the Aztecs, and Barbara should have known that.

      Reply

      • Strejda
        June 10, 2021 @ 3:41 am

        While it is true that was the reality, Barbara’s (and the story’s) views are consistent with period’s understanding of history. Aztecs being destroyed by Spaniards and allied South American natives because they were dicks, not because Conquestadors simply wanted their shit, was what was taught and believed, because, well, yeah, racism.

        Reply

  17. John Seavey
    March 3, 2015 @ 7:55 pm

    But "the show" isn't suggesting that. Barbara is. Nobody else even takes up the issue, primarily because they think that it's irrelevant due to the inability to actually achieve her goal. The message here isn't about the Laws of Time, or about colonialism, it's about the way that entrenched power structures inevitably defeat the figureheads who try to change them using the power of the bully pulpit in lieu of force of arms. Which is really fucking bleak when I say it out loud, but it's true. 🙂

    Reply

  18. Matt C
    October 23, 2017 @ 6:11 am

    It took the AV Club review to persuade me, but what makes “The Aztecs” work for me is that, ultimately, Tlotoxl is right: Barbara is a false goddess who is seeking to destroy his culture. This lends the story an ambiguity that, in my opinion, makes it work better in many ways than some of the more straightforward ones. It visibly sides with the Tardis crew, holding Autloc and Cameca in higher esteem because they share the Tardis crews’ values, and it would have been better storytelling to have had someone on the Tardis crew take Tlotoxl’s side, but in many respects, its much more complex than the show usually manages. Not many antagonists get their side presented as having any merit, but “The Aztecs” not only validates Tlotoxl’s view and, by extension, actions, he visibly “wins” at the end of it – the Tardis crew leaves, Autloc is in exile, and he continues in power. This is unfortunately undermined by the dialogue between the Doctor and Barbara at the end, but it’s still a better airing than a Doctor Who antagonist usually gets.

    Reply

  19. RoseT
    May 12, 2019 @ 5:46 pm

    I do think this review really misses the point of the story. It wasn’t pro-colonialist at all. The Aztecs were not shown as savages, but as people who were in many ways good and admirable, but who had some cultural values that are almost incomprehensible to modern sensibilities. The fact that being a victim of sacrifice was considered honourable is not something many modern people can even come close to understanding. And I think Barbara’s naivety in this matter was shown clearly too. She seemed to think that all you had to do was explain our values to the Aztecs, and somehow they would all be perfectly obvious. She wasn’t taking into account all the unconscious presuppositions that lurk behind cultural values and which are not necessarily obvious to the people who hold them. A lot of people wouldn’t have thought of things like that in 1964. And of course, it was naive to think that the only reason the Spanish conquered the Aztecs was human sacrifice.

    Just one more thing: why would Susan have any understanding of money if she is from one of the most advanced civilisations in the universe, where they probably don’t use money?

    Reply

  20. Nathan
    September 5, 2020 @ 11:36 pm

    “…and is furthermore (I believe) the first Doctor Who story set entirely in the New World for over 40 years.”
    The Gunfighters in season 3 is another one.

    “. Set in the 14th century, at least a century before Cortes came along…”

    I don’t know anyone who places this in the 14th century. Both the dialog and historical evidence says that it needs to at least be the 15th. Lawrence Burton above gives his reasoning for why it must actually be set in the 16th century. This is based on our current understanding of when the belief in “13 heavens” arose. I consider that inconclusive evidence, since our understanding of history changes all the time. To me, the more absolute form of dating would be from astronomical evidence, since our understanding of the movement of the Earth, moon, and sun is pretty concrete and can be extended as far as you want into the past and future. The only solar eclipses in the 15th or 16th centuries viewable from Mexico were on June 7th, 1415 and March 16th, 1485. Since the 1415 date is too early for several reasons, it must be the 1485 one, making it the 15th century. Since Ixta is the son of the designer of the temple that just means that Barbara’s estimate of 1430 was probably a little too early for the corpse of Yetaxa.

    I’ve also never understood why everyone seems confused by the Doctor’s statement in this story that you “can’t change history”. If you’re watching it linearly it may make sense, but if you come to it after viewing any story from the 70’s onward it’s clear that he’s actually terrified that Barbara may succeed and doesn’t want to clue in the Time Lords to where he is.

    Reply

  21. Strejda
    June 10, 2021 @ 4:21 am

    Yeah, the 60s pro-coloniaslist politics and view of history prevents me from enjoing the story as much as I woud like. I guess it’s slightly migitated since the story potrays Aztecs as actual people, where what is unthinkable barbarism to us is simply the way of life to them.
    I do have to disagree with you of Ian role here. He’s not just there to stand around and do action bits, he does play into the story as a character. While Doctor acts as an authority, speaking from the abstract „you can’t change the past“ point of view, Ian provides his simple everyman perspective, pointing out the practical problems with Barbara‘s goal, that Autloch is the outlier in this society, while the Tlotoxl is the normal one.
    Also, his on subplot I think is bit more than just obligatory action crap you make it-tho admittedly, even knowing the show would find a way to not need it, I’m pretty tolerant of them having it to give kids some adventure. While yeah, connected to the whole colonialist attitude of the piece, with teacher, even with presumably some years of service, not being the underdog, but the superior one to the professional warrior, I found the dynamic of Ian’s everydude tiredness and Ixta‘s „hey, just because I want to murder you, doesn’t mean we can’t be friends“ quite amusing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Elizabeth SandiferCancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.