Interpreting the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 and leaf 3

Tue Apr 21 14:19:01 UTC 2009

Hey Michael,

I wonder in which group you would situate yourself....

I think it's important to remember that the point of a discussion is not necessarily to reach an agreement. In my view, a discussion is to clarify the different possible positions and possibilities of an argumentation. Through this interchange of opinions we may reach a better understanding of the issue under discussion (or maybe not). But we should be free to disagree and put forth arguments against one's position. One may disagree with the tone or line of argumentation, but the other can always respond. Offner's argumentation may be regarded as harsh or even unfair, but Lee has responded to it. It's up to us and the discussants to use these arguments to reach a better understanding of the discussion and the issues at play. As scholars our instruments are research, discussion and reflection. Based on these instruments Offner has put forth arguments against Lee's and he responded to them, very much like the previous discussion on Ometeotl (although in a different tone). I personally appreciate the efforts of all these people, although I may agree more with one or the other. Rather than classifying people and therewith disqualifying (some of) them, it seems to me it is more worthwhile to look at arguments each time they are put forth by who ever. We may learn something along the way. The Nahuatl list is an important portal for discussion, but if we're to clamp down on a discussion by disqualifying people as 'crackpots' or 'smoke-and-mirror types' we're on a dubious route, cause in the end it will only be a conversation between 'honest types' who agree with each other.

I don't see a problem in fiercely disagreeing with somebody, have a harsh discussion about it, and in the end drink a (virtual) beer together and walk out the door side by side. In fact, I prefer that ten times to a conversation in which all my arguments are "interesting points of view".

Un abrazo,

Michel

> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:55:49 -0400
> From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu
> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Interpreting the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 and leaf 3
> 
> Dear Dr. Lee:
> 
> Thank you for your very informative message. I now get the picture. And 
> I plan to get your book this week.
> 
> These last couple of weeks of nahuat-l has driven home the fact for me 
> that we find here in this on-line discussion group crackpot "scholars" 
> such as the "Ometeotl" guy and the guy he channels, the 
> smoke-and-mirror types (Tezcatlipoca!) who take issue with minor 
> details but avoid the substantive issues, and the honest types, among 
> whom I count you. Best wishes in your future work. I look forward to 
> seeing it.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> Quoting "Lee, Jongsoo" <joslee at unt.edu>:
> 
> > Dear listeros,
> >
> > I am aware that many listeros see this debate as bothersome, but I
> > feel obligated to respond to Offner's message. I apologize for the
> > long message below. I will begin my response with the background
> > behind this debate.
> >
> > Some of you may already know that Offner and I have different points
> > of view regarding Nezahualcoyotl and his Texcoco. Many scholars,
> > including Offner, argue that Texcoco maintained a highly civilized
> > political and legal system quite different from that of Mexico
> > Tenochtitlan. My article published in Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl
> > proposes a different view of Nezahualcoyotl and Texcoco by
> > demonstrating that Nezahualcoyotl's Texcoco was actually very similar
> > to Mexico Tenochtitlan. I divided my article into four sections each
> > of which deals with a different aspect of Nezahualcoyotl's close
> > relationship to the Mexica: politics, conquests, tribute, and finally
> > the legal system. In making this argument, I am essentially
> > disagreeing with scholars such as Offner, and his comments must be
> > understood in the broader context of this dispute.
> >
> > With regard to the substance of Offner's critique, in one of his
> > earlier messages, he says that I erroneously included Xicotepec as
> > one of Nezahuacloytl's conquests, because I blindly followed the
> > interpretation of the editor, Guy Stresser-Pean, and did not consult
> > Lesbre's review. I cited this conquest as part of the evidence that
> > demonstrates that Nezahualcoyotl was not a peaceful king, which is
> > one of the established views that I challenge in my article. I argue
> > that Nezahualcoyotl conducted many conquests both with the Mexica
> > kings as well as by himself. It is true that in this text the
> > identification of the figure in question as Nezahualcoyotl is
> > debatable. But I also present similar evidence from other texts in
> > which the identity of Nezahualcoyotl is not contested. Regardless of
> > whether or not Lesbre is correct about the identity of the individual
> > responsible for the conquest of Xicotepec in this particular source,
> > it does not undermine my larger argument, because there are so many
> > other examples presented in the article to demonstrate Nezahualcoyotl
> > as a great warrior king.
> >
> > Offner also indicates that I miscalculated Nezahualcoyotl's tributary
> > cities in Mapa Quinatzin. My article mentions 13 while Offner refers
> > to 26. But I am not referring to all of the cities listed on the map
> > but rather only those that appear in the Texcocan courtyard. Even
> > there, I did miscalculate: there are 14 rather than 13. This was an
> > honest mistake that I corrected in my book, The Allure of
> > Nezahualcoyotl (University of New Mexico Press, 2008, p.115). My
> > discussion focuses on the major tributary cities described inside the
> > Texcocan courtyard, not including those cities depicted outside the
> > courtyard. Again, I would point to the third section of my article in
> > which I mention those cities in order to examine Nezahualcoyotl's
> > tribute system. Alva Ixtlilxochitl and some modern scholars after him
> > believe that Texcoco maintained the best ruling system, which
> > included tribute collection, and that Tenochtitlan emulated it. I
> > argue to the contrary that Texcoco during Nezahualcoyotl's reign
> > (having been crowned, by the way, by his Mexica uncle) did not have
> > as many tributaries as Tenochtitlan. Thus, the Texcocan tribute
> > system that Ixtlixlochitl eulogizes didn't have much impact on that
> > of Tenochtitlan but rather depended on its larger tributary system.
> > To support my argument, I demonstrate that most of the major Texcocan
> > tributary cities depicted inside the courtyard also paid tribute to
> > Tenochtitlan. In this context, I didn't need to focus on the
> > secondary Texcocan tributaries depicted outside the courtyard. This
> > is certainly something that can be disputed. I think the evidence
> > supports my interpretation more than the traditional one to which
> > Offner ascribes.
> >
> > Again, I would urge anyone interested to read my article together
> > with Offner's critique.
> >
> > I would also refer back to the beginning of this debate. Some
> > listeros initiated a discussion about how scholars in the
> > English-speaking world need to pay more attention to the works of
> > scholars from other countries who may publish in other languages. In
> > this context, Offner began to mention some works including mine as
> > lacking in scholarship, because I didn't cite the French scholar
> > Lesbre's works. I would just point out that Lesbre didn't cite major
> > works in English about Texcoco in his works either. For example,
> > Offner's major work, Law and Politics in Aztec Texcoco, and others
> > were not even mentioned there. Offner does not seem to consider
> > Lesbre's works useless due to the lack of English references as he
> > does research that fails to cite French references. I'm not sure what
> > the difference is here, except that he agrees with Lesbre, and he
> > disagrees with me. This is not meant as a critique of Lesbre's work,
> > but rather merely to point out the personal nature of Offner's
> > critique, which focuses primarily on debatable points of
> > interpretation without addressing my larger arguments.
> >
> > Let me say that I welcome critique and scholarly dialogue, and I am
> > always happy to reassess my views. I suspect that Offner's problem
> > with my work has more to do with the fact that I disagree with him
> > than it does with real substantive issues. Offner is attempting to
> > dismiss my work by emphasizing a relatively minor issue and by
> > claiming that I am creating my own facts. You will notice that at no
> > point has he addressed the substance of my actual argument. His most
> > general and sweeping criticism is that my article cannot be relied
> > upon for an accurate description of the "scale and structure of the
> > Texcocan political entity." The implication of this statement is that
> > my article sets out to describe the "scale and structure of the
> > Texcocan political entity," but this is not the case. That was not
> > the purpose nor the focus of my article. My article is not about the
> > scale and structure of the Texcocan political entity but rather about
> > its qualitative nature. And nothing he has said refutes this argument.
> >
> > Finally, Offner claims that I do not understand the relationship
> > between Mapa Quinatzin and alphabetic sources. Actually, the
> > relationship between pictographic sources and alphabetic texts from
> > the colonial period is part of the problem. The colonial sources are
> > not always faithful to the original texts; they exhibit a European
> > and Christian influence derived from the colonial context. As in
> > other areas, the Spaniards were looking for some kind of precursor to
> > Christianity, some link between the indigenous tradition and their
> > own. They fabricated this link in Nezahualcoyotl, and the Texcocans
> > were more than happy to facilitate a misinterpretation of the
> > historical record in order to gain the prestige associated with a
> > Mesoamerican precursor to Christianity. Most modern scholars have
> > perpetuated this misinterpretation by doing precisely that of which
> > Offner is accusing me: they do not understand the relationship
> > between the original pictographic source and the colonial texts that
> > misinterpret them. Here again, this is a debatable point of
> > interpretation, but to refute it you have to engage with the
> > substance of my argument rather than a few of the isolated details.
> >
> > Offner promised that he would send another message regarding Mapa
> > Quinatzin, leaf 3. If the previous message is any indication, he will
> > emphasize some part of my interpretation without addressing the
> > larger argument. In the section of my article dealing with this
> > source, I argue that it actually reveals that Nezahualcoyotl was not
> > an enlightened legislator and that his legal practices were very
> > similar to those of Tenochtitlan. Here again, this goes directly
> > against arguments that Offner has put forward in his own work. Of
> > course, some of the details of the interpretation of the texts upon
> > which my argument is based are debatable. Again, I would urge
> > listeros interested in the topic to read all the relevant research,
> > including Offner's very valuable work, and make their own judgments
> > based on all of the evidence and whose interpretation they find more
> > compelling.
> >
> > I don't plan on responding to Offner's next message. I doubt there is
> > much else that I could add other than what I have written here. Any
> > listeros who are no automatically deleting these messages, should
> > read Offners next critique it in light of my explanation.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jongsoo
> >
> >
> > From: nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org
> > [mailto:nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Offner
> > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:46 PM
> > To: Nahuat-L
> > Subject: [Nahuat-l] Interpreting the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 and leaf 3
> >
> > Recently, I said I would point out basic and serious errors in just
> > two paragraphs of Jongsoo Lee's recent article in Estudios de Cultura
> > Nahuatl.
> >
> > Note: Here is one of several links to an on-line image of the Mappe
> > Quinatzin, leaf 2, discussed below-
> >
> > http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/uploadimages/ans_24_03_2.jpg
> >
> >
> > Here are errors in the paragraph on page 243 reporting on the content
> > of the Mappe Quinatzin.
> >
> > 1. Lee states: "According to the Mapa Quinatzin, there are thirteen
> > cities assigned to maintain the Texcocan court, which suggests that
> > they were under the control of Nezahualcoyotl." Everyone else who
> > has examined this document, including the antiquated source that Lee
> > cites (1886:354-355) and other sources he cites (Carrasco 1999 and
> > Offner 1983) analyze the document correctly to show that it deals
> > with 26 cities involved with tribute and service obligations to
> > Texcoco. See also Lesbre in the latest ECN. Many writers, beginning
> > with the 1886 article, have in fact used this document to attempt to
> > reconcile the various reports of the! tribute and service system of
> > Texcoco that involved more than 26 towns.
> >
> > 2. Lee tells us: "Below Nezahualcoyotl and Nezahualpilli on leaf 2
> > appear the rulers of thirteen cities that Nezahualcoyotl
> > established." Everyone else who has examined this document,
> > including the antiquated source that Lee cites and other sources he
> > cites (Carrasco 1999 and Offner 1983) report fourteen rulers. Lee
> > omits the ruler of Teotihuacan even though his 1886 source (358-59)
> > carefully lists and comments on each ruler, including the ruler of
> > Teotihuacan.
> >
> > To a Texcocan specialist, these errors in interpreting leaf 2 are as
> > evident and important as someone writing about "the eleven apostles"
> > and betray a substandard investigation of this document and its
> > relationship to the alphabetic sources--which relationship was
> > expertly discussed as early as 1956 by Charles Gibson and repeatedly
> > by others, including sources Lee cites, prior to and after 2001.
> > Lee's investigation, understanding and reporting of the scale and
> > structure of the Texcocan political entity is deficient. We
> > therefore cannot rely on Lee's description of the content of the
> > Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 or its relationship to the alphabetic sources
> > or on Lee's reporting on more than a century of later, better
> > investigations.
> >
> > Lee is not entitled to his own set of "facts." He has set the clock
> > back on interpretation of this document more than a century and
> > presents a diminished and misshapen portrait of Texcocan political
> > structure.
> >
> > Errors in the other paragraph, which concern Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 3
> > will be pointed out in a subsequent post.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jerry Offner
> > ixtlil at earthlink.net<mailto:ixtlil at earthlink.net>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nahuatl mailing list
> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl

_________________________________________________________________
See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20090421/0a319d5d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl