From magnuspharao at gmail.com Wed Feb 4 02:27:18 2009 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (magnus hansen) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 20:27:18 -0600 Subject: Miguel Barrios Espinoza Message-ID: Hello Listeros I am currently working on a project describing the history of Hueyapan, Morelos (and the rest of the municipium of Tetela del Volcán) in the twentieth century. I really want to include a section on Miguel Barrios Espinoza native linguist and teacher of Hueyapan. Particularly I am interested in any information about his connection to Kenneth Croft, who according to Friedlanders book about Hueyapan trained him in linguistics and used him as a consultant in his study of Matlapa Nahuatl. I would like to know more about this and if it is possible include some kind of concrete evidence of the connection between the two - preferably references to documents or published sources. Any help you might be able to give me will be greatly appreciated - and may help preserve the memory of a nearly forgotten native linguist who did a lot to document the indigenous tongue of his native community. *Hola Listeros. Estoy trabajando en un proyecto de documentacion de la historia del municipio de Tetela del Volcán, Morelos. Quisiera incluir en ello una sección sobre el maestro y lingüísta nativo de Hueyapan, Miguel Barrios Espinoza. Sobre todo me interesa su posible connección con el lingüista norteamericano, Kenneth Croft. Segun el libro de Friedlander sobre el pueblo de Hueyapan Croft entrenó a Barrios como lingüísta y le utilizó como consultante o interprete en su estudio del náhuatl de Matlapa. Cualquier información o documentación que me podrían proporcionar sobre Miguel Barrios Espinoza o Kenneth Croft será muy apreciado. Asi tambien podrán ayudar a conservar la memoría de un lingüísta dedicado que hizo mucho para conservar su idioma indigena* Magnus Pharao Hansen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Sat Feb 7 02:17:57 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 20:17:57 -0600 Subject: 2009 Summer Intensive Course in Older and Modern Nahuatl Message-ID: Dear Listeros, I have a few announcements. 1. We will no longer be using the web address "www.idiez.org.mx". Both "Macehualli Educational Research", our US non-profit corporation, and "Instituto de Docencia e Investigación Etnológica de Zacatecas", our Mexican non-profit corporation, will now be accessible at www.macehualli.org . 2. Yale Summer Programs has approved our 2009 Summer Intensive Course in Older and Modern Nahuatl. It will be up on their website, http://www.yale.edu/summer/ , next week. Meanwhile, I am copying the official announcement below. A pdf. may also be downloaded now at www.macehualli.org. FLAS funding is available, and please note that the Yale Center for Latin American and Iberian Studies and its parters will make every effort to ensure that financial constraints are not an obstacle to participation. 3. Lastly, beginning Fall 2009 we will offer academic year distance courses Nahuatl taught live by native speakers. John John Sullivan, Ph.D. Professor of Nahua language and culture Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology Tacuba 152, int. 47 Centro Histórico Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 Mexico Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 idiez at me.com www.macehualli.org 2009 SUMMER INTENSIVE COURSE IN OLDER AND MODERN NAHUATL Zacatecas and Tepecxitla, June 22 - July 31 Yale’s Council on Latin American and Iberian Studies (CLAIS), in collaboration with the Institute of Latin American American Studies at Columbia, the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at New York University, and the Instituto de Docencia e Investigación Etnológica de Zacatecas will offer an intensive course in Older and Modern Nahuatl at the beginning, intermediate and advanced levels. The course is offered through Yale Summer Sessions as NHTL 125 (See http://www.yale.edu/summer/) The course seeks to: 1. develop students' oral comprehension, speaking, reading, writing and knowledge of language structure, as well as their cultural wisdom and sensibility, in order to facilitate their ability to communicate effectively, correctly and creatively in everyday situations; 2. provide students with instruments and experiences that demonstrate the continuity between past and present Nahua culture, through the study of colonial and modern texts, conversation with native speakers, and an optional residency in a Nahua community; 3. penetrate into the historical, economic, political, social and cultural aspects of Nahua civilization; 4. prepare students to take university level humanities courses taught in Nahuatl alongside native speakers. Beginning students will have class five hours per day, Monday through Friday: two hours of Modern Nahuatl immersion and introductory grammar with native speaking instructors; two hours of Older Nahuatl taught by John Sullivan; and an additional hour of individual work on a research project of the student’s choice with a native speaking tutor. Intermediate students will study specific topics drawn from Older and Modern sources, using Nahuatl as the sole language of class discussion, and continue to work with individual tutors. Advanced students will design and implement a research project in collaboration with the native speaking tutors, and will write a short paper in Modern Nahuatl. Six weeks of class will be held in Zacatecas from June 22 to July 31, 2009. Full class attendance is required. Students who are absent for reasons other than illness will be asked to withdraw from the Institute. Students may elect to spend an optional seventh week in the village of Tepecxitla, Veracruz where they will reside with an indigenous family and participate in the Chicomexochitl ceremony. A decision regarding the viability of this homestay option will be made two months prior to the beginning of the program after the pertinent regional security issues have been evaluated. This visit, however, will not be under CLAIS auspices, and those students who wish to participate must cover the additional costs (see below). Tentative course costs 1. Tuition for three credits, $4,000 2. Room for six weeks in Zacatecas (one or two adults per room): a) studio with private bath and kitchenette, $600; b) studio with private bath and shared kitchen, $525; c) studio with shared bath and kitchen, $450. 3. Food for six weeks in Zacatecas: between $400 (preparing your own food) and $600 (eating out). Tuition is payable to Yale; all other costs including travel between the United States and Mexico are paid by the student directly to the provider). 5. (Optional) Students who travel to the village of Tepecxitla at the end of the course will pay $550 for transportation, room and board, and financing of the Chicomexochitl ceremony. Course materials: All students must have personal copies of the following texts: · Karttunen, Francis. 1983. An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Texas Linguistics Series. Austin: University of Texas Press. $26.95 @ amazon.com · Lockhart, James. 2001. Nahuatl as Written. Lessons in Older Written Nahuatl, with Copious Examples and Texts. Stanford: Stanford University Press. $25.43 @ amazon.com · Molina, Alonso de. 1977(1555-1571). Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Colección “Biblioteca Porrúa” 44. México: Porrúa. $25 (The work is out of print, so a bound photocopy can be purchased at the Institute). · Two weeks before class begins students will be sent, free of charge, electronic copies of the exercise manuals, grammar charts, vocabulary lists and manuscripts which will be studied. Funding availability: CLAIS and its partners make every effort to ensure that financial constraints are not an obstacle for participating in the Summer Nahuatl Language program. Financial aid is available to graduate students in the form of FLAS fellowships through your own institution or CLAIS at Yale. Undergraduates may be eligible for partial scholarships. Once paid, tuition is non-refundable. For more information , contact Jean Silk at jean.silk at yale.edu or by phone at 203/432-3420 or John Sullivan at idiez at me.com or by phone at +52 (492) 925-3415. To Register for the course, go to Yale Summer Sessions online at http://www.yale.edu/summer/ . Please also contact Jean Silk, Assistant Chair, Council on Latin American and Iberian Studies, Yale University, PO Box 208206, New Haven, CT 06520-8206 to inform CLAIS that you are planning to enroll in the course. We anticipate offering Nahuatl language courses during the academic year through distance learning. Interested students should contact Thomas Trebat (tt2166 at columbia.edu) or Jean Silk (jean.silk at yale.edu) for further information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From anne.cantu at tufts.edu Wed Feb 11 03:41:17 2009 From: anne.cantu at tufts.edu (Anne Lombardi Cantu) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:41:17 -0500 Subject: un curso de verano en nahuatl Message-ID: Estimados colegas: EL COLEGIO DE JALISCO ofrecerá un curso de lengua y cultura del náhuatl durante cuatro semanas, del 25 de mayo al 19 de junio de 2009, en sus instalaciones en Zapopan (Guadalajara), México. El Colegio, con 25 años de labores académícas, es una institución de estudios a nivel de posgrado, que se dedica a la investigación, docencia y difusión de la cultura del Occidente de México. Las clases, con un cupo máximo de 15 participantes, se impartirán en español, de lunes a jueves, entre 10 y 12 AM (estudio de la lengua) y entre 4 y 6 PM (estudio de la historia/cultura). Además, como parte del curso, El Colegio organizará una excursión a Huachimontones, un sitio arqueológico en el estado de Jalisco. En su función de difundir la cultura, El Colegio ofrece esta excelente oportunidad sin costo alguno. Los únicos gastos serán personales: transporte, hospedaje y alimentos. Para los que desean una mayor convivencia con la gente de la ciudad, hay la posibilidad de quedarse en casas particulares que alquilan habitaciones, o bien hay hoteles de precio módico. Para informes, favor de comunicarse con: anne.cantu at tufts.edu. Con mucho gusto, les informaré de los pormenores del curso y del alojamiento. Anne Lombardi Cantu, Ph.D. Dept. of Romance Languages/Spanish Tufts University Medford, MA 02155 617-627-5545 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Fri Feb 20 13:37:27 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:37:27 -0500 Subject: Endangered Languages Message-ID: UNESCO has published, online, their guide to endangered languages around the world. The interactive site allows you to look at individual countries and regions, with many other variables. A quick look at Mexico is very depressing. Listed as critically endangered is Tabasco Nahuatl, among others. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00139 > > > UNESCO's /Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger/ is intended to > raise awareness about language endangerment and the need to safeguard > the world's linguistic diversity among policy-makers, speaker > communities and the general public, and to be a tool to monitor the > status of endangered languages and the trends in linguistic diversity > at the global level. > > The latest edition of the Atlas (2009) lists about 2,500 languages > (among which 230 languages extinct since 1950), approaching the > generally-accepted estimate of some 3,000 endangered languages > worldwide. For each language, the Atlas provides its name, degree of > endangerment (see below) and the country or countries where it is spoken. > > The *online edition > * provides > additional information on numbers of speakers, relevant policies and > projects, sources, ISO codes and geographic coordinates. This free > Internet-based version of the Atlas for the first time permits wide > accessibility and allows for interactivity and timely updating of > information, based on feedback provided by users. > -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Fri Feb 20 20:22:27 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:22:27 -0500 Subject: Cross-post from Aztlan Message-ID: On our sister list Aztlan at lists.famsi.org there was a discussion about sacrifice under the Aztecs. This prompted a discussion of the various names applied to the Aztecs. Gordon Whitaker provided a good summary of the terminology, which I corss-post here to Nahuatl > From: Gordon Whittaker [gwhitta at gwdg.de] > Sent: 18 February 2009 21:17 > To: Dodds Pennock, Dr C.E. > Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org > Subject: Re: los 500 sacrificados: Aztec terminology > > Dear Caroline, dear colleagues, > > Since you take issue with certain much-used terminology with regard to > Aztec culture, I think it might be useful to discuss this more fully. > > First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first popularized by > Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to > refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, one that they > shared with several related Nahua groups, just as the Aztec Empire itself > was also shared (co-ruled, at least in name) by several of these groups, > notably the Tepaneca and Acolhuaque. I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is > recorded in Nahuatl using the term. Of course, the term 'Mexica' is > appropriate in describing both the Tenochca in a narrow sense and, more > literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico Tlatelolco, > and indeed in describing the empire they founded. After the conquest of > Tlatelolco by Axayacatl, the term is often applied as if interchangeable > with Tenochca (rather like U.S. Americans referring to themselves as > 'Americans' to the ire of all more southerly inhabitants of the > Americas!). But Aztec is fine in modern usage -- and the Aztecs would have > been very happy with it. To them the term was a distinguished one, like > 'Tolteca' and another one mentioned below. > > By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this inaccurate form > occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be 'Tenochca'. > The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name > 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have designated > the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan > chaneque' (or 'tlaca' are the only possibilities for naming the population > of the capital (excluding Tlatelolco). > > Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured > by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not Nahuatl, > contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is > singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they > would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their dynasty's > descent from the line of Colhuacan. > > Please forgive my taking you to task on these points. Unfortunately, > things have a way of perpetuating themselves as they get passed on in the > scholarly and popular literature. Thus, frequent references to an emperor > 'Ahuizotl' (for 'Ahuitzotl'), to 'Moctezuma' or, worse, especially common > in British usage, 'Montezuma' (for 'Motecuhzoma' or 'Moteuczoma', > depending on your transcriptional preferences), etc. are rather like > referring to a certain Roman as 'Ceasar' (which one indeed sees these > days!) and to the Roman capital of Britain as 'Londonium'. Trivial to > some, but hardly accurate in scholarly usage. Since Nahuatl is still > rarely learned by historians working on the Aztec period (Hugh Thomas is a > particularly painful example in this context) -- something unthinkable in > e.g. Roman or Chinese studies --, this sort of thing happens easily. > > Please do not interpret these comments as an attack, but rather as an > attempt to straighten the record on some high-profile terminology! > > Best wishes, > Gordon > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gordon Whittaker > Professor > Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik > Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie > Universitaet Goettingen > Humboldtallee 19 > 37073 Goettingen > Germany > tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 > tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Fri Feb 20 20:37:01 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:37:01 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: [Aztlan] Aztec terminology] Message-ID: Another cross-post from Aztlan -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Michael Smith" Subject: [Aztlan] Aztec terminology Date: 20 Feb 2009 11:15:07 -0700 Size: 5906 URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Sun Feb 22 18:27:03 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:27:03 -0500 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) Message-ID: From: "romgil06" Date: Sun, February 22, 2009 Gordon Whittaker escribió: First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first popularized by Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, Perdon pero con todo respeto esto no es cierto. El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo Cristobal del Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos. donde expone su particular versión de la historia del pueblo de desarrapados que ni nombre tenían y que el mismo explica porque llegaron a llamarse mexicas o mexicanos. En la versión de Del Castillo Los aztecas son un pueblo DISTINTO de los mexicas,esto es de los que vivieron y fundadron Tenochtitlan , en Del Castillo los "aztecas" aparecen como los amos de los mexicas o los atlachichimecas de la ribera del lago, los aztecas son los que los explotaban. La versión de Cristobal del Castillo fue recogida por Chimalpain y reproducida en su Memorial Breve de Culhuacan, sin dar crédito a la obra de Del Castillo . Después Chimalpain o Tezozomoc la usan en la crónica Mexicayotl, en una variante de la historia de Del Castillo. Ahí en la Mexicayotl uno de los hijos, el menor del rey de los aztecas es quien saca a sus subditos de aztlan chicomoztoc Con todo respeto es un punto de vista muy cuestionable y no se puede citar un solo documento fuente que señale que: "However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry" Tampoco puedes citar una obra fuente donde ocurra que: I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is recorded in Nahuatl using the term. Dice Gordon Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not Nahuatl, contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their dynasty's descent from the line of Colhuacan. En que contexto nahuatl ha encontrado Gordon el uso del termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan. Adelanto que no puede citar uno solo, porque no existe. Todos los documentos que se pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl español. Efectivamente Robert Barlow fue uno de los pioneros en señalar el error del equivocado uso del termino azteca y como parte de esa labor redacto "la extensión del imperio de los colua mexica" publicado por el INAH y la UDLA, Obras de Robert Barlow vol 4, publico tambien los artículos "La formación del imperio de los colhua mexica", "Algunas consideraciones sobre el término imperio azteca"y "El concepto populart de los "aztecas" todos en obras de Robert Barlow vol 3 INAH UDLA . Hay otro buen artículo sobre el mismo tema de Don Miguel Leon Portilla León-Portilla, Miguel, "Los aztecas. Disquisiciones sobre un gentilicio", Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl, v. 31, 2000, p. 275-281 Obras recientes en la misma óptica vease: Mexicaltzingo Arqueología de un reino culhua mexica de Raul Avila INAH y Culhua Mexico una revisión arqueo etnohistórica del imperio de los mexica tenochca Fernando Robles INAH Señala Gordon: Of course, the term 'Mexica' is appropriate in describing both the Tenochca in a narrow sense and, more literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico Tlatelolco, and indeed in describing the empire they founded. Esto es un gran y profundo error de Gordon es borrar las importantes diferencias históricas, etnicas y religiosas que existian entre ambos naciones indias. Unos eran los tlatelolcas los adoradores del dios Yiacatecutli y con su propioi panteon divino, su nobleza y sus especialidades productigvas y guerreras, los cuales fueron forzados a adorar a Huitzilopochtli tras su derrota y otro pueblo eran los adoradores del Tetzahuitl, del hijo de Tlaloc o del pariente de Opochtli como a si mismo se identifica Huitzilopochtli ( códice Aubin , Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas) Una simple visita al templo mayor de Tlatelolco y observar de la segunda a la quinta etapa permite ver que entre Tlatelolcas y Colhuas Mexicas hasta arquitectónicamente los templos mayores eran distintos y solo se hicieron iguales despues de la conquista mexica. En los tlatelolcas no hay doble templo en la cima del "cu" mayor ni restos de la doble escalinata y ni de la alfarda central en las etapas citadas Hacer un solo paquete de distintos pueblos es borrar la historia, es como decir que son lo mismo los irlandeses, los del país de gales, los escocesea, los bretones y los sajones, y sólo porque desde tal siglo todos son ciudadanos o vasallos del Reino Unido, cuando esa unidad es un un resultado de un proceso histórico de la fundación del estado nación, que cmo el problema irlandes nos lo recuerda no ha logrado resolver las diferencias. SEria el mismo error que decir que todos los pueblos de España son Españoles borrando la diferencias de todo tipo ( linguisticas, culturales, antropomorficas, históricas, religiosas) que existen entre los castellanos con los habitantes de las canarias, los de cataluña, el pais vasco, los galllegos, etc . Lo mismo vimos en el caso de la antigua URSS o de la extinta Yugoeslavia. Hacer un sólo paquete bnorrar las diferencias curiosamente fue el punto de vista base de la politica sobre las nacionalidades de Stalin Dice Gordon 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not Nahuatl, contexts Realmente lo que nunca se encontra es un documento "nahuatl" con el término azteca para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan , repito lease las glosas de los codices. Telleriano, vaticano rios, magliabechi, borbónico, florentino vease la crónica mexicayotl, la mexicana, las relaciones de Chimalpain , la obra de Cristobal del castillo, la leyenda de los soles, los anales de Cuauhtitlan, los anales de Tlatelolco y otros códices coloniales mas , vease las crónicas de Duran , Sahagún, Mendieta, Motolinia, los escritos de Olmos, la historia Tolteca Chichimeca, Códice Aubin y en todos , pero todos nunca parecera el termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan y menos aún para referirse a quienes detentaban el poder político y religioso en ese imperio y menos aún mçpara nombrar de esa forma a todos los pueblos de "the central Mexico highlands" como los agrupa el DR Smith. Por otro lado bien podria decirnos Gordon que documentos nahuatls conoce que no sean coloniales. Dice Gordon By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this inaccurate form occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be 'Tenochca'. The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have designated the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan chaneque' Parece que la crónica Mexicayotl es un de esas "non-specialist literature" donde los mexicanos se llamaban asi mismo tenochcas por ser habitantes de Tenochtitlan y por considerar a Tencoh el "padre" fundador de su pueblo. "... Y cuando ya por mucho tiempo ya estan los mexica los tenochca después de que allá murio Tenochtzin ..." Cronica mexicayotl folio 110. Leemos en otro ejemplar de "literatura no especializada" , este es el códice aubin en sus noticias del año 1539 "Aqui partieron para Yancuic Tlalpan; fueron los tenochca..." hay mas noticias sobre estos tenochcas en ese códice. Dice Gordon If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their dynasty's descent from the line of Colhuacan. No es que se inventaran un linaje es que esa fue su historia. Dice la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas " En ese tiempo tenían los mexicanos por señor a Ilancueitl, una señora principal que los mandaba, y esta fue mujer de Acamapichtli, el cual era de Culhuacan y ella de Coatlinchan, y aunque era de Culhuacan , Acamaapichtli descendía de los de México, porque allí fue casada su madre con un principal de Culhuacan y la madre era de los mexicanos. Y casado, por consejo de su mujer vino a México, y les dijo que pues era de los principales y no tenían señor que lo tomarían por señor, y así fue el primer seño, y murió su mujer el año 24 de la fundación de México Y muerta ella , fue tomado él por señor, porque en vida de ella no fue tomado sino por principal " De una manera mas extensa se trata el tema de como los colhuas se hicieron del poder en Tenochtitlan en los folios 110 a 119 de la Crónica mexicayotl POr otro lado dice el Dr Michael Smith I am constantly criticized for my usage of the term Aztec to mean the entire Late Postclassic population of the central Mexico highlands, both Nahuatl-speaking and others such as Otomian languages. I have 3 main reasons for sticking to this usage: (1) there is no good alternate term; (2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to generate sales; and (3) the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood the same language, and they were in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and other means. This was a single culture, and if don't call it Aztec, what term can we use? Dr MIchael ya tiene otro mas que se apunta a la lista de los que lo critican sobre todo por la cientificidad del segundo argumento que usted plantea: "(2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to generate sales". Resulta ahora que son los vendedores de libros, la mercadotecnia, los que definen e imponen los conceptos que deben usar quienes estudian de una u otra forma las culturas prehiuspánicas . Usemos aztecas porque es una marca mas vendible, perdon es ciencia lo que se trata de hacer o estamos tratando de vender papas fritas. Si bien es cierto lo que dice Smith the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood the same language, and they were in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and other means. Pero fueron precisamente las diferencias mas grandes o mas chicas en todos esos aspectos y entros mas importantes como la religión, lo que hacia que unos indios se considerasen a si mismos como una nacion o pueblo y ver a los otros como de una nación distinta, esas diferencias los hacian verse asi mismo como diferentes del otro, situación que se tradujo en diferencias en la política, la ideológia y la religion. Así por ejemplo aunque los mexicas y los tlaxcaltecas se reconocieran de origen chichimeca y hablaran nahuatl como la lengua que habian aprendido, entre ellos no se reconocian como iguales , situación que Cortés detecto y supo aprovechar politica y militarmente. Aunque Tlaxcaltecas y Huexotzincas hablaran nahuatl y opcuparan espacios vecinos y adoraran ambos a Mixcoat, el varonil, por ello el que porta el maxtle, por ello el camaxtle, a pesar de sus elementos comunes cada pueblo era un señorio distinto HOy sucede lo mismo en los distintos paises que fuimos colonias de España compartimos muchas cosas pero somos paises distintos, ¿Porque cuesta tanto trabajo tener esa optica cuando se mira el pasado prehispánico? Por que hacer tabla raza de las diferencias, porque borrar la historia Gordon es fiel a la escuela de Seler y a la escuela Hegeliana para los cuales los paises fuera de Europa no tiene historia son pueblos sin historia. Y eso lo dice Seler conm todas sus letras en su articulo sobre Aztlan No deja de ser paradójico que esa corriente de pensamiento haya surgido en un país como la actual Alemania que ha tenido uno de los mas azarosos procesos de conformación del estado nación y que para lograrlo necesito la construcción y derrumbe del imperio prusiano, la derrota en dos guerras mundiale, el ascenso del nazismo, la mutilacion y ocupación sovieta de una parte del territorio y el derrumbe del muro _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sun Feb 22 23:53:57 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:53:57 -0500 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Any indication as to who wrote this? I'm also curious, or perhaps suspicious, as to linguistic protocol here. Why, if Dr. Whittaker wrote in English, and this present respondent certainly knows English, did he/she not respond in English? Anything goes? Devrais-je pouvoir repondre en francais? In tla nichachalacaya mazehualcopa? I don't know. It seems that, for the sake of clarity, it would be better to stay in one language...unless there's a political agenda. And once that's a possibility, I tend to be stingy with credence as to what people say, even in Spanish. Michael Quoting "John F. Schwaller" : > > From: "romgil06" > Date: Sun, February 22, 2009 > > Gordon Whittaker escribió: > > First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first popularized by > Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to > refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, > > Perdon pero con todo respeto esto no es cierto. > > El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo > Cristobal del > Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos. donde > expone su particular versión de la historia del pueblo de desarrapados > que ni > nombre tenían y que el mismo explica porque llegaron a > llamarse mexicas o mexicanos. > > En la versión de Del Castillo Los aztecas son un pueblo DISTINTO de los > mexicas,esto es de los que vivieron y fundadron Tenochtitlan , > en Del Castillo los "aztecas" aparecen como los amos de los mexicas o los > atlachichimecas de la ribera del lago, los aztecas son los que > los explotaban. > > La versión de Cristobal del Castillo fue recogida por Chimalpain y > reproducida en su > Memorial Breve de Culhuacan, sin dar crédito a la obra > de Del Castillo . Después Chimalpain o Tezozomoc la usan en la crónica > Mexicayotl, > en una variante de la historia de Del Castillo. Ahí en la > Mexicayotl uno de los hijos, el menor del rey de los aztecas es quien saca > a sus > subditos de aztlan chicomoztoc > > > Con todo respeto es un punto de vista muy cuestionable y no se puede > citar un solo > documento fuente que señale que: > > "However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to > themselves in > connection with their ancestry" > > Tampoco puedes citar una obra fuente donde ocurra que: > > I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is recorded in Nahuatl using the term. > > Dice Gordon > > Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured > by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not Nahuatl, > contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is > singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they > would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their dynasty's > descent from the line of Colhuacan. > > > En que contexto nahuatl ha encontrado Gordon el uso del termino azteca para > referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan. > Adelanto que no puede citar uno solo, porque no existe. Todos los > documentos que se > pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales > aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl español. > > Efectivamente Robert Barlow fue uno de los pioneros en señalar el error del > equivocado uso del termino azteca y como parte de esa labor > redacto "la extensión del imperio de los colua mexica" publicado por el > INAH y la > UDLA, Obras de Robert Barlow vol 4, publico tambien los > artículos "La formación del imperio de los colhua mexica", "Algunas > consideraciones > sobre el término imperio azteca"y "El concepto > populart de los "aztecas" todos en obras de Robert Barlow vol 3 INAH UDLA . > > Hay otro buen artículo sobre el mismo tema de Don Miguel Leon Portilla > León-Portilla, Miguel, "Los aztecas. Disquisiciones sobre un > gentilicio", Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl, v. 31, 2000, p. 275-281 > > Obras recientes en la misma óptica vease: Mexicaltzingo Arqueología de > un reino > culhua mexica de Raul Avila INAH y Culhua Mexico una > revisión arqueo etnohistórica del imperio de los mexica tenochca Fernando > Robles INAH > > Señala Gordon: > > Of course, the term 'Mexica' is appropriate in describing both the > Tenochca in a > narrow sense and, more > literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico Tlatelolco, > and indeed in describing the empire they founded. > > Esto es un gran y profundo error de Gordon es borrar las importantes > diferencias > históricas, etnicas y religiosas que existian entre ambos > naciones indias. Unos eran los tlatelolcas los adoradores del dios > Yiacatecutli y > con su propioi panteon divino, su nobleza y sus > especialidades productigvas y guerreras, los cuales fueron forzados a > adorar a > Huitzilopochtli tras su derrota y otro pueblo eran los > adoradores del Tetzahuitl, del hijo de Tlaloc o del pariente de Opochtli > como a si > mismo se identifica Huitzilopochtli ( códice Aubin , > Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas) > > Una simple visita al templo mayor de Tlatelolco y observar de la segunda > a la > quinta etapa permite ver que entre Tlatelolcas y Colhuas > Mexicas hasta arquitectónicamente los templos mayores eran distintos y > solo se > hicieron iguales despues de la conquista mexica. En los > tlatelolcas no hay doble templo en la cima del "cu" mayor ni restos de la > doble > escalinata y ni de la alfarda central en las etapas citadas > > Hacer un solo paquete de distintos pueblos es borrar la historia, es > como decir > que son lo mismo los irlandeses, los del país de gales, > los escocesea, los bretones y los sajones, y sólo porque desde tal siglo > todos > son ciudadanos o vasallos del Reino Unido, cuando esa > unidad es un un resultado de un proceso histórico de la fundación del > estado nación, > que cmo el problema irlandes nos lo recuerda no ha > logrado resolver las diferencias. SEria el mismo error que decir que todos > los > pueblos de España son Españoles borrando la diferencias de > todo tipo ( linguisticas, culturales, antropomorficas, históricas, > religiosas) que > existen entre los castellanos con los habitantes de las > canarias, los de cataluña, el pais vasco, los galllegos, etc . Lo mismo > vimos en el > caso de la antigua URSS o de la extinta Yugoeslavia. > > Hacer un sólo paquete bnorrar las diferencias curiosamente fue el punto de > vista > base de la politica sobre las nacionalidades de Stalin > > Dice Gordon > > 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured > by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not Nahuatl, > contexts > > Realmente lo que nunca se encontra es un documento "nahuatl" con el > término azteca > para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan , > repito lease las glosas de los codices. Telleriano, vaticano rios, > magliabechi, > borbónico, florentino vease la crónica mexicayotl, la > mexicana, las relaciones de Chimalpain , la obra de Cristobal del > castillo, la > leyenda de los soles, los anales de Cuauhtitlan, los anales > de Tlatelolco y otros códices coloniales mas , vease las crónicas de > Duran , > Sahagún, Mendieta, Motolinia, los escritos de Olmos, la > historia Tolteca Chichimeca, Códice Aubin y en todos , pero todos nunca > parecera el > termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de > Tenochtitlan y menos aún para referirse a quienes detentaban el poder > político y > religioso en ese imperio y menos aún mçpara nombrar > de esa forma a todos los pueblos de "the central Mexico highlands" como > los agrupa > el DR Smith. > > > Por otro lado bien podria decirnos Gordon que documentos nahuatls conoce > que no sean > coloniales. > > Dice Gordon > > By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this inaccurate form > occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be 'Tenochca'. > The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name > 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have designated > the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan > chaneque' > > Parece que la crónica Mexicayotl es un de esas "non-specialist literature" > donde > los mexicanos se llamaban asi mismo tenochcas por ser habitantes de > Tenochtitlan y > por considerar a Tencoh el "padre" fundador de su > pueblo. "... Y cuando ya por mucho tiempo ya estan los mexica los > tenochca después > de que allá murio Tenochtzin ..." Cronica mexicayotl > folio 110. > > Leemos en otro ejemplar de "literatura no especializada" , este es el > códice aubin > en sus noticias del año 1539 "Aqui partieron para > Yancuic Tlalpan; fueron los tenochca..." hay mas noticias sobre estos > tenochcas en > ese códice. > > Dice Gordon > > If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say > 'Colhuaque Mexica' > in reference to their dynasty's > > descent from the line of Colhuacan. > > No es que se inventaran un linaje es que esa fue su historia. > > Dice la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas " En ese tiempo tenían > los > mexicanos por señor a Ilancueitl, una señora principal que > los mandaba, y esta fue mujer de Acamapichtli, el cual era de Culhuacan y > ella de > Coatlinchan, y aunque era de Culhuacan , Acamaapichtli > descendía de los de México, porque allí fue casada su madre con un > principal de > Culhuacan y la madre era de los mexicanos. Y casado, > por consejo de su mujer vino a México, y les dijo que pues era de los > principales y > no tenían señor que lo tomarían por señor, y así fue el > primer seño, y murió su mujer el año 24 de la fundación de México Y muerta > ella , > fue tomado él por señor, porque en vida de ella no fue > tomado sino por principal " > > De una manera mas extensa se trata el tema de como los colhuas se hicieron > del poder > en Tenochtitlan en los folios 110 a 119 de la > Crónica mexicayotl > > POr otro lado dice el Dr Michael Smith > > I am constantly criticized for my usage of the term Aztec to mean the > entire Late > Postclassic population of the central Mexico highlands, > both Nahuatl-speaking and others such as Otomian languages. I have 3 main > reasons > for sticking to this usage: (1) there is no good > alternate term; (2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to > generate sales; and (3) the various peoples of Late Postclassic > central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood the same > language, > and they were in constant contact with one another > through trade, visiting, and other means. This was a single culture, and > if don't > call it Aztec, what term can we use? > > Dr MIchael ya tiene otro mas que se apunta a la lista de los que lo > critican sobre > todo por la cientificidad del segundo argumento que > usted plantea: > > "(2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to generate > sales". > > Resulta ahora que son los vendedores de libros, la mercadotecnia, los > que definen > e imponen los conceptos que deben usar quienes > estudian de una u otra forma las culturas prehiuspánicas . Usemos aztecas > porque es > una marca mas vendible, perdon es ciencia lo que > se trata de hacer o estamos tratando de vender papas fritas. > > Si bien es cierto lo que dice Smith > > the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many > cultural traits, > spoke or understood the same language, and they were > in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and other > means. > > Pero fueron precisamente las diferencias mas grandes o mas chicas en todos > esos > aspectos y entros mas importantes como la religión, lo > que hacia que unos indios se considerasen a si mismos como una nacion o > pueblo y ver > a los otros como de una nación distinta, esas > diferencias los hacian verse asi mismo como diferentes del otro, > situación que se > tradujo en diferencias en la política, la ideológia y la > religion. > > Así por ejemplo aunque los mexicas y los tlaxcaltecas se reconocieran de > origen > chichimeca y hablaran nahuatl como la lengua que > habian aprendido, entre ellos no se reconocian como iguales , situación > que Cortés > detecto y supo aprovechar politica y militarmente. > Aunque Tlaxcaltecas y Huexotzincas hablaran nahuatl y opcuparan espacios > vecinos y > adoraran ambos a Mixcoat, el varonil, por ello el que > porta el maxtle, por ello el camaxtle, a pesar de sus elementos comunes > cada pueblo > era un señorio distinto > > HOy sucede lo mismo en los distintos paises que fuimos colonias de España > compartimos muchas cosas pero somos paises distintos, > ¿Porque cuesta tanto trabajo tener esa optica cuando se mira el pasado > prehispánico? > Por que hacer tabla raza de las diferencias, porque > borrar la historia > > Gordon es fiel a la escuela de Seler y a la escuela Hegeliana para los > cuales los > paises fuera de Europa no tiene historia > son pueblos sin historia. Y eso lo dice Seler conm todas sus letras en su > articulo > sobre Aztlan > > No deja de ser paradójico que esa corriente de pensamiento haya surgido en > un país > como la actual Alemania que ha tenido uno de los > mas azarosos procesos de conformación del estado nación y que para > lograrlo necesito > la construcción y derrumbe del imperio prusiano, > la derrota en dos guerras mundiale, el ascenso del nazismo, la mutilacion y > ocupación sovieta de una parte del territorio y el derrumbe > del muro > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From ced22 at leicester.ac.uk Mon Feb 23 10:55:06 2009 From: ced22 at leicester.ac.uk (Dodds Pennock, Dr C.E.) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:55:06 +0000 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: <20090222185357.w6r8gqcygw80o4sk@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I share Michael's hesitation regarding this unidentified post. If we do not know the agenda or expertise of a poster then it is hard to know how to assess their work. I think perhaps we should be tolerant of writing in a language other than the post was composed unless we fear a political agenda, however. I myself am guilty of replying in English occasionally where the principal language of the discussion is Spanish for the simple fact that, whilst my reading Spanish is pretty good, my written Spanish is rather more laborious! I suspect this may well be the case in reverse for some Spanish speakers. I think perhaps Michael is right to fear a political agenda here, however. Much of the post is too obviously polemical and at times bordering on personal attack to invite serious criticism (the comparison with Stalin and the Nazis most notably!) and I fear that some of the latter part of the post misunderstand's the linguistic focus of Gordon's email. Some of the early parts of this post are obviously drawn from the well-known article of Miguel León-Portilla, whose credibility is hardly in doubt, but certainly not all. The inference that all these documents are somehow essentially unreliable ("Todos los documentos que se pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl español.") is basically applicable to any alphabetic text drawn from this period and would dismiss the possibility of any use of any post-conquest alphabetic documents. Although care must certainly be taken in the use of such documents, I do not believe so sweeping a case is made by any serious scholar and one which León-Portilla's own work directly contradicts. Yours, Caroline ------- Dr Caroline Dodds Pennock Lecturer in Early Modern History School of Historical Studies University of Leicester University Road Leicester LE1 7RH email: ced22 at le.ac.uk http://www.le.ac.uk/history/people/ced22.html _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From chema.lst15 at netehuile.org Mon Feb 23 09:54:19 2009 From: chema.lst15 at netehuile.org (Chema Tlaquetzqui) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:54:19 +0100 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: <20090222185357.w6r8gqcygw80o4sk@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Hi, I don't know this romgil06 at prodigy.net.mx, but given the .mx domain, I assume he's in Mexico and a quick Google search seems to indicate that he often writes in Spanish. Considering this, I don't think he had any political agenda by switching languages. It seems unfair to expect people to write a substantial response in a language they might not be comfortable writing in, particularly when most people on these mailing lists should already be able to read both English and Spanish quite well, as per the mailing list description. I have been a user on many polyglot mailing lists, and these sorts of language issues tend to pop-up every so often. Usually people just decide to send bilingual (or even trilingual) emails to avoid letting languages get in the way of the discussion and to encourage participation. It is a hassle, but better than people assuming a reply is "political" and hence unworthy of credence. I was more annoyed with the lack of quotes in his mangled reply. It made it very hard to parse. Chema On Feb 23, 2009, at 00:53 , Michael McCafferty wrote: > Any indication as to who wrote this? > > I'm also curious, or perhaps suspicious, as to linguistic protocol > here. Why, if Dr. Whittaker wrote in English, and this present > respondent certainly knows English, did he/she not respond in English? > Anything goes? Devrais-je pouvoir repondre en francais? In tla > nichachalacaya mazehualcopa? I don't know. It seems that, for the sake > of clarity, it would be better to stay in one language...unless > there's > a political agenda. And once that's a possibility, I tend to be stingy > with credence as to what people say, even in Spanish. > > Michael > > Quoting "John F. Schwaller" : > >> >> From: "romgil06" >> Date: Sun, February 22, 2009 >> >> Gordon Whittaker escribió: >> >> First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first >> popularized by >> Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the >> Aztecs to >> refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, >> >> Perdon pero con todo respeto esto no es cierto. >> >> El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo >> Cristobal del >> Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos. donde >> expone su particular versión de la historia del pueblo de >> desarrapados >> que ni >> nombre tenían y que el mismo explica porque llegaron a >> llamarse mexicas o mexicanos. >> >> En la versión de Del Castillo Los aztecas son un pueblo DISTINTO >> de los >> mexicas,esto es de los que vivieron y fundadron Tenochtitlan , >> en Del Castillo los "aztecas" aparecen como los amos de los >> mexicas o los >> atlachichimecas de la ribera del lago, los aztecas son los que >> los explotaban. >> >> La versión de Cristobal del Castillo fue recogida por Chimalpain y >> reproducida en su >> Memorial Breve de Culhuacan, sin dar crédito a la obra >> de Del Castillo . Después Chimalpain o Tezozomoc la usan en la >> crónica >> Mexicayotl, >> en una variante de la historia de Del Castillo. Ahí en la >> Mexicayotl uno de los hijos, el menor del rey de los aztecas es >> quien saca >> a sus >> subditos de aztlan chicomoztoc >> >> >> Con todo respeto es un punto de vista muy cuestionable y no se puede >> citar un solo >> documento fuente que señale que: >> >> "However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to >> themselves in >> connection with their ancestry" >> >> Tampoco puedes citar una obra fuente donde ocurra que: >> >> I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is recorded in Nahuatl using the term. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was >> favoured >> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >> Nahuatl, >> contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is >> singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use >> this, they >> would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their >> dynasty's >> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >> >> >> En que contexto nahuatl ha encontrado Gordon el uso del termino >> azteca para >> referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan. >> Adelanto que no puede citar uno solo, porque no existe. Todos los >> documentos que se >> pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales >> aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl español. >> >> Efectivamente Robert Barlow fue uno de los pioneros en señalar el >> error del >> equivocado uso del termino azteca y como parte de esa labor >> redacto "la extensión del imperio de los colua mexica" publicado >> por el >> INAH y la >> UDLA, Obras de Robert Barlow vol 4, publico tambien los >> artículos "La formación del imperio de los colhua mexica", "Algunas >> consideraciones >> sobre el término imperio azteca"y "El concepto >> populart de los "aztecas" todos en obras de Robert Barlow vol 3 >> INAH UDLA . >> >> Hay otro buen artículo sobre el mismo tema de Don Miguel Leon >> Portilla >> León-Portilla, Miguel, "Los aztecas. Disquisiciones sobre un >> gentilicio", Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl, v. 31, 2000, p. 275-281 >> >> Obras recientes en la misma óptica vease: Mexicaltzingo >> Arqueología de >> un reino >> culhua mexica de Raul Avila INAH y Culhua Mexico una >> revisión arqueo etnohistórica del imperio de los mexica tenochca >> Fernando >> Robles INAH >> >> Señala Gordon: >> >> Of course, the term 'Mexica' is appropriate in describing both the >> Tenochca in a >> narrow sense and, more >> literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico >> Tlatelolco, >> and indeed in describing the empire they founded. >> >> Esto es un gran y profundo error de Gordon es borrar las >> importantes >> diferencias >> históricas, etnicas y religiosas que existian entre ambos >> naciones indias. Unos eran los tlatelolcas los adoradores del dios >> Yiacatecutli y >> con su propioi panteon divino, su nobleza y sus >> especialidades productigvas y guerreras, los cuales fueron forzados a >> adorar a >> Huitzilopochtli tras su derrota y otro pueblo eran los >> adoradores del Tetzahuitl, del hijo de Tlaloc o del pariente de >> Opochtli >> como a si >> mismo se identifica Huitzilopochtli ( códice Aubin , >> Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas) >> >> Una simple visita al templo mayor de Tlatelolco y observar de la >> segunda >> a la >> quinta etapa permite ver que entre Tlatelolcas y Colhuas >> Mexicas hasta arquitectónicamente los templos mayores eran >> distintos y >> solo se >> hicieron iguales despues de la conquista mexica. En los >> tlatelolcas no hay doble templo en la cima del "cu" mayor ni >> restos de la >> doble >> escalinata y ni de la alfarda central en las etapas citadas >> >> Hacer un solo paquete de distintos pueblos es borrar la >> historia, es >> como decir >> que son lo mismo los irlandeses, los del país de gales, >> los escocesea, los bretones y los sajones, y sólo porque desde >> tal siglo >> todos >> son ciudadanos o vasallos del Reino Unido, cuando esa >> unidad es un un resultado de un proceso histórico de la fundación del >> estado nación, >> que cmo el problema irlandes nos lo recuerda no ha >> logrado resolver las diferencias. SEria el mismo error que decir >> que todos >> los >> pueblos de España son Españoles borrando la diferencias de >> todo tipo ( linguisticas, culturales, antropomorficas, históricas, >> religiosas) que >> existen entre los castellanos con los habitantes de las >> canarias, los de cataluña, el pais vasco, los galllegos, etc . Lo >> mismo >> vimos en el >> caso de la antigua URSS o de la extinta Yugoeslavia. >> >> Hacer un sólo paquete bnorrar las diferencias curiosamente fue el >> punto de >> vista >> base de la politica sobre las nacionalidades de Stalin >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured >> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >> Nahuatl, >> contexts >> >> Realmente lo que nunca se encontra es un documento "nahuatl" con el >> término azteca >> para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan , >> repito lease las glosas de los codices. Telleriano, vaticano rios, >> magliabechi, >> borbónico, florentino vease la crónica mexicayotl, la >> mexicana, las relaciones de Chimalpain , la obra de Cristobal del >> castillo, la >> leyenda de los soles, los anales de Cuauhtitlan, los anales >> de Tlatelolco y otros códices coloniales mas , vease las >> crónicas de >> Duran , >> Sahagún, Mendieta, Motolinia, los escritos de Olmos, la >> historia Tolteca Chichimeca, Códice Aubin y en todos , pero todos >> nunca >> parecera el >> termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de >> Tenochtitlan y menos aún para referirse a quienes detentaban el >> poder >> político y >> religioso en ese imperio y menos aún mçpara nombrar >> de esa forma a todos los pueblos de "the central Mexico highlands" >> como >> los agrupa >> el DR Smith. >> >> >> Por otro lado bien podria decirnos Gordon que documentos nahuatls >> conoce >> que no sean >> coloniales. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this >> inaccurate form >> occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be >> 'Tenochca'. >> The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name >> 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have >> designated >> the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan >> chaneque' >> >> Parece que la crónica Mexicayotl es un de esas "non-specialist >> literature" >> donde >> los mexicanos se llamaban asi mismo tenochcas por ser habitantes de >> Tenochtitlan y >> por considerar a Tencoh el "padre" fundador de su >> pueblo. "... Y cuando ya por mucho tiempo ya estan los mexica los >> tenochca después >> de que allá murio Tenochtzin ..." Cronica mexicayotl >> folio 110. >> >> Leemos en otro ejemplar de "literatura no especializada" , este es el >> códice aubin >> en sus noticias del año 1539 "Aqui partieron para >> Yancuic Tlalpan; fueron los tenochca..." hay mas noticias sobre estos >> tenochcas en >> ese códice. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say >> 'Colhuaque Mexica' >> in reference to their dynasty's >> >> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >> >> No es que se inventaran un linaje es que esa fue su historia. >> >> Dice la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas " En ese >> tiempo tenían >> los >> mexicanos por señor a Ilancueitl, una señora principal que >> los mandaba, y esta fue mujer de Acamapichtli, el cual era de >> Culhuacan y >> ella de >> Coatlinchan, y aunque era de Culhuacan , Acamaapichtli >> descendía de los de México, porque allí fue casada su madre con un >> principal de >> Culhuacan y la madre era de los mexicanos. Y casado, >> por consejo de su mujer vino a México, y les dijo que pues era de los >> principales y >> no tenían señor que lo tomarían por señor, y así fue el >> primer seño, y murió su mujer el año 24 de la fundación de México >> Y muerta >> ella , >> fue tomado él por señor, porque en vida de ella no fue >> tomado sino por principal " >> >> De una manera mas extensa se trata el tema de como los colhuas se >> hicieron >> del poder >> en Tenochtitlan en los folios 110 a 119 de la >> Crónica mexicayotl >> >> POr otro lado dice el Dr Michael Smith >> >> I am constantly criticized for my usage of the term Aztec to mean the >> entire Late >> Postclassic population of the central Mexico highlands, >> both Nahuatl-speaking and others such as Otomian languages. I have >> 3 main >> reasons >> for sticking to this usage: (1) there is no good >> alternate term; (2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in >> book titles to >> generate sales; and (3) the various peoples of Late Postclassic >> central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood >> the same >> language, >> and they were in constant contact with one another >> through trade, visiting, and other means. This was a single >> culture, and >> if don't >> call it Aztec, what term can we use? >> >> Dr MIchael ya tiene otro mas que se apunta a la lista de los que lo >> critican sobre >> todo por la cientificidad del segundo argumento que >> usted plantea: >> >> "(2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to >> generate >> sales". >> >> Resulta ahora que son los vendedores de libros, la >> mercadotecnia, los >> que definen >> e imponen los conceptos que deben usar quienes >> estudian de una u otra forma las culturas prehiuspánicas . Usemos >> aztecas >> porque es >> una marca mas vendible, perdon es ciencia lo que >> se trata de hacer o estamos tratando de vender papas fritas. >> >> Si bien es cierto lo que dice Smith >> >> the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many >> cultural traits, >> spoke or understood the same language, and they were >> in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and >> other >> means. >> >> Pero fueron precisamente las diferencias mas grandes o mas chicas >> en todos >> esos >> aspectos y entros mas importantes como la religión, lo >> que hacia que unos indios se considerasen a si mismos como una >> nacion o >> pueblo y ver >> a los otros como de una nación distinta, esas >> diferencias los hacian verse asi mismo como diferentes del otro, >> situación que se >> tradujo en diferencias en la política, la ideológia y la >> religion. >> >> Así por ejemplo aunque los mexicas y los tlaxcaltecas se >> reconocieran de >> origen >> chichimeca y hablaran nahuatl como la lengua que >> habian aprendido, entre ellos no se reconocian como iguales , >> situación >> que Cortés >> detecto y supo aprovechar politica y militarmente. >> Aunque Tlaxcaltecas y Huexotzincas hablaran nahuatl y opcuparan >> espacios >> vecinos y >> adoraran ambos a Mixcoat, el varonil, por ello el que >> porta el maxtle, por ello el camaxtle, a pesar de sus elementos >> comunes >> cada pueblo >> era un señorio distinto >> >> HOy sucede lo mismo en los distintos paises que fuimos colonias de >> España >> compartimos muchas cosas pero somos paises distintos, >> ¿Porque cuesta tanto trabajo tener esa optica cuando se mira el >> pasado >> prehispánico? >> Por que hacer tabla raza de las diferencias, porque >> borrar la historia >> >> Gordon es fiel a la escuela de Seler y a la escuela Hegeliana para >> los >> cuales los >> paises fuera de Europa no tiene historia >> son pueblos sin historia. Y eso lo dice Seler conm todas sus >> letras en su >> articulo >> sobre Aztlan >> >> No deja de ser paradójico que esa corriente de pensamiento haya >> surgido en >> un país >> como la actual Alemania que ha tenido uno de los >> mas azarosos procesos de conformación del estado nación y que para >> lograrlo necesito >> la construcción y derrumbe del imperio prusiano, >> la derrota en dos guerras mundiale, el ascenso del nazismo, la >> mutilacion y >> ocupación sovieta de una parte del territorio y el derrumbe >> del muro >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Feb 23 14:06:55 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:06:55 -0500 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: <2893F0D6-FD5D-4C40-910D-033BB2B8C065@netehuile.org> Message-ID: Yes, I see what you're saying. Thanks, Chema. I'm not fluent in Spanish and usually delete the Spanish discussions here, but I was interested in this one and wanted to understand what the person was saying. Whittaker's thing was rather involved, and coming back with a Spanish language posting was for me like entering a labyrinth after already being in a maze. But I can see how one would choose to respond in one's most manageable language, even though having bilingual (?) conversations is not something I do. Michae Quoting Chema Tlaquetzqui : > Hi, > > I don't know this romgil06 at prodigy.net.mx, but given the .mx domain, > I assume he's in Mexico and a quick Google search seems to indicate > that he often writes in Spanish. Considering this, I don't think he > had any political agenda by switching languages. > > It seems unfair to expect people to write a substantial response in a > language they might not be comfortable writing in, particularly when > most people on these mailing lists should already be able to read > both English and Spanish quite well, as per the mailing list > description. > > I have been a user on many polyglot mailing lists, and these sorts of > language issues tend to pop-up every so often. Usually people just > decide to send bilingual (or even trilingual) emails to avoid letting > languages get in the way of the discussion and to encourage > participation. It is a hassle, but better than people assuming a > reply is "political" and hence unworthy of credence. > > I was more annoyed with the lack of quotes in his mangled reply. It > made it very hard to parse. > > Chema > > > > On Feb 23, 2009, at 00:53 , Michael McCafferty wrote: > >> Any indication as to who wrote this? >> >> I'm also curious, or perhaps suspicious, as to linguistic protocol >> here. Why, if Dr. Whittaker wrote in English, and this present >> respondent certainly knows English, did he/she not respond in English? >> Anything goes? Devrais-je pouvoir repondre en francais? In tla >> nichachalacaya mazehualcopa? I don't know. It seems that, for the sake >> of clarity, it would be better to stay in one language...unless >> there's >> a political agenda. And once that's a possibility, I tend to be stingy >> with credence as to what people say, even in Spanish. >> >> Michael >> >> Quoting "John F. Schwaller" : >> >>> >>> From: "romgil06" >>> Date: Sun, February 22, 2009 >>> >>> Gordon Whittaker escribió: >>> >>> First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first >>> popularized by >>> Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the >>> Aztecs to >>> refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, >>> >>> Perdon pero con todo respeto esto no es cierto. >>> >>> El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo >>> Cristobal del >>> Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos. donde >>> expone su particular versión de la historia del pueblo de >>> desarrapados >>> que ni >>> nombre tenían y que el mismo explica porque llegaron a >>> llamarse mexicas o mexicanos. >>> >>> En la versión de Del Castillo Los aztecas son un pueblo DISTINTO >>> de los >>> mexicas,esto es de los que vivieron y fundadron Tenochtitlan , >>> en Del Castillo los "aztecas" aparecen como los amos de los >>> mexicas o los >>> atlachichimecas de la ribera del lago, los aztecas son los que >>> los explotaban. >>> >>> La versión de Cristobal del Castillo fue recogida por Chimalpain y >>> reproducida en su >>> Memorial Breve de Culhuacan, sin dar crédito a la obra >>> de Del Castillo . Después Chimalpain o Tezozomoc la usan en la >>> crónica >>> Mexicayotl, >>> en una variante de la historia de Del Castillo. Ahí en la >>> Mexicayotl uno de los hijos, el menor del rey de los aztecas es >>> quien saca >>> a sus >>> subditos de aztlan chicomoztoc >>> >>> >>> Con todo respeto es un punto de vista muy cuestionable y no se puede >>> citar un solo >>> documento fuente que señale que: >>> >>> "However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to >>> themselves in >>> connection with their ancestry" >>> >>> Tampoco puedes citar una obra fuente donde ocurra que: >>> >>> I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is recorded in Nahuatl using the term. >>> >>> Dice Gordon >>> >>> Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was >>> favoured >>> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >>> Nahuatl, >>> contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is >>> singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use >>> this, they >>> would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their >>> dynasty's >>> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >>> >>> >>> En que contexto nahuatl ha encontrado Gordon el uso del termino >>> azteca para >>> referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan. >>> Adelanto que no puede citar uno solo, porque no existe. Todos los >>> documentos que se >>> pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales >>> aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl español. >>> >>> Efectivamente Robert Barlow fue uno de los pioneros en señalar el >>> error del >>> equivocado uso del termino azteca y como parte de esa labor >>> redacto "la extensión del imperio de los colua mexica" publicado >>> por el >>> INAH y la >>> UDLA, Obras de Robert Barlow vol 4, publico tambien los >>> artículos "La formación del imperio de los colhua mexica", "Algunas >>> consideraciones >>> sobre el término imperio azteca"y "El concepto >>> populart de los "aztecas" todos en obras de Robert Barlow vol 3 >>> INAH UDLA . >>> >>> Hay otro buen artículo sobre el mismo tema de Don Miguel Leon >>> Portilla >>> León-Portilla, Miguel, "Los aztecas. Disquisiciones sobre un >>> gentilicio", Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl, v. 31, 2000, p. 275-281 >>> >>> Obras recientes en la misma óptica vease: Mexicaltzingo >>> Arqueología de >>> un reino >>> culhua mexica de Raul Avila INAH y Culhua Mexico una >>> revisión arqueo etnohistórica del imperio de los mexica tenochca >>> Fernando >>> Robles INAH >>> >>> Señala Gordon: >>> >>> Of course, the term 'Mexica' is appropriate in describing both the >>> Tenochca in a >>> narrow sense and, more >>> literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico >>> Tlatelolco, >>> and indeed in describing the empire they founded. >>> >>> Esto es un gran y profundo error de Gordon es borrar las >>> importantes >>> diferencias >>> históricas, etnicas y religiosas que existian entre ambos >>> naciones indias. Unos eran los tlatelolcas los adoradores del dios >>> Yiacatecutli y >>> con su propioi panteon divino, su nobleza y sus >>> especialidades productigvas y guerreras, los cuales fueron forzados a >>> adorar a >>> Huitzilopochtli tras su derrota y otro pueblo eran los >>> adoradores del Tetzahuitl, del hijo de Tlaloc o del pariente de >>> Opochtli >>> como a si >>> mismo se identifica Huitzilopochtli ( códice Aubin , >>> Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas) >>> >>> Una simple visita al templo mayor de Tlatelolco y observar de la >>> segunda >>> a la >>> quinta etapa permite ver que entre Tlatelolcas y Colhuas >>> Mexicas hasta arquitectónicamente los templos mayores eran >>> distintos y >>> solo se >>> hicieron iguales despues de la conquista mexica. En los >>> tlatelolcas no hay doble templo en la cima del "cu" mayor ni >>> restos de la >>> doble >>> escalinata y ni de la alfarda central en las etapas citadas >>> >>> Hacer un solo paquete de distintos pueblos es borrar la >>> historia, es >>> como decir >>> que son lo mismo los irlandeses, los del país de gales, >>> los escocesea, los bretones y los sajones, y sólo porque desde >>> tal siglo >>> todos >>> son ciudadanos o vasallos del Reino Unido, cuando esa >>> unidad es un un resultado de un proceso histórico de la fundación del >>> estado nación, >>> que cmo el problema irlandes nos lo recuerda no ha >>> logrado resolver las diferencias. SEria el mismo error que decir >>> que todos >>> los >>> pueblos de España son Españoles borrando la diferencias de >>> todo tipo ( linguisticas, culturales, antropomorficas, históricas, >>> religiosas) que >>> existen entre los castellanos con los habitantes de las >>> canarias, los de cataluña, el pais vasco, los galllegos, etc . Lo >>> mismo >>> vimos en el >>> caso de la antigua URSS o de la extinta Yugoeslavia. >>> >>> Hacer un sólo paquete bnorrar las diferencias curiosamente fue el >>> punto de >>> vista >>> base de la politica sobre las nacionalidades de Stalin >>> >>> Dice Gordon >>> >>> 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured >>> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >>> Nahuatl, >>> contexts >>> >>> Realmente lo que nunca se encontra es un documento "nahuatl" con el >>> término azteca >>> para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan , >>> repito lease las glosas de los codices. Telleriano, vaticano rios, >>> magliabechi, >>> borbónico, florentino vease la crónica mexicayotl, la >>> mexicana, las relaciones de Chimalpain , la obra de Cristobal del >>> castillo, la >>> leyenda de los soles, los anales de Cuauhtitlan, los anales >>> de Tlatelolco y otros códices coloniales mas , vease las >>> crónicas de >>> Duran , >>> Sahagún, Mendieta, Motolinia, los escritos de Olmos, la >>> historia Tolteca Chichimeca, Códice Aubin y en todos , pero todos >>> nunca >>> parecera el >>> termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de >>> Tenochtitlan y menos aún para referirse a quienes detentaban el >>> poder >>> político y >>> religioso en ese imperio y menos aún mçpara nombrar >>> de esa forma a todos los pueblos de "the central Mexico highlands" >>> como >>> los agrupa >>> el DR Smith. >>> >>> >>> Por otro lado bien podria decirnos Gordon que documentos nahuatls >>> conoce >>> que no sean >>> coloniales. >>> >>> Dice Gordon >>> >>> By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this >>> inaccurate form >>> occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be >>> 'Tenochca'. >>> The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name >>> 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have >>> designated >>> the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan >>> chaneque' >>> >>> Parece que la crónica Mexicayotl es un de esas "non-specialist >>> literature" >>> donde >>> los mexicanos se llamaban asi mismo tenochcas por ser habitantes de >>> Tenochtitlan y >>> por considerar a Tencoh el "padre" fundador de su >>> pueblo. "... Y cuando ya por mucho tiempo ya estan los mexica los >>> tenochca después >>> de que allá murio Tenochtzin ..." Cronica mexicayotl >>> folio 110. >>> >>> Leemos en otro ejemplar de "literatura no especializada" , este es el >>> códice aubin >>> en sus noticias del año 1539 "Aqui partieron para >>> Yancuic Tlalpan; fueron los tenochca..." hay mas noticias sobre estos >>> tenochcas en >>> ese códice. >>> >>> Dice Gordon >>> >>> If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say >>> 'Colhuaque Mexica' >>> in reference to their dynasty's >>> >>> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >>> >>> No es que se inventaran un linaje es que esa fue su historia. >>> >>> Dice la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas " En ese >>> tiempo tenían >>> los >>> mexicanos por señor a Ilancueitl, una señora principal que >>> los mandaba, y esta fue mujer de Acamapichtli, el cual era de >>> Culhuacan y >>> ella de >>> Coatlinchan, y aunque era de Culhuacan , Acamaapichtli >>> descendía de los de México, porque allí fue casada su madre con un >>> principal de >>> Culhuacan y la madre era de los mexicanos. Y casado, >>> por consejo de su mujer vino a México, y les dijo que pues era de los >>> principales y >>> no tenían señor que lo tomarían por señor, y así fue el >>> primer seño, y murió su mujer el año 24 de la fundación de México >>> Y muerta >>> ella , >>> fue tomado él por señor, porque en vida de ella no fue >>> tomado sino por principal " >>> >>> De una manera mas extensa se trata el tema de como los colhuas se >>> hicieron >>> del poder >>> en Tenochtitlan en los folios 110 a 119 de la >>> Crónica mexicayotl >>> >>> POr otro lado dice el Dr Michael Smith >>> >>> I am constantly criticized for my usage of the term Aztec to mean the >>> entire Late >>> Postclassic population of the central Mexico highlands, >>> both Nahuatl-speaking and others such as Otomian languages. I have >>> 3 main >>> reasons >>> for sticking to this usage: (1) there is no good >>> alternate term; (2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in >>> book titles to >>> generate sales; and (3) the various peoples of Late Postclassic >>> central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood >>> the same >>> language, >>> and they were in constant contact with one another >>> through trade, visiting, and other means. This was a single >>> culture, and >>> if don't >>> call it Aztec, what term can we use? >>> >>> Dr MIchael ya tiene otro mas que se apunta a la lista de los que lo >>> critican sobre >>> todo por la cientificidad del segundo argumento que >>> usted plantea: >>> >>> "(2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to >>> generate >>> sales". >>> >>> Resulta ahora que son los vendedores de libros, la >>> mercadotecnia, los >>> que definen >>> e imponen los conceptos que deben usar quienes >>> estudian de una u otra forma las culturas prehiuspánicas . Usemos >>> aztecas >>> porque es >>> una marca mas vendible, perdon es ciencia lo que >>> se trata de hacer o estamos tratando de vender papas fritas. >>> >>> Si bien es cierto lo que dice Smith >>> >>> the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many >>> cultural traits, >>> spoke or understood the same language, and they were >>> in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and >>> other >>> means. >>> >>> Pero fueron precisamente las diferencias mas grandes o mas chicas >>> en todos >>> esos >>> aspectos y entros mas importantes como la religión, lo >>> que hacia que unos indios se considerasen a si mismos como una >>> nacion o >>> pueblo y ver >>> a los otros como de una nación distinta, esas >>> diferencias los hacian verse asi mismo como diferentes del otro, >>> situación que se >>> tradujo en diferencias en la política, la ideológia y la >>> religion. >>> >>> Así por ejemplo aunque los mexicas y los tlaxcaltecas se >>> reconocieran de >>> origen >>> chichimeca y hablaran nahuatl como la lengua que >>> habian aprendido, entre ellos no se reconocian como iguales , >>> situación >>> que Cortés >>> detecto y supo aprovechar politica y militarmente. >>> Aunque Tlaxcaltecas y Huexotzincas hablaran nahuatl y opcuparan >>> espacios >>> vecinos y >>> adoraran ambos a Mixcoat, el varonil, por ello el que >>> porta el maxtle, por ello el camaxtle, a pesar de sus elementos >>> comunes >>> cada pueblo >>> era un señorio distinto >>> >>> HOy sucede lo mismo en los distintos paises que fuimos colonias de >>> España >>> compartimos muchas cosas pero somos paises distintos, >>> ¿Porque cuesta tanto trabajo tener esa optica cuando se mira el >>> pasado >>> prehispánico? >>> Por que hacer tabla raza de las diferencias, porque >>> borrar la historia >>> >>> Gordon es fiel a la escuela de Seler y a la escuela Hegeliana para >>> los >>> cuales los >>> paises fuera de Europa no tiene historia >>> son pueblos sin historia. Y eso lo dice Seler conm todas sus >>> letras en su >>> articulo >>> sobre Aztlan >>> >>> No deja de ser paradójico que esa corriente de pensamiento haya >>> surgido en >>> un país >>> como la actual Alemania que ha tenido uno de los >>> mas azarosos procesos de conformación del estado nación y que para >>> lograrlo necesito >>> la construcción y derrumbe del imperio prusiano, >>> la derrota en dos guerras mundiale, el ascenso del nazismo, la >>> mutilacion y >>> ocupación sovieta de una parte del territorio y el derrumbe >>> del muro >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nahuatl mailing list >>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Mon Feb 23 15:04:27 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:04:27 -0500 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: <20090222185357.w6r8gqcygw80o4sk@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: The person who wrote the post was Roberto Romero Gutierrez Michael McCafferty wrote: > Any indication as to who wrote this? > > I'm also curious, or perhaps suspicious, as to linguistic protocol > here. Why, if Dr. Whittaker wrote in English, and this present > respondent certainly knows English, did he/she not respond in English? > Anything goes? Devrais-je pouvoir repondre en francais? In tla > nichachalacaya mazehualcopa? I don't know. It seems that, for the sake > of clarity, it would be better to stay in one language...unless there's > a political agenda. And once that's a possibility, I tend to be stingy > with credence as to what people say, even in Spanish. > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Feb 23 15:16:58 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:16:58 -0500 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you, Dr. Pennock, for your posting. I appreciate the ideas. Michael Quoting "Dodds Pennock, Dr C.E." : > Dear colleagues, > > I share Michael's hesitation regarding an unidentified post. If we do > not know the agenda or expertise of a poster then it is hard to know > how to assess their work. I think perhaps we should be tolerant of > writing in a language other than the post was composed unless we fear > a political agenda, however. I myself am guilty of replying in > English occasionally where the principal language of the discussion > is Spanish for the simple fact that, whilst my reading Spanish is > pretty good, my written Spanish is laborious! I suspect this may well > be the case in reverse for some Spanish speakers. > > I think perhaps Michael is right to fear a political agenda here, > however. Much of the post is too obviously polemical and at times > bordering on personal attack to invite serious criticism (the > comparison with Stalin and the Nazis most notably!) and I fear that > some of the latter part of the post misunderstand's the linguistic > focus of Gordon's email. > > Some of the early parts of this post are obviously drawn from the > well-known article of Miguel León-Portilla, whose credibility is > hardly in doubt, but certainly not all. The inference that all these > documents are somehow essentially unreliable ("Todos los documentos > que se pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales aunque sean > escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl español.") is > basically applicable to any alphabetic text drawn from this period > and would dismiss the possibility of any use of any post-conquest > alphabetic documents. Although care must certainly be taken in the > use of such documents, I do not believe so sweeping a case is made by > any serious scholar and one which León-Portilla's own work directly > contradicts. > > Yours, > Caroline > ------- > Dr Caroline Dodds Pennock > Lecturer in Early Modern History > School of Historical Studies > University of Leicester > University Road > Leicester > LE1 7RH > > email: ced22 at le.ac.uk > http://www.le.ac.uk/history/people/ced22.html _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Tue Feb 24 00:24:03 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:24:03 +0100 Subject: Pondering the terms 'Aztec' and 'Mexican' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, In the last few days we have had a constructive exchange on the AZTLAN and NAHUATl-L lists concerning certain core terms used in Aztec studies. Unfortunately, one unsigned posting to the AZTLAN list contained, in addition to some rather polemical statements about the nature of primary sources on the Postclassic period, a lengthy tirade that included a number of highly regrettable and, to my mind, quite surprising remarks about Michael Smith and myself that have no place on a moderated list. Particularly troubling were a likening of our use of the term ‘Aztec’ to the policies of Stalin. In a final statement that ends in mid-air, an extended reference to me (as a presumed German) relates and compares the worst developments in recent German history to my way of thinking. In what follows, I shall restrict myself to answering certain claims made in the posting about the history and use of key terms. I would greatly appreciate it if any response to this would refrain from personal attacks and insinuations about my motives, since it only distracts from the issues we are trying to discuss. On the term ‘Aztec’: The contributor, who appears in earlier postings variously as Dante Romero Gil and Roberto Romero Gutierrez, writes “El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo Cristobal del Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos.” It is actually not correct to say that the term ‘Azteca’ was used for the first time in Cristobal del Castillo’s ‘Historia’. This work was not finished until 1599 (see, e.g., the review of the 2001 Navarrete edition by Gabriela Vallejo Cervantes at http://nuevomundo.revues.org/index324.html), which is fairly late for a primary source, and did not reach print (in fragmentary form) until 1908. Quite a large number of other sources use the term before del Castillo, among them Duran, Sahagun, and so forth. Cristobal del Castillo himself, a difficult but highly interesting source in many ways, goes further than most in underlining the clear link between the Mexica and their heritage as Azteca. He refers to them specifically (in their pre-settlement context) as ‘Mecitin Azteca’. Before the Mexica founded their twin settlements in the Valley of Mexico’s central lake area, they were known (according to tradition) as Mecitin, the plural form of the name Meci borne by their patron deity Huitzilopochtli. At an even earlier stage they were simply known as Azteca, which our primary sources are careful to state. The Codex Aubin (f. 5r), to name but one, has a famous passage where Huitzilopochtli announces that he is giving them a new name, “In axcan aocmo amotoca in amazteca ye ammexica” (‘Now you are no longer called Azteca. You are Mexica’). This is beautifully illustrated in the Tira de la Peregrinacion (Panel 4). The event takes place on the road to Cuextecatl Ichocayan, not long before they reach Tollan (Tula). The term 'Mexica' is, of course, anachronistic (or future-oriented?!) in this context, since it derives from the name of their later capital. It is worth noting that every single one of the Azteca groups named in the Aubin and glyphically in the Tira -- Huexotzinca, Chalca, Xochimilca, Cuitlahuaca, Malinalca, Tla(l)huica/Chichimeca, Tepaneca, and Matlatzinca -- ended up being absorbed into the Empire (in the exceptional case of Huexotzinco for just a couple of years). The Tepaneca even became active participants in the administration and expansion of the Aztec Empire. So the term is highly appropriate, even if the Aztecs themselves reserved it as a rule for references to their mythical past. The empire was not a mere Mexica endeavour, even if they were the driving force and provided the greater part of the ruling elite. It is not only appropriate as a collective term for the core groups of the Aztec Empire, but also as an older, but still acceptably alternative, term for the Mexica, who, as we can see in the Tira de la Peregrinacion, evolve out of the wandering Azteca groups. Dante/Roberto Romero G. refers me to the article by Leon-Portilla on the history and controversial aspects of the term. This interesting article (in ECN, vol. 31) can be downloaded from the Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl site. One cannot fail to admire Leon-Portilla’s scholarship and, as always, this particular article is no exception. Nevertheless, some inaccuracies have crept in, as they do into anyone’s scholarly output. At one point (p. 310) he states that the term ‘Aztec’ was first introduced by Alexander von Humboldt in 1810. This is incorrect. It was already employed a good thirty years earlier in Clavigero’s immensely influential history (1780, vol. 1, p. 14-15), where the latter writes of “Gli Aztechi, o Messicani, che furono gli ultimi popolatori del paese d’Anahuac, e sono il soggetto principale della nostra Storia”. Leon-Portilla also states (p. 310) that, whereas ‘los de Mexico’ is employed by Cortes and Gomara for the Mexica, the term ‘mexicanos’ was not used till Bernal Diaz del Castillo, after which it was adopted by other writers: “A partir de el todos cuantos escribieron en el period colonial emplearon el mismo vocablo. Ello es verdad en el caso de Motolinia, Diego Duran, Bernardino de Sahagun, ” But these authors all wrote before Diaz (Motolinia uses the term already in 1541!). And, while Gomara (1552) uses ‘los de Mexico’ 37 times, he shows a far greater preference for ‘mexicano/a(s)’, which he uses no less than 119 times. Furthermore, Diaz’ account was not completed until decades after Gomara had published his work. I enthusiastically agree with Michael Smith's use and defence of the term 'Aztec'. As one of the foremost authorities today on Aztec civilization, and as a scholar who has written an excellent study of the Aztlan migrations (see his informative and entertaining web site at for many more downloadable contributions of value), he has given the matter very careful thought and has chosen the best blanket term available. Like all other experts, he is fully aware that in certain contexts blanket terms are useful, while in others differentiation is appropriate. I would like to add that I have learned a great deal from him. Well, I think that is enough said for now. I will save the rest for an article (or perhaps for further discussion here, depending on the way things develop). Best wishes -- and my thanks to both Michaels and to Caroline, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Tue Feb 24 04:24:54 2009 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:24:54 +0000 Subject: Pondering the terms 'Aztec' and 'Mexican' In-Reply-To: <49826.84.132.246.71.1235435043.squirrel@mailbox.gwdg.de> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Yet another contribution on the use of the term 'Aztec' for Nahuatl speaking groups in Central Mexico. I have communicated my reasons for not agreeing with such a use of the term to Michael and I will repeat some of them here in response to a particular paragraph written by Gordon: > It is worth noting that every single one of the Azteca groups named in the > Aubin and glyphically in the Tira -- Huexotzinca, Chalca, Xochimilca, > Cuitlahuaca, Malinalca, Tla(l)huica/Chichimeca, Tepaneca, and Matlatzinca > -- ended up being absorbed into the Empire (in the exceptional case of > Huexotzinco for just a couple of years). The Tepaneca even became active > participants in the administration and expansion of the Aztec Empire. So > the term is highly appropriate, even if the Aztecs themselves reserved it > as a rule for references to their mythical past. The empire was not a mere > Mexica endeavour, even if they were the driving force and provided the > greater part of the ruling elite. It is not only appropriate as a > collective term for the core groups of the Aztec Empire, but also as an > older, but still acceptably alternative, term for the Mexica, who, as we > can see in the Tira de la Peregrinacion, evolve out of the wandering > Azteca groups. The fact that the Tepaneca were active participants in the "Aztec" empire is hardly a reason to call them 'Aztecs'. Following that thought we could call the Tlaxcalteca 'Spaniards' as they participated actively in the "Spanish" conquest, as did just about every indigenous group for that matter. 'Aztec' refers to the place of origin of Aztlan and none of the mentioned groups came from there but those who were named 'Mexitin' afterwards. True, the Tripple Alliance was not a mere Mexica endeavor, but it certainly wasn't an 'Aztec' one. The only 'Aztecs' that we know of are those who later became Tenochca and Tlatelolca. But let's go back to the source of the problem. Michael Smith says the following (The Aztecs, Blacwell Publishing, 2003:4): [...] I believe it makes more sense to expand the definition of "Aztec" to include the peoples of nearby highland valleys in addition to the inhabitants of the Valley of Mexico. In the final few centuries before the arrival of the Spaniards in 1519, the peoples of this wider area all spoke the Nahuatl language (the language of the Aztecs), and they all traced their origins to a mythical place in the north called Aztlan (Aztlan is the origin of the term "Aztec," a modern label that was not used by the people themselves).[...] I still have to see the sources that reports the Chalca, Xochimilca and others coming from Aztlan. The term 'Aztec' for Nahuatl speaking peoples of Central Mexico is methodologically, historically, and ethnically incorrect. It confuses matters unnecessarily. There is a good term for these Nahuatl speaking groups that is widely used in the literature: "Nahuas". Ok, we don't have historical sources that use the term, but nor do we have sources that use the term 'Aztecs' for the Nahuatl speaking peoples of Central Mexico. And the argument that 'Nahuas' doesn't sell isn't true either considering James Lockhart's 'The Nahuas after the Conquest', a bestseller in any way you want to turn it. Un abrazo a todos, Michel R. Oudijk Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México > Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:24:03 +0100 > From: gwhitta at gwdg.de > To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Subject: [Nahuat-l] Pondering the terms 'Aztec' and 'Mexican' > > Dear colleagues, > > In the last few days we have had a constructive exchange on the AZTLAN and > NAHUATl-L lists concerning certain core terms used in Aztec studies. > Unfortunately, one unsigned posting to the AZTLAN list contained, in > addition to some rather polemical statements about the nature of primary > sources on the Postclassic period, a lengthy tirade that included a number > of highly regrettable and, to my mind, quite surprising remarks about > Michael Smith and myself that have no place on a moderated list. > Particularly troubling were a likening of our use of the term ‘Aztec’ to > the policies of Stalin. In a final statement that ends in mid-air, an > extended reference to me (as a presumed German) relates and compares the > worst developments in recent German history to my way of thinking. > > In what follows, I shall restrict myself to answering certain claims made > in the posting about the history and use of key terms. I would greatly > appreciate it if any response to this would refrain from personal attacks > and insinuations about my motives, since it only distracts from the issues > we are trying to discuss. > > On the term ‘Aztec’: > > The contributor, who appears in earlier postings variously as Dante Romero > Gil and Roberto Romero Gutierrez, writes “El uso de Azteca aparece primero > en la obra del historiador mestizo Cristobal del Castillo Historia de la > Venida de los mexicanos.” > > It is actually not correct to say that the term ‘Azteca’ was used for the > first time in Cristobal del Castillo’s ‘Historia’. This work was not > finished until 1599 (see, e.g., the review of the 2001 Navarrete edition > by Gabriela Vallejo Cervantes at > http://nuevomundo.revues.org/index324.html), which is fairly late for a > primary source, and did not reach print (in fragmentary form) until 1908. > Quite a large number of other sources use the term before del Castillo, > among them Duran, Sahagun, and so forth. > > Cristobal del Castillo himself, a difficult but highly interesting source > in many ways, goes further than most in underlining the clear link between > the Mexica and their heritage as Azteca. He refers to them specifically > (in their pre-settlement context) as ‘Mecitin Azteca’. Before the Mexica > founded their twin settlements in the Valley of Mexico’s central lake > area, they were known (according to tradition) as Mecitin, the plural form > of the name Meci borne by their patron deity Huitzilopochtli. > > At an even earlier stage they were simply known as Azteca, which our > primary sources are careful to state. The Codex Aubin (f. 5r), to name but > one, has a famous passage where Huitzilopochtli announces that he is > giving them a new name, “In axcan aocmo amotoca in amazteca ye ammexica” > (‘Now you are no longer called Azteca. You are Mexica’). This is > beautifully illustrated in the Tira de la Peregrinacion (Panel 4). The > event takes place on the road to Cuextecatl Ichocayan, not long before > they reach Tollan (Tula). The term 'Mexica' is, of course, anachronistic > (or future-oriented?!) in this context, since it derives from the name of > their later capital. > > It is worth noting that every single one of the Azteca groups named in the > Aubin and glyphically in the Tira -- Huexotzinca, Chalca, Xochimilca, > Cuitlahuaca, Malinalca, Tla(l)huica/Chichimeca, Tepaneca, and Matlatzinca > -- ended up being absorbed into the Empire (in the exceptional case of > Huexotzinco for just a couple of years). The Tepaneca even became active > participants in the administration and expansion of the Aztec Empire. So > the term is highly appropriate, even if the Aztecs themselves reserved it > as a rule for references to their mythical past. The empire was not a mere > Mexica endeavour, even if they were the driving force and provided the > greater part of the ruling elite. It is not only appropriate as a > collective term for the core groups of the Aztec Empire, but also as an > older, but still acceptably alternative, term for the Mexica, who, as we > can see in the Tira de la Peregrinacion, evolve out of the wandering > Azteca groups. > > Dante/Roberto Romero G. refers me to the article by Leon-Portilla on the > history and controversial aspects of the term. This interesting article > (in ECN, vol. 31) can be downloaded from the Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl > site. One cannot fail to admire Leon-Portilla’s scholarship and, as > always, this particular article is no exception. Nevertheless, some > inaccuracies have crept in, as they do into anyone’s scholarly output. At > one point (p. 310) he states that the term ‘Aztec’ was first introduced by > Alexander von Humboldt in 1810. This is incorrect. It was already employed > a good thirty years earlier in Clavigero’s immensely influential history > (1780, vol. 1, p. 14-15), where the latter writes of “Gli Aztechi, o > Messicani, che furono gli ultimi popolatori del paese d’Anahuac, e sono il > soggetto principale della nostra Storia”. > > Leon-Portilla also states (p. 310) that, whereas ‘los de Mexico’ is > employed by Cortes and Gomara for the Mexica, the term ‘mexicanos’ was not > used till Bernal Diaz del Castillo, after which it was adopted by other > writers: “A partir de el todos cuantos escribieron en el period colonial > emplearon el mismo vocablo. Ello es verdad en el caso de Motolinia, Diego > Duran, Bernardino de Sahagun, …” But these authors all wrote before Diaz > (Motolinia uses the term already in 1541!). And, while Gomara (1552) uses > ‘los de Mexico’ 37 times, he shows a far greater preference for > ‘mexicano/a(s)’, which he uses no less than 119 times. Furthermore, Diaz’ > account was not completed until decades after Gomara had published his > work. > > I enthusiastically agree with Michael Smith's use and defence of the term > 'Aztec'. As one of the foremost authorities today on Aztec civilization, > and as a scholar who has written an excellent study of the Aztlan > migrations (see his informative and entertaining web site at > for many more downloadable > contributions of value), he has given the matter very careful thought and > has chosen the best blanket term available. Like all other experts, he is > fully aware that in certain contexts blanket terms are useful, while in > others differentiation is appropriate. I would like to add that I have > learned a great deal from him. > > Well, I think that is enough said for now. I will save the rest for an > article (or perhaps for further discussion here, depending on the way > things develop). > > Best wishes -- and my thanks to both Michaels and to Caroline, > Gordon > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gordon Whittaker > Professor > Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik > Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie > Universitaet Goettingen > Humboldtallee 19 > 37073 Goettingen > Germany > tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 > tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Tue Feb 24 09:56:14 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:56:14 +0100 Subject: 'Aztec' vs. 'Mexica' vs. 'Nahua' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Michel, dear colleagues, It is evident from your opening sentence that you find discussion of this key term exasperating. And yet, as we have seen, the matter is still highly controversial, both in academic circles and among the lay public, which means that there is every reason for us to continue discussing the issue. I am really not interested in getting to the finishing line first -- what matters to me is how we get there. The term 'Aztec' is not only high-profile in academia, and so firmly established that even those who criticize its use (see the ECN article by Leon-Portilla) employ and thus acknowledge the term (as LP does, for example, in his edition of Bernal Diaz -- even in reference to the Nahuatl language). Note also the condoned use of the term for the international exhibition on the Aztec period and for the Spanish-language and international editions of the 'Aztecs' exhibition catalogue. It is, moreover, a term that has entered all languages. Th term 'Mexica': When, on the other hand, 'Mexica' is used, which I obviously also applaud and will continue to use alongside 'Aztec', it tends to get badly mispronounced outside of Mexico -- and confused with the term for the modern nation. Thus, /MEK-si-ka/ is all too common. The other problem is the lack of an adjective for the latter. It can, of course, be worked around by using the noun as such. But, ever since the expropriation of the term for the new nation, confusion runs rife. How often does one hear the term 'Mexican' used for Mexican Spanish, as in 'I don't speak Mexican'?! Now, I am certainly not suggesting abandoning the term to the street. I am merely saying that 'Aztec' is less easily confused and has a high recognition value. Since it is not a garbled, Spanish-based, form, I have no problem with it. The term 'Nahua': As for the term 'Nahua', you have overlooked an important aspect of the book by Lockhart -- he is not simply writing about the former peoples of the Aztec Empire. He is also talking about the Tlaxcalteca and other Nahua groups outside the former empire of the Triple Alliance. Thus, 'Nahua' is indeed the appropriate term in this context. One can, of course, argue that the term 'Aztec' is even useful in an extended sense for the Tlaxcalteca (and the Huexotzinca, who are, in any case, Azteca in origin). Enemies of the Triple Alliance, yes, but also Nahua who shared in the same basic culture. The cultural manifestations are distinctly 'Aztec', something that cannot be said of all Nahua groups, who are found over a vast swathe of territory, in no few cases far beyond the reach, or at least direct influence, of the Triple Alliance. You write, "I still have to see the sources that reports the Chalca, Xochimilca and others coming from Aztlan. The term 'Aztec' for Nahuatl speaking peoples of Central Mexico is methodologically, historically, and ethnically incorrect." Shouldn't one FIRST look at the sources, and THEN make a judgement? Besides, I gave you the references (and even quoted from them); both of them are well-known and easily found. I recommend to all the truly magnificent edition of the Tira de la Peregrinacion (Codex Boturini) published as Edicion Especial 26 of Arqueologia Mexicana. So let's look at the rather serious charges you level at me. 1) "methodologically (incorrect)": Surely one should cite, and argue from, primary sources? 2) "historically (incorrect)": As a macro-ethnic term used by the Aztecs for their mythical past, hardly historically unjustified. Modern academia (and general culture) has simply extended its usage to the entire Late Postclassic (and occasionally, like Charles Gibson in his excellent treatise 'The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule', to the early Colonial period) in Central Mexico. I do not think that anyone has ever been led astray by this usage, whether one approves of it or not. 3) "ethnically incorrect": Why so? The groups named above were all regarded as Aztec in origin, at the very least by the Mexica. The term is frequent in this context in Central Mexican Nahuatl texts. And the author of one group of these texts, Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, a proud descendant of the Chalca, confirms the validity of the term also for the latter. I think the main problem has long been the fact that the term 'Aztec' has become an ideological issue (like the term 'Aztlan') and part of New Age culture. It is hard otherwise to understand why so much heat is generated by discussion of the topic. But should we acquiesce to ideology? Best wishes, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Tue Feb 24 16:31:22 2009 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:31:22 +0000 Subject: 'Aztec' vs. 'Mexica' vs. 'Nahua' In-Reply-To: <49327.84.132.255.131.1235469374.squirrel@mailbox.gwdg.de> Message-ID: Dear Gordon and others, I will go over your arguments one by one: > It is evident from your opening sentence that you find discussion of this > key term exasperating. And yet, as we have seen, the matter is still > highly controversial, both in academic circles and among the lay public, > which means that there is every reason for us to continue discussing the > issue. I am really not interested in getting to the finishing line first > -- what matters to me is how we get there. The term 'Aztec' is not only > high-profile in academia, and so firmly established that even those who > criticize its use (see the ECN article by Leon-Portilla) employ and thus > acknowledge the term (as LP does, for example, in his edition of Bernal > Diaz -- even in reference to the Nahuatl language). Note also the condoned > use of the term for the international exhibition on the Aztec period and > for the Spanish-language and international editions of the 'Aztecs' > exhibition catalogue. It is, moreover, a term that has entered all > languages. Sometimes these discussions are exasperating, which doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. Reason why they are exasperating is that often arguments are used which don't seem to make any sense as in, they go against common sense. It seems to me we're dealing with two different issues here. First, we have an academic community and a lay public. Normally, as is the case in Mesoamerican history, the lay public doesn't make the same detailed distinctions as the academic community does. Hence the use of 'Aztecs' in major exhibits like the one in London in 2002-2003 or another big one in Brussels in the late 80's. No problem there cause we know this is marketing and nobody expects the lay public to understand the discussion about such issues as 'Aztecs' vs 'Mexica'. But the discussion we're having now is not a laymen's discussion but one between colleagues, investigators of Mesoamerican history. In this case we CAN and SHOULD make the difference between the terms, because it is significant in our understanding of the Mesoamerican world. I know that Miguel León-Portilla uses the term 'the Aztec language' when he actually refers to Nahuatl, but I don't think he will refer to Chalca or Huexotzinca as 'Aztecas'. In Mexico, and I'm talking about the Mexican academic community, nobody will refer to these other Nahua groups as 'Aztecas'. But I will get back to this in the next paragraph. > Th term 'Mexica': > > When, on the other hand, 'Mexica' is used, which I obviously also applaud > and will continue to use alongside 'Aztec', it tends to get badly > mispronounced outside of Mexico -- and confused with the term for the > modern nation. Thus, /MEK-si-ka/ is all too common. The other problem is > the lack of an adjective for the latter. It can, of course, be worked > around by using the noun as such. But, ever since the expropriation of the > term for the new nation, confusion runs rife. How often does one hear the > term 'Mexican' used for Mexican Spanish, as in 'I don't speak Mexican'?! > Now, I am certainly not suggesting abandoning the term to the street. I am > merely saying that 'Aztec' is less easily confused and has a high > recognition value. Since it is not a garbled, Spanish-based, form, I have > no problem with it. This is, in my opinion an exasperating argument. There is no value to this in an academic discussion and curiously enough it only works in an English speaking context. No-one here in Mexico has a problem with this although people also pronounce the 'x' as 'ks'. Even in towns like Tlaxcala people will pronounce the name as 'tlakscala', or say 'aksyacatl', etc, etc. That is not an argument for not using the term 'mexica'. Maybe you and I, Gordon, should change our last names because nobody can pronounce it correctly (mine not even in the English speaking world). Ignorance of a language can never be an argument in an academic discussion. Or as Humberto Eco has said in his famous book on how to write a thesis: - No se puede hacer una tesis sobre un autor extranjero si este no es leído en su lengua original. - No se puede hacer una tesis sobre un tema si las obras más importantes que se refieren a él están escritas en una lengua que no conocemos. In other words "if you don't speak the language, get out of the bussiness". That colleagues openly admit that they don't read or speak Spanish is not only revealing, but shocking. That we don't pronounce something correctly is one thing (although the pronounciation of 'x' as 'ks' cannot, linguistically speaking, be considered a mistake), but please let's not use our ignorance as an argument. > The term 'Nahua': > > As for the term 'Nahua', you have overlooked an important aspect of the > book by Lockhart -- he is not simply writing about the former peoples of > the Aztec Empire. He is also talking about the Tlaxcalteca and other Nahua > groups outside the former empire of the Triple Alliance. Thus, 'Nahua' is > indeed the appropriate term in this context. Please Gordon, read carefully. The author who is most specific about his use of the term 'Aztecs' and actually defines it is Michael Smith and I think he's pretty much on the spot in regard to how others who agree with him may use it. You yourself in one of the previous messages have whole heartedly pronounced your support of the Michael's use of the term. Well now, what does he say: "Ethnohistorian James Lockhart has found many cultural similarities among these peoples at the time of the Spanish conquest, and he uses the term "Nahuas" to describe the central Mexican Nahuatl-speaking peoples. My use of the term "Aztecs" parallels Lockhart's term for the period before 1519; after which I switch to "Nahuas" to describe these people following the Spanish conquest. (The Aztecs, Blackwell Publishing, 2003:4). So both Lockhart and Smith are referring to the very same people, but Smith makes a distinction in time. I think this confuses the matter and, in my opinion, is incorrect, but we'll get to that later. > One can, of course, argue that the term 'Aztec' is even useful in an > extended sense for the Tlaxcalteca (and the Huexotzinca, who are, in any > case, Azteca in origin). Enemies of the Triple Alliance, yes, but also > Nahua who shared in the same basic culture. The cultural manifestations > are distinctly 'Aztec', something that cannot be said of all Nahua groups, > who are found over a vast swathe of territory, in no few cases far beyond > the reach, or at least direct influence, of the Triple Alliance. Now you're confusing me. You actually want to call the Tlaxcalteca 'Aztecs'? Although this is correct according to Smith's definition but highly unusual and probably even offending to the Tlaxcalteca. They were 'Nahuas' in Lockhart's sense and the major Tlaxcalteca scholar, the late Luis Reyes García, actually used the term Nahua (although he spelled it 'naua' for other reasons) as do many other indigenous scholars. But never ever would they call themselves 'Azteca'. Not today, not in the past, and probably not in the future. It seems to me that the cultural manifestations of Tlaxcala, Huexotzingo or other Nahua city-states like Texcoco for example, are not 'Aztec' at all. Their cultural manifestations are different in many ways. For example, we can easily distinguish Mexica pictorials from those of Tlaxcala, Huexotzinco or Texcoco. There are actually very few expressions of the 'Aztec empire' within the territory controlled by the Triple Alliance. This is, in fact, one of the characteristics of that empire and probably a Mesoamerican characteristic. > You write, "I still have to see the sources that reports the Chalca, > Xochimilca and others coming from Aztlan. The term 'Aztec' for Nahuatl > speaking peoples of Central Mexico is methodologically, historically, and > ethnically incorrect." Shouldn't one FIRST look at the sources, and THEN > make a judgement? Besides, I gave you the references (and even quoted from > them); both of them are well-known and easily found. I recommend to all > the truly magnificent edition of the Tira de la Peregrinacion (Codex > Boturini) published as Edicion Especial 26 of Arqueologia Mexicana. Ok, let's LOOK at the sources. What do we see in the Tira? We see somebody leaving in a canoo passing through a curved hill glossed 'Colhuacan' and then arriving at a list of peoples. Although some authors have read variations, generally their glyphs have been read as: Huexotzinca, Chalca, Xochimilca, Cuitlahuaca, Malinalca, Chichimeca, Tepaneca, Matlazinca. This very same scene is represented in the Codex Azcatitlan. Some other documents that mention Aztlan or may mention Aztlan don't refer to any other group but that which founded Tenochtitlan (see the Mapa de Sigüenza or the Codex Mexicanus) which strongly suggest that they wanted to make clear that THEY specifically were the ones from Aztlan and no-one else. But even the Codex Aubin pictographically doesn't include the eight groups in Aztlan: we see a hill with four houses on an island. Beneath this drawing are the names of the eight groups. This is what we see in the pictography. Someone leaving from an island, arriving at a curved hill where eight groups are represented. Now, let's READ some of the sources: Nican ycuiliuhtica yn itlatollo yn ompa huillaque y mexica yn itocayocan Aztlan. Ca anepantla yn ompa vallevaque ca nauh calpoltin. Auh ynic vallamaceyaya acaltica yn quivaltemaya yn imacxoyauh yn oncan ytocayocan. Quinevayan oztotl onca ca yn oncan quizque chicue calpoltin. Inic cen calpoltin vexotzinca. Inic on calpoltin chalca. Inique calpoltin xochimilca. Inic nauh calpoltin cuitlavaca. Inic macuil calpoltin mallinalca. Inic chiquacen calpolti chichimeca. Inic chicon calpoltin tepaneca. Inic chicue calpoltin matlatzinca. Yn oncan onoca yn colhuacan oncan chaneque catca ynic hualpanoque yn aztlan oncan quinvallantiquizque yn colhuacan yn oquimittaque yn chaneque niman oquilhuique yn azteca. Totecuiyovane can ammohuica ma tamechtoviquilican. Niman oquitoque yn azteca. Canin tamechvicazque. Ooof, I hear you say. That's Nahuatl. But I would like to refer to Eco's statement about the matter of language....(btw this doesn't apply to me as I work on Oaxacan cultures). But you Gordon, as I, can read the excellent German translation by Lehmann and Kutscher ("Geschichte der Azteken", Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin, 1981). But I have pitty on my fellow academics and so will translate it into English: Here is painted the history of how the Mexica came from the place called Aztlan. It is situated in the middle of the water from where they left. There are four houses (calpulli). And while in the boat they served the god, they placed for him the green pine twig. The place with the name 'Place of the later departure' is a cave. That is where the eight houses (calpoltin) came from. The first house are the Huexotzinca. The second house are the Chalca. The third house are the Xochimilca. The fourth house are the Cuitlahuaca. The fifth house are the Malinalca. The sixth house are the Chichimeca. The seventh house are the Tepaneca. The eighth house are the Matlatzinca. There where Colhuacan is situated, they have their home. When they came from Aztlan over the water, they found there those of Colhuacan. When those who live there had seen them, they spoke to the Aztecs: "Oh our lords! Where are you going? Let us accompany you." And the Aztecs said: "Where will we accompany you to?" >>From this reading it is very clear that the Aztecs came from Aztlan and that the other eight groups did not. Therefore, these eight groups are not called 'Aztecs' in the text while those who came from Aztlan certainly are. And these Aztecs, later received the name 'Mexitin' and founded Tenochtitlan and later Tlatelolco. I will not transcribe all other sources that confirm this statement from the Codex Aubin, but let's look at only two more. The "Memorial de Colhuacan" by Chimalpahin for example. It reads: Yn oquiuh matlaclonnahui ixhuitl huallehuazque yn teochichimeca azteca mexitin chicomoztoca yn ompa ynchan Aztlan Chicomoztoc ynic nican motlalliquihui atlihtic Mexico Tenuchtitlan. (Las ocho relaciones y el memorial de Colhuacan, Domingo Chimalpahin, Cien de México, 1998:82). Which translates as: [...] y faltaban todavía 14 años para que los teochichimecas aztecas mexitin chicomoztecas partieron de su morada de Aztlan Chicomoztoc y vinieran a asentarse en la isla de Mexico Tenochtitlan. Again, it's very clear that those who founded Mexico Tenochtitlan were the ones who left from Aztlan. Not another group, just the Mexica. Finally, the "Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas": "Dicen que cumplidos diez treces después del diluvio, que son 130 años, estando poblados los mexicanos en un pueblo que se dice Aztlan, [...], y de la otra parte del río está otro pueblo muy grande que se dice Colhuacan. [...] y para ello hicieron tres caudillos o tres capitanes: al uno dijeron Xiuhtzin, al otro Tecpatzin, y al otro Cuauhtllequetzqui. Y con estos tres partieron muchos mexicanos; [..] Ya está dicho cómo de la parte del río hacie oriente pintan que está la ciudad de Cohuacan, y que es muy grande pueblo y tiene alrededor de sí muchos lugares y gente. Y, por no caber, determinaron de venir a buscar tierra do poblasen; [...] Y salieron con ellos los de Culuacan, que era la çiudad prinçipal, y por eso se puso Culuacan a la que está dos leguas desta çiudad, [...] Salieron de Suchimilco, [...]. Salió Chalco, [...]. ("Mitos e historias de los antiguos nahuas", Cien de México, 2002:45-46). I hope the point is clear: The Aztecs leave Aztlan and go to Colhuacan where they join the other groups. These are thus NOT Aztecs, because they don't come from Aztlan. There's no more to it. > So let's look at the rather serious charges you level at me. > > 1) "methodologically (incorrect)": Surely one should cite, and argue from, > primary sources? I think the above is enough. > > 2) "historically (incorrect)": As a macro-ethnic term used by the Aztecs > for their mythical past, hardly historically unjustified. Modern academia > (and general culture) has simply extended its usage to the entire Late > Postclassic (and occasionally, like Charles Gibson in his excellent > treatise 'The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule', to the early Colonial period) in > Central Mexico. I do not think that anyone has ever been led astray by > this usage, whether one approves of it or not. Laymen may use the term 'Aztec' or 'Aztecs' in order to refer to Nahuatl speaking people. This certainly doesn't happen here in Mexico, but in the US or Europe this may be the case. But, again, this should not be the case among academics since there is a clear difference between the different Nahua groups and only the Mexica (Tenochca and Tlatelolca) will use the term in reference to their own past. In general, Aztecs would be seen and understood as the Mexica and maybe even only the Tenochca. If you would propose such a use, few academics would have a problem with it. Using Aztecs for other Nahuatl speaking groups confusses the situation exactly because of the specificity of the term. How can you use 'Aztecs' for Huexotzinca or Chalca when they simply are not Aztecs? When I read 'Aztecs' in reference to Chalca, I'm confused precisely because I know what the term 'Aztec' means. That Gibson used 'Aztecs' in the title of his book shouldn't be a reason for the continuation of it's use when his star student James Lockhart corrected the master on this very issue and "Nahuas" in his title. Academic investigation develops and therefore things change. In the 1950's 'Aztecs' was acceptable, today it isn't. > 3) "ethnically incorrect": Why so? The groups named above were all > regarded as Aztec in origin, at the very least by the Mexica. The term is > frequent in this context in Central Mexican Nahuatl texts. And the author > of one group of these texts, Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, a proud > descendant of the Chalca, confirms the validity of the term also for the > latter. No Chalca, no Texcocana, no Huexotzinca, no whatever-Nahua-group-you-want-to-fill-in-here, used the term 'Azteca' to refer to themselves, nor would they ever have done so. One of the main issues in Mesoamerica is the identity of the autonomous altepetl. Even the city-states that were conquered or otherwise subjugated to the Triple Alliance would never ever identify themselves with 'Azteca', to 'Mexica' or 'Tenochca'. That is unthinkable in a Mesoamerican society. Chimalpahin is the first to identify himself as Chalca. Please do read the vast literature on this from Lockhart to Reyes García to Schroeder. > I think the main problem has long been the fact that the term 'Aztec' has > become an ideological issue (like the term 'Aztlan') and part of New Age > culture. It is hard otherwise to understand why so much heat is generated > by discussion of the topic. But should we acquiesce to ideology? 'Aztec' or 'Aztlan' is hardly a New Age term and although it may be used by people we can relate to the New Age movement, we as historians, archaeologists, linguists or whatever discipline you work in, should not be influenced by such movements in choosing our terminology. Again, there is a lay public and an academic community. I think we can and should distinguish between one and the other. Un fuerte abrazo a todos, Michel R. Oudijk Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Tue Feb 24 22:46:54 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:46:54 +0100 Subject: Out of Aztlan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Michel, dear colleagues, It is rather dismaying to be subjected repeatedly to opinions expressed in a strident and condescending tone when an academic matter of no little interest is being discussed. It should be possible to discuss these matters in a civil, if not friendly, manner. The only consolation to me in this case lies in the fact that such browbeating is usually self-defeating and tends to reflect negatively on the source. Michel Oudijk has suggested that I learn Nahuatl or, paraphrasing Humberto (sic) Eco, "get out of the bussiness (sic)". He quotes Eco as writing, "No se puede hacer una tesis sobre un autor extranjero si este no es leido en su lengua original." Curious. How odd to quote this sentence in Spanish translation (in the original: "Non si puo fare una tesi su un autore straniero se questo autore non viene letto in originale"), thus violating its very words! Michel goes on to do this again with respect to Nahuatl texts. Actually, I even teach Nahuatl, and have been teaching and publishing on Nahuatl for decades, at Yale and elsewhere. I can highly recommend this beautiful language to you. Michel, you add that Eco's words do not apply to you, since you're an expert on Oaxacan cultures. And yet you cite Nahuatl at length (followed by the translation you used) in the posting, telling me not to worry because I can consult the excellent German translation by Lehmann. This is condescending, but at the same time reflects on your own attitude -- if you admit not knowing a language and not even being a specialist on the cultures involved, then surely you shouldn't be lecturing experts such as Michael Smith, who has worked on Aztec culture and archaeology for decades. At the very least, I would recommend adopting a more collegial tone and approach. Now to the points you raise: You say I use arguments that "don't seem to make any sense", adding by way of example that "nobody will refer to these other Nahua groups [Chalca, Huexotzinca, etc.] as 'Aztecas'. Here you have chosen to ignore the clear distinction I made between MODERN usage of the term 'Aztec' as an acceptable and convenient blanket term for (1) the Nahua peoples of the Valley of Mexico that made up the core of the Aztec Empire, and (2) differentiating labels when discussing individual groups. I stressed that distinction in my posting. You really shouldn't quote me out of context. Furthermore, I suggested that, if one so wished, one could even extend the usage to include the Tlaxcalteca and Huexotzinca in a CULTURAL sense, i.e. because they shared the key aspects of so-called Mixteca-Puebla and, more generally speaking, Aztec culture. Such features are recognizable in the archaeological and more general cultural record. I do not see any need to single the Tlaxcalteca out as Aztecs, but, as I said, I would have no particular objection to using the term in a cultural sense to include the independent Nahua areas. The difference between imperial and independent areas is fundamentally a political, not an ethnic or cultural, one. Incidentally, you criticize my reference to the Tepanecs as Aztecs because they participated in and, indeed, co-ruled the Aztec Empire, saying that one could just as easily call the Tlaxcalteca 'Spaniards' because they participated in the Conquest. Hardly. The Tlaxcalteca neither participated in nor co-ruled the Spanish Empire, but were simply brief allies. Moreover, the Tlaxcalteca did not share Spanish culture. I stand by my statement of approval for Lockhart's use of the term 'Nahua' with respect to the Nahua of Central Mexico. This is self-explanatory, I think. Obviously, Lockhart's book 'The Nahuas After the Conquest' actually focuses not on the Nahua as a whole, but on the Nahua of the central area, as made clear in the secondary title. One might disagree with his use of the Spanish plural suffix -s in Nahuas, but that is another matter. As to Michael Smith's definition of 'Aztec': he is using it in the cultural sense I just mentioned, and this is perfectly defensible. The difference lies in the fact that Smith explicitly uses 'Aztec' to refer to the shared Nahua culture of the central valleys before the Conquest, and uses 'Nahua' in the same general sense as Lockhart for Colonial-period contexts. Gibson could have named his book 'The Aztecs [and their Descendants in the Valley of Mexico] Under Spanish Rule', but he opted instead for 'The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810', which, I think, makes quite clear what he is talking about. Aztecs, like Romans, did not simply disappear at the fall of their empires. Many Aztecs in the cultural and political sense lived on well into the late 16th century and adapted in varying degree to Spanish rule. It is not inappropriate to continue to call this population 'Aztec', even if their state had ceased to exist. He clearly meant 'the 'Aztecs and their descendants'. But this is a matter that should, of course, be decided and explained with care. Your talk about Lockhart the pupil teaching Gibson the master a thing or two is uncalled-for. You write, "No Chalca, no Texcocana (sic!), no Huexotzinca, no whatever-Nahua-group-you-want-to-fill-in-here, used the term 'Azteca' to refer to themselves, nor would they ever have done so." How do you know this? But, in any case, I made clear that I was referring only to the mythical past of these groups. You go on to say, "Chimalpahin is the first to identify himself as Chalca. Please do read the vast literature on this from Lockhart to Reyes Garcia to Schroeder." Interesting that you should mention Chimalpahin, who was indeed a descendant of the lords of Chalco and very proud of it. What you don't mention is that he was also immensely proud of Aztec civilization and of the Aztec Empire, in which the Chalca came to participate actively and productively, and that he even made the famous pronouncement that adorns, e.g., the dedication page of Soustelle's ethnography (here in transl.), "For as long as the world shall endure, the honour and the glory of Mexico Tenochtitlan must never be forgotten." As Anderson and Schroeder justly claim (Codex Chimalpahin, 1: 9), "He is both proud and in awe of Mexica civilization", that is, of Aztec civilization as typified by its centre of power, Mexico Tenochtitlan. But I never claimed that he called himself an 'Aztecatl'. By the way, you say I should study Schroeder. If you glance at p. 10, fn. 22 of the Anderson and Schroeder edition above, you will find that Schroeder has read me! As for Aztlan and Teocolhuacan: First, there simply is no single (standard) version of the Aztlan migrations. Secondly, the initial phase usually involves Aztlan and/or Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc and/or (Teo)colhuacan, the staging areas for the great migration. We could indulge in nit-picking and say that the Aztecs are only the four calpoltin (which are not, by the way, "houses") from the island of Aztlan, and that the eight calpoltin joining them on the opposite bank are something else, but the fact remains that the eight calpoltin join up almost immediately with the original four groups, as personified by the four leaders named and depicted in various sources. As calpoltin belonging now to a single altepetl under four leaders from Aztlan, they then set off on their great trek. As such it is quite appropriate to refer to the migrating peoples as Azteca. But there is more in the sources you cite: In the very same passage from Chimalpahin that you quote, we find the locative phrase 'Aztlan Chicomoztoc'. When two place names are juxtaposed in Nahuatl, it frequently means that the one -- usually the second place -- is part of the other. Thus, Mexico Tenochtitlan, Xochimilco Olac, Tollan Xicocotitlan, etc. This would mean that Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc/Teocolhuacan (alternative names sometimes distinguished), a 'brokeback mountain' with a roomy cave (but apparently not cozy enough, judging by the quick exodus), was understood as a community belonging to Aztlan. Since the Codex Aubin, for one, states that the eight calpoltin emerged from this cave, they are obviously also Azteca. Anyway, let's stop the nit-picking. This is where the discussion ends for me. Best wishes, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Feb 25 00:40:05 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:40:05 -0500 Subject: 'Aztec' vs. 'Mexica' vs. 'Nahua' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Michel Oudijk : > > In other words "if you don't speak the language, get out of the > bussiness". That colleagues openly admit that they don't read or > speak Spanish is not only revealing, but shocking. Hui! Otzin: I don't mind being honest, sir. That's o.k. with me. I believe it's an admirable trait, even in academia. The best academics I know are also the most honest academics. As for my not being fluent in Spanish but still involved in Nahuatl, consider a friend and colleague of mine who is the expert world's authority on a major Algonquian recorded historically almost exclusively in French but who doesn't know French. He knows Russian and German. His lack of French has never stood in the way. Should he get out of the business? My intuition says no. Ca no zotzin. Michael McCafferty _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Wed Feb 25 02:53:00 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John Schwaller) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:53:00 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: [Aztlan] Eduardo Matos Moctezuma lecture on Thursday] Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "michael ruggeri" Subject: [Aztlan] Eduardo Matos Moctezuma lecture on Thursday Date: 24 Feb 2009 13:39:54 -0600 Size: 4138 URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Wed Feb 25 14:58:16 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:58:16 +0100 Subject: Aztecs gone astray: Some input from Chimalpahin Message-ID: Dear colleagues, To avoid prolonging the debate with Michel Oudijk unnecessarily, I would like to share a couple of passages with him and with you that have direct bearing on Aztec use of the term 'Azteca' and on the elusiveness of Aztlan, Chicomoztoc, and Colhuacan. For convenience, and since Michel recommended that I educate myself by reading "Schroeder", something I am always happy to do, I will quote only from one of Susan Schroeder's excellent publications, the 'Codex Chimalpahin' (Vol. 1, U. of Okla. Press, 1997), which she ably edited and translated together with Arthur J. O. Anderson. For the sake of brevity, I will cite only the English translation, since the Spanish and Nahuatl originals are easily located on the opposing pages: First (p. 29): "Thus this most illustrious, great city of Mexico Tenochtitlan was named [by] the first ancient, old, brave founders. They were a most robust, wise, and warlike people named Teochichimeca, Azteca, Mexitin, Chicomozteca, people of Quinehuayan. Having emerged and come from their land in the north, called the great province and island of the city of Aztlan, they then came out at the site of Chicomoztoc or the Seven Caves, ... . When they left their land, they were formed of seven barrios. ... They arrived in Culhuacan, which is next to Itztapalapan." Here Aztlan and Chicomoztoc are both (separate) sites from which the Azteca "emerged", and Colhuacan is identified as the city south of Tenochtitlan. The story of the migration is left out almost entirely and, on their arrival in Colhuacan, we find ourselves suddenly in 1299! Then (p. 67, quoting Alonso Franco): "When the Chichimeca Azteca came forth, when they emerged from their home in Aztlan, it was the year One Flint, 1064. ... (p. 69) Their home was the place called Aztlan; hence their name is Azteca. And the second name of their home was Chicomoztoc. And their names were Azteca and also Mexitin. But now their name is really said to [be] only Mexica. And later they arrived here taking as their name Tenochca. And from the place named Aztlan in the midst of the waters came the Mexica; from there the seven calpulli [groups] departed. ... He who was ruler there was named Moteucc,oma. There were two sons of this ruler. ... The elder brother, whose name is not known, was to be ruler of the Cuexteca. And to the younger brother, a Mexica, called just Mexi [though] named Chalchiuhtlatonac, he gave the Mexitin. ..." Here we have something for Michel. An instance in which, indisputably, we have mention of non-Mexica as Azteca. The Cuexteca are usually taken to be the Maya-speaking Huaxtecs, but I think it is more likely that the Huaxteca Nahua are intended here. So the Aztecs did indeed regard certain other groups as descending, like they themselves, from Aztlan. Franco provides the useful clarification that the Azteca Mexitin have two homes, Aztlan island and Chicomoztoc. Franco goes on: "And the Mexitin thereupon performed penances there at the place named Quinehuayan Tzotzompan. ... And to perform the penances they came in boats to cross the water and laid down their fir branches there at the aforesaid place called Quinehuayan. A cave is there, called Chicomoztoc, whence the seven Mexitin calpulli issued. And when the said Teochichimeca Azteca Mexitin issued from what is called and named Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc, they brought what was in their keeping, their bundle. (p. 71) And there at Quinehuayan, what was named Chicomoztoc was a crag hollowed [with] caves in seven places. ..." Seven calpoltin set out from Aztlan, then cross over to the mainland, where after performing penances the seven calpoltin "issue" anew from the seven-part cave of Chicomoztoc in Quinehuayan seven years later (p. 73). Franco's Nahuatl account continues (p. 71): "And when the Azteca Mexitin had crossed the water from Aztlan they reached Culhuacan. On that way they took the devil, the portent Huitzilopochtli, there. As they came, as they arrived hither when they emerged from the seven places in Aztlan, they brought a woman named Chimalman. And as the Azteca set out from Culhuacan there were four who on their backs carried the portent Huitzilopochtli ... . And when they reached the foot of a tree [also a place name, Cuahuitl Itzintlan, GW], they therefore seated themselves at its base. ... the Azteca Mexitin spent four more years there ... ." Franco is referring to Chicomoztoc when he speaks of the "seven places in Aztlan", that is, to Aztlan Chicomoztoc (or Aztlan Aztatlan "the abode of herons", as he also calls it; see p. 73), not the island of Aztlan. It is unclear whether he then equates Chicomoztoc with Colhuacan, as the mountain containing the seven caves of Chicomoztoc, or is simply saying that after crossing from Aztlan island, the Azteca went on from (Aztlan) Chicomoztoc to Colhuacan. I prefer the first alternative, but it can go either way as written. Then (p. 73): "And then and there he [Huitzilopochtli, GW] changed the Aztecas' name for them. He said to them: Now no longer is your name Azteca: you are now Mexitin." And summing up (p. 75): "In the year Twelve Reed, 1075, when the ancient Mexitin Azteca Chichimeca had spent seven years in Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc, they then also emerged from Chicomoztoc; hence they are called Chicomoztoca. Then they moved hither. ... it was twelve years after they had emerged from their home in Aztlan that in the aforesaid Twelve Reed they then came away and traveled hither from the aforesaid Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc. It is thus that the ancient Azteca Mexitin Chichimeca emerged from Aztlan, ..." Getting back to what Michel wrote the other day: "it is very clear that the Aztecs came from Aztlan and that the other eight groups did not". The eight groups he is referring to are the ones named in the Codex Aubin and the Tira de la Peregrinacion. Among them are the Malinalca. Now let's see what Chimalpahin says (p. 181): The year One Flint, 1064. At this time the Mexitin Azteca Teochichimeca, now known as Tenochca, as Tlatelolca, as Malinalca, and as Michhuaque, people of Patzcuaro, emerged from their home, Aztlan." So, as Chimalpahin himself says, the Malinalca were Azteca! He doesn't list the others, and the Michhuaque do not appear in all other accounts, but the thrust of the passage is clear: The Azteca were not just Mecitin/Mexitin/Mexica. They included other peoples. In the case of the Michhuaque, I suspect the Nahua-speaking Michhuaque of the Patzcuaro area are meant, not the Purhepecha/Tarascans. I interpret the Aztlan myth cycle as an explanatory device by means of which the Mexica were able to order their ethnic universe and landscape. This device made it possible for the average Aztec to understand how the various distinct Nahua peoples came into being. At the same time, it provided a rationale for the Aztec Empire under a Mexica government, because it places the Azteca squarely under Mexitin control and guidance. According to this model, the Cuexteca and the Michhuaque, two distant groups, should by right belong to the Empire because they are no more than errant Azteca -- Aztecs gone astray. Best wishes to all, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Wed Feb 25 19:18:33 2009 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:18:33 +0000 Subject: Out of Aztlan In-Reply-To: <52042.84.132.255.131.1235515614.squirrel@mailbox.gwdg.de> Message-ID: Dear Gordon and others, I've been thinking whether I should write this or not, but as you can see I have come to the conclusion that I should. I had decided that my message I sent yesterday would be my final on this subject, but it only seems just to me to respond to your response. It seems to me that your message was spurred by anger which, in my opinion, is never a good advisor. I feel that in that anger, I'm accused of things that are simply not correct, which is the reason I'm now writing again. As in my previous messages, I will go over your message point by point. > It is rather dismaying to be subjected repeatedly to opinions expressed in > a strident and condescending tone when an academic matter of no little > interest is being discussed. It should be possible to discuss these > matters in a civil, if not friendly, manner. The only consolation to me in > this case lies in the fact that such browbeating is usually self-defeating > and tends to reflect negatively on the source. I have read my two messages I wrote in response to yours and I feel that at no time have I been strident, condescending or disrespectful. I may have used cynism at some point, but always a joyful one and never spiteful. I have responded to each and every argument you have put forth which I consider part of the academic discussion. Maybe you are not used to being responded to in a direct and frank manner, but, I feel, that shouldn't be interpreted as disrespectful. I, as anybody else, am free to respond and question anybody's assertions as long as it is done with respect which I think I have. > Michel Oudijk has suggested that I learn Nahuatl or, paraphrasing Humberto > (sic) Eco, "get out of the bussiness (sic)". He quotes Eco as writing, "No > se puede hacer una tesis sobre un autor extranjero si este no es leido en > su lengua original." Curious. How odd to quote this sentence in Spanish > translation (in the original: "Non si puo fare una tesi su un autore > straniero se questo autore non viene letto in originale"), thus violating > its very words! Michel goes on to do this again with respect to Nahuatl > texts. I did not suggest you to learn Nahuatl, because I know you manage that language very well. But I will get back to this point in the next paragraph. Here I want to discuss the Eco reference. First, it seems to me that the two (sic)s are a cheap and, yes, condescending trick. I live in a Spanish speaking country and so 'Humberto' for 'Umberto' is not that strange and that I wrote 'bussiness' instead of 'business' is not at all relevant to the point. We all make mistakes when we're writing messages on the internet and particularly when one is not a native speaker as I am. The point is to communicate and I think everybody understood I meant 'business' instead of 'bussiness'. But it is cheap to try to distract the reader of the real discussion and try to discredit the other discussant with pointing out minor issues that do not matter to the discussion. Then the Eco issue, this is a non-argument, again, I suppose, to discredit me. I'm quoting the Spanish version of Eco's work because that's the version I have in my library. I am not writing a thesis about Eco or his books and so there is no reason whatsoever to quote him in Italian or even read the Italian version. My point, and that of Eco, is that one should not engage in research if the object of that research is written in a language one does not manage or if the most important literature about the object is written in a language one does not manage. Since neither is the issue in our discussion, I don't see how I am violating my own words. > Actually, I even teach Nahuatl, and have been teaching and publishing on > Nahuatl for decades, at Yale and elsewhere. I can highly recommend this > beautiful language to you. Michel, you add that Eco's words do not apply > to you, since you're an expert on Oaxacan cultures. And yet you cite > Nahuatl at length (followed by the translation you used) in the posting, > telling me not to worry because I can consult the excellent German > translation by Lehmann. This is condescending, but at the same time > reflects on your own attitude -- if you admit not knowing a language and > not even being a specialist on the cultures involved, then surely you > shouldn't be lecturing experts such as Michael Smith, who has worked on > Aztec culture and archaeology for decades. At the very least, I would > recommend adopting a more collegial tone and approach. Like I said, I know you manage Nahuatl very well, but what is the point of mentioning Yale here? I think we all know what the point is, but the fact that one has worked or taught at an Ivy League university is not at all relevant to a discussion. We are all colleagues with a desire to understand Mesoamerican cultures and it doesn't matter whether one works at Yale or any other Institution (I refrain from giving the name of another university of ‘lesser’ status here in order not to annoy anybody). Eco's words do not apply to me in regard to Nahuatl as I work -never do or did I use the word 'expert'- Zapotec (or maybe Oaxacan) history and historiography, which doesn't, of course, need to be an obstacle to citing Nahuatl sources as long as I make clear where I get the translation from and select a good translation, that is, one that is accepted as such within the academic community. This is the reason I decided on Lehmann and Kutscher's publication of the Codex Aubin which I think is very much accepted as a very good translation. In my opinion, standard academic procedure. Then my supposed condescending remark. Here is what I say: "Ooof, I hear you say. That's Nahuatl. But I would like to refer to Eco's statement about the matter of language....[..]. But you Gordon, as I, can read the excellent German translation by Lehmann and Kutscher ("Geschichte der Azteken", Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin, 1981). But I have pitty on my fellow academics and so will translate it into English:" The 'you' in "hear you say" is a second person plural as I direct the message to you Gordon and "to others". This 'you' contrasts with the 'But you Gordon, as I," in the second part of the paragraph. I do this because most readers do not read Nahuatl and so would be in trouble as far as the Nahuatl citation goes (Ooof, I hear you say) and since few people may have a translation of the text in the Codex Aubin, I contrast 'the others' to us (you and I) cause WE can read the German translation, a privilege few of our colleagues have. I was supposing you would read German since, as I understand it, you live in Germany. So the last phrase, "But I have pitty..." refers to 'the others' who cannot read German and therefore I translated the German translation of the Nahuatl text. No condescending from my part here. Or maybe to 'the others' who, I presume, don't read German, a presumption that could be considered condescending. But let's get back to the text: how can I, somebody working on Oaxacan cultures "lecture" experts like Michael Smith and, I suppose, you. Although I don't think I was lecturing but rather arguing, the whole point of us being academics is exactly that!!! Discuss, argue, disagree, agree and put forth new ideas. That is what academics is or should be about. If I, as a scholar working on Mesoamerica, cannot argue with you or anybody else because you are "experts" from important institutions, well then what is this about? And knowing Michael, I think he would be the first to recognize that; discussion is everything. > Now to the points you raise: > You say I use arguments that "don't seem to make any sense", adding by way > of example that "nobody will refer to these other Nahua groups [Chalca, > Huexotzinca, etc.] as 'Aztecas'. Here you have chosen to ignore the clear > distinction I made between MODERN usage of the term 'Aztec' as an > acceptable and convenient blanket term for (1) the Nahua peoples of the > Valley of Mexico that made up the core of the Aztec Empire, and (2) > differentiating labels when discussing individual groups. I stressed that > distinction in my posting. You really shouldn't quote me out of context. No, I did not say you use arguments that don't make sense. I implied it once in your argument of not using 'mexica' because people have trouble pronouncing it which I think cannot be an argument in an academic discussion. In regard to my example I say "In Mexico, and I'm talking about the Mexican academic community, nobody will refer to these other Nahua groups as 'Aztecas'." Who is quoting who out of context here? > Furthermore, I suggested that, if one so wished, one could even extend the > usage to include the Tlaxcalteca and Huexotzinca in a CULTURAL sense, i.e. > because they shared the key aspects of so-called Mixteca-Puebla and, more > generally speaking, Aztec culture. Such features are recognizable in the > archaeological and more general cultural record. I do not see any need to > single the Tlaxcalteca out as Aztecs, but, as I said, I would have no > particular objection to using the term in a cultural sense to include the > independent Nahua areas. The difference between imperial and independent > areas is fundamentally a political, not an ethnic or cultural, one. I do have a problem with it and I think I made this clear, with examples, in my previous message. So no need, I think, to go over this again. > Incidentally, you criticize my reference to the Tepanecs as Aztecs because > they participated in and, indeed, co-ruled the Aztec Empire, saying that > one could just as easily call the Tlaxcalteca 'Spaniards' because they > participated in the Conquest. Hardly. The Tlaxcalteca neither participated > in nor co-ruled the Spanish Empire, but were simply brief allies. > Moreover, the Tlaxcalteca did not share Spanish culture. Oh yes they participated in the Spanish Empire and their participation was not at all brief. Please read a book edited by Laura Matthew and myself called 'Indian Conquistadors' published by University of Oklahoma Press. Agreed, they didn't provide a viceroy, but the indigenous participation in the colonial system reached much further than simple fodder for the cannons. > I stand by my statement of approval for Lockhart's use of the term 'Nahua' > with respect to the Nahua of Central Mexico. This is self-explanatory, I > think. Obviously, Lockhart's book 'The Nahuas After the Conquest' actually > focuses not on the Nahua as a whole, but on the Nahua of the central area, > as made clear in the secondary title. One might disagree with his use of > the Spanish plural suffix -s in Nahuas, but that is another matter. As to > Michael Smith's definition of 'Aztec': he is using it in the cultural > sense I just mentioned, and this is perfectly defensible. The difference > lies in the fact that Smith explicitly uses 'Aztec' to refer to the shared > Nahua culture of the central valleys before the Conquest, and uses 'Nahua' > in the same general sense as Lockhart for Colonial-period contexts. It seems to me that in the vast literature produced by Lockhart his use of 'Nahuas' extends to any Nahuatl speaking group in Mesoamerica, including those in Guatemala (which is, of course, part of Mesoamerica) and certainly includes Tlaxcala which one may or may not include into 'Central Mexico'. Very few people have a problem with the use of 'Nahuas'. The problem is 'Aztec' for any group that lived in the 'Aztec Empire' or that "shared Nahua culture of the central valleys before the Conquest", which is unacceptable for the reasons I put forth in my previous messages. > Gibson could have named his book 'The Aztecs [and their Descendants in the > Valley of Mexico] Under Spanish Rule', but he opted instead for 'The > Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of > Mexico, 1519-1810', which, I think, makes quite clear what he is talking > about. Aztecs, like Romans, did not simply disappear at the fall of their > empires. Many Aztecs in the cultural and political sense lived on well > into the late 16th century and adapted in varying degree to Spanish rule. > It is not inappropriate to continue to call this population 'Aztec', even > if their state had ceased to exist. He clearly meant 'the 'Aztecs and > their descendants'. But this is a matter that should, of course, be > decided and explained with care. Your talk about Lockhart the pupil > teaching Gibson the master a thing or two is uncalled-for. Somebody may have to explain to me why my reference to Lockhart correcting Gibson on a key term is "uncalled-for". There's no disrespect whatsoever in my phrasing. I used "star student" in regard to Lockhart which I'm sure he was, but it is also very positive. Then I used 'corrected' in regard to the use of the term 'Nahuas' instead of 'Aztecs', which I think is a correction. Had I used "pupil" or "teaching Gibson the master a thing or two", as you try to put in my mouth, it would have been disrespectful and uncalled-for. As it is, there is nothing of that. The point of my arguments in my previous message was and is that 'Aztec' as such cannot be used for other groups than the Mexica because these did not come from Aztlan. It becomes even a more unlikely term for non-Mexica groups after the Conquest when 'Aztec' becomes associated with the Triple Alliance. > You write, "No Chalca, no Texcocana (sic!), no Huexotzinca, no > whatever-Nahua-group-you-want-to-fill-in-here, used the term 'Azteca' to > refer to themselves, nor would they ever have done so." How do you know > this? But, in any case, I made clear that I was referring only to the > mythical past of these groups. You go on to say, "Chimalpahin is the first > to identify himself as Chalca. Please do read the vast literature on this > from Lockhart to Reyes Garcia to Schroeder." How do I know this? Just show me one document in which a non-Mexica group identifies itself as 'Azteca'. I'm not talking about admiration for the Mexica culture or the Triple Alliance, I'm talking about them identifying themselves as 'Azteca'. > Interesting that you should mention Chimalpahin, who was indeed a > descendant of the lords of Chalco and very proud of it. What you don't > mention is that he was also immensely proud of Aztec civilization and of > the Aztec Empire, in which the Chalca came to participate actively and > productively, and that he even made the famous pronouncement that adorns, > e.g., the dedication page of Soustelle's ethnography (here in transl.), > "For as long as the world shall endure, the honour and the glory of Mexico > Tenochtitlan must never be forgotten." As Anderson and Schroeder justly > claim (Codex Chimalpahin, 1: 9), "He is both proud and in awe of Mexica > civilization", that is, of Aztec civilization as typified by its centre of > power, Mexico Tenochtitlan. But I never claimed that he called himself an > 'Aztecatl'. By the way, you say I should study Schroeder. If you glance at > p. 10, fn. 22 of the Anderson and Schroeder edition above, you will find > that Schroeder has read me! True. But where does Chimalpahin identify himself as 'Azteca'? He doesn't, so why should we. I don't get the point of the Anderson and Schroeder reference: I recommended you to read Schroeder, not the other way around (that's a gloves-off remark there). The idea of my argument was that "One of the main issues in Mesoamerica is the identity of the autonomous altepetl" and therefore we cannot use a term like 'Aztecs' for groups that are not 'Aztec' or if you want to see it in broader terms 'Mexica'. > As for Aztlan and Teocolhuacan: First, there simply is no single > (standard) version of the Aztlan migrations. Secondly, the initial phase > usually involves Aztlan and/or Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc and/or > (Teo)colhuacan, the staging areas for the great migration. We could > indulge in nit-picking and say that the Aztecs are only the four calpoltin > (which are not, by the way, "houses") from the island of Aztlan, and that > the eight calpoltin joining them on the opposite bank are something else, > but the fact remains that the eight calpoltin join up almost immediately > with the original four groups, as personified by the four leaders named > and depicted in various sources. As calpoltin belonging now to a single > altepetl under four leaders from Aztlan, they then set off on their great > trek. As such it is quite appropriate to refer to the migrating peoples as > Azteca. Read the transcriptions I included in the previous message. These texts make very clear that these indigenous groups themselves made the distinction between 'Aztecs' (those from Aztlan who later became Mexitin and from thereon Tenochca and Tlatelolca) and the other groups who were in (Teo)culhuacan. It's not a distinction I make, it's a distinction they make. Apparently this distinction was important and so we should consider it and not ignore it and call all of them 'Aztecs'. > But there is more in the sources you cite: In the very same passage from > Chimalpahin that you quote, we find the locative phrase 'Aztlan > Chicomoztoc'. When two place names are juxtaposed in Nahuatl, it > frequently means that the one -- usually the second place -- is part of > the other. Thus, Mexico Tenochtitlan, Xochimilco Olac, Tollan > Xicocotitlan, etc. This would mean that > Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc/Teocolhuacan (alternative names sometimes > distinguished), a 'brokeback mountain' with a roomy cave (but apparently > not cozy enough, judging by the quick exodus), was understood as a > community belonging to Aztlan. Since the Codex Aubin, for one, states that > the eight calpoltin emerged from this cave, they are obviously also > Azteca. See the above and my previous message. > Anyway, let's stop the nit-picking. This is where the discussion ends for me. I also hope it ends for me here. Un fuerte abrazo a todos, Michel PS. While writing this I just got another message from Gordon but without having read it, I'm not going to answer it. I hope the people listed here will understand this. In my opinion and from what I read in Gordon's message I've answered here, it is becoming a personal issue and I'm not interested in that, apart from that I don't have time for it. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From theabroma at gmail.com Wed Feb 25 19:40:57 2009 From: theabroma at gmail.com (Sharon Peters) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:40:57 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Aztecs gone astray: Some input from Chimalpahin In-Reply-To: <27d5ea140902251136sa0f3e94h47bb4853c192855b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sharon Peters Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztecs gone astray: Some input from Chimalpahin To: Gordon Whittaker Listeros: What charming spectacle to sit and watch esta Guerra Florida unfold. I am waiting with great anticipation the unveiling of the tzompantli which will, surely result. First it was the Unknown Listero who lighted the powder keg with his passionate, and passionately fractured statements about the Aztecs and Aztlan. Either he lived through the glory days of La Causa, or is channeling the spirit of one who did. It is necessary to sort out the who's who - teasing out the cultural genome of Mesoamerica, but Lordy! use your academic credentials for something other than a bludgeon. You have whacked at the poor Unknown Listero with them, even after you surely noted that he was an individual pining for the mythical glory days of the tribe (whichever one and from whatever point), as so thoroughly documented in its own codices - committed to black velvet. It seems Unknown Listero provided the excuse for everyone else to just go at each other. Not argumentation and debate - Talmudic pil-pul, but outright bashing. Only thing missing was a macana. I, for one, would like argumentation and debate leading to thought and information. We have already been provided with a Forspice of "how low can you go?" Thanks, S. Peters On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Gordon Whittaker wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > To avoid prolonging the debate with Michel Oudijk unnecessarily, I would > like to share a couple of passages with him and with you that have direct > bearing on Aztec use of the term 'Azteca' and on the elusiveness of > Aztlan, Chicomoztoc, and Colhuacan. > > For convenience, and since Michel recommended that I educate myself by > reading "Schroeder", something I am always happy to do, I will quote only > from one of Susan Schroeder's excellent publications, the 'Codex > Chimalpahin' (Vol. 1, U. of Okla. Press, 1997), which she ably edited and > translated together with Arthur J. O. Anderson. For the sake of brevity, I > will cite only the English translation, since the Spanish and Nahuatl > originals are easily located on the opposing pages: > > First (p. 29): > "Thus this most illustrious, great city of Mexico Tenochtitlan was > named [by] the first ancient, old, brave founders. They were a most > robust, wise, and warlike people named Teochichimeca, Azteca, Mexitin, > Chicomozteca, people of Quinehuayan. Having emerged and come from > their land in the north, called the great province and island of the > city of Aztlan, they then came out at the site of Chicomoztoc or the > Seven Caves, ... . When they left their land, they were formed of > seven barrios. ... They arrived in Culhuacan, which is next to > Itztapalapan." > > Here Aztlan and Chicomoztoc are both (separate) sites from which the > Azteca "emerged", and Colhuacan is identified as the city south of > Tenochtitlan. The story of the migration is left out almost entirely and, > on their arrival in Colhuacan, we find ourselves suddenly in 1299! > > Then (p. 67, quoting Alonso Franco): > "When the Chichimeca Azteca came forth, when they emerged from their > home in Aztlan, it was the year One Flint, 1064. ... > (p. 69) Their home was the place called Aztlan; hence their name is > Azteca. And the second name of their home was Chicomoztoc. And their > names were Azteca and also Mexitin. But now their name is really said > to [be] only Mexica. And later they arrived here taking as their name > Tenochca. > And from the place named Aztlan in the midst of the waters came the > Mexica; from there the seven calpulli [groups] departed. > ... He who was ruler there was named Moteucc,oma. There were two sons > of this ruler. ... The elder brother, whose name is not known, was to > be ruler of the Cuexteca. And to the younger brother, a Mexica, called > just Mexi [though] named Chalchiuhtlatonac, he gave the Mexitin. ..." > > Here we have something for Michel. An instance in which, indisputably, we > have mention of non-Mexica as Azteca. The Cuexteca are usually taken to be > the Maya-speaking Huaxtecs, but I think it is more likely that the > Huaxteca Nahua are intended here. So the Aztecs did indeed regard certain > other groups as descending, like they themselves, from Aztlan. Franco > provides the useful clarification that the Azteca Mexitin have two homes, > Aztlan island and Chicomoztoc. > > Franco goes on: > "And the Mexitin thereupon performed penances there at the place named > Quinehuayan Tzotzompan. ... > And to perform the penances they came in boats to cross the water and > laid down their fir branches there at the aforesaid place called > Quinehuayan. A cave is there, called Chicomoztoc, whence the seven > Mexitin calpulli issued. > And when the said Teochichimeca Azteca Mexitin issued from what is > called and named Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc, they brought what was in > their keeping, their bundle. > (p. 71) And there at Quinehuayan, what was named Chicomoztoc was a > crag hollowed [with] caves in seven places. ..." > > Seven calpoltin set out from Aztlan, then cross over to the mainland, > where after performing penances the seven calpoltin "issue" anew from the > seven-part cave of Chicomoztoc in Quinehuayan seven years later (p. 73). > > Franco's Nahuatl account continues (p. 71): > "And when the Azteca Mexitin had crossed the water from Aztlan they > reached Culhuacan. On that way they took the devil, the portent > Huitzilopochtli, there. As they came, as they arrived hither when they > emerged from the seven places in Aztlan, they brought a woman named > Chimalman. > And as the Azteca set out from Culhuacan there were four who on their > backs carried the portent Huitzilopochtli ... . > And when they reached the foot of a tree [also a place name, Cuahuitl > Itzintlan, GW], they therefore seated themselves at its base. ... the > Azteca Mexitin spent four more years there ... ." > > Franco is referring to Chicomoztoc when he speaks of the "seven places in > Aztlan", that is, to Aztlan Chicomoztoc (or Aztlan Aztatlan "the abode of > herons", as he also calls it; see p. 73), not the island of Aztlan. It is > unclear whether he then equates Chicomoztoc with Colhuacan, as the > mountain containing the seven caves of Chicomoztoc, or is simply saying > that after crossing from Aztlan island, the Azteca went on from (Aztlan) > Chicomoztoc to Colhuacan. I prefer the first alternative, but it can go > either way as written. > > Then (p. 73): > "And then and there he [Huitzilopochtli, GW] changed the Aztecas' name > for them. He said to them: Now no longer is your name Azteca: you are > now Mexitin." > > And summing up (p. 75): > "In the year Twelve Reed, 1075, when the ancient Mexitin Azteca > Chichimeca had spent seven years in Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc, they then > also emerged from Chicomoztoc; hence they are called Chicomoztoca. > Then they moved hither. ... it was twelve years after they had emerged > from their home in Aztlan that in the aforesaid Twelve Reed they then > came away and traveled hither from the aforesaid Quinehuayan > Chicomoztoc. It is thus that the ancient Azteca Mexitin Chichimeca > emerged from Aztlan, ..." > > Getting back to what Michel wrote the other day: "it is very clear that > the Aztecs came from Aztlan and that the other eight groups did not". > The eight groups he is referring to are the ones named in the Codex Aubin > and the Tira de la Peregrinacion. Among them are the Malinalca. Now let's > see what Chimalpahin says (p. 181): > > The year One Flint, 1064. At this time the Mexitin Azteca Teochichimeca, > now known as Tenochca, as Tlatelolca, as Malinalca, and as Michhuaque, > people of Patzcuaro, emerged from their home, Aztlan." > > So, as Chimalpahin himself says, the Malinalca were Azteca! He doesn't > list the others, and the Michhuaque do not appear in all other accounts, > but the thrust of the passage is clear: The Azteca were not just > Mecitin/Mexitin/Mexica. They included other peoples. In the case of the > Michhuaque, I suspect the Nahua-speaking Michhuaque of the Patzcuaro area > are meant, not the Purhepecha/Tarascans. > > I interpret the Aztlan myth cycle as an explanatory device by means of > which the Mexica were able to order their ethnic universe and landscape. > This device made it possible for the average Aztec to understand how the > various distinct Nahua peoples came into being. At the same time, it > provided a rationale for the Aztec Empire under a Mexica government, > because it places the Azteca squarely under Mexitin control and guidance. > According to this model, the Cuexteca and the Michhuaque, two distant > groups, should by right belong to the Empire because they are no more than > errant Azteca -- Aztecs gone astray. > > Best wishes to all, > Gordon > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gordon Whittaker > Professor > Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik > Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie > Universitaet Goettingen > Humboldtallee 19 > 37073 Goettingen > Germany > tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 > tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > -- Sín Fronteras Aquí estoy yo .... pero ya anda por México mi corazón -- Sín Fronteras Aquí estoy yo .... pero ya anda por México mi corazón -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From theabroma at gmail.com Wed Feb 25 22:19:31 2009 From: theabroma at gmail.com (Sharon Peters) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:19:31 -0600 Subject: Mexica, Aztec, Allmixtuptec .... Message-ID: I am reposting this to both lists, as I sent it originally as a return to one of Gordon's postings. I wish to make it quite clear that it was not Gordon's post, contents or attitude, that prompted me to write this. It is just an observation, especially on the "y tu mama, tambien" flavor of some of the other posts. Oh, and the stranded-in-the-60's quality of the Pobre Listero Desconocido, who seems to be, like some of the other commentators (whose credentials are definitely above the salt), meditating in a funhouse of velvet paintings. Thx & regards, Sharon Listeros: What charming spectacle to sit and watch esta Guerra Florida unfold. I am waiting with great anticipation the unveiling of the tzompantli which will, surely, result. First it was the Unknown Listero who lighted the powder keg with his passionate, and passionately fractured statements about the Aztecs and Aztlan. Either he lived through the glory days of La Causa, or is channeling the spirit of one who did. It is necessary to sort out the who's who - teasing out the cultural genome of Mesoamerica, but Lordy! use your academic credentials for something other than a bludgeon. You have whacked at the poor Unknown Listero with them, even after you surely noted that he was an individual pining for the mythical glory days of the tribe (whichever one and from whatever point), as so thoroughly documented in its own codices - committed to black velvet. It seems Unknown Listero provided the excuse for everyone else to just go at each other. Not argumentation and debate - Talmudic pil-pul, but outright bashing. Only thing missing was a macana. I, for one, would like argumentation and debate leading to thought and information. We have already been provided with a Forspice of "how low can you go?" Thanks, S. Peters - -- Sín Fronteras Aquí estoy yo .... pero ya anda por México mi corazón -- Sín Fronteras Aquí estoy yo .... pero ya anda por México mi corazón -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mwswanton at yahoo.com Thu Feb 26 01:35:43 2009 From: mwswanton at yahoo.com (Michael Swanton) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:35:43 -0800 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: <2893F0D6-FD5D-4C40-910D-033BB2B8C065@netehuile.org> Message-ID: Thanks to Gordon and Michel for this interesting exchange. Having never investigated the earliest philological contexts where the word ‘Azteca’ occurs, I admit my surprise in seeing just how closely the term is associated with the Mexica.   Lurking behind these exchanges is another issue which I believe is quite relevant to Nahuatl studies, namely the multilingualism that these studies require.   First of all, I think it’s necessary to make a distinction between academics (highly trained professionals employed as specialists, often teachers, of particular fields of inquiry) and amateurs (individuals who, out of their own intellectual curiosity, engage in study of a particular subject). I recognize this distinction is not always clear-cut. And, I will be quick to point out that amateurs have carried out excellent investigations; indeed, some outshine their academic counterparts or have shown them the way. However, I believe the distinction is important for ethical reasons.   Academics are granted--rightly or wrongly--a particular social status not given to amateurs. Academics have greater ease in teaching at universities, in publishing books in academic presses, in receiving publicly-supported grant monies, etc. For this reason, academics have a greater ethical obligation to their field of inquiry (and, I would also say, to the people whose culture/language they are studying).   With this in mind, Michel is absolutely correct in stating that “ignorance of a language can never be an argument in academic discussion”. Let us suppose an academic’s line of investigation clearly leads him/her to studies or documentation written in some language L that is unknown to him/her. It would seem to me that the investigator has two acceptable options: (1) learn something of L, perhaps with help of colleagues, to be able to at least decipher the texts or (2) redirect his/her line of investigation. What is not acceptable is (3) to ignore the material, pretending that it is not relevant because the investigator doesn’t bother to read it. From my perspective, an academic who takes this unacceptable third option is simply demonstrating a lack of professional ethics and a sadly narrow, provincial view of academic investigation.   Coming back to Nahuatl studies, I think it is safe to assume that folks here are all committed to improving their knowledge of this interesting language. However, there are many very important texts about Nahuatl and “Nahua” culture history that are not written in either English (or Spanish).   For example, Michel Launey’s 1986, French thèse d’etat is the most comprehensive and philologically-grounded examination of classical Nahuatl grammar I have found to date. It is accessible: Jonathan Amith put a PDF of the original online and the CNRS published an abridged version in 1994. Yet, it seems that the 1609 pages of this thèse are practically invisible to American academics. Not only is this work not cited in the bibliographic guides for those learning Nahuatl (Lockhart, 2001: 148-151, Wright Carr, 2007: 42-45, etc.), but rarely does it appear cited in more specialized studies. While the further might be understandable, that latter is not. Launey’s work is contemporary with Andrews, who, on the other hand, is widely cited in American publications. And while both simultaneously “rediscovered” Carochi, it is now solely Andrews who gets the credit for this.   This preference is also shown on this listserv. Not only is Andrews cited more often than Launey (actually, I don’t remember EVER seeing Launey cited here), but commentators on Nahuatl grammar often use Andrews’ idiosyncratic terminology.   Why is this?   Is it because Andrews’ work is superior to Launey’s? I don’t think so. Personally, I prefer Launey’s work as it is better grounded philologically (his examples are taken from Nahuatl texts, whereas Andrews doesn’t explain where he gets much of his data besides Carochi) and is more consonant with modern linguistic description (Andrews, particularly in the 2nd edition of his big book, practically tries to reinvent a whole series of linguistic units).   I suspect that the key reason is that Launey’s work (which is quite extensive reaching from the mid-1970s till the beginning of the 21st century) is mostly in French. Perhaps I am wrong; if so, I would appreciate some guidance on this.   But, there are numerous other examples which make me suspect linguistic lethargy on the part of colleagues. For instance, when discussing Chimalpahin’s description of the precolonial organization of Chalco, the important work of Susan Schroeder is always cited. But Elke Ruhnau’s major study of this, which was contemporaneous with Schroeder’s first investigations, is rarely mentioned. For example, Lockhart’s 1992 book dedicates considerable attention to Chimalpahin’s descriptions of social organization, but Ruhnau’s study, published 4 years earlier, doesn’t even get a mention in passing. It’s as if her work just doesn’t exist. I don’t have any insight as to the comparative quality of the two studies, but if Ruhnau’s book was published in the Norman or Stanford in English instead of in Hamburg in German, I suspect it would be cited with greater frequency.   If studies aren’t being cited (and therefore read) simply because they were written in either English or Spanish, this speaks exceedingly badly of the current state of Nahuatl academic study. If this is indeed the case (and I am open to seeing this differently), Nahuatl scholarship will have adopted a provincialism that would never be acceptable in, say, classical or mediaeval studies.   For this reason, I strongly oppose any linguistic protocol on this listserv. It is easier to read a foreign language than write in one. The foremost goal of this listserv, like academic investigation in general, should be to encourage scholars to share their doubts and findings in the broadest possible (serious) forum. --- On Mon, 2/23/09, Chema Tlaquetzqui wrote: From: Chema Tlaquetzqui Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 4:54 AM Hi, I don't know this romgil06 at prodigy.net.mx, but given the .mx domain, I assume he's in Mexico and a quick Google search seems to indicate that he often writes in Spanish. Considering this, I don't think he had any political agenda by switching languages. It seems unfair to expect people to write a substantial response in a language they might not be comfortable writing in, particularly when most people on these mailing lists should already be able to read both English and Spanish quite well, as per the mailing list description. I have been a user on many polyglot mailing lists, and these sorts of language issues tend to pop-up every so often. Usually people just decide to send bilingual (or even trilingual) emails to avoid letting languages get in the way of the discussion and to encourage participation. It is a hassle, but better than people assuming a reply is "political" and hence unworthy of credence. I was more annoyed with the lack of quotes in his mangled reply. It made it very hard to parse. Chema On Feb 23, 2009, at 00:53 , Michael McCafferty wrote: > Any indication as to who wrote this? > > I'm also curious, or perhaps suspicious, as to linguistic protocol > here. Why, if Dr. Whittaker wrote in English, and this present > respondent certainly knows English, did he/she not respond in English? > Anything goes? Devrais-je pouvoir repondre en francais? In tla > nichachalacaya mazehualcopa? I don't know. It seems that, for the sake > of clarity, it would be better to stay in one language...unless > there's > a political agenda. And once that's a possibility, I tend to be stingy > with credence as to what people say, even in Spanish. > > Michael > > Quoting "John F. Schwaller" : > >> >> From: "romgil06" >> Date: Sun, February 22, 2009 >> >> Gordon Whittaker escribió: >> >> First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first >> popularized by >> Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the >> Aztecs to >> refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, >> >> Perdon pero con todo respeto esto no es cierto. >> >> El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo >> Cristobal del >> Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos. donde >> expone su particular versión de la historia del pueblo de >> desarrapados >> que ni >> nombre tenían y que el mismo explica porque llegaron a >> llamarse mexicas o mexicanos. >> >> En la versión de Del Castillo Los aztecas son un pueblo DISTINTO >> de los >> mexicas,esto es de los que vivieron y fundadron Tenochtitlan , >> en Del Castillo los "aztecas" aparecen como los amos de los >> mexicas o los >> atlachichimecas de la ribera del lago, los aztecas son los que >> los explotaban. >> >> La versión de Cristobal del Castillo fue recogida por Chimalpain y >> reproducida en su >> Memorial Breve de Culhuacan, sin dar crédito a la obra >> de Del Castillo . Después Chimalpain o Tezozomoc la usan en la >> crónica >> Mexicayotl, >> en una variante de la historia de Del Castillo. Ahí en la >> Mexicayotl uno de los hijos, el menor del rey de los aztecas es >> quien saca >> a sus >> subditos de aztlan chicomoztoc >> >> >> Con todo respeto es un punto de vista muy cuestionable y no se puede >> citar un solo >> documento fuente que señale que: >> >> "However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to >> themselves in >> connection with their ancestry" >> >> Tampoco puedes citar una obra fuente donde ocurra que: >> >> I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is recorded in Nahuatl using the term. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was >> favoured >> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >> Nahuatl, >> contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is >> singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use >> this, they >> would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their >> dynasty's >> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >> >> >> En que contexto nahuatl ha encontrado Gordon el uso del termino >> azteca para >> referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan. >> Adelanto que no puede citar uno solo, porque no existe. Todos los >> documentos que se >> pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales >> aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl español. >> >> Efectivamente Robert Barlow fue uno de los pioneros en señalar el >> error del >> equivocado uso del termino azteca y como parte de esa labor >> redacto "la extensión del imperio de los colua mexica" publicado >> por el >> INAH y la >> UDLA, Obras de Robert Barlow vol 4, publico tambien los >> artículos "La formación del imperio de los colhua mexica", "Algunas >> consideraciones >> sobre el término imperio azteca"y "El concepto >> populart de los "aztecas" todos en obras de Robert Barlow vol 3 >> INAH UDLA . >> >> Hay otro buen artículo sobre el mismo tema de Don Miguel Leon >> Portilla >> León-Portilla, Miguel, "Los aztecas. Disquisiciones sobre un >> gentilicio", Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl, v. 31, 2000, p. 275-281 >> >> Obras recientes en la misma óptica vease: Mexicaltzingo >> Arqueología de >> un reino >> culhua mexica de Raul Avila INAH y Culhua Mexico una >> revisión arqueo etnohistórica del imperio de los mexica tenochca >> Fernando >> Robles INAH >> >> Señala Gordon: >> >> Of course, the term 'Mexica' is appropriate in describing both the >> Tenochca in a >> narrow sense and, more >> literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico >> Tlatelolco, >> and indeed in describing the empire they founded. >> >> Esto es un gran y profundo error de Gordon es borrar las >> importantes >> diferencias >> históricas, etnicas y religiosas que existian entre ambos >> naciones indias. Unos eran los tlatelolcas los adoradores del dios >> Yiacatecutli y >> con su propioi panteon divino, su nobleza y sus >> especialidades productigvas y guerreras, los cuales fueron forzados a >> adorar a >> Huitzilopochtli tras su derrota y otro pueblo eran los >> adoradores del Tetzahuitl, del hijo de Tlaloc o del pariente de >> Opochtli >> como a si >> mismo se identifica Huitzilopochtli ( códice Aubin , >> Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas) >> >> Una simple visita al templo mayor de Tlatelolco y observar de la >> segunda >> a la >> quinta etapa permite ver que entre Tlatelolcas y Colhuas >> Mexicas hasta arquitectónicamente los templos mayores eran >> distintos y >> solo se >> hicieron iguales despues de la conquista mexica. En los >> tlatelolcas no hay doble templo en la cima del "cu" mayor ni >> restos de la >> doble >> escalinata y ni de la alfarda central en las etapas citadas >> >> Hacer un solo paquete de distintos pueblos es borrar la >> historia, es >> como decir >> que son lo mismo los irlandeses, los del país de gales, >> los escocesea, los bretones y los sajones, y sólo porque desde >> tal siglo >> todos >> son ciudadanos o vasallos del Reino Unido, cuando esa >> unidad es un un resultado de un proceso histórico de la fundación del >> estado nación, >> que cmo el problema irlandes nos lo recuerda no ha >> logrado resolver las diferencias. SEria el mismo error que decir >> que todos >> los >> pueblos de España son Españoles borrando la diferencias de >> todo tipo ( linguisticas, culturales, antropomorficas, históricas, >> religiosas) que >> existen entre los castellanos con los habitantes de las >> canarias, los de cataluña, el pais vasco, los galllegos, etc . Lo >> mismo >> vimos en el >> caso de la antigua URSS o de la extinta Yugoeslavia. >> >> Hacer un sólo paquete bnorrar las diferencias curiosamente fue el >> punto de >> vista >> base de la politica sobre las nacionalidades de Stalin >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured >> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >> Nahuatl, >> contexts >> >> Realmente lo que nunca se encontra es un documento "nahuatl" con el >> término azteca >> para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan , >> repito lease las glosas de los codices. Telleriano, vaticano rios, >> magliabechi, >> borbónico, florentino vease la crónica mexicayotl, la >> mexicana, las relaciones de Chimalpain , la obra de Cristobal del >> castillo, la >> leyenda de los soles, los anales de Cuauhtitlan, los anales >> de Tlatelolco y otros códices coloniales mas , vease las >> crónicas de >> Duran , >> Sahagún, Mendieta, Motolinia, los escritos de Olmos, la >> historia Tolteca Chichimeca, Códice Aubin y en todos , pero todos >> nunca >> parecera el >> termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de >> Tenochtitlan y menos aún para referirse a quienes detentaban el >> poder >> político y >> religioso en ese imperio y menos aún mçpara nombrar >> de esa forma a todos los pueblos de "the central Mexico highlands" >> como >> los agrupa >> el DR Smith. >> >> >> Por otro lado bien podria decirnos Gordon que documentos nahuatls >> conoce >> que no sean >> coloniales. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this >> inaccurate form >> occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be >> 'Tenochca'. >> The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name >> 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have >> designated >> the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan >> chaneque' >> >> Parece que la crónica Mexicayotl es un de esas "non-specialist >> literature" >> donde >> los mexicanos se llamaban asi mismo tenochcas por ser habitantes de >> Tenochtitlan y >> por considerar a Tencoh el "padre" fundador de su >> pueblo. "... Y cuando ya por mucho tiempo ya estan los mexica los >> tenochca después >> de que allá murio Tenochtzin ..." Cronica mexicayotl >> folio 110. >> >> Leemos en otro ejemplar de "literatura no especializada" , este es el >> códice aubin >> en sus noticias del año 1539 "Aqui partieron para >> Yancuic Tlalpan; fueron los tenochca..." hay mas noticias sobre estos >> tenochcas en >> ese códice. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say >> 'Colhuaque Mexica' >> in reference to their dynasty's >> >> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >> >> No es que se inventaran un linaje es que esa fue su historia. >> >> Dice la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas " En ese >> tiempo tenían >> los >> mexicanos por señor a Ilancueitl, una señora principal que >> los mandaba, y esta fue mujer de Acamapichtli, el cual era de >> Culhuacan y >> ella de >> Coatlinchan, y aunque era de Culhuacan , Acamaapichtli >> descendía de los de México, porque allí fue casada su madre con un >> principal de >> Culhuacan y la madre era de los mexicanos. Y casado, >> por consejo de su mujer vino a México, y les dijo que pues era de los >> principales y >> no tenían señor que lo tomarían por señor, y así fue el >> primer seño, y murió su mujer el año 24 de la fundación de México >> Y muerta >> ella , >> fue tomado él por señor, porque en vida de ella no fue >> tomado sino por principal " >> >> De una manera mas extensa se trata el tema de como los colhuas se >> hicieron >> del poder >> en Tenochtitlan en los folios 110 a 119 de la >> Crónica mexicayotl >> >> POr otro lado dice el Dr Michael Smith >> >> I am constantly criticized for my usage of the term Aztec to mean the >> entire Late >> Postclassic population of the central Mexico highlands, >> both Nahuatl-speaking and others such as Otomian languages. I have >> 3 main >> reasons >> for sticking to this usage: (1) there is no good >> alternate term; (2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in >> book titles to >> generate sales; and (3) the various peoples of Late Postclassic >> central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood >> the same >> language, >> and they were in constant contact with one another >> through trade, visiting, and other means. This was a single >> culture, and >> if don't >> call it Aztec, what term can we use? >> >> Dr MIchael ya tiene otro mas que se apunta a la lista de los que lo >> critican sobre >> todo por la cientificidad del segundo argumento que >> usted plantea: >> >> "(2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to >> generate >> sales". >> >> Resulta ahora que son los vendedores de libros, la >> mercadotecnia, los >> que definen >> e imponen los conceptos que deben usar quienes >> estudian de una u otra forma las culturas prehiuspánicas . Usemos >> aztecas >> porque es >> una marca mas vendible, perdon es ciencia lo que >> se trata de hacer o estamos tratando de vender papas fritas. >> >> Si bien es cierto lo que dice Smith >> >> the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many >> cultural traits, >> spoke or understood the same language, and they were >> in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and >> other >> means. >> >> Pero fueron precisamente las diferencias mas grandes o mas chicas >> en todos >> esos >> aspectos y entros mas importantes como la religión, lo >> que hacia que unos indios se considerasen a si mismos como una >> nacion o >> pueblo y ver >> a los otros como de una nación distinta, esas >> diferencias los hacian verse asi mismo como diferentes del otro, >> situación que se >> tradujo en diferencias en la política, la ideológia y la >> religion. >> >> Así por ejemplo aunque los mexicas y los tlaxcaltecas se >> reconocieran de >> origen >> chichimeca y hablaran nahuatl como la lengua que >> habian aprendido, entre ellos no se reconocian como iguales , >> situación >> que Cortés >> detecto y supo aprovechar politica y militarmente. >> Aunque Tlaxcaltecas y Huexotzincas hablaran nahuatl y opcuparan >> espacios >> vecinos y >> adoraran ambos a Mixcoat, el varonil, por ello el que >> porta el maxtle, por ello el camaxtle, a pesar de sus elementos >> comunes >> cada pueblo >> era un señorio distinto >> >> HOy sucede lo mismo en los distintos paises que fuimos colonias de >> España >> compartimos muchas cosas pero somos paises distintos, >> ¿Porque cuesta tanto trabajo tener esa optica cuando se mira el >> pasado >> prehispánico? >> Por que hacer tabla raza de las diferencias, porque >> borrar la historia >> >> Gordon es fiel a la escuela de Seler y a la escuela Hegeliana para >> los >> cuales los >> paises fuera de Europa no tiene historia >> son pueblos sin historia. Y eso lo dice Seler conm todas sus >> letras en su >> articulo >> sobre Aztlan >> >> No deja de ser paradójico que esa corriente de pensamiento haya >> surgido en >> un país >> como la actual Alemania que ha tenido uno de los >> mas azarosos procesos de conformación del estado nación y que para >> lograrlo necesito >> la construcción y derrumbe del imperio prusiano, >> la derrota en dos guerras mundiale, el ascenso del nazismo, la >> mutilacion y >> ocupación sovieta de una parte del territorio y el derrumbe >> del muro >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Thu Feb 26 13:51:37 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:51:37 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl course at UNAM Message-ID: Contacto: Ignacio Silva: cipactonal at yahoo.com.mx ........................ L a D i r e c c i ó n d e E s t u d i o s H i s t ó r i c o s d e l I n s t i t u t o N a c i o n a l d e A n t r o p o l o g í a e H i s t o r i a invita al Curso de náhuatl clásico para principiantes que impartirá el Maestro Ignacio Silva especialista en náhuatl, hablante de náhuatl como lengua materna y Maestro en Historia por la UNAM Objetivo: Que el participante tenga los elementos básicos del náhuatl clásico para dar inicio al trabajo de trascripción y traducción de textos novohispanos. Duración: 4 meses. Del lunes 16 de marzo al miércoles 17 de junio. 27 clases efectivas. Costo por persona: $150.00 (ciento cincuenta pesos 00/100 M.N.) por clase. Clases dos veces por semana: Lunes y miércoles de 10:00 a 12:00 hrs. (O mas temprano si así se requiere: 09:00 a 11:00) Lugar: Instalaciones de la Dirección de Estudios Históricos del INAH. Contacto: Ignacio Silva: cipactonal at yahoo.com.mx Dirección de Estudios Históricos Allende 172 esq. Juárez, Tlalpan Centro 5061 9300 ext. 149 Responsable de Difusión: Luz María Santos del Prado Gasca .......................................................... Mensaje distribuido por H-MEXICO Grupo virtual sobre historia de México http://www.h-mexico.unam.mx ........................................................ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Thu Feb 26 16:23:43 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:23:43 -0600 Subject: Launey Message-ID: In reponse to Michael Swanton's recent post: Hi, Michael! I enjoyed seeing you again at the colloquium at the Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas a few months back. I hope all is well. There's a little mistake in your recent post that needs to be corrected. You state: "Not only is this work [Michel Launey's *Introduction à la langue et à la littérature aztèques*] not cited in the bibliographic guides for those learning Nahuatl (Lockhart, 2001: 148-151, Wright Carr, 2007: 42-45, etc.), but rarely does it appear cited in more specialized studies." Following is a paragraph from Wright Carr (2007: 43) (David Charles Wright Carr, *Lectura del náhuatl: fundamentos para la traducción de los textos en náhuatl del periodo Novohispano Temprano*, México, Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas, 2007): "La gramática del lingüista francés Michel Launey, Introduction à la langue et à la littérature aztèques (“Introducción a la lengua y a la literatura aztecas”), constituye una aportación relevante a la descripción del náhuatl novohispano. Consta de dos tomos: el primero es la gramática propiamente dicha, y en el segundo hay una serie de textos en náhuatl con comentarios. Fue publicada inicialmente en 1979 (el primer tomo) y 1980 (el segundo); hay una reimpresión de 1995 y una traducción al castellano del primer volumen —salpicada de errores de traducción, edición y/o imprenta—, impresa en 1992. Launey, a diferencia de los nahuatlatos de la escuela mexicana, hizo un estudio a fondo de la gramática de Horacio Carochi, lo que le permitió presentar una descripción más precisa del náhuatl novohispano. Registra el saltillo y las vocales largas mediante signos diacríticos, aprovechando para este propósito el sistema ortográfico de Carochi. Este libro es útil para el principiante, particularmente la edición francesa, para los que leen este idioma. Aparte de las virtudes ya mencionadas, presenta una gran claridad en la exposición de la gramática náhuatl, pues fue concebida como un método didáctico, más que una gramática a secas." So it is cited in Wright Carr, 2007! Granted, I got my hands on the French edition after having prepared most of the book, but it was used as a complementary source in some sections (see notes see footnotes 144, 165, 198, 213, 341, 362, 364, 365, 371, 376, 385, 602). No problem, my friend, I just thought I should set the record straight, since this is a public forum and our messages will be available in an on-line archive for years. Peace, David Wright _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Thu Feb 26 15:54:10 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:54:10 -0600 Subject: Nahua Workshop at U of Maryland, May 1-2, 2009 Message-ID: Listeros, > You are cordially invited to attend the first annual Nahuatl > Workshop entitled, "Issues in Nahua Identity and Language: Past and > Present," Friday, May 1 - Saturday, May 2. The workshop is sponsored > by the Latin American Studies Center of the University of Maryland, > College Park, MD. Nahua Workshop University of Maryland, College Park Friday, May 1- Saturday, May 2, 2009 Issues in Nahua Identity and Language: Past and Present This interdisciplinary workshop will explore issues of identity and language among Nahuatl-speaking peoples from both historical and contemporary perspectives. A group of scholars from various disciplines will come together to present and discuss each other’s current research. Topics will include (but are not limited to): relationships between language and identity; problems of translation; interpretations of colonial narratives; and ethnography in contemporary Nahua communities. Schedule Friday, May 1 2:00-3:00 pm: Jane Hill / Keynote address (University of Arizona) Uto-Aztecan as a Mesoamerican Language Family: Implications for Understanding Aztecan and the Nahua 3:00 – 4:00 pm: Jacqueline Messing (LASC Fellow) Identity and Narrative in Colonial Tlaxcala, Mexico 4:00 – 5:00 pm: Jonathan Amith The practice and politics of Nahuatl standardization: Local and national identity in conflict Dinner Saturday, May 2 9:00-10:00 am: Jim Maffie (LASC Fellow) In Huehue Tlamanitiliztli and la Verdad: Philosophical Language and Identity in Friar Bernardino de Sahagún’s Colloquios y doctrina chistiana 10:00-11:00 am: Berenice Alcantra Rojas (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) Authorship and Translation in Doctrinal Nahuatl Texts from the Colonial Period. 11:00-12:00 am: John Sullivan (University of Zacatecas) The IDIEZ Project: Countering the Deculturization of Nahuas at Mexican Universities 12:00-1:00 pm: Alan Sandstrom & Pamela Sandstrom (Indiana University- Purdue) Huastecan Nahua Ethnic Identity, Processes of Globalization, and the Protestant Invasion Lunch & farewell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From karttu at nantucket.net Thu Feb 26 20:44:26 2009 From: karttu at nantucket.net (Frances Karttunen) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:44:26 -0500 Subject: Anither Launey citation Message-ID: In our instructional material for learning Nahuatl, Joe Campbell and I have cited Launey's grammar, comparing it favorably to the other works available (Garibay-pretty much useless; Anderson's translation of Clavigero with accompanying workbook-well-intentioned, but doesn't work as instructional material; Sullivan-misunderstands some of the phonology but is very good with references; Andrews-polemic, throws up roadblocks to learning, and doesn't tell where he gets things). Also, in the Introduction to my Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl, I state (p. xxxiv), "The two modern sources most compatible with this dictionary are Andrews' Introduction to Classical Nahuatl and Michel Launey's Introduction à la langue et à la litterature azteques I. I have always been an admirer of Launey and have not ignored him at all. Frances Karttunen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mbassett at umail.ucsb.edu Fri Feb 27 01:25:03 2009 From: mbassett at umail.ucsb.edu (Molly Bassett) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:25:03 -0800 Subject: bees, beeswax & gold Message-ID: Hi, all. I'm following a minor dissertation detail that arises in my discussion of teocuitlatl (gold) and gold-casting. The gold-casting method described in the General History's Book 9: The Merchants involves beeswax (xicohcuitlatl), and although two genera of stingless bees are indigenous to Mesoamerica (Melipona and Trigona), the xicomeh (bees) described in Earthly Things sting: “It is round, small and round, yellow-legged, winged. It is a flyer, a buzzer, a sucker, a maker of hives, an earth excavator, a honey producer, a stinger (teminani)” (Book 11:93-94). European bees were introduced into New Spain as early as 1520-1530 - long before the General History was compiled. While beeswax would have been available to precontact artisans, the General History’s description may conflate pre- and postcontact gold-casting, as it does xicomeh (bees). [I'm relying on Donald D. Brand, "The Honey Bee in New Spain and Mexico," Journal of Cultural Geography 9, no. 1 (1988): 71-82 for information about bees.] Does anyone know of other descriptions of gold-casting that might confirm or dispute the use of beeswax? Thanks! Molly Molly Bassett Ph.D. Candidate, Religious Studies University of California, Santa Barbara -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Fri Feb 27 03:16:35 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:16:35 -0600 Subject: Convocatoria: XI Coloquio Internacional sobre Otopames Message-ID: El Comité Organizador del XI Coloquio Internacional sobre Otopames y la University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, institución sede, CONVOCAN a la comunidad académica y a las personas interesadas en la historia y cultura otopame a participar en el XI Coloquio Internacional sobre Otopames en homenaje a Richard M. Ramsay y James W. Dow 14 al 18 de septiembre de 2009 INSTITUCIONES CONVOCANTES University of South Florida, St. Petersburg Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas, El Colegio Mexiquense, A.C., Hmunts’a Hem’i - Centro de Documentación y Asesoría Hñähñu Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia: Coordinación Nacional de Antropología - Subdirección de Etnografía del Museo Nacional de Antropología - Dirección de Lingüística - Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia - Centro INAH Michoacán - Centro INAH San Luis Potosí Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, Universidad de Guanajuato, Universidad Intercultural del Estado de México, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Universidad Veracruzana La naturaleza masiva relativamente reciente de la migración indígena a nivel nacional e internacional requiere del análisis y redefinición de realidades politicas, cuturales, religiosas, sociales y económicas producto de nuevas dinámicas de contacto. Estas nuevas dinámicas migratorias, tanto regionales como internacionales (y transnacionales), requieren ser analizadas y redefinidas dentro de marcos históricos que contemplen los procesos de cuestionamiento, negociación, resistencia y apropiación contemporáneos provocados por movimientos migratorios que incluyen lo local, regional y transnacional. En esta ocasión, el coloquio se llevará a cabo bajo el lema Migración, comunidad extendida y ciudadanía con las siguientes líneas temáticas: 1.1 Impacto histórico y cultural de los grupos otopames 2.1 Chamanismo y saberes del mundo 2.2 Alternativas y conversiones religiosas 3.1 Conflicto, negociaciones culturales y linguisticas 3.2 Plurilingüismo 3.3 Identidades transnacionales y multidimensionales 4.1 Sociedades sustentables 4.2 Ciudadanía global DATOS SOLICITADOS 1. Título de ponencia 2. Formato de presentación a) ponencia oral b) cartel c) video 3. Requerimientos a) computadora con PowerPoint & cañón b) proyector de diapositivas c) proyector de acetatos d) reproductor de video 4. Datos del autor a) apellido(s) y nombre(s) b) perfil (estudiante, docente, investigador, administrativo u otro) c) correo electrónico d) teléfono y fax 5. Institución a la que pertenece a) nombre de la institución b) domicilio y código postal RECEPCIÓN DE LOS DATOS SOLICITADOS Favor de elaborar un resumen de la ponencia, cartel o video por presentar, de no más de 200 palabras, anexando los datos antes solicitados para elaborar el programa definitivo del Coloquio. Esta información debe ser enviada ANTES DEL 20 DE ABRIL DE 2009 al correo electrónico: coloquio2009 at otopames.org Los trabajos recibidos serán revisados por una comisión dictaminadora, dando a conocer los resultados vía correo electrónico o fax. No se aceptarán trabajos para ser leídos por terceros. Posteriormente se recibirá el texto íntegro de las ponencias hasta el 15 de agosto de 2009. Al término del evento se extenderá constancia a los participantes. COSTOS DE INSCRIPCIÓN Ponentes: $US 50 ($ US 30 para quienes tienen que viajar desde México) Participantes con cartel o video y asistentes que requieran constancia: $US 30 ($US 15 para quienes tienen que viajar desde México) Estudiantes: $US 10 ($US 5 para quienes tienen que viajar desde México) El público en general que no requiera constancia está exento de cuota de inscripción. Sin otro particular y esperando contar con su valiosa participación, reciba usted un saludo cordial. Atentamente Comité Organizador del XI Coloquio Internacional sobre Otopames en homenaje a Richard M. Ramsay y James W. Dow Interdisciplinary Social Sciences-Anthropology University of South Florida, St. Petersburg 140 7th Avenue S., DAV 263 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5016 coloquio2009 at otopames.org _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Thu Feb 26 20:41:48 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:41:48 -0600 Subject: a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec Message-ID: Listeros, Here at the institute we have two interesting words. 1. niyatoc, "I am seated" 2. nicuatochyatoc, "I'm in a squatting position". It is not yahtoc, and therefore the root is not yauh, "to go" (but see below). And I don't know if cuatochyatoc is cuatoch(in) + yatoc or cuatochya + [t(i) + o + c] The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense ya morpheme and perhaps the inceptive -ya verbalizer and perhaps the particle ya, "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of "to go" have a long vowel (the above yatoc does not), but that could be because of the postulated older form of the class 4, yata, which upon losing the - ta lengthened the preceding a. So.......... any ideas? John John Sullivan, Ph.D. Professor of Nahua language and culture Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology Tacuba 152, int. 47 Centro Histórico Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 Mexico Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 idiez at mac.com www.macehualli.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From lindsay.sidders at ualberta.ca Thu Feb 26 18:25:33 2009 From: lindsay.sidders at ualberta.ca (Sidders, Lindsay) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:25:33 -0700 Subject: English Trnaslation of Launey Message-ID: Hola, FYI- an English adaptation of Michel Launey's, Introduction à la langue et à la littérature aztèques, is being published by Cambridge Univ. Press and should be available in late 2010 or early 2011. It is a collaborative effort between Launey and Dr. Christopher S. Mackay of the University of Alberta. Lindsay Sidders, MA Student Department of History & Classics University of Alberta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mcastanedadelapaz at gmail.com Thu Feb 26 18:47:19 2009 From: mcastanedadelapaz at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mar=EDa_Casta=F1eda?=) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:47:19 -0600 Subject: Aztlan-Chicomoztoc and the chronicles Message-ID: Dear Gordon and collegues, I´ve been following with lot of interest the discussion between Gordon Whittaker and Michel Oudijk because in the past I also discussed with Michael Smith about the use of the name 'Aztecs' for people that not come from Aztlan. But first of all I want to start with a text from Nicholson (1975) who attracted our attention long time ago with the lack of critical examination of the sources. What we call today philological analysis. “[…] especially for anthropologists untrained in the techniques of critical examination of sources, is that of determining the genuinely primary version of a particular passage, a problem exacerbated by the common practice of the early chroniclers of freely copying each other without explicit acknowledgment. Too often, say, have Motolonía, López de Gómara, Zorita, Román y Zamora, Mendieta, and Torquemada been cited as independent and corroborating authorities for a particular datum without recognition that the last five simply copied, directly or indirectly, from the first.” Nicholson (1975:490). (Now I need to continue in Spanish. I can speak and read English but I´m not sure if I can write what I want to communicate you in a language that is not mine. So forgive me the inconvenient for some of you). En 1945 Barlow definió la llamada Crónica X. Siguiendo sus pasos, recientemente definí el llamado Códice Y (Tira de la Peregrinación or C. Boturini, C. Aubin, Mss. Mex. 40 y 85). La Crónica X y el Códice Y son dos versiones de la historia de la peregrinación de los mexicas, PERO cada una marca muy claramente un lugar de origen específico muy distinto. Mientras la Crónica X dice que los mexicas vienen de Chicomoztoc, el Códice Y especifica que vienen de Aztlan y así lo representan en sus respectivas imágenes. Todos sabemos que durante la Colonia, cuando los cronistas (españoles e indígenas) reescribieron la historia, buscaron todos los documentos a su alcance para tal fin. Así, Tezozomoc escribió primero su Crónica Mexicana (en español), basada en base al Códice X, y años después escribió su Crónica Mexicayotl (en Nahuatl). Sin embargo, para esta segunda obra, Tezozomoc utilizó principalmente el Códice Y (concretamente el Códice Aubin) y lógicamente la Crónica X que ya conocía. También, como señala Gordon, utilizó el relato de Alonso Franco (la versión de un señor llamado Moctezuma en Aztlan, etc) y probablemente algunas otras fuentes (Castañeda de la Paz, Tlalocan XV, 2008). La consecuencia de esto es que los relatos se entremezclaron y, consiguientemente, los lugares de origen (Aztlan, Chicomoztoc y otros). Esto que aquí digo se observa con mucha claridad en los documentos que hoy hemos heredado: Tezozomoc, Chimalpahin, Duran, Torquemada, etc. Fray Diego Durán (Crónica X), por ejemplo, tiene la versión de Chicomoztoc, pero aún así, sabe de la importancia de Aztlan y la incorpora en su relato (en su texto es muy obvio cómo une dos relatos de diferente origen). Torquemada hace lo mismo pero parece tener más problemas porque se queja: conoce la versión de la Tira de la Peregrinación (Aztlan) y por ello se niega a aceptar el relato de Acosta (Chicomoztoc) como lugar de origen (Torquemada, libro II). Aún así, termina incorporando las 7 cuevas al principio del camino, (Castañeda de la Paz, LAILJ, in press). En fin, ¡lo mismo sucedió con Chimalpahin! Schroeder mostró que el cronista chalca accedió a la Crónica Mexicayotl de Tezozomoc (que ya entremezclaba versiones históricas). En su tesis de doctorado, Zimmerman (1960) demostraba también el uso que Chimalpahin hacía de los Anales de Tlatelolco, Cristóbal del Castillo y documentos de Chalco. En un trabajo reciente yo demostré que este mismo autor tenía dos documentos del grupo del Códice Y (Códice Aubin y Ms. Mex. 85). Como vemos, la cantidad de versiones históricas era tal, que él mismo tenía problemas para explicar tanta diversidad. En realidad, la composición multiétnica de los distintos altepetl de centro de México. Entonces, sólo si tenemos muy claras las diferentes versiones históricas, sabremos que cuando Chimalpahin dijo (p. 181): *The year One Flint, 1064. At this time the Mexitin Azteca Teochichimeca, now known as Tenochca, as Tlatelolca, as Malinalca, and as Michhuaque, people of Patzcuaro, emerged from their home, Aztlan."* lo que Chimalpahin hacía era mezclar relatos (algunos de ellos ya venían entremezclados). Por eso sabemos lo siguiente: - One flint y Aztlan (viene del Códice Y) - La asociación de Malinalcas y Michuaque (viene de la Crónica X) Entonces, sólo quiero terminar diciendo que tenemos que entender los textos históricos coloniales en su contexto y tomar su información con mucha cautela. Los mismos cronistas indígenas ya tenían problemas para entender los manuscritos en la segunda mitad del siglo XVI, especialmente aquellos que no eran de su altepetl de origen. Dudo que Chimalpahin hubiera dicho que los chalcas eran aztecas, pero sí pudo decirlo de pueblos cuya historia no conocía, o no conocía bien. Las contradicciones en sus mismas obras pueden llegar a ser sorprendentes. Saludos para todos, María Castañeda de la Paz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 15:16:57 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:16:57 -0500 Subject: a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Muy curioso, John. It looks, of course, like you have *ni-cuatoch-yatoc. It's important, perhaps, to recall that the vowel of the verb /ya:/ does shorten in compounds. So, your -ya- could be 'go', and that you have, naturally, a preterit-as-present verb here. In this connection, it could be that there is some analogical process going on with the verb 'lie down', onoc. Does this verb come in other tenses, say, a pluperfect-as-past? That is, do you see *(o)nicuatochyatoca? 'I was squatting'? -cuatoch- in humorous. Michael Quoting "John Sullivan, Ph.D." : > Listeros, > Here at the institute we have two interesting words. > 1. niyatoc, "I am seated" > 2. nicuatochyatoc, "I'm in a squatting position". > It is not yahtoc, and therefore the root is not yauh, "to go" (but > see below). And I don't know if cuatochyatoc is > cuatoch(in) + yatoc or > cuatochya + [t(i) + o + c] > The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense ya > morpheme and perhaps the inceptive -ya verbalizer and perhaps the > particle ya, "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of > "to go" have a long vowel (the above yatoc does not), but that could > be because of the postulated older form of the class 4, yata, which > upon losing the - ta lengthened the preceding a. > So.......... any ideas? > John > > John Sullivan, Ph.D. > Professor of Nahua language and culture > Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas > Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology > Tacuba 152, int. 47 > Centro Histórico > Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 > Mexico > Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 > Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 > Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 > idiez at mac.com > www.macehualli.org > > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 15:32:13 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:32:13 -0500 Subject: a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec In-Reply-To: <20090227101657.5gdjow0u8wkco04w@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: I meant to add: Cuatochin is the term for 'eastern cottontail rabbit' (Sylvilagus floridanus). Quoting Michael McCafferty : > Muy curioso, John. > > It looks, of course, like you have *ni-cuatoch-yatoc. > > It's important, perhaps, to recall that the vowel of the verb /ya:/ > does shorten in compounds. So, your -ya- could be 'go', and that you > have, naturally, a preterit-as-present verb here. In this connection, > it could be that there is some analogical process going on with the > verb 'lie down', onoc. > > Does this verb come in other tenses, say, a pluperfect-as-past? That > is, do you see *(o)nicuatochyatoca? 'I was squatting'? > > -cuatoch- in humorous. > > > Michael > > Quoting "John Sullivan, Ph.D." : > >> Listeros, >> Here at the institute we have two interesting words. >> 1. niyatoc, "I am seated" >> 2. nicuatochyatoc, "I'm in a squatting position". >> It is not yahtoc, and therefore the root is not yauh, "to go" (but >> see below). And I don't know if cuatochyatoc is >> cuatoch(in) + yatoc or >> cuatochya + [t(i) + o + c] >> The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense ya >> morpheme and perhaps the inceptive -ya verbalizer and perhaps the >> particle ya, "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of >> "to go" have a long vowel (the above yatoc does not), but that could >> be because of the postulated older form of the class 4, yata, which >> upon losing the - ta lengthened the preceding a. >> So.......... any ideas? >> John >> >> John Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Professor of Nahua language and culture >> Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas >> Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology >> Tacuba 152, int. 47 >> Centro Histórico >> Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 >> Mexico >> Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 >> Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 >> Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 >> idiez at mac.com >> www.macehualli.org >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 16:44:14 2009 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (magnus hansen) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:44:14 -0300 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 117, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear John Sullivan In Hueyapan nahuatl those same constructions exist except with the vowel /e/ instead of /a/. lt seems to come from ye, the suppletive form of cah. In this niyetok in this way is used as an equivalent of spanish "estoy". Magnus Pharao Hansen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "John Sullivan, Ph.D." To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:41:48 -0600 Subject: [Nahuat-l] a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec > Listeros, Here at the institute we have two interesting words. > > 1. *niyatoc*, "I am seated" > 2. *nicuatochyatoc*, "I'm in a squatting position". > It is not *yahtoc*, and therefore the root is not *yauh*, "to go" (but see > below). And I don't know if *cuatochyatoc* is > *cuatoch(in)* + *yatoc* or > *cuatochya* + [*t**(i) + o + c*] > > The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense *ya* morpheme > and perhaps the inceptive -*ya* verbalizer and perhaps the particle *ya*, > "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of "to go" have a long > vowel (the above *yatoc* does not), but that could be because of the > postulated older form of the class 4, *yata, *which upon losing the -*ta*lengthened the preceding > *a*. > So.......... any ideas? > > John > > John Sullivan, Ph.D. > > Professor of Nahua language and culture > > Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas > > Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology > > Tacuba 152, int. 47 > > Centro Histórico > > Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 > > Mexico > > Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 > > Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 > > Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 > > idiez at mac.com > www.macehualli.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 17:49:48 2009 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (magnus hansen) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:49:48 -0300 Subject: Aztecs and all that Message-ID: Having followed the discussion up to now I think there is an important point missing - namely a discussion about ethnicity an how ethnic classification works. Basically ethnic classification can be done by two points of view "theirs" an "ours" : An ethnic group can be an ethnic group simply because dominant outsiders lump groups of otherwise unrelated people together in a single category, or they can be an ethnic group because they feel some kind of solidarity and common origin. That is they can be externally or internally defined. (Handelman 1977 established a system with several intermediary degrees of ethnic solidarity, but in the following i shall only use the to extremes, referred to by him as "ethnic category" (externally dfined) and "ethnic community" (internally defined)) So: When we apply the term Aztec to define an ethnic group we can try to do it in a way that reflects the usage of the people who would have identified with the group in ancient mesoamerica, or we can define it in a way that constructs a group that is clearly distinguishable by traits that we as scholars or as westerners have chosen to call "aztec". Usually social anthropologists would opt for the first kind of classification, in order to best describe actual grouping and feelings of solidarity among groups of people, and in order not to offend anyone - but in this case this isn't really necessary since the people who might be offended by being included in the group against their will no longer exist. This means that both options are feasible, and can be defended by sound arguments. What is not feasible is to use the term aztec without defining it properly or defining it in a way that is better described by some other term e.g. using it only for the Tenochca-Mexica. Because if we want to talk strictly about the Tenochca-Mexica we have the luxury of being able to use a term that satisfies both the internal and the external criteria for ethnic classification. It is fairly well established that in ancient Mesoamerica the citystate was the source of the primary ethnic identity of its peoples, which would mean that probablty nobody would self identify primarily as "aztec" - then if we opt for the "solidarity based model" - we would probably end up having to throw the term Aztec in the garbage bin, or somehow define in which way the altepetl groups who have claimed descent from aztlan harboured feelings of mutual solidarity. If however we opt for the second model we could set up an externally defined category of "aztecs" based on whichever features we find most diagnostic for being "aztec". ME SMith defines Aztecs as those that partake in "Aztec Elite Culture". Others define it as those who speak the Aztec language and in this sense Aztec is synonymous with Nahua which is also an externally defined category since it is improbable that there were ever, in the precolumbian, colonial or modern period, any sense of strong ethnic solidarity between all nahuatl speakers. However, ethnic identity is not exclusive nor does it rest on a single diagnostic trait, and one can be a member of ethnic categories on several levels (I for example might identify with danish, nordic or even western ethnicity in different social contexts). While altepetl relations may be the main source of ethnic identity in mesoamerica, that doesn't mean that it was the only one. For example among the nahuatl speaking altepetl groups higher level groupings like Tepanec, Acolhua, Tlahuica, Tlaxcaltec etc existed, each containing several distinct altepetl groups whose elites felt they had common origins (and who sometimes had a somewhat unified political system). This means that there may have been a kind of macroethnic solidarity among a group that referred to themselves as Aztec and envisioned a common origin in Aztlan, but who still maintained their separate altepetl based ethnicities as their main category of selfidentification. As we have already seen different sources include different altepetl groups in the "aztlan emigrant" group and trying to establish a closed group of altepetl groups who selfdefined as aztlan migrats seems to me to be a futile job, because it is much more likely that *sometimes* *some* groups identified as aztlan migrants when in order to further their political interests they wanted to invoke common origins with other altepetl groups, and that sometimes when they wanted to stress their differences to other altepetl groups they did not identify as such. Exactly for this reason ME Smiths definition seems to me to be the best argued and the most applicable. It sets up a group which *did* have shared cultural traits and some degree of solidarity at least on the elite level, it allows for the group to be inclusive instead of exclusive, and because it doesn't claim to have been a main source of ethnic idenityity for its members it allows for for the Altepetl groups that partook in Aztec Elite Culture to maintain their unique altepetl ethnicities. Furthermore it divorces the term Aztec from the Nahuan languages, which I think is excellent and much needed in face of the growing evidence for multilingualism within many altepetl city states. This allows the Tepanecs to be Aztecs even though they might have been mostly Matlatzinca speakers, and it allows Netzahualcoyotl to be Aztec even though his mother tongue may have been Otomi (This is what Ylanda Lastra argues in her book about Otomi cultural history). I was recently made aware of the publication of "Ethnic Identity in Nahua Mesoamerica" edited by Frances Berdan (et al.), I haven't had the chance to read it yet, but I assume that it discusses some of these issues and I am much looking forward to reading it. I also touched the subject of Nahua ethnicity in my blog at www.ethnolang.blogspot.com. Saludos, Abrazos and Greetings. Magnus Pharao Hansen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jonathan.amith at yale.edu Fri Feb 27 19:10:19 2009 From: jonathan.amith at yale.edu (jonathan.amith at yale.edu) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:10:19 -0500 Subject: English Trnaslation of Launey In-Reply-To: <89B235141545F2468A97E3CD9510F67504451035@EXTMAIL.extn.ualberta.ca> Message-ID: Dear all, I have added Michel's book (UNAM) and his thesis (French) online in pdf on my Website at http://www.balsas-nahuatl.org/electronic-docs/ The thesis was made in tiff from a microfiche, hence the quality. The images were enhanced electronically and then I converted to pdf. The thesis is a treasure! Jonathan Quoting "Sidders, Lindsay" : > > > Hola, > > > > FYI- an English adaptation of Michel Launey's, Introduction à la > langue et à la littérature aztèques, is being published by Cambridge > Univ. Press and should be available in late 2010 or early 2011. It is > a collaborative effort between Launey and Dr. Christopher S. Mackay > of the University of Alberta. > > > > Lindsay Sidders, MA Student > > Department of History & Classics > > University of Alberta > > > > -- Jonathan D. Amith Director: Mexico-North Program on Indigenous Languages Research Affiliate: Gettysburg College; Yale University; University of Chicago (O) 717-337-6795 (H) 717-338-1255 Mail to: Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology Gettysburg College Campus Box 412 300 N. Washington Street Gettysburg, PA 17325 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 19:22:06 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:22:06 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: Anither Launey citation Message-ID: ----- Forwarded message from mmccaffe at indiana.edu ----- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:11:09 -0500 From: Michael McCafferty Reply-To: Michael McCafferty Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Anither Launey citation To: mmccaffe at indiana.edu a pedagogical perspective: Karttunen and Campbell's introduction to the language is the most efficient entrada I'm aware of. You can have students up and running (i.e. grinding :-) with the Florentine by the second semester. I'm curious about what others are using. ? I haven't used Launey's ideas at the beginning level, and "Old Andrews," while valuable, is a might overwhelming for the average undergrad beginner--but great for the ""second-year" student and beyond. "New Andrews" has a very nice faux-leather cover. Sullivan a is a great source of historically documented examples. Just wonderful in that regard. Michael Quoting Frances Karttunen : > In our instructional material for learning Nahuatl, Joe Campbell and > I have cited Launey's grammar, comparing it favorably to the other > works available (Garibay-pretty much useless; Anderson's translation > of Clavigero with accompanying workbook-well-intentioned, but doesn't > work as instructional material; Sullivan-misunderstands some of the > phonology but is very good with references; Andrews-polemic, throws > up roadblocks to learning, and doesn't tell where he gets things). > > Also, in the Introduction to my Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl, I > state (p. xxxiv), "The two modern sources most compatible with this > dictionary are Andrews' Introduction to Classical Nahuatl and Michel > Launey's Introduction à la langue et à la litterature azteques I. > > I have always been an admirer of Launey and have not ignored him at all. > > Frances Karttunen ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 19:24:48 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:24:48 -0500 Subject: English Trnaslation of Launey In-Reply-To: <20090227141019.h8fenpqfwk8ccsck@www.mail.yale.edu> Message-ID: Tlaxtlahui. Quoting jonathan.amith at yale.edu: > Dear all, > > I have added Michel's book (UNAM) and his thesis (French) online in pdf on my > Website at http://www.balsas-nahuatl.org/electronic-docs/ > > The thesis was made in tiff from a microfiche, hence the quality. The images > were enhanced electronically and then I converted to pdf. > > The thesis is a treasure! > > Jonathan > > > Quoting "Sidders, Lindsay" : > >> >> >> Hola, >> >> >> >> FYI- an English adaptation of Michel Launey's, Introduction à la >> langue et à la littérature aztèques, is being published by Cambridge >> Univ. Press and should be available in late 2010 or early 2011. It is >> a collaborative effort between Launey and Dr. Christopher S. Mackay >> of the University of Alberta. >> >> >> >> Lindsay Sidders, MA Student >> >> Department of History & Classics >> >> University of Alberta >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Jonathan D. Amith > Director: Mexico-North Program on Indigenous Languages > Research Affiliate: Gettysburg College; Yale University; University > of Chicago > (O) 717-337-6795 > (H) 717-338-1255 > Mail to: > Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology > Gettysburg College > Campus Box 412 > 300 N. Washington Street > Gettysburg, PA 17325 > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Fri Feb 27 19:45:14 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:45:14 +0100 Subject: Aztecs and all that Message-ID: Dear Magnus, dear colleagues, Exactly. That's pretty much what I was getting at when I referred to the macroethnic aspect of the Aztec question. I wanted to avoid opening up another kettle of fish by mentioning explicitly, as you have now done (thanks!), that ethnic identity is not just a matter of identity classification and processing from within, but is also something influenced by (stereotypical and other) perceptions from outside the group, positive, negative, and mixed. It's a very sensitive point because someone will likely protest that we are trying to impose our perceptions and categories on others: "Hey, wait a minute! Only we (or they) have a right to decide who we (or they) are!" However that may be, for better or for worse it's always been a complex and multidimensional issue -- and a two-sided sword. Consider the case of the Byzantines, to take an example least likely to provoke an emotional reaction. They regarded themselves as, and even called themselves, 'Rhomaioi' -- Romans -- right up to the 15th century, but we wouldn't call them that, although they had quite legitimate reasons for doing so. From our perspective, however, the differences by the late 6th century had so accumulated (from a 1st-century basis) that it seems far more practical and reasonable to call them something else -- thus, 'Byzantines'. For them, on the other hand, the political and cultural continuity was paramount. I personally prefer to see them as (Greek-speaking) Romans, in the same way that we can say that Alfred the Great was just as 'English' as the Queen is today. But that's another story. I agree with you in thinking that there is much to be said for using the term 'Aztec' as an inclusive label. In the debate that's been running over the last few days, there have been some misunderstandings. No one has, to my knowledge, claimed that the various Nahua groups called themselves 'Aztecs' in the 16th century. Like Michael Smith and you, I see this as a useful cultural, and macroethnic, label -- our label, not one they themselves used for the historical period (even if the Mexica did indeed use it -- inclusively or exclusively -- for their mythical past), and one that is well applied to the dominant culture of the Aztec Empire. The old expression, 'Romans of the New World', is, in this respect at least, quite apt. A 'Roman' could be African or Asian, or even British, in origin but shared in the political and cultural identity we (and they) called 'Roman'. Your point about the Otomi sharing this 'Aztec' culture is well-taken. 'Aztec' is not simply another term for Mexica or Nahua. Best, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jonathan.amith at yale.edu Fri Feb 27 19:52:09 2009 From: jonathan.amith at yale.edu (jonathan.amith at yale.edu) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:52:09 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl bees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Molly, I have several identifications for bees from my work in Balsas valley, Guerrero Xi:kohtli Most commonly Xylocopa spp. The determined species are X. guatemalensis and X. mexicanorum. However, the term also covers Bombus sp., with the one identified specimen a Bombus steindachneri. Michener in his Bees of the World, p. 596, in ref. to Tribe Xylocopini states that "The are often confused with bumblebees (Bombis, in the Apinae) by the uninitiated" So it would not be unusual for xi:kohtli to cover both. tla:lnekwtli is perhaps prototypically a ground-dwelling stingless bee, Trigona (Geotrigona) acapulconis in the Balsas valley. Its honey and wax are still used, the wax for very coveted candles, although it is now mixted with parafin. The wax is a dark yellow and quite fragrant. There are quite a few other species that are sometimes identified as tla:lnekwtli, mostly stingless bees, but the T. acapulconis seems to be the target of this term as when beewax collectors go out, this is what they bring back. mi:mia:watl, a reduplicated form of mia:watl, which refers to the spike of most grasses, though prototypically that of maize, is in Balsas used to refer to Polistes instabilis, a paper wasp. In the Sierra Norte de Puebla it refers to a small serpent (still not identified) and in the combined form xi:kalkuitamia:wat (often plural xi:kalkuitamia:wameh) to a bee or wasp, still not identified. Otherwise, in the Balsas, the only other term for a type of bee is tlatsiwistli, mostly stingless bees, a polyphyletic group covering various genera. There is quite a bit of ethnoentomological information on stingless bee use in Brazil, e.g., Darrel Posey's article in J. Ethnobiology 3:63-73. Jonathan Amith _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Feb 27 18:03:26 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:03:26 -0600 Subject: tlaixpamitl, cuatitlamitl Message-ID: Listeros, Now that I'm on a roll, I'll throw something else out. 1a. tlaixpamitl, "altar" (absolutive noun) 1b. notlaixpan, "my altar", (possessed noun) 1c. Xictlali xochitl tlaixpan, "Put the flowers on the altar", (relational word) 2a. cuatitlamitl, "monte, uncleared land" (absolutive noun) 2b. nocuatitlan, "my uncleared land" (possessed noun) 3b. yahqui cuatitlan totomictito, "he went into the woods to hunt some birds" (relational word). So, the question is, what came first: the chicken or the egg? Is the relational word (-tlan) simply the reduced form of a noun (tlamitl), or was the noun built on the relational word? John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Feb 27 16:47:44 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:47:44 -0600 Subject: a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec In-Reply-To: <20090227101657.5gdjow0u8wkco04w@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Michael, -toc is the normal construction for talking about 'states' in this variant. nicuatochyatoc, "I am seated in a squatting position" nicuatochyatoya, "I was seated......" nicuatochyatoz, "I will be seated....." xicuatochyato, "Sit down....." John On Feb 27, 2009, at 9:16 AM, Michael McCafferty wrote: > Muy curioso, John. > > It looks, of course, like you have *ni-cuatoch-yatoc. > > It's important, perhaps, to recall that the vowel of the verb /ya:/ > does shorten in compounds. So, your -ya- could be 'go', and that you > have, naturally, a preterit-as-present verb here. In this connection, > it could be that there is some analogical process going on with the > verb 'lie down', onoc. > > Does this verb come in other tenses, say, a pluperfect-as-past? That > is, do you see *(o)nicuatochyatoca? 'I was squatting'? > > -cuatoch- in humorous. > > > Michael > > Quoting "John Sullivan, Ph.D." : > >> Listeros, >> Here at the institute we have two interesting words. >> 1. niyatoc, "I am seated" >> 2. nicuatochyatoc, "I'm in a squatting position". >> It is not yahtoc, and therefore the root is not yauh, "to go" (but >> see below). And I don't know if cuatochyatoc is >> cuatoch(in) + yatoc or >> cuatochya + [t(i) + o + c] >> The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense ya >> morpheme and perhaps the inceptive -ya verbalizer and perhaps the >> particle ya, "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of >> "to go" have a long vowel (the above yatoc does not), but that could >> be because of the postulated older form of the class 4, yata, which >> upon losing the - ta lengthened the preceding a. >> So.......... any ideas? >> John >> >> John Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Professor of Nahua language and culture >> Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas >> Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology >> Tacuba 152, int. 47 >> Centro Histórico >> Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 >> Mexico >> Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 >> Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 >> Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 >> idiez at mac.com >> www.macehualli.org >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Feb 27 16:59:17 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:59:17 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 117, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magnus, That makes a lot of sense. Aside from this possibility, the only uses of the verb ca/ye in Huastecan Nahuatl is with oncah, "there is/are", the -ti- compound -ticah/ticateh (present progressive tense), and perhaps cencah, "the same, equal". Other words are used in place of the ca/ye: 1. iitztoc, "estar" for humans and animals. 2. eltoc, "está" plants and things. 3. eli, "ser" is used in the same way as ca/ye to join a subject and a noun/adj in any tense except the present: nitlamachtihquetl, "I'm a teacher" nieliz nitlamachtihquetl, "I will be a teacher" nielqui nitlamachtihquet, "I was a teacher", etc., etc., John On Feb 27, 2009, at 10:44 AM, magnus hansen wrote: > Dear John Sullivan > > In Hueyapan nahuatl those same constructions exist except with the > vowel /e/ instead of /a/. lt seems to come from ye, the suppletive > form of cah. In this niyetok in this way is used as an equivalent of > spanish "estoy". > > Magnus Pharao Hansen > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "John Sullivan, Ph.D." > To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:41:48 -0600 > Subject: [Nahuat-l] a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec > > Listeros, > Here at the institute we have two interesting words. > > 1. niyatoc, "I am seated" > 2. nicuatochyatoc, "I'm in a squatting position". > It is not yahtoc, and therefore the root is not yauh, "to go" (but > see below). And I don't know if cuatochyatoc is > cuatoch(in) + yatoc or > cuatochya + [t(i) + o + c] > > The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense ya > morpheme and perhaps the inceptive -ya verbalizer and perhaps the > particle ya, "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of > "to go" have a long vowel (the above yatoc does not), but that could > be because of the postulated older form of the class 4, yata, which > upon losing the -ta lengthened the preceding a. > So.......... any ideas? > > John > > John Sullivan, Ph.D. > Professor of Nahua language and culture > Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas > Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology > Tacuba 152, int. 47 > Centro Histórico > Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 > Mexico > Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 > Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 > Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 > idiez at mac.com > www.macehualli.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Feb 27 17:43:48 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:43:48 -0600 Subject: a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Iván, Sí me gustó mucho la idea de Magnus y de ti, de que el "ya" de "yatoc" sea una variante del verbo "ca/ye" del Centro. Por otro lado, el "cua-" de "cuahuitl" se emplea con varios animales dando la idea de silvestre (cuatitlan): por ejemplo, cuapitzotl, "jabalí". John On Feb 27, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Iván Pedroza wrote: > Creo que puede ser una alteración de "yetoc", equivalente de eltoc, > "ser o estar" en algunas variantes dialectales contemporáneas, en el > panotoc cahuitl. De la parte cuatoch- me parece correcto pensar en > tochin o tochtli, por la posición típica de los conejos, pero lo de > cua no tengo idea si será por cuaitl, cabeza, o por (qui)cua, tal > vez haciendo referencia a la posición de los conejos cuando comen. > > Saludos > > > -- > Iván Pedroza > 5523 8044 > 5523 8058 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Sat Feb 28 13:27:58 2009 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:27:58 +0000 Subject: Aztecs and all that In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hey Magnus, I think your message is very useful in this discussion. It seems we agree on the necessity of a term for Central Mexican elite culture (although Smith's use of the term Aztec is much broader than just elite culture), but I doubt that 'Aztec' is the right term for it. One can agree with either stand taken here on the historical issue, but it's clear that the term 'Aztec' is meaningful. It's meaning may have changed over time, as was shown by Gordon, myself and Maria, but it is and has been meaningful. The fact that Michael is constantly criticized for his use of the term, indicates it's a historically and emotionally charged term -maybe not so much in the US or Europe but certainly here in Mexico. Taken that it's charged, it makes the term not very useful because there will always be a large part of the community -academic and laymen- that will reject it. That is the reason why 'Nahuas' works so well. It's an invented term with no historical or emotional charge and indicates perfectly what it means. Therefore, it would be much more practical, I think, to suggest a new 'invented' term instead of using 'Aztec' or 'Anahuac'. Un abrazo, Michel Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:49:48 -0300 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztecs and all that Having followed the discussion up to now I think there is an important point missing - namely a discussion about ethnicity an how ethnic classification works. Basically ethnic classification can be done by two points of view "theirs" an "ours" : An ethnic group can be an ethnic group simply because dominant outsiders lump groups of otherwise unrelated people together in a single category, or they can be an ethnic group because they feel some kind of solidarity and common origin. That is they can be externally or internally defined. (Handelman 1977 established a system with several intermediary degrees of ethnic solidarity, but in the following i shall only use the to extremes, referred to by him as "ethnic category" (externally dfined) and "ethnic community" (internally defined)) So: When we apply the term Aztec to define an ethnic group we can try to do it in a way that reflects the usage of the people who would have identified with the group in ancient mesoamerica, or we can define it in a way that constructs a group that is clearly distinguishable by traits that we as scholars or as westerners have chosen to call "aztec". Usually social anthropologists would opt for the first kind of classification, in order to best describe actual grouping and feelings of solidarity among groups of people, and in order not to offend anyone - but in this case this isn't really necessary since the people who might be offended by being included in the group against their will no longer exist. This means that both options are feasible, and can be defended by sound arguments. What is not feasible is to use the term aztec without defining it properly or defining it in a way that is better described by some other term e.g. using it only for the Tenochca-Mexica. Because if we want to talk strictly about the Tenochca-Mexica we have the luxury of being able to use a term that satisfies both the internal and the external criteria for ethnic classification. It is fairly well established that in ancient Mesoamerica the citystate was the source of the primary ethnic identity of its peoples, which would mean that probablty nobody would self identify primarily as "aztec" - then if we opt for the "solidarity based model" - we would probably end up having to throw the term Aztec in the garbage bin, or somehow define in which way the altepetl groups who have claimed descent from aztlan harboured feelings of mutual solidarity. If however we opt for the second model we could set up an externally defined category of "aztecs" based on whichever features we find most diagnostic for being "aztec". ME SMith defines Aztecs as those that partake in "Aztec Elite Culture". Others define it as those who speak the Aztec language and in this sense Aztec is synonymous with Nahua which is also an externally defined category since it is improbable that there were ever, in the precolumbian, colonial or modern period, any sense of strong ethnic solidarity between all nahuatl speakers. However, ethnic identity is not exclusive nor does it rest on a single diagnostic trait, and one can be a member of ethnic categories on several levels (I for example might identify with danish, nordic or even western ethnicity in different social contexts). While altepetl relations may be the main source of ethnic identity in mesoamerica, that doesn't mean that it was the only one. For example among the nahuatl speaking altepetl groups higher level groupings like Tepanec, Acolhua, Tlahuica, Tlaxcaltec etc existed, each containing several distinct altepetl groups whose elites felt they had common origins (and who sometimes had a somewhat unified political system). This means that there may have been a kind of macroethnic solidarity among a group that referred to themselves as Aztec and envisioned a common origin in Aztlan, but who still maintained their separate altepetl based ethnicities as their main category of selfidentification. As we have already seen different sources include different altepetl groups in the "aztlan emigrant" group and trying to establish a closed group of altepetl groups who selfdefined as aztlan migrats seems to me to be a futile job, because it is much more likely that sometimes some groups identified as aztlan migrants when in order to further their political interests they wanted to invoke common origins with other altepetl groups, and that sometimes when they wanted to stress their differences to other altepetl groups they did not identify as such. Exactly for this reason ME Smiths definition seems to me to be the best argued and the most applicable. It sets up a group which did have shared cultural traits and some degree of solidarity at least on the elite level, it allows for the group to be inclusive instead of exclusive, and because it doesn't claim to have been a main source of ethnic idenityity for its members it allows for for the Altepetl groups that partook in Aztec Elite Culture to maintain their unique altepetl ethnicities. Furthermore it divorces the term Aztec from the Nahuan languages, which I think is excellent and much needed in face of the growing evidence for multilingualism within many altepetl city states. This allows the Tepanecs to be Aztecs even though they might have been mostly Matlatzinca speakers, and it allows Netzahualcoyotl to be Aztec even though his mother tongue may have been Otomi (This is what Ylanda Lastra argues in her book about Otomi cultural history). I was recently made aware of the publication of "Ethnic Identity in Nahua Mesoamerica" edited by Frances Berdan (et al.), I haven't had the chance to read it yet, but I assume that it discusses some of these issues and I am much looking forward to reading it. I also touched the subject of Nahua ethnicity in my blog at www.ethnolang.blogspot.com. Saludos, Abrazos and Greetings. Magnus Pharao Hansen _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Sat Feb 28 18:57:30 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:57:30 -0600 Subject: Aztecs Message-ID: Listeros: I've managed to stay out of this discussion so far, but I have to chime in now and remind everyone that central Mexican culture is far more than Nahua. Language is but one aspect of culture. If we plot each aspect of culture separately on a map, we get a very messy picture of overlapping blotches, with holes inside the blotches and splatters at their edges. Central Mexican culture was and is a plurilinguistic affair, with the participation of several language groups. Language distribution does not coincide with political alliance blocks, economic factors, ceramic styles, or anything else. There was a general central Mexican culture, a regional variant of Mesoamerican culture, with full participation by several language groups, most of which belonged to the Otomanguean trunk, with much older roots in central Mexico than the Nahuas, who were relatively late-comers from western Mexico. In the central highlands the Otopamean presence was particularly important, including, around the time of the Conquest, Otomi, Mazahua, Matlatzinca, and Ocuiltec speakers, with the comparatively rustic Pameans at the northern edge. Most kingdoms were plurilinguistic, with their major divisions (calpolli) being linguistically more homogenous. Members of the elite married and ruled across linguistic lines, forming a vast network of dynastic alliances (not that that prohibited conflicts within extended families). Ethnic identity, then, was constructed from a variety of cultural traits, language being but one of several. Given this situation, the best term for central Mexican culture would seem to me to be "central Mexican culture", adding a chronological period as a qualifier, since cultural traits change over time. Peace, David Wright _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Sat Feb 28 23:16:06 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 00:16:06 +0100 Subject: Aztlan-Chicomoztoc and the chronicles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Maria, dear colleagues, Thanks so much for your contribution to the 2009 Great Aztlan Debate! It's much appreciated, since you've done a lot of work in this area. I fully agree with you (and Henry Nicholson) on the need to conduct a careful critical examination of the sources, one that includes, among other things, an exacting philological analysis of the texts and their affiliations. And you are perfectly right that one should be careful not to assume, just because a number of 16th- and 17th-century sources provide a particular piece of information, that that information is independent in each. As you point out, Motolinia was indeed a primary source for Lopez de Gomara, Zorita, Mendieta, Torquemada, and so on. But, unless I am very mistaken, no one has been suggesting so far that these sources are independent of each other. If I recall correctly, only Motolinia and Lopez de Gomara have been mentioned so far in the debate, and not in connection with Aztlan or a particular tradition. I had noted, in answer to a post from Roberto, that Miguel Leon-Portilla was incorrect in asserting, on the one hand, that Lopez de Gomara, following Cortes, only used 'los de Mexico' for the Mexica and, on the other hand, that the term 'mexicano/a(s)' first came into use after Diaz del Castillo made it popular. I mentioned in that context that Motolinia was already using the term by 1541 at the latest. I'm sure you will agree with me that this is not the same kind of thing as you were talking about. Cronica X is a fascinating subject! We still need a painstakingly thorough study and test of this hypothesis, as also of Cronica Y, and, of course, of the various other lost or presumed sources to which we could, perhaps, assign for convenience the other letters of the alphabet. Barlow set us on this path with his initial astute study, but a lot more needs to be done before we can confidently say that we have solved the puzzle. Duran's primary source, the Historia that he repeatedly mentions, may well be the Cronica X, or at least a close relative. As you (and I) have already said, there are a number of variants of the Aztlan cycle, and these can indeed be placed in different source groups. And, as you know, the specifics vary considerably -- e.g. as to how many calpoltin of the Azteca Mexitin there were and how Chicomoztoc and (Teo)colhuacan are treated geographically, geopolitically, and (if you'll excuse the coinage) geomythologically. For the sake of the discussion (since Susan Schroeder's extensive work on Chimalpahin had been brought up), and to avoid unnecessarily long documentation in what is just an exchange of ideas, I restricted myself in previous posts to the Nahuatl texts of the Codex Aubin and Chimalpahin (which includes passages adopted and adapted from Tezozomoc and Alonso Franco that have not survived independently). It is true, as you say, that Chimalpahin, like other sources of this early period, frequently mixed materials gleaned from a variety of sources. Ixtlilxochitl and Chimalpahin name quite a few of their primary informants and materials. We know from this that Chimalpahin consulted learned Mexica and Chalca nobles. The result is not a deliberate total synthesis (like Ixtlilxochitl's Historia Chichimeca in contrast to his Relaciones) but a series of related and overlapping accounts that are more or less faithful to their sources (to the extent that we can judge this), though refined and emended according to Chimalpahin's perception of things. Thus, he was certainly not averse to blending material from one source into another, as Schroeder and you have shown. What we should not forget, however, is that Chimalpahin, unlike Lopez de Gomara, to name but one example, was not simply consulting informants and documents. He was himself at least cursorily acquainted with the traditions as a result of his upbringing and heritage. He grew up surrounded by elders familiar with Aztec-period traditions, but, at the same time, he was versed in the methods of European scholarship. Ixtlilxochitl is sometimes lost at sea in his attempt to interpret unglossed pictorials, as we can see in his repeated attempts to read the same glyphs. Chimalpahin was either much more skilled at this, or had better consultants. Chimalpahin indeed makes good use of what you call the Cronica X and Y versions of the migration accounts. But BOTH versions (and Chimalpahin's own retelling) support points I was making: namely, (1) that Aztlan was generally understood in 16th-century Mexico, and probably earlier, to be more than just the island of this name, as many in the past have mistakenly assumed, and (2) that the Nahuatl ethnonym 'Azteca' included more than just the Mexitin, although they are paramount and, in some accounts, the only group explicitly named as such. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that Cronica X and Y are theoretical constructs that, if they ever existed as discrete works or traditions, may have included more -- or perhaps less -- than what we assume them to. If we say that Cronica X only contained what is found in similar form in all the extant works known to have used it, we adopt a minimalist approach with regard to this construct. If we say that Cronica X itself used and incorporated more than one traditional account (the norm in 16th-century historiography and mythography), based on additional elements found only in, say, two known sources, then we have a maximalist approach. Just as much as two authors can add to, or blend into, their common primary source the same secondary source independently of each other, so too can two authors leave out (again independently) a secondary strand contained in their primary source, in order to concentrate on a particular unitary narrative, one that may have been gaining currency at the time. There are arguments that can be made for each stance. We simply don't know for sure. But it sure is fun, and worthwhile, to consider and to debate the options! Maria, thanks again for your thought-provoking contribution. I'm really looking forward to your upcoming article on the Seven Caves. Your stimulating work in this area is something the 'Azteca', whoever they may (or may not) have been, would have been very proud of! All the best, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From ixtlil at earthlink.net Sat Feb 28 20:02:54 2009 From: ixtlil at earthlink.net (Jerry Offner) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:02:54 -0600 Subject: Calling attention to the French and how they help in one's research Message-ID: Recent comments on the list provide an opportunity to point out again the excellence and utility of the body of work assembled by French researchers on things Nahua or Aztec or whatever. For present purposes to avoid further controversy, let's call them "residents of what is now called part of Mexico before the Spanish invasion"--that's got a great commercial ring to it! I only wish we saw such energy invested in line by line understanding of the written sources and their relationships, and more importantly the written sources' relationships to the pictorial material. Instead, until recent times, we have seen so many resources, decade after decade, directed towards reclassifying Nahua culture and history to fit Western ideologies and related grand theoretical schemes. The results have proven better at exposing the explanatory inadequacy of these themes than in understanding the Nahua. The French, in the meantime, have been paying attention to the facts on the ground an! d trying to understand Nahua culture in its own terms and the results show it. There is no question that the work of the French is little regarded and little known. A recent article in Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl by Jongsoo Lee purports to provide a new and proper understanding at last of Texcoco and Nezahualcoyotl. It does not cite or discuss at all the work of Patrick Lesbre, available in both French and Spanish. Lesbre had covered this same ground years earlier, better, far more accurately and with far more insight, experience, appropriate restraint and subtlety. Had the author been aware of or read Lesbre's work, the publication might have been abandoned as inferior and superfluous. Neither is the work of Marc Thouvenot productively utilized, especially his lifetime of work on the Codex Xolotl. The lack of evidence presented from and evident lack of knowledge of the content of the Codex Xolotl invalidates the author's "telescoped history" attempts to discuss Tenochcan, Texcocan (and Azcapotzalcan) history and their interrelationships. A hund! red years of history comes across as flat as a printed page. You can't write about Aztecs and in particular you can't write about Texcoco without knowing the work of the French researchers over the past three decades. Recently, Lacandena published on Nahua writing, appearing to scold many, and I think quite inappropriately, for their perceived inadequacies in linguistic formalities and presentation methods without making more than a passing reference to Thouvenot's work--only his dissertation and not the body of programs--in French, Spanish and also usually English easily found on-line at: http://www.sup-infor.com/index.htm (At least one list member of these lists is a contributor. It is still fashionable in some shrinking enclaves to deride or dismiss on-line material but this, as is often the case, is of the highest quality and is in many ways better than printed material. A major DVD of the resources on line and new material is in press for those who prefer a material token or talisman for legitimacy). Marc's work is easily searched to form and investigate hypotheses on glyphs and their readings. For example, Lacandena does a good job of showing a particular kind of bird glyph can be read as huilo- as well as or instead of toto- (uh-oh, I hope I am not scolded for my presentation method in this instance, I took off those pesky -tl's but left the rest in lower case and did not use the canonic form, and did not indicate vowel length, but I think they're all long anyway...). A quick use of the program CEN from Thouvenot and his group automatically provides just over a dozen examples of glyphs with the huilo- element, easily allowing the user to pop up pictures of the glyphs and providing exact references as to their location. Experienced people working on glyphs in a document are going to be using Marc's program to investigate all types of birds that appear as candidates, although you can usually quickly rule in or out owls and other birds with distinctive appearances. Fo! r example, if you are trying to match toponymic glyphs in a pictorial document with colonial and modern lists of place names or with names on maps, you are going to investigate any possibility that comes to mind--and most of the time you still won't get a "hit" or you'll get too many--e.g. Coatepec, Huehuetepec, etc.. You will also be more efficient time if you are not using canonic forms. The same is true of types of trees and snakes. Lacadena's work does contain the promise of a deeper grammatical understanding of glyphic texts, except that there aren't any, other than a few strings in the Codex Xolotl that Dibble has published on years ago. Still, Lacandena does a good job of showing that the Codex de Xicotepec has strong relationships to the Texcocan school of tlacuilome. Perhaps some sort of non-prescriptive-laden bridge can be built between the two efforts of Lacandena and Thouvenot. Regarding the website mentioned above, can anyone cite instances of references to this on-line body of work in recent, non-French, non-Mexican published work? (There are some among the Mexican researchers that Marc has patiently trained, but any from the US? Getting a list of those works would very likely prove an efficient roadmap to good recent work). Other resources on the website produced by Marc and his collaborators include an on-line Nahuatl dictionary and a veritable Nahua encyclopedia placing individual glyphs in a natural science context or in a cultural context via references to Sahagun and other sources. All resources are linked, so that if your are investigating snakes, you might recognize, as Sybille de Pury did, at a glance, that the apparent Coatepec glyph in Section 5 of the Codex de Xicotepec is very likely not Coatepec but instead is more likely related to the snake teuctlacozauhqui. If you enter "TECUTLACOZAUHQUI" into the GDN program (yes, they know about teuc- and tecu- so let's skip all that...), you find: TECUTLACOZAUHQUI : "La amarilla gobernante" (Tecutlaco�auhquj) Ay en esta tierra una culebra que se llama tecutlaco�auhquj. Dizen: es el principe, o princesa de todas las culebras, es gruessa, y larga: tiene eslabones en la cola, como vibora: tiene grande cabe�a, y gran boca tiene dientes; y la lengua orcaxada: tiene escamas gruessas, es de color amarillo de la color de la flor de la calaba�a: tiene unas manchas negras como las del tigre: los eslabones tienen pardillos, y duros: silva esta serpiente. Come conejos y liebres, y aves; come cualesqujer aves /o anjmales: y aunque tiene dientes no los masca, sino tragalos, y alla dentro los dixiere, o desmuele. Si alguna ave topa tragasela entera, y si estan encima de algun arbol arrojelos la pon�o�a con que los haze cayer muertos. Lib. 11, fol. 77, p. 229 r. y v. Esta serpiente siempre anda, acompa�ada, con su hembra; y la hembra con su macho: aunque siempre andan el uno apartado del otro y quando se qujeren juntar silva el uno, y luego viene el otro. y si alguno mata al uno dellos el otro persigue al que le mato hasta que le mata. En los eslabones se parece, si esta serpiente es de muchos a�os: porque cada a�o produce un eslabon esta culebra /o serpiente no puede andar por tierra rasa mas va por encima del heno y de las matas como volando, sino le hazen mal no hazen mal. Lib. 11, fol. 78, p. 230 r. y v. Ay otra culebra que se llama cincoatl, o cencoatl; es mediana, no tiene cascabeles, nj muerde es amarilla, y colorada, y parda escura, qujere parecer a la culebra que se llama tecutlaco�auhquj. Lib. 11, fol. 87, p. 239 v. You then go back and look more closely at the Codex de Xicotepec glyph and you see it is composed of two facing yellow snakes with spots, forked tongues and (small) rattles. One of the most obvious Coatepec glyphs of all times then becomes most likely not a Coatepec glyph at all. And you broaden your search of place names well beyond Coatepec. Marc is extremely generous with his time and a researcher ignores his work at their peril. For example, his efforts, along with Sybille de Pury have helped me identify the second town in the Codex de Xicotepec as Cuauhchinanco and have helped me rule out any appearance of Nezahualcoyotl in that codex until Section 16 (rather than Section 9 as the author of the ECN article, uncritically following Stresser-Pean, supposes). And it was of course Lesbre in his review of Stresser-Pean's book long ago that initially suggested that Stresser-Pean's reading of the Nezahualcoyotl glyph in Section 9 was incorrect and that he appeared instead in the later section--where his glyph is quite clear but was misread by Stresser-Pean. And of course, the French Guy and Claude Stresser-Pean were the ones sufficiently trusted by the people of the small village of Cuaxicala to allow them to being their codex to the public. The French education system has had a way of producing people with finely tuned sensitivities to texts, pictorial as well as alphabetic--every detail is considered important, and Marc's, and his collaborators' and Patrick's work all show it. And leaving aside facility in reading French, which is often just a few sound changes away from Spanish and can be managed with a good (on-line or paper) dictionary, the French have been diligent in their efforts to publish in Spanish and they are enthusiastic in their efforts to communicate by e-mail in English or Spanish, finding French not sufficiently challenging). Why, then, their low profile in the US? Perhaps their empirical rather than ideological approach has kept them isolated? Although academic resources may be at an all-time low, albeit with some hope of improvement on the horizon, it would be good to get Thouvenot and his group and Lesbre over to the US to raise our game some. Jerry Offner ixtlil at earthlink.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Wed Feb 4 02:27:18 2009 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (magnus hansen) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 20:27:18 -0600 Subject: Miguel Barrios Espinoza Message-ID: Hello Listeros I am currently working on a project describing the history of Hueyapan, Morelos (and the rest of the municipium of Tetela del Volc?n) in the twentieth century. I really want to include a section on Miguel Barrios Espinoza native linguist and teacher of Hueyapan. Particularly I am interested in any information about his connection to Kenneth Croft, who according to Friedlanders book about Hueyapan trained him in linguistics and used him as a consultant in his study of Matlapa Nahuatl. I would like to know more about this and if it is possible include some kind of concrete evidence of the connection between the two - preferably references to documents or published sources. Any help you might be able to give me will be greatly appreciated - and may help preserve the memory of a nearly forgotten native linguist who did a lot to document the indigenous tongue of his native community. *Hola Listeros. Estoy trabajando en un proyecto de documentacion de la historia del municipio de Tetela del Volc?n, Morelos. Quisiera incluir en ello una secci?n sobre el maestro y ling??sta nativo de Hueyapan, Miguel Barrios Espinoza. Sobre todo me interesa su posible connecci?n con el ling?ista norteamericano, Kenneth Croft. Segun el libro de Friedlander sobre el pueblo de Hueyapan Croft entren? a Barrios como ling??sta y le utiliz? como consultante o interprete en su estudio del n?huatl de Matlapa. Cualquier informaci?n o documentaci?n que me podr?an proporcionar sobre Miguel Barrios Espinoza o Kenneth Croft ser? muy apreciado. Asi tambien podr?n ayudar a conservar la memor?a de un ling??sta dedicado que hizo mucho para conservar su idioma indigena* Magnus Pharao Hansen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Sat Feb 7 02:17:57 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 20:17:57 -0600 Subject: 2009 Summer Intensive Course in Older and Modern Nahuatl Message-ID: Dear Listeros, I have a few announcements. 1. We will no longer be using the web address "www.idiez.org.mx". Both "Macehualli Educational Research", our US non-profit corporation, and "Instituto de Docencia e Investigaci?n Etnol?gica de Zacatecas", our Mexican non-profit corporation, will now be accessible at www.macehualli.org . 2. Yale Summer Programs has approved our 2009 Summer Intensive Course in Older and Modern Nahuatl. It will be up on their website, http://www.yale.edu/summer/ , next week. Meanwhile, I am copying the official announcement below. A pdf. may also be downloaded now at www.macehualli.org. FLAS funding is available, and please note that the Yale Center for Latin American and Iberian Studies and its parters will make every effort to ensure that financial constraints are not an obstacle to participation. 3. Lastly, beginning Fall 2009 we will offer academic year distance courses Nahuatl taught live by native speakers. John John Sullivan, Ph.D. Professor of Nahua language and culture Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology Tacuba 152, int. 47 Centro Hist?rico Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 Mexico Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 idiez at me.com www.macehualli.org 2009 SUMMER INTENSIVE COURSE IN OLDER AND MODERN NAHUATL Zacatecas and Tepecxitla, June 22 - July 31 Yale?s Council on Latin American and Iberian Studies (CLAIS), in collaboration with the Institute of Latin American American Studies at Columbia, the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at New York University, and the Instituto de Docencia e Investigaci?n Etnol?gica de Zacatecas will offer an intensive course in Older and Modern Nahuatl at the beginning, intermediate and advanced levels. The course is offered through Yale Summer Sessions as NHTL 125 (See http://www.yale.edu/summer/) The course seeks to: 1. develop students' oral comprehension, speaking, reading, writing and knowledge of language structure, as well as their cultural wisdom and sensibility, in order to facilitate their ability to communicate effectively, correctly and creatively in everyday situations; 2. provide students with instruments and experiences that demonstrate the continuity between past and present Nahua culture, through the study of colonial and modern texts, conversation with native speakers, and an optional residency in a Nahua community; 3. penetrate into the historical, economic, political, social and cultural aspects of Nahua civilization; 4. prepare students to take university level humanities courses taught in Nahuatl alongside native speakers. Beginning students will have class five hours per day, Monday through Friday: two hours of Modern Nahuatl immersion and introductory grammar with native speaking instructors; two hours of Older Nahuatl taught by John Sullivan; and an additional hour of individual work on a research project of the student?s choice with a native speaking tutor. Intermediate students will study specific topics drawn from Older and Modern sources, using Nahuatl as the sole language of class discussion, and continue to work with individual tutors. Advanced students will design and implement a research project in collaboration with the native speaking tutors, and will write a short paper in Modern Nahuatl. Six weeks of class will be held in Zacatecas from June 22 to July 31, 2009. Full class attendance is required. Students who are absent for reasons other than illness will be asked to withdraw from the Institute. Students may elect to spend an optional seventh week in the village of Tepecxitla, Veracruz where they will reside with an indigenous family and participate in the Chicomexochitl ceremony. A decision regarding the viability of this homestay option will be made two months prior to the beginning of the program after the pertinent regional security issues have been evaluated. This visit, however, will not be under CLAIS auspices, and those students who wish to participate must cover the additional costs (see below). Tentative course costs 1. Tuition for three credits, $4,000 2. Room for six weeks in Zacatecas (one or two adults per room): a) studio with private bath and kitchenette, $600; b) studio with private bath and shared kitchen, $525; c) studio with shared bath and kitchen, $450. 3. Food for six weeks in Zacatecas: between $400 (preparing your own food) and $600 (eating out). Tuition is payable to Yale; all other costs including travel between the United States and Mexico are paid by the student directly to the provider). 5. (Optional) Students who travel to the village of Tepecxitla at the end of the course will pay $550 for transportation, room and board, and financing of the Chicomexochitl ceremony. Course materials: All students must have personal copies of the following texts: ? Karttunen, Francis. 1983. An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Texas Linguistics Series. Austin: University of Texas Press. $26.95 @ amazon.com ? Lockhart, James. 2001. Nahuatl as Written. Lessons in Older Written Nahuatl, with Copious Examples and Texts. Stanford: Stanford University Press. $25.43 @ amazon.com ? Molina, Alonso de. 1977(1555-1571). Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Colecci?n ?Biblioteca Porr?a? 44. M?xico: Porr?a. $25 (The work is out of print, so a bound photocopy can be purchased at the Institute). ? Two weeks before class begins students will be sent, free of charge, electronic copies of the exercise manuals, grammar charts, vocabulary lists and manuscripts which will be studied. Funding availability: CLAIS and its partners make every effort to ensure that financial constraints are not an obstacle for participating in the Summer Nahuatl Language program. Financial aid is available to graduate students in the form of FLAS fellowships through your own institution or CLAIS at Yale. Undergraduates may be eligible for partial scholarships. Once paid, tuition is non-refundable. For more information , contact Jean Silk at jean.silk at yale.edu or by phone at 203/432-3420 or John Sullivan at idiez at me.com or by phone at +52 (492) 925-3415. To Register for the course, go to Yale Summer Sessions online at http://www.yale.edu/summer/ . Please also contact Jean Silk, Assistant Chair, Council on Latin American and Iberian Studies, Yale University, PO Box 208206, New Haven, CT 06520-8206 to inform CLAIS that you are planning to enroll in the course. We anticipate offering Nahuatl language courses during the academic year through distance learning. Interested students should contact Thomas Trebat (tt2166 at columbia.edu) or Jean Silk (jean.silk at yale.edu) for further information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From anne.cantu at tufts.edu Wed Feb 11 03:41:17 2009 From: anne.cantu at tufts.edu (Anne Lombardi Cantu) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:41:17 -0500 Subject: un curso de verano en nahuatl Message-ID: Estimados colegas: EL COLEGIO DE JALISCO ofrecer? un curso de lengua y cultura del n?huatl durante cuatro semanas, del 25 de mayo al 19 de junio de 2009, en sus instalaciones en Zapopan (Guadalajara), M?xico. El Colegio, con 25 a?os de labores acad?m?cas, es una instituci?n de estudios a nivel de posgrado, que se dedica a la investigaci?n, docencia y difusi?n de la cultura del Occidente de M?xico. Las clases, con un cupo m?ximo de 15 participantes, se impartir?n en espa?ol, de lunes a jueves, entre 10 y 12 AM (estudio de la lengua) y entre 4 y 6 PM (estudio de la historia/cultura). Adem?s, como parte del curso, El Colegio organizar? una excursi?n a Huachimontones, un sitio arqueol?gico en el estado de Jalisco. En su funci?n de difundir la cultura, El Colegio ofrece esta excelente oportunidad sin costo alguno. Los ?nicos gastos ser?n personales: transporte, hospedaje y alimentos. Para los que desean una mayor convivencia con la gente de la ciudad, hay la posibilidad de quedarse en casas particulares que alquilan habitaciones, o bien hay hoteles de precio m?dico. Para informes, favor de comunicarse con: anne.cantu at tufts.edu. Con mucho gusto, les informar? de los pormenores del curso y del alojamiento. Anne Lombardi Cantu, Ph.D. Dept. of Romance Languages/Spanish Tufts University Medford, MA 02155 617-627-5545 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Fri Feb 20 13:37:27 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:37:27 -0500 Subject: Endangered Languages Message-ID: UNESCO has published, online, their guide to endangered languages around the world. The interactive site allows you to look at individual countries and regions, with many other variables. A quick look at Mexico is very depressing. Listed as critically endangered is Tabasco Nahuatl, among others. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00139 > > > UNESCO's /Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger/ is intended to > raise awareness about language endangerment and the need to safeguard > the world's linguistic diversity among policy-makers, speaker > communities and the general public, and to be a tool to monitor the > status of endangered languages and the trends in linguistic diversity > at the global level. > > The latest edition of the Atlas (2009) lists about 2,500 languages > (among which 230 languages extinct since 1950), approaching the > generally-accepted estimate of some 3,000 endangered languages > worldwide. For each language, the Atlas provides its name, degree of > endangerment (see below) and the country or countries where it is spoken. > > The *online edition > * provides > additional information on numbers of speakers, relevant policies and > projects, sources, ISO codes and geographic coordinates. This free > Internet-based version of the Atlas for the first time permits wide > accessibility and allows for interactivity and timely updating of > information, based on feedback provided by users. > -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Fri Feb 20 20:22:27 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:22:27 -0500 Subject: Cross-post from Aztlan Message-ID: On our sister list Aztlan at lists.famsi.org there was a discussion about sacrifice under the Aztecs. This prompted a discussion of the various names applied to the Aztecs. Gordon Whitaker provided a good summary of the terminology, which I corss-post here to Nahuatl > From: Gordon Whittaker [gwhitta at gwdg.de] > Sent: 18 February 2009 21:17 > To: Dodds Pennock, Dr C.E. > Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org > Subject: Re: los 500 sacrificados: Aztec terminology > > Dear Caroline, dear colleagues, > > Since you take issue with certain much-used terminology with regard to > Aztec culture, I think it might be useful to discuss this more fully. > > First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first popularized by > Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to > refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, one that they > shared with several related Nahua groups, just as the Aztec Empire itself > was also shared (co-ruled, at least in name) by several of these groups, > notably the Tepaneca and Acolhuaque. I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is > recorded in Nahuatl using the term. Of course, the term 'Mexica' is > appropriate in describing both the Tenochca in a narrow sense and, more > literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico Tlatelolco, > and indeed in describing the empire they founded. After the conquest of > Tlatelolco by Axayacatl, the term is often applied as if interchangeable > with Tenochca (rather like U.S. Americans referring to themselves as > 'Americans' to the ire of all more southerly inhabitants of the > Americas!). But Aztec is fine in modern usage -- and the Aztecs would have > been very happy with it. To them the term was a distinguished one, like > 'Tolteca' and another one mentioned below. > > By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this inaccurate form > occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be 'Tenochca'. > The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name > 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have designated > the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan > chaneque' (or 'tlaca' are the only possibilities for naming the population > of the capital (excluding Tlatelolco). > > Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured > by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not Nahuatl, > contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is > singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they > would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their dynasty's > descent from the line of Colhuacan. > > Please forgive my taking you to task on these points. Unfortunately, > things have a way of perpetuating themselves as they get passed on in the > scholarly and popular literature. Thus, frequent references to an emperor > 'Ahuizotl' (for 'Ahuitzotl'), to 'Moctezuma' or, worse, especially common > in British usage, 'Montezuma' (for 'Motecuhzoma' or 'Moteuczoma', > depending on your transcriptional preferences), etc. are rather like > referring to a certain Roman as 'Ceasar' (which one indeed sees these > days!) and to the Roman capital of Britain as 'Londonium'. Trivial to > some, but hardly accurate in scholarly usage. Since Nahuatl is still > rarely learned by historians working on the Aztec period (Hugh Thomas is a > particularly painful example in this context) -- something unthinkable in > e.g. Roman or Chinese studies --, this sort of thing happens easily. > > Please do not interpret these comments as an attack, but rather as an > attempt to straighten the record on some high-profile terminology! > > Best wishes, > Gordon > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gordon Whittaker > Professor > Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik > Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie > Universitaet Goettingen > Humboldtallee 19 > 37073 Goettingen > Germany > tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 > tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Fri Feb 20 20:37:01 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:37:01 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: [Aztlan] Aztec terminology] Message-ID: Another cross-post from Aztlan -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Michael Smith" Subject: [Aztlan] Aztec terminology Date: 20 Feb 2009 11:15:07 -0700 Size: 5906 URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Sun Feb 22 18:27:03 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:27:03 -0500 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) Message-ID: From: "romgil06" Date: Sun, February 22, 2009 Gordon Whittaker escribi?: First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first popularized by Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, Perdon pero con todo respeto esto no es cierto. El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo Cristobal del Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos. donde expone su particular versi?n de la historia del pueblo de desarrapados que ni nombre ten?an y que el mismo explica porque llegaron a llamarse mexicas o mexicanos. En la versi?n de Del Castillo Los aztecas son un pueblo DISTINTO de los mexicas,esto es de los que vivieron y fundadron Tenochtitlan , en Del Castillo los "aztecas" aparecen como los amos de los mexicas o los atlachichimecas de la ribera del lago, los aztecas son los que los explotaban. La versi?n de Cristobal del Castillo fue recogida por Chimalpain y reproducida en su Memorial Breve de Culhuacan, sin dar cr?dito a la obra de Del Castillo . Despu?s Chimalpain o Tezozomoc la usan en la cr?nica Mexicayotl, en una variante de la historia de Del Castillo. Ah? en la Mexicayotl uno de los hijos, el menor del rey de los aztecas es quien saca a sus subditos de aztlan chicomoztoc Con todo respeto es un punto de vista muy cuestionable y no se puede citar un solo documento fuente que se?ale que: "However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry" Tampoco puedes citar una obra fuente donde ocurra que: I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is recorded in Nahuatl using the term. Dice Gordon Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not Nahuatl, contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their dynasty's descent from the line of Colhuacan. En que contexto nahuatl ha encontrado Gordon el uso del termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan. Adelanto que no puede citar uno solo, porque no existe. Todos los documentos que se pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl espa?ol. Efectivamente Robert Barlow fue uno de los pioneros en se?alar el error del equivocado uso del termino azteca y como parte de esa labor redacto "la extensi?n del imperio de los colua mexica" publicado por el INAH y la UDLA, Obras de Robert Barlow vol 4, publico tambien los art?culos "La formaci?n del imperio de los colhua mexica", "Algunas consideraciones sobre el t?rmino imperio azteca"y "El concepto populart de los "aztecas" todos en obras de Robert Barlow vol 3 INAH UDLA . Hay otro buen art?culo sobre el mismo tema de Don Miguel Leon Portilla Le?n-Portilla, Miguel, "Los aztecas. Disquisiciones sobre un gentilicio", Estudios de Cultura N?huatl, v. 31, 2000, p. 275-281 Obras recientes en la misma ?ptica vease: Mexicaltzingo Arqueolog?a de un reino culhua mexica de Raul Avila INAH y Culhua Mexico una revisi?n arqueo etnohist?rica del imperio de los mexica tenochca Fernando Robles INAH Se?ala Gordon: Of course, the term 'Mexica' is appropriate in describing both the Tenochca in a narrow sense and, more literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico Tlatelolco, and indeed in describing the empire they founded. Esto es un gran y profundo error de Gordon es borrar las importantes diferencias hist?ricas, etnicas y religiosas que existian entre ambos naciones indias. Unos eran los tlatelolcas los adoradores del dios Yiacatecutli y con su propioi panteon divino, su nobleza y sus especialidades productigvas y guerreras, los cuales fueron forzados a adorar a Huitzilopochtli tras su derrota y otro pueblo eran los adoradores del Tetzahuitl, del hijo de Tlaloc o del pariente de Opochtli como a si mismo se identifica Huitzilopochtli ( c?dice Aubin , Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas) Una simple visita al templo mayor de Tlatelolco y observar de la segunda a la quinta etapa permite ver que entre Tlatelolcas y Colhuas Mexicas hasta arquitect?nicamente los templos mayores eran distintos y solo se hicieron iguales despues de la conquista mexica. En los tlatelolcas no hay doble templo en la cima del "cu" mayor ni restos de la doble escalinata y ni de la alfarda central en las etapas citadas Hacer un solo paquete de distintos pueblos es borrar la historia, es como decir que son lo mismo los irlandeses, los del pa?s de gales, los escocesea, los bretones y los sajones, y s?lo porque desde tal siglo todos son ciudadanos o vasallos del Reino Unido, cuando esa unidad es un un resultado de un proceso hist?rico de la fundaci?n del estado naci?n, que cmo el problema irlandes nos lo recuerda no ha logrado resolver las diferencias. SEria el mismo error que decir que todos los pueblos de Espa?a son Espa?oles borrando la diferencias de todo tipo ( linguisticas, culturales, antropomorficas, hist?ricas, religiosas) que existen entre los castellanos con los habitantes de las canarias, los de catalu?a, el pais vasco, los galllegos, etc . Lo mismo vimos en el caso de la antigua URSS o de la extinta Yugoeslavia. Hacer un s?lo paquete bnorrar las diferencias curiosamente fue el punto de vista base de la politica sobre las nacionalidades de Stalin Dice Gordon 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not Nahuatl, contexts Realmente lo que nunca se encontra es un documento "nahuatl" con el t?rmino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan , repito lease las glosas de los codices. Telleriano, vaticano rios, magliabechi, borb?nico, florentino vease la cr?nica mexicayotl, la mexicana, las relaciones de Chimalpain , la obra de Cristobal del castillo, la leyenda de los soles, los anales de Cuauhtitlan, los anales de Tlatelolco y otros c?dices coloniales mas , vease las cr?nicas de Duran , Sahag?n, Mendieta, Motolinia, los escritos de Olmos, la historia Tolteca Chichimeca, C?dice Aubin y en todos , pero todos nunca parecera el termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan y menos a?n para referirse a quienes detentaban el poder pol?tico y religioso en ese imperio y menos a?n m?para nombrar de esa forma a todos los pueblos de "the central Mexico highlands" como los agrupa el DR Smith. Por otro lado bien podria decirnos Gordon que documentos nahuatls conoce que no sean coloniales. Dice Gordon By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this inaccurate form occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be 'Tenochca'. The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have designated the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan chaneque' Parece que la cr?nica Mexicayotl es un de esas "non-specialist literature" donde los mexicanos se llamaban asi mismo tenochcas por ser habitantes de Tenochtitlan y por considerar a Tencoh el "padre" fundador de su pueblo. "... Y cuando ya por mucho tiempo ya estan los mexica los tenochca despu?s de que all? murio Tenochtzin ..." Cronica mexicayotl folio 110. Leemos en otro ejemplar de "literatura no especializada" , este es el c?dice aubin en sus noticias del a?o 1539 "Aqui partieron para Yancuic Tlalpan; fueron los tenochca..." hay mas noticias sobre estos tenochcas en ese c?dice. Dice Gordon If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their dynasty's descent from the line of Colhuacan. No es que se inventaran un linaje es que esa fue su historia. Dice la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas " En ese tiempo ten?an los mexicanos por se?or a Ilancueitl, una se?ora principal que los mandaba, y esta fue mujer de Acamapichtli, el cual era de Culhuacan y ella de Coatlinchan, y aunque era de Culhuacan , Acamaapichtli descend?a de los de M?xico, porque all? fue casada su madre con un principal de Culhuacan y la madre era de los mexicanos. Y casado, por consejo de su mujer vino a M?xico, y les dijo que pues era de los principales y no ten?an se?or que lo tomar?an por se?or, y as? fue el primer se?o, y muri? su mujer el a?o 24 de la fundaci?n de M?xico Y muerta ella , fue tomado ?l por se?or, porque en vida de ella no fue tomado sino por principal " De una manera mas extensa se trata el tema de como los colhuas se hicieron del poder en Tenochtitlan en los folios 110 a 119 de la Cr?nica mexicayotl POr otro lado dice el Dr Michael Smith I am constantly criticized for my usage of the term Aztec to mean the entire Late Postclassic population of the central Mexico highlands, both Nahuatl-speaking and others such as Otomian languages. I have 3 main reasons for sticking to this usage: (1) there is no good alternate term; (2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to generate sales; and (3) the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood the same language, and they were in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and other means. This was a single culture, and if don't call it Aztec, what term can we use? Dr MIchael ya tiene otro mas que se apunta a la lista de los que lo critican sobre todo por la cientificidad del segundo argumento que usted plantea: "(2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to generate sales". Resulta ahora que son los vendedores de libros, la mercadotecnia, los que definen e imponen los conceptos que deben usar quienes estudian de una u otra forma las culturas prehiusp?nicas . Usemos aztecas porque es una marca mas vendible, perdon es ciencia lo que se trata de hacer o estamos tratando de vender papas fritas. Si bien es cierto lo que dice Smith the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood the same language, and they were in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and other means. Pero fueron precisamente las diferencias mas grandes o mas chicas en todos esos aspectos y entros mas importantes como la religi?n, lo que hacia que unos indios se considerasen a si mismos como una nacion o pueblo y ver a los otros como de una naci?n distinta, esas diferencias los hacian verse asi mismo como diferentes del otro, situaci?n que se tradujo en diferencias en la pol?tica, la ideol?gia y la religion. As? por ejemplo aunque los mexicas y los tlaxcaltecas se reconocieran de origen chichimeca y hablaran nahuatl como la lengua que habian aprendido, entre ellos no se reconocian como iguales , situaci?n que Cort?s detecto y supo aprovechar politica y militarmente. Aunque Tlaxcaltecas y Huexotzincas hablaran nahuatl y opcuparan espacios vecinos y adoraran ambos a Mixcoat, el varonil, por ello el que porta el maxtle, por ello el camaxtle, a pesar de sus elementos comunes cada pueblo era un se?orio distinto HOy sucede lo mismo en los distintos paises que fuimos colonias de Espa?a compartimos muchas cosas pero somos paises distintos, ?Porque cuesta tanto trabajo tener esa optica cuando se mira el pasado prehisp?nico? Por que hacer tabla raza de las diferencias, porque borrar la historia Gordon es fiel a la escuela de Seler y a la escuela Hegeliana para los cuales los paises fuera de Europa no tiene historia son pueblos sin historia. Y eso lo dice Seler conm todas sus letras en su articulo sobre Aztlan No deja de ser parad?jico que esa corriente de pensamiento haya surgido en un pa?s como la actual Alemania que ha tenido uno de los mas azarosos procesos de conformaci?n del estado naci?n y que para lograrlo necesito la construcci?n y derrumbe del imperio prusiano, la derrota en dos guerras mundiale, el ascenso del nazismo, la mutilacion y ocupaci?n sovieta de una parte del territorio y el derrumbe del muro _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sun Feb 22 23:53:57 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:53:57 -0500 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Any indication as to who wrote this? I'm also curious, or perhaps suspicious, as to linguistic protocol here. Why, if Dr. Whittaker wrote in English, and this present respondent certainly knows English, did he/she not respond in English? Anything goes? Devrais-je pouvoir repondre en francais? In tla nichachalacaya mazehualcopa? I don't know. It seems that, for the sake of clarity, it would be better to stay in one language...unless there's a political agenda. And once that's a possibility, I tend to be stingy with credence as to what people say, even in Spanish. Michael Quoting "John F. Schwaller" : > > From: "romgil06" > Date: Sun, February 22, 2009 > > Gordon Whittaker escribi?: > > First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first popularized by > Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to > refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, > > Perdon pero con todo respeto esto no es cierto. > > El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo > Cristobal del > Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos. donde > expone su particular versi?n de la historia del pueblo de desarrapados > que ni > nombre ten?an y que el mismo explica porque llegaron a > llamarse mexicas o mexicanos. > > En la versi?n de Del Castillo Los aztecas son un pueblo DISTINTO de los > mexicas,esto es de los que vivieron y fundadron Tenochtitlan , > en Del Castillo los "aztecas" aparecen como los amos de los mexicas o los > atlachichimecas de la ribera del lago, los aztecas son los que > los explotaban. > > La versi?n de Cristobal del Castillo fue recogida por Chimalpain y > reproducida en su > Memorial Breve de Culhuacan, sin dar cr?dito a la obra > de Del Castillo . Despu?s Chimalpain o Tezozomoc la usan en la cr?nica > Mexicayotl, > en una variante de la historia de Del Castillo. Ah? en la > Mexicayotl uno de los hijos, el menor del rey de los aztecas es quien saca > a sus > subditos de aztlan chicomoztoc > > > Con todo respeto es un punto de vista muy cuestionable y no se puede > citar un solo > documento fuente que se?ale que: > > "However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to > themselves in > connection with their ancestry" > > Tampoco puedes citar una obra fuente donde ocurra que: > > I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is recorded in Nahuatl using the term. > > Dice Gordon > > Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured > by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not Nahuatl, > contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is > singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they > would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their dynasty's > descent from the line of Colhuacan. > > > En que contexto nahuatl ha encontrado Gordon el uso del termino azteca para > referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan. > Adelanto que no puede citar uno solo, porque no existe. Todos los > documentos que se > pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales > aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl espa?ol. > > Efectivamente Robert Barlow fue uno de los pioneros en se?alar el error del > equivocado uso del termino azteca y como parte de esa labor > redacto "la extensi?n del imperio de los colua mexica" publicado por el > INAH y la > UDLA, Obras de Robert Barlow vol 4, publico tambien los > art?culos "La formaci?n del imperio de los colhua mexica", "Algunas > consideraciones > sobre el t?rmino imperio azteca"y "El concepto > populart de los "aztecas" todos en obras de Robert Barlow vol 3 INAH UDLA . > > Hay otro buen art?culo sobre el mismo tema de Don Miguel Leon Portilla > Le?n-Portilla, Miguel, "Los aztecas. Disquisiciones sobre un > gentilicio", Estudios de Cultura N?huatl, v. 31, 2000, p. 275-281 > > Obras recientes en la misma ?ptica vease: Mexicaltzingo Arqueolog?a de > un reino > culhua mexica de Raul Avila INAH y Culhua Mexico una > revisi?n arqueo etnohist?rica del imperio de los mexica tenochca Fernando > Robles INAH > > Se?ala Gordon: > > Of course, the term 'Mexica' is appropriate in describing both the > Tenochca in a > narrow sense and, more > literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico Tlatelolco, > and indeed in describing the empire they founded. > > Esto es un gran y profundo error de Gordon es borrar las importantes > diferencias > hist?ricas, etnicas y religiosas que existian entre ambos > naciones indias. Unos eran los tlatelolcas los adoradores del dios > Yiacatecutli y > con su propioi panteon divino, su nobleza y sus > especialidades productigvas y guerreras, los cuales fueron forzados a > adorar a > Huitzilopochtli tras su derrota y otro pueblo eran los > adoradores del Tetzahuitl, del hijo de Tlaloc o del pariente de Opochtli > como a si > mismo se identifica Huitzilopochtli ( c?dice Aubin , > Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas) > > Una simple visita al templo mayor de Tlatelolco y observar de la segunda > a la > quinta etapa permite ver que entre Tlatelolcas y Colhuas > Mexicas hasta arquitect?nicamente los templos mayores eran distintos y > solo se > hicieron iguales despues de la conquista mexica. En los > tlatelolcas no hay doble templo en la cima del "cu" mayor ni restos de la > doble > escalinata y ni de la alfarda central en las etapas citadas > > Hacer un solo paquete de distintos pueblos es borrar la historia, es > como decir > que son lo mismo los irlandeses, los del pa?s de gales, > los escocesea, los bretones y los sajones, y s?lo porque desde tal siglo > todos > son ciudadanos o vasallos del Reino Unido, cuando esa > unidad es un un resultado de un proceso hist?rico de la fundaci?n del > estado naci?n, > que cmo el problema irlandes nos lo recuerda no ha > logrado resolver las diferencias. SEria el mismo error que decir que todos > los > pueblos de Espa?a son Espa?oles borrando la diferencias de > todo tipo ( linguisticas, culturales, antropomorficas, hist?ricas, > religiosas) que > existen entre los castellanos con los habitantes de las > canarias, los de catalu?a, el pais vasco, los galllegos, etc . Lo mismo > vimos en el > caso de la antigua URSS o de la extinta Yugoeslavia. > > Hacer un s?lo paquete bnorrar las diferencias curiosamente fue el punto de > vista > base de la politica sobre las nacionalidades de Stalin > > Dice Gordon > > 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured > by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not Nahuatl, > contexts > > Realmente lo que nunca se encontra es un documento "nahuatl" con el > t?rmino azteca > para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan , > repito lease las glosas de los codices. Telleriano, vaticano rios, > magliabechi, > borb?nico, florentino vease la cr?nica mexicayotl, la > mexicana, las relaciones de Chimalpain , la obra de Cristobal del > castillo, la > leyenda de los soles, los anales de Cuauhtitlan, los anales > de Tlatelolco y otros c?dices coloniales mas , vease las cr?nicas de > Duran , > Sahag?n, Mendieta, Motolinia, los escritos de Olmos, la > historia Tolteca Chichimeca, C?dice Aubin y en todos , pero todos nunca > parecera el > termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de > Tenochtitlan y menos a?n para referirse a quienes detentaban el poder > pol?tico y > religioso en ese imperio y menos a?n m?para nombrar > de esa forma a todos los pueblos de "the central Mexico highlands" como > los agrupa > el DR Smith. > > > Por otro lado bien podria decirnos Gordon que documentos nahuatls conoce > que no sean > coloniales. > > Dice Gordon > > By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this inaccurate form > occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be 'Tenochca'. > The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name > 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have designated > the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan > chaneque' > > Parece que la cr?nica Mexicayotl es un de esas "non-specialist literature" > donde > los mexicanos se llamaban asi mismo tenochcas por ser habitantes de > Tenochtitlan y > por considerar a Tencoh el "padre" fundador de su > pueblo. "... Y cuando ya por mucho tiempo ya estan los mexica los > tenochca despu?s > de que all? murio Tenochtzin ..." Cronica mexicayotl > folio 110. > > Leemos en otro ejemplar de "literatura no especializada" , este es el > c?dice aubin > en sus noticias del a?o 1539 "Aqui partieron para > Yancuic Tlalpan; fueron los tenochca..." hay mas noticias sobre estos > tenochcas en > ese c?dice. > > Dice Gordon > > If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say > 'Colhuaque Mexica' > in reference to their dynasty's > > descent from the line of Colhuacan. > > No es que se inventaran un linaje es que esa fue su historia. > > Dice la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas " En ese tiempo ten?an > los > mexicanos por se?or a Ilancueitl, una se?ora principal que > los mandaba, y esta fue mujer de Acamapichtli, el cual era de Culhuacan y > ella de > Coatlinchan, y aunque era de Culhuacan , Acamaapichtli > descend?a de los de M?xico, porque all? fue casada su madre con un > principal de > Culhuacan y la madre era de los mexicanos. Y casado, > por consejo de su mujer vino a M?xico, y les dijo que pues era de los > principales y > no ten?an se?or que lo tomar?an por se?or, y as? fue el > primer se?o, y muri? su mujer el a?o 24 de la fundaci?n de M?xico Y muerta > ella , > fue tomado ?l por se?or, porque en vida de ella no fue > tomado sino por principal " > > De una manera mas extensa se trata el tema de como los colhuas se hicieron > del poder > en Tenochtitlan en los folios 110 a 119 de la > Cr?nica mexicayotl > > POr otro lado dice el Dr Michael Smith > > I am constantly criticized for my usage of the term Aztec to mean the > entire Late > Postclassic population of the central Mexico highlands, > both Nahuatl-speaking and others such as Otomian languages. I have 3 main > reasons > for sticking to this usage: (1) there is no good > alternate term; (2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to > generate sales; and (3) the various peoples of Late Postclassic > central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood the same > language, > and they were in constant contact with one another > through trade, visiting, and other means. This was a single culture, and > if don't > call it Aztec, what term can we use? > > Dr MIchael ya tiene otro mas que se apunta a la lista de los que lo > critican sobre > todo por la cientificidad del segundo argumento que > usted plantea: > > "(2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to generate > sales". > > Resulta ahora que son los vendedores de libros, la mercadotecnia, los > que definen > e imponen los conceptos que deben usar quienes > estudian de una u otra forma las culturas prehiusp?nicas . Usemos aztecas > porque es > una marca mas vendible, perdon es ciencia lo que > se trata de hacer o estamos tratando de vender papas fritas. > > Si bien es cierto lo que dice Smith > > the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many > cultural traits, > spoke or understood the same language, and they were > in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and other > means. > > Pero fueron precisamente las diferencias mas grandes o mas chicas en todos > esos > aspectos y entros mas importantes como la religi?n, lo > que hacia que unos indios se considerasen a si mismos como una nacion o > pueblo y ver > a los otros como de una naci?n distinta, esas > diferencias los hacian verse asi mismo como diferentes del otro, > situaci?n que se > tradujo en diferencias en la pol?tica, la ideol?gia y la > religion. > > As? por ejemplo aunque los mexicas y los tlaxcaltecas se reconocieran de > origen > chichimeca y hablaran nahuatl como la lengua que > habian aprendido, entre ellos no se reconocian como iguales , situaci?n > que Cort?s > detecto y supo aprovechar politica y militarmente. > Aunque Tlaxcaltecas y Huexotzincas hablaran nahuatl y opcuparan espacios > vecinos y > adoraran ambos a Mixcoat, el varonil, por ello el que > porta el maxtle, por ello el camaxtle, a pesar de sus elementos comunes > cada pueblo > era un se?orio distinto > > HOy sucede lo mismo en los distintos paises que fuimos colonias de Espa?a > compartimos muchas cosas pero somos paises distintos, > ?Porque cuesta tanto trabajo tener esa optica cuando se mira el pasado > prehisp?nico? > Por que hacer tabla raza de las diferencias, porque > borrar la historia > > Gordon es fiel a la escuela de Seler y a la escuela Hegeliana para los > cuales los > paises fuera de Europa no tiene historia > son pueblos sin historia. Y eso lo dice Seler conm todas sus letras en su > articulo > sobre Aztlan > > No deja de ser parad?jico que esa corriente de pensamiento haya surgido en > un pa?s > como la actual Alemania que ha tenido uno de los > mas azarosos procesos de conformaci?n del estado naci?n y que para > lograrlo necesito > la construcci?n y derrumbe del imperio prusiano, > la derrota en dos guerras mundiale, el ascenso del nazismo, la mutilacion y > ocupaci?n sovieta de una parte del territorio y el derrumbe > del muro > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From ced22 at leicester.ac.uk Mon Feb 23 10:55:06 2009 From: ced22 at leicester.ac.uk (Dodds Pennock, Dr C.E.) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:55:06 +0000 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: <20090222185357.w6r8gqcygw80o4sk@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I share Michael's hesitation regarding this unidentified post. If we do not know the agenda or expertise of a poster then it is hard to know how to assess their work. I think perhaps we should be tolerant of writing in a language other than the post was composed unless we fear a political agenda, however. I myself am guilty of replying in English occasionally where the principal language of the discussion is Spanish for the simple fact that, whilst my reading Spanish is pretty good, my written Spanish is rather more laborious! I suspect this may well be the case in reverse for some Spanish speakers. I think perhaps Michael is right to fear a political agenda here, however. Much of the post is too obviously polemical and at times bordering on personal attack to invite serious criticism (the comparison with Stalin and the Nazis most notably!) and I fear that some of the latter part of the post misunderstand's the linguistic focus of Gordon's email. Some of the early parts of this post are obviously drawn from the well-known article of Miguel Le?n-Portilla, whose credibility is hardly in doubt, but certainly not all. The inference that all these documents are somehow essentially unreliable ("Todos los documentos que se pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl espa?ol.") is basically applicable to any alphabetic text drawn from this period and would dismiss the possibility of any use of any post-conquest alphabetic documents. Although care must certainly be taken in the use of such documents, I do not believe so sweeping a case is made by any serious scholar and one which Le?n-Portilla's own work directly contradicts. Yours, Caroline ------- Dr Caroline Dodds Pennock Lecturer in Early Modern History School of Historical Studies University of Leicester University Road Leicester LE1 7RH email: ced22 at le.ac.uk http://www.le.ac.uk/history/people/ced22.html _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From chema.lst15 at netehuile.org Mon Feb 23 09:54:19 2009 From: chema.lst15 at netehuile.org (Chema Tlaquetzqui) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:54:19 +0100 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: <20090222185357.w6r8gqcygw80o4sk@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Hi, I don't know this romgil06 at prodigy.net.mx, but given the .mx domain, I assume he's in Mexico and a quick Google search seems to indicate that he often writes in Spanish. Considering this, I don't think he had any political agenda by switching languages. It seems unfair to expect people to write a substantial response in a language they might not be comfortable writing in, particularly when most people on these mailing lists should already be able to read both English and Spanish quite well, as per the mailing list description. I have been a user on many polyglot mailing lists, and these sorts of language issues tend to pop-up every so often. Usually people just decide to send bilingual (or even trilingual) emails to avoid letting languages get in the way of the discussion and to encourage participation. It is a hassle, but better than people assuming a reply is "political" and hence unworthy of credence. I was more annoyed with the lack of quotes in his mangled reply. It made it very hard to parse. Chema On Feb 23, 2009, at 00:53 , Michael McCafferty wrote: > Any indication as to who wrote this? > > I'm also curious, or perhaps suspicious, as to linguistic protocol > here. Why, if Dr. Whittaker wrote in English, and this present > respondent certainly knows English, did he/she not respond in English? > Anything goes? Devrais-je pouvoir repondre en francais? In tla > nichachalacaya mazehualcopa? I don't know. It seems that, for the sake > of clarity, it would be better to stay in one language...unless > there's > a political agenda. And once that's a possibility, I tend to be stingy > with credence as to what people say, even in Spanish. > > Michael > > Quoting "John F. Schwaller" : > >> >> From: "romgil06" >> Date: Sun, February 22, 2009 >> >> Gordon Whittaker escribi?: >> >> First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first >> popularized by >> Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the >> Aztecs to >> refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, >> >> Perdon pero con todo respeto esto no es cierto. >> >> El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo >> Cristobal del >> Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos. donde >> expone su particular versi?n de la historia del pueblo de >> desarrapados >> que ni >> nombre ten?an y que el mismo explica porque llegaron a >> llamarse mexicas o mexicanos. >> >> En la versi?n de Del Castillo Los aztecas son un pueblo DISTINTO >> de los >> mexicas,esto es de los que vivieron y fundadron Tenochtitlan , >> en Del Castillo los "aztecas" aparecen como los amos de los >> mexicas o los >> atlachichimecas de la ribera del lago, los aztecas son los que >> los explotaban. >> >> La versi?n de Cristobal del Castillo fue recogida por Chimalpain y >> reproducida en su >> Memorial Breve de Culhuacan, sin dar cr?dito a la obra >> de Del Castillo . Despu?s Chimalpain o Tezozomoc la usan en la >> cr?nica >> Mexicayotl, >> en una variante de la historia de Del Castillo. Ah? en la >> Mexicayotl uno de los hijos, el menor del rey de los aztecas es >> quien saca >> a sus >> subditos de aztlan chicomoztoc >> >> >> Con todo respeto es un punto de vista muy cuestionable y no se puede >> citar un solo >> documento fuente que se?ale que: >> >> "However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to >> themselves in >> connection with their ancestry" >> >> Tampoco puedes citar una obra fuente donde ocurra que: >> >> I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is recorded in Nahuatl using the term. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was >> favoured >> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >> Nahuatl, >> contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is >> singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use >> this, they >> would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their >> dynasty's >> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >> >> >> En que contexto nahuatl ha encontrado Gordon el uso del termino >> azteca para >> referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan. >> Adelanto que no puede citar uno solo, porque no existe. Todos los >> documentos que se >> pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales >> aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl espa?ol. >> >> Efectivamente Robert Barlow fue uno de los pioneros en se?alar el >> error del >> equivocado uso del termino azteca y como parte de esa labor >> redacto "la extensi?n del imperio de los colua mexica" publicado >> por el >> INAH y la >> UDLA, Obras de Robert Barlow vol 4, publico tambien los >> art?culos "La formaci?n del imperio de los colhua mexica", "Algunas >> consideraciones >> sobre el t?rmino imperio azteca"y "El concepto >> populart de los "aztecas" todos en obras de Robert Barlow vol 3 >> INAH UDLA . >> >> Hay otro buen art?culo sobre el mismo tema de Don Miguel Leon >> Portilla >> Le?n-Portilla, Miguel, "Los aztecas. Disquisiciones sobre un >> gentilicio", Estudios de Cultura N?huatl, v. 31, 2000, p. 275-281 >> >> Obras recientes en la misma ?ptica vease: Mexicaltzingo >> Arqueolog?a de >> un reino >> culhua mexica de Raul Avila INAH y Culhua Mexico una >> revisi?n arqueo etnohist?rica del imperio de los mexica tenochca >> Fernando >> Robles INAH >> >> Se?ala Gordon: >> >> Of course, the term 'Mexica' is appropriate in describing both the >> Tenochca in a >> narrow sense and, more >> literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico >> Tlatelolco, >> and indeed in describing the empire they founded. >> >> Esto es un gran y profundo error de Gordon es borrar las >> importantes >> diferencias >> hist?ricas, etnicas y religiosas que existian entre ambos >> naciones indias. Unos eran los tlatelolcas los adoradores del dios >> Yiacatecutli y >> con su propioi panteon divino, su nobleza y sus >> especialidades productigvas y guerreras, los cuales fueron forzados a >> adorar a >> Huitzilopochtli tras su derrota y otro pueblo eran los >> adoradores del Tetzahuitl, del hijo de Tlaloc o del pariente de >> Opochtli >> como a si >> mismo se identifica Huitzilopochtli ( c?dice Aubin , >> Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas) >> >> Una simple visita al templo mayor de Tlatelolco y observar de la >> segunda >> a la >> quinta etapa permite ver que entre Tlatelolcas y Colhuas >> Mexicas hasta arquitect?nicamente los templos mayores eran >> distintos y >> solo se >> hicieron iguales despues de la conquista mexica. En los >> tlatelolcas no hay doble templo en la cima del "cu" mayor ni >> restos de la >> doble >> escalinata y ni de la alfarda central en las etapas citadas >> >> Hacer un solo paquete de distintos pueblos es borrar la >> historia, es >> como decir >> que son lo mismo los irlandeses, los del pa?s de gales, >> los escocesea, los bretones y los sajones, y s?lo porque desde >> tal siglo >> todos >> son ciudadanos o vasallos del Reino Unido, cuando esa >> unidad es un un resultado de un proceso hist?rico de la fundaci?n del >> estado naci?n, >> que cmo el problema irlandes nos lo recuerda no ha >> logrado resolver las diferencias. SEria el mismo error que decir >> que todos >> los >> pueblos de Espa?a son Espa?oles borrando la diferencias de >> todo tipo ( linguisticas, culturales, antropomorficas, hist?ricas, >> religiosas) que >> existen entre los castellanos con los habitantes de las >> canarias, los de catalu?a, el pais vasco, los galllegos, etc . Lo >> mismo >> vimos en el >> caso de la antigua URSS o de la extinta Yugoeslavia. >> >> Hacer un s?lo paquete bnorrar las diferencias curiosamente fue el >> punto de >> vista >> base de la politica sobre las nacionalidades de Stalin >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured >> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >> Nahuatl, >> contexts >> >> Realmente lo que nunca se encontra es un documento "nahuatl" con el >> t?rmino azteca >> para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan , >> repito lease las glosas de los codices. Telleriano, vaticano rios, >> magliabechi, >> borb?nico, florentino vease la cr?nica mexicayotl, la >> mexicana, las relaciones de Chimalpain , la obra de Cristobal del >> castillo, la >> leyenda de los soles, los anales de Cuauhtitlan, los anales >> de Tlatelolco y otros c?dices coloniales mas , vease las >> cr?nicas de >> Duran , >> Sahag?n, Mendieta, Motolinia, los escritos de Olmos, la >> historia Tolteca Chichimeca, C?dice Aubin y en todos , pero todos >> nunca >> parecera el >> termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de >> Tenochtitlan y menos a?n para referirse a quienes detentaban el >> poder >> pol?tico y >> religioso en ese imperio y menos a?n m?para nombrar >> de esa forma a todos los pueblos de "the central Mexico highlands" >> como >> los agrupa >> el DR Smith. >> >> >> Por otro lado bien podria decirnos Gordon que documentos nahuatls >> conoce >> que no sean >> coloniales. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this >> inaccurate form >> occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be >> 'Tenochca'. >> The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name >> 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have >> designated >> the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan >> chaneque' >> >> Parece que la cr?nica Mexicayotl es un de esas "non-specialist >> literature" >> donde >> los mexicanos se llamaban asi mismo tenochcas por ser habitantes de >> Tenochtitlan y >> por considerar a Tencoh el "padre" fundador de su >> pueblo. "... Y cuando ya por mucho tiempo ya estan los mexica los >> tenochca despu?s >> de que all? murio Tenochtzin ..." Cronica mexicayotl >> folio 110. >> >> Leemos en otro ejemplar de "literatura no especializada" , este es el >> c?dice aubin >> en sus noticias del a?o 1539 "Aqui partieron para >> Yancuic Tlalpan; fueron los tenochca..." hay mas noticias sobre estos >> tenochcas en >> ese c?dice. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say >> 'Colhuaque Mexica' >> in reference to their dynasty's >> >> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >> >> No es que se inventaran un linaje es que esa fue su historia. >> >> Dice la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas " En ese >> tiempo ten?an >> los >> mexicanos por se?or a Ilancueitl, una se?ora principal que >> los mandaba, y esta fue mujer de Acamapichtli, el cual era de >> Culhuacan y >> ella de >> Coatlinchan, y aunque era de Culhuacan , Acamaapichtli >> descend?a de los de M?xico, porque all? fue casada su madre con un >> principal de >> Culhuacan y la madre era de los mexicanos. Y casado, >> por consejo de su mujer vino a M?xico, y les dijo que pues era de los >> principales y >> no ten?an se?or que lo tomar?an por se?or, y as? fue el >> primer se?o, y muri? su mujer el a?o 24 de la fundaci?n de M?xico >> Y muerta >> ella , >> fue tomado ?l por se?or, porque en vida de ella no fue >> tomado sino por principal " >> >> De una manera mas extensa se trata el tema de como los colhuas se >> hicieron >> del poder >> en Tenochtitlan en los folios 110 a 119 de la >> Cr?nica mexicayotl >> >> POr otro lado dice el Dr Michael Smith >> >> I am constantly criticized for my usage of the term Aztec to mean the >> entire Late >> Postclassic population of the central Mexico highlands, >> both Nahuatl-speaking and others such as Otomian languages. I have >> 3 main >> reasons >> for sticking to this usage: (1) there is no good >> alternate term; (2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in >> book titles to >> generate sales; and (3) the various peoples of Late Postclassic >> central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood >> the same >> language, >> and they were in constant contact with one another >> through trade, visiting, and other means. This was a single >> culture, and >> if don't >> call it Aztec, what term can we use? >> >> Dr MIchael ya tiene otro mas que se apunta a la lista de los que lo >> critican sobre >> todo por la cientificidad del segundo argumento que >> usted plantea: >> >> "(2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to >> generate >> sales". >> >> Resulta ahora que son los vendedores de libros, la >> mercadotecnia, los >> que definen >> e imponen los conceptos que deben usar quienes >> estudian de una u otra forma las culturas prehiusp?nicas . Usemos >> aztecas >> porque es >> una marca mas vendible, perdon es ciencia lo que >> se trata de hacer o estamos tratando de vender papas fritas. >> >> Si bien es cierto lo que dice Smith >> >> the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many >> cultural traits, >> spoke or understood the same language, and they were >> in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and >> other >> means. >> >> Pero fueron precisamente las diferencias mas grandes o mas chicas >> en todos >> esos >> aspectos y entros mas importantes como la religi?n, lo >> que hacia que unos indios se considerasen a si mismos como una >> nacion o >> pueblo y ver >> a los otros como de una naci?n distinta, esas >> diferencias los hacian verse asi mismo como diferentes del otro, >> situaci?n que se >> tradujo en diferencias en la pol?tica, la ideol?gia y la >> religion. >> >> As? por ejemplo aunque los mexicas y los tlaxcaltecas se >> reconocieran de >> origen >> chichimeca y hablaran nahuatl como la lengua que >> habian aprendido, entre ellos no se reconocian como iguales , >> situaci?n >> que Cort?s >> detecto y supo aprovechar politica y militarmente. >> Aunque Tlaxcaltecas y Huexotzincas hablaran nahuatl y opcuparan >> espacios >> vecinos y >> adoraran ambos a Mixcoat, el varonil, por ello el que >> porta el maxtle, por ello el camaxtle, a pesar de sus elementos >> comunes >> cada pueblo >> era un se?orio distinto >> >> HOy sucede lo mismo en los distintos paises que fuimos colonias de >> Espa?a >> compartimos muchas cosas pero somos paises distintos, >> ?Porque cuesta tanto trabajo tener esa optica cuando se mira el >> pasado >> prehisp?nico? >> Por que hacer tabla raza de las diferencias, porque >> borrar la historia >> >> Gordon es fiel a la escuela de Seler y a la escuela Hegeliana para >> los >> cuales los >> paises fuera de Europa no tiene historia >> son pueblos sin historia. Y eso lo dice Seler conm todas sus >> letras en su >> articulo >> sobre Aztlan >> >> No deja de ser parad?jico que esa corriente de pensamiento haya >> surgido en >> un pa?s >> como la actual Alemania que ha tenido uno de los >> mas azarosos procesos de conformaci?n del estado naci?n y que para >> lograrlo necesito >> la construcci?n y derrumbe del imperio prusiano, >> la derrota en dos guerras mundiale, el ascenso del nazismo, la >> mutilacion y >> ocupaci?n sovieta de una parte del territorio y el derrumbe >> del muro >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Feb 23 14:06:55 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:06:55 -0500 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: <2893F0D6-FD5D-4C40-910D-033BB2B8C065@netehuile.org> Message-ID: Yes, I see what you're saying. Thanks, Chema. I'm not fluent in Spanish and usually delete the Spanish discussions here, but I was interested in this one and wanted to understand what the person was saying. Whittaker's thing was rather involved, and coming back with a Spanish language posting was for me like entering a labyrinth after already being in a maze. But I can see how one would choose to respond in one's most manageable language, even though having bilingual (?) conversations is not something I do. Michae Quoting Chema Tlaquetzqui : > Hi, > > I don't know this romgil06 at prodigy.net.mx, but given the .mx domain, > I assume he's in Mexico and a quick Google search seems to indicate > that he often writes in Spanish. Considering this, I don't think he > had any political agenda by switching languages. > > It seems unfair to expect people to write a substantial response in a > language they might not be comfortable writing in, particularly when > most people on these mailing lists should already be able to read > both English and Spanish quite well, as per the mailing list > description. > > I have been a user on many polyglot mailing lists, and these sorts of > language issues tend to pop-up every so often. Usually people just > decide to send bilingual (or even trilingual) emails to avoid letting > languages get in the way of the discussion and to encourage > participation. It is a hassle, but better than people assuming a > reply is "political" and hence unworthy of credence. > > I was more annoyed with the lack of quotes in his mangled reply. It > made it very hard to parse. > > Chema > > > > On Feb 23, 2009, at 00:53 , Michael McCafferty wrote: > >> Any indication as to who wrote this? >> >> I'm also curious, or perhaps suspicious, as to linguistic protocol >> here. Why, if Dr. Whittaker wrote in English, and this present >> respondent certainly knows English, did he/she not respond in English? >> Anything goes? Devrais-je pouvoir repondre en francais? In tla >> nichachalacaya mazehualcopa? I don't know. It seems that, for the sake >> of clarity, it would be better to stay in one language...unless >> there's >> a political agenda. And once that's a possibility, I tend to be stingy >> with credence as to what people say, even in Spanish. >> >> Michael >> >> Quoting "John F. Schwaller" : >> >>> >>> From: "romgil06" >>> Date: Sun, February 22, 2009 >>> >>> Gordon Whittaker escribi?: >>> >>> First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first >>> popularized by >>> Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the >>> Aztecs to >>> refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, >>> >>> Perdon pero con todo respeto esto no es cierto. >>> >>> El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo >>> Cristobal del >>> Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos. donde >>> expone su particular versi?n de la historia del pueblo de >>> desarrapados >>> que ni >>> nombre ten?an y que el mismo explica porque llegaron a >>> llamarse mexicas o mexicanos. >>> >>> En la versi?n de Del Castillo Los aztecas son un pueblo DISTINTO >>> de los >>> mexicas,esto es de los que vivieron y fundadron Tenochtitlan , >>> en Del Castillo los "aztecas" aparecen como los amos de los >>> mexicas o los >>> atlachichimecas de la ribera del lago, los aztecas son los que >>> los explotaban. >>> >>> La versi?n de Cristobal del Castillo fue recogida por Chimalpain y >>> reproducida en su >>> Memorial Breve de Culhuacan, sin dar cr?dito a la obra >>> de Del Castillo . Despu?s Chimalpain o Tezozomoc la usan en la >>> cr?nica >>> Mexicayotl, >>> en una variante de la historia de Del Castillo. Ah? en la >>> Mexicayotl uno de los hijos, el menor del rey de los aztecas es >>> quien saca >>> a sus >>> subditos de aztlan chicomoztoc >>> >>> >>> Con todo respeto es un punto de vista muy cuestionable y no se puede >>> citar un solo >>> documento fuente que se?ale que: >>> >>> "However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to >>> themselves in >>> connection with their ancestry" >>> >>> Tampoco puedes citar una obra fuente donde ocurra que: >>> >>> I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is recorded in Nahuatl using the term. >>> >>> Dice Gordon >>> >>> Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was >>> favoured >>> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >>> Nahuatl, >>> contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is >>> singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use >>> this, they >>> would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their >>> dynasty's >>> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >>> >>> >>> En que contexto nahuatl ha encontrado Gordon el uso del termino >>> azteca para >>> referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan. >>> Adelanto que no puede citar uno solo, porque no existe. Todos los >>> documentos que se >>> pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales >>> aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl espa?ol. >>> >>> Efectivamente Robert Barlow fue uno de los pioneros en se?alar el >>> error del >>> equivocado uso del termino azteca y como parte de esa labor >>> redacto "la extensi?n del imperio de los colua mexica" publicado >>> por el >>> INAH y la >>> UDLA, Obras de Robert Barlow vol 4, publico tambien los >>> art?culos "La formaci?n del imperio de los colhua mexica", "Algunas >>> consideraciones >>> sobre el t?rmino imperio azteca"y "El concepto >>> populart de los "aztecas" todos en obras de Robert Barlow vol 3 >>> INAH UDLA . >>> >>> Hay otro buen art?culo sobre el mismo tema de Don Miguel Leon >>> Portilla >>> Le?n-Portilla, Miguel, "Los aztecas. Disquisiciones sobre un >>> gentilicio", Estudios de Cultura N?huatl, v. 31, 2000, p. 275-281 >>> >>> Obras recientes en la misma ?ptica vease: Mexicaltzingo >>> Arqueolog?a de >>> un reino >>> culhua mexica de Raul Avila INAH y Culhua Mexico una >>> revisi?n arqueo etnohist?rica del imperio de los mexica tenochca >>> Fernando >>> Robles INAH >>> >>> Se?ala Gordon: >>> >>> Of course, the term 'Mexica' is appropriate in describing both the >>> Tenochca in a >>> narrow sense and, more >>> literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico >>> Tlatelolco, >>> and indeed in describing the empire they founded. >>> >>> Esto es un gran y profundo error de Gordon es borrar las >>> importantes >>> diferencias >>> hist?ricas, etnicas y religiosas que existian entre ambos >>> naciones indias. Unos eran los tlatelolcas los adoradores del dios >>> Yiacatecutli y >>> con su propioi panteon divino, su nobleza y sus >>> especialidades productigvas y guerreras, los cuales fueron forzados a >>> adorar a >>> Huitzilopochtli tras su derrota y otro pueblo eran los >>> adoradores del Tetzahuitl, del hijo de Tlaloc o del pariente de >>> Opochtli >>> como a si >>> mismo se identifica Huitzilopochtli ( c?dice Aubin , >>> Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas) >>> >>> Una simple visita al templo mayor de Tlatelolco y observar de la >>> segunda >>> a la >>> quinta etapa permite ver que entre Tlatelolcas y Colhuas >>> Mexicas hasta arquitect?nicamente los templos mayores eran >>> distintos y >>> solo se >>> hicieron iguales despues de la conquista mexica. En los >>> tlatelolcas no hay doble templo en la cima del "cu" mayor ni >>> restos de la >>> doble >>> escalinata y ni de la alfarda central en las etapas citadas >>> >>> Hacer un solo paquete de distintos pueblos es borrar la >>> historia, es >>> como decir >>> que son lo mismo los irlandeses, los del pa?s de gales, >>> los escocesea, los bretones y los sajones, y s?lo porque desde >>> tal siglo >>> todos >>> son ciudadanos o vasallos del Reino Unido, cuando esa >>> unidad es un un resultado de un proceso hist?rico de la fundaci?n del >>> estado naci?n, >>> que cmo el problema irlandes nos lo recuerda no ha >>> logrado resolver las diferencias. SEria el mismo error que decir >>> que todos >>> los >>> pueblos de Espa?a son Espa?oles borrando la diferencias de >>> todo tipo ( linguisticas, culturales, antropomorficas, hist?ricas, >>> religiosas) que >>> existen entre los castellanos con los habitantes de las >>> canarias, los de catalu?a, el pais vasco, los galllegos, etc . Lo >>> mismo >>> vimos en el >>> caso de la antigua URSS o de la extinta Yugoeslavia. >>> >>> Hacer un s?lo paquete bnorrar las diferencias curiosamente fue el >>> punto de >>> vista >>> base de la politica sobre las nacionalidades de Stalin >>> >>> Dice Gordon >>> >>> 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured >>> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >>> Nahuatl, >>> contexts >>> >>> Realmente lo que nunca se encontra es un documento "nahuatl" con el >>> t?rmino azteca >>> para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan , >>> repito lease las glosas de los codices. Telleriano, vaticano rios, >>> magliabechi, >>> borb?nico, florentino vease la cr?nica mexicayotl, la >>> mexicana, las relaciones de Chimalpain , la obra de Cristobal del >>> castillo, la >>> leyenda de los soles, los anales de Cuauhtitlan, los anales >>> de Tlatelolco y otros c?dices coloniales mas , vease las >>> cr?nicas de >>> Duran , >>> Sahag?n, Mendieta, Motolinia, los escritos de Olmos, la >>> historia Tolteca Chichimeca, C?dice Aubin y en todos , pero todos >>> nunca >>> parecera el >>> termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de >>> Tenochtitlan y menos a?n para referirse a quienes detentaban el >>> poder >>> pol?tico y >>> religioso en ese imperio y menos a?n m?para nombrar >>> de esa forma a todos los pueblos de "the central Mexico highlands" >>> como >>> los agrupa >>> el DR Smith. >>> >>> >>> Por otro lado bien podria decirnos Gordon que documentos nahuatls >>> conoce >>> que no sean >>> coloniales. >>> >>> Dice Gordon >>> >>> By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this >>> inaccurate form >>> occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be >>> 'Tenochca'. >>> The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name >>> 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have >>> designated >>> the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan >>> chaneque' >>> >>> Parece que la cr?nica Mexicayotl es un de esas "non-specialist >>> literature" >>> donde >>> los mexicanos se llamaban asi mismo tenochcas por ser habitantes de >>> Tenochtitlan y >>> por considerar a Tencoh el "padre" fundador de su >>> pueblo. "... Y cuando ya por mucho tiempo ya estan los mexica los >>> tenochca despu?s >>> de que all? murio Tenochtzin ..." Cronica mexicayotl >>> folio 110. >>> >>> Leemos en otro ejemplar de "literatura no especializada" , este es el >>> c?dice aubin >>> en sus noticias del a?o 1539 "Aqui partieron para >>> Yancuic Tlalpan; fueron los tenochca..." hay mas noticias sobre estos >>> tenochcas en >>> ese c?dice. >>> >>> Dice Gordon >>> >>> If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say >>> 'Colhuaque Mexica' >>> in reference to their dynasty's >>> >>> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >>> >>> No es que se inventaran un linaje es que esa fue su historia. >>> >>> Dice la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas " En ese >>> tiempo ten?an >>> los >>> mexicanos por se?or a Ilancueitl, una se?ora principal que >>> los mandaba, y esta fue mujer de Acamapichtli, el cual era de >>> Culhuacan y >>> ella de >>> Coatlinchan, y aunque era de Culhuacan , Acamaapichtli >>> descend?a de los de M?xico, porque all? fue casada su madre con un >>> principal de >>> Culhuacan y la madre era de los mexicanos. Y casado, >>> por consejo de su mujer vino a M?xico, y les dijo que pues era de los >>> principales y >>> no ten?an se?or que lo tomar?an por se?or, y as? fue el >>> primer se?o, y muri? su mujer el a?o 24 de la fundaci?n de M?xico >>> Y muerta >>> ella , >>> fue tomado ?l por se?or, porque en vida de ella no fue >>> tomado sino por principal " >>> >>> De una manera mas extensa se trata el tema de como los colhuas se >>> hicieron >>> del poder >>> en Tenochtitlan en los folios 110 a 119 de la >>> Cr?nica mexicayotl >>> >>> POr otro lado dice el Dr Michael Smith >>> >>> I am constantly criticized for my usage of the term Aztec to mean the >>> entire Late >>> Postclassic population of the central Mexico highlands, >>> both Nahuatl-speaking and others such as Otomian languages. I have >>> 3 main >>> reasons >>> for sticking to this usage: (1) there is no good >>> alternate term; (2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in >>> book titles to >>> generate sales; and (3) the various peoples of Late Postclassic >>> central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood >>> the same >>> language, >>> and they were in constant contact with one another >>> through trade, visiting, and other means. This was a single >>> culture, and >>> if don't >>> call it Aztec, what term can we use? >>> >>> Dr MIchael ya tiene otro mas que se apunta a la lista de los que lo >>> critican sobre >>> todo por la cientificidad del segundo argumento que >>> usted plantea: >>> >>> "(2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to >>> generate >>> sales". >>> >>> Resulta ahora que son los vendedores de libros, la >>> mercadotecnia, los >>> que definen >>> e imponen los conceptos que deben usar quienes >>> estudian de una u otra forma las culturas prehiusp?nicas . Usemos >>> aztecas >>> porque es >>> una marca mas vendible, perdon es ciencia lo que >>> se trata de hacer o estamos tratando de vender papas fritas. >>> >>> Si bien es cierto lo que dice Smith >>> >>> the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many >>> cultural traits, >>> spoke or understood the same language, and they were >>> in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and >>> other >>> means. >>> >>> Pero fueron precisamente las diferencias mas grandes o mas chicas >>> en todos >>> esos >>> aspectos y entros mas importantes como la religi?n, lo >>> que hacia que unos indios se considerasen a si mismos como una >>> nacion o >>> pueblo y ver >>> a los otros como de una naci?n distinta, esas >>> diferencias los hacian verse asi mismo como diferentes del otro, >>> situaci?n que se >>> tradujo en diferencias en la pol?tica, la ideol?gia y la >>> religion. >>> >>> As? por ejemplo aunque los mexicas y los tlaxcaltecas se >>> reconocieran de >>> origen >>> chichimeca y hablaran nahuatl como la lengua que >>> habian aprendido, entre ellos no se reconocian como iguales , >>> situaci?n >>> que Cort?s >>> detecto y supo aprovechar politica y militarmente. >>> Aunque Tlaxcaltecas y Huexotzincas hablaran nahuatl y opcuparan >>> espacios >>> vecinos y >>> adoraran ambos a Mixcoat, el varonil, por ello el que >>> porta el maxtle, por ello el camaxtle, a pesar de sus elementos >>> comunes >>> cada pueblo >>> era un se?orio distinto >>> >>> HOy sucede lo mismo en los distintos paises que fuimos colonias de >>> Espa?a >>> compartimos muchas cosas pero somos paises distintos, >>> ?Porque cuesta tanto trabajo tener esa optica cuando se mira el >>> pasado >>> prehisp?nico? >>> Por que hacer tabla raza de las diferencias, porque >>> borrar la historia >>> >>> Gordon es fiel a la escuela de Seler y a la escuela Hegeliana para >>> los >>> cuales los >>> paises fuera de Europa no tiene historia >>> son pueblos sin historia. Y eso lo dice Seler conm todas sus >>> letras en su >>> articulo >>> sobre Aztlan >>> >>> No deja de ser parad?jico que esa corriente de pensamiento haya >>> surgido en >>> un pa?s >>> como la actual Alemania que ha tenido uno de los >>> mas azarosos procesos de conformaci?n del estado naci?n y que para >>> lograrlo necesito >>> la construcci?n y derrumbe del imperio prusiano, >>> la derrota en dos guerras mundiale, el ascenso del nazismo, la >>> mutilacion y >>> ocupaci?n sovieta de una parte del territorio y el derrumbe >>> del muro >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nahuatl mailing list >>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Mon Feb 23 15:04:27 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:04:27 -0500 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: <20090222185357.w6r8gqcygw80o4sk@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: The person who wrote the post was Roberto Romero Gutierrez Michael McCafferty wrote: > Any indication as to who wrote this? > > I'm also curious, or perhaps suspicious, as to linguistic protocol > here. Why, if Dr. Whittaker wrote in English, and this present > respondent certainly knows English, did he/she not respond in English? > Anything goes? Devrais-je pouvoir repondre en francais? In tla > nichachalacaya mazehualcopa? I don't know. It seems that, for the sake > of clarity, it would be better to stay in one language...unless there's > a political agenda. And once that's a possibility, I tend to be stingy > with credence as to what people say, even in Spanish. > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Mon Feb 23 15:16:58 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:16:58 -0500 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you, Dr. Pennock, for your posting. I appreciate the ideas. Michael Quoting "Dodds Pennock, Dr C.E." : > Dear colleagues, > > I share Michael's hesitation regarding an unidentified post. If we do > not know the agenda or expertise of a poster then it is hard to know > how to assess their work. I think perhaps we should be tolerant of > writing in a language other than the post was composed unless we fear > a political agenda, however. I myself am guilty of replying in > English occasionally where the principal language of the discussion > is Spanish for the simple fact that, whilst my reading Spanish is > pretty good, my written Spanish is laborious! I suspect this may well > be the case in reverse for some Spanish speakers. > > I think perhaps Michael is right to fear a political agenda here, > however. Much of the post is too obviously polemical and at times > bordering on personal attack to invite serious criticism (the > comparison with Stalin and the Nazis most notably!) and I fear that > some of the latter part of the post misunderstand's the linguistic > focus of Gordon's email. > > Some of the early parts of this post are obviously drawn from the > well-known article of Miguel Le?n-Portilla, whose credibility is > hardly in doubt, but certainly not all. The inference that all these > documents are somehow essentially unreliable ("Todos los documentos > que se pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales aunque sean > escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl espa?ol.") is > basically applicable to any alphabetic text drawn from this period > and would dismiss the possibility of any use of any post-conquest > alphabetic documents. Although care must certainly be taken in the > use of such documents, I do not believe so sweeping a case is made by > any serious scholar and one which Le?n-Portilla's own work directly > contradicts. > > Yours, > Caroline > ------- > Dr Caroline Dodds Pennock > Lecturer in Early Modern History > School of Historical Studies > University of Leicester > University Road > Leicester > LE1 7RH > > email: ced22 at le.ac.uk > http://www.le.ac.uk/history/people/ced22.html _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Tue Feb 24 00:24:03 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:24:03 +0100 Subject: Pondering the terms 'Aztec' and 'Mexican' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, In the last few days we have had a constructive exchange on the AZTLAN and NAHUATl-L lists concerning certain core terms used in Aztec studies. Unfortunately, one unsigned posting to the AZTLAN list contained, in addition to some rather polemical statements about the nature of primary sources on the Postclassic period, a lengthy tirade that included a number of highly regrettable and, to my mind, quite surprising remarks about Michael Smith and myself that have no place on a moderated list. Particularly troubling were a likening of our use of the term ?Aztec? to the policies of Stalin. In a final statement that ends in mid-air, an extended reference to me (as a presumed German) relates and compares the worst developments in recent German history to my way of thinking. In what follows, I shall restrict myself to answering certain claims made in the posting about the history and use of key terms. I would greatly appreciate it if any response to this would refrain from personal attacks and insinuations about my motives, since it only distracts from the issues we are trying to discuss. On the term ?Aztec?: The contributor, who appears in earlier postings variously as Dante Romero Gil and Roberto Romero Gutierrez, writes ?El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo Cristobal del Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos.? It is actually not correct to say that the term ?Azteca? was used for the first time in Cristobal del Castillo?s ?Historia?. This work was not finished until 1599 (see, e.g., the review of the 2001 Navarrete edition by Gabriela Vallejo Cervantes at http://nuevomundo.revues.org/index324.html), which is fairly late for a primary source, and did not reach print (in fragmentary form) until 1908. Quite a large number of other sources use the term before del Castillo, among them Duran, Sahagun, and so forth. Cristobal del Castillo himself, a difficult but highly interesting source in many ways, goes further than most in underlining the clear link between the Mexica and their heritage as Azteca. He refers to them specifically (in their pre-settlement context) as ?Mecitin Azteca?. Before the Mexica founded their twin settlements in the Valley of Mexico?s central lake area, they were known (according to tradition) as Mecitin, the plural form of the name Meci borne by their patron deity Huitzilopochtli. At an even earlier stage they were simply known as Azteca, which our primary sources are careful to state. The Codex Aubin (f. 5r), to name but one, has a famous passage where Huitzilopochtli announces that he is giving them a new name, ?In axcan aocmo amotoca in amazteca ye ammexica? (?Now you are no longer called Azteca. You are Mexica?). This is beautifully illustrated in the Tira de la Peregrinacion (Panel 4). The event takes place on the road to Cuextecatl Ichocayan, not long before they reach Tollan (Tula). The term 'Mexica' is, of course, anachronistic (or future-oriented?!) in this context, since it derives from the name of their later capital. It is worth noting that every single one of the Azteca groups named in the Aubin and glyphically in the Tira -- Huexotzinca, Chalca, Xochimilca, Cuitlahuaca, Malinalca, Tla(l)huica/Chichimeca, Tepaneca, and Matlatzinca -- ended up being absorbed into the Empire (in the exceptional case of Huexotzinco for just a couple of years). The Tepaneca even became active participants in the administration and expansion of the Aztec Empire. So the term is highly appropriate, even if the Aztecs themselves reserved it as a rule for references to their mythical past. The empire was not a mere Mexica endeavour, even if they were the driving force and provided the greater part of the ruling elite. It is not only appropriate as a collective term for the core groups of the Aztec Empire, but also as an older, but still acceptably alternative, term for the Mexica, who, as we can see in the Tira de la Peregrinacion, evolve out of the wandering Azteca groups. Dante/Roberto Romero G. refers me to the article by Leon-Portilla on the history and controversial aspects of the term. This interesting article (in ECN, vol. 31) can be downloaded from the Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl site. One cannot fail to admire Leon-Portilla?s scholarship and, as always, this particular article is no exception. Nevertheless, some inaccuracies have crept in, as they do into anyone?s scholarly output. At one point (p. 310) he states that the term ?Aztec? was first introduced by Alexander von Humboldt in 1810. This is incorrect. It was already employed a good thirty years earlier in Clavigero?s immensely influential history (1780, vol. 1, p. 14-15), where the latter writes of ?Gli Aztechi, o Messicani, che furono gli ultimi popolatori del paese d?Anahuac, e sono il soggetto principale della nostra Storia?. Leon-Portilla also states (p. 310) that, whereas ?los de Mexico? is employed by Cortes and Gomara for the Mexica, the term ?mexicanos? was not used till Bernal Diaz del Castillo, after which it was adopted by other writers: ?A partir de el todos cuantos escribieron en el period colonial emplearon el mismo vocablo. Ello es verdad en el caso de Motolinia, Diego Duran, Bernardino de Sahagun, ? But these authors all wrote before Diaz (Motolinia uses the term already in 1541!). And, while Gomara (1552) uses ?los de Mexico? 37 times, he shows a far greater preference for ?mexicano/a(s)?, which he uses no less than 119 times. Furthermore, Diaz? account was not completed until decades after Gomara had published his work. I enthusiastically agree with Michael Smith's use and defence of the term 'Aztec'. As one of the foremost authorities today on Aztec civilization, and as a scholar who has written an excellent study of the Aztlan migrations (see his informative and entertaining web site at for many more downloadable contributions of value), he has given the matter very careful thought and has chosen the best blanket term available. Like all other experts, he is fully aware that in certain contexts blanket terms are useful, while in others differentiation is appropriate. I would like to add that I have learned a great deal from him. Well, I think that is enough said for now. I will save the rest for an article (or perhaps for further discussion here, depending on the way things develop). Best wishes -- and my thanks to both Michaels and to Caroline, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Tue Feb 24 04:24:54 2009 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:24:54 +0000 Subject: Pondering the terms 'Aztec' and 'Mexican' In-Reply-To: <49826.84.132.246.71.1235435043.squirrel@mailbox.gwdg.de> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Yet another contribution on the use of the term 'Aztec' for Nahuatl speaking groups in Central Mexico. I have communicated my reasons for not agreeing with such a use of the term to Michael and I will repeat some of them here in response to a particular paragraph written by Gordon: > It is worth noting that every single one of the Azteca groups named in the > Aubin and glyphically in the Tira -- Huexotzinca, Chalca, Xochimilca, > Cuitlahuaca, Malinalca, Tla(l)huica/Chichimeca, Tepaneca, and Matlatzinca > -- ended up being absorbed into the Empire (in the exceptional case of > Huexotzinco for just a couple of years). The Tepaneca even became active > participants in the administration and expansion of the Aztec Empire. So > the term is highly appropriate, even if the Aztecs themselves reserved it > as a rule for references to their mythical past. The empire was not a mere > Mexica endeavour, even if they were the driving force and provided the > greater part of the ruling elite. It is not only appropriate as a > collective term for the core groups of the Aztec Empire, but also as an > older, but still acceptably alternative, term for the Mexica, who, as we > can see in the Tira de la Peregrinacion, evolve out of the wandering > Azteca groups. The fact that the Tepaneca were active participants in the "Aztec" empire is hardly a reason to call them 'Aztecs'. Following that thought we could call the Tlaxcalteca 'Spaniards' as they participated actively in the "Spanish" conquest, as did just about every indigenous group for that matter. 'Aztec' refers to the place of origin of Aztlan and none of the mentioned groups came from there but those who were named 'Mexitin' afterwards. True, the Tripple Alliance was not a mere Mexica endeavor, but it certainly wasn't an 'Aztec' one. The only 'Aztecs' that we know of are those who later became Tenochca and Tlatelolca. But let's go back to the source of the problem. Michael Smith says the following (The Aztecs, Blacwell Publishing, 2003:4): [...] I believe it makes more sense to expand the definition of "Aztec" to include the peoples of nearby highland valleys in addition to the inhabitants of the Valley of Mexico. In the final few centuries before the arrival of the Spaniards in 1519, the peoples of this wider area all spoke the Nahuatl language (the language of the Aztecs), and they all traced their origins to a mythical place in the north called Aztlan (Aztlan is the origin of the term "Aztec," a modern label that was not used by the people themselves).[...] I still have to see the sources that reports the Chalca, Xochimilca and others coming from Aztlan. The term 'Aztec' for Nahuatl speaking peoples of Central Mexico is methodologically, historically, and ethnically incorrect. It confuses matters unnecessarily. There is a good term for these Nahuatl speaking groups that is widely used in the literature: "Nahuas". Ok, we don't have historical sources that use the term, but nor do we have sources that use the term 'Aztecs' for the Nahuatl speaking peoples of Central Mexico. And the argument that 'Nahuas' doesn't sell isn't true either considering James Lockhart's 'The Nahuas after the Conquest', a bestseller in any way you want to turn it. Un abrazo a todos, Michel R. Oudijk Seminario de Lenguas Ind?genas Instituto de Investigaciones Filol?gicas Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico > Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:24:03 +0100 > From: gwhitta at gwdg.de > To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Subject: [Nahuat-l] Pondering the terms 'Aztec' and 'Mexican' > > Dear colleagues, > > In the last few days we have had a constructive exchange on the AZTLAN and > NAHUATl-L lists concerning certain core terms used in Aztec studies. > Unfortunately, one unsigned posting to the AZTLAN list contained, in > addition to some rather polemical statements about the nature of primary > sources on the Postclassic period, a lengthy tirade that included a number > of highly regrettable and, to my mind, quite surprising remarks about > Michael Smith and myself that have no place on a moderated list. > Particularly troubling were a likening of our use of the term ?Aztec? to > the policies of Stalin. In a final statement that ends in mid-air, an > extended reference to me (as a presumed German) relates and compares the > worst developments in recent German history to my way of thinking. > > In what follows, I shall restrict myself to answering certain claims made > in the posting about the history and use of key terms. I would greatly > appreciate it if any response to this would refrain from personal attacks > and insinuations about my motives, since it only distracts from the issues > we are trying to discuss. > > On the term ?Aztec?: > > The contributor, who appears in earlier postings variously as Dante Romero > Gil and Roberto Romero Gutierrez, writes ?El uso de Azteca aparece primero > en la obra del historiador mestizo Cristobal del Castillo Historia de la > Venida de los mexicanos.? > > It is actually not correct to say that the term ?Azteca? was used for the > first time in Cristobal del Castillo?s ?Historia?. This work was not > finished until 1599 (see, e.g., the review of the 2001 Navarrete edition > by Gabriela Vallejo Cervantes at > http://nuevomundo.revues.org/index324.html), which is fairly late for a > primary source, and did not reach print (in fragmentary form) until 1908. > Quite a large number of other sources use the term before del Castillo, > among them Duran, Sahagun, and so forth. > > Cristobal del Castillo himself, a difficult but highly interesting source > in many ways, goes further than most in underlining the clear link between > the Mexica and their heritage as Azteca. He refers to them specifically > (in their pre-settlement context) as ?Mecitin Azteca?. Before the Mexica > founded their twin settlements in the Valley of Mexico?s central lake > area, they were known (according to tradition) as Mecitin, the plural form > of the name Meci borne by their patron deity Huitzilopochtli. > > At an even earlier stage they were simply known as Azteca, which our > primary sources are careful to state. The Codex Aubin (f. 5r), to name but > one, has a famous passage where Huitzilopochtli announces that he is > giving them a new name, ?In axcan aocmo amotoca in amazteca ye ammexica? > (?Now you are no longer called Azteca. You are Mexica?). This is > beautifully illustrated in the Tira de la Peregrinacion (Panel 4). The > event takes place on the road to Cuextecatl Ichocayan, not long before > they reach Tollan (Tula). The term 'Mexica' is, of course, anachronistic > (or future-oriented?!) in this context, since it derives from the name of > their later capital. > > It is worth noting that every single one of the Azteca groups named in the > Aubin and glyphically in the Tira -- Huexotzinca, Chalca, Xochimilca, > Cuitlahuaca, Malinalca, Tla(l)huica/Chichimeca, Tepaneca, and Matlatzinca > -- ended up being absorbed into the Empire (in the exceptional case of > Huexotzinco for just a couple of years). The Tepaneca even became active > participants in the administration and expansion of the Aztec Empire. So > the term is highly appropriate, even if the Aztecs themselves reserved it > as a rule for references to their mythical past. The empire was not a mere > Mexica endeavour, even if they were the driving force and provided the > greater part of the ruling elite. It is not only appropriate as a > collective term for the core groups of the Aztec Empire, but also as an > older, but still acceptably alternative, term for the Mexica, who, as we > can see in the Tira de la Peregrinacion, evolve out of the wandering > Azteca groups. > > Dante/Roberto Romero G. refers me to the article by Leon-Portilla on the > history and controversial aspects of the term. This interesting article > (in ECN, vol. 31) can be downloaded from the Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl > site. One cannot fail to admire Leon-Portilla?s scholarship and, as > always, this particular article is no exception. Nevertheless, some > inaccuracies have crept in, as they do into anyone?s scholarly output. At > one point (p. 310) he states that the term ?Aztec? was first introduced by > Alexander von Humboldt in 1810. This is incorrect. It was already employed > a good thirty years earlier in Clavigero?s immensely influential history > (1780, vol. 1, p. 14-15), where the latter writes of ?Gli Aztechi, o > Messicani, che furono gli ultimi popolatori del paese d?Anahuac, e sono il > soggetto principale della nostra Storia?. > > Leon-Portilla also states (p. 310) that, whereas ?los de Mexico? is > employed by Cortes and Gomara for the Mexica, the term ?mexicanos? was not > used till Bernal Diaz del Castillo, after which it was adopted by other > writers: ?A partir de el todos cuantos escribieron en el period colonial > emplearon el mismo vocablo. Ello es verdad en el caso de Motolinia, Diego > Duran, Bernardino de Sahagun, ?? But these authors all wrote before Diaz > (Motolinia uses the term already in 1541!). And, while Gomara (1552) uses > ?los de Mexico? 37 times, he shows a far greater preference for > ?mexicano/a(s)?, which he uses no less than 119 times. Furthermore, Diaz? > account was not completed until decades after Gomara had published his > work. > > I enthusiastically agree with Michael Smith's use and defence of the term > 'Aztec'. As one of the foremost authorities today on Aztec civilization, > and as a scholar who has written an excellent study of the Aztlan > migrations (see his informative and entertaining web site at > for many more downloadable > contributions of value), he has given the matter very careful thought and > has chosen the best blanket term available. Like all other experts, he is > fully aware that in certain contexts blanket terms are useful, while in > others differentiation is appropriate. I would like to add that I have > learned a great deal from him. > > Well, I think that is enough said for now. I will save the rest for an > article (or perhaps for further discussion here, depending on the way > things develop). > > Best wishes -- and my thanks to both Michaels and to Caroline, > Gordon > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gordon Whittaker > Professor > Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik > Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie > Universitaet Goettingen > Humboldtallee 19 > 37073 Goettingen > Germany > tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 > tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Tue Feb 24 09:56:14 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:56:14 +0100 Subject: 'Aztec' vs. 'Mexica' vs. 'Nahua' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Michel, dear colleagues, It is evident from your opening sentence that you find discussion of this key term exasperating. And yet, as we have seen, the matter is still highly controversial, both in academic circles and among the lay public, which means that there is every reason for us to continue discussing the issue. I am really not interested in getting to the finishing line first -- what matters to me is how we get there. The term 'Aztec' is not only high-profile in academia, and so firmly established that even those who criticize its use (see the ECN article by Leon-Portilla) employ and thus acknowledge the term (as LP does, for example, in his edition of Bernal Diaz -- even in reference to the Nahuatl language). Note also the condoned use of the term for the international exhibition on the Aztec period and for the Spanish-language and international editions of the 'Aztecs' exhibition catalogue. It is, moreover, a term that has entered all languages. Th term 'Mexica': When, on the other hand, 'Mexica' is used, which I obviously also applaud and will continue to use alongside 'Aztec', it tends to get badly mispronounced outside of Mexico -- and confused with the term for the modern nation. Thus, /MEK-si-ka/ is all too common. The other problem is the lack of an adjective for the latter. It can, of course, be worked around by using the noun as such. But, ever since the expropriation of the term for the new nation, confusion runs rife. How often does one hear the term 'Mexican' used for Mexican Spanish, as in 'I don't speak Mexican'?! Now, I am certainly not suggesting abandoning the term to the street. I am merely saying that 'Aztec' is less easily confused and has a high recognition value. Since it is not a garbled, Spanish-based, form, I have no problem with it. The term 'Nahua': As for the term 'Nahua', you have overlooked an important aspect of the book by Lockhart -- he is not simply writing about the former peoples of the Aztec Empire. He is also talking about the Tlaxcalteca and other Nahua groups outside the former empire of the Triple Alliance. Thus, 'Nahua' is indeed the appropriate term in this context. One can, of course, argue that the term 'Aztec' is even useful in an extended sense for the Tlaxcalteca (and the Huexotzinca, who are, in any case, Azteca in origin). Enemies of the Triple Alliance, yes, but also Nahua who shared in the same basic culture. The cultural manifestations are distinctly 'Aztec', something that cannot be said of all Nahua groups, who are found over a vast swathe of territory, in no few cases far beyond the reach, or at least direct influence, of the Triple Alliance. You write, "I still have to see the sources that reports the Chalca, Xochimilca and others coming from Aztlan. The term 'Aztec' for Nahuatl speaking peoples of Central Mexico is methodologically, historically, and ethnically incorrect." Shouldn't one FIRST look at the sources, and THEN make a judgement? Besides, I gave you the references (and even quoted from them); both of them are well-known and easily found. I recommend to all the truly magnificent edition of the Tira de la Peregrinacion (Codex Boturini) published as Edicion Especial 26 of Arqueologia Mexicana. So let's look at the rather serious charges you level at me. 1) "methodologically (incorrect)": Surely one should cite, and argue from, primary sources? 2) "historically (incorrect)": As a macro-ethnic term used by the Aztecs for their mythical past, hardly historically unjustified. Modern academia (and general culture) has simply extended its usage to the entire Late Postclassic (and occasionally, like Charles Gibson in his excellent treatise 'The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule', to the early Colonial period) in Central Mexico. I do not think that anyone has ever been led astray by this usage, whether one approves of it or not. 3) "ethnically incorrect": Why so? The groups named above were all regarded as Aztec in origin, at the very least by the Mexica. The term is frequent in this context in Central Mexican Nahuatl texts. And the author of one group of these texts, Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, a proud descendant of the Chalca, confirms the validity of the term also for the latter. I think the main problem has long been the fact that the term 'Aztec' has become an ideological issue (like the term 'Aztlan') and part of New Age culture. It is hard otherwise to understand why so much heat is generated by discussion of the topic. But should we acquiesce to ideology? Best wishes, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Tue Feb 24 16:31:22 2009 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:31:22 +0000 Subject: 'Aztec' vs. 'Mexica' vs. 'Nahua' In-Reply-To: <49327.84.132.255.131.1235469374.squirrel@mailbox.gwdg.de> Message-ID: Dear Gordon and others, I will go over your arguments one by one: > It is evident from your opening sentence that you find discussion of this > key term exasperating. And yet, as we have seen, the matter is still > highly controversial, both in academic circles and among the lay public, > which means that there is every reason for us to continue discussing the > issue. I am really not interested in getting to the finishing line first > -- what matters to me is how we get there. The term 'Aztec' is not only > high-profile in academia, and so firmly established that even those who > criticize its use (see the ECN article by Leon-Portilla) employ and thus > acknowledge the term (as LP does, for example, in his edition of Bernal > Diaz -- even in reference to the Nahuatl language). Note also the condoned > use of the term for the international exhibition on the Aztec period and > for the Spanish-language and international editions of the 'Aztecs' > exhibition catalogue. It is, moreover, a term that has entered all > languages. Sometimes these discussions are exasperating, which doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. Reason why they are exasperating is that often arguments are used which don't seem to make any sense as in, they go against common sense. It seems to me we're dealing with two different issues here. First, we have an academic community and a lay public. Normally, as is the case in Mesoamerican history, the lay public doesn't make the same detailed distinctions as the academic community does. Hence the use of 'Aztecs' in major exhibits like the one in London in 2002-2003 or another big one in Brussels in the late 80's. No problem there cause we know this is marketing and nobody expects the lay public to understand the discussion about such issues as 'Aztecs' vs 'Mexica'. But the discussion we're having now is not a laymen's discussion but one between colleagues, investigators of Mesoamerican history. In this case we CAN and SHOULD make the difference between the terms, because it is significant in our understanding of the Mesoamerican world. I know that Miguel Le?n-Portilla uses the term 'the Aztec language' when he actually refers to Nahuatl, but I don't think he will refer to Chalca or Huexotzinca as 'Aztecas'. In Mexico, and I'm talking about the Mexican academic community, nobody will refer to these other Nahua groups as 'Aztecas'. But I will get back to this in the next paragraph. > Th term 'Mexica': > > When, on the other hand, 'Mexica' is used, which I obviously also applaud > and will continue to use alongside 'Aztec', it tends to get badly > mispronounced outside of Mexico -- and confused with the term for the > modern nation. Thus, /MEK-si-ka/ is all too common. The other problem is > the lack of an adjective for the latter. It can, of course, be worked > around by using the noun as such. But, ever since the expropriation of the > term for the new nation, confusion runs rife. How often does one hear the > term 'Mexican' used for Mexican Spanish, as in 'I don't speak Mexican'?! > Now, I am certainly not suggesting abandoning the term to the street. I am > merely saying that 'Aztec' is less easily confused and has a high > recognition value. Since it is not a garbled, Spanish-based, form, I have > no problem with it. This is, in my opinion an exasperating argument. There is no value to this in an academic discussion and curiously enough it only works in an English speaking context. No-one here in Mexico has a problem with this although people also pronounce the 'x' as 'ks'. Even in towns like Tlaxcala people will pronounce the name as 'tlakscala', or say 'aksyacatl', etc, etc. That is not an argument for not using the term 'mexica'. Maybe you and I, Gordon, should change our last names because nobody can pronounce it correctly (mine not even in the English speaking world). Ignorance of a language can never be an argument in an academic discussion. Or as Humberto Eco has said in his famous book on how to write a thesis: - No se puede hacer una tesis sobre un autor extranjero si este no es le?do en su lengua original. - No se puede hacer una tesis sobre un tema si las obras m?s importantes que se refieren a ?l est?n escritas en una lengua que no conocemos. In other words "if you don't speak the language, get out of the bussiness". That colleagues openly admit that they don't read or speak Spanish is not only revealing, but shocking. That we don't pronounce something correctly is one thing (although the pronounciation of 'x' as 'ks' cannot, linguistically speaking, be considered a mistake), but please let's not use our ignorance as an argument. > The term 'Nahua': > > As for the term 'Nahua', you have overlooked an important aspect of the > book by Lockhart -- he is not simply writing about the former peoples of > the Aztec Empire. He is also talking about the Tlaxcalteca and other Nahua > groups outside the former empire of the Triple Alliance. Thus, 'Nahua' is > indeed the appropriate term in this context. Please Gordon, read carefully. The author who is most specific about his use of the term 'Aztecs' and actually defines it is Michael Smith and I think he's pretty much on the spot in regard to how others who agree with him may use it. You yourself in one of the previous messages have whole heartedly pronounced your support of the Michael's use of the term. Well now, what does he say: "Ethnohistorian James Lockhart has found many cultural similarities among these peoples at the time of the Spanish conquest, and he uses the term "Nahuas" to describe the central Mexican Nahuatl-speaking peoples. My use of the term "Aztecs" parallels Lockhart's term for the period before 1519; after which I switch to "Nahuas" to describe these people following the Spanish conquest. (The Aztecs, Blackwell Publishing, 2003:4). So both Lockhart and Smith are referring to the very same people, but Smith makes a distinction in time. I think this confuses the matter and, in my opinion, is incorrect, but we'll get to that later. > One can, of course, argue that the term 'Aztec' is even useful in an > extended sense for the Tlaxcalteca (and the Huexotzinca, who are, in any > case, Azteca in origin). Enemies of the Triple Alliance, yes, but also > Nahua who shared in the same basic culture. The cultural manifestations > are distinctly 'Aztec', something that cannot be said of all Nahua groups, > who are found over a vast swathe of territory, in no few cases far beyond > the reach, or at least direct influence, of the Triple Alliance. Now you're confusing me. You actually want to call the Tlaxcalteca 'Aztecs'? Although this is correct according to Smith's definition but highly unusual and probably even offending to the Tlaxcalteca. They were 'Nahuas' in Lockhart's sense and the major Tlaxcalteca scholar, the late Luis Reyes Garc?a, actually used the term Nahua (although he spelled it 'naua' for other reasons) as do many other indigenous scholars. But never ever would they call themselves 'Azteca'. Not today, not in the past, and probably not in the future. It seems to me that the cultural manifestations of Tlaxcala, Huexotzingo or other Nahua city-states like Texcoco for example, are not 'Aztec' at all. Their cultural manifestations are different in many ways. For example, we can easily distinguish Mexica pictorials from those of Tlaxcala, Huexotzinco or Texcoco. There are actually very few expressions of the 'Aztec empire' within the territory controlled by the Triple Alliance. This is, in fact, one of the characteristics of that empire and probably a Mesoamerican characteristic. > You write, "I still have to see the sources that reports the Chalca, > Xochimilca and others coming from Aztlan. The term 'Aztec' for Nahuatl > speaking peoples of Central Mexico is methodologically, historically, and > ethnically incorrect." Shouldn't one FIRST look at the sources, and THEN > make a judgement? Besides, I gave you the references (and even quoted from > them); both of them are well-known and easily found. I recommend to all > the truly magnificent edition of the Tira de la Peregrinacion (Codex > Boturini) published as Edicion Especial 26 of Arqueologia Mexicana. Ok, let's LOOK at the sources. What do we see in the Tira? We see somebody leaving in a canoo passing through a curved hill glossed 'Colhuacan' and then arriving at a list of peoples. Although some authors have read variations, generally their glyphs have been read as: Huexotzinca, Chalca, Xochimilca, Cuitlahuaca, Malinalca, Chichimeca, Tepaneca, Matlazinca. This very same scene is represented in the Codex Azcatitlan. Some other documents that mention Aztlan or may mention Aztlan don't refer to any other group but that which founded Tenochtitlan (see the Mapa de Sig?enza or the Codex Mexicanus) which strongly suggest that they wanted to make clear that THEY specifically were the ones from Aztlan and no-one else. But even the Codex Aubin pictographically doesn't include the eight groups in Aztlan: we see a hill with four houses on an island. Beneath this drawing are the names of the eight groups. This is what we see in the pictography. Someone leaving from an island, arriving at a curved hill where eight groups are represented. Now, let's READ some of the sources: Nican ycuiliuhtica yn itlatollo yn ompa huillaque y mexica yn itocayocan Aztlan. Ca anepantla yn ompa vallevaque ca nauh calpoltin. Auh ynic vallamaceyaya acaltica yn quivaltemaya yn imacxoyauh yn oncan ytocayocan. Quinevayan oztotl onca ca yn oncan quizque chicue calpoltin. Inic cen calpoltin vexotzinca. Inic on calpoltin chalca. Inique calpoltin xochimilca. Inic nauh calpoltin cuitlavaca. Inic macuil calpoltin mallinalca. Inic chiquacen calpolti chichimeca. Inic chicon calpoltin tepaneca. Inic chicue calpoltin matlatzinca. Yn oncan onoca yn colhuacan oncan chaneque catca ynic hualpanoque yn aztlan oncan quinvallantiquizque yn colhuacan yn oquimittaque yn chaneque niman oquilhuique yn azteca. Totecuiyovane can ammohuica ma tamechtoviquilican. Niman oquitoque yn azteca. Canin tamechvicazque. Ooof, I hear you say. That's Nahuatl. But I would like to refer to Eco's statement about the matter of language....(btw this doesn't apply to me as I work on Oaxacan cultures). But you Gordon, as I, can read the excellent German translation by Lehmann and Kutscher ("Geschichte der Azteken", Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin, 1981). But I have pitty on my fellow academics and so will translate it into English: Here is painted the history of how the Mexica came from the place called Aztlan. It is situated in the middle of the water from where they left. There are four houses (calpulli). And while in the boat they served the god, they placed for him the green pine twig. The place with the name 'Place of the later departure' is a cave. That is where the eight houses (calpoltin) came from. The first house are the Huexotzinca. The second house are the Chalca. The third house are the Xochimilca. The fourth house are the Cuitlahuaca. The fifth house are the Malinalca. The sixth house are the Chichimeca. The seventh house are the Tepaneca. The eighth house are the Matlatzinca. There where Colhuacan is situated, they have their home. When they came from Aztlan over the water, they found there those of Colhuacan. When those who live there had seen them, they spoke to the Aztecs: "Oh our lords! Where are you going? Let us accompany you." And the Aztecs said: "Where will we accompany you to?" >>From this reading it is very clear that the Aztecs came from Aztlan and that the other eight groups did not. Therefore, these eight groups are not called 'Aztecs' in the text while those who came from Aztlan certainly are. And these Aztecs, later received the name 'Mexitin' and founded Tenochtitlan and later Tlatelolco. I will not transcribe all other sources that confirm this statement from the Codex Aubin, but let's look at only two more. The "Memorial de Colhuacan" by Chimalpahin for example. It reads: Yn oquiuh matlaclonnahui ixhuitl huallehuazque yn teochichimeca azteca mexitin chicomoztoca yn ompa ynchan Aztlan Chicomoztoc ynic nican motlalliquihui atlihtic Mexico Tenuchtitlan. (Las ocho relaciones y el memorial de Colhuacan, Domingo Chimalpahin, Cien de M?xico, 1998:82). Which translates as: [...] y faltaban todav?a 14 a?os para que los teochichimecas aztecas mexitin chicomoztecas partieron de su morada de Aztlan Chicomoztoc y vinieran a asentarse en la isla de Mexico Tenochtitlan. Again, it's very clear that those who founded Mexico Tenochtitlan were the ones who left from Aztlan. Not another group, just the Mexica. Finally, the "Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas": "Dicen que cumplidos diez treces despu?s del diluvio, que son 130 a?os, estando poblados los mexicanos en un pueblo que se dice Aztlan, [...], y de la otra parte del r?o est? otro pueblo muy grande que se dice Colhuacan. [...] y para ello hicieron tres caudillos o tres capitanes: al uno dijeron Xiuhtzin, al otro Tecpatzin, y al otro Cuauhtllequetzqui. Y con estos tres partieron muchos mexicanos; [..] Ya est? dicho c?mo de la parte del r?o hacie oriente pintan que est? la ciudad de Cohuacan, y que es muy grande pueblo y tiene alrededor de s? muchos lugares y gente. Y, por no caber, determinaron de venir a buscar tierra do poblasen; [...] Y salieron con ellos los de Culuacan, que era la ?iudad prin?ipal, y por eso se puso Culuacan a la que est? dos leguas desta ?iudad, [...] Salieron de Suchimilco, [...]. Sali? Chalco, [...]. ("Mitos e historias de los antiguos nahuas", Cien de M?xico, 2002:45-46). I hope the point is clear: The Aztecs leave Aztlan and go to Colhuacan where they join the other groups. These are thus NOT Aztecs, because they don't come from Aztlan. There's no more to it. > So let's look at the rather serious charges you level at me. > > 1) "methodologically (incorrect)": Surely one should cite, and argue from, > primary sources? I think the above is enough. > > 2) "historically (incorrect)": As a macro-ethnic term used by the Aztecs > for their mythical past, hardly historically unjustified. Modern academia > (and general culture) has simply extended its usage to the entire Late > Postclassic (and occasionally, like Charles Gibson in his excellent > treatise 'The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule', to the early Colonial period) in > Central Mexico. I do not think that anyone has ever been led astray by > this usage, whether one approves of it or not. Laymen may use the term 'Aztec' or 'Aztecs' in order to refer to Nahuatl speaking people. This certainly doesn't happen here in Mexico, but in the US or Europe this may be the case. But, again, this should not be the case among academics since there is a clear difference between the different Nahua groups and only the Mexica (Tenochca and Tlatelolca) will use the term in reference to their own past. In general, Aztecs would be seen and understood as the Mexica and maybe even only the Tenochca. If you would propose such a use, few academics would have a problem with it. Using Aztecs for other Nahuatl speaking groups confusses the situation exactly because of the specificity of the term. How can you use 'Aztecs' for Huexotzinca or Chalca when they simply are not Aztecs? When I read 'Aztecs' in reference to Chalca, I'm confused precisely because I know what the term 'Aztec' means. That Gibson used 'Aztecs' in the title of his book shouldn't be a reason for the continuation of it's use when his star student James Lockhart corrected the master on this very issue and "Nahuas" in his title. Academic investigation develops and therefore things change. In the 1950's 'Aztecs' was acceptable, today it isn't. > 3) "ethnically incorrect": Why so? The groups named above were all > regarded as Aztec in origin, at the very least by the Mexica. The term is > frequent in this context in Central Mexican Nahuatl texts. And the author > of one group of these texts, Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, a proud > descendant of the Chalca, confirms the validity of the term also for the > latter. No Chalca, no Texcocana, no Huexotzinca, no whatever-Nahua-group-you-want-to-fill-in-here, used the term 'Azteca' to refer to themselves, nor would they ever have done so. One of the main issues in Mesoamerica is the identity of the autonomous altepetl. Even the city-states that were conquered or otherwise subjugated to the Triple Alliance would never ever identify themselves with 'Azteca', to 'Mexica' or 'Tenochca'. That is unthinkable in a Mesoamerican society. Chimalpahin is the first to identify himself as Chalca. Please do read the vast literature on this from Lockhart to Reyes Garc?a to Schroeder. > I think the main problem has long been the fact that the term 'Aztec' has > become an ideological issue (like the term 'Aztlan') and part of New Age > culture. It is hard otherwise to understand why so much heat is generated > by discussion of the topic. But should we acquiesce to ideology? 'Aztec' or 'Aztlan' is hardly a New Age term and although it may be used by people we can relate to the New Age movement, we as historians, archaeologists, linguists or whatever discipline you work in, should not be influenced by such movements in choosing our terminology. Again, there is a lay public and an academic community. I think we can and should distinguish between one and the other. Un fuerte abrazo a todos, Michel R. Oudijk Seminario de Lenguas Ind?genas Instituto de Investigaciones Filol?gicas Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Tue Feb 24 22:46:54 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:46:54 +0100 Subject: Out of Aztlan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Michel, dear colleagues, It is rather dismaying to be subjected repeatedly to opinions expressed in a strident and condescending tone when an academic matter of no little interest is being discussed. It should be possible to discuss these matters in a civil, if not friendly, manner. The only consolation to me in this case lies in the fact that such browbeating is usually self-defeating and tends to reflect negatively on the source. Michel Oudijk has suggested that I learn Nahuatl or, paraphrasing Humberto (sic) Eco, "get out of the bussiness (sic)". He quotes Eco as writing, "No se puede hacer una tesis sobre un autor extranjero si este no es leido en su lengua original." Curious. How odd to quote this sentence in Spanish translation (in the original: "Non si puo fare una tesi su un autore straniero se questo autore non viene letto in originale"), thus violating its very words! Michel goes on to do this again with respect to Nahuatl texts. Actually, I even teach Nahuatl, and have been teaching and publishing on Nahuatl for decades, at Yale and elsewhere. I can highly recommend this beautiful language to you. Michel, you add that Eco's words do not apply to you, since you're an expert on Oaxacan cultures. And yet you cite Nahuatl at length (followed by the translation you used) in the posting, telling me not to worry because I can consult the excellent German translation by Lehmann. This is condescending, but at the same time reflects on your own attitude -- if you admit not knowing a language and not even being a specialist on the cultures involved, then surely you shouldn't be lecturing experts such as Michael Smith, who has worked on Aztec culture and archaeology for decades. At the very least, I would recommend adopting a more collegial tone and approach. Now to the points you raise: You say I use arguments that "don't seem to make any sense", adding by way of example that "nobody will refer to these other Nahua groups [Chalca, Huexotzinca, etc.] as 'Aztecas'. Here you have chosen to ignore the clear distinction I made between MODERN usage of the term 'Aztec' as an acceptable and convenient blanket term for (1) the Nahua peoples of the Valley of Mexico that made up the core of the Aztec Empire, and (2) differentiating labels when discussing individual groups. I stressed that distinction in my posting. You really shouldn't quote me out of context. Furthermore, I suggested that, if one so wished, one could even extend the usage to include the Tlaxcalteca and Huexotzinca in a CULTURAL sense, i.e. because they shared the key aspects of so-called Mixteca-Puebla and, more generally speaking, Aztec culture. Such features are recognizable in the archaeological and more general cultural record. I do not see any need to single the Tlaxcalteca out as Aztecs, but, as I said, I would have no particular objection to using the term in a cultural sense to include the independent Nahua areas. The difference between imperial and independent areas is fundamentally a political, not an ethnic or cultural, one. Incidentally, you criticize my reference to the Tepanecs as Aztecs because they participated in and, indeed, co-ruled the Aztec Empire, saying that one could just as easily call the Tlaxcalteca 'Spaniards' because they participated in the Conquest. Hardly. The Tlaxcalteca neither participated in nor co-ruled the Spanish Empire, but were simply brief allies. Moreover, the Tlaxcalteca did not share Spanish culture. I stand by my statement of approval for Lockhart's use of the term 'Nahua' with respect to the Nahua of Central Mexico. This is self-explanatory, I think. Obviously, Lockhart's book 'The Nahuas After the Conquest' actually focuses not on the Nahua as a whole, but on the Nahua of the central area, as made clear in the secondary title. One might disagree with his use of the Spanish plural suffix -s in Nahuas, but that is another matter. As to Michael Smith's definition of 'Aztec': he is using it in the cultural sense I just mentioned, and this is perfectly defensible. The difference lies in the fact that Smith explicitly uses 'Aztec' to refer to the shared Nahua culture of the central valleys before the Conquest, and uses 'Nahua' in the same general sense as Lockhart for Colonial-period contexts. Gibson could have named his book 'The Aztecs [and their Descendants in the Valley of Mexico] Under Spanish Rule', but he opted instead for 'The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810', which, I think, makes quite clear what he is talking about. Aztecs, like Romans, did not simply disappear at the fall of their empires. Many Aztecs in the cultural and political sense lived on well into the late 16th century and adapted in varying degree to Spanish rule. It is not inappropriate to continue to call this population 'Aztec', even if their state had ceased to exist. He clearly meant 'the 'Aztecs and their descendants'. But this is a matter that should, of course, be decided and explained with care. Your talk about Lockhart the pupil teaching Gibson the master a thing or two is uncalled-for. You write, "No Chalca, no Texcocana (sic!), no Huexotzinca, no whatever-Nahua-group-you-want-to-fill-in-here, used the term 'Azteca' to refer to themselves, nor would they ever have done so." How do you know this? But, in any case, I made clear that I was referring only to the mythical past of these groups. You go on to say, "Chimalpahin is the first to identify himself as Chalca. Please do read the vast literature on this from Lockhart to Reyes Garcia to Schroeder." Interesting that you should mention Chimalpahin, who was indeed a descendant of the lords of Chalco and very proud of it. What you don't mention is that he was also immensely proud of Aztec civilization and of the Aztec Empire, in which the Chalca came to participate actively and productively, and that he even made the famous pronouncement that adorns, e.g., the dedication page of Soustelle's ethnography (here in transl.), "For as long as the world shall endure, the honour and the glory of Mexico Tenochtitlan must never be forgotten." As Anderson and Schroeder justly claim (Codex Chimalpahin, 1: 9), "He is both proud and in awe of Mexica civilization", that is, of Aztec civilization as typified by its centre of power, Mexico Tenochtitlan. But I never claimed that he called himself an 'Aztecatl'. By the way, you say I should study Schroeder. If you glance at p. 10, fn. 22 of the Anderson and Schroeder edition above, you will find that Schroeder has read me! As for Aztlan and Teocolhuacan: First, there simply is no single (standard) version of the Aztlan migrations. Secondly, the initial phase usually involves Aztlan and/or Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc and/or (Teo)colhuacan, the staging areas for the great migration. We could indulge in nit-picking and say that the Aztecs are only the four calpoltin (which are not, by the way, "houses") from the island of Aztlan, and that the eight calpoltin joining them on the opposite bank are something else, but the fact remains that the eight calpoltin join up almost immediately with the original four groups, as personified by the four leaders named and depicted in various sources. As calpoltin belonging now to a single altepetl under four leaders from Aztlan, they then set off on their great trek. As such it is quite appropriate to refer to the migrating peoples as Azteca. But there is more in the sources you cite: In the very same passage from Chimalpahin that you quote, we find the locative phrase 'Aztlan Chicomoztoc'. When two place names are juxtaposed in Nahuatl, it frequently means that the one -- usually the second place -- is part of the other. Thus, Mexico Tenochtitlan, Xochimilco Olac, Tollan Xicocotitlan, etc. This would mean that Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc/Teocolhuacan (alternative names sometimes distinguished), a 'brokeback mountain' with a roomy cave (but apparently not cozy enough, judging by the quick exodus), was understood as a community belonging to Aztlan. Since the Codex Aubin, for one, states that the eight calpoltin emerged from this cave, they are obviously also Azteca. Anyway, let's stop the nit-picking. This is where the discussion ends for me. Best wishes, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Feb 25 00:40:05 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:40:05 -0500 Subject: 'Aztec' vs. 'Mexica' vs. 'Nahua' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Michel Oudijk : > > In other words "if you don't speak the language, get out of the > bussiness". That colleagues openly admit that they don't read or > speak Spanish is not only revealing, but shocking. Hui! Otzin: I don't mind being honest, sir. That's o.k. with me. I believe it's an admirable trait, even in academia. The best academics I know are also the most honest academics. As for my not being fluent in Spanish but still involved in Nahuatl, consider a friend and colleague of mine who is the expert world's authority on a major Algonquian recorded historically almost exclusively in French but who doesn't know French. He knows Russian and German. His lack of French has never stood in the way. Should he get out of the business? My intuition says no. Ca no zotzin. Michael McCafferty _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Wed Feb 25 02:53:00 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John Schwaller) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:53:00 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: [Aztlan] Eduardo Matos Moctezuma lecture on Thursday] Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "michael ruggeri" Subject: [Aztlan] Eduardo Matos Moctezuma lecture on Thursday Date: 24 Feb 2009 13:39:54 -0600 Size: 4138 URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Wed Feb 25 14:58:16 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:58:16 +0100 Subject: Aztecs gone astray: Some input from Chimalpahin Message-ID: Dear colleagues, To avoid prolonging the debate with Michel Oudijk unnecessarily, I would like to share a couple of passages with him and with you that have direct bearing on Aztec use of the term 'Azteca' and on the elusiveness of Aztlan, Chicomoztoc, and Colhuacan. For convenience, and since Michel recommended that I educate myself by reading "Schroeder", something I am always happy to do, I will quote only from one of Susan Schroeder's excellent publications, the 'Codex Chimalpahin' (Vol. 1, U. of Okla. Press, 1997), which she ably edited and translated together with Arthur J. O. Anderson. For the sake of brevity, I will cite only the English translation, since the Spanish and Nahuatl originals are easily located on the opposing pages: First (p. 29): "Thus this most illustrious, great city of Mexico Tenochtitlan was named [by] the first ancient, old, brave founders. They were a most robust, wise, and warlike people named Teochichimeca, Azteca, Mexitin, Chicomozteca, people of Quinehuayan. Having emerged and come from their land in the north, called the great province and island of the city of Aztlan, they then came out at the site of Chicomoztoc or the Seven Caves, ... . When they left their land, they were formed of seven barrios. ... They arrived in Culhuacan, which is next to Itztapalapan." Here Aztlan and Chicomoztoc are both (separate) sites from which the Azteca "emerged", and Colhuacan is identified as the city south of Tenochtitlan. The story of the migration is left out almost entirely and, on their arrival in Colhuacan, we find ourselves suddenly in 1299! Then (p. 67, quoting Alonso Franco): "When the Chichimeca Azteca came forth, when they emerged from their home in Aztlan, it was the year One Flint, 1064. ... (p. 69) Their home was the place called Aztlan; hence their name is Azteca. And the second name of their home was Chicomoztoc. And their names were Azteca and also Mexitin. But now their name is really said to [be] only Mexica. And later they arrived here taking as their name Tenochca. And from the place named Aztlan in the midst of the waters came the Mexica; from there the seven calpulli [groups] departed. ... He who was ruler there was named Moteucc,oma. There were two sons of this ruler. ... The elder brother, whose name is not known, was to be ruler of the Cuexteca. And to the younger brother, a Mexica, called just Mexi [though] named Chalchiuhtlatonac, he gave the Mexitin. ..." Here we have something for Michel. An instance in which, indisputably, we have mention of non-Mexica as Azteca. The Cuexteca are usually taken to be the Maya-speaking Huaxtecs, but I think it is more likely that the Huaxteca Nahua are intended here. So the Aztecs did indeed regard certain other groups as descending, like they themselves, from Aztlan. Franco provides the useful clarification that the Azteca Mexitin have two homes, Aztlan island and Chicomoztoc. Franco goes on: "And the Mexitin thereupon performed penances there at the place named Quinehuayan Tzotzompan. ... And to perform the penances they came in boats to cross the water and laid down their fir branches there at the aforesaid place called Quinehuayan. A cave is there, called Chicomoztoc, whence the seven Mexitin calpulli issued. And when the said Teochichimeca Azteca Mexitin issued from what is called and named Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc, they brought what was in their keeping, their bundle. (p. 71) And there at Quinehuayan, what was named Chicomoztoc was a crag hollowed [with] caves in seven places. ..." Seven calpoltin set out from Aztlan, then cross over to the mainland, where after performing penances the seven calpoltin "issue" anew from the seven-part cave of Chicomoztoc in Quinehuayan seven years later (p. 73). Franco's Nahuatl account continues (p. 71): "And when the Azteca Mexitin had crossed the water from Aztlan they reached Culhuacan. On that way they took the devil, the portent Huitzilopochtli, there. As they came, as they arrived hither when they emerged from the seven places in Aztlan, they brought a woman named Chimalman. And as the Azteca set out from Culhuacan there were four who on their backs carried the portent Huitzilopochtli ... . And when they reached the foot of a tree [also a place name, Cuahuitl Itzintlan, GW], they therefore seated themselves at its base. ... the Azteca Mexitin spent four more years there ... ." Franco is referring to Chicomoztoc when he speaks of the "seven places in Aztlan", that is, to Aztlan Chicomoztoc (or Aztlan Aztatlan "the abode of herons", as he also calls it; see p. 73), not the island of Aztlan. It is unclear whether he then equates Chicomoztoc with Colhuacan, as the mountain containing the seven caves of Chicomoztoc, or is simply saying that after crossing from Aztlan island, the Azteca went on from (Aztlan) Chicomoztoc to Colhuacan. I prefer the first alternative, but it can go either way as written. Then (p. 73): "And then and there he [Huitzilopochtli, GW] changed the Aztecas' name for them. He said to them: Now no longer is your name Azteca: you are now Mexitin." And summing up (p. 75): "In the year Twelve Reed, 1075, when the ancient Mexitin Azteca Chichimeca had spent seven years in Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc, they then also emerged from Chicomoztoc; hence they are called Chicomoztoca. Then they moved hither. ... it was twelve years after they had emerged from their home in Aztlan that in the aforesaid Twelve Reed they then came away and traveled hither from the aforesaid Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc. It is thus that the ancient Azteca Mexitin Chichimeca emerged from Aztlan, ..." Getting back to what Michel wrote the other day: "it is very clear that the Aztecs came from Aztlan and that the other eight groups did not". The eight groups he is referring to are the ones named in the Codex Aubin and the Tira de la Peregrinacion. Among them are the Malinalca. Now let's see what Chimalpahin says (p. 181): The year One Flint, 1064. At this time the Mexitin Azteca Teochichimeca, now known as Tenochca, as Tlatelolca, as Malinalca, and as Michhuaque, people of Patzcuaro, emerged from their home, Aztlan." So, as Chimalpahin himself says, the Malinalca were Azteca! He doesn't list the others, and the Michhuaque do not appear in all other accounts, but the thrust of the passage is clear: The Azteca were not just Mecitin/Mexitin/Mexica. They included other peoples. In the case of the Michhuaque, I suspect the Nahua-speaking Michhuaque of the Patzcuaro area are meant, not the Purhepecha/Tarascans. I interpret the Aztlan myth cycle as an explanatory device by means of which the Mexica were able to order their ethnic universe and landscape. This device made it possible for the average Aztec to understand how the various distinct Nahua peoples came into being. At the same time, it provided a rationale for the Aztec Empire under a Mexica government, because it places the Azteca squarely under Mexitin control and guidance. According to this model, the Cuexteca and the Michhuaque, two distant groups, should by right belong to the Empire because they are no more than errant Azteca -- Aztecs gone astray. Best wishes to all, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Wed Feb 25 19:18:33 2009 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:18:33 +0000 Subject: Out of Aztlan In-Reply-To: <52042.84.132.255.131.1235515614.squirrel@mailbox.gwdg.de> Message-ID: Dear Gordon and others, I've been thinking whether I should write this or not, but as you can see I have come to the conclusion that I should. I had decided that my message I sent yesterday would be my final on this subject, but it only seems just to me to respond to your response. It seems to me that your message was spurred by anger which, in my opinion, is never a good advisor. I feel that in that anger, I'm accused of things that are simply not correct, which is the reason I'm now writing again. As in my previous messages, I will go over your message point by point. > It is rather dismaying to be subjected repeatedly to opinions expressed in > a strident and condescending tone when an academic matter of no little > interest is being discussed. It should be possible to discuss these > matters in a civil, if not friendly, manner. The only consolation to me in > this case lies in the fact that such browbeating is usually self-defeating > and tends to reflect negatively on the source. I have read my two messages I wrote in response to yours and I feel that at no time have I been strident, condescending or disrespectful. I may have used cynism at some point, but always a joyful one and never spiteful. I have responded to each and every argument you have put forth which I consider part of the academic discussion. Maybe you are not used to being responded to in a direct and frank manner, but, I feel, that shouldn't be interpreted as disrespectful. I, as anybody else, am free to respond and question anybody's assertions as long as it is done with respect which I think I have. > Michel Oudijk has suggested that I learn Nahuatl or, paraphrasing Humberto > (sic) Eco, "get out of the bussiness (sic)". He quotes Eco as writing, "No > se puede hacer una tesis sobre un autor extranjero si este no es leido en > su lengua original." Curious. How odd to quote this sentence in Spanish > translation (in the original: "Non si puo fare una tesi su un autore > straniero se questo autore non viene letto in originale"), thus violating > its very words! Michel goes on to do this again with respect to Nahuatl > texts. I did not suggest you to learn Nahuatl, because I know you manage that language very well. But I will get back to this point in the next paragraph. Here I want to discuss the Eco reference. First, it seems to me that the two (sic)s are a cheap and, yes, condescending trick. I live in a Spanish speaking country and so 'Humberto' for 'Umberto' is not that strange and that I wrote 'bussiness' instead of 'business' is not at all relevant to the point. We all make mistakes when we're writing messages on the internet and particularly when one is not a native speaker as I am. The point is to communicate and I think everybody understood I meant 'business' instead of 'bussiness'. But it is cheap to try to distract the reader of the real discussion and try to discredit the other discussant with pointing out minor issues that do not matter to the discussion. Then the Eco issue, this is a non-argument, again, I suppose, to discredit me. I'm quoting the Spanish version of Eco's work because that's the version I have in my library. I am not writing a thesis about Eco or his books and so there is no reason whatsoever to quote him in Italian or even read the Italian version. My point, and that of Eco, is that one should not engage in research if the object of that research is written in a language one does not manage or if the most important literature about the object is written in a language one does not manage. Since neither is the issue in our discussion, I don't see how I am violating my own words. > Actually, I even teach Nahuatl, and have been teaching and publishing on > Nahuatl for decades, at Yale and elsewhere. I can highly recommend this > beautiful language to you. Michel, you add that Eco's words do not apply > to you, since you're an expert on Oaxacan cultures. And yet you cite > Nahuatl at length (followed by the translation you used) in the posting, > telling me not to worry because I can consult the excellent German > translation by Lehmann. This is condescending, but at the same time > reflects on your own attitude -- if you admit not knowing a language and > not even being a specialist on the cultures involved, then surely you > shouldn't be lecturing experts such as Michael Smith, who has worked on > Aztec culture and archaeology for decades. At the very least, I would > recommend adopting a more collegial tone and approach. Like I said, I know you manage Nahuatl very well, but what is the point of mentioning Yale here? I think we all know what the point is, but the fact that one has worked or taught at an Ivy League university is not at all relevant to a discussion. We are all colleagues with a desire to understand Mesoamerican cultures and it doesn't matter whether one works at Yale or any other Institution (I refrain from giving the name of another university of ?lesser? status here in order not to annoy anybody). Eco's words do not apply to me in regard to Nahuatl as I work -never do or did I use the word 'expert'- Zapotec (or maybe Oaxacan) history and historiography, which doesn't, of course, need to be an obstacle to citing Nahuatl sources as long as I make clear where I get the translation from and select a good translation, that is, one that is accepted as such within the academic community. This is the reason I decided on Lehmann and Kutscher's publication of the Codex Aubin which I think is very much accepted as a very good translation. In my opinion, standard academic procedure. Then my supposed condescending remark. Here is what I say: "Ooof, I hear you say. That's Nahuatl. But I would like to refer to Eco's statement about the matter of language....[..]. But you Gordon, as I, can read the excellent German translation by Lehmann and Kutscher ("Geschichte der Azteken", Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin, 1981). But I have pitty on my fellow academics and so will translate it into English:" The 'you' in "hear you say" is a second person plural as I direct the message to you Gordon and "to others". This 'you' contrasts with the 'But you Gordon, as I," in the second part of the paragraph. I do this because most readers do not read Nahuatl and so would be in trouble as far as the Nahuatl citation goes (Ooof, I hear you say) and since few people may have a translation of the text in the Codex Aubin, I contrast 'the others' to us (you and I) cause WE can read the German translation, a privilege few of our colleagues have. I was supposing you would read German since, as I understand it, you live in Germany. So the last phrase, "But I have pitty..." refers to 'the others' who cannot read German and therefore I translated the German translation of the Nahuatl text. No condescending from my part here. Or maybe to 'the others' who, I presume, don't read German, a presumption that could be considered condescending. But let's get back to the text: how can I, somebody working on Oaxacan cultures "lecture" experts like Michael Smith and, I suppose, you. Although I don't think I was lecturing but rather arguing, the whole point of us being academics is exactly that!!! Discuss, argue, disagree, agree and put forth new ideas. That is what academics is or should be about. If I, as a scholar working on Mesoamerica, cannot argue with you or anybody else because you are "experts" from important institutions, well then what is this about? And knowing Michael, I think he would be the first to recognize that; discussion is everything. > Now to the points you raise: > You say I use arguments that "don't seem to make any sense", adding by way > of example that "nobody will refer to these other Nahua groups [Chalca, > Huexotzinca, etc.] as 'Aztecas'. Here you have chosen to ignore the clear > distinction I made between MODERN usage of the term 'Aztec' as an > acceptable and convenient blanket term for (1) the Nahua peoples of the > Valley of Mexico that made up the core of the Aztec Empire, and (2) > differentiating labels when discussing individual groups. I stressed that > distinction in my posting. You really shouldn't quote me out of context. No, I did not say you use arguments that don't make sense. I implied it once in your argument of not using 'mexica' because people have trouble pronouncing it which I think cannot be an argument in an academic discussion. In regard to my example I say "In Mexico, and I'm talking about the Mexican academic community, nobody will refer to these other Nahua groups as 'Aztecas'." Who is quoting who out of context here? > Furthermore, I suggested that, if one so wished, one could even extend the > usage to include the Tlaxcalteca and Huexotzinca in a CULTURAL sense, i.e. > because they shared the key aspects of so-called Mixteca-Puebla and, more > generally speaking, Aztec culture. Such features are recognizable in the > archaeological and more general cultural record. I do not see any need to > single the Tlaxcalteca out as Aztecs, but, as I said, I would have no > particular objection to using the term in a cultural sense to include the > independent Nahua areas. The difference between imperial and independent > areas is fundamentally a political, not an ethnic or cultural, one. I do have a problem with it and I think I made this clear, with examples, in my previous message. So no need, I think, to go over this again. > Incidentally, you criticize my reference to the Tepanecs as Aztecs because > they participated in and, indeed, co-ruled the Aztec Empire, saying that > one could just as easily call the Tlaxcalteca 'Spaniards' because they > participated in the Conquest. Hardly. The Tlaxcalteca neither participated > in nor co-ruled the Spanish Empire, but were simply brief allies. > Moreover, the Tlaxcalteca did not share Spanish culture. Oh yes they participated in the Spanish Empire and their participation was not at all brief. Please read a book edited by Laura Matthew and myself called 'Indian Conquistadors' published by University of Oklahoma Press. Agreed, they didn't provide a viceroy, but the indigenous participation in the colonial system reached much further than simple fodder for the cannons. > I stand by my statement of approval for Lockhart's use of the term 'Nahua' > with respect to the Nahua of Central Mexico. This is self-explanatory, I > think. Obviously, Lockhart's book 'The Nahuas After the Conquest' actually > focuses not on the Nahua as a whole, but on the Nahua of the central area, > as made clear in the secondary title. One might disagree with his use of > the Spanish plural suffix -s in Nahuas, but that is another matter. As to > Michael Smith's definition of 'Aztec': he is using it in the cultural > sense I just mentioned, and this is perfectly defensible. The difference > lies in the fact that Smith explicitly uses 'Aztec' to refer to the shared > Nahua culture of the central valleys before the Conquest, and uses 'Nahua' > in the same general sense as Lockhart for Colonial-period contexts. It seems to me that in the vast literature produced by Lockhart his use of 'Nahuas' extends to any Nahuatl speaking group in Mesoamerica, including those in Guatemala (which is, of course, part of Mesoamerica) and certainly includes Tlaxcala which one may or may not include into 'Central Mexico'. Very few people have a problem with the use of 'Nahuas'. The problem is 'Aztec' for any group that lived in the 'Aztec Empire' or that "shared Nahua culture of the central valleys before the Conquest", which is unacceptable for the reasons I put forth in my previous messages. > Gibson could have named his book 'The Aztecs [and their Descendants in the > Valley of Mexico] Under Spanish Rule', but he opted instead for 'The > Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of > Mexico, 1519-1810', which, I think, makes quite clear what he is talking > about. Aztecs, like Romans, did not simply disappear at the fall of their > empires. Many Aztecs in the cultural and political sense lived on well > into the late 16th century and adapted in varying degree to Spanish rule. > It is not inappropriate to continue to call this population 'Aztec', even > if their state had ceased to exist. He clearly meant 'the 'Aztecs and > their descendants'. But this is a matter that should, of course, be > decided and explained with care. Your talk about Lockhart the pupil > teaching Gibson the master a thing or two is uncalled-for. Somebody may have to explain to me why my reference to Lockhart correcting Gibson on a key term is "uncalled-for". There's no disrespect whatsoever in my phrasing. I used "star student" in regard to Lockhart which I'm sure he was, but it is also very positive. Then I used 'corrected' in regard to the use of the term 'Nahuas' instead of 'Aztecs', which I think is a correction. Had I used "pupil" or "teaching Gibson the master a thing or two", as you try to put in my mouth, it would have been disrespectful and uncalled-for. As it is, there is nothing of that. The point of my arguments in my previous message was and is that 'Aztec' as such cannot be used for other groups than the Mexica because these did not come from Aztlan. It becomes even a more unlikely term for non-Mexica groups after the Conquest when 'Aztec' becomes associated with the Triple Alliance. > You write, "No Chalca, no Texcocana (sic!), no Huexotzinca, no > whatever-Nahua-group-you-want-to-fill-in-here, used the term 'Azteca' to > refer to themselves, nor would they ever have done so." How do you know > this? But, in any case, I made clear that I was referring only to the > mythical past of these groups. You go on to say, "Chimalpahin is the first > to identify himself as Chalca. Please do read the vast literature on this > from Lockhart to Reyes Garcia to Schroeder." How do I know this? Just show me one document in which a non-Mexica group identifies itself as 'Azteca'. I'm not talking about admiration for the Mexica culture or the Triple Alliance, I'm talking about them identifying themselves as 'Azteca'. > Interesting that you should mention Chimalpahin, who was indeed a > descendant of the lords of Chalco and very proud of it. What you don't > mention is that he was also immensely proud of Aztec civilization and of > the Aztec Empire, in which the Chalca came to participate actively and > productively, and that he even made the famous pronouncement that adorns, > e.g., the dedication page of Soustelle's ethnography (here in transl.), > "For as long as the world shall endure, the honour and the glory of Mexico > Tenochtitlan must never be forgotten." As Anderson and Schroeder justly > claim (Codex Chimalpahin, 1: 9), "He is both proud and in awe of Mexica > civilization", that is, of Aztec civilization as typified by its centre of > power, Mexico Tenochtitlan. But I never claimed that he called himself an > 'Aztecatl'. By the way, you say I should study Schroeder. If you glance at > p. 10, fn. 22 of the Anderson and Schroeder edition above, you will find > that Schroeder has read me! True. But where does Chimalpahin identify himself as 'Azteca'? He doesn't, so why should we. I don't get the point of the Anderson and Schroeder reference: I recommended you to read Schroeder, not the other way around (that's a gloves-off remark there). The idea of my argument was that "One of the main issues in Mesoamerica is the identity of the autonomous altepetl" and therefore we cannot use a term like 'Aztecs' for groups that are not 'Aztec' or if you want to see it in broader terms 'Mexica'. > As for Aztlan and Teocolhuacan: First, there simply is no single > (standard) version of the Aztlan migrations. Secondly, the initial phase > usually involves Aztlan and/or Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc and/or > (Teo)colhuacan, the staging areas for the great migration. We could > indulge in nit-picking and say that the Aztecs are only the four calpoltin > (which are not, by the way, "houses") from the island of Aztlan, and that > the eight calpoltin joining them on the opposite bank are something else, > but the fact remains that the eight calpoltin join up almost immediately > with the original four groups, as personified by the four leaders named > and depicted in various sources. As calpoltin belonging now to a single > altepetl under four leaders from Aztlan, they then set off on their great > trek. As such it is quite appropriate to refer to the migrating peoples as > Azteca. Read the transcriptions I included in the previous message. These texts make very clear that these indigenous groups themselves made the distinction between 'Aztecs' (those from Aztlan who later became Mexitin and from thereon Tenochca and Tlatelolca) and the other groups who were in (Teo)culhuacan. It's not a distinction I make, it's a distinction they make. Apparently this distinction was important and so we should consider it and not ignore it and call all of them 'Aztecs'. > But there is more in the sources you cite: In the very same passage from > Chimalpahin that you quote, we find the locative phrase 'Aztlan > Chicomoztoc'. When two place names are juxtaposed in Nahuatl, it > frequently means that the one -- usually the second place -- is part of > the other. Thus, Mexico Tenochtitlan, Xochimilco Olac, Tollan > Xicocotitlan, etc. This would mean that > Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc/Teocolhuacan (alternative names sometimes > distinguished), a 'brokeback mountain' with a roomy cave (but apparently > not cozy enough, judging by the quick exodus), was understood as a > community belonging to Aztlan. Since the Codex Aubin, for one, states that > the eight calpoltin emerged from this cave, they are obviously also > Azteca. See the above and my previous message. > Anyway, let's stop the nit-picking. This is where the discussion ends for me. I also hope it ends for me here. Un fuerte abrazo a todos, Michel PS. While writing this I just got another message from Gordon but without having read it, I'm not going to answer it. I hope the people listed here will understand this. In my opinion and from what I read in Gordon's message I've answered here, it is becoming a personal issue and I'm not interested in that, apart from that I don't have time for it. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From theabroma at gmail.com Wed Feb 25 19:40:57 2009 From: theabroma at gmail.com (Sharon Peters) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:40:57 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Aztecs gone astray: Some input from Chimalpahin In-Reply-To: <27d5ea140902251136sa0f3e94h47bb4853c192855b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sharon Peters Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztecs gone astray: Some input from Chimalpahin To: Gordon Whittaker Listeros: What charming spectacle to sit and watch esta Guerra Florida unfold. I am waiting with great anticipation the unveiling of the tzompantli which will, surely result. First it was the Unknown Listero who lighted the powder keg with his passionate, and passionately fractured statements about the Aztecs and Aztlan. Either he lived through the glory days of La Causa, or is channeling the spirit of one who did. It is necessary to sort out the who's who - teasing out the cultural genome of Mesoamerica, but Lordy! use your academic credentials for something other than a bludgeon. You have whacked at the poor Unknown Listero with them, even after you surely noted that he was an individual pining for the mythical glory days of the tribe (whichever one and from whatever point), as so thoroughly documented in its own codices - committed to black velvet. It seems Unknown Listero provided the excuse for everyone else to just go at each other. Not argumentation and debate - Talmudic pil-pul, but outright bashing. Only thing missing was a macana. I, for one, would like argumentation and debate leading to thought and information. We have already been provided with a Forspice of "how low can you go?" Thanks, S. Peters On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Gordon Whittaker wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > To avoid prolonging the debate with Michel Oudijk unnecessarily, I would > like to share a couple of passages with him and with you that have direct > bearing on Aztec use of the term 'Azteca' and on the elusiveness of > Aztlan, Chicomoztoc, and Colhuacan. > > For convenience, and since Michel recommended that I educate myself by > reading "Schroeder", something I am always happy to do, I will quote only > from one of Susan Schroeder's excellent publications, the 'Codex > Chimalpahin' (Vol. 1, U. of Okla. Press, 1997), which she ably edited and > translated together with Arthur J. O. Anderson. For the sake of brevity, I > will cite only the English translation, since the Spanish and Nahuatl > originals are easily located on the opposing pages: > > First (p. 29): > "Thus this most illustrious, great city of Mexico Tenochtitlan was > named [by] the first ancient, old, brave founders. They were a most > robust, wise, and warlike people named Teochichimeca, Azteca, Mexitin, > Chicomozteca, people of Quinehuayan. Having emerged and come from > their land in the north, called the great province and island of the > city of Aztlan, they then came out at the site of Chicomoztoc or the > Seven Caves, ... . When they left their land, they were formed of > seven barrios. ... They arrived in Culhuacan, which is next to > Itztapalapan." > > Here Aztlan and Chicomoztoc are both (separate) sites from which the > Azteca "emerged", and Colhuacan is identified as the city south of > Tenochtitlan. The story of the migration is left out almost entirely and, > on their arrival in Colhuacan, we find ourselves suddenly in 1299! > > Then (p. 67, quoting Alonso Franco): > "When the Chichimeca Azteca came forth, when they emerged from their > home in Aztlan, it was the year One Flint, 1064. ... > (p. 69) Their home was the place called Aztlan; hence their name is > Azteca. And the second name of their home was Chicomoztoc. And their > names were Azteca and also Mexitin. But now their name is really said > to [be] only Mexica. And later they arrived here taking as their name > Tenochca. > And from the place named Aztlan in the midst of the waters came the > Mexica; from there the seven calpulli [groups] departed. > ... He who was ruler there was named Moteucc,oma. There were two sons > of this ruler. ... The elder brother, whose name is not known, was to > be ruler of the Cuexteca. And to the younger brother, a Mexica, called > just Mexi [though] named Chalchiuhtlatonac, he gave the Mexitin. ..." > > Here we have something for Michel. An instance in which, indisputably, we > have mention of non-Mexica as Azteca. The Cuexteca are usually taken to be > the Maya-speaking Huaxtecs, but I think it is more likely that the > Huaxteca Nahua are intended here. So the Aztecs did indeed regard certain > other groups as descending, like they themselves, from Aztlan. Franco > provides the useful clarification that the Azteca Mexitin have two homes, > Aztlan island and Chicomoztoc. > > Franco goes on: > "And the Mexitin thereupon performed penances there at the place named > Quinehuayan Tzotzompan. ... > And to perform the penances they came in boats to cross the water and > laid down their fir branches there at the aforesaid place called > Quinehuayan. A cave is there, called Chicomoztoc, whence the seven > Mexitin calpulli issued. > And when the said Teochichimeca Azteca Mexitin issued from what is > called and named Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc, they brought what was in > their keeping, their bundle. > (p. 71) And there at Quinehuayan, what was named Chicomoztoc was a > crag hollowed [with] caves in seven places. ..." > > Seven calpoltin set out from Aztlan, then cross over to the mainland, > where after performing penances the seven calpoltin "issue" anew from the > seven-part cave of Chicomoztoc in Quinehuayan seven years later (p. 73). > > Franco's Nahuatl account continues (p. 71): > "And when the Azteca Mexitin had crossed the water from Aztlan they > reached Culhuacan. On that way they took the devil, the portent > Huitzilopochtli, there. As they came, as they arrived hither when they > emerged from the seven places in Aztlan, they brought a woman named > Chimalman. > And as the Azteca set out from Culhuacan there were four who on their > backs carried the portent Huitzilopochtli ... . > And when they reached the foot of a tree [also a place name, Cuahuitl > Itzintlan, GW], they therefore seated themselves at its base. ... the > Azteca Mexitin spent four more years there ... ." > > Franco is referring to Chicomoztoc when he speaks of the "seven places in > Aztlan", that is, to Aztlan Chicomoztoc (or Aztlan Aztatlan "the abode of > herons", as he also calls it; see p. 73), not the island of Aztlan. It is > unclear whether he then equates Chicomoztoc with Colhuacan, as the > mountain containing the seven caves of Chicomoztoc, or is simply saying > that after crossing from Aztlan island, the Azteca went on from (Aztlan) > Chicomoztoc to Colhuacan. I prefer the first alternative, but it can go > either way as written. > > Then (p. 73): > "And then and there he [Huitzilopochtli, GW] changed the Aztecas' name > for them. He said to them: Now no longer is your name Azteca: you are > now Mexitin." > > And summing up (p. 75): > "In the year Twelve Reed, 1075, when the ancient Mexitin Azteca > Chichimeca had spent seven years in Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc, they then > also emerged from Chicomoztoc; hence they are called Chicomoztoca. > Then they moved hither. ... it was twelve years after they had emerged > from their home in Aztlan that in the aforesaid Twelve Reed they then > came away and traveled hither from the aforesaid Quinehuayan > Chicomoztoc. It is thus that the ancient Azteca Mexitin Chichimeca > emerged from Aztlan, ..." > > Getting back to what Michel wrote the other day: "it is very clear that > the Aztecs came from Aztlan and that the other eight groups did not". > The eight groups he is referring to are the ones named in the Codex Aubin > and the Tira de la Peregrinacion. Among them are the Malinalca. Now let's > see what Chimalpahin says (p. 181): > > The year One Flint, 1064. At this time the Mexitin Azteca Teochichimeca, > now known as Tenochca, as Tlatelolca, as Malinalca, and as Michhuaque, > people of Patzcuaro, emerged from their home, Aztlan." > > So, as Chimalpahin himself says, the Malinalca were Azteca! He doesn't > list the others, and the Michhuaque do not appear in all other accounts, > but the thrust of the passage is clear: The Azteca were not just > Mecitin/Mexitin/Mexica. They included other peoples. In the case of the > Michhuaque, I suspect the Nahua-speaking Michhuaque of the Patzcuaro area > are meant, not the Purhepecha/Tarascans. > > I interpret the Aztlan myth cycle as an explanatory device by means of > which the Mexica were able to order their ethnic universe and landscape. > This device made it possible for the average Aztec to understand how the > various distinct Nahua peoples came into being. At the same time, it > provided a rationale for the Aztec Empire under a Mexica government, > because it places the Azteca squarely under Mexitin control and guidance. > According to this model, the Cuexteca and the Michhuaque, two distant > groups, should by right belong to the Empire because they are no more than > errant Azteca -- Aztecs gone astray. > > Best wishes to all, > Gordon > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Gordon Whittaker > Professor > Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik > Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie > Universitaet Goettingen > Humboldtallee 19 > 37073 Goettingen > Germany > tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 > tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > -- S?n Fronteras Aqu? estoy yo .... pero ya anda por M?xico mi coraz?n -- S?n Fronteras Aqu? estoy yo .... pero ya anda por M?xico mi coraz?n -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From theabroma at gmail.com Wed Feb 25 22:19:31 2009 From: theabroma at gmail.com (Sharon Peters) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:19:31 -0600 Subject: Mexica, Aztec, Allmixtuptec .... Message-ID: I am reposting this to both lists, as I sent it originally as a return to one of Gordon's postings. I wish to make it quite clear that it was not Gordon's post, contents or attitude, that prompted me to write this. It is just an observation, especially on the "y tu mama, tambien" flavor of some of the other posts. Oh, and the stranded-in-the-60's quality of the Pobre Listero Desconocido, who seems to be, like some of the other commentators (whose credentials are definitely above the salt), meditating in a funhouse of velvet paintings. Thx & regards, Sharon Listeros: What charming spectacle to sit and watch esta Guerra Florida unfold. I am waiting with great anticipation the unveiling of the tzompantli which will, surely, result. First it was the Unknown Listero who lighted the powder keg with his passionate, and passionately fractured statements about the Aztecs and Aztlan. Either he lived through the glory days of La Causa, or is channeling the spirit of one who did. It is necessary to sort out the who's who - teasing out the cultural genome of Mesoamerica, but Lordy! use your academic credentials for something other than a bludgeon. You have whacked at the poor Unknown Listero with them, even after you surely noted that he was an individual pining for the mythical glory days of the tribe (whichever one and from whatever point), as so thoroughly documented in its own codices - committed to black velvet. It seems Unknown Listero provided the excuse for everyone else to just go at each other. Not argumentation and debate - Talmudic pil-pul, but outright bashing. Only thing missing was a macana. I, for one, would like argumentation and debate leading to thought and information. We have already been provided with a Forspice of "how low can you go?" Thanks, S. Peters - -- S?n Fronteras Aqu? estoy yo .... pero ya anda por M?xico mi coraz?n -- S?n Fronteras Aqu? estoy yo .... pero ya anda por M?xico mi coraz?n -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mwswanton at yahoo.com Thu Feb 26 01:35:43 2009 From: mwswanton at yahoo.com (Michael Swanton) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:35:43 -0800 Subject: Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) In-Reply-To: <2893F0D6-FD5D-4C40-910D-033BB2B8C065@netehuile.org> Message-ID: Thanks to Gordon and Michel for this interesting exchange. Having never investigated the earliest philological contexts where the word ?Azteca? occurs, I admit my surprise in seeing just how closely the term is associated with the Mexica. ? Lurking behind these exchanges is another issue which I believe is quite relevant to Nahuatl studies, namely the multilingualism that these studies require. ? First of all, I think it?s necessary to make a distinction between academics (highly trained professionals employed as specialists, often teachers, of particular fields of inquiry) and amateurs (individuals who, out of their own intellectual curiosity, engage in study of a particular subject). I recognize this distinction is not always clear-cut. And, I will be quick to point out that amateurs have carried out excellent investigations; indeed, some outshine their academic counterparts or have shown them the way. However, I believe the distinction is important for ethical reasons. ? Academics are granted--rightly or wrongly--a particular social status not given to amateurs. Academics have greater ease in teaching at universities, in publishing books in academic presses, in receiving publicly-supported grant monies, etc. For this reason, academics have a greater ethical obligation to their field of inquiry (and, I would also say, to the people whose culture/language they are studying). ? With this in mind, Michel is absolutely correct in stating that ?ignorance of a language can never be an argument in academic discussion?. Let us suppose an academic?s line of investigation clearly leads him/her to studies or documentation written in some language L that is unknown to him/her. It would seem to me that the investigator has two acceptable options: (1) learn something of L, perhaps with help of colleagues, to be able to at least decipher the texts or (2) redirect his/her line of investigation. What is not acceptable is (3) to ignore the material, pretending that it is not relevant because the investigator doesn?t bother to read it. From my perspective, an academic who takes this unacceptable third option is simply demonstrating a lack of professional ethics and a sadly narrow, provincial view of academic investigation. ? Coming back to Nahuatl studies, I think it is safe to assume that folks here are all committed to improving their knowledge of this interesting language. However, there are many very important texts about Nahuatl and ?Nahua? culture history that are not written in either English (or Spanish). ? For example, Michel Launey?s 1986, French th?se d?etat is the most comprehensive and philologically-grounded examination of classical Nahuatl grammar I have found to date. It is accessible: Jonathan Amith put a PDF of the original online and the CNRS published an abridged version in 1994. Yet, it seems that the 1609 pages of this th?se are practically invisible to American academics. Not only is this work not cited in the bibliographic guides for those learning Nahuatl (Lockhart, 2001: 148-151, Wright Carr, 2007: 42-45, etc.), but rarely does it appear cited in more specialized studies. While the further might be understandable, that latter is not. Launey?s work is contemporary with Andrews, who, on the other hand, is widely cited in American publications. And while both simultaneously ?rediscovered? Carochi, it is now solely Andrews who gets the credit for this. ? This preference is also shown on this listserv. Not only is Andrews cited more often than Launey (actually, I don?t remember EVER seeing Launey cited here), but commentators on Nahuatl grammar often use Andrews? idiosyncratic terminology. ? Why is this? ? Is it because Andrews? work is superior to Launey?s? I don?t think so. Personally, I prefer Launey?s work as it is better grounded philologically (his examples are taken from Nahuatl texts, whereas Andrews doesn?t explain where he gets much of his data besides Carochi) and is more consonant with modern linguistic description (Andrews, particularly in the 2nd edition of his big book, practically tries to reinvent a whole series of linguistic units). ? I suspect that the key reason is that Launey?s work (which is quite extensive reaching from the mid-1970s till the beginning of the 21st century) is mostly in French. Perhaps I am wrong; if so, I would appreciate some guidance on this. ? But, there are numerous other examples which make me suspect linguistic lethargy on the part of colleagues. For instance, when discussing Chimalpahin?s description of the precolonial organization of Chalco, the important work of Susan Schroeder is always cited. But Elke Ruhnau?s major study of this, which was contemporaneous with Schroeder?s first investigations, is rarely mentioned. For example, Lockhart?s 1992 book dedicates considerable attention to Chimalpahin?s descriptions of social organization, but Ruhnau?s study, published 4 years earlier, doesn?t even get a mention in passing. It?s as if her work just doesn?t exist. I don?t have any insight as to the comparative quality of the two studies, but if Ruhnau?s book was published in the Norman or Stanford in English instead of in Hamburg in German, I suspect it would be cited with greater frequency. ? If studies aren?t being cited (and therefore read) simply because they were written in either English or Spanish, this speaks exceedingly badly of the current state of Nahuatl academic study. If this is indeed the case (and I am open to seeing this differently), Nahuatl scholarship will have adopted a provincialism that would never be acceptable in, say, classical or mediaeval studies. ? For this reason, I strongly oppose any linguistic protocol on this listserv. It is easier to read a foreign language than write in one. The foremost goal of this listserv, like academic investigation in general, should be to encourage scholars to share their doubts and findings in the broadest possible (serious) forum. --- On Mon, 2/23/09, Chema Tlaquetzqui wrote: From: Chema Tlaquetzqui Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan) To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 4:54 AM Hi, I don't know this romgil06 at prodigy.net.mx, but given the .mx domain, I assume he's in Mexico and a quick Google search seems to indicate that he often writes in Spanish. Considering this, I don't think he had any political agenda by switching languages. It seems unfair to expect people to write a substantial response in a language they might not be comfortable writing in, particularly when most people on these mailing lists should already be able to read both English and Spanish quite well, as per the mailing list description. I have been a user on many polyglot mailing lists, and these sorts of language issues tend to pop-up every so often. Usually people just decide to send bilingual (or even trilingual) emails to avoid letting languages get in the way of the discussion and to encourage participation. It is a hassle, but better than people assuming a reply is "political" and hence unworthy of credence. I was more annoyed with the lack of quotes in his mangled reply. It made it very hard to parse. Chema On Feb 23, 2009, at 00:53 , Michael McCafferty wrote: > Any indication as to who wrote this? > > I'm also curious, or perhaps suspicious, as to linguistic protocol > here. Why, if Dr. Whittaker wrote in English, and this present > respondent certainly knows English, did he/she not respond in English? > Anything goes? Devrais-je pouvoir repondre en francais? In tla > nichachalacaya mazehualcopa? I don't know. It seems that, for the sake > of clarity, it would be better to stay in one language...unless > there's > a political agenda. And once that's a possibility, I tend to be stingy > with credence as to what people say, even in Spanish. > > Michael > > Quoting "John F. Schwaller" : > >> >> From: "romgil06" >> Date: Sun, February 22, 2009 >> >> Gordon Whittaker escribi?: >> >> First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first >> popularized by >> Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the >> Aztecs to >> refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, >> >> Perdon pero con todo respeto esto no es cierto. >> >> El uso de Azteca aparece primero en la obra del historiador mestizo >> Cristobal del >> Castillo Historia de la Venida de los mexicanos. donde >> expone su particular versi?n de la historia del pueblo de >> desarrapados >> que ni >> nombre ten?an y que el mismo explica porque llegaron a >> llamarse mexicas o mexicanos. >> >> En la versi?n de Del Castillo Los aztecas son un pueblo DISTINTO >> de los >> mexicas,esto es de los que vivieron y fundadron Tenochtitlan , >> en Del Castillo los "aztecas" aparecen como los amos de los >> mexicas o los >> atlachichimecas de la ribera del lago, los aztecas son los que >> los explotaban. >> >> La versi?n de Cristobal del Castillo fue recogida por Chimalpain y >> reproducida en su >> Memorial Breve de Culhuacan, sin dar cr?dito a la obra >> de Del Castillo . Despu?s Chimalpain o Tezozomoc la usan en la >> cr?nica >> Mexicayotl, >> en una variante de la historia de Del Castillo. Ah? en la >> Mexicayotl uno de los hijos, el menor del rey de los aztecas es >> quien saca >> a sus >> subditos de aztlan chicomoztoc >> >> >> Con todo respeto es un punto de vista muy cuestionable y no se puede >> citar un solo >> documento fuente que se?ale que: >> >> "However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to refer to >> themselves in >> connection with their ancestry" >> >> Tampoco puedes citar una obra fuente donde ocurra que: >> >> I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is recorded in Nahuatl using the term. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was >> favoured >> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >> Nahuatl, >> contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is >> singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use >> this, they >> would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their >> dynasty's >> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >> >> >> En que contexto nahuatl ha encontrado Gordon el uso del termino >> azteca para >> referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan. >> Adelanto que no puede citar uno solo, porque no existe. Todos los >> documentos que se >> pueden citar en uno u otro sentido son coloniales >> aunque sean escritos en nahuatl o de forma bilingue nahuatl espa?ol. >> >> Efectivamente Robert Barlow fue uno de los pioneros en se?alar el >> error del >> equivocado uso del termino azteca y como parte de esa labor >> redacto "la extensi?n del imperio de los colua mexica" publicado >> por el >> INAH y la >> UDLA, Obras de Robert Barlow vol 4, publico tambien los >> art?culos "La formaci?n del imperio de los colhua mexica", "Algunas >> consideraciones >> sobre el t?rmino imperio azteca"y "El concepto >> populart de los "aztecas" todos en obras de Robert Barlow vol 3 >> INAH UDLA . >> >> Hay otro buen art?culo sobre el mismo tema de Don Miguel Leon >> Portilla >> Le?n-Portilla, Miguel, "Los aztecas. Disquisiciones sobre un >> gentilicio", Estudios de Cultura N?huatl, v. 31, 2000, p. 275-281 >> >> Obras recientes en la misma ?ptica vease: Mexicaltzingo >> Arqueolog?a de >> un reino >> culhua mexica de Raul Avila INAH y Culhua Mexico una >> revisi?n arqueo etnohist?rica del imperio de los mexica tenochca >> Fernando >> Robles INAH >> >> Se?ala Gordon: >> >> Of course, the term 'Mexica' is appropriate in describing both the >> Tenochca in a >> narrow sense and, more >> literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico >> Tlatelolco, >> and indeed in describing the empire they founded. >> >> Esto es un gran y profundo error de Gordon es borrar las >> importantes >> diferencias >> hist?ricas, etnicas y religiosas que existian entre ambos >> naciones indias. Unos eran los tlatelolcas los adoradores del dios >> Yiacatecutli y >> con su propioi panteon divino, su nobleza y sus >> especialidades productigvas y guerreras, los cuales fueron forzados a >> adorar a >> Huitzilopochtli tras su derrota y otro pueblo eran los >> adoradores del Tetzahuitl, del hijo de Tlaloc o del pariente de >> Opochtli >> como a si >> mismo se identifica Huitzilopochtli ( c?dice Aubin , >> Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas) >> >> Una simple visita al templo mayor de Tlatelolco y observar de la >> segunda >> a la >> quinta etapa permite ver que entre Tlatelolcas y Colhuas >> Mexicas hasta arquitect?nicamente los templos mayores eran >> distintos y >> solo se >> hicieron iguales despues de la conquista mexica. En los >> tlatelolcas no hay doble templo en la cima del "cu" mayor ni >> restos de la >> doble >> escalinata y ni de la alfarda central en las etapas citadas >> >> Hacer un solo paquete de distintos pueblos es borrar la >> historia, es >> como decir >> que son lo mismo los irlandeses, los del pa?s de gales, >> los escocesea, los bretones y los sajones, y s?lo porque desde >> tal siglo >> todos >> son ciudadanos o vasallos del Reino Unido, cuando esa >> unidad es un un resultado de un proceso hist?rico de la fundaci?n del >> estado naci?n, >> que cmo el problema irlandes nos lo recuerda no ha >> logrado resolver las diferencias. SEria el mismo error que decir >> que todos >> los >> pueblos de Espa?a son Espa?oles borrando la diferencias de >> todo tipo ( linguisticas, culturales, antropomorficas, hist?ricas, >> religiosas) que >> existen entre los castellanos con los habitantes de las >> canarias, los de catalu?a, el pais vasco, los galllegos, etc . Lo >> mismo >> vimos en el >> caso de la antigua URSS o de la extinta Yugoeslavia. >> >> Hacer un s?lo paquete bnorrar las diferencias curiosamente fue el >> punto de >> vista >> base de la politica sobre las nacionalidades de Stalin >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured >> by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not >> Nahuatl, >> contexts >> >> Realmente lo que nunca se encontra es un documento "nahuatl" con el >> t?rmino azteca >> para referirse a los habitantes de Tenochtitlan , >> repito lease las glosas de los codices. Telleriano, vaticano rios, >> magliabechi, >> borb?nico, florentino vease la cr?nica mexicayotl, la >> mexicana, las relaciones de Chimalpain , la obra de Cristobal del >> castillo, la >> leyenda de los soles, los anales de Cuauhtitlan, los anales >> de Tlatelolco y otros c?dices coloniales mas , vease las >> cr?nicas de >> Duran , >> Sahag?n, Mendieta, Motolinia, los escritos de Olmos, la >> historia Tolteca Chichimeca, C?dice Aubin y en todos , pero todos >> nunca >> parecera el >> termino azteca para referirse a los habitantes de >> Tenochtitlan y menos a?n para referirse a quienes detentaban el >> poder >> pol?tico y >> religioso en ese imperio y menos a?n m?para nombrar >> de esa forma a todos los pueblos de "the central Mexico highlands" >> como >> los agrupa >> el DR Smith. >> >> >> Por otro lado bien podria decirnos Gordon que documentos nahuatls >> conoce >> que no sean >> coloniales. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this >> inaccurate form >> occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be >> 'Tenochca'. >> The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name >> 'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have >> designated >> the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan >> chaneque' >> >> Parece que la cr?nica Mexicayotl es un de esas "non-specialist >> literature" >> donde >> los mexicanos se llamaban asi mismo tenochcas por ser habitantes de >> Tenochtitlan y >> por considerar a Tencoh el "padre" fundador de su >> pueblo. "... Y cuando ya por mucho tiempo ya estan los mexica los >> tenochca despu?s >> de que all? murio Tenochtzin ..." Cronica mexicayotl >> folio 110. >> >> Leemos en otro ejemplar de "literatura no especializada" , este es el >> c?dice aubin >> en sus noticias del a?o 1539 "Aqui partieron para >> Yancuic Tlalpan; fueron los tenochca..." hay mas noticias sobre estos >> tenochcas en >> ese c?dice. >> >> Dice Gordon >> >> If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they would have had to say >> 'Colhuaque Mexica' >> in reference to their dynasty's >> >> descent from the line of Colhuacan. >> >> No es que se inventaran un linaje es que esa fue su historia. >> >> Dice la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas " En ese >> tiempo ten?an >> los >> mexicanos por se?or a Ilancueitl, una se?ora principal que >> los mandaba, y esta fue mujer de Acamapichtli, el cual era de >> Culhuacan y >> ella de >> Coatlinchan, y aunque era de Culhuacan , Acamaapichtli >> descend?a de los de M?xico, porque all? fue casada su madre con un >> principal de >> Culhuacan y la madre era de los mexicanos. Y casado, >> por consejo de su mujer vino a M?xico, y les dijo que pues era de los >> principales y >> no ten?an se?or que lo tomar?an por se?or, y as? fue el >> primer se?o, y muri? su mujer el a?o 24 de la fundaci?n de M?xico >> Y muerta >> ella , >> fue tomado ?l por se?or, porque en vida de ella no fue >> tomado sino por principal " >> >> De una manera mas extensa se trata el tema de como los colhuas se >> hicieron >> del poder >> en Tenochtitlan en los folios 110 a 119 de la >> Cr?nica mexicayotl >> >> POr otro lado dice el Dr Michael Smith >> >> I am constantly criticized for my usage of the term Aztec to mean the >> entire Late >> Postclassic population of the central Mexico highlands, >> both Nahuatl-speaking and others such as Otomian languages. I have >> 3 main >> reasons >> for sticking to this usage: (1) there is no good >> alternate term; (2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in >> book titles to >> generate sales; and (3) the various peoples of Late Postclassic >> central Mexico shared many cultural traits, spoke or understood >> the same >> language, >> and they were in constant contact with one another >> through trade, visiting, and other means. This was a single >> culture, and >> if don't >> call it Aztec, what term can we use? >> >> Dr MIchael ya tiene otro mas que se apunta a la lista de los que lo >> critican sobre >> todo por la cientificidad del segundo argumento que >> usted plantea: >> >> "(2) book publishers insist in using "Aztec" in book titles to >> generate >> sales". >> >> Resulta ahora que son los vendedores de libros, la >> mercadotecnia, los >> que definen >> e imponen los conceptos que deben usar quienes >> estudian de una u otra forma las culturas prehiusp?nicas . Usemos >> aztecas >> porque es >> una marca mas vendible, perdon es ciencia lo que >> se trata de hacer o estamos tratando de vender papas fritas. >> >> Si bien es cierto lo que dice Smith >> >> the various peoples of Late Postclassic central Mexico shared many >> cultural traits, >> spoke or understood the same language, and they were >> in constant contact with one another through trade, visiting, and >> other >> means. >> >> Pero fueron precisamente las diferencias mas grandes o mas chicas >> en todos >> esos >> aspectos y entros mas importantes como la religi?n, lo >> que hacia que unos indios se considerasen a si mismos como una >> nacion o >> pueblo y ver >> a los otros como de una naci?n distinta, esas >> diferencias los hacian verse asi mismo como diferentes del otro, >> situaci?n que se >> tradujo en diferencias en la pol?tica, la ideol?gia y la >> religion. >> >> As? por ejemplo aunque los mexicas y los tlaxcaltecas se >> reconocieran de >> origen >> chichimeca y hablaran nahuatl como la lengua que >> habian aprendido, entre ellos no se reconocian como iguales , >> situaci?n >> que Cort?s >> detecto y supo aprovechar politica y militarmente. >> Aunque Tlaxcaltecas y Huexotzincas hablaran nahuatl y opcuparan >> espacios >> vecinos y >> adoraran ambos a Mixcoat, el varonil, por ello el que >> porta el maxtle, por ello el camaxtle, a pesar de sus elementos >> comunes >> cada pueblo >> era un se?orio distinto >> >> HOy sucede lo mismo en los distintos paises que fuimos colonias de >> Espa?a >> compartimos muchas cosas pero somos paises distintos, >> ?Porque cuesta tanto trabajo tener esa optica cuando se mira el >> pasado >> prehisp?nico? >> Por que hacer tabla raza de las diferencias, porque >> borrar la historia >> >> Gordon es fiel a la escuela de Seler y a la escuela Hegeliana para >> los >> cuales los >> paises fuera de Europa no tiene historia >> son pueblos sin historia. Y eso lo dice Seler conm todas sus >> letras en su >> articulo >> sobre Aztlan >> >> No deja de ser parad?jico que esa corriente de pensamiento haya >> surgido en >> un pa?s >> como la actual Alemania que ha tenido uno de los >> mas azarosos procesos de conformaci?n del estado naci?n y que para >> lograrlo necesito >> la construcci?n y derrumbe del imperio prusiano, >> la derrota en dos guerras mundiale, el ascenso del nazismo, la >> mutilacion y >> ocupaci?n sovieta de una parte del territorio y el derrumbe >> del muro >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Thu Feb 26 13:51:37 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:51:37 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl course at UNAM Message-ID: Contacto: Ignacio Silva: cipactonal at yahoo.com.mx ........................ L a D i r e c c i ? n d e E s t u d i o s H i s t ? r i c o s d e l I n s t i t u t o N a c i o n a l d e A n t r o p o l o g ? a e H i s t o r i a invita al Curso de n?huatl cl?sico para principiantes que impartir? el Maestro Ignacio Silva especialista en n?huatl, hablante de n?huatl como lengua materna y Maestro en Historia por la UNAM Objetivo: Que el participante tenga los elementos b?sicos del n?huatl cl?sico para dar inicio al trabajo de trascripci?n y traducci?n de textos novohispanos. Duraci?n: 4 meses. Del lunes 16 de marzo al mi?rcoles 17 de junio. 27 clases efectivas. Costo por persona: $150.00 (ciento cincuenta pesos 00/100 M.N.) por clase. Clases dos veces por semana: Lunes y mi?rcoles de 10:00 a 12:00 hrs. (O mas temprano si as? se requiere: 09:00 a 11:00) Lugar: Instalaciones de la Direcci?n de Estudios Hist?ricos del INAH. Contacto: Ignacio Silva: cipactonal at yahoo.com.mx Direcci?n de Estudios Hist?ricos Allende 172 esq. Ju?rez, Tlalpan Centro 5061 9300 ext. 149 Responsable de Difusi?n: Luz Mar?a Santos del Prado Gasca .......................................................... Mensaje distribuido por H-MEXICO Grupo virtual sobre historia de M?xico http://www.h-mexico.unam.mx ........................................................ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Thu Feb 26 16:23:43 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:23:43 -0600 Subject: Launey Message-ID: In reponse to Michael Swanton's recent post: Hi, Michael! I enjoyed seeing you again at the colloquium at the Instituto de Investigaciones Filol?gicas a few months back. I hope all is well. There's a little mistake in your recent post that needs to be corrected. You state: "Not only is this work [Michel Launey's *Introduction ? la langue et ? la litt?rature azt?ques*] not cited in the bibliographic guides for those learning Nahuatl (Lockhart, 2001: 148-151, Wright Carr, 2007: 42-45, etc.), but rarely does it appear cited in more specialized studies." Following is a paragraph from Wright Carr (2007: 43) (David Charles Wright Carr, *Lectura del n?huatl: fundamentos para la traducci?n de los textos en n?huatl del periodo Novohispano Temprano*, M?xico, Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Ind?genas, 2007): "La gram?tica del ling?ista franc?s Michel Launey, Introduction ? la langue et ? la litt?rature azt?ques (?Introducci?n a la lengua y a la literatura aztecas?), constituye una aportaci?n relevante a la descripci?n del n?huatl novohispano. Consta de dos tomos: el primero es la gram?tica propiamente dicha, y en el segundo hay una serie de textos en n?huatl con comentarios. Fue publicada inicialmente en 1979 (el primer tomo) y 1980 (el segundo); hay una reimpresi?n de 1995 y una traducci?n al castellano del primer volumen ?salpicada de errores de traducci?n, edici?n y/o imprenta?, impresa en 1992. Launey, a diferencia de los nahuatlatos de la escuela mexicana, hizo un estudio a fondo de la gram?tica de Horacio Carochi, lo que le permiti? presentar una descripci?n m?s precisa del n?huatl novohispano. Registra el saltillo y las vocales largas mediante signos diacr?ticos, aprovechando para este prop?sito el sistema ortogr?fico de Carochi. Este libro es ?til para el principiante, particularmente la edici?n francesa, para los que leen este idioma. Aparte de las virtudes ya mencionadas, presenta una gran claridad en la exposici?n de la gram?tica n?huatl, pues fue concebida como un m?todo did?ctico, m?s que una gram?tica a secas." So it is cited in Wright Carr, 2007! Granted, I got my hands on the French edition after having prepared most of the book, but it was used as a complementary source in some sections (see notes see footnotes 144, 165, 198, 213, 341, 362, 364, 365, 371, 376, 385, 602). No problem, my friend, I just thought I should set the record straight, since this is a public forum and our messages will be available in an on-line archive for years. Peace, David Wright _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Thu Feb 26 15:54:10 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:54:10 -0600 Subject: Nahua Workshop at U of Maryland, May 1-2, 2009 Message-ID: Listeros, > You are cordially invited to attend the first annual Nahuatl > Workshop entitled, "Issues in Nahua Identity and Language: Past and > Present," Friday, May 1 - Saturday, May 2. The workshop is sponsored > by the Latin American Studies Center of the University of Maryland, > College Park, MD. Nahua Workshop University of Maryland, College Park Friday, May 1- Saturday, May 2, 2009 Issues in Nahua Identity and Language: Past and Present This interdisciplinary workshop will explore issues of identity and language among Nahuatl-speaking peoples from both historical and contemporary perspectives. A group of scholars from various disciplines will come together to present and discuss each other?s current research. Topics will include (but are not limited to): relationships between language and identity; problems of translation; interpretations of colonial narratives; and ethnography in contemporary Nahua communities. Schedule Friday, May 1 2:00-3:00 pm: Jane Hill / Keynote address (University of Arizona) Uto-Aztecan as a Mesoamerican Language Family: Implications for Understanding Aztecan and the Nahua 3:00 ? 4:00 pm: Jacqueline Messing (LASC Fellow) Identity and Narrative in Colonial Tlaxcala, Mexico 4:00 ? 5:00 pm: Jonathan Amith The practice and politics of Nahuatl standardization: Local and national identity in conflict Dinner Saturday, May 2 9:00-10:00 am: Jim Maffie (LASC Fellow) In Huehue Tlamanitiliztli and la Verdad: Philosophical Language and Identity in Friar Bernardino de Sahag?n?s Colloquios y doctrina chistiana 10:00-11:00 am: Berenice Alcantra Rojas (Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico) Authorship and Translation in Doctrinal Nahuatl Texts from the Colonial Period. 11:00-12:00 am: John Sullivan (University of Zacatecas) The IDIEZ Project: Countering the Deculturization of Nahuas at Mexican Universities 12:00-1:00 pm: Alan Sandstrom & Pamela Sandstrom (Indiana University- Purdue) Huastecan Nahua Ethnic Identity, Processes of Globalization, and the Protestant Invasion Lunch & farewell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From karttu at nantucket.net Thu Feb 26 20:44:26 2009 From: karttu at nantucket.net (Frances Karttunen) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:44:26 -0500 Subject: Anither Launey citation Message-ID: In our instructional material for learning Nahuatl, Joe Campbell and I have cited Launey's grammar, comparing it favorably to the other works available (Garibay-pretty much useless; Anderson's translation of Clavigero with accompanying workbook-well-intentioned, but doesn't work as instructional material; Sullivan-misunderstands some of the phonology but is very good with references; Andrews-polemic, throws up roadblocks to learning, and doesn't tell where he gets things). Also, in the Introduction to my Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl, I state (p. xxxiv), "The two modern sources most compatible with this dictionary are Andrews' Introduction to Classical Nahuatl and Michel Launey's Introduction ? la langue et ? la litterature azteques I. I have always been an admirer of Launey and have not ignored him at all. Frances Karttunen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mbassett at umail.ucsb.edu Fri Feb 27 01:25:03 2009 From: mbassett at umail.ucsb.edu (Molly Bassett) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:25:03 -0800 Subject: bees, beeswax & gold Message-ID: Hi, all. I'm following a minor dissertation detail that arises in my discussion of teocuitlatl (gold) and gold-casting. The gold-casting method described in the General History's Book 9: The Merchants involves beeswax (xicohcuitlatl), and although two genera of stingless bees are indigenous to Mesoamerica (Melipona and Trigona), the xicomeh (bees) described in Earthly Things sting: ?It is round, small and round, yellow-legged, winged. It is a flyer, a buzzer, a sucker, a maker of hives, an earth excavator, a honey producer, a stinger (teminani)? (Book 11:93-94). European bees were introduced into New Spain as early as 1520-1530 - long before the General History was compiled. While beeswax would have been available to precontact artisans, the General History?s description may conflate pre- and postcontact gold-casting, as it does xicomeh (bees). [I'm relying on Donald D. Brand, "The Honey Bee in New Spain and Mexico," Journal of Cultural Geography 9, no. 1 (1988): 71-82 for information about bees.] Does anyone know of other descriptions of gold-casting that might confirm or dispute the use of beeswax? Thanks! Molly Molly Bassett Ph.D. Candidate, Religious Studies University of California, Santa Barbara -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Fri Feb 27 03:16:35 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:16:35 -0600 Subject: Convocatoria: XI Coloquio Internacional sobre Otopames Message-ID: El Comit? Organizador del XI Coloquio Internacional sobre Otopames y la University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, instituci?n sede, CONVOCAN a la comunidad acad?mica y a las personas interesadas en la historia y cultura otopame a participar en el XI Coloquio Internacional sobre Otopames en homenaje a Richard M. Ramsay y James W. Dow 14 al 18 de septiembre de 2009 INSTITUCIONES CONVOCANTES University of South Florida, St. Petersburg Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Ind?genas, El Colegio Mexiquense, A.C., Hmunts?a Hem?i - Centro de Documentaci?n y Asesor?a H??h?u Instituto Nacional de Antropolog?a e Historia: Coordinaci?n Nacional de Antropolog?a - Subdirecci?n de Etnograf?a del Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a - Direcci?n de Ling??stica - Escuela Nacional de Antropolog?a e Historia - Centro INAH Michoac?n - Centro INAH San Luis Potos? Universidad Aut?noma del Estado de Hidalgo, Universidad Aut?noma del Estado de M?xico, Universidad Aut?noma de Quer?taro, Universidad de Guanajuato, Universidad Intercultural del Estado de M?xico, Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico, Universidad Veracruzana La naturaleza masiva relativamente reciente de la migraci?n ind?gena a nivel nacional e internacional requiere del an?lisis y redefinici?n de realidades politicas, cuturales, religiosas, sociales y econ?micas producto de nuevas din?micas de contacto. Estas nuevas din?micas migratorias, tanto regionales como internacionales (y transnacionales), requieren ser analizadas y redefinidas dentro de marcos hist?ricos que contemplen los procesos de cuestionamiento, negociaci?n, resistencia y apropiaci?n contempor?neos provocados por movimientos migratorios que incluyen lo local, regional y transnacional. En esta ocasi?n, el coloquio se llevar? a cabo bajo el lema Migraci?n, comunidad extendida y ciudadan?a con las siguientes l?neas tem?ticas: 1.1 Impacto hist?rico y cultural de los grupos otopames 2.1 Chamanismo y saberes del mundo 2.2 Alternativas y conversiones religiosas 3.1 Conflicto, negociaciones culturales y linguisticas 3.2 Pluriling?ismo 3.3 Identidades transnacionales y multidimensionales 4.1 Sociedades sustentables 4.2 Ciudadan?a global DATOS SOLICITADOS 1. T?tulo de ponencia 2. Formato de presentaci?n a) ponencia oral b) cartel c) video 3. Requerimientos a) computadora con PowerPoint & ca??n b) proyector de diapositivas c) proyector de acetatos d) reproductor de video 4. Datos del autor a) apellido(s) y nombre(s) b) perfil (estudiante, docente, investigador, administrativo u otro) c) correo electr?nico d) tel?fono y fax 5. Instituci?n a la que pertenece a) nombre de la instituci?n b) domicilio y c?digo postal RECEPCI?N DE LOS DATOS SOLICITADOS Favor de elaborar un resumen de la ponencia, cartel o video por presentar, de no m?s de 200 palabras, anexando los datos antes solicitados para elaborar el programa definitivo del Coloquio. Esta informaci?n debe ser enviada ANTES DEL 20 DE ABRIL DE 2009 al correo electr?nico: coloquio2009 at otopames.org Los trabajos recibidos ser?n revisados por una comisi?n dictaminadora, dando a conocer los resultados v?a correo electr?nico o fax. No se aceptar?n trabajos para ser le?dos por terceros. Posteriormente se recibir? el texto ?ntegro de las ponencias hasta el 15 de agosto de 2009. Al t?rmino del evento se extender? constancia a los participantes. COSTOS DE INSCRIPCI?N Ponentes: $US 50 ($ US 30 para quienes tienen que viajar desde M?xico) Participantes con cartel o video y asistentes que requieran constancia: $US 30 ($US 15 para quienes tienen que viajar desde M?xico) Estudiantes: $US 10 ($US 5 para quienes tienen que viajar desde M?xico) El p?blico en general que no requiera constancia est? exento de cuota de inscripci?n. Sin otro particular y esperando contar con su valiosa participaci?n, reciba usted un saludo cordial. Atentamente Comit? Organizador del XI Coloquio Internacional sobre Otopames en homenaje a Richard M. Ramsay y James W. Dow Interdisciplinary Social Sciences-Anthropology University of South Florida, St. Petersburg 140 7th Avenue S., DAV 263 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5016 coloquio2009 at otopames.org _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Thu Feb 26 20:41:48 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:41:48 -0600 Subject: a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec Message-ID: Listeros, Here at the institute we have two interesting words. 1. niyatoc, "I am seated" 2. nicuatochyatoc, "I'm in a squatting position". It is not yahtoc, and therefore the root is not yauh, "to go" (but see below). And I don't know if cuatochyatoc is cuatoch(in) + yatoc or cuatochya + [t(i) + o + c] The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense ya morpheme and perhaps the inceptive -ya verbalizer and perhaps the particle ya, "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of "to go" have a long vowel (the above yatoc does not), but that could be because of the postulated older form of the class 4, yata, which upon losing the - ta lengthened the preceding a. So.......... any ideas? John John Sullivan, Ph.D. Professor of Nahua language and culture Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology Tacuba 152, int. 47 Centro Hist?rico Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 Mexico Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 idiez at mac.com www.macehualli.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From lindsay.sidders at ualberta.ca Thu Feb 26 18:25:33 2009 From: lindsay.sidders at ualberta.ca (Sidders, Lindsay) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:25:33 -0700 Subject: English Trnaslation of Launey Message-ID: Hola, FYI- an English adaptation of Michel Launey's, Introduction ? la langue et ? la litt?rature azt?ques, is being published by Cambridge Univ. Press and should be available in late 2010 or early 2011. It is a collaborative effort between Launey and Dr. Christopher S. Mackay of the University of Alberta. Lindsay Sidders, MA Student Department of History & Classics University of Alberta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mcastanedadelapaz at gmail.com Thu Feb 26 18:47:19 2009 From: mcastanedadelapaz at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mar=EDa_Casta=F1eda?=) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:47:19 -0600 Subject: Aztlan-Chicomoztoc and the chronicles Message-ID: Dear Gordon and collegues, I?ve been following with lot of interest the discussion between Gordon Whittaker and Michel Oudijk because in the past I also discussed with Michael Smith about the use of the name 'Aztecs' for people that not come from Aztlan. But first of all I want to start with a text from Nicholson (1975) who attracted our attention long time ago with the lack of critical examination of the sources. What we call today philological analysis. ?[?] especially for anthropologists untrained in the techniques of critical examination of sources, is that of determining the genuinely primary version of a particular passage, a problem exacerbated by the common practice of the early chroniclers of freely copying each other without explicit acknowledgment. Too often, say, have Motolon?a, L?pez de G?mara, Zorita, Rom?n y Zamora, Mendieta, and Torquemada been cited as independent and corroborating authorities for a particular datum without recognition that the last five simply copied, directly or indirectly, from the first.? Nicholson (1975:490). (Now I need to continue in Spanish. I can speak and read English but I?m not sure if I can write what I want to communicate you in a language that is not mine. So forgive me the inconvenient for some of you). En 1945 Barlow defini? la llamada Cr?nica X. Siguiendo sus pasos, recientemente defin? el llamado C?dice Y (Tira de la Peregrinaci?n or C. Boturini, C. Aubin, Mss. Mex. 40 y 85). La Cr?nica X y el C?dice Y son dos versiones de la historia de la peregrinaci?n de los mexicas, PERO cada una marca muy claramente un lugar de origen espec?fico muy distinto. Mientras la Cr?nica X dice que los mexicas vienen de Chicomoztoc, el C?dice Y especifica que vienen de Aztlan y as? lo representan en sus respectivas im?genes. Todos sabemos que durante la Colonia, cuando los cronistas (espa?oles e ind?genas) reescribieron la historia, buscaron todos los documentos a su alcance para tal fin. As?, Tezozomoc escribi? primero su Cr?nica Mexicana (en espa?ol), basada en base al C?dice X, y a?os despu?s escribi? su Cr?nica Mexicayotl (en Nahuatl). Sin embargo, para esta segunda obra, Tezozomoc utiliz? principalmente el C?dice Y (concretamente el C?dice Aubin) y l?gicamente la Cr?nica X que ya conoc?a. Tambi?n, como se?ala Gordon, utiliz? el relato de Alonso Franco (la versi?n de un se?or llamado Moctezuma en Aztlan, etc) y probablemente algunas otras fuentes (Casta?eda de la Paz, Tlalocan XV, 2008). La consecuencia de esto es que los relatos se entremezclaron y, consiguientemente, los lugares de origen (Aztlan, Chicomoztoc y otros). Esto que aqu? digo se observa con mucha claridad en los documentos que hoy hemos heredado: Tezozomoc, Chimalpahin, Duran, Torquemada, etc. Fray Diego Dur?n (Cr?nica X), por ejemplo, tiene la versi?n de Chicomoztoc, pero a?n as?, sabe de la importancia de Aztlan y la incorpora en su relato (en su texto es muy obvio c?mo une dos relatos de diferente origen). Torquemada hace lo mismo pero parece tener m?s problemas porque se queja: conoce la versi?n de la Tira de la Peregrinaci?n (Aztlan) y por ello se niega a aceptar el relato de Acosta (Chicomoztoc) como lugar de origen (Torquemada, libro II). A?n as?, termina incorporando las 7 cuevas al principio del camino, (Casta?eda de la Paz, LAILJ, in press). En fin, ?lo mismo sucedi? con Chimalpahin! Schroeder mostr? que el cronista chalca accedi? a la Cr?nica Mexicayotl de Tezozomoc (que ya entremezclaba versiones hist?ricas). En su tesis de doctorado, Zimmerman (1960) demostraba tambi?n el uso que Chimalpahin hac?a de los Anales de Tlatelolco, Crist?bal del Castillo y documentos de Chalco. En un trabajo reciente yo demostr? que este mismo autor ten?a dos documentos del grupo del C?dice Y (C?dice Aubin y Ms. Mex. 85). Como vemos, la cantidad de versiones hist?ricas era tal, que ?l mismo ten?a problemas para explicar tanta diversidad. En realidad, la composici?n multi?tnica de los distintos altepetl de centro de M?xico. Entonces, s?lo si tenemos muy claras las diferentes versiones hist?ricas, sabremos que cuando Chimalpahin dijo (p. 181): *The year One Flint, 1064. At this time the Mexitin Azteca Teochichimeca, now known as Tenochca, as Tlatelolca, as Malinalca, and as Michhuaque, people of Patzcuaro, emerged from their home, Aztlan."* lo que Chimalpahin hac?a era mezclar relatos (algunos de ellos ya ven?an entremezclados). Por eso sabemos lo siguiente: - One flint y Aztlan (viene del C?dice Y) - La asociaci?n de Malinalcas y Michuaque (viene de la Cr?nica X) Entonces, s?lo quiero terminar diciendo que tenemos que entender los textos hist?ricos coloniales en su contexto y tomar su informaci?n con mucha cautela. Los mismos cronistas ind?genas ya ten?an problemas para entender los manuscritos en la segunda mitad del siglo XVI, especialmente aquellos que no eran de su altepetl de origen. Dudo que Chimalpahin hubiera dicho que los chalcas eran aztecas, pero s? pudo decirlo de pueblos cuya historia no conoc?a, o no conoc?a bien. Las contradicciones en sus mismas obras pueden llegar a ser sorprendentes. Saludos para todos, Mar?a Casta?eda de la Paz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 15:16:57 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:16:57 -0500 Subject: a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Muy curioso, John. It looks, of course, like you have *ni-cuatoch-yatoc. It's important, perhaps, to recall that the vowel of the verb /ya:/ does shorten in compounds. So, your -ya- could be 'go', and that you have, naturally, a preterit-as-present verb here. In this connection, it could be that there is some analogical process going on with the verb 'lie down', onoc. Does this verb come in other tenses, say, a pluperfect-as-past? That is, do you see *(o)nicuatochyatoca? 'I was squatting'? -cuatoch- in humorous. Michael Quoting "John Sullivan, Ph.D." : > Listeros, > Here at the institute we have two interesting words. > 1. niyatoc, "I am seated" > 2. nicuatochyatoc, "I'm in a squatting position". > It is not yahtoc, and therefore the root is not yauh, "to go" (but > see below). And I don't know if cuatochyatoc is > cuatoch(in) + yatoc or > cuatochya + [t(i) + o + c] > The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense ya > morpheme and perhaps the inceptive -ya verbalizer and perhaps the > particle ya, "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of > "to go" have a long vowel (the above yatoc does not), but that could > be because of the postulated older form of the class 4, yata, which > upon losing the - ta lengthened the preceding a. > So.......... any ideas? > John > > John Sullivan, Ph.D. > Professor of Nahua language and culture > Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas > Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology > Tacuba 152, int. 47 > Centro Hist?rico > Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 > Mexico > Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 > Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 > Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 > idiez at mac.com > www.macehualli.org > > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 15:32:13 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:32:13 -0500 Subject: a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec In-Reply-To: <20090227101657.5gdjow0u8wkco04w@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: I meant to add: Cuatochin is the term for 'eastern cottontail rabbit' (Sylvilagus floridanus). Quoting Michael McCafferty : > Muy curioso, John. > > It looks, of course, like you have *ni-cuatoch-yatoc. > > It's important, perhaps, to recall that the vowel of the verb /ya:/ > does shorten in compounds. So, your -ya- could be 'go', and that you > have, naturally, a preterit-as-present verb here. In this connection, > it could be that there is some analogical process going on with the > verb 'lie down', onoc. > > Does this verb come in other tenses, say, a pluperfect-as-past? That > is, do you see *(o)nicuatochyatoca? 'I was squatting'? > > -cuatoch- in humorous. > > > Michael > > Quoting "John Sullivan, Ph.D." : > >> Listeros, >> Here at the institute we have two interesting words. >> 1. niyatoc, "I am seated" >> 2. nicuatochyatoc, "I'm in a squatting position". >> It is not yahtoc, and therefore the root is not yauh, "to go" (but >> see below). And I don't know if cuatochyatoc is >> cuatoch(in) + yatoc or >> cuatochya + [t(i) + o + c] >> The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense ya >> morpheme and perhaps the inceptive -ya verbalizer and perhaps the >> particle ya, "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of >> "to go" have a long vowel (the above yatoc does not), but that could >> be because of the postulated older form of the class 4, yata, which >> upon losing the - ta lengthened the preceding a. >> So.......... any ideas? >> John >> >> John Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Professor of Nahua language and culture >> Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas >> Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology >> Tacuba 152, int. 47 >> Centro Hist?rico >> Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 >> Mexico >> Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 >> Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 >> Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 >> idiez at mac.com >> www.macehualli.org >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 16:44:14 2009 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (magnus hansen) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:44:14 -0300 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 117, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear John Sullivan In Hueyapan nahuatl those same constructions exist except with the vowel /e/ instead of /a/. lt seems to come from ye, the suppletive form of cah. In this niyetok in this way is used as an equivalent of spanish "estoy". Magnus Pharao Hansen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "John Sullivan, Ph.D." To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:41:48 -0600 Subject: [Nahuat-l] a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec > Listeros, Here at the institute we have two interesting words. > > 1. *niyatoc*, "I am seated" > 2. *nicuatochyatoc*, "I'm in a squatting position". > It is not *yahtoc*, and therefore the root is not *yauh*, "to go" (but see > below). And I don't know if *cuatochyatoc* is > *cuatoch(in)* + *yatoc* or > *cuatochya* + [*t**(i) + o + c*] > > The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense *ya* morpheme > and perhaps the inceptive -*ya* verbalizer and perhaps the particle *ya*, > "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of "to go" have a long > vowel (the above *yatoc* does not), but that could be because of the > postulated older form of the class 4, *yata, *which upon losing the -*ta*lengthened the preceding > *a*. > So.......... any ideas? > > John > > John Sullivan, Ph.D. > > Professor of Nahua language and culture > > Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas > > Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology > > Tacuba 152, int. 47 > > Centro Hist?rico > > Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 > > Mexico > > Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 > > Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 > > Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 > > idiez at mac.com > www.macehualli.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 17:49:48 2009 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (magnus hansen) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:49:48 -0300 Subject: Aztecs and all that Message-ID: Having followed the discussion up to now I think there is an important point missing - namely a discussion about ethnicity an how ethnic classification works. Basically ethnic classification can be done by two points of view "theirs" an "ours" : An ethnic group can be an ethnic group simply because dominant outsiders lump groups of otherwise unrelated people together in a single category, or they can be an ethnic group because they feel some kind of solidarity and common origin. That is they can be externally or internally defined. (Handelman 1977 established a system with several intermediary degrees of ethnic solidarity, but in the following i shall only use the to extremes, referred to by him as "ethnic category" (externally dfined) and "ethnic community" (internally defined)) So: When we apply the term Aztec to define an ethnic group we can try to do it in a way that reflects the usage of the people who would have identified with the group in ancient mesoamerica, or we can define it in a way that constructs a group that is clearly distinguishable by traits that we as scholars or as westerners have chosen to call "aztec". Usually social anthropologists would opt for the first kind of classification, in order to best describe actual grouping and feelings of solidarity among groups of people, and in order not to offend anyone - but in this case this isn't really necessary since the people who might be offended by being included in the group against their will no longer exist. This means that both options are feasible, and can be defended by sound arguments. What is not feasible is to use the term aztec without defining it properly or defining it in a way that is better described by some other term e.g. using it only for the Tenochca-Mexica. Because if we want to talk strictly about the Tenochca-Mexica we have the luxury of being able to use a term that satisfies both the internal and the external criteria for ethnic classification. It is fairly well established that in ancient Mesoamerica the citystate was the source of the primary ethnic identity of its peoples, which would mean that probablty nobody would self identify primarily as "aztec" - then if we opt for the "solidarity based model" - we would probably end up having to throw the term Aztec in the garbage bin, or somehow define in which way the altepetl groups who have claimed descent from aztlan harboured feelings of mutual solidarity. If however we opt for the second model we could set up an externally defined category of "aztecs" based on whichever features we find most diagnostic for being "aztec". ME SMith defines Aztecs as those that partake in "Aztec Elite Culture". Others define it as those who speak the Aztec language and in this sense Aztec is synonymous with Nahua which is also an externally defined category since it is improbable that there were ever, in the precolumbian, colonial or modern period, any sense of strong ethnic solidarity between all nahuatl speakers. However, ethnic identity is not exclusive nor does it rest on a single diagnostic trait, and one can be a member of ethnic categories on several levels (I for example might identify with danish, nordic or even western ethnicity in different social contexts). While altepetl relations may be the main source of ethnic identity in mesoamerica, that doesn't mean that it was the only one. For example among the nahuatl speaking altepetl groups higher level groupings like Tepanec, Acolhua, Tlahuica, Tlaxcaltec etc existed, each containing several distinct altepetl groups whose elites felt they had common origins (and who sometimes had a somewhat unified political system). This means that there may have been a kind of macroethnic solidarity among a group that referred to themselves as Aztec and envisioned a common origin in Aztlan, but who still maintained their separate altepetl based ethnicities as their main category of selfidentification. As we have already seen different sources include different altepetl groups in the "aztlan emigrant" group and trying to establish a closed group of altepetl groups who selfdefined as aztlan migrats seems to me to be a futile job, because it is much more likely that *sometimes* *some* groups identified as aztlan migrants when in order to further their political interests they wanted to invoke common origins with other altepetl groups, and that sometimes when they wanted to stress their differences to other altepetl groups they did not identify as such. Exactly for this reason ME Smiths definition seems to me to be the best argued and the most applicable. It sets up a group which *did* have shared cultural traits and some degree of solidarity at least on the elite level, it allows for the group to be inclusive instead of exclusive, and because it doesn't claim to have been a main source of ethnic idenityity for its members it allows for for the Altepetl groups that partook in Aztec Elite Culture to maintain their unique altepetl ethnicities. Furthermore it divorces the term Aztec from the Nahuan languages, which I think is excellent and much needed in face of the growing evidence for multilingualism within many altepetl city states. This allows the Tepanecs to be Aztecs even though they might have been mostly Matlatzinca speakers, and it allows Netzahualcoyotl to be Aztec even though his mother tongue may have been Otomi (This is what Ylanda Lastra argues in her book about Otomi cultural history). I was recently made aware of the publication of "Ethnic Identity in Nahua Mesoamerica" edited by Frances Berdan (et al.), I haven't had the chance to read it yet, but I assume that it discusses some of these issues and I am much looking forward to reading it. I also touched the subject of Nahua ethnicity in my blog at www.ethnolang.blogspot.com. Saludos, Abrazos and Greetings. Magnus Pharao Hansen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jonathan.amith at yale.edu Fri Feb 27 19:10:19 2009 From: jonathan.amith at yale.edu (jonathan.amith at yale.edu) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:10:19 -0500 Subject: English Trnaslation of Launey In-Reply-To: <89B235141545F2468A97E3CD9510F67504451035@EXTMAIL.extn.ualberta.ca> Message-ID: Dear all, I have added Michel's book (UNAM) and his thesis (French) online in pdf on my Website at http://www.balsas-nahuatl.org/electronic-docs/ The thesis was made in tiff from a microfiche, hence the quality. The images were enhanced electronically and then I converted to pdf. The thesis is a treasure! Jonathan Quoting "Sidders, Lindsay" : > > > Hola, > > > > FYI- an English adaptation of Michel Launey's, Introduction ? la > langue et ? la litt?rature azt?ques, is being published by Cambridge > Univ. Press and should be available in late 2010 or early 2011. It is > a collaborative effort between Launey and Dr. Christopher S. Mackay > of the University of Alberta. > > > > Lindsay Sidders, MA Student > > Department of History & Classics > > University of Alberta > > > > -- Jonathan D. Amith Director: Mexico-North Program on Indigenous Languages Research Affiliate: Gettysburg College; Yale University; University of Chicago (O) 717-337-6795 (H) 717-338-1255 Mail to: Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology Gettysburg College Campus Box 412 300 N. Washington Street Gettysburg, PA 17325 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 19:22:06 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:22:06 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: Anither Launey citation Message-ID: ----- Forwarded message from mmccaffe at indiana.edu ----- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:11:09 -0500 From: Michael McCafferty Reply-To: Michael McCafferty Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Anither Launey citation To: mmccaffe at indiana.edu a pedagogical perspective: Karttunen and Campbell's introduction to the language is the most efficient entrada I'm aware of. You can have students up and running (i.e. grinding :-) with the Florentine by the second semester. I'm curious about what others are using. ? I haven't used Launey's ideas at the beginning level, and "Old Andrews," while valuable, is a might overwhelming for the average undergrad beginner--but great for the ""second-year" student and beyond. "New Andrews" has a very nice faux-leather cover. Sullivan a is a great source of historically documented examples. Just wonderful in that regard. Michael Quoting Frances Karttunen : > In our instructional material for learning Nahuatl, Joe Campbell and > I have cited Launey's grammar, comparing it favorably to the other > works available (Garibay-pretty much useless; Anderson's translation > of Clavigero with accompanying workbook-well-intentioned, but doesn't > work as instructional material; Sullivan-misunderstands some of the > phonology but is very good with references; Andrews-polemic, throws > up roadblocks to learning, and doesn't tell where he gets things). > > Also, in the Introduction to my Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl, I > state (p. xxxiv), "The two modern sources most compatible with this > dictionary are Andrews' Introduction to Classical Nahuatl and Michel > Launey's Introduction ? la langue et ? la litterature azteques I. > > I have always been an admirer of Launey and have not ignored him at all. > > Frances Karttunen ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Feb 27 19:24:48 2009 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:24:48 -0500 Subject: English Trnaslation of Launey In-Reply-To: <20090227141019.h8fenpqfwk8ccsck@www.mail.yale.edu> Message-ID: Tlaxtlahui. Quoting jonathan.amith at yale.edu: > Dear all, > > I have added Michel's book (UNAM) and his thesis (French) online in pdf on my > Website at http://www.balsas-nahuatl.org/electronic-docs/ > > The thesis was made in tiff from a microfiche, hence the quality. The images > were enhanced electronically and then I converted to pdf. > > The thesis is a treasure! > > Jonathan > > > Quoting "Sidders, Lindsay" : > >> >> >> Hola, >> >> >> >> FYI- an English adaptation of Michel Launey's, Introduction ? la >> langue et ? la litt?rature azt?ques, is being published by Cambridge >> Univ. Press and should be available in late 2010 or early 2011. It is >> a collaborative effort between Launey and Dr. Christopher S. Mackay >> of the University of Alberta. >> >> >> >> Lindsay Sidders, MA Student >> >> Department of History & Classics >> >> University of Alberta >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Jonathan D. Amith > Director: Mexico-North Program on Indigenous Languages > Research Affiliate: Gettysburg College; Yale University; University > of Chicago > (O) 717-337-6795 > (H) 717-338-1255 > Mail to: > Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology > Gettysburg College > Campus Box 412 > 300 N. Washington Street > Gettysburg, PA 17325 > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Fri Feb 27 19:45:14 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:45:14 +0100 Subject: Aztecs and all that Message-ID: Dear Magnus, dear colleagues, Exactly. That's pretty much what I was getting at when I referred to the macroethnic aspect of the Aztec question. I wanted to avoid opening up another kettle of fish by mentioning explicitly, as you have now done (thanks!), that ethnic identity is not just a matter of identity classification and processing from within, but is also something influenced by (stereotypical and other) perceptions from outside the group, positive, negative, and mixed. It's a very sensitive point because someone will likely protest that we are trying to impose our perceptions and categories on others: "Hey, wait a minute! Only we (or they) have a right to decide who we (or they) are!" However that may be, for better or for worse it's always been a complex and multidimensional issue -- and a two-sided sword. Consider the case of the Byzantines, to take an example least likely to provoke an emotional reaction. They regarded themselves as, and even called themselves, 'Rhomaioi' -- Romans -- right up to the 15th century, but we wouldn't call them that, although they had quite legitimate reasons for doing so. From our perspective, however, the differences by the late 6th century had so accumulated (from a 1st-century basis) that it seems far more practical and reasonable to call them something else -- thus, 'Byzantines'. For them, on the other hand, the political and cultural continuity was paramount. I personally prefer to see them as (Greek-speaking) Romans, in the same way that we can say that Alfred the Great was just as 'English' as the Queen is today. But that's another story. I agree with you in thinking that there is much to be said for using the term 'Aztec' as an inclusive label. In the debate that's been running over the last few days, there have been some misunderstandings. No one has, to my knowledge, claimed that the various Nahua groups called themselves 'Aztecs' in the 16th century. Like Michael Smith and you, I see this as a useful cultural, and macroethnic, label -- our label, not one they themselves used for the historical period (even if the Mexica did indeed use it -- inclusively or exclusively -- for their mythical past), and one that is well applied to the dominant culture of the Aztec Empire. The old expression, 'Romans of the New World', is, in this respect at least, quite apt. A 'Roman' could be African or Asian, or even British, in origin but shared in the political and cultural identity we (and they) called 'Roman'. Your point about the Otomi sharing this 'Aztec' culture is well-taken. 'Aztec' is not simply another term for Mexica or Nahua. Best, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jonathan.amith at yale.edu Fri Feb 27 19:52:09 2009 From: jonathan.amith at yale.edu (jonathan.amith at yale.edu) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:52:09 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl bees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Molly, I have several identifications for bees from my work in Balsas valley, Guerrero Xi:kohtli Most commonly Xylocopa spp. The determined species are X. guatemalensis and X. mexicanorum. However, the term also covers Bombus sp., with the one identified specimen a Bombus steindachneri. Michener in his Bees of the World, p. 596, in ref. to Tribe Xylocopini states that "The are often confused with bumblebees (Bombis, in the Apinae) by the uninitiated" So it would not be unusual for xi:kohtli to cover both. tla:lnekwtli is perhaps prototypically a ground-dwelling stingless bee, Trigona (Geotrigona) acapulconis in the Balsas valley. Its honey and wax are still used, the wax for very coveted candles, although it is now mixted with parafin. The wax is a dark yellow and quite fragrant. There are quite a few other species that are sometimes identified as tla:lnekwtli, mostly stingless bees, but the T. acapulconis seems to be the target of this term as when beewax collectors go out, this is what they bring back. mi:mia:watl, a reduplicated form of mia:watl, which refers to the spike of most grasses, though prototypically that of maize, is in Balsas used to refer to Polistes instabilis, a paper wasp. In the Sierra Norte de Puebla it refers to a small serpent (still not identified) and in the combined form xi:kalkuitamia:wat (often plural xi:kalkuitamia:wameh) to a bee or wasp, still not identified. Otherwise, in the Balsas, the only other term for a type of bee is tlatsiwistli, mostly stingless bees, a polyphyletic group covering various genera. There is quite a bit of ethnoentomological information on stingless bee use in Brazil, e.g., Darrel Posey's article in J. Ethnobiology 3:63-73. Jonathan Amith _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Feb 27 18:03:26 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:03:26 -0600 Subject: tlaixpamitl, cuatitlamitl Message-ID: Listeros, Now that I'm on a roll, I'll throw something else out. 1a. tlaixpamitl, "altar" (absolutive noun) 1b. notlaixpan, "my altar", (possessed noun) 1c. Xictlali xochitl tlaixpan, "Put the flowers on the altar", (relational word) 2a. cuatitlamitl, "monte, uncleared land" (absolutive noun) 2b. nocuatitlan, "my uncleared land" (possessed noun) 3b. yahqui cuatitlan totomictito, "he went into the woods to hunt some birds" (relational word). So, the question is, what came first: the chicken or the egg? Is the relational word (-tlan) simply the reduced form of a noun (tlamitl), or was the noun built on the relational word? John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Feb 27 16:47:44 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:47:44 -0600 Subject: a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec In-Reply-To: <20090227101657.5gdjow0u8wkco04w@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Michael, -toc is the normal construction for talking about 'states' in this variant. nicuatochyatoc, "I am seated in a squatting position" nicuatochyatoya, "I was seated......" nicuatochyatoz, "I will be seated....." xicuatochyato, "Sit down....." John On Feb 27, 2009, at 9:16 AM, Michael McCafferty wrote: > Muy curioso, John. > > It looks, of course, like you have *ni-cuatoch-yatoc. > > It's important, perhaps, to recall that the vowel of the verb /ya:/ > does shorten in compounds. So, your -ya- could be 'go', and that you > have, naturally, a preterit-as-present verb here. In this connection, > it could be that there is some analogical process going on with the > verb 'lie down', onoc. > > Does this verb come in other tenses, say, a pluperfect-as-past? That > is, do you see *(o)nicuatochyatoca? 'I was squatting'? > > -cuatoch- in humorous. > > > Michael > > Quoting "John Sullivan, Ph.D." : > >> Listeros, >> Here at the institute we have two interesting words. >> 1. niyatoc, "I am seated" >> 2. nicuatochyatoc, "I'm in a squatting position". >> It is not yahtoc, and therefore the root is not yauh, "to go" (but >> see below). And I don't know if cuatochyatoc is >> cuatoch(in) + yatoc or >> cuatochya + [t(i) + o + c] >> The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense ya >> morpheme and perhaps the inceptive -ya verbalizer and perhaps the >> particle ya, "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of >> "to go" have a long vowel (the above yatoc does not), but that could >> be because of the postulated older form of the class 4, yata, which >> upon losing the - ta lengthened the preceding a. >> So.......... any ideas? >> John >> >> John Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Professor of Nahua language and culture >> Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas >> Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology >> Tacuba 152, int. 47 >> Centro Hist?rico >> Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 >> Mexico >> Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 >> Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 >> Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 >> idiez at mac.com >> www.macehualli.org >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Feb 27 16:59:17 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:59:17 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 117, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magnus, That makes a lot of sense. Aside from this possibility, the only uses of the verb ca/ye in Huastecan Nahuatl is with oncah, "there is/are", the -ti- compound -ticah/ticateh (present progressive tense), and perhaps cencah, "the same, equal". Other words are used in place of the ca/ye: 1. iitztoc, "estar" for humans and animals. 2. eltoc, "est?" plants and things. 3. eli, "ser" is used in the same way as ca/ye to join a subject and a noun/adj in any tense except the present: nitlamachtihquetl, "I'm a teacher" nieliz nitlamachtihquetl, "I will be a teacher" nielqui nitlamachtihquet, "I was a teacher", etc., etc., John On Feb 27, 2009, at 10:44 AM, magnus hansen wrote: > Dear John Sullivan > > In Hueyapan nahuatl those same constructions exist except with the > vowel /e/ instead of /a/. lt seems to come from ye, the suppletive > form of cah. In this niyetok in this way is used as an equivalent of > spanish "estoy". > > Magnus Pharao Hansen > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "John Sullivan, Ph.D." > To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:41:48 -0600 > Subject: [Nahuat-l] a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec > > Listeros, > Here at the institute we have two interesting words. > > 1. niyatoc, "I am seated" > 2. nicuatochyatoc, "I'm in a squatting position". > It is not yahtoc, and therefore the root is not yauh, "to go" (but > see below). And I don't know if cuatochyatoc is > cuatoch(in) + yatoc or > cuatochya + [t(i) + o + c] > > The second option perhaps suggest that the imperfect tense ya > morpheme and perhaps the inceptive -ya verbalizer and perhaps the > particle ya, "already" have a verbal origin. Yes, certain forms of > "to go" have a long vowel (the above yatoc does not), but that could > be because of the postulated older form of the class 4, yata, which > upon losing the -ta lengthened the preceding a. > So.......... any ideas? > > John > > John Sullivan, Ph.D. > Professor of Nahua language and culture > Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas > Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology > Tacuba 152, int. 47 > Centro Hist?rico > Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 > Mexico > Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 > Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 > Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195 > idiez at mac.com > www.macehualli.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Feb 27 17:43:48 2009 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:43:48 -0600 Subject: a question about "yatoc", not about Aztec In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Iv?n, S? me gust? mucho la idea de Magnus y de ti, de que el "ya" de "yatoc" sea una variante del verbo "ca/ye" del Centro. Por otro lado, el "cua-" de "cuahuitl" se emplea con varios animales dando la idea de silvestre (cuatitlan): por ejemplo, cuapitzotl, "jabal?". John On Feb 27, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Iv?n Pedroza wrote: > Creo que puede ser una alteraci?n de "yetoc", equivalente de eltoc, > "ser o estar" en algunas variantes dialectales contempor?neas, en el > panotoc cahuitl. De la parte cuatoch- me parece correcto pensar en > tochin o tochtli, por la posici?n t?pica de los conejos, pero lo de > cua no tengo idea si ser? por cuaitl, cabeza, o por (qui)cua, tal > vez haciendo referencia a la posici?n de los conejos cuando comen. > > Saludos > > > -- > Iv?n Pedroza > 5523 8044 > 5523 8058 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Sat Feb 28 13:27:58 2009 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:27:58 +0000 Subject: Aztecs and all that In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hey Magnus, I think your message is very useful in this discussion. It seems we agree on the necessity of a term for Central Mexican elite culture (although Smith's use of the term Aztec is much broader than just elite culture), but I doubt that 'Aztec' is the right term for it. One can agree with either stand taken here on the historical issue, but it's clear that the term 'Aztec' is meaningful. It's meaning may have changed over time, as was shown by Gordon, myself and Maria, but it is and has been meaningful. The fact that Michael is constantly criticized for his use of the term, indicates it's a historically and emotionally charged term -maybe not so much in the US or Europe but certainly here in Mexico. Taken that it's charged, it makes the term not very useful because there will always be a large part of the community -academic and laymen- that will reject it. That is the reason why 'Nahuas' works so well. It's an invented term with no historical or emotional charge and indicates perfectly what it means. Therefore, it would be much more practical, I think, to suggest a new 'invented' term instead of using 'Aztec' or 'Anahuac'. Un abrazo, Michel Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:49:48 -0300 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztecs and all that Having followed the discussion up to now I think there is an important point missing - namely a discussion about ethnicity an how ethnic classification works. Basically ethnic classification can be done by two points of view "theirs" an "ours" : An ethnic group can be an ethnic group simply because dominant outsiders lump groups of otherwise unrelated people together in a single category, or they can be an ethnic group because they feel some kind of solidarity and common origin. That is they can be externally or internally defined. (Handelman 1977 established a system with several intermediary degrees of ethnic solidarity, but in the following i shall only use the to extremes, referred to by him as "ethnic category" (externally dfined) and "ethnic community" (internally defined)) So: When we apply the term Aztec to define an ethnic group we can try to do it in a way that reflects the usage of the people who would have identified with the group in ancient mesoamerica, or we can define it in a way that constructs a group that is clearly distinguishable by traits that we as scholars or as westerners have chosen to call "aztec". Usually social anthropologists would opt for the first kind of classification, in order to best describe actual grouping and feelings of solidarity among groups of people, and in order not to offend anyone - but in this case this isn't really necessary since the people who might be offended by being included in the group against their will no longer exist. This means that both options are feasible, and can be defended by sound arguments. What is not feasible is to use the term aztec without defining it properly or defining it in a way that is better described by some other term e.g. using it only for the Tenochca-Mexica. Because if we want to talk strictly about the Tenochca-Mexica we have the luxury of being able to use a term that satisfies both the internal and the external criteria for ethnic classification. It is fairly well established that in ancient Mesoamerica the citystate was the source of the primary ethnic identity of its peoples, which would mean that probablty nobody would self identify primarily as "aztec" - then if we opt for the "solidarity based model" - we would probably end up having to throw the term Aztec in the garbage bin, or somehow define in which way the altepetl groups who have claimed descent from aztlan harboured feelings of mutual solidarity. If however we opt for the second model we could set up an externally defined category of "aztecs" based on whichever features we find most diagnostic for being "aztec". ME SMith defines Aztecs as those that partake in "Aztec Elite Culture". Others define it as those who speak the Aztec language and in this sense Aztec is synonymous with Nahua which is also an externally defined category since it is improbable that there were ever, in the precolumbian, colonial or modern period, any sense of strong ethnic solidarity between all nahuatl speakers. However, ethnic identity is not exclusive nor does it rest on a single diagnostic trait, and one can be a member of ethnic categories on several levels (I for example might identify with danish, nordic or even western ethnicity in different social contexts). While altepetl relations may be the main source of ethnic identity in mesoamerica, that doesn't mean that it was the only one. For example among the nahuatl speaking altepetl groups higher level groupings like Tepanec, Acolhua, Tlahuica, Tlaxcaltec etc existed, each containing several distinct altepetl groups whose elites felt they had common origins (and who sometimes had a somewhat unified political system). This means that there may have been a kind of macroethnic solidarity among a group that referred to themselves as Aztec and envisioned a common origin in Aztlan, but who still maintained their separate altepetl based ethnicities as their main category of selfidentification. As we have already seen different sources include different altepetl groups in the "aztlan emigrant" group and trying to establish a closed group of altepetl groups who selfdefined as aztlan migrats seems to me to be a futile job, because it is much more likely that sometimes some groups identified as aztlan migrants when in order to further their political interests they wanted to invoke common origins with other altepetl groups, and that sometimes when they wanted to stress their differences to other altepetl groups they did not identify as such. Exactly for this reason ME Smiths definition seems to me to be the best argued and the most applicable. It sets up a group which did have shared cultural traits and some degree of solidarity at least on the elite level, it allows for the group to be inclusive instead of exclusive, and because it doesn't claim to have been a main source of ethnic idenityity for its members it allows for for the Altepetl groups that partook in Aztec Elite Culture to maintain their unique altepetl ethnicities. Furthermore it divorces the term Aztec from the Nahuan languages, which I think is excellent and much needed in face of the growing evidence for multilingualism within many altepetl city states. This allows the Tepanecs to be Aztecs even though they might have been mostly Matlatzinca speakers, and it allows Netzahualcoyotl to be Aztec even though his mother tongue may have been Otomi (This is what Ylanda Lastra argues in her book about Otomi cultural history). I was recently made aware of the publication of "Ethnic Identity in Nahua Mesoamerica" edited by Frances Berdan (et al.), I haven't had the chance to read it yet, but I assume that it discusses some of these issues and I am much looking forward to reading it. I also touched the subject of Nahua ethnicity in my blog at www.ethnolang.blogspot.com. Saludos, Abrazos and Greetings. Magnus Pharao Hansen _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Sat Feb 28 18:57:30 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:57:30 -0600 Subject: Aztecs Message-ID: Listeros: I've managed to stay out of this discussion so far, but I have to chime in now and remind everyone that central Mexican culture is far more than Nahua. Language is but one aspect of culture. If we plot each aspect of culture separately on a map, we get a very messy picture of overlapping blotches, with holes inside the blotches and splatters at their edges. Central Mexican culture was and is a plurilinguistic affair, with the participation of several language groups. Language distribution does not coincide with political alliance blocks, economic factors, ceramic styles, or anything else. There was a general central Mexican culture, a regional variant of Mesoamerican culture, with full participation by several language groups, most of which belonged to the Otomanguean trunk, with much older roots in central Mexico than the Nahuas, who were relatively late-comers from western Mexico. In the central highlands the Otopamean presence was particularly important, including, around the time of the Conquest, Otomi, Mazahua, Matlatzinca, and Ocuiltec speakers, with the comparatively rustic Pameans at the northern edge. Most kingdoms were plurilinguistic, with their major divisions (calpolli) being linguistically more homogenous. Members of the elite married and ruled across linguistic lines, forming a vast network of dynastic alliances (not that that prohibited conflicts within extended families). Ethnic identity, then, was constructed from a variety of cultural traits, language being but one of several. Given this situation, the best term for central Mexican culture would seem to me to be "central Mexican culture", adding a chronological period as a qualifier, since cultural traits change over time. Peace, David Wright _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From gwhitta at gwdg.de Sat Feb 28 23:16:06 2009 From: gwhitta at gwdg.de (Gordon Whittaker) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 00:16:06 +0100 Subject: Aztlan-Chicomoztoc and the chronicles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Maria, dear colleagues, Thanks so much for your contribution to the 2009 Great Aztlan Debate! It's much appreciated, since you've done a lot of work in this area. I fully agree with you (and Henry Nicholson) on the need to conduct a careful critical examination of the sources, one that includes, among other things, an exacting philological analysis of the texts and their affiliations. And you are perfectly right that one should be careful not to assume, just because a number of 16th- and 17th-century sources provide a particular piece of information, that that information is independent in each. As you point out, Motolinia was indeed a primary source for Lopez de Gomara, Zorita, Mendieta, Torquemada, and so on. But, unless I am very mistaken, no one has been suggesting so far that these sources are independent of each other. If I recall correctly, only Motolinia and Lopez de Gomara have been mentioned so far in the debate, and not in connection with Aztlan or a particular tradition. I had noted, in answer to a post from Roberto, that Miguel Leon-Portilla was incorrect in asserting, on the one hand, that Lopez de Gomara, following Cortes, only used 'los de Mexico' for the Mexica and, on the other hand, that the term 'mexicano/a(s)' first came into use after Diaz del Castillo made it popular. I mentioned in that context that Motolinia was already using the term by 1541 at the latest. I'm sure you will agree with me that this is not the same kind of thing as you were talking about. Cronica X is a fascinating subject! We still need a painstakingly thorough study and test of this hypothesis, as also of Cronica Y, and, of course, of the various other lost or presumed sources to which we could, perhaps, assign for convenience the other letters of the alphabet. Barlow set us on this path with his initial astute study, but a lot more needs to be done before we can confidently say that we have solved the puzzle. Duran's primary source, the Historia that he repeatedly mentions, may well be the Cronica X, or at least a close relative. As you (and I) have already said, there are a number of variants of the Aztlan cycle, and these can indeed be placed in different source groups. And, as you know, the specifics vary considerably -- e.g. as to how many calpoltin of the Azteca Mexitin there were and how Chicomoztoc and (Teo)colhuacan are treated geographically, geopolitically, and (if you'll excuse the coinage) geomythologically. For the sake of the discussion (since Susan Schroeder's extensive work on Chimalpahin had been brought up), and to avoid unnecessarily long documentation in what is just an exchange of ideas, I restricted myself in previous posts to the Nahuatl texts of the Codex Aubin and Chimalpahin (which includes passages adopted and adapted from Tezozomoc and Alonso Franco that have not survived independently). It is true, as you say, that Chimalpahin, like other sources of this early period, frequently mixed materials gleaned from a variety of sources. Ixtlilxochitl and Chimalpahin name quite a few of their primary informants and materials. We know from this that Chimalpahin consulted learned Mexica and Chalca nobles. The result is not a deliberate total synthesis (like Ixtlilxochitl's Historia Chichimeca in contrast to his Relaciones) but a series of related and overlapping accounts that are more or less faithful to their sources (to the extent that we can judge this), though refined and emended according to Chimalpahin's perception of things. Thus, he was certainly not averse to blending material from one source into another, as Schroeder and you have shown. What we should not forget, however, is that Chimalpahin, unlike Lopez de Gomara, to name but one example, was not simply consulting informants and documents. He was himself at least cursorily acquainted with the traditions as a result of his upbringing and heritage. He grew up surrounded by elders familiar with Aztec-period traditions, but, at the same time, he was versed in the methods of European scholarship. Ixtlilxochitl is sometimes lost at sea in his attempt to interpret unglossed pictorials, as we can see in his repeated attempts to read the same glyphs. Chimalpahin was either much more skilled at this, or had better consultants. Chimalpahin indeed makes good use of what you call the Cronica X and Y versions of the migration accounts. But BOTH versions (and Chimalpahin's own retelling) support points I was making: namely, (1) that Aztlan was generally understood in 16th-century Mexico, and probably earlier, to be more than just the island of this name, as many in the past have mistakenly assumed, and (2) that the Nahuatl ethnonym 'Azteca' included more than just the Mexitin, although they are paramount and, in some accounts, the only group explicitly named as such. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that Cronica X and Y are theoretical constructs that, if they ever existed as discrete works or traditions, may have included more -- or perhaps less -- than what we assume them to. If we say that Cronica X only contained what is found in similar form in all the extant works known to have used it, we adopt a minimalist approach with regard to this construct. If we say that Cronica X itself used and incorporated more than one traditional account (the norm in 16th-century historiography and mythography), based on additional elements found only in, say, two known sources, then we have a maximalist approach. Just as much as two authors can add to, or blend into, their common primary source the same secondary source independently of each other, so too can two authors leave out (again independently) a secondary strand contained in their primary source, in order to concentrate on a particular unitary narrative, one that may have been gaining currency at the time. There are arguments that can be made for each stance. We simply don't know for sure. But it sure is fun, and worthwhile, to consider and to debate the options! Maria, thanks again for your thought-provoking contribution. I'm really looking forward to your upcoming article on the Seven Caves. Your stimulating work in this area is something the 'Azteca', whoever they may (or may not) have been, would have been very proud of! All the best, Gordon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gordon Whittaker Professor Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie Universitaet Goettingen Humboldtallee 19 37073 Goettingen Germany tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333 tel. (office): ++49-551-394188 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From ixtlil at earthlink.net Sat Feb 28 20:02:54 2009 From: ixtlil at earthlink.net (Jerry Offner) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:02:54 -0600 Subject: Calling attention to the French and how they help in one's research Message-ID: Recent comments on the list provide an opportunity to point out again the excellence and utility of the body of work assembled by French researchers on things Nahua or Aztec or whatever. For present purposes to avoid further controversy, let's call them "residents of what is now called part of Mexico before the Spanish invasion"--that's got a great commercial ring to it! I only wish we saw such energy invested in line by line understanding of the written sources and their relationships, and more importantly the written sources' relationships to the pictorial material. Instead, until recent times, we have seen so many resources, decade after decade, directed towards reclassifying Nahua culture and history to fit Western ideologies and related grand theoretical schemes. The results have proven better at exposing the explanatory inadequacy of these themes than in understanding the Nahua. The French, in the meantime, have been paying attention to the facts on the ground an! d trying to understand Nahua culture in its own terms and the results show it. There is no question that the work of the French is little regarded and little known. A recent article in Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl by Jongsoo Lee purports to provide a new and proper understanding at last of Texcoco and Nezahualcoyotl. It does not cite or discuss at all the work of Patrick Lesbre, available in both French and Spanish. Lesbre had covered this same ground years earlier, better, far more accurately and with far more insight, experience, appropriate restraint and subtlety. Had the author been aware of or read Lesbre's work, the publication might have been abandoned as inferior and superfluous. Neither is the work of Marc Thouvenot productively utilized, especially his lifetime of work on the Codex Xolotl. The lack of evidence presented from and evident lack of knowledge of the content of the Codex Xolotl invalidates the author's "telescoped history" attempts to discuss Tenochcan, Texcocan (and Azcapotzalcan) history and their interrelationships. A hund! red years of history comes across as flat as a printed page. You can't write about Aztecs and in particular you can't write about Texcoco without knowing the work of the French researchers over the past three decades. Recently, Lacandena published on Nahua writing, appearing to scold many, and I think quite inappropriately, for their perceived inadequacies in linguistic formalities and presentation methods without making more than a passing reference to Thouvenot's work--only his dissertation and not the body of programs--in French, Spanish and also usually English easily found on-line at: http://www.sup-infor.com/index.htm (At least one list member of these lists is a contributor. It is still fashionable in some shrinking enclaves to deride or dismiss on-line material but this, as is often the case, is of the highest quality and is in many ways better than printed material. A major DVD of the resources on line and new material is in press for those who prefer a material token or talisman for legitimacy). Marc's work is easily searched to form and investigate hypotheses on glyphs and their readings. For example, Lacandena does a good job of showing a particular kind of bird glyph can be read as huilo- as well as or instead of toto- (uh-oh, I hope I am not scolded for my presentation method in this instance, I took off those pesky -tl's but left the rest in lower case and did not use the canonic form, and did not indicate vowel length, but I think they're all long anyway...). A quick use of the program CEN from Thouvenot and his group automatically provides just over a dozen examples of glyphs with the huilo- element, easily allowing the user to pop up pictures of the glyphs and providing exact references as to their location. Experienced people working on glyphs in a document are going to be using Marc's program to investigate all types of birds that appear as candidates, although you can usually quickly rule in or out owls and other birds with distinctive appearances. Fo! r example, if you are trying to match toponymic glyphs in a pictorial document with colonial and modern lists of place names or with names on maps, you are going to investigate any possibility that comes to mind--and most of the time you still won't get a "hit" or you'll get too many--e.g. Coatepec, Huehuetepec, etc.. You will also be more efficient time if you are not using canonic forms. The same is true of types of trees and snakes. Lacadena's work does contain the promise of a deeper grammatical understanding of glyphic texts, except that there aren't any, other than a few strings in the Codex Xolotl that Dibble has published on years ago. Still, Lacandena does a good job of showing that the Codex de Xicotepec has strong relationships to the Texcocan school of tlacuilome. Perhaps some sort of non-prescriptive-laden bridge can be built between the two efforts of Lacandena and Thouvenot. Regarding the website mentioned above, can anyone cite instances of references to this on-line body of work in recent, non-French, non-Mexican published work? (There are some among the Mexican researchers that Marc has patiently trained, but any from the US? Getting a list of those works would very likely prove an efficient roadmap to good recent work). Other resources on the website produced by Marc and his collaborators include an on-line Nahuatl dictionary and a veritable Nahua encyclopedia placing individual glyphs in a natural science context or in a cultural context via references to Sahagun and other sources. All resources are linked, so that if your are investigating snakes, you might recognize, as Sybille de Pury did, at a glance, that the apparent Coatepec glyph in Section 5 of the Codex de Xicotepec is very likely not Coatepec but instead is more likely related to the snake teuctlacozauhqui. If you enter "TECUTLACOZAUHQUI" into the GDN program (yes, they know about teuc- and tecu- so let's skip all that...), you find: TECUTLACOZAUHQUI : "La amarilla gobernante" (Tecutlaco?auhquj) Ay en esta tierra una culebra que se llama tecutlaco?auhquj. Dizen: es el principe, o princesa de todas las culebras, es gruessa, y larga: tiene eslabones en la cola, como vibora: tiene grande cabe?a, y gran boca tiene dientes; y la lengua orcaxada: tiene escamas gruessas, es de color amarillo de la color de la flor de la calaba?a: tiene unas manchas negras como las del tigre: los eslabones tienen pardillos, y duros: silva esta serpiente. Come conejos y liebres, y aves; come cualesqujer aves /o anjmales: y aunque tiene dientes no los masca, sino tragalos, y alla dentro los dixiere, o desmuele. Si alguna ave topa tragasela entera, y si estan encima de algun arbol arrojelos la pon?o?a con que los haze cayer muertos. Lib. 11, fol. 77, p. 229 r. y v. Esta serpiente siempre anda, acompa?ada, con su hembra; y la hembra con su macho: aunque siempre andan el uno apartado del otro y quando se qujeren juntar silva el uno, y luego viene el otro. y si alguno mata al uno dellos el otro persigue al que le mato hasta que le mata. En los eslabones se parece, si esta serpiente es de muchos a?os: porque cada a?o produce un eslabon esta culebra /o serpiente no puede andar por tierra rasa mas va por encima del heno y de las matas como volando, sino le hazen mal no hazen mal. Lib. 11, fol. 78, p. 230 r. y v. Ay otra culebra que se llama cincoatl, o cencoatl; es mediana, no tiene cascabeles, nj muerde es amarilla, y colorada, y parda escura, qujere parecer a la culebra que se llama tecutlaco?auhquj. Lib. 11, fol. 87, p. 239 v. You then go back and look more closely at the Codex de Xicotepec glyph and you see it is composed of two facing yellow snakes with spots, forked tongues and (small) rattles. One of the most obvious Coatepec glyphs of all times then becomes most likely not a Coatepec glyph at all. And you broaden your search of place names well beyond Coatepec. Marc is extremely generous with his time and a researcher ignores his work at their peril. For example, his efforts, along with Sybille de Pury have helped me identify the second town in the Codex de Xicotepec as Cuauhchinanco and have helped me rule out any appearance of Nezahualcoyotl in that codex until Section 16 (rather than Section 9 as the author of the ECN article, uncritically following Stresser-Pean, supposes). And it was of course Lesbre in his review of Stresser-Pean's book long ago that initially suggested that Stresser-Pean's reading of the Nezahualcoyotl glyph in Section 9 was incorrect and that he appeared instead in the later section--where his glyph is quite clear but was misread by Stresser-Pean. And of course, the French Guy and Claude Stresser-Pean were the ones sufficiently trusted by the people of the small village of Cuaxicala to allow them to being their codex to the public. The French education system has had a way of producing people with finely tuned sensitivities to texts, pictorial as well as alphabetic--every detail is considered important, and Marc's, and his collaborators' and Patrick's work all show it. And leaving aside facility in reading French, which is often just a few sound changes away from Spanish and can be managed with a good (on-line or paper) dictionary, the French have been diligent in their efforts to publish in Spanish and they are enthusiastic in their efforts to communicate by e-mail in English or Spanish, finding French not sufficiently challenging). Why, then, their low profile in the US? Perhaps their empirical rather than ideological approach has kept them isolated? Although academic resources may be at an all-time low, albeit with some hope of improvement on the horizon, it would be good to get Thouvenot and his group and Lesbre over to the US to raise our game some. Jerry Offner ixtlil at earthlink.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl