Pondering the terms 'Aztec' and 'Mexican'

Tue Feb 24 00:24:03 UTC 2009

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 Castillos 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 Mexicos 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-Portillas scholarship and, as
always, this particular article is no exception. Nevertheless, some
inaccuracies have crept in, as they do into anyones 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 Clavigeros 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 dAnahuac, 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
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/> 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