Rejoinder to Whitaker (Cross-post from Aztlan)

[Michael Swanton]

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 <chema.lst15 at netehuile.org> wrote:
From: Chema Tlaquetzqui <chema.lst15 at netehuile.org>
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" <schwallr at potsdam.edu>:
>
>>
>> From: "romgil06" <romgil06 at prodigy.net.mx>
>> 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: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20090225/56e7f04a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl