Aztecs and all that

[magnus hansen]

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: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20090227/7810765c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl