'Aztec' vs. 'Mexica' vs. 'Nahua'

Tue Feb 24 16:31:22 UTC 2009

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: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20090224/2bd71575/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl