<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Dear
listeros,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I
am aware that many listeros see this debate as bothersome, but I feel obligated
to respond to Offner’s message. I apologize for the long message below. I
will begin my response with the background behind this debate. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Some
of you may already know that Offner and I have different points of view
regarding Nezahualcoyotl and his Texcoco. Many scholars, including Offner,
argue that Texcoco maintained a highly civilized political and legal system
quite different from that of Mexico Tenochtitlan. My article published in
Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl proposes a different view of Nezahualcoyotl and
Texcoco by demonstrating that Nezahualcoyotl’s Texcoco was actually very
similar to Mexico Tenochtitlan. I divided my article into four sections each of
which deals with a different aspect of Nezahualcoyotl’s close
relationship to the Mexica: politics, conquests, tribute, and finally the legal
system. In making this argument, I am essentially disagreeing with scholars
such as Offner, and his comments must be understood in the broader context of
this dispute. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>With
regard to the substance of Offner’s critique, in one of his earlier
messages, he says that I erroneously included Xicotepec as one of
Nezahuacloytl’s conquests, because I blindly followed the interpretation
of the editor, Guy Stresser-Pean, and did not consult Lesbre’s review. I
cited this conquest as part of the evidence that demonstrates that
Nezahualcoyotl was not a peaceful king, which is one of the established views
that I challenge in my article. I argue that Nezahualcoyotl conducted many
conquests both with the Mexica kings as well as by himself. It is true that in
this text the identification of the figure in question as Nezahualcoyotl is
debatable. But I also present similar evidence from other texts in which the
identity of Nezahualcoyotl is not contested. Regardless of whether or not
Lesbre is correct about the identity of the individual responsible for the
conquest of Xicotepec in this particular source, it does not undermine my
larger argument, because there are so many other examples presented in the
article to demonstrate Nezahualcoyotl as a great warrior king. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Offner
also indicates that I miscalculated Nezahualcoyotl’s tributary cities in
Mapa Quinatzin. My article mentions 13 while Offner refers to 26. But I am not
referring to all of the cities listed on the map but rather only those that
appear in the Texcocan courtyard. Even there, I did miscalculate: there are 14
rather than 13. This was an honest mistake that I corrected in my book, The
Allure of Nezahualcoyotl (University of New Mexico Press, 2008, p.115). My
discussion focuses on the major tributary cities described inside the Texcocan
courtyard, not including those cities depicted outside the courtyard. Again, I
would point to the third section of my article in which I mention those cities
in order to examine Nezahualcoyotl’s tribute system. Alva Ixtlilxochitl
and some modern scholars after him believe that Texcoco maintained the best
ruling system, which included tribute collection, and that Tenochtitlan
emulated it. I argue to the contrary that Texcoco during Nezahualcoyotl’s
reign (having been crowned, by the way, by his Mexica uncle) did not have as
many tributaries as Tenochtitlan. Thus, the Texcocan tribute system that
Ixtlixlochitl eulogizes didn’t have much impact on that of Tenochtitlan
but rather depended on its larger tributary system. To support my argument, I
demonstrate that most of the major Texcocan tributary cities depicted inside
the courtyard also paid tribute to Tenochtitlan. In this context, I
didn’t need to focus on the secondary Texcocan tributaries depicted
outside the courtyard. This is certainly something that can be disputed. I
think the evidence supports my interpretation more than the traditional one to
which Offner ascribes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Again,
I would urge anyone interested to read my article together with Offner’s
critique. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I
would also refer back to the beginning of this debate. Some listeros initiated
a discussion about how scholars in the English-speaking world need to pay more attention
to the works of scholars from other countries who may publish in other
languages. In this context, Offner began to mention some works including mine
as lacking in scholarship, because I didn’t cite the French scholar
Lesbre’s works. I would just point out that Lesbre didn’t cite
major works in English about Texcoco in his works either. For example,
Offner’s major work, Law and Politics in Aztec Texcoco, and others were
not even mentioned there. Offner does not seem to consider Lesbre’s works
useless due to the lack of English references as he does research that fails to
cite French references. I’m not sure what the difference is here, except
that he agrees with Lesbre, and he disagrees with me. This is not meant as a
critique of Lesbre’s work, but rather merely to point out the personal
nature of Offner’s critique, which focuses primarily on debatable points
of interpretation without addressing my larger arguments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Let me say that I
welcome critique and scholarly dialogue, and I am always happy to reassess my
views. I suspect that Offner’s problem with my work has more to do with
the fact that I disagree with him than it does with real substantive issues.
Offner is attempting to dismiss my work by emphasizing a relatively minor issue
and by claiming that I am creating my own facts. You will notice that at no
point has he addressed the substance of my actual argument. His most general
and sweeping criticism is that my article cannot be relied upon for an accurate
description of the “scale and structure of the Texcocan political
entity.” The implication of this statement is that my article sets out to
describe the “scale and structure of the Texcocan political
entity,” but this is not the case. That was not the purpose nor the focus
of my article. My article is not about the scale and structure of the Texcocan
political entity but rather about its qualitative nature. And nothing he has
said refutes this argument.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Finally,
Offner claims that I do not understand the relationship between Mapa Quinatzin
and alphabetic sources. Actually, the relationship between pictographic sources
and alphabetic texts from the colonial period is part of the problem. The
colonial sources are not always faithful to the original texts; they exhibit a
European and Christian influence derived from the colonial context. As in other
areas, the Spaniards were looking for some kind of precursor to Christianity,
some link between the indigenous tradition and their own. They fabricated this
link in Nezahualcoyotl, and the Texcocans were more than happy to facilitate a
misinterpretation of the historical record in order to gain the prestige
associated with a Mesoamerican precursor to Christianity. Most modern scholars
have perpetuated this misinterpretation by doing precisely that of which Offner
is accusing me: they do not understand the relationship between the original
pictographic source and the colonial texts that misinterpret them. Here again,
this is a debatable point of interpretation, but to refute it you have to
engage with the substance of my argument rather than a few of the isolated
details.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Offner
promised that he would send another message regarding Mapa Quinatzin, leaf 3.
If the previous message is any indication, he will emphasize some part of my
interpretation without addressing the larger argument. In the section of my
article dealing with this source, I argue that it actually reveals that
Nezahualcoyotl was not an enlightened legislator and that his legal practices
were very similar to those of Tenochtitlan. Here again, this goes directly
against arguments that Offner has put forward in his own work. Of course, some
of the details of the interpretation of the texts upon which my argument is
based are debatable. Again, I would urge listeros interested in the topic to
read all the relevant research, including Offner’s very valuable work,
and make their own judgments based on all of the evidence and whose
interpretation they find more compelling. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I
don’t plan on responding to Offner’s next message. I doubt there is
much else that I could add other than what I have written here. Any listeros
who are no automatically deleting these messages, should read Offners next
critique it in light of my explanation. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Jongsoo
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
nahuatl-bounces@lists.famsi.org [mailto:nahuatl-bounces@lists.famsi.org] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Jerry Offner<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:46 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nahuat-L<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Nahuat-l] Interpreting the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 and leaf 3<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Recently,
I said I would point out basic and serious errors in just two paragraphs of
Jongsoo Lee’s recent article in <i>Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl</i>.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Note:</span></b><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> Here is one of several links to
an on-line image of the <i>Mappe Quinatzin</i>, leaf 2, discussed below—<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><a
href="http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/uploadimages/ans_24_03_2.jpg">http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/uploadimages/ans_24_03_2.jpg</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Here are
errors in the paragraph on page 243 reporting on the content of the <i>Mappe
Quinatzin</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>1. Lee
states: “According to the <i>Mapa Quinatzin</i>, there are thirteen
cities assigned to maintain the Texcocan court, which suggests that they were
under the control of Nezahualcoyotl.” Everyone else who has
examined this document, including the antiquated source that Lee cites
(1886:354-355) and other sources he cites (Carrasco 1999 and Offner 1983)
analyze the document correctly to show that it deals with 26 cities involved
with tribute and service obligations to Texcoco. See also Lesbre in the
latest ECN. Many writers, beginning with the 1886 article, have in fact
used this document to attempt to reconcile the various reports of the! tribute
and service system of Texcoco that involved more than 26 towns. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>2. Lee tells
us: “Below Nezahualcoyotl and Nezahualpilli on leaf 2 appear the
rulers of thirteen cities that Nezahualcoyotl established.”
Everyone else who has examined this document, including the antiquated source
that Lee cites and other sources he cites (Carrasco 1999 and Offner 1983)
report fourteen rulers. Lee omits the ruler of Teotihuacan even though
his 1886 source (358-59) carefully lists and comments on each ruler, including
the ruler of Teotihuacan. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>To a Texcocan
specialist, these errors in interpreting leaf 2 are as evident and important as
someone writing about “the eleven apostles” and betray a
substandard investigation of this document and its relationship to the
alphabetic sources--which relationship was expertly discussed as early as 1956
by Charles Gibson and repeatedly by others, including sources Lee cites, prior
to and after 2001. Lee’s investigation, understanding and reporting of
the scale and structure of the Texcocan political entity is deficient. We
therefore cannot rely on Lee’s description of the content of the <i>Mappe
Quinatzin</i>, leaf 2 or its relationship to the alphabetic sources or on
Lee’s reporting on more than a century of later, better investigations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Lee is not
entitled to his own set of “facts.” He has set the clock back
on interpretation of this document more than a century and presents a
diminished and misshapen portrait of Texcocan political structure.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Errors in the
other paragraph, which concern <em><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Mappe
Quinatzin, leaf 3</span></em> will be pointed out in a subsequent post.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Jerry Offner<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><a
href="mailto:ixtlil@earthlink.net">ixtlil@earthlink.net</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>