Interpreting the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 and leaf 3

[Jerry Offner]

Recently, I said I would point out basic and serious errors in just two paragraphs of Jongsoo Lee’s recent article in Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl.  
 
Note:  Here is one of several links to an on-line image of the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2, discussed below—
 
http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/uploadimages/ans_24_03_2.jpg
  
 
Here are errors in the paragraph on page 243 reporting on the content of the Mappe Quinatzin.
 
1.  Lee states:  “According to the Mapa Quinatzin, 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. 
 
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. 
 
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 Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 or its relationship to the alphabetic sources or on Lee’s reporting on more than a century of later, better investigations.
 
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.
 
Errors in the other paragraph, which concern Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 3 will be pointed out in a subsequent post.



Jerry Offner
ixtlil at earthlink.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20090416/3755d8b2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl