Interpreting the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 and leaf 3

[Michael McCafferty]

Mr. Offner:

I can't speak for the rest of this list, but I've found your critiques 
of Lee's work on Nezahualcoyotl way beyond the pale. I don't quite get 
it, don't quite get all this jumping and screaming. I find it 
suspicious, in fact.

You made your point in your first posting on this topic, and that was 
sufficient. I'm interested in the topic, but no longer interested in 
anything you have to say on it.

The next time your name pops up on my screen, off it goes.

Cualli ohtli,

Michael McCaffertyu


Quoting Jerry Offner <ixtlil at earthlink.net>:

> 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




_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl