Interpreting the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 and leaf 3

Mon Apr 20 20:07:59 UTC 2009

Dear listeros,

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.

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.

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.

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.

Again, I would urge anyone interested to read my article together with Offner's critique.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Best,

Jongsoo

From: nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org [mailto:nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Offner
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:46 PM
To: Nahuat-L
Subject: [Nahuat-l] Interpreting the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 and leaf 3

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<mailto:ixtlil at earthlink.net>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20090420/cedf2634/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl