Interpreting the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 and leaf 3

Tue Apr 21 16:12:20 UTC 2009

Honesty has nothing to do with disagreement. Disagreement is good. 
Dishonesty is kinda not good, nicht wahr?

> :-)

Michael

Quoting Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>:

> Dear Dr. Lee:
>
> Thank you for your very informative message. I now get the picture. And
> I plan to get your book this week.
>
> These last couple of weeks of nahuat-l has driven home the fact for me
> that we find here in this on-line discussion group crackpot "scholars"
> such as the "Ometeotl" guy and the guy he channels, the
> smoke-and-mirror types (Tezcatlipoca!) who take issue with minor
> details but avoid the substantive issues, and the honest types, among
> whom I count you. Best wishes in your future work. I look forward to
> seeing it.
>
> Michael
>
>
> Quoting "Lee, Jongsoo" <joslee at unt.edu>:
>
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nahuatl mailing list
> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>

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