Pondering the terms 'Aztec' and 'Mexican'

Tue Feb 24 04:24:54 UTC 2009

Dear colleagues,

Yet another contribution on the use of the term 'Aztec' for Nahuatl speaking groups in Central Mexico. I have communicated my reasons for not agreeing with such a use of the term to Michael and I will repeat some of them here in response to a particular paragraph written by Gordon:

> It is worth noting that every single one of the Azteca groups named in the
> Aubin and glyphically in the Tira -- Huexotzinca, Chalca, Xochimilca,
> Cuitlahuaca, Malinalca, Tla(l)huica/Chichimeca, Tepaneca, and Matlatzinca
> -- ended up being absorbed into the Empire (in the exceptional case of
> Huexotzinco for just a couple of years). The Tepaneca even became active
> participants in the administration and expansion of the Aztec Empire. So
> the term is highly appropriate, even if the Aztecs themselves reserved it
> as a rule for references to their mythical past. The empire was not a mere
> Mexica endeavour, even if they were the driving force and provided the
> greater part of the ruling elite. It is not only appropriate as a
> collective term for the core groups of the Aztec Empire, but also as an
> older, but still acceptably alternative, term for the Mexica, who, as we
> can see in the Tira de la Peregrinacion, evolve out of the wandering
> Azteca groups.

The fact that the Tepaneca were active participants in the "Aztec" empire is hardly a reason to call them 'Aztecs'. Following that thought we could call the Tlaxcalteca 'Spaniards' as they participated actively in the "Spanish" conquest, as did just about every indigenous group for that matter. 'Aztec' refers to the place of origin of Aztlan and none of the mentioned groups came from there but those who were named 'Mexitin' afterwards. True, the Tripple Alliance was not a mere Mexica endeavor, but it certainly wasn't an 'Aztec' one. The only 'Aztecs' that we know of are those who later became Tenochca and Tlatelolca. 
But let's go back to the source of the problem. Michael Smith says the following (The Aztecs, Blacwell Publishing, 2003:4):

[...] I believe it makes more sense to expand the definition of "Aztec" to include the peoples of nearby highland valleys in addition to the inhabitants of the Valley of Mexico. In the final few centuries before the arrival of the Spaniards in 1519, the peoples of this wider area all spoke the Nahuatl language (the language of the Aztecs), and they all traced their origins to a mythical place in the north called Aztlan (Aztlan is the origin of the term "Aztec," a modern label that was not used by the people themselves).[...]

I still have to see the sources that reports the Chalca, Xochimilca and others coming from Aztlan. The term 'Aztec' for Nahuatl speaking peoples of Central Mexico is methodologically, historically, and ethnically incorrect. It confuses matters unnecessarily. There is a good term for these Nahuatl speaking groups that is widely used in the literature: "Nahuas". Ok, we don't have historical sources that use the term, but nor do we have sources that use the term 'Aztecs' for the Nahuatl speaking peoples of Central Mexico. And the argument that 'Nahuas' doesn't sell isn't true either considering James Lockhart's 'The Nahuas after the Conquest', a bestseller in any way you want to turn it.

Un abrazo a todos,

Michel R. Oudijk
Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas

Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:24:03 +0100
> From: gwhitta at gwdg.de
> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
> Subject: [Nahuat-l] Pondering the terms 'Aztec' and 'Mexican'
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> In the last few days we have had a constructive exchange on the AZTLAN and
> NAHUATl-L lists concerning certain core terms used in Aztec studies.
> Unfortunately, one unsigned posting to the AZTLAN list contained, in
> addition to some rather polemical statements about the nature of primary
> sources on the Postclassic period, a lengthy tirade that included a number
> of highly regrettable and, to my mind, quite surprising remarks about
> Michael Smith and myself that have no place on a moderated list.
> Particularly troubling were a likening of our use of the term ‘Aztec’ to
> the policies of Stalin. In a final statement that ends in mid-air, an
> extended reference to me (as a presumed German) relates and compares the
> worst developments in recent German history to my way of thinking.
> 
> In what follows, I shall restrict myself to answering certain claims made
> in the posting about the history and use of key terms. I would greatly
> appreciate it if any response to this would refrain from personal attacks
> and insinuations about my motives, since it only distracts from the issues
> we are trying to discuss.
> 
> On the term ‘Aztec’:
> 
> The contributor, who appears in earlier postings variously as Dante Romero
> Gil and Roberto Romero Gutierrez, writes “El uso de Azteca aparece primero
> en la obra del historiador mestizo Cristobal del Castillo Historia de la
> Venida de los mexicanos.”
> 
> It is actually not correct to say that the term ‘Azteca’ was used for the
> first time in Cristobal del Castillo’s ‘Historia’. This work was not
> finished until 1599 (see, e.g., the review of the 2001 Navarrete edition
> by Gabriela Vallejo Cervantes at
> http://nuevomundo.revues.org/index324.html), which is fairly late for a
> primary source, and did not reach print (in fragmentary form) until 1908.
> Quite a large number of other sources use the term before del Castillo,
> among them Duran, Sahagun, and so forth.
> 
> Cristobal del Castillo himself, a difficult but highly interesting source
> in many ways, goes further than most in underlining the clear link between
> the Mexica and their heritage as Azteca. He refers to them specifically
> (in their pre-settlement context) as ‘Mecitin Azteca’. Before the Mexica
> founded their twin settlements in the Valley of Mexico’s central lake
> area, they were known (according to tradition) as Mecitin, the plural form
> of the name Meci borne by their patron deity Huitzilopochtli.
> 
> At an even earlier stage they were simply known as Azteca, which our
> primary sources are careful to state. The Codex Aubin (f. 5r), to name but
> one, has a famous passage where Huitzilopochtli announces that he is
> giving them a new name, “In axcan aocmo amotoca in amazteca ye ammexica”
> (‘Now you are no longer called Azteca. You are Mexica’). This is
> beautifully illustrated in the Tira de la Peregrinacion (Panel 4). The
> event takes place on the road to Cuextecatl Ichocayan, not long before
> they reach Tollan (Tula). The term 'Mexica' is, of course, anachronistic
> (or future-oriented?!) in this context, since it derives from the name of
> their later capital.
> 
> It is worth noting that every single one of the Azteca groups named in the
> Aubin and glyphically in the Tira -- Huexotzinca, Chalca, Xochimilca,
> Cuitlahuaca, Malinalca, Tla(l)huica/Chichimeca, Tepaneca, and Matlatzinca
> -- ended up being absorbed into the Empire (in the exceptional case of
> Huexotzinco for just a couple of years). The Tepaneca even became active
> participants in the administration and expansion of the Aztec Empire. So
> the term is highly appropriate, even if the Aztecs themselves reserved it
> as a rule for references to their mythical past. The empire was not a mere
> Mexica endeavour, even if they were the driving force and provided the
> greater part of the ruling elite. It is not only appropriate as a
> collective term for the core groups of the Aztec Empire, but also as an
> older, but still acceptably alternative, term for the Mexica, who, as we
> can see in the Tira de la Peregrinacion, evolve out of the wandering
> Azteca groups.
> 
> Dante/Roberto Romero G. refers me to the article by Leon-Portilla on the
> history and controversial aspects of the term. This interesting article
> (in ECN, vol. 31) can be downloaded from the Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl
> site. One cannot fail to admire Leon-Portilla’s scholarship and, as
> always, this particular article is no exception. Nevertheless, some
> inaccuracies have crept in, as they do into anyone’s scholarly output. At
> one point (p. 310) he states that the term ‘Aztec’ was first introduced by
> Alexander von Humboldt in 1810. This is incorrect. It was already employed
> a good thirty years earlier in Clavigero’s immensely influential history
> (1780, vol. 1, p. 14-15), where the latter writes of “Gli Aztechi, o
> Messicani, che furono gli ultimi popolatori del paese d’Anahuac, e sono il
> soggetto principale della nostra Storia”.
> 
> Leon-Portilla also states (p. 310) that, whereas ‘los de Mexico’ is
> employed by Cortes and Gomara for the Mexica, the term ‘mexicanos’ was not
> used till Bernal Diaz del Castillo, after which it was adopted by other
> writers: “A partir de el todos cuantos escribieron en el period colonial
> emplearon el mismo vocablo. Ello es verdad en el caso de Motolinia, Diego
> Duran, Bernardino de Sahagun, …” But these authors all wrote before Diaz
> (Motolinia uses the term already in 1541!). And, while Gomara (1552) uses
> ‘los de Mexico’ 37 times, he shows a far greater preference for
> ‘mexicano/a(s)’, which he uses no less than 119 times. Furthermore, Diaz’
> account was not completed until decades after Gomara had published his
> work.
> 
> I enthusiastically agree with Michael Smith's use and defence of the term
> 'Aztec'. As one of the foremost authorities today on Aztec civilization,
> and as a scholar who has written an excellent study of the Aztlan
> migrations (see his informative and entertaining web site at
> <http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/> for many more downloadable
> contributions of value), he has given the matter very careful thought and
> has chosen the best blanket term available. Like all other experts, he is
> fully aware that in certain contexts blanket terms are useful, while in
> others differentiation is appropriate. I would like to add that I have
> learned a great deal from him.
> 
> Well, I think that is enough said for now. I will save the rest for an
> article (or perhaps for further discussion here, depending on the way
> things develop).
> 
> Best wishes -- and my thanks to both Michaels and to Caroline,
> Gordon
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Gordon Whittaker
> Professor
> Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik
> Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie
> Universitaet Goettingen
> Humboldtallee 19
> 37073 Goettingen
> Germany
> tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333
> tel. (office): ++49-551-394188
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nahuatl mailing list
> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl

_________________________________________________________________
See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20090224/9525cf3d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl