'Aztec' vs. 'Mexica' vs. 'Nahua'

[Gordon Whittaker]

Dear Michel, dear colleagues,

It is evident from your opening sentence that you find discussion of this
key term exasperating. And yet, as we have seen, the matter is still
highly controversial, both in academic circles and among the lay public,
which means that there is every reason for us to continue discussing the
issue. I am really not interested in getting to the finishing line first
-- what matters to me is how we get there. The term 'Aztec' is not only
high-profile in academia, and so firmly established that even those who
criticize its use (see the ECN article by Leon-Portilla) employ and thus
acknowledge the term (as LP does, for example, in his edition of Bernal
Diaz -- even in reference to the Nahuatl language). Note also the condoned
use of the term for the international exhibition on the Aztec period and
for the Spanish-language and international editions of the 'Aztecs'
exhibition catalogue. It is, moreover, a term that has entered all
languages.

Th term 'Mexica':

When, on the other hand, 'Mexica' is used, which I obviously also applaud
and will continue to use alongside 'Aztec', it tends to get badly
mispronounced outside of Mexico -- and confused with the term for the
modern nation. Thus, /MEK-si-ka/ is all too common. The other problem is
the lack of an adjective for the latter. It can, of course, be worked
around by using the noun as such. But, ever since the expropriation of the
term for the new nation, confusion runs rife. How often does one hear the
term 'Mexican' used for Mexican Spanish, as in 'I don't speak Mexican'?!
Now, I am certainly not suggesting abandoning the term to the street. I am
merely saying that 'Aztec' is less easily confused and has a high
recognition value. Since it is not a garbled, Spanish-based, form, I have
no problem with it.

The term 'Nahua':

As for the term 'Nahua', you have overlooked an important aspect of the
book by Lockhart -- he is not simply writing about the former peoples of
the Aztec Empire. He is also talking about the Tlaxcalteca and other Nahua
groups outside the former empire of the Triple Alliance. Thus, 'Nahua' is
indeed the appropriate term in this context.

One can, of course, argue that the term 'Aztec' is even useful in an
extended sense for the Tlaxcalteca (and the Huexotzinca, who are, in any
case, Azteca in origin). Enemies of the Triple Alliance, yes, but also
Nahua who shared in the same basic culture. The cultural manifestations
are distinctly 'Aztec', something that cannot be said of all Nahua groups,
who are found over a vast swathe of territory, in no few cases far beyond
the reach, or at least direct influence, of the Triple Alliance.

You write, "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." Shouldn't one FIRST look at the sources, and THEN
make a judgement? Besides, I gave you the references (and even quoted from
them); both of them are well-known and easily found. I recommend to all
the truly magnificent edition of the Tira de la Peregrinacion (Codex
Boturini) published as Edicion Especial 26 of Arqueologia Mexicana.

So let's look at the rather serious charges you level at me.

1) "methodologically (incorrect)": Surely one should cite, and argue from,
 primary sources?

2) "historically (incorrect)": As a macro-ethnic term used by the Aztecs
for their mythical past, hardly historically unjustified. Modern academia
(and general culture) has simply extended its usage to the entire Late
Postclassic (and occasionally, like Charles Gibson in his excellent
treatise 'The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule', to the early Colonial period) in
Central Mexico. I do not think that anyone has ever been led astray by
this usage, whether one approves of it or not.

3) "ethnically incorrect": Why so? The groups named above were all
regarded as Aztec in origin, at the very least by the Mexica. The term is
frequent in this context in Central Mexican Nahuatl texts. And the author
of one group of these texts, Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, a proud
descendant of the Chalca, confirms the validity of the term also for the
latter.

I think the main problem has long been the fact that the term 'Aztec' has
become an ideological issue (like the term 'Aztlan') and part of New Age
culture. It is hard otherwise to understand why so much heat is generated
by discussion of the topic. But should we acquiesce to ideology?

Best wishes,
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