Out of Aztlan

Tue Feb 24 22:46:54 UTC 2009

Dear Michel, dear colleagues,

It is rather dismaying to be subjected repeatedly to opinions expressed in
a strident and condescending tone when an academic matter of no little
interest is being discussed. It should be possible to discuss these
matters in a civil, if not friendly, manner. The only consolation to me in
this case lies in the fact that such browbeating is usually self-defeating
and tends to reflect negatively on the source.

Michel Oudijk has suggested that I learn Nahuatl or, paraphrasing Humberto
(sic) Eco, "get out of the bussiness (sic)". He quotes Eco as writing, "No
se puede hacer una tesis sobre un autor extranjero si este no es leido en
su lengua original." Curious. How odd to quote this sentence in Spanish
translation (in the original: "Non si puo fare una tesi su un autore
straniero se questo autore non viene letto in originale"), thus violating
its very words! Michel goes on to do this again with respect to Nahuatl
texts.

Actually, I even teach Nahuatl, and have been teaching and publishing on
Nahuatl for decades, at Yale and elsewhere. I can highly recommend this
beautiful language to you. Michel, you add that Eco's words do not apply
to you, since you're an expert on Oaxacan cultures. And yet you cite
Nahuatl at length (followed by the translation you used) in the posting,
telling me not to worry because I can consult the excellent German
translation by Lehmann. This is condescending, but at the same time
reflects on your own attitude -- if you admit not knowing a language and
not even being a specialist on the cultures involved, then surely you
shouldn't be lecturing experts such as Michael Smith, who has worked on
Aztec culture and archaeology for decades. At the very least, I would
recommend adopting a more collegial tone and approach.

Now to the points you raise:
You say I use arguments that "don't seem to make any sense", adding by way
of example that "nobody will refer to these other Nahua groups [Chalca,
Huexotzinca, etc.] as 'Aztecas'. Here you have chosen to ignore the clear
distinction I made between MODERN usage of the term 'Aztec' as an
acceptable and convenient blanket term for (1) the Nahua peoples of the
Valley of Mexico that made up the core of the Aztec Empire, and (2)
differentiating labels when discussing individual groups. I stressed that
distinction in my posting. You really shouldn't quote me out of context.

Furthermore, I suggested that, if one so wished, one could even extend the
usage to include the Tlaxcalteca and Huexotzinca in a CULTURAL sense, i.e.
because they shared the key aspects of so-called Mixteca-Puebla and, more
generally speaking, Aztec culture. Such features are recognizable in the
archaeological and more general cultural record. I do not see any need to
single the Tlaxcalteca out as Aztecs, but, as I said, I would have no
particular objection to using the term in a cultural sense to include the
independent Nahua areas. The difference between imperial and independent
areas is fundamentally a political, not an ethnic or cultural, one.

Incidentally, you criticize my reference to the Tepanecs as Aztecs because
they participated in and, indeed, co-ruled the Aztec Empire, saying that
one could just as easily call the Tlaxcalteca 'Spaniards' because they
participated in the Conquest. Hardly. The Tlaxcalteca neither participated
in nor co-ruled the Spanish Empire, but were simply brief allies.
Moreover, the Tlaxcalteca did not share Spanish culture.

I stand by my statement of approval for Lockhart's use of the term 'Nahua'
with respect to the Nahua of Central Mexico. This is self-explanatory, I
think. Obviously, Lockhart's book 'The Nahuas After the Conquest' actually
focuses not on the Nahua as a whole, but on the Nahua of the central area,
as made clear in the secondary title. One might disagree with his use of
the Spanish plural suffix -s in Nahuas, but that is another matter. As to
Michael Smith's definition of 'Aztec': he is using it in the cultural
sense I just mentioned, and this is perfectly defensible. The difference
lies in the fact that Smith explicitly uses 'Aztec' to refer to the shared
Nahua culture of the central valleys before the Conquest, and uses 'Nahua'
in the same general sense as Lockhart for Colonial-period contexts.

Gibson could have named his book 'The Aztecs [and their Descendants in the
Valley of Mexico] Under Spanish Rule', but he opted instead for 'The
Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of
Mexico, 1519-1810', which, I think, makes quite clear what he is talking
about. Aztecs, like Romans, did not simply disappear at the fall of their
empires. Many Aztecs in the cultural and political sense lived on well
into the late 16th century and adapted in varying degree to Spanish rule.
It is not inappropriate to continue to call this population 'Aztec', even
if their state had ceased to exist. He clearly meant 'the 'Aztecs and
their descendants'. But this is a matter that should, of course, be
decided and explained with care. Your talk about Lockhart the pupil
teaching Gibson the master a thing or two is uncalled-for.

You write, "No Chalca, no Texcocana (sic!), no Huexotzinca, no
whatever-Nahua-group-you-want-to-fill-in-here, used the term 'Azteca' to
refer to themselves, nor would they ever have done so." How do you know
this? But, in any case, I made clear that I was referring only to the
mythical past of these groups. You go on to say, "Chimalpahin is the first
to identify himself as Chalca. Please do read the vast literature on this
from Lockhart to Reyes Garcia to Schroeder."

Interesting that you should mention Chimalpahin, who was indeed a
descendant of the lords of Chalco and very proud of it. What you don't
mention is that he was also immensely proud of Aztec civilization and of
the Aztec Empire, in which the Chalca came to participate actively and
productively, and that he even made the famous pronouncement that adorns,
e.g., the dedication page of Soustelle's ethnography (here in transl.),
"For as long as the world shall endure, the honour and the glory of Mexico
Tenochtitlan must never be forgotten." As Anderson and Schroeder justly
claim (Codex Chimalpahin, 1: 9), "He is both proud and in awe of Mexica
civilization", that is, of Aztec civilization as typified by its centre of
power, Mexico Tenochtitlan. But I never claimed that he called himself an
'Aztecatl'. By the way, you say I should study Schroeder. If you glance at
p. 10, fn. 22 of the Anderson and Schroeder edition above, you will find
that Schroeder has read me!

As for Aztlan and Teocolhuacan: First, there simply is no single
(standard) version of the Aztlan migrations. Secondly, the initial phase
usually involves Aztlan and/or Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc and/or
(Teo)colhuacan, the staging areas for the great migration. We could
indulge in nit-picking and say that the Aztecs are only the four calpoltin
(which are not, by the way, "houses") from the island of Aztlan, and that
the eight calpoltin joining them on the opposite bank are something else,
but the fact remains that the eight calpoltin join up almost immediately
with the original four groups, as personified by the four leaders named
and depicted in various sources. As calpoltin belonging now to a single
altepetl under four leaders from Aztlan, they then set off on their great
trek. As such it is quite appropriate to refer to the migrating peoples as
Azteca.

But there is more in the sources you cite: In the very same passage from
Chimalpahin that you quote, we find the locative phrase 'Aztlan
Chicomoztoc'. When two place names are juxtaposed in Nahuatl, it
frequently means that the one -- usually the second place -- is part of
the other. Thus, Mexico Tenochtitlan, Xochimilco Olac, Tollan
Xicocotitlan, etc. This would mean that
Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc/Teocolhuacan (alternative names sometimes
distinguished), a 'brokeback mountain' with a roomy cave (but apparently
not cozy enough, judging by the quick exodus), was understood as a
community belonging to Aztlan. Since the Codex Aubin, for one, states that
the eight calpoltin emerged from this cave, they are obviously also
Azteca.

Anyway, let's stop the nit-picking. This is where the discussion ends for me.

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