Fwd: Aztecs gone astray: Some input from Chimalpahin

Wed Feb 25 19:40:57 UTC 2009

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sharon Peters <theabroma at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztecs gone astray: Some input from Chimalpahin
To: Gordon Whittaker <gwhitta at gwdg.de>

Listeros:
What charming spectacle to sit and watch esta Guerra Florida unfold.  I am
waiting with great anticipation the unveiling of the tzompantli which will,
surely result.

First it was the Unknown Listero who lighted the powder keg with his
passionate, and passionately fractured statements about the Aztecs and
Aztlan.  Either he lived through the glory days of La Causa, or is
channeling the spirit of one who did.

It is necessary to sort out the who's who - teasing out the cultural genome
of Mesoamerica, but Lordy! use your academic credentials for something other
than a bludgeon.  You have whacked at the poor Unknown Listero with them,
even after you surely noted that he was an individual pining for the
mythical glory days of the tribe (whichever one and from whatever point), as
so thoroughly documented in its own codices - committed to black velvet.  It
seems Unknown Listero provided the excuse for everyone else to just go at
each other.  Not argumentation and debate - Talmudic pil-pul, but outright
bashing.  Only thing missing was a macana.

I, for one, would like argumentation and debate leading to thought and
information.  We have already been provided with a Forspice of "how low can
you go?"

Thanks,

S. Peters

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Gordon Whittaker <gwhitta at gwdg.de> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> To avoid prolonging the debate with Michel Oudijk unnecessarily, I would
> like to share a couple of passages with him and with you that have direct
> bearing on Aztec use of the term 'Azteca' and on the elusiveness of
> Aztlan, Chicomoztoc, and Colhuacan.
>
> For convenience, and since Michel recommended that I educate myself by
> reading "Schroeder", something I am always happy to do, I will quote only
> from one of Susan Schroeder's excellent publications, the 'Codex
> Chimalpahin' (Vol. 1, U. of Okla. Press, 1997), which she ably edited and
> translated together with Arthur J. O. Anderson. For the sake of brevity, I
> will cite only the English translation, since the Spanish and Nahuatl
> originals are easily located on the opposing pages:
>
> First (p. 29):
>    "Thus this most illustrious, great city of Mexico Tenochtitlan was
> named [by] the first ancient, old, brave founders. They were a most
> robust, wise, and warlike people named Teochichimeca, Azteca, Mexitin,
> Chicomozteca, people of Quinehuayan. Having emerged and come from
> their land in the north, called the great province and island of the
> city of Aztlan, they then came out at the site of Chicomoztoc or the
> Seven Caves, ... . When they left their land, they were formed of
> seven barrios. ... They arrived in Culhuacan, which is next to
> Itztapalapan."
>
> Here Aztlan and Chicomoztoc are both (separate) sites from which the
> Azteca "emerged", and Colhuacan is identified as the city south of
> Tenochtitlan. The story of the migration is left out almost entirely and,
> on their arrival in Colhuacan, we find ourselves suddenly in 1299!
>
> Then (p. 67, quoting Alonso Franco):
>    "When the Chichimeca Azteca came forth, when they emerged from their
> home in Aztlan, it was the year One Flint, 1064. ...
>    (p. 69) Their home was the place called Aztlan; hence their name is
> Azteca. And the second name of their home was Chicomoztoc. And their
> names were Azteca and also Mexitin. But now their name is really said
> to [be] only Mexica. And later they arrived here taking as their name
> Tenochca.
>    And from the place named Aztlan in the midst of the waters came the
> Mexica; from there the seven calpulli [groups] departed.
>    ... He who was ruler there was named Moteucc,oma. There were two sons
> of this ruler. ... The elder brother, whose name is not known, was to
> be ruler of the Cuexteca. And to the younger brother, a Mexica, called
> just Mexi [though] named Chalchiuhtlatonac, he gave the Mexitin. ..."
>
> Here we have something for Michel. An instance in which, indisputably, we
> have mention of non-Mexica as Azteca. The Cuexteca are usually taken to be
> the Maya-speaking Huaxtecs, but I think it is more likely that the
> Huaxteca Nahua are intended here. So the Aztecs did indeed regard certain
> other groups as descending, like they themselves, from Aztlan. Franco
> provides the useful clarification that the Azteca Mexitin have two homes,
> Aztlan island and Chicomoztoc.
>
> Franco goes on:
>    "And the Mexitin thereupon performed penances there at the place named
> Quinehuayan Tzotzompan. ...
>    And to perform the penances they came in boats to cross the water and
> laid down their fir branches there at the aforesaid place called
> Quinehuayan. A cave is there, called Chicomoztoc, whence the seven
> Mexitin calpulli issued.
>    And when the said Teochichimeca Azteca Mexitin issued from what is
> called and named Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc, they brought what was in
> their keeping, their bundle.
>    (p. 71) And there at Quinehuayan, what was named Chicomoztoc was a
> crag hollowed [with] caves in seven places. ..."
>
> Seven calpoltin set out from Aztlan, then cross over to the mainland,
> where after performing penances the seven calpoltin "issue" anew from the
> seven-part cave of Chicomoztoc in Quinehuayan seven years later (p. 73).
>
> Franco's Nahuatl account continues (p. 71):
>    "And when the Azteca Mexitin had crossed the water from Aztlan they
> reached Culhuacan. On that way they took the devil, the portent
> Huitzilopochtli, there. As they came, as they arrived hither when they
> emerged from the seven places in Aztlan, they brought a woman named
> Chimalman.
>    And as the Azteca set out from Culhuacan there were four who on their
> backs carried the portent Huitzilopochtli ... .
>    And when they reached the foot of a tree [also a place name, Cuahuitl
> Itzintlan, GW], they therefore seated themselves at its base. ... the
> Azteca Mexitin spent four more years there ... ."
>
> Franco is referring to Chicomoztoc when he speaks of the "seven places in
> Aztlan", that is, to Aztlan Chicomoztoc (or Aztlan Aztatlan "the abode of
> herons", as he also calls it; see p. 73), not the island of Aztlan. It is
> unclear whether he then equates Chicomoztoc with Colhuacan, as the
> mountain containing the seven caves of Chicomoztoc, or is simply saying
> that after crossing from Aztlan island, the Azteca went on from (Aztlan)
> Chicomoztoc to Colhuacan. I prefer the first alternative, but it can go
> either way as written.
>
> Then (p. 73):
>    "And then and there he [Huitzilopochtli, GW] changed the Aztecas' name
> for them. He said to them: Now no longer is your name Azteca: you are
> now Mexitin."
>
> And summing up (p. 75):
>    "In the year Twelve Reed, 1075, when the ancient Mexitin Azteca
> Chichimeca had spent seven years in Quinehuayan Chicomoztoc, they then
> also emerged from Chicomoztoc; hence they are called Chicomoztoca.
> Then they moved hither. ... it was twelve years after they had emerged
> from their home in Aztlan that in the aforesaid Twelve Reed they then
> came away and traveled hither from the aforesaid Quinehuayan
> Chicomoztoc. It is thus that the ancient Azteca Mexitin Chichimeca
> emerged from Aztlan, ..."
>
> Getting back to what Michel wrote the other day: "it is very clear that
> the Aztecs came from Aztlan and that the other eight groups did not".
> The eight groups he is referring to are the ones named in the Codex Aubin
> and the Tira de la Peregrinacion. Among them are the Malinalca. Now let's
> see what Chimalpahin says (p. 181):
>
> The year One Flint, 1064. At this time the Mexitin Azteca Teochichimeca,
> now known as Tenochca, as Tlatelolca, as Malinalca, and as Michhuaque,
> people of Patzcuaro, emerged from their home, Aztlan."
>
> So, as Chimalpahin himself says, the Malinalca were Azteca! He doesn't
> list the others, and the Michhuaque do not appear in all other accounts,
> but the thrust of the passage is clear: The Azteca were not just
> Mecitin/Mexitin/Mexica. They included other peoples. In the case of the
> Michhuaque, I suspect the Nahua-speaking Michhuaque of the Patzcuaro area
> are meant, not the Purhepecha/Tarascans.
>
> I interpret the Aztlan myth cycle as an explanatory device by means of
> which the Mexica were able to order their ethnic universe and landscape.
> This device made it possible for the average Aztec to understand how the
> various distinct Nahua peoples came into being. At the same time, it
> provided a rationale for the Aztec Empire under a Mexica government,
> because it places the Azteca squarely under Mexitin control and guidance.
> According to this model, the Cuexteca and the Michhuaque, two distant
> groups, should by right belong to the Empire because they are no more than
> errant Azteca -- Aztecs gone astray.
>
> Best wishes to all,
> 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
>

-- 
Sín Fronteras

Aquí estoy yo .... pero ya anda por México mi corazón

-- 
Sín Fronteras

Aquí estoy yo .... pero ya anda por México mi corazón
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20090225/25a3a54e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl