Aztecs

[David Wright]

Listeros:

I've managed to stay out of this discussion so far, but I have to chime in
now and remind everyone that central Mexican culture is far more than Nahua.
Language is but one aspect of culture. If we plot each aspect of culture
separately on a map, we get a very messy picture of overlapping blotches,
with holes inside the blotches and splatters at their edges. Central Mexican
culture was and is a plurilinguistic affair, with the participation of
several language groups. Language distribution does not coincide with
political alliance blocks, economic factors, ceramic styles, or anything
else. There was a general central Mexican culture, a regional variant of
Mesoamerican culture, with full participation by several language groups,
most of which belonged to the Otomanguean trunk, with much older roots in
central Mexico than the Nahuas, who were relatively late-comers from western
Mexico. In the central highlands the Otopamean presence was particularly
important, including, around the time of the Conquest, Otomi, Mazahua,
Matlatzinca, and Ocuiltec speakers, with the comparatively rustic Pameans at
the northern edge. Most kingdoms were plurilinguistic, with their major
divisions (calpolli) being linguistically more homogenous. Members of the
elite married and ruled across linguistic lines, forming a vast network of
dynastic alliances (not that that prohibited conflicts within extended
families). Ethnic identity, then, was constructed from a variety of cultural
traits, language being but one of several. Given this situation, the best
term for central Mexican culture would seem to me to be "central Mexican
culture", adding a chronological period as a qualifier, since cultural
traits change over time.

Peace,

David Wright

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