[Aztlan] why "the maya"

[Jules Siegel]

David Hixson wrote:
> The widely printed (but largely unsubstantiated) story that the term "Yucatan" derives from a misunderstanding between the Maya and Spaniards
Why do you consider the story unsubstantiated? Antonio de Ciudad Real, 
writing in1588, may have relied on Toribio de Benavente's text of 1541, 
but are there any other historically more credible versions of where the 
name Yucatan came from?
> should not be confused with the origin of the term Maya (which Restall 
> summarizes well).
 From my reading of the full article, Restall really doesn't go into the 
actual origin of the term in a strictly etymological sense.. He is 
almost exclusively interested in its usage as evidenced in the 
historical record. He does glance at Mayapan, but he doesn't seem to 
endorse this as the source of the term Maya. To the contrary, his 
etymological discussion of Maya in Mayapan, seems to me to cast further 
doubt on the hypothesis that it had anything much to do with later usage 
as an ethnic label. He notes that Itzá is a common patronym, while Maya 
"is not and there is no sign that it ever was."

I plan to write to him when I get a chance and see what he has to say 
about some of these mysteries of nomenclature, including my favorite 
candidate for the dustbin of history, "nido de viboras" as a translation 
of Cancun. Restall is a fascinating source. I am coincidentally reading 
"The Maya World, Yucatec Culture and Society, 1550-1850," in which he 
analyzes the results of his exhaustive translations of hundreds of 
official documents in Maya. When I saw his name pop up on the Google 
search list, I knew that I'd find a well-researched argument based on 
concrete facts rather than speculation.


-- 
JULES SIEGEL Apdo. 1764, 77501-Cancun, Q. Roo, Mexico
http://www.cafecancun.com/bookarts

Newsroom-l, news and issues for journalists
http://www.newsroom-l.net/