[Aztlan] los 500 sacrificados: Aztec terminology

[Dodds Pennock, Dr C.E.]

Dear Gordon,

My thanks for your technical analysis of the terms and for your interesting take on the term 'Aztec'. Whilst I have never felt it to be a particularly 'bad' term myself, I have so often seen (and sometimes been the subject of) attacks for its usage from those who claim it is a 'term of the oppressors' that it has become something of a reflex to defend its usage. It's intriguing to see you discuss it in such a different way. 

I also think you are right to bring up these apparent errors, which are frequent in the scholarly literature and certainly require further consideration. All of my usages are derived from what I believed to be extremely reputable sources, and so I intend to look into the roots of the terminology again. (Interestingly, I had actually used 'Colhua' initially and had corrected myself in deference to one such authority!)

You're absolutely right that wider knowledge of Nahuatl amongst historians would be extremely desirable, but sadly it isn't very easy for some of us. I have worked to improve my own knowledge of classical Nahuatl, and it is very much a lone (and therefore slow and not always precise) process here in the UK. 

I am very glad to say that I use 'Ahuitzotl', but I might make a tentative case in defense of the usage of 'Moctezuma'. Although clearly not the original spelling, it is perhaps the most accessible anglicization/modernization of Motecuhzoma (and certainly an improvement on Montezuma!). Though we might argue that it should not need this anglicization, it is not uncommon to see this in names and terms (e.g. Charles not Carlos, Philip not Felipe). Whilst I would certainly not want to see the original be forgotten, I think that there is a case for using the more 'recognisable' terms at times in order that our less expert audience knows what we are talking about. 

Best wishes,
Caroline
-------
Dr Caroline Dodds Pennock
Lecturer in Early Modern History
School of Historical Studies
University of Leicester
University Road
Leicester
LE1 7RH

email: ced22 at le.ac.uk
http://www.le.ac.uk/history/people/ced22.html
________________________________________
From: Gordon Whittaker [gwhitta at gwdg.de]
Sent: 18 February 2009 21:17
To: Dodds Pennock, Dr C.E.
Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Subject: Re: los 500 sacrificados: Aztec terminology

Dear Caroline, dear colleagues,

Since you take issue with certain much-used terminology with regard to
Aztec culture, I think it might be useful to discuss this more fully.

First, with regard to the term 'Aztec': It was indeed first popularized by
Clavigero. However, it is a perfectly good term used by the Aztecs to
refer to themselves in connection with their ancestry, one that they
shared with several related Nahua groups, just as the Aztec Empire itself
was also shared (co-ruled, at least in name) by several of these groups,
notably the Tepaneca and Acolhuaque. I believe Cuauhtemoc himself is
recorded in Nahuatl using the term. Of course, the term 'Mexica' is
appropriate in describing both the Tenochca in a narrow sense and, more
literally, the citizens of both Mexico Tenochtitlan and Mexico Tlatelolco,
and indeed in describing the empire they founded. After the conquest of
Tlatelolco by Axayacatl, the term is often applied as if interchangeable
with Tenochca (rather like U.S. Americans referring to themselves as
'Americans' to the ire of all more southerly inhabitants of the
Americas!). But Aztec is fine in modern usage -- and the Aztecs would have
been very happy with it. To them the term was a distinguished one, like
'Tolteca' and another one mentioned below.

By the way, you speak of the "Tenocha". I have seen this inaccurate form
occasionally in non-specialist literature. It should always be 'Tenochca'.
The term is unusual only in that it should come from a place name
'Tenochco', which, however, is unattested, but may well have designated
the heart of the original settlement. 'Tenochca' or 'Tenochtitlan
chaneque' (or 'tlaca' are the only possibilities for naming the population
of the capital (excluding Tlatelolco).

Finally, you use the term 'Culhua Mexica': This phrase, which was favoured
by Barlow, is based on an occasional term found in Spanish, not Nahuatl,
contexts. 'Colhua' ('Culhua' is simply a Colonial-period spelling) is
singular, 'Mexica' is plural. If the Aztecs had wanted to use this, they
would have had to say 'Colhuaque Mexica' in reference to their dynasty's
descent from the line of Colhuacan.

Please forgive my taking you to task on these points. Unfortunately,
things have a way of perpetuating themselves as they get passed on in the
scholarly and popular literature. Thus, frequent references to an emperor
'Ahuizotl' (for 'Ahuitzotl'), to 'Moctezuma' or, worse, especially common
in British usage, 'Montezuma' (for 'Motecuhzoma' or 'Moteuczoma',
depending on your transcriptional preferences), etc. are rather like
referring to a certain Roman as 'Ceasar' (which one indeed sees these
days!) and to the Roman capital of Britain as 'Londonium'. Trivial to
some, but hardly accurate in scholarly usage. Since Nahuatl is still
rarely learned by historians working on the Aztec period (Hugh Thomas is a
particularly painful example in this context) -- something unthinkable in
e.g. Roman or Chinese studies --, this sort of thing happens easily.

Please do not interpret these comments as an attack, but rather as an
attempt to straighten the record on some high-profile terminology!

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~