[Aztlan] How inclusive was the term Aztec?

[Gordon Whittaker]

Dear colleagues,

Some of you may have noticed that the debate on the applicability of the
term 'Aztec/Azteca' has spilled over in recent days to the Nahuat-l list.
A central bone of contention has been the claim made by one contributor
that the indigenous texts themselves (specifically, the Codex Aubin, Tira
de la Peregrinacion and Codex Chimalpahin) make a fundamental and clear
distinction between the Azteca, as ancestors of the Mexitin/Mexica, on the
one hand and the eight groups (including, for example, the Malinalca) in
Teocolhuacan that are named, for example, in the Aubin and the Tira on the
other, and that accompanied the Mexitin on their great migration. It was
claimed that this distinction was apparently important and that we should
not ignore it and call all these groups 'Aztecs'. I was challenged to find
a single case where one of these eight groups is included in the use of
the term 'Aztec(a)'.

For those of you not on the list who might be interested in seeing such
evidence, here is a copy of what I last posted on the Nahuat-l list under
the heading 'Aztecs gone astray: Some input from Chimalpahin'. I have
attempted in this posting to indicate something of the complexity of the
term and its area of reference, not only between texts but also within
them. In the Aubin as in Chimalpahin, Aztlan is much more than simply the
island so named, as you will see below. Note, however, that there is much
variation in the traditional literature and no standardized Aztlan cycle,
although the Aubin and Tira can be argued to represent a step in this
direction.

Finally, I argue that the cycle was developed as a tool of Mexica
religio-political ideology, a device for uniting the Nahua peoples of
Central Mexico under a single (Mexica-held) banner and for legitimizing
the expansion of the Aztec Empire to include such distant regions as the
Gulf Coast and Michoacan.

Here it is:

For convenience, ..., 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 ... [a]n 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, ..."

[One contributor claimed that] "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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~