Aztlan
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:34 am
Okay. This probably doesn't quite rank as a new topic, but I felt it needed to be stated. I've not been in this forum long, and I've been slowly trawling through old threads. Again and again I've come across references to Aztlan made by individuals listed as 'guest'. I assume 'guest' is a generic term for anyone who's since been expelled from this forum - am I right?
Anyway, I've read these postings with steam coming from my ears, but I guess that's the troll's job. The following points may already have been made but if so, I haven't gone that far back yet. So apologies if I'm repeating myself. Please direct any future Atlantis enthusiasts to the following.
First a quick word about the names involved. The Aztecs (probably meaning 'Heron People' or 'Those of the Heron Lineage') were the mythohistorical inhabitants of Aztlan. The inhabitants of Tenochtitlan were their descendants - the Mexica, Tenochca, or Culhua-Mexica, but no more Aztecs than I'm a Celt. W.H. Prescott's 'The Conquest of Mexico' (published in 1843) used the collective term Aztecs to denote the peoples of the Triple Alliance (a sprawling state comprising the Mexica, Acolhua, Tecpanecs, Culhua, Xochimilca, and Chalca culture groups, amongst others, of whom only the first lot claimed Aztec ancestry) presumably for convenience and to avoid the confusion of Mexica (in the preconquest sense) and Mexicans (in the postconquest sense). The name seems to have stuck, and although it could be argued as being historically valid in context of present-day discussion, it's overused and usually innacurate.
Aztlan (roughly 'Where There Are Herons') (it should properly be written with one of those wee slanty things over the second a) was the reputed mythic homeland of the Aztecs. It is described as being a town/city upon an island in a lake somewhere in the north. At no point has it ever been described in the context of oceans, and certainly not as being across 'eastern oceans'. The name Aztlan may derive either from a profusion of herons in said region, or more likely it serves as a typically convoluted Nahuatl metaphor implying 'The Place of Whiteness' (said herons being mainly white etc.) which, in this context, may mean somewhere representing a state of grace, ancestral innocence and purity - the usual stuff. One source (which typically I can't seem to find at present) claims an individual named Motecuhzoma ruled Aztlan. This ruler had two sons (Mexi Chalchiuhtlatonac and another who goes unnamed) who repeatedly quarrel, and as a result of some sort of power struggle, the former was expelled. Most of this story can be found in Fr. Diego Duran's Historia de los Indies de Nueva Espana, although there are other sources. Anyway Mexi Chalchiuhtlatonac led a group of his followers to the mainland whereupon they began their great migration (1111AD says Duran, 1069AD says Cronica Mexicayotl, 1155AD says Anales de Tlatelolco), choosing the name Mexica in honour of their leader (so the theory usually goes). Between then and the founding of Tenochtitlan in 1325, the Mexica led a nomadic existence travelling south towards the Valley of Mexico, hunting rabbits and deer, ocassionally settling before being driven away by angry locals, pinching dinner money and generally involving themselves with high-spirited acts of good natured violence.
It seems likely that the story served to provide an illustrious history for a group who were, after all, an uncultured bunch of Chichimec 'savages' (as the Tecpanecs saw them) from the northern desert, and certainly the cyclical aspects of the tale (from one island in a lake to another, the earlier Motecuhzoma etc) would indicate a degree of well... lieing. Some people (names available on request, I'll have to look for them first) suggest there might really have been an Aztlan. Mexcaltitlan in the state of Nayarit is one candidate, apparently. Others (I believe mainly authors associated with the Chicano movement, notably Rudolfo A. Anaya whose novel Heart of Aztlan is frankly a classic) suggest Aztlan may have been somewhere north of the Rio Grande, although whether Aztlan ever really existed is probably not so important as its status as a symbol both to the Mexica and, in the present-day, to the Chicano movement as a whole.
There is absolutely nothing in any source or historical record I have encountered to suggest that Aztlan was anything other than that which is described above. Issues of proof might not be entirely relevant here, given the pseudo-historical thrust of this story, although it should at least be mentioned that Nahuatl cultures (as were the Mexica) did indeed travel from the north before settling in and around central Mexico (see Eric Wolf Sons of the Shaking Earth). So next time some fool starts burbling on about Aztlan, Avalon, Atlantis, Atlantic City etc... just keep on hitting them until they stop.
Oh Lord. That feels good.
Anyway, I've read these postings with steam coming from my ears, but I guess that's the troll's job. The following points may already have been made but if so, I haven't gone that far back yet. So apologies if I'm repeating myself. Please direct any future Atlantis enthusiasts to the following.
First a quick word about the names involved. The Aztecs (probably meaning 'Heron People' or 'Those of the Heron Lineage') were the mythohistorical inhabitants of Aztlan. The inhabitants of Tenochtitlan were their descendants - the Mexica, Tenochca, or Culhua-Mexica, but no more Aztecs than I'm a Celt. W.H. Prescott's 'The Conquest of Mexico' (published in 1843) used the collective term Aztecs to denote the peoples of the Triple Alliance (a sprawling state comprising the Mexica, Acolhua, Tecpanecs, Culhua, Xochimilca, and Chalca culture groups, amongst others, of whom only the first lot claimed Aztec ancestry) presumably for convenience and to avoid the confusion of Mexica (in the preconquest sense) and Mexicans (in the postconquest sense). The name seems to have stuck, and although it could be argued as being historically valid in context of present-day discussion, it's overused and usually innacurate.
Aztlan (roughly 'Where There Are Herons') (it should properly be written with one of those wee slanty things over the second a) was the reputed mythic homeland of the Aztecs. It is described as being a town/city upon an island in a lake somewhere in the north. At no point has it ever been described in the context of oceans, and certainly not as being across 'eastern oceans'. The name Aztlan may derive either from a profusion of herons in said region, or more likely it serves as a typically convoluted Nahuatl metaphor implying 'The Place of Whiteness' (said herons being mainly white etc.) which, in this context, may mean somewhere representing a state of grace, ancestral innocence and purity - the usual stuff. One source (which typically I can't seem to find at present) claims an individual named Motecuhzoma ruled Aztlan. This ruler had two sons (Mexi Chalchiuhtlatonac and another who goes unnamed) who repeatedly quarrel, and as a result of some sort of power struggle, the former was expelled. Most of this story can be found in Fr. Diego Duran's Historia de los Indies de Nueva Espana, although there are other sources. Anyway Mexi Chalchiuhtlatonac led a group of his followers to the mainland whereupon they began their great migration (1111AD says Duran, 1069AD says Cronica Mexicayotl, 1155AD says Anales de Tlatelolco), choosing the name Mexica in honour of their leader (so the theory usually goes). Between then and the founding of Tenochtitlan in 1325, the Mexica led a nomadic existence travelling south towards the Valley of Mexico, hunting rabbits and deer, ocassionally settling before being driven away by angry locals, pinching dinner money and generally involving themselves with high-spirited acts of good natured violence.
It seems likely that the story served to provide an illustrious history for a group who were, after all, an uncultured bunch of Chichimec 'savages' (as the Tecpanecs saw them) from the northern desert, and certainly the cyclical aspects of the tale (from one island in a lake to another, the earlier Motecuhzoma etc) would indicate a degree of well... lieing. Some people (names available on request, I'll have to look for them first) suggest there might really have been an Aztlan. Mexcaltitlan in the state of Nayarit is one candidate, apparently. Others (I believe mainly authors associated with the Chicano movement, notably Rudolfo A. Anaya whose novel Heart of Aztlan is frankly a classic) suggest Aztlan may have been somewhere north of the Rio Grande, although whether Aztlan ever really existed is probably not so important as its status as a symbol both to the Mexica and, in the present-day, to the Chicano movement as a whole.
There is absolutely nothing in any source or historical record I have encountered to suggest that Aztlan was anything other than that which is described above. Issues of proof might not be entirely relevant here, given the pseudo-historical thrust of this story, although it should at least be mentioned that Nahuatl cultures (as were the Mexica) did indeed travel from the north before settling in and around central Mexico (see Eric Wolf Sons of the Shaking Earth). So next time some fool starts burbling on about Aztlan, Avalon, Atlantis, Atlantic City etc... just keep on hitting them until they stop.
Oh Lord. That feels good.
