I propose that this article title Anahuac be returned to its original use, ie to describe the various historical and regional meanings of the term as it appears in the context of Mesoamerican / Aztec geography and the historical sources. Recently that article was moved from here to Anahuac (Aztec) to make way for a disambig page; however, none of the other alternative meanings are substantively on-par with this original sense. Most of the incoming links to this page refer to the Aztec historical/regional senses in any case, it appears.
Move Anahuac (Aztec) back to Anahuac, where the different kinds of Anahuac regional referents appearing in Mesoamerican literature and sources can be expanded upon.
Will look to do this in the next couple of days, unless there are strenuous objections to be considered.--cjllwʘTALK 05:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this approach. ·Maunus··ƛ· 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going have to disagree,
1. the Anahuac (Aztec) article is an alternate name of Valley of Mexico (Valley of Anahuac), when speaking about the Valley of Anahuac it almost always refers to the Valley of Mexico (google "Valley of Anahuac"), when speaking about Anahuac it almost always refers to any city with that name
2. the article itself is written in a dictionary format, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. It belongs in wikitionary.org
No, not when we are referring as we do here to the concept of Anahuac, as it is used by Mesoamerican historical sources, Aztec & Mexican historiographers, and what it meant in pre- and post-conquest and colonial times. Redirecting to Valley of Mexico is an unsatisfactory result. No doubt when some in the modern general public of Mexico and elsewhere hear anahuac, if they recognise it at all, they may think of the valley. Or, perhaps the (minor) US townships. But that does not mean we should forget about and not document the way the term is also used and encountered in Mesoamerican literature and historical sources —its original uses, if you like.
As I mentioned on your talkpg, in Mesoamerican(ist) contexts anahuac has several aspects, and what we need / what we are proposing is an article devoted to this concept, one which provides a useful explanation about the origins, meanings, and differentation of the various ways the historical sources —Sahagun, Tezozomoc, Duran, Motolinia, etc— and later commentators and translators —Prescott, Anderson, Garibay K., Leon-Portilla, etc— have employed the term. An article that explains the original use and concepts for the term, an article which most of the present incoming links are really in search of.
For example, some of the various shades of meaning for the historical concept anahuac include:
Any littoral or lacustrine environment generally, or places particularly defined by the presence of water
The coastal areas either side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in particular, ie Mexico's southern tropical coastal lands. Sometimes distinguished as ānāhuac xicalanco (Gulf Coast), ānāhuac āyōtlān (Pacific Coast). Inhabitants of these regions could also be called ānāhuacah, as were for eg the Zapoteca and Mixteca.
By association, foreign produce and 'exotic' trade goods (ie, such as were traded from these coastal regions). Also, "tropical" (regions/climes).
The extent of the 'Aztec known world', ie territories familiar to but not necessarily all administered/overlorded by Tenochtitlan; with cemānāhuac - the whole world (universe)
The valley of Mexico, but in particular the southern portion bordering the lakes
The territory administered or 'belonging/tributary to' the Aztec Empire, ie not just the valley but also beyond
A specific and particular "province" within that tributary system
As you can see, it's not as straightforward as saying "Anahuac is another name for the valley of Mexico". A poor analogy would be with the concept of Britain —the physical island, the Isles, the political UK state (in its various incarnations), shorthand for "england", the Empire, etc.
The historical concept of anahuac as outlined above could readily be expanded into a useful article, way beyond mere dicdef and in much more detail than the EB1911 excerpt. The fact that the present text may be deficient does not mean that a proper article could not be contstructed.
If you give me a few days, maybe a week (at this rate), will see if it can't be rewritten and expanded to demonstrate what we mean. --cjllwʘTALK 09:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)