The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History

Author: Hubert Howe Bancroft

Release date: March 31, 2014 [eBook #45268]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Melissa McDaniel and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NATIVE RACES [OF THE PACIFIC STATES], VOLUME 5, PRIMITIVE HISTORY *** 




Transcriber's Note:



Inconsistent hyphenation and spelling in the original document have
been preserved. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.




Italics in the footnote citations were inconsistently applied by
the typesetter.




Footnote 1-1 has an un-opened quote ending "a very slow current."




Footnote I-219: Landnama should possibly be Landnáma.




Page 357: Words are possibly missing in the sentence starting, "We
have no further details".




Many index entries could not be found in the text.  Many index cross-references
could not be found. A complete list of the latter can be
found at the end of this volume.




Alphabetization errors in the index were not corrected.




This volume contains extensive references to the previous four volumes of this work.
They can be found at:







THE WORKS


OF


HUBERT HOWE BANCROFT.


VOLUME V.


THE NATIVE RACES.


Vol. V. PRIMITIVE HISTORY.


SAN FRANCISCO:

A. L. BANCROFT & COMPANY, PUBLISHERS.

1883.



Entered according to Act of Congress in the Year 1882, by

HUBERT H. BANCROFT.

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.




All Rights Reserved.




PREFACE TO VOLUME V.






This volume concludes the Native Races of the
Pacific States. During the year in which it has
been going through the press, I have received letters
of encouragement from the most eminent scholars of
Europe and America, and flattering commendations
from learned societies. None but an author can
know the value of such cheering words. This, my
first attempt, was made in a new field; the scope of
the work was very extensive; the system and machinery
by which alone it could be accomplished were
untried; and the subject was not one of great popular
interest. It was not, therefore, without misgivings
that I sent it forth.




That the work had been so planned as to embody
practically all information extant on what I had
come to regard as an important subject, and that the
plan had been faithfully executed, I thoroughly believed.
But that others would, to any great extent,
share my opinion; that the subject would interest
so many classes of readers; that mine would be so
quickly and cordially recognized by men of science
and letters throughout the world as a work worth
doing and well done; and that it would be at once
[vi]
accorded a place in literature, I had not dared to
hope. The leading journals of England, France,
Germany, and the United States, have deemed the
volumes as issued worthy of extended reviews; and
criticism for the most part has been liberal, and just—save
a tendency to what might seem, to a mind less
prejudiced than mine, extravagant praise. Minor
defects have been fairly pointed out; and in the few
instances where fault has been found, either with the
plan or its execution, one critic condemns what another
approves, so that I am led to believe no serious
error of judgment has been committed.




I cannot here make proper acknowledgments to all
to whom they are due; but let those who have
manifested their kind good-will, and those who have
not, so long as they feel it, accept my grateful
thanks.




San Francisco, November, 1875.
[vii]




CONTENTS OF THIS VOLUME.









CHAPTER I.

ON THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICANS.		




 PAGE.




Spirit of Inquiry in the Middle Ages—Unity of Origin—Flood Myths—Aboriginal
Traditions of Origin—Culture Heroes—China—Japan—Hindustan—Tartary—The
Egyptian Theory—The Phœnicians—Votan's
Travels—The Carthaginians—The Hebrew Theory—The
Mormon Story—The Visits of the Scandinavians—Celtic
Origin—The Welsh—Scotch—Irish—The Greeks and Romans—The
Story of Atlantis—The Autochthonic Theory
1




CHAPTER II.

INTRODUCTORY TO ABORIGINAL HISTORY.		




Origin and Earliest History of the Americans Unrecorded—The Dark
Sea of Antiquity—Boundary between Myth and History—Primitive
Annals of America compared with those of the Old World—Authorities
and Historical Material—Traditional Annals and their
Value—Hieroglyphic Records of the Mayas and Nahuas—Spanish
Writers—The Conquerors—The Missionaries—The Historians—Converted
Native Chroniclers—Secondary Authorities—Ethnology—Arts,
Institutions, and Beliefs—Languages—Material Monuments
of Antiquity—Use of Authorities and Method of treating
the Subject
133




CHAPTER III.

THE PRE-TOLTEC PERIOD OF ABORIGINAL HISTORY.		




Subdivision of the Subject—Tzendal Tradition of the Votanic Empire—Votan's
Book and its Contents as reported by Nuñez de la
Vega, Cabrera, and Ordoñez—Testimony of Manners and Customs,
Religion, Languages, and Monuments of the Civilized
Nations respecting the Primitive Maya Peoples—The Quiché
Record, or Popol Vuh—Civilizing Efforts of Gucumatz and his
Followers—Exploits of Hunahpu and Xbalanque—Conquest of
Xibalba—Migration from Tulan Zuiva, the Seven Caves—Meaning
of the Quiché Tradition—Nahua Traditions—The Toltecs in
[viii]
Tamoanchan according to Sahagun—The Codex Chimalpopoca—Pre-Toltec
Nations in Mexico—Olmecs and Xicalancas—The
Quinames—Cholula and Quetzalcoatl—The Totonacs—Teotihuacan—Otomís,
Miztecs, Zapotecs, and Huastecs—The Toltecs in
Huehue Tlapallan—Migration to Anáhuac—The Chichimecs in
Amaquemecan—Ancient Home of the Nahuatlacas and Aztecs—Primitive
Annals of Yucatan—Conclusions
156




CHAPTER IV.

THE TOLTEC PERIOD.		




The Nahua Occupation of Mexico in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries—Condition
of Anáhuac—The Mixcohuas and Chichimec Culhuas—The
Toltecs at Tulancingo and Tollan—Establishment of a
Monarchy and Choice of a King, 710-720 A.D.—Kingdoms of
Culhuacan and Quauhtitlan—The Teoamoxtli—Prophecies and
Death of Hueman—Birth of Quetzalcoatl—Foundation of the
Empire, 856 A.D.—Alliance between Culhuacan, Otompan, and
Tollan—Reign of Topiltzin Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl at Tollan—Excesses
of Huemac II., or Tecpancaltzin—Xochitl, the King's
Mistress—Fulfillment of the Prophet's Predictions—Toveyo's
Adventures—Plagues sent upon the Toltecs—Famine and Pestilence—Reign
of Acxitl, or Topiltzin—Debauchery of King,
Nobles, and Priests—Tokens of Divine Wrath—Foreign Invaders—Final
Overthrow of the Toltec Empire
237




CHAPTER V.

THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.		




The Chichimecs in Amaquemecan—Migration to Anáhuac under
Xolotl—The Invaders at Chocoyan and Tollan—Foundation of
Xoloc and Tenayocan—Xolotl II., Emperor of the Chichimecs—Division
of Territory—The Toltecs at Culhuacan—Rule of Xiuhtemoc
and Nauhyotl III.—Pochotl, Son of Acxitl—Conquest of
Culhuacan—Death of Nauhyotl—Huetzin, King of Culhuacan—Migration
and Reception of the Nahuatlaca Tribes—The Acolhuas
at Coatlichan and the Tepanecs at Azcapuzalco—Nonohualcatl,
King of Culhuacan—Revolt of Yacanex—Death of Xolotl II.—Nopaltzin,
King of Tenayocan, and Emperor of the Chichimecs—Reigns
of Achitometl and Icxochitlanex at Culhuacan—Tendencies
toward Toltec Culture
289




CHAPTER VI.

THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.—CONTINUED.		




Migration of the Aztecs—Nations of Anáhuac at Beginning of the
Thirteenth Century—The Aztecs submit to the Tepanecs—Reign
[ix]
of the Emperor Tlotzin—Quinantzin, King of Tezcuco and Chichimec
Emperor—Transfer of the Capital—Tenancacaltzin usurps
the Imperial Throne at Tenayocan—The Usurper defeated by
Tepanecs and Mexicans—Acolnahuacatl proclaimed Emperor—Quinantzin's
Victories—Battle at Poyauhtlan—Quinantzin again
Emperor—Toltec Institutions at Tezcuco—Events at Culhuacan—Mexicans
driven from Chapultepec—Alliance between Mexicans
and Culhuas—Religious Strife—Foundation of Mexico—Reign of
the Emperor Techotl—Political Changes—Ruin of the Culhua
Power—Tezozomoc, King of Azcapuzalco—Separation of Mexicans
and Tlatelulcas—Acamapichtli II., King of Mexico—Quaquauhpitzahuac,
King of Tlatelulco
321




CHAPTER VII.

THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD—CONCLUDED.		




Aztec History—Reigns of Acamapichtli II. and Quaquauhpitzahuac—Rebuilding
of Culhuacan—Huitzilihuitl II., King of Mexico—Tlacateotzin,
King of Tlatelulco—Chimalpopoca Succeeds in Mexico—Funeral
of Techotl—Ixtlilxochitl, Emperor of the Chichimecs—Symptoms
of Discontent—Plans of Tezozomoc, the Tepanec
King—Secret Council of Rebels—Religious Toleration in
Tezcuco—Conquest of Xaltocan and Cuitlahuac—Birth of Nezahualcoyotl—War
between Tezcuco and Azcapuzalco—Victories of
Ixtlilxochitl—Siege and Fall of Azcapuzalco—Treachery of Tezozomoc—Fall
of Tezcuco—Flight and Death of Ixtlilxochitl—Tezozomoc
proclaimed Emperor—Re-organization of the Empire—Adventures
of Nezahualcoyotl—Death of Tezozomoc—Maxtla usurps
the Imperial Throne—Murder of the Mexican Kings—Nezahualcoyotl's
Victory—Itzcoatl, King of Mexico—Acolhua and Aztec
Alliance—Fall of Azcapuzalco—The Tri-partite Alliance, or the
New Empire
359




CHAPTER VIII.

THE AZTEC PERIOD.		




Outline of the Period—Revolt of Coyuhuacan—Nezahualcoyotl on
the Throne of Tezcuco—Conquest of Quauhtitlan, Tultitlan, Xochimilco,
and Cuitlahuac—Conquest of Quauhtitlan—Destruction
of the Records—Death of Itzcoatl and Accession of Montezuma I.
New Temples at Mexico—Defeat of the Chalcas—Troubles with
Tlatelulco—Conquest of Cohuixco and Mazatlan—Flood and Six
Years' Famine—Conquest of Miztecapan—The Aztecs conquer
the Province of Cuetlachtlan and reach the Gulf Coast—Final
Defeat of the Chalcas—Campaign in Cuextlan—Birth of Nezahualpilli—Improvements
in Tenochtitlan—Embassy to Chicomoztoc—Death
[x]
of Montezuma I. and Accession of Axayacatl—Raid
in Tehuantepec—Chimalpopoca succeeds Totoquihuatzin on the
Throne of Tlacopan—Nezahualpilli succeeds Nezahualcoyotl at
Tezcuco—Revolt of Tlatelulco—Conquest of Matlaltzinco—Defeat
by the Tarascos—Death of Axayacatl
400




CHAPTER IX.

THE AZTEC PERIOD—CONCLUDED.		




Reign of Tizoc—Nezahualpilli defeats the Huexotzincas—Ahuitzotl,
King of Mexico—Campaigns for Captives—Dedication of Huitzilopochtli's
Temple—Seventy Thousand Victims—Totoquihuatzin
II., King of Tlacopan—Mexican Conquests—Conquest of Totonacapan—Aztec
Reverses—Successful Revolt of Tehuantepec and
Zapotecapan—Conquest of Zacatollan—Anecdotes of Nezahualpilli—
New Aqueduct, and Inundation of Mexico—Montezuma II. on the
Throne—Condition of the Empire—Montezuma's Policy—Unsuccessful
Invasion of Tlascala—Famine—Conquest of Miztecapan—Tying-up
of the Cycle in 1507—Omens of coming Disaster—The
Spaniards on the Coast of Central America—Trouble between
Mexico and Tezcuco—Retirement and Death of Nezahualpilli—Cacama,
King of Acolhuacan—Revolt of Ixtlilxochitl—Final Campaigns
of the Aztecs—The Spaniards on the Gulf Coast—Arrival
of Hernan Cortés
436




CHAPTER X.

HISTORY OF THE EASTERN PLATEAU, MICHOACAN, AND OAJACA.		




Early History of the Eastern Plateau—The Chichimec-Toltecs—Arrival
of the Teo-Chichimecs in Anáhuac—They Conquer and Settle the
Eastern Plateau—Civil Wars—Miscellaneous Events—Wars between
Tlascala and the Nations of Anáhuac—Early History of
Michoacan—Wars between Wanacaces and Tarascos—Founding
of Tzintzuntzan—Metamorphosis of the Tarasco Princes—Encroachments
of the Wanacaces—The King of the Isles—Murder of Pawacume
and Wapeani—Reigns of Curatame, Tariacuri, Tangaxoan
I., Ziziz Pandacuare, Zwanga, and Tangaxoan II.—Origin of the
Miztecs and Zapotecs—Wixipecocha—Rulers of Oajaca—The
Huaves and Mijes—Later Kings and History of Oajaca—Wars
with Mexico
483




CHAPTER XI.

THE QUICHÉ-CAKCHIQUEL EMPIRE IN GUATEMALA.		




No Chronology in the South—Outline View—Authorities—Xbalanque
at Utatlan—The Migration from Tulan—Balam-Quitzé
[xi]
and his Companions—Sacrifices to Tohil—The Quichés on Mount
Hacavitz—The Tamub and Ilocab—First Victories—Qocavib
Founds the Monarchy at Izmachi—The Toltec Theory—Imaginary
Empire of the East—Different Versions of Primitive History—The
Cakchiquel Migration—Juarros and Fuentes—Lists of
Kings—Cakchiquels under Hacavitz—Reigns of Balam-Conache,
Cotuha, and Iztayul, at Izmachi—War against the Ilocab—The
Stolen Tribute—Gucumatz, Quiché Emperor at Utatlan—Changes
in the Government—Reigns of Cotuha II., Tepepul, and Iztayul
II.—Cakchiquel History—Conquests of Quicab I.—Revolt of the
Achihab—Dismemberment of the Empire—Cakchiquel Conquests—Reigns
of the last Guatemalan Kings—Appearance of the Spaniards
under Alvarado in 1524
540




CHAPTER XII.

MISCELLANEOUS TRIBES OF CENTRAL AMERICA.		




Scarcity of Historical Data—The Tribes of Chiapas—The Founders
and Heroes of the Chiapanec Nation—Wars with the Aztecs—The
People of the Southern Coast—They are vanquished by the Olmecs—Their
Exodus and Journey—They settle and separate—Juarros'
Account of the Origin and later History of the Pipiles—Pipile
Tradition—The Founding of Mictlan—Queen Comizahual—Acxitl's
Empire of the East—The Cholutecs—Various
Tribes of Nicaragua—Settlements of the Isthmus
603




CHAPTER XIII.

HISTORY OF THE MAYAS IN YUCATAN.		




Aboriginal Names of Yucatan—The Primitive Inhabitants from the
East and West—Zamná the Pontiff-King—The Itzas at Chichen—Rules
of Cukulcan at Chichen and Mayapan—His Disappearance
on the Gulf Coast—The Cocome Rule at Mayapan—Appearance
of the Tutul Xius—Translation of the Maya Record by Perez and
Brasseur—Migration from Tulan—Conquest of Bacalar and Chichen—Itza
Annals—Tutul Xius at Uxmal—Overthrow of the
Cocome Dynasty—The Confederacy, or Empire, of Tutul Xius,
Itzas, and Cheles—Fable of the Dwarf—Overthrow of the Tutul
Xius—Final Period of Civil Wars
614






Map of Central Mexico

NATIVE RACES

of the

PACIFIC STATES

Map of

CENTRAL MEXICO

TO ILLUSTRATE

PRIMITIVE HISTORY.


View larger image.





Map of Civilized Nations

NATIVE RACES

of the

PACIFIC STATES

showing the location of

THE CIVILIZED NATIONS



View larger image.





THE NATIVE RACES

OF THE

PACIFIC STATES.





PRIMITIVE HISTORY.




CHAPTER I.

ON THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICANS.





Spirit of Inquiry in the Middle Ages—Unity of Origin—Flood
Myths—Aboriginal Traditions of Origin—Culture-Heroes—China—Japan—Hindostan—Tartary—The
Egyptian Theory—The
Phœnicians—Votan's Travels—The Carthaginians—The
Hebrew Theory—The Mormon Story—The Visits of the
Scandinavians—Celtic Origin—The Welsh—Scotch—Irish—The
Greeks and Romans—The Story of Atlantis—the Autochthonic
Theory.




When it first became known to Europe that a new
continent had been discovered, the wise men, philosophers,
and especially the learned ecclesiastics, were
sorely perplexed to account for such a discovery. A
problem was placed before them, the solution of which
was not to be found in the records of the ancients.
On the contrary, it looked as if old-time traditions
must give way, the infallibility of revealed knowledge
must be called in question, even the holy scriptures
must be interpreted anew. Another world, upheaved,
as it were, from the depths of the Sea of Darkness,
was suddenly placed before them. Strange races,
[2]
speaking strange tongues, peopled the new land; curious
plants covered its surface; animals unknown to
science roamed through its immense forests; vast seas
separated it from the known world; its boundaries
were undefined; its whole character veiled in obscurity.
Such was the mystery that, without rule
or precedent, they were now required to fathom.




And what were their qualifications to grapple with
such a subject? Learning had been almost exclusively
the property of the Church, and although from its
fold many able writers and profound thinkers had
been evolved, yet the teachings of science and the
speculations of philosophy were ever held subordinate
to the holy scriptures. Now and then it is true some
gleams of important truth would flash up in the
writings of some philosopher disconnected with the
religious orders illuminating the path of intellectual
progress, but such writings seldom made any permanent
impress upon the literature of the age. It is to
the priesthood almost exclusively we have to look for
any advancement for many centuries in literature,
science, and art. The universally adopted view of
the structure of the universe was geocentric, of the
world, anthropocentric. To explain such ordinary
phenomena as that of day and night, preposterous
schemes were invented, like that of Cosmas Indicopleustes,
who asserted that in the northern parts of
the flat earth there is an immense mountain, behind
which the sun passes and thus produces night.[I-1] Any
assertion that seemed to clash with preconceived
notions of the teachings of holy writ or the writings
[3]
of the fathers was looked upon with doubt and
disfavor. Indeed the bible was regarded as the all-sufficient
manual of science, containing all that was
necessary to be known, and to inquire further was
thought to be prying into the secret things of the
most high.[I-2] The learning of the masses consisted not
in the acquisition of knowledge, but in the blind and
meaningless repetition of prescribed maxims, in forms
of rhetoric, in anything except that which would
enlighten the mind and impart true wisdom; it was,
in short, a systematic course of leading men as far
as possible away from the known, and leaving them
lost and bewildered in a labyrinth of uncertainty and
doubt.[I-3]



 SCIENCE IN THE MIDDLE AGES.



When, therefore, the questions arose, whence were
these new lands peopled? how came these strange
animals and plants to exist on a continent cut off by
vast oceans from the rest of the world? the wise men
of the time unhesitatingly turned to the sacred scriptures
for an answer. These left them no course but to
believe that all mankind were descended from one pair.
This was a premise that must by no means be disputed.
The original home of the first pair was generally
supposed to have been situated in Asia Minor;
the ancestors of the people found in the New World
must consequently have originally come from the Old
World, though at what time and by what route was
an open question, an answer to which was diligently
[4]
sought for both in the sacred prophecies and in the
historical writings of antiquity.[I-4]




But if the more modern writers on this subject
have been less hampered by unanswerable and impassable
dogmas; if they have been able to believe
that there may be some difficult questions upon
which the Bible throws no light; if they have felt
themselves free to discuss, without impiety, the possibility
of all mankind not having sprung from one
pair, their theories are scarcely less wild, their reasoning
is but little sounder, their tendency to establish
[5]
maxims by which any given problem may be
solved is no more satisfactory.



 SPIRIT OF INQUIRY.



Theories in themselves are good things, for they
lead us to facts; it is often through the doubtful or
the false that we attain the truth; as Darwin says:
"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of
science, for they often long endure; but false views,
if supported by some evidence, do little harm, as
every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their
falseness; and when this is done, one path towards
error is closed, and the truth is often at the same
time opened."[I-5] But the value of inquiry depends
much upon the spirit in which it is made, and therefore
it is that the manner in which most of the
writers who have speculated on the origin of the
Americans have conducted their researches, is greatly
to be deplored. Their work does not impress one as
being a steadfast striving to develop unstable postulates
into proven facts, but rather as a reckless rushing,
regardless of all obstacles, to a preconceived conclusion.
They do not offer a theory as a suggestion
of what might possibly be, but as a demonstration
founded upon an unassailable basis. Each imagines
that he has hit upon the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth; he asserts that the Aztecs
were of Hebrew descent—that is settled; to prove
this he clutches at the lightest straws in the way of
analogies, and if the facts obstinately refuse to fit his
theory, then—tant pis pour les faits—he warps them
till they do fit.




But analogies, even when fairly drawn, are by no
means conclusive evidence. So much depends upon
the environment of a people, that a similarity in that
particular is of itself sufficient to account for most of
the resemblances which have been discovered between
the customs, religion, and traditions of the
Americans, and those of Old World nations.[I-6]
[6]




For my own part I have no theory upon the subject—would
have no theory. The problem of the
origin of the American aborigines is, in my opinion,
enveloped in as much obscurity now as it ever was;
and when I consider the close proximity of the north-western
and north-eastern extremities of America to
Asia and Europe; the unthought of and fortuitous
circumstances that may at any time have cast any
people upon the American coasts; the mighty convulsions
that may have changed the whole face of
the earth during the uncounted years that man may
have dwelt upon its surface; and lastly, the uncertainty,
perhaps I might say improbability, of the
descent of mankind from one pair;—when I think of
all these things it seems to me that the peopling of
America may have been accomplished in so many
ways that no more hopeless task could be conceived
than the endeavor to discover the one particular
manner of it.




In the following résumé I wish neither to tear
down nor to build up, but simply to give an account
of what has been thought and written upon the subject,
and to show, with as little criticism as possible,
the foundation upon which each theory stands. Of
[7]
the comparative value of the opinions the reader
must be his own judge. Of the value of this discussion
of the subject there is this to be said; as a
curiosity, showing the color given to mind by its environment,
showing the blind and almost frenzied[I-7]
efforts of different men of different epochs, creeds,
and culture, to fathom a hitherto unfathomable mystery,—this,
together with the collateral light thrown
upon the subject of aboriginal America, if there be
no other advantage in it, will amply repay the investigation.



 DESCENDANTS OF NOAH.



The earliest writers required three propositions
to be taken for granted:[I-8] First, that the entire
human race are descended from one original pair,
and from Noah through Shem, Ham, and Japheth;
second, that America was peopled from one of three
sources—Asia, Africa, or Europe; third, that all
knowledge arises from one of four sources—knowledge
pure and absolute, from a knowledge of causes;
opinion more or less uncertain; divine faith, sure and
infallible, based upon the holy scriptures as interpreted
by the Church; human faith, dependent upon
the statements of men. The first of these four
sources of knowledge throws no light upon the subject;
the third is equally useless here, since the
scriptures are silent after the time of Noah, though,
as we shall presently see, huge endeavors have been
made to make them speak; as for the fourth, Europeans,
even if they conjectured the possible existence
of an undiscovered continent, were certain that it
was not inhabited,[I-9] while the Americans were entirely
[8]
ignorant of the part of the world from which
they sprang.



 UNITY OR DIVERSITY OF ORIGIN.



The first of the three propositions mentioned
above, namely, that all mankind are descended from
one original pair, seems to have been taken for
granted by almost all the writers, ancient and modern,
who have had some theory to sustain respecting
the origin of the Americans.[I-10] The question of the
unity of the human race, as considered without bias
by modern scientific men, remains, however, undetermined;
though it may be fairly said that the best
[9]
of the argument is on the side of those who maintain
the primitive diversity of man. It happens that
those who are most earnest in upholding the biblical
account of the creation, and consequently the unity
of man, must, to be consistent, also uphold the biblical
system of chronology, which teaches that man
has not existed on the earth for more than six thousand
years. This is unfortunate, since it is evident
that the higher we believe the antiquity of man to
be, the easier it is for us to admit the unity of origin
of the strongly marked varieties that now exist.[I-11]




The honor of peopling America has frequently been
given to Noah and his immediate descendants. But
even were we sure that the tradition recorded in the
Bible of Noah's strange doings is accurate in every
respect, the narrative does not throw any definite light
upon his subsequent proceedings, and we must invent
wonders to add to wonders if we make anything more
out of it. The subject cannot be discussed intelligently,
[10]
but I will give some of the opinions that have
been held on the subject.




Noah's ark, says Ulloa, gave rise to a number of
such constructions; and the experience gained during
the patriarch's aimless voyage emboldened his
descendants to seek strange lands in the same manner.
Driven to America and the neighboring islands
by winds and currents, they found it difficult to return,
and so remained and peopled the land. He
thinks the custom of eating raw fish at the present
day among some American tribes, was acquired during
these long sea voyages. That they came by sea is
evident, for the north, if, indeed, the continent be connected
with the old world, must be impassable by reason
of intense cold.[I-12] Ulloa, although he would not
for a moment allow that there could have been more
than one general creation, does not attempt to account
for the presence of strange animals and plants in
America; and I may observe here that this difficulty
is similarly avoided by all writers of his class.[I-13] Lescarbot
[11]
cannot see why "Noah should have experienced
any difficulty in reaching America by sea, when
Solomon's ships made voyages lasting three years."[I-14]



 NOAH'S DESCENDANTS.



Villagutierre,[I-15] on the contrary, thinks it more
probable that Noah's sons came to America by
land; an opinion also held by Thompson, who believes,
however, that the continents were not disconnected
until some time after the flood, by which
time America was peopled from the Old World.[I-16]
Orrio remarks that many have supposed that Noah,
in order to be able to people the New World as well
as the Old, must, during his three hundred and fifty
years of post-diluvian life, have had more children
than are mentioned in the bible; but in his opinion
there was no necessity for more progenitors, since one
woman can in two hundred and ten years become the
ancestor of one million six hundred and forty-seven
thousand and eighty-six persons. He thinks that Ham
was the father of the American race.[I-17] Montanus considers
it quite in accordance with Noah's character and
mission that he should have attended to the peopling of
the world during his long life.[I-18] L'Estrange is of
opinion that Shem and his children, who were not
among the builders of Babel, moved gradually eastward,
and were, further, forced in that direction even
to America, by the progeny of Japheth.[I-19] We read in
one of the Abbé Domenech's works,[I-20] that Ophir, one
of Noah's descendants, went to Peru and settled there,
[12]
ruling those who went with him. Sigüenza and Sister
Agnes de la Cruz, conjectured that the Americans
were descended from Naphtuhim, the son of Mizraim
and grandson of Ham, whose descendants left Egypt
for America shortly after the confusion of tongues.[I-21]
Piñeda thinks the same.[I-22] Clavigero considers it
proven by the native flood-myths and traditions of
foreign origin that the Americans are descendants of
Noah. He quotes the tradition of Votan,[I-23] who is
declared to have been closely connected with the
Babel-builders, the originator of that enterprise being
his uncle.[I-24]



 ABORIGINAL FLOOD-MYTHS.



Let us see, now, what these flood-myths are. This
I may say first, however; some of them are doubtless
spurious, and few have escaped the renovating
touch of the Spanish priests and chroniclers, who
throughout their writings seem to think it their
bounden duty to make the ideas and history of the
New World correspond to those of the Old. And
what the old writers have added or invented, the
modern writers are, in most cases, ready and glad to
accept as genuine, without doubt or question. "It is
impossible," says Viscount Kingsborough, "when reading
what Mexican Mythology records of the war in
heaven, and of the fall of Zontemonque and the other
rebellious spirits; of the creation of light by the word
of Tonacatecutli, and of the division of the waters;
of the sin of Yztlacoliuhqui, and his blindness and
nakedness; of the temptation of Suchiquecal, and her
disobedience in gathering roses from a tree, and the
consequent misery and disgrace of herself and all her
posterity,—not to recognise Scriptural analogies. But
the Mexican tradition of the Deluge is that which
[13]
bears the most unequivocal marks of having been derived
from a Hebrew source."[I-25]




We have seen in a preceding volume how, according
to the common version of the Mexican flood-myth,
Coxcox and his wife Xochiquetzal were the
only human beings who escaped from the great deluge
which covered the face of the earth in the Age of
Water. How, when the waters went down, the ark
in which they had saved themselves—the hollow
trunk of a bald cypress—rested upon the Peak of Culhuacan;
and how the dumb children that were born
to the rescued pair were taught many languages by a
dove. We have also read the reputed Tarasco
legend of Tezpi, which so closely resembles the biblical
legend of the deluge that it cannot be discussed
as a native tradition at all, but must be regarded simply
as the invention of some Spanish writer who
thought it his mission to show that the Hebrew traditions
were familiar to the Americans.[I-26] In Guatemala,
among the Miztecs, and in Nicaragua there were
also traditions of great and destructive deluges.[I-27]
The Pápagos tell of a mighty flood that destroyed
all life on the earth, except the hero-god Montezuma
and his friend the Coyote who had foretold the deluge.
Each of these made for himself an ark, and
when the waters subsided and they met on the small
patch of dry land that first appeared, Montezuma dispatched
the Coyote four times to find out exactly how
the sea lay.[I-28] Very similar is the Pima legend which
relates how the prophet who would not heed the thrice
repeated warnings of the Eagle was destroyed by a
[14]
flood, and how Szeukha, the son of the Creator, saved
himself by floating on a ball of gum or resin.[I-29] The
Mattoles of California regard Taylor Peak as the
point at which their forefathers took refuge from a
destructive flood.[I-30] Other Californian tribes have a
tradition of a deluge from which the Coyote, with his
usual good-fortune, was the only living thing that escaped,
if we except an eagle who was miraculously
formed from a single feather that floated on the face
of the waters.[I-31] Lake Tahoe was formed by a flood
which destroyed all mankind but a very small remnant.[I-32]
The Thlinkeets relate that many persons
escaped the great deluge by taking refuge in a great
floating building, which, when the waters fell,
grounded upon a rock and was split in twain. From
this moment men spake in various tongues, for there
remained in one fragment of the divided ark those
whose descendants speak the Thlinkeet language, and
in the other those whose descendants employ a different
idiom.[I-33] The Chipewyan deluge covered all the
earth except the high mountain-tops, upon which
many of the people saved themselves.[I-34] The Isthmians
believed that the world was peopled by a man
who with his wife and children escaped the great
flood. The Peruvians had several flood-myths. One
of them relates that the whole face of the earth was
changed by a great deluge, attended by an extraordinary
eclipse of the sun which lasted five days. All
living things were destroyed except one man, a shepherd,
with his family and flocks. It happened in
this wise. Some time before the flood this shepherd,
while tending his flock of llamas, remarked that the
animals appeared to be oppressed with sadness, and
that they passed the whole night in attentively
[15]
watching the course of the stars. Filled with amazement,
he interrogated the llamas as to the cause of
their concern. Directing his attention to a group of
six stars, massed closely together, they answered that
that was a sign that the world would shortly be destroyed
by a deluge, and counseled him, if he wished
to escape the universal destruction, to take refuge
with his family and flocks on the top of a neighboring
mountain. Acting upon this advice, the shepherd
hastily collected his llamas and children and proceeded
with them to the summit of mount Ancasmarca,
where a crowd of other animals had already sought
safety. The warning had not come a moment too
soon, for scarcely had they reached the mountain-top,
when the sea burst its bounds and with a terrible
roaring rushed over the land. But as the waters rose
higher and higher, filling the valleys and covering the
plains, behold, the mountain of refuge rose with it,
floating upon its surface like a ship upon the waves.
This lasted five days, during which time the sun hid
himself and the earth was wrapped in darkness. On
the fifth day the waters began to subside, and the
stars shone out on the desolate world, which was
eventually re-peopled by the descendants of the shepherd
of Ancasmarca.



 PERUVIAN FLOOD-MYTHS.



According to another Peruvian legend, two
brothers escaped from a great deluge which overwhelmed
the world in much the same manner, by
ascending a mountain which floated upon the flood.
When the waters had retired, they found themselves
alone in the world; and having consumed all their
provisions, they went down into the valleys to seek
for more food. Whether they were successful in
their search, the tradition does not say; but if not,
their surprise must indeed have been agreeable when
on returning to the hut which they had built on the
mountain, they found food ready prepared for them
by unknown hands. Curious to know who their
benefactor could be, they took counsel together and
[16]
finally agreed that one should hide himself in the
hut, while the other went into the valley. The
brother who remained concealed himself carefully,
and his patience was soon rewarded by seeing two
aras with the faces of women,[I-35] who immediately set
about preparing a meal of bread and meats. But it
was not long before the aras became aware of the
presence of the concealed brother, and they instantly
essayed flight; but the man seized one of them, and
she afterwards became his wife. By her he had six
children, three sons and three daughters, from whose
union sprang the tribe of the Cañaris, whose descendants
to this day hold the ara in great veneration.[I-36]




"The Peruvians were acquainted with the Deluge,
and believed that the rainbow was the sign that the
earth would not again be destroyed by water." This
somewhat startling announcement is made by Lord
Kingsborough, and he shows that there can be no
reasonable doubt on the subject in an eminently characteristic
manner. "This is plain," he says, "from
the speech which Mango Capac, the reputed founder
of the Peruvian empire, addressed to his companions
on beholding the rainbow rising from a
hill; which is thus recorded by Balboa in the
ninth chapter of the third part of his Miscellanea
Antarctica: 'They traveled on until a mountain, at
present named Guanacauri, presented itself to their
view, when on a certain morning, they beheld the
rainbow rising above the mountain, with one extremity
resting upon it, when Manco Capac exclaimed
[17]
to his companions, This is a propitious sign
that the earth will not be again destroyed by water.' ...
Proof having been afforded in the passage
quoted from the History of Balboa, that the Peruvians
were acquainted with the history of the rainbow,
as given in the ninth chapter of Genesis, it may
be interesting to add, that according to the account
of an anonymous writer, they believed the rainbow
was not only a passive sign that the earth would not
be destroyed by a second deluge, but an active instrument
to prevent the recurrence of such a catastrophe:
the latter curious notion proceeded upon the
assumption that as the water of the sea (which, like
the Jews, they believed to encircle the whole earth)
would have a tendency to rise after excessive falls of
rain, so the pressure of the extremities of the rainbow
upon its surface would prevent its exceeding its
proper level."[I-37]



 THE TOWER OF BABEL.



Many of these flood-myths are supplemented with
an account of an attempt to provide against a second
deluge, by building a tower of refuge, resembling
more or less closely the biblical legend of the tower
of Babel. Thus a Cholultec legend relates that all
the giants who inhabited the country, save seven,
were destroyed by a great flood, and adds that when
the waters were assuaged, one of these seven began
to build an artificial mountain. But the anger of
the gods was aroused, and they slew many of the
builders, so the work was stopped.[I-38] In like manner,
in the Pápago legend to which I have referred,
Montezuma, after he and the Coyote had
been saved from the flood, so incensed the Great
Spirit by his ingratitude and presumption, that an
insect was sent flying to the east to bring the Spaniards,
who, when they came, utterly destroyed Montezuma.
After the deluge spoken of in the Lake
Tahoe myth, the few who escaped built up a great
[18]
tower, the strong making the weak do the work.
This, it is distinctly stated, they did that they might
have a place of refuge in case of another flood. But
the Great Spirit was filled with anger at their presumption,
and amidst thunderings and lightnings,
and showers of molten metal, he seized the oppressors
and cast them into a cavern.[I-39]




These myths have led many writers to believe that
the Americans had a knowledge of the tower of
Babel, while some think that they are the direct
descendants of certain of the builders of that tower,
who, after the confusion of tongues, wandered over
the earth until they reached America.[I-40]




Many of the tribes had traditions through which
they claim to have originally come from various directions
to their ultimate settling-place in America. It
will be readily seen that such traditions, even when
genuine, are far too vague and uncertain to be of any
value as evidence in any theory of origin. To each
tribe its own little territory was the one important
point in the universe; they had no conception of the
real size of the world; most of them supposed that
after a few days' journey the traveler could if he chose
jump off the edge of the earth into nothingness.
What their traditions referred to as a 'country in the
far east,' would probably mean a prairie two hundred
miles away in that direction. Nevertheless, as these
traditions have been thought to support this or that
theory, it will be well to briefly review them here.[I-41]
[19]



 ORIGIN OF THE TOLTECS.



The tradition of the Toltecs regarding their travels
before they reached Huehue Tlapallan has been the
theme of much speculation, especially as connected
with their descent from the Babel builders. Ixtlilxochitl
writes of this tradition as follows: They say
that the world was created in the year Ce Tecpatl,
[20]
and this time until the deluge they call Atonatiuh,
which means the age of the sun of water, because
the world was destroyed by the deluge. It is found
in the histories of the Toltecs that this age and first
world, as they term it, lasted seven hundred and
sixteen years; that man and all the earth were
destroyed by great showers and by lightnings from
heaven, so that nothing remained, and the most lofty
mountains were covered up and submerged to the
depth of caxtolmoletltli, or fifteen cubits;[I-42] and here
they add other fables of how men came to multiply
again from the few who escaped the destruction in a
[21]
toptlipetlacali; which word very nearly signifies a
closed chest; and how, after multiplying, the men
built a zacuali of great height, and by this is meant
a very high tower, in which to take refuge when the
world should be a second time destroyed. After this
their tongue became confused, and, not understanding
each other, they went to different parts of the
world. The Toltecs, seven in number, with their
wives, who understood each other's speech, after
crossing great lands and seas, and undergoing many
hardships, finally arrived in America, which they
found to be a good land, and fit for habitation; and
they say that they wandered one hundred and four
years in different parts of the earth before they arrived
at Huehue Tlapallan, which they did in the
year Ce Tecpatl, five hundred and twenty years—or
five ages—after the flood.[I-43]



 TRADITIONS OF QUICHÉ ORIGIN.



The Quiché traditions speak of a country in the
far east,[I-44] to reach which immense tracts of land and
water must be crossed. There, they say, they lived a
quiet but uncivilized life, paying no tribute, and
speaking a common language. There they worshiped
no graven images, but observed with respect the rising
sun and poured forth their invocations to the morning
star. The principal names of the families and tribes
at that time were, Tepeu, Oloman, Cohah, Quenech,
and Ahau.[I-45] Afterwards, continue the traditions,
they left their primitive country under the leadership
of certain chiefs, and finally after a long journey
reached a place called Tula. Where this Tula was is
uncertain, but Brasseur de Bourbourg places it on the
'other side of the sea,' and asserts that it was the
region from which the wanderers came, from time to
[22]
time, to the north-western coasts of America, and
thence southwards to Anáhuac and Central America.[I-46]




The Yucatecs are said to have had a tradition that
they came originally from the far east, passing through
the sea, which God made dry for them.[I-47] An Okanagan
myth relates that they were descended from a
white couple who had been sent adrift from an island
in the eastern ocean, and who floated ashore on this
land, which has grown larger since then. Their long
exposure on the ocean bronzed them to the color of
which their descendants now are.[I-48] The Chilians assert
that their ancestors came from the west. The
Chepewyans have a tradition that they came from a
distant land, where a bad people lived, and had to
cross a large narrow lake, filled with islands, where
ice and snow continually existed.[I-49] The Algonquins
preserve a tradition of a foreign origin and a sea voyage.
For a long time they offered an annual thank-offering
in honor of their happy arrival in America.[I-50]
According to Careri, the Olmec traditions relate that
they came by sea from the east.[I-51]



 AMERICAN CULTURE-HEROES.



The native traditions concerning the several culture-heroes
of America have also been brought
forward by a few writers to show that American
civilization was exotic and not indigenous; but,
though these traditions are far more worthy of serious
consideration, and present a far more fascinating
field for study than those which relate merely to
the origin or travels of the people themselves, yet,
strangely enough, they seem to have excited less
comment and speculation than any of those far-fetched
and trivial analogies with which all origin-theories
abound.
[23]




Although bearing various names and appearing in
different countries, the American culture-heroes all
present the same general characteristics. They are
all described as white, bearded men, generally clad in
long robes; appearing suddenly and mysteriously
upon the scene of their labors, they at once set about
improving the people by instructing them in useful
and ornamental arts, giving them laws, exhorting
them to practice brotherly love and other Christian
virtues, and introducing a milder and better form of
religion; having accomplished their mission, they
disappear as mysteriously and unexpectedly as they
came; and finally, they are apotheosized and held in
great reverence by a grateful posterity. In such
guise or on such mission did Quetzalcoatl appear in
Cholula, Votan in Chiapas, Wixepecocha in Oajaca,
Zamná, and Cukulcan with his nineteen disciples,
in Yucatan, Gucumatz in Guatemala,[I-52] Viracocha in
Peru,[I-53] Sumé[I-54] and Paye-Tome[I-55] in Brazil, the mysterious
[24]
apostle mentioned by Rosales, in Chili,[I-56] and
Bochica in Columbia.[I-57] Peruvian legends speak of a
nation of giants who came by sea, waged war with
the natives, and erected splendid edifices, the ruins
of many of which still remain.[I-58] Besides these, there
are numerous vague traditions of settlements or nations
of white men, who lived apart from the other
people of the country, and were possessed of an advanced
civilization.



 CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA.



The most celebrated of these are Quetzalcoatl and
Votan. The speculations which have been indulged
[25]
in regarding the identity of these mysterious personages,
are wild in the extreme. Thus Quetzalcoatl has
been identified by some with St Thomas, by others
with the Messiah. Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora[I-59]
and Luis Becerra Tanco,[I-60] in support of their opinion
that he was no other than the apostle, allege that the
hero-god's proper name Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl closely
resembles in sound and signification that of Thomas,
surnamed Didymus; for to in the Mexican name, is
an abbreviation of Thomas, to which pilcin, meaning
'son' or 'disciple,' is added; while the meaning of
Quetzalcoatl is exactly the same as that of the Greek
name Didymus, 'a twin,' being compounded of quetzalli
a plume of green feathers, metaphorically signifying
anything precious, and coatl, a serpent, metaphorically
meaning one of two twins. Boturini tells
us that he possessed certain historical memoranda concerning
the preaching of the gospel in America by
the 'glorious apostle' St Thomas. Another proof in
his possession was a painting of a cross which he discovered
near the hill of Tianguiztepetl, which cross
was about a cubit in size and painted by the hands of
angels a beautiful blue color, with various devices,
among which were five white balls on an azure shield,
'without doubt emblems of the five precious wounds
of our Savior;' and, what is more marvelous, although
this relic had stood in an exposed position from the
days of heathenism up to the time when it was discovered,
yet the inclemencies of the weather had not
been able to affect its gorgeous hues in the least. But
this is not all. Boturini also possessed a painting of
another cross, which was drawn, by means of a machine
made expressly for the purpose, out of an inaccessible
cave in Lower Mizteca, where it had been
deposited in the pagan times. Its hiding-place was
discovered by angelic music which issued from the
mouth of the cave on every vigil of the holy apostle.
[26]
Besides this, the saint has left the tracks of his holy
feet in many parts of New Spain. There is also a
tradition that at the time of his departure he left a
prophecy that in a certain year his sons would come
from the east to preach among the natives; which
prophecy, Boturini, following the track of the native
calendars, discovered to have been 'verified to the letter.'[I-61]
After this who can doubt that St Thomas
preached the gospel in America?




Foremost—as being most modern—among those
who have thought it possible to identify Quetzalcoatl
with the Messiah, stands Lord Kingsborough, a
writer and enthusiast of whom I shall speak further
when I come to the supposed Hebraic origin of the
Americans. To this point he has devoted an incredible
amount of labor and research, to give any adequate
idea of which would require at least more
space than I think, as a question of fact, it deserves.
In the first place it is founded mainly upon obscure
passages in the Prophet and other parts of Holy
Writ, as compared with the equally obscure meanings
of American names, religious rites, ancient prophecies,
conceptions of divinity, etc. Now, the day is past
when the earnest seeker after facts need be either
afraid or ashamed to assert that he cannot accept
[27]
the scriptures as an infallible authority upon the
many burning questions which continually thrust
themselves, as it were, upon the present generation
for immediate and fair consideration; nor need his
respect for traditions and opinions long held sacred
be lessened one iota by such an assertion. It is
needless to state that the analogies which Lord
Kingsborough finds in America in support of his
theory are based upon no sounder foundation.[I-62]



 VOTAN THE CULTURE-HERO.



Votan, another mysterious personage, closely resembling
Quetzalcoatl in many points, was the supposed
founder of the Maya civilization. He is said
to have been a descendant of Noah and to have assisted
at the building of the Tower of Babel. After
the confusion of tongues he led a portion of the dispersed
[28]
people to America. There he established the
kingdom of Xibalba and built the city of Palenque.[I-63]




Let us turn now from these wild speculations, with
which volumes might be filled, but which are practically
worthless, to the special theories of origin, which
are, however, for the most part, scarcely more satisfactory.




Beginning with eastern Asia, we find that the
Americans, or in some instances their civilization only,
are supposed to have come originally from China,
Japan, India, Tartary, Polynesia. Three principal
routes are proposed by which they may have come,
namely: Bering Strait, the Aleutian Islands, and
Polynesia. The route taken by no means depends
upon the original habitat of the emigrants; thus the
people of India may have emigrated to the north of
Asia, and crossed Bering Strait, or the Chinese may
have passed from one to the other of the Aleutian
Islands until they reached the western continent.
Bering Strait is, however, the most widely advocated,
and perhaps most probable, line of communication.
The narrow strait would scarcely hinder any
migration either east or west, especially as it is frequently
frozen over in winter. At all events it is certain
that from time immemorial constant intercourse
has been kept up between the natives on either side
of the strait; indeed, there can be no doubt that they
are one and the same people. Several writers, however,
favor the Aleutian route.[I-64]
[29]



 DIFFUSION OF ANIMALS.



But there is a problem which the possibility of
neither of these routes will help to solve: How did
the animals reach America? It is not to be supposed
that ferocious beasts and venomous reptiles
were brought over by the immigrants, nor is it more
probable that they swam across the ocean. Of course
such a question is raised only by those who believe
that all living creatures are direct descendants of the
animals saved from the flood in Noah's ark; but such
is the belief of the great majority of our authors.
The easiest way to account for this diffusion of animals
is to believe that the continents were at one time
united, though this is also asserted, with great show
of probability, by authors who do not think it necessary
to find a solid roadway in order to account for
the presence of animals in America, or even to believe
that the fauna of the New World need ever in
any way have come from the Old World. Again,
some writers are inclined to wonder how the tropical
animals found in America could have reached the continent
via the polar regions, and find it necessary to
connect America and Africa to account for this.[I-65]
[30]




The theory that America was peopled, or, at least
partly peopled, from eastern Asia, is certainly more
widely advocated than any other, and, in my opinion,
is moreover based upon a more reasonable and logical
foundation than any other. It is true, the Old
World may have been originally peopled from the
New, and it is also true that the Americans may
have had an autochthonic origin, but, if we must
suppose that they have originated on another continent,
then it is to Asia that we must first look for
proofs of such an origin, at least as far as the people
of north-western America are concerned. "It
appears most evident to me," says the learned
Humboldt, "that the monuments, methods of computing
time, systems of cosmogony, and many myths
of America, offer striking analogies with the ideas of
eastern Asia—analogies which indicate an ancient
communication, and are not simply the result of that
uniform condition in which all nations are found in
the dawn of civilization."[I-66] Prescott's conclusions
are, first: "That the coincidences are sufficiently
strong to authorize a belief, that the civilization of
Anahuac was, in some degree, influenced by that of
Eastern Asia. And, secondly, that the discrepancies
[31]
are such as to carry back the communication to a very
remote period; so remote, that this foreign influence
has been too feeble to interfere materially with the
growth of what may be regarded, in its essential
features, as a peculiar and indigenous civilization."[I-67]
"If, as I believe," writes Dr Wilson, "the continent
was peopled from Asia, it was necessarily by younger
nations. But its civilization was of native growth,
and so was far younger than that of Egypt."[I-68] That
"immigration was continuous for ages from the east
of Asia," is thought by Col. Smith to be "sufficiently
indicated by the pressure of nations, so far as it is
known in America, being always from the north-west
coasts, eastward and southward, to the beginning of
the thirteenth century."[I-69] "That America was peopled
from Asia, the cradle of the human race, can no
longer be doubted," says Dupaix; "but how and
when they came is a problem that cannot be solved."[I-70]
Emigration from eastern Asia, of which there can
be no doubt, only "took place," says Tschudi, "in
the latter part of the fifth century of the Christian
era; and while it explains many facts in America
which long perplexed our archæologists, it by no
means aids us in determining the origin of our earliest
population."[I-71] "After making every proper allowance,"
[32]
says Gallatin, "I cannot see any possible reason
that should have prevented those, who after the
dispersion of mankind moved towards the east and
northeast, from having reached the extremities of
Asia, and passed over to America, within five hundred
years after the flood. However small may
have been the number of those first emigrants, an
equal number of years would have been more than
sufficient to occupy, in their own way, every part of
America."[I-72] There are, however, writers who find
grave objections to an Asiatic origin, the principal of
which are the absence of the horse, the "paucity and
the poverty of the lactiferous animals, and the consequent
absence of pastoral nations in the New World."
[33]
For, adds a writer in the Quarterly Review, "we can
hardly suppose that any of the pastoral hordes of
Tartars would emigrate across the strait of Behring
or the Aleutian Islands without carrying with them
a supply of those cattle on which their whole subsistence
depended."[I-73]



 THEORY OF ORIGIN FROM CHINESE.


 THE COUNTRY OF FUSANG.



The theory that western America was originally
peopled by the Chinese, or at least that the greater
part of the New World civilization may be attributed
to this people, is founded mainly on a passage in the
work of the Chinese historian Li yan tcheou, who
lived at the commencement of the seventh century of
our era. In this passage it is stated that a Chinese
expedition discovered a country lying twenty thousand
li to the east of Tahan, which was called Fusang.[I-74]
Tahan is generally supposed to be Kamchatka, and
Fusang the north-west coast of America, California,
or Mexico. As so much depends upon what Li yan
tcheou has said about the mysterious country, it will
be well to give his account in full; as translated by
Klaproth, it is as follows: In the first of the years
young yuan, in the reign of Fi ti of the dynasty of
Thsi, a cha men (buddhist priest), named Hoeï chin,
arrived at King tcheou from the country of Fusang;
[34]
of this land he says: Fusang is situated twenty
thousand li[I-75] to the east of the country of Tahan, and
an equal distance to the east of China. In this place
are many trees called fusang,[I-76] whose leaves resemble
those of the Thoung (Bignonia tomentosa), and
the first sprouts those of the bamboo. These serve
the people of the country for food. The fruit is red
and shaped like a pear. The bark is prepared in the
same manner as hemp, and manufactured into cloth
and flowered stuffs. The wood serves for the construction
of houses, for in this country there are
neither towns nor walled habitations. The inhabitants
have a system of writing and make paper from
the bark of the fusang. They possess neither arms
nor troops and they never wage war. According to
the laws of the kingdom, there are two prisons, one
in the north, the other in the south; those who
have committed trifling faults are sent to the latter,
those guilty of graver crimes to the former, and detained
there until by mitigation of their sentence they
are removed to the south.[I-77] The male and female
prisoners are allowed to marry with each other and
their children are sold as slaves, the boys when they
are eight years of age, the girls when they are nine.
The prisoners never go forth from their jail alive.
When a man of superior mark commits a crime, the
[35]
people assemble in great numbers, seat themselves
opposite the criminal, who is placed in a ditch, partake
of a banquet, and take leave of the condemned
person as of one who is about to die. Cinders are
then heaped about the doomed man. For slight
faults, the criminal alone is punished, but for a great
crime his children and grandchildren suffer with him;
in some extraordinary cases his sin is visited upon his
descendants to the seventh generation.




The name of the king of this country is Yit khi;
the nobles of the first rank are called Toui lou; those
of the second, 'little' Toui lou; and those of the
third, Na tu cha. When the king goes out, he is
accompanied by tambours and horns. He changes
the color of his dress at certain times; in the years
of the cycle kia and y, it is blue; in the years ping
and ting, it is red; in the years ou and ki, it is yellow;
in the years keng and sin, it is white; and
lastly, in those years which have the characters jin
and kouei, it is black.




The cattle have long horns, and carry burdens, some
as much as one hundred and twenty Chinese pounds.
Vehicles, in this country, are drawn by oxen, horses,
or deer. The deer are raised in the same manner
that cattle are raised in China, and cheese is made
from the milk of the females.[I-78] A kind of red pear
is found there which is good at all seasons of the
year. Grape-vines are also plentiful.[I-79] There is no
iron, but copper is met with. Gold and silver are
not valued. Commerce is free, and the people are
not given to haggling about prices.




This is the manner of their marriages: When a
[36]
man wishes to wed a girl, he erects his cabin just
before the door of hers. Every morning and evening
he waters and weeds the ground, and this he continues
to do for a whole year. If by the end of that
time the girl has not given her consent to their
union, his suit is lost and he moves away; but if she
is willing, he marries her. The marriage ceremony
is almost the same as that observed in China. On
the death of their father or mother, children fast for
seven days; grandparents are mourned for by a fast
of five days, and other relations by a fast of three
days' duration. Images of the spirits of the dead[I-80]
are placed on a kind of pedestal, and prayed to morning
and evening.[I-81] Mourning garments are not worn.




The king does not meddle with affairs of government
until he has been three years upon the throne.




In former times the religion of Buddha was unknown
in this country, but in the fourth of the years
ta ming, in the reign of Hiao wou ti of the Soung
dynasty (A.D. 458), five pi khieou or missionaries,
from the country Ki pin, went to Fusang and there
diffused the Buddhist faith. They carried with them
sacred books and images, they introduced the ritual,
and inculcated monastic habits of life. By these
means they changed the manners of the people.




Such is the account given by the historian Li yan
tcheou of the mysterious land. Klaproth, in his critique
on Deguignes' theory that America was known
to the Chinese, uses the distances given by the monk
Hoeï chin to show that Fusang, where the laws and
institutions of Buddha were introduced, was Japan,
and that Tahan, situated to the west of the Vinland
of Asia, as Humboldt aptly calls Fusang,[I-82] was not
[37]
Kamchatka but the island of Tarakai, wrongly
named on our maps, Saghalien. The circumstance
that there were grape-vines and horses in the discovered
country is alone sufficient, he says, to show that
it was not situated on the American continent, since
both these objects were given to the New World
by the Spaniards. M. Gaubil also contradicts Deguignes'
theory. "Deguignes' paper," he writes to
one of his confrères in Paris, "proves nothing; by a
similar course of reasoning it might be shown that the
Chinese reached France, Italy, or Poland."[I-83]



 CHINESE EXPEDITION TO AMERICA.



Certain allusions to a Chinese colony, made by
Marco Polo and Gonzalo Mendoza, led Horn, Forster,
and other writers to suppose that the Chinese, driven
from their country by the Tartars about the year
1270, embarked to the number of one hundred thousand
in a fleet of one thousand vessels, and having
arrived on the coast of America, there founded the
Mexican empire. As Warden justly remarks, however,
it is not probable that an event of such importance
would be passed over in silence by the Chinese
historians, who rendered a circumstantial account of
the destruction of their fleet by the Tartars about the
year 1278 of our era, as well as of the reduction of
their country by the same people.[I-84]




The strongest proof upon which the Chinese theory
rests, is that of physical resemblance, which, on the
extreme north-western coast of America, is certainly
very strong.[I-85] I think there can be no doubt of the
[38]
presence of Mongol blood in the veins of the inhabitants
of that region, though it is probably Tartar
or Japanese rather than Chinese. Indeed, when we
consider that the distance across Bering Strait is all
that intervenes between the two continents, that this
is at times completely frozen over, thus practically
connecting America and Asia, and that, both by sea
and by ice, the inhabitants on both sides of the strait
are known to have had communication with each
other from time immemorial, a lack of resemblance,
physical and otherwise, would be far more strange
[39]
than its presence. In spite of what may be said to
the contrary, there can be no doubt that the Mongolian
type grows less and less distinct as we go south
from Alaska, though, once grant the Mongols a footing
on the continent, and the influence of their religion,
languages, or customs may, for all we know, have extended
even to Cape Horn.



 MONGOLIAN ANALOGIES.



Analogies have been found, or thought to exist,
between the languages of several of the American
tribes, and that of the Chinese. But it is to Mexico,
Central America, and, as we shall hereafter see, to
Peru, that we must look for these linguistic affinities,
and not to the north-western coasts, where we should
naturally expect to find them most evident.[I-86] The
similarity between the Otomí and Chinese has been
remarked by several writers.[I-87] A few customs are
[40]
mentioned as being common to both Chinese and
Americans, but they show absolutely nothing, and
are scarcely worth recounting. For instance, Bossu,
speaking of the Natchez, says, "they never
pare their finger nails, and it is well known
that in China long nails on the right hand are
a mark of nobility."[I-88] "It appears plainly" to
Mr Carver "that a great similarity between the
Indian and Chinese is conspicuous in that particular
custom of shaving or plucking off the hair, and
leaving only a small tuft on the crown of the
head."[I-89] M. du Pratz has "good grounds to believe"
that the Mexicans came originally from China or
Japan, especially when he considers "their reserved
and uncommunicative disposition, which to this day
prevails among the people of the eastern parts of
Asia."[I-90] Architectural analogy there is none.[I-91]



 BUDDHISM IN THE NEW WORLD.



The mythological evidence upon which this and
other east-Asiatic theories of origin rest, is the similarity
between the more advanced religions of America
and Buddhism. Humboldt thinks he sees in the
snake cut in pieces the famous serpent Kaliya or Kalinaga,
conquered by Vishnu, when he took the form
[41]
of Krishna, and in the Mexican Tonatiuh, the Hindu
Krishna, sung of in the Bhagavata-Purana.[I-92] Count
Stolberg,[I-93] is of opinion that the two great religious
sects of India, the worshipers of Vishnu and those of
Siva, have spread over America, and that the Peruvian
cult is that of Vishnu when he appears in the
form of Krishna, or the sun, while the sanguinary religion
of the Mexicans is analogous to that of Siva,
in the character of the Stygian Jupiter. The wife of
Siva, the black goddess Kali or Bhavani, symbol of
death and destruction, wears, according to Hindu
statues and pictures, a necklace of human skulls.
The Vedas ordain human sacrifices in her honor. The
ancient cult of Kali, continues Humboldt, presents,
without doubt, a marked resemblance to that of Mictlancihuatl,
the Mexican goddess of hell; "but in
studying the history of the peoples of Anáhuac, one
is tempted to regard these coincidences as purely accidental.
One is not justified in supposing that there
must have been communication between all semi-barbarous
nations who worship the sun, or offer up human
beings in sacrifice."[I-94]
[42]



 PHALLIC RELICS.



Humboldt, who inclines strongly toward the belief
that there has been communication between America
and southern Asia, is at a loss to account for the
total absence on the former continent of the phallic
symbols which play such an important part in the
worship of India.[I-95] But he remarks that M. Langlès[I-96]
observes that in India the Vaichnava, or
votaries of Vishnu, have a horror of the emblem of
the productive force, adored in the temples of Siva
and his wife Bhavani, goddess of abundance. "May
not we suppose," he adds, "that among the Buddhists
[43]
exiled to the north-east of Asia, there was also
a sect that rejected the phallic cult, and that it is
this purified Buddhism of which we find some slight
traces among the American peoples."[I-97] I think I
have succeeded in showing, however, in a previous
volume that very distinct traces of phallic worship
have been found in America.[I-98] An ornament bearing
some resemblance to an elephant's trunk, found
on some of the ruined buildings and images in
America, chiefly at Uxmal, has been thought by
some writers to support the theory of a south-Asiatic
origin. Others have thought that this hook represents
the elongated snout of the tapir, an animal
common in Central America, and held sacred in some
parts. The resemblance to either trunk or snout can
be traced, however, only with the aid of a very lively
imagination, and the point seems to me unworthy of
serious discussion.[I-99] The same must be said of attempts
[44]
to trace the mound-builders to Hindustan,[I-100]
not because communication between America and
southern Asia is impossible, but because something
more is needed to base a theory of such communication
upon than the bare fact that there were mounds
in one country and mounds in the other.




It is very positively asserted by several authors
that the civilization of Peru was of Mongolian origin.[I-101]
It is not, however, supposed to have been brought
from the north-western coasts of America, or to have
come to this continent by any of the more practicable
routes of communication, such as Bering Strait
or the Aleutian Islands. In this instance the introduction
of foreign culture was the result of disastrous
accident.



 MONGOL CIVILIZATION IN PERU.



In the thirteenth century, the Mongol emperor,
Kublai Khan, sent a formidable armament against
Japan. The expedition failed, and the fleet was scattered
by a violent tempest. Some of the ships, it is
said, were cast upon the coast of Peru, and their crews
are supposed to have founded the mighty empire of
the Incas, conquered three centuries later by Pizarro.
Mr John Ranking, who leads the van of theorists in
this direction, has written a goodly volume upon this
[45]
subject, which certainly, if read by itself, ought to
convince the reader as satisfactorily that America was
settled by Mongols, as Kingsborough's work that it
was reached by the Jews, or Jones' argument that
the Tyrians had a hand in its civilization.




That a Mongol fleet was sent against Japan, and
that it was dispersed by a storm, is matter of history,
though historians differ as to the manner of
occurrence and date of the event; but that any of
the distressed ships were driven upon the coast of
Peru can be but mere conjecture, since no news of
such an arrival ever reached Asia, and, what is
more important, no record of the deliverance of
their fathers, no memories of the old mother-country
from which they had been cut off so suddenly, seemingly
no knowledge, even, of Asia, were preserved by
the Peruvians. Granted that the crews of the
wrecked ships were but a handful compared with the
aboriginal population they came among, that they
only taught what they knew and did not people the
country, still, the sole foundation of the theory is
formed of analogous customs and physical appearance,
showing that their influence and infusion of blood
must have been very widely extended. If, when they
arrived, they found the natives in a savage condition,
as has been stated, this influence must, indeed, have
been all-pervading; and it is ridiculous to suppose
that the Mongol father imparted to his children a
knowledge of the arts and customs of Asia, without
impressing upon their minds the story of his shipwreck
and the history of his native country, about
which all Mongols are so precise.




But our theorists scorn to assign the parts of teachers
to the wrecked Mongolians. Immediately after
their arrival they gave kings to the country, and established
laws. Ranking narrates the personal history
and exploits of all these kings, or Incas, and
even goes so far as to give a steel-engraved portrait
of each; but then he also gives a "description of two
[46]
living unicorns in Africa." The name of the first
Inca was Mango, or Manco, which, says Ranking, was
also the name of the brother and predecessor of Kublai
Khan, he who sent out the expedition against Japan.
The first Inca of Peru, he believes was the son of
Kublai Khan, and refers the reader to his "portrait
of Manco Capac,[I-102] that he may compare it with the
description of Kublai," given by Marco Polo. The
wife of Manco Capac was named Coya Mama Oella
Huaco; she was also called Mamamchic, "as the
mother of her relations and subjects." Purchas mentions
a queen in the country of Sheromogula whose
name was Manchika.[I-103] Thus, putting two and two
together, Ranking arrives at the conclusion that "the
names of Mango and his wife are so like those in
Mongolia, that we may fairly presume them to be the
same."[I-104]



 PERUVIAN AND ASIATIC ANALOGIES.



Let us now briefly review some other analogies discovered
by this writer. The natives of South America
had little or no beard, the Mongols had also little
hair on the face. The Llatu, or head-dress of the Incas
had the appearance of a garland, the front being
decorated with a flesh-colored tuft or tassel, and that
of the hereditary prince being yellow; it was surmounted
by two feathers taken from a sacred bird.
Here again we are referred to the portraits of the Incas
and to those of Tamerlane and Tehanghir, two
Asiatic princes, "both descended from Genghis Khan."
The similarity between the head-dresses, is, we are
told, "striking, if allowance be made for the difficulty
the Incas would experience in procuring suitable muslin
for the turban." The plumes are supposed to be
in some way connected with the sacred owl of the
Mongols, and yellow is the color of the imperial family
[47]
in China. The sun was held an especial object of
adoration, as it "has been the peculiar god of the Moguls,
from the earliest times." The Peruvians regarded
Pachacamac as the Sovereign Creator; Camac-Hya
was the name of a Hindu goddess; haylli was
the burden of every verse of the songs composed in
praise of the Sun and the Incas. "Ogus, Ghengis'
ancestor, at one year of age, miraculously pronounced
the word Allah! Allah! which was the immediate
work of God, who was pleased that his name should
be glorified by the mouth of this tender infant."[I-105]
Thus Mr Ranking thinks "it is highly probable that
this (haylli) is the same as the well-known Hallelujah."
Resemblances are found to exist between the
Peruvian feast of the sun, and other similar Asiatic
festivals. In Peru, hunters formed a circle round the
quarry, in the country of Genghis they did the same.
The organization of the army was much the same in
Peru as in the country of the Khans; the weapons
and musical instruments were also very similar. In
the city of Cuzco, not far from the hill where the
citadel stood, was a portion of land called colcampata,
which none were permitted to cultivate except
those of royal blood. At certain seasons the
Incas turned up the sod here, amid much rejoicing
and many ceremonies. "A great festival is solemnized
every year, in all the cities of China, on the
day that the sun enters the fifteenth degree of Aquarius.
The emperor, according to the custom of the
ancient founders of the Chinese monarchy, goes himself
in a solemn manner to plough a few ridges of
land. Twelve illustrious persons attend and plough
after him."[I-106] In Peruvian as in Chinese architecture,
it is noticeable that great care is taken to render
the joints between the stones as nearly imperceptible
as
[48]
possible. A similarity is also said to exist between
the decorations on the palaces of the Incas
and those of the Khans. The cycle of sixty years
was in use among most of the nations of eastern
Asia, and among the Muyscas of the elevated plains
of Bogota. The quipu, or knotted reckoning cord
was in use in Peru, as in China. Some other analogies
might be cited, but these are sufficient to show
upon what foundation this theory rests. I may mention
here that the Incas possessed a cross of fine marble,
or jasper, highly polished, and all of one piece.
It was three fourths of an ell in length and three
fingers in thickness, and was kept in a sacred chamber
of the palace and held in great veneration. The
Spaniards enriched this cross with gold and jewels
and placed it in the cathedral at Cuzco; had it been
of plain wood they would probably have burnt it with
curses on the emblem of 'devil-worship.' To account
for this discovery, Mr Ranking says: There were many
Nestorians in the thirteenth century in the service of
the Mongols. The conqueror of the king of eastern
Bengal, A.D. 1272, was a Christian. The Mongols,
who were deists, treated all religions with respect, till
they became Mohammedans. It is very probable that
a part of the military sent to conquer Japan, were
commanded by Nestorian officers. The mother of the
Grand Khan Mangu, who was brother to Kublai, and
possibly uncle to Manco Capac, the first Inca, was a
Christian, and had in her service William Bouchier,
a goldsmith, and Basilicus, the son of an Englishman
born in Hungary. It is therefore highly probable
that this cross accompanied Manco Capac.[I-107]




[49]



 PERUVIAN GIANTS.



I have stated above that the Peruvians preserved
no record of having come originally from China.
They had a tradition, however, concerning certain
foreigners who came by sea to their country, which
may be worth repeating; Garcilasso de la Vega
gives this tradition as he himself heard it in Peru.
They affirm, he says, in all Peru, that certain giants
came by sea to the cape now called St Helen's, in
large barks made of rushes. These giants were so
enormously tall that ordinary men reached no higher
than their knees; their long, disheveled hair covered
[50]
their shoulders; their eyes were as big as saucers,
and the other parts of their bodies were of correspondingly
colossal proportions. They were beardless;
some of them were naked, others were clothed
in the skins of wild beasts; there were no women
with them. Having landed at the cape, they established
themselves at a spot in the desert, and dug
deep wells in the rock, which at this day continue to
afford excellent water. They lived by rapine, and
soon desolated the whole country. Their appetites
and gluttony were such that it is said one of them
would eat as much as fifty ordinary persons. They
massacred the men of the neighboring parts without
mercy, and killed the women by their brutal violations.
At last, after having for a long time tyrannized
over the country and committed all manner of
enormities, they were suddenly destroyed by fire from
heaven, and an angel armed with a flaming sword.
As an eternal monument of divine vengeance, their
bones remained unconsumed, and may be seen at the
present day. As for the rest, it is not known from
what place they came, nor by what route they arrived.[I-108]




There is also a native account of the arrival of
Manco Capac, in which he figures simply a culture-hero.
The story closely resembles those told of the
appearance and acts of the apostles Cukulcan, Wixepecocha,
and others, and need not be repeated here.[I-109]




[51]


 THE CHINESE FROM PERU.



Mr Charles Wolcott Brooks, Japanese consul in
San Francisco, a most learned gentleman, and especially
well versed in Oriental lore, has kindly presented
me with a MS. prepared by himself, in which
are condensed the results of twenty-five years' study
of the history of the eastern Asiatic nations, and
their possible communication with American continent.[I-110]
He recognizes many striking analogies between
the Chinese and the Peruvians, but arrives at
a conclusion respecting the relation between the two
nations, the exact reverse of that discussed in the
preceding paragraphs. His theory is that the Chinese
came originally from Peru, and not the Peruvians
from China. He uses, to support his argument,
many of the resemblances in customs, etc., of which
Ranking and others have availed themselves to prove
an exactly opposite theory, and adds that, as in those
early times the passage of the Pacific could only
have been made under the most favorable circumstances
and with the assistance of fair winds, it
would be impossible, owing to the action of the SE.
and NE. trade-winds for such a passage to have been
made, either intentionally or accidentally, from China
to Peru, while on the other hand, if a large craft
were placed before the wind and set adrift from the
Peruvian coast, there is a strong probability that it
would drive straight on to the southern coast of
China.[I-111]



 JAPANESE WRECKS ON THE AMERICAN COAST.



A Japanese origin or at least a strong infusion of
Japanese blood, has been attributed to the tribes of
the north-west coasts. There is nothing improbable
in this; indeed, there is every reason to believe that
on various occasions small parties of Japanese have
reached the American continent, have married the
[52]
women of the country, and necessarily left the impress
of their ideas and physical peculiarities upon
their descendants. Probably these visits were all,
without exception, accidental; but that they have occurred
in great numbers is certain. There have been
a great many instances of Japanese junks drifting
upon the American coast, many of them after having
floated helplessly about for many months. Mr
Brooks gives forty-one particular instances of such
wrecks, beginning in 1782, twenty-eight of which
date since 1850.[I-112] Only twelve of the whole number
were deserted. In a majority of cases the survivors
remained permanently at the place where the
waves had brought them. There is no record in
existence of a Japanese woman having been saved
from a wreck. A great many Japanese words are to
be found in the Chinook jargon, but in all cases abbreviated,
as if coming from a foreign source, while
the construction of the two languages is dissimilar.[I-113]
The reasons for the presence of Japanese and the absence
of Chinese junks are simple. There is a current
of cold water setting from the Arctic ocean south
along the east coast of Asia, which drives all the Chinese
wrecks south. The Kuro Siwo, or 'black stream,'
commonly known as the Japan current, runs northwards
past the eastern coast of the Japan islands,
then curves round to the east and south, sweeping the
whole west coast of North America, a branch, or
[53]
eddy, moving towards the Sandwich Islands. A
drifting wreck would be carried towards the American
coast at an average rate of ten miles a day by this
current. To explain the frequent occurrence of these
wrecks Mr Brooks refers to an old Japanese law.
About the year 1630, the Japanese government
adopted its deliberate policy of exclusion of foreigners
and seclusion of its own people. To keep the latter
from visiting foreign countries, and to confine their
voyages to smooth water and the coasting trade, a law
was passed ordering all junks to be built with open
sterns and large square rudders unfit to stand any
heavy sea. The January monsoons from the north-east
are apt to blow any unlucky coaster which happens
to be out straight into the Kuro Siwo, the huge
rudders are soon washed away, and the vessels, falling
into the trough of the sea, roll their masts overboard.
Every January there are numbers of these disasters
of which no record is kept. About one third of these
vessels, it seems, drift to the Sandwich Islands, the
remainder to North America, where they scatter along
the coast from Alaska to California. How many
years this has been going on can only be left to conjecture.
The information given by Mr Brooks is of
great value, owing to his thorough acquaintance with
the subject, the intelligent study of which has been
a labor of love with him for so many years. And his
theory with regard to the Japanese carries all the
more weight, in my opinion, in that he does not attempt
to account for the similarities that exist between
that people and the Americans by an immigration en
masse, but by a constant infusion of Japanese blood
and customs through a series of years, sufficient to
modify the original stock, wherever that came from.




I have already stated that traces of the Japanese
language have been found among the coast tribes.
There is also some physical resemblance.[I-114] Viollet-le-Duc
[54]
points out some striking resemblances between
the temples of Japan and Central America.[I-115] It is
asserted that the people of Japan had a knowledge of
the American continent and that it was marked down
on their maps. Montanus tells us that three ship-captains
named Henrik Corneliszoon, Schaep, and
Wilhelm Byleveld, were taken prisoners by the Japanese
and carried to Jeddo, where they were shown a
sea chart, on which America was drawn as a mountainous
country adjoining Tartary on the north.[I-116] Of
course the natives have the usual tradition that strangers
came among them long before the advent of the
Europeans.[I-117]




The theory that America, or at least the north-western
part of it, was peopled by the 'Tartars' or
tribes of north-western Asia, is supported by many
authors. There certainly is no reason why they
should not have crossed Bering Strait from Asia,
the passage is easy enough; nor is there any reason
why they should not have crossed by the same route
to Asia, and peopled the north-western part of that
continent. The customs, manner of life, and physical
appearance of the natives on both sides of the
straits are almost identical, as a multitude of witnesses
testify, and it seems absurd to argue the question
from any point. Of course, Bering Strait may
have served to admit other nations besides the people
inhabiting its shores into America, and in such cases
there is more room for discussion.[I-118]




[55]


 THE EGYPTIAN THEORY.



We may now consider that theory which supposes
the civilized peoples of America to be of Egyptian
origin, or, at least, to have derived their arts and culture
from Egypt. This supposition is based mainly
on certain analogies which have been thought to
exist between the architecture, hieroglyphics, methods
of computing time, and, to a less extent, customs,
of the two countries. Few of these analogies
will, however, bear close investigation, and even
where they will, they can hardly be said to prove
anything. I find no writer who goes so far as to
affirm that the New World was actually peopled
from Egypt; we shall, therefore, have to regard
this merely as a culture-theory, the original introduction
of human life into the continent in no way
depending upon its truth or fallacy.




The architectural feature which has attracted most
attention is the pyramid, which to some writers is of
itself conclusive proof of an Egyptian origin. The
points of resemblance, as given by those in favor of
this theory, are worth studying. García y Cubas
claims the following analogies between Teotihuacan
and the Egyptian pyramids: the site chosen is the
same; the structures are oriented with slight variation;
the line through the centre of the pyramids is
in the 'astronomical meridian;' the construction in
grades and steps is the same; in both cases the larger
pyramids are dedicated to the sun; the Nile has a
'valley of the dead,' as at Teotihuacan there is a
'street of the dead;' some monuments of each class
[56]
have the nature of fortifications; the smaller mounds
are of the same nature and for the same purpose;
both pyramids have a small mound joined to one of
their faces; the openings discovered in the Pyramid
of the Moon are also found in some Egyptian pyramids;
the interior arrangement of the pyramids is
analogous.[I-119]



 EGYPTIAN AND AMERICAN PYRAMIDS.



The two great pyramids of Teotihuacan, dedicated
to the sun and moon, are surrounded by
several hundreds of small pyramids. Delafield
remarks that the pyramids of Gizeh, in Egypt,
are also surrounded by smaller edifices in regular
order, and closely correspond in arrangement to
those of Teotihuacan.[I-120] The construction of these
two pyramids recalls to Mr Ranking's mind that of
"one of the Egyptian pyramids of Sakhara, which
has six stories; and which, according to Pocock, is a
mass of pebbles and yellow mortar, covered on the
outside with rough stones."[I-121] In some few instances
human remains have been found in American pyramids,
though never in such a position as to convey
the idea that the structure had been built expressly
for their reception, as was the case in Egypt. It is
but fair to add, however, that no pyramid has yet
been opened to its centre, or, indeed, in any way
properly explored as to its interior, and that a great
many of them are known to have interior galleries and
passages, though these were not used as sepulchres.
In one instance, at Copan, a vault was discovered in
the side of a pyramidal structure; on the floor, and in
two small niches, were a number of red earthen-ware
vessels, containing human bones packed in lime; scattered
about were shells, cave stalactites, and stone
knives; three heads were also found, one of them
"apparently representing death, its eyes being nearly
shut, and the lower features distorted; the back of
[57]
the head symmetrically perforated by holes; the
whole of most exquisite workmanship, and cut or
cast from a fine stone covered with green enamel."[I-122]
In the great pyramid of Cholula, also, an excavation
made in building the Puebla road, which cut off a
corner of the lower terrace, not only disclosed to
view the interior construction of the pyramid, but
also laid bare a tomb containing two skeletons and
two idols of basalt, a collection of pottery, and other
relics. The sepulchre was square, with stone walls,
supported with cypress beams. The dimensions are
not given, but no traces of any outlet were found.[I-123]
There are, besides, traditions among the natives of
the existence of interior galleries and apartments of
great extent within this mound. Thus we see that
in some instances the dead were deposited in pyramids,
though there is not sufficient evidence to show
that these structures were originally built for this
purpose.



 ARCHITECTURAL ANALOGIES.



Herodotus tells us that in his time the great pyramid
[58]
of Cheops was coated with polished stone, in
such a manner as to present a smooth surface on all
its sides from the base to the top; in the upper part
of the pyramid of Cephren the casing-stones have
remained in their places to the present day. No
American pyramid with smooth sides has as yet been
discovered, and of this fact those who reject the
Egyptian theory have not failed to avail themselves.[I-124]
It is nevertheless probable that many of the American
pyramids had originally smooth sides, though, at
the present day, time and the growth of dense tropical
vegetation have rendered the very shape of the structures
scarcely recognizable.[I-125] It is further objected
that while the American pyramids exhibit various
forms, all are truncated, and were erected merely to
serve as foundations for other buildings, those of
Egypt are of uniform shape, "rising and diminishing
until they come to a point,"[I-126] and are not known to
have ever served as a base for temple or palace. It
is, however, not certain, judging from facts visible at
the present day, that all the Egyptian pyramids did
rise to a point. Again, it is almost certain that the
American pyramid was not always used as a foundation
for a superimposed building, but that it was frequently
complete in itself. In many of the ruined
cities of Yucatan one or more pyramids have been
found upon the summit of which no traces of any
building could be discovered, although upon the pyramids
by which these were surrounded portions of
superimposed edifices still remained. There is, also,
some reason to believe that perfect pyramids were
constructed in America. As has been seen in the
preceding volume, Waldeck found near Palenque two
pyramids, which he describes as having been at the
time in a state of perfect preservation, square at the
base, pointed at the top, and thirty-one feet high,
[59]
their sides forming equilateral triangles. Delafield[I-127]
remarks that a simple mound would first suggest the
pyramid, and that from this the more finished and
permanent structure would grow; which is true
enough. But if we are to believe, as is stated, that
the American pyramids grew from such beginnings
as the Mississippi mounds, then what reason can there
be in comparing the pyramids of Teotihuacan with
those of Gizeh in Egypt. For if the Egyptian colonists,
at the time of their emigration to America, had
advanced no further toward the perfect pyramid than
the mound-building stage, would it not be the merest
coincidence if the finished pyramidal structures in one
country, the result of centuries of improvement,
should resemble those of the other country in any but
the most general features? Finally, pyramidal edifices
were common in Asia as well as in Northern
Africa, and it may be said that the American pyramids
are as much like the former as they are like the
latter.[I-128]




In its general features, American architecture does
not offer any strong resemblances to the Egyptian.
The upholders of the theory find traces of the latter
people in certain round columns found at Uxmal,
Mitla, Quemada, and other places; in the general massiveness
of the structures; and in the fact that the
vermilion dye on many of the ruins was a favorite
color in Egypt.[I-129] Humboldt, speaking of a ruined
[60]
structure at Mitla, says: "the distribution of the
apartments of this singular edifice, bears a striking
analogy to what has been remarked in the monuments
of Upper Egypt, drawn by M. Denon, and
the savans who compose the institute of Cairo."[I-130]



 SCULPTURE AND HIEROGLYPHICS.



Between American and Egyptian sculpture, there
is, at first sight, a very striking general resemblance.
This, however, almost entirely disappears upon close
examination and comparison. Both peoples represented
the human figure in profile, the Egyptians invariably,
the Americans generally; in the sculpture
of both, much the same attitudes of the body predominate,
and these are but awkwardly designed; there
is a general resemblance between the lofty head-dresses
worn by the various figures, though in detail
there is little agreement.[I-131] These are the points of
[61]
analogy and they are sufficiently prominent to account
for the idea of resemblance which has been so often
and so strongly expressed. But while sculpture in
Egypt is for the most part in intaglio, in America it
is usually in relief. In the former country, the faces
are expressionless, always of the same type, and,
though executed in profile, the full eye is placed on
the side of the head; in the New World, on the contrary,
we meet with many types of countenance, some
of which are by no means lacking in expression.




If there were any hope of evidence that the civilized
peoples of America were descendants, or derived
any of their culture from the ancient Egyptians,
we might surely look for such proof in their hieroglyphics.
Yet we look in vain. To the most expert
decipherer of Egyptian hieroglyphics, the inscriptions
at Palenque are a blank and unreadable mystery,
and they will perhaps ever remain so.[I-132]




[62]
Resemblances have been found between the calendar
systems of Egypt and America, based chiefly
upon the length and division of the year, and the
number of intercalary and complementary days.
This, however, is too lengthy a subject to be fully
discussed here. In a previous volume I have given
a full account of the American systems, and must
perforce leave it to the reader to compare them with
the Egyptian system.[I-133]




[63]
Of course a similarity of customs has to be found
to support this theory, as in the case of others.
Consequently our attention is drawn to embalmment,
circumcision, and the division of the people into
castes, which is not quite true of the Americans;
some resemblance is found, moreover, between the
religions of Egypt and America, for instance, certain
animals were held sacred in both countries; but all
such analogies are far too slender to be worth anything
as evidence; there is scarcely one of them that
would not apply to several other nations equally as
well as to the Egyptians.



 THE PHŒNICIAN THEORY.



Turning now to Western Asia, we find the honor
of first settling America given to the adventurous
Phœnicians. The sailors of Carthage are also supposed
[64]
by some writers to have first reached the New
World, but as the exploits of colony and mother-country
are spoken of by most writers in the same
breath, it will be the simplest plan to combine the
two theories here. They are based upon the fame of
these people as colonizing navigators more than upon
any actual resemblances that have been found to exist
between them and the Americans. It is argued that
their ships sailed beyond the Pillars of Hercules to
the Canary Islands, and that such adventurous explorers
having reached that point would be sure to
seek farther. The records of their voyages and certain
passages in the works of several of the writers
of antiquity are supposed to show that the ancients
knew of a land lying in the far west.[I-134]



 VOYAGES OF THE PHŒNICIANS.



The Phœnicians were employed about a thousand
years before the Christian era, by Solomon, king of
the Jews, and Hiram, king of Tyre, to navigate their
fleets to Ophir and Tarshish. They returned, by
way of the Mediterranean, to the port of Joppa, after
a three-years' voyage, laden with gold, silver, precious
stones, ivory, cedar, apes, and peacocks. Several
authors have believed that they had two distinct
fleets, one of which went to the land since known as
America, and the other to India. Huet, bishop of
Avranches,[I-135] and other authors, are persuaded that
Ophir was the modern Sofala, situated about 21°
S. lat., and that Tarshish comprised all the western
coast of Africa and Spain, but particularly the part
lying about the mouth of the Bœtis or Guadalquivir.
According to Arius Montanus, Genebrardus,
Vatable, and other writers, Ophir is the island of
Hispaniola. It is said that Christopher Columbus
was induced to adopt this idea by the immense
caverns which he found there, from which he supposed
that Solomon must have obtained his gold.
[65]
Postel and others have believed that the land of
Ophir was Peru.[I-136] Horn[I-137] claims that the Phœnicians
made three remarkable voyages to America;
the first, under the direction of Atlas, son of Neptune;
the second, when they were driven by a tempest
from the coast of Africa to the most remote
parts of the Atlantic ocean, and arrived at a large
island to the west of Libya; and the third, in the
time of Solomon, when the Tyrians went to Ophir
to seek for gold. According to those who believe
that there were two distinct fleets, that of Solomon
and that of Hiram, the first set out from Eziongeber,
sailed down the Red Sea, doubled Cape Comorin,
and went to Taproban (Ceylon), or some other part
of India; this voyage occupied one year. The other
fleet passed through the Mediterranean, stopping at
the various ports along the coasts of Europe and
Africa, and finally, passing out through the straits
of Gades, continued its voyage as far as America,
and returned after three years to its starting-place,
laden with gold.




[66]
The Periplus of Hanno, a Carthaginian navigator
of uncertain date, contains an account of a voyage
which he made beyond the Pillars of Hercules, with
a fleet of sixty ships and thirty thousand men, for
the purpose of founding the Liby-Phœnician towns.
He relates that setting out from Gades, he sailed
southwards. The first city he founded was Thumiaterion,[I-138]
near the Pillars of Hercules, probably in
the neighborhood of Marmora. He then doubled
the promontory of Soloeis,[I-139] which Rennel considers
to be the same as Cape Cantin, but other commentators
to be the same as Cape Blanco, in 33° N. latitude.
A little to the south of this promontory five
more cities were founded. After passing the mouth
of the river Lixus, supposed by Rennel to be the
modern St Cyprian, he sailed for two days along a
desolate coast, and on the third day entered a gulf in
which was situated a small island, which he named
Kerne, and colonized. After continuing his voyage
for some days, and meeting with various adventures,
he returned to Kerne, whence he once more directed
his course southward, and sailed along the coast for
twelve days. Two days more he spent in doubling
a cape, and five more in sailing about a large gulf.
He then continued his voyage for a few days, and
was finally obliged to return from want of provisions.
The authenticity of the Periplus has been doubted
by many critics, but it appears probable from the
testimony of several ancient authors that the voyage
was actually performed. But be the account true
or false, I certainly can discover in it no ground for
believing that Hanno did more than coast along the
western shore of Africa, sailing perhaps as far south
as Sierra Leone.[I-140]




[67]


 VOYAGES OF THE PHŒNICIANS.



Diodorus Siculus relates that the Phœnicians discovered
a large island in the Atlantic Ocean, beyond
the Pillars of Hercules, several days' journey from
the coast of Africa. This island abounded in all
manner of riches. The soil was exceedingly fertile;
the scenery was diversified by rivers, mountains, and
forests. It was the custom of the inhabitants to
retire during the summer to magnificent country
houses, which stood in the midst of beautiful gardens.
Fish and game were found in great abundance. The
climate was delicious, and the trees bore fruit at all
seasons of the year. The Phœnicians discovered this
fortunate island by accident, being driven on its coast
by contrary winds. On their return they gave glowing
accounts of its beauty and fertility, and the
Tyrians, who were also noted sailors, desired to colonize
it. But the senate of Carthage opposed their
plan, either through jealousy, and a wish to keep any
commercial benefit that might be derived from it for
themselves, or, as Diodorus relates, because they
wished to use it as a place of refuge in case of necessity.




Several authors, says Warden, have believed that
this island was America, among others, Huet, bishop
of Avranches. "The statement of Diodorus," he
writes, "that those who discovered this island were
cast upon its shores by a tempest, is worthy of attention;
as the east wind blows almost continually in
the torrid zone, it might well happen that Carthaginian
vessels, surprised by this wind, should be
carried against their will to the western islands."
Aristotle tells the same story. Homer, Plutarch,
and other ancient writers, mention islands situated in
the Atlantic, several thousand stadia from the Pillars
[68]
of Hercules, but such accounts are too vague and
mythical to prove that they knew of any land west
of the Canary Islands. Of course they surmised
that there was land beyond the farthest limits of
their discovery; they saw that the sea stretched
smoothly away to the horizon, uncut by their clumsy
prows, no matter how far they went; they peopled
the Sea of Darkness with terrors, but they hazarded
all manner of guesses at the nature of the treasure
which those terrors guarded. Is it not foolish to
invent a meaning and a fulfillment to fit the vague
surmises of these ancient minds? Are we to believe
that Seneca was inspired by a spirit of prophecy because
we read these lines in the second act of his
Medea:








"Venient annis


Sæcula seris, quibus Oceanus


Vincula rerum laxet, et ingens


Pateat tellus, Thetysque[I-141] novos


Detegat orbes; nec sit terris


Ultima Thule."





Or that Silenus knew of the continent of America
because Ælianus makes him tell Midas, the Phrygian,
that there was another continent besides Europe,
Asia, and Africa? A continent whose inhabitants
are larger and live longer than ordinary people,
and have different laws and customs. A country
where gold and silver are so plentiful that they are
esteemed no more than we esteem iron. Are we to
suppose that St Clement had visited America when
he wrote, in his celebrated epistle to the Corinthians
that there were other worlds beyond the ocean?
Might we not as well argue that America was certainly
not known to the ancients, or Tacitus would
never have written: "Trans Sueones aliud mare,
pigrum ac propè immotum ejus cingi cludique terrarum
orbem hinc fides." Would the theological
view of the flat structure of the earth have gained
credence for a moment, had antipodes been discovered
and believed in?




[69]


 VOTAN'S TRAVELS.



The mysterious traveler, Votan, is once more made
to do service for the theorist here. In his somewhat
doubtful manuscript, entitled "Proof that I am a
Serpent," Votan asserts that he is a descendant of
Imox, of the race of Chan, and derives his origin
from Chivim. "He states that he conducted seven
families from Valum Votan to this continent and assigned
lands to them; that he is the third of the Votans;
that, having determined to travel until he
arrived at the root of heaven, in order to discover his
relations the Culebras (Serpents), and make himself
known to them, he made four voyages to Chivim;[I-142]
that he arrived in Spain, and that he went to Rome;
that he saw the great house of God building;[I-143] that
he went by the road which his brethren the Culebras
had bored; that he marked it, and that he passed by
the houses of the thirteen Culebras. He relates
that in returning from one of his voyages, he found
seven other families of the Tzequil nation, who had
[70]
joined the first inhabitants, and recognized in them
the same origin as his own, that is, of the Culebras.
He speaks of the place where they built their first
town, which, from its founders, received the name of
Tzequil; he affirms the having taught them refinement
of manners in the use of the table, table-cloth,
dishes, basins, cups, and napkins; that, in return for
these, they taught him the knowledge of God and
of his worship; his first ideas of a king and obedience
to him; and that he was chosen captain of all
these united families."[I-144]



 THE TZENDAL TRADITIONS.



Cabrera supposes Chivim to be the same as Hivim
or Givim, which was the name of the country from
which the Hivites, descendants of Heth, son of
Canaan, were expelled by the Philistines some years
before the departure of the Hebrews from Egypt.
Some of these settled about the base of Mount Hermon,
and to them belonged Cadmus and his wife
Harmonia. It is probably owing to the fable of
their transformation into snakes, related by Ovid in
his Metamorphoses, that the word Givim in the
Phœnician language signifies a snake.[I-145] Tripoli of
[71]
Syria, a town in the kingdom of Tyre, was anciently
called Chivim. "Under this supposition, when Votan
says he is Culebra, because he is Chivim, he
clearly shows, that he is a Hivite originally of Tripoli
in Syria, which he calls Valum Chivim, where he
landed, in his voyages to the old continent. Here
then, we have his assertion, I am Culebra, because
I am Chivim, proved true, by a demonstration as
evident, as if he had said, I am a Hivite, native of
Tripoli in Syria, which is Valum Chivim, the port of
my voyages to the old continent, and belonging to a
nation famous for having produced such a hero as
Cadmus, who, by his valour and exploits, was worthy
of being changed into a Culebra (snake) and placed
among the gods; whose worship, for the glory of my
nation and race, I teach, to the seven families of the
Tzequiles, that I found, on returning from one of my
voyages, united to the seven families, inhabitants of
the American continent, whom I conducted from
Valum Votan, and distributed lands among them."[I-146]




The most enthusiastic supporter of the Phœnician,
or Tyrian, theory, is Mr George Jones. This gentleman
has devoted the whole of a goodly volume to
the subject, in which he not only sustains, but conclusively
proves, to his own satisfaction, whatever
proposition he pleases. It is of no use to question,
he demolishes by anticipation all possible objections;
he "will yield to none," he says, "in the conscientious
belief in the truth of the startling propositions,
and the consequent historic conclusions." The sum
of these propositions and conclusions is this: that
after the taking of the Tyrian capital by Alexander,
[72]
B.C. 332, a remnant of the inhabitants escaped by
sea to the Fortunate Islands, and thence to America.
The author does not pretend that they had any positive
foreknowledge of the existence of a western
continent; though he believes "that from their
knowledge of astronomy, they may have had the
supposition that such might be the case, from the
then known globular character of the earth." But
they were mainly indebted for the success of their
voyage to the favoring east winds which bore them,
in the space of a month straight to the coast of
Florida.[I-147] "There arrived in joyous gladness, and
welcomed by all the gifts of nature,—like an heir
to a sudden fortune, uncertain where to rest,—the
Tyrians left the shore of Florida and coasted the gulf
of Mexico, and so around the peninsula of Yucatan
and into the Bay of Honduras; they thence ascended
a river of shelter and safety, and above the rapids of
which they selected the site of their first city,—now
occupied by the ruins, altars, idols, and walls of
Copan!"




The more effectually to preserve the secret of their
discovery and place of refuge, they subsequently
destroyed their galleys and passed a law that no
others should be built. At least, this is Mr. Jones'
belief—a belief which, to him, makes the cause "instantly
apparent" why the new-found continent was
for so many centuries unknown to Asiatics or Europeans.
It is possible, however, the same ingenious
author thinks, that, upon a final landing, they burned
[73]
their ships as a sacrifice to Apollo, "and having
made that sacrifice to Apollo, fanatical zeal may have
led them to abhor the future use of means, which, as
a grateful offering, had been given to their deity.
Thence may be traced the gradual loss of nautical
practice, on an enlarged scale; and the great continent
now possessed by them, would also diminish by
degrees the uses of navigation."[I-148]



 MR JONES' REASONING.



Jones ingeniously makes use of the similarities
which have been thought to exist between the American
and Egyptian pyramids, and architecture generally,
to prove his Tyrian theory. The general
character of the American architecture is undoubtedly
Egyptian, he argues; but the resemblance is
not close enough in detail to allow of its being
actually the work of Egyptian hands; the ancient
cities of America were therefore built by a people
who had a knowledge of Egyptian architecture, and
enjoyed constant intercourse with that nation. But
some of the ruins are Greek in style; the mysterious
people must also have been familiar with Greek
architecture. Where shall we find such a people?
The cap exactly fits the Tyrians, says Mr Jones, let
them wear it. Unfortunately, however, Mr Jones
manufactures the cap himself and knows the exact
size of the head he wishes to place it on. He next
goes on to prove "almost to demonstration that Grecian
artists were authors of the sculpture, Tyrians
the architects of the entire edifices,—while those
of Egypt were authors of the architectural bases."
The tortoise is found sculptured on some of the ruins
[74]
at Uxmal; it was also stamped upon the coins of
Grecian Thebes and Ægina. From this fact it is
brought home at once to the Tyrians, because the
Phœnician chief Cadmus, who founded Thebes, and
introduced letters into Greece, without doubt selected
the symbols of his native land to represent
the coin of his new city. The tortoise is, therefore,
a Tyrian emblem.[I-149]




The American ruins in some places bear inscriptions
written in vermilion paint; the Tyrians were
celebrated for a purple dye. Carved gems have been
found in American tombs; the Tyrians were also
acquainted with gem-carving. The door-posts and
pillars of Solomon's temple were square;[I-150] square
obelisks and columns may also be found at Palenque.
But it is useless to multiply quotations; the absurdity
of such reasoning is blazoned upon the face
of it.




At Dighton, on the bay of Narraganset, is, or
was, an inscription cut in the rock, which has been
confidently asserted to be Phœnician. Copies of this
inscription have been frequently made, but they differ
so materially that no two of them would appear to
be intended for the same design.[I-151]




[75]


 INSCRIBED TABLETS.



In the mountains which extend from the village
of Uruana in South America to the west bank of
the Caura, in 7° lat., Father Ramon Bueno found a
block of granite on which were cut several groups of
characters, in which Humboldt sees some resemblance
to the Phœnician, though he doubts that the
worthy priest whose copy he saw performed his work
very carefully.[I-152]




The inscribed stone discovered at Grave Creek
Mound has excited much comment, and has done
excellent service, if we judge by the number of
theories it has been held to elucidate. Of the
twenty-two characters which are confessedly alphabetic,
inscribed upon this stone, ten are said to correspond,
with general exactness, with the Phœnician,
fifteen with the Celtiberic, fourteen with the old
[76]
British, Anglo Saxon or Bardic, five with the old
northern, or Runic proper, four with the Etruscan,
six with the ancient Gallic, four with the
ancient Greek, and seven with the old Erse.[I-153]
An inscribed monument supposed to be Phœnician
was discovered by one Joaquin de Costa, on his
estate in New Granada, some time since.[I-154] The
cross, the serpent, and the various other symbols
found among the American ruins, have all been regarded
by different authors as tending to confirm the
Phœnician theory; chiefly because similar emblems
have been found in Egypt, and the Phœnicians are
known to have been familiar with Egyptian arts and
ideas.[I-155] Melgar, who thinks there can be no doubt
that the Phœnicians built Palenque, supposes the
so-called Palenque medal[I-156] to represent Hercules in
the Garden of the Hesperides, attacked by the
dragon. Two thousand three hundred years before
the worship of Hercules was known in Greece, it
obtained in Phœnicia, whither it was brought from
Egypt, where it had flourished for over seventeen
thousand years.[I-157]




[77]


 THE CARTHAGINIAN THEORY.



García quotes a number of analogies, giving, after
his fashion, the objections to each by the Spaniards.
The builders of the Central American cities, he says,
are reported by tradition to have been of fair complexion
and bearded. The Carthaginians, in common
with the Indians, practiced human sacrifices to a
great extent; they worshiped fire and water, adopted
the names of the animals whose skins they wore,
drank to excess, telegraphed by means of fires,
decked themselves in all their finery on going to war,
poisoned their arrows, offered peace before beginning
battle, used drums, shouted in battle, were similar in
stratagems and exercised great cruelty to the vanquished.
The objections are that the language of
the Indians is not corrupt Carthaginian; that they
have many languages, and could not have sprung
from any one nation; Satan prompted the Indians
to learn various languages in order to prevent the
extension of the true faith. But why are the Indians
beardless if they descended from the Carthaginians?
Their beards have been lost by the action
of the climate as the Africans were changed in color.
Then why do they not lose their hair as well, and
why do not the Spaniards lose their beard? They
may in time. And so he goes on through page after
page.[I-158]




The theory that the Americans are of Jewish
descent has been discussed more minutely and at
greater length than any other. Its advocates, or at
[78]
least those of them who have made original researches,
are comparatively few; but the extent of
their investigations and the multitude of parallelisms
they adduce in support of their hypothesis, exceed
by far anything we have yet encountered.




Of the earlier writers on this subject, García is
the most voluminous. Of modern theorists Lord
Kingsborough stands preëminently first, as far as
bulky volumes are concerned, though Adair, who
devotes half of a thick quarto to the subject, is by
no means second to him in enthusiasm—or rather
fanaticism—and wild speculation. Mrs Simon's volume,
though pretentious enough to be original, is
neither more nor less than a re-hash of Kingsborough's
labors.




García,[I-159] who affirms that he devoted more attention
to this subject than to all the rest of his work,[I-160]
deals with the Hebrew theory by the same systematic
arrangement of 'opinions,' 'solutions,' 'objections,'
'replies,' etc., that is found all through his
book. A condensed résumé of his argument will be
necessary.



 TEN LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL.



The opinion that the Americans are descended
from the ten lost tribes of Israel, he says, is commonly
received by the unlettered multitude, but not
by the learned; there are, however, some exceptions
to this rule. The main support of the opinion is
found in the fourth book of Esdras, according to
which these tribes, having been carried into captivity
by Salmanassar, separated from the other tribes and
went into a new region, where man had never yet
[79]
lived, through which they journeyed for a year and
a half, until they came to a land which they called
Arsareth, where they settled and have dwelt ever
since.




The most difficult question is: how did they get
to America? to which the most reasonable answer
seems to be, that they gradually crossed northern
Asia until they came to the straits of Anian,[I-161] over
which they passed into the land of Anian, whence
they journeyed southward by land through New
Mexico into Mexico and Peru.[I-162] That they were
able to make such a long journey is amply attested
by parallel undertakings, of which we have historical
proof. It is argued that they would not travel so far
and through so many inhabited countries without
finding a resting-place; but we read in the Scriptures
that when they left the country of the Medes,
whither they had been carried by Salmanassar, they
determined to journey beyond all the gentile nations
until they came to an uninhabited land. It is true
some learned men assert that they are still to be
found in the cities of the Medes, but a statement
that disagrees with the book of Esdras is unworthy
of belief; though of course some of them may have
remained; besides, must not Mexico be included
in the direct declaration of God that he would
scatter the Jews over all the earth? The opinion
that the Americans are of Hebrew origin is further
supported by similarities in character, dress, religion,
physical peculiarities, condition, and customs. The
Americans are at heart cowardly, and so are the
[80]
Jews; the history of both nations proves this.[I-163] The
Jews did not believe in the miracles of Christ, and
for their unbelief were scattered over the face of the
earth, and despised of all men; in like manner the
people of the New World did not readily receive the
true faith as preached by Christ's catholic disciples,
and are therefore persecuted and being rapidly exterminated.
Another analogy presents itself in the
ingratitude of the Jews for the many blessings and
special favors bestowed on them by God, and the
ingratitude shown by the Americans in return for
the great kindness of the Spaniards. Both Jews
and Americans are noted for their want of charity
and kindness to the poor, sick, and unfortunate; both
are naturally given to idolatry; many customs are
common to both, such as raising the hands to heaven
when making a solemn affirmation, calling all near
relatives brothers, showing great respect and humility
before superiors, burying their dead on hills
and high places without the city, tearing their clothing
on the reception of bad tidings, giving a kiss on
the cheek as a token of peace, celebrating a victory
with songs and dances, casting out of the place of
worship women who are barren, drowning dogs in a
well, practicing crucifixion. Both were liars, despicable,
cruel, boastful, idle, sorcerers, dirty,[I-164] swindlers,
turbulent, incorrigible, and vicious. The dress
[81]
of the Hebrews was in many points like that of the
Americans. Both are fit only for the lowest kind of
labor. The Jews preferred the flesh-pots of Egypt
and a life of bondage to heavenly manna and the
promised land; the Americans liked a life of freedom
and a diet of roots and herbs, better than the service
of the Spaniards with good food.[I-165] The Jews were
famous for fine work in stone, as is shown by the
buildings of Jerusalem, and a similar excellence in
this art is seen in the American ruins. The Mexicans
have a tradition of a journey undertaken at the
command of a god, and continued for a long time
under the direction of certain high-priests, who miraculously
obtained supplies for their support; this
bears a striking resemblance to the Hebrew story of
the wandering in the desert.



 THE JEWS IN AMERICA.


 JEWISH ANALOGIES.



It has been argued, in opposition to the Hebrew
theory, that the Jews were physically and intellectually
the finest race in the world, while the
Americans are probably the lowest. But in answer
to this it may be stated that the finest among the
Jews belonged to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin,
which were not among the so-called lost tribes;
though, even if we admit that the ten tribes were
physically and intellectually equal to these two, may
we not fairly suppose that their temperament and
physique would be changed by dwelling for a length
of time in the different environment of America.
True, Dr San Juan attempts to prove that the good
effect of the manna on which the Israelites lived for
forty years, was such that it would take four thousand
years to obliterate it; but though this might
hold true in the case of those Jews who went to Spain
and other temperate climes, it would probably be different
with those who came to America; it is, besides,
likely that the change in the race was a special
[82]
act of God.[I-166] In answer to the assertion that the
Americans are an inferior race, it may be said that
there are many exceptions to this rule; for instance,
the people of Mexico and Michoacan were very ingenious,
and excelled in painting, feather-work, and
other arts.




Again, it is objected that while the Jews were
skilled in letters, and indeed are said by some to have
discovered the art of writing, the Americans had no
such knowledge of letters as they would have possessed
had they been of Hebrew origin. But the
same objection would apply to their descent from any
race of Europe, Asia, or Africa. It is urged that
the Americans, if of Jewish descent, would have
preserved the Hebrew ceremonies and laws. It is,
however, well known that the ten tribes from whom
they are supposed to be descended were naturally
prone to unbelief and backsliding; it is not strange,
therefore, that when freed from all restraint, they
should cease to abide by their peculiarly strict code.
Moreover, many traces of their old laws and ceremonies
are to be found among them at the present
day. For instance, both Jews and Americans gave
[83]
their temples into the charge of priests, burned incense,
anointed the body, practiced circumcision,[I-167]
kept perpetual fires on their altars, forbade women to
enter the temples immediately after giving birth, and
husbands to sleep with their wives for seven days
during the period of menstruation, prohibited marriage
or sexual intercourse between relatives within
the second degree, made fornication with a slave
punishable, slew the adulterer, made it unlawful for
a man to dress like a woman, or a woman like a
man, put away their brides if they proved to have
lost their virginity, and kept the ten commandments.




Another objection is, that the Americans do not
speak Hebrew. But the reason for this is that the
language has gradually changed, as has been the case
with all tongues. Witness the Hebrew spoken by
the Jews at the present time, which is much corrupted,
and very different from what it originally
was. There do actually exist, besides, many Hebraic
traces in the American languages.[I-168] And even if
this were not so, may we not suppose that the Devil
prompted the Americans to learn new and various
languages, that they might be prevented in after
years from hearing the Catholic faith? though fortunately
the missionaries learned all these strange
tongues, and thus cheated the Evil One.




Acosta questions the authority of Esdras, but,
answers García, although the book of Esdras is certainly
apocryphal, it is nevertheless regarded by the
Church as a higher authority than the Doctors.
Acosta urges, moreover, that Esdras, even if reliable,
states distinctly that the ten tribes fled from the
[84]
Gentiles for the express purpose of keeping their law
and religion, while Americans are given to idolatry;
which is all very true, but might not the Jews have
set out with these good resolutions, and have afterwards
changed their minds?




Such is the manner of García's argument; and turning
now to Lord Kingsborough's magnificent folios, do
we find anything more satisfactory? Scarcely. The
Spanish father's impartiality and profound research
does not appear in Kingsborough; and moreover, we
find that the work of the former is much more satisfactorily
arranged than that of the latter. García
does not pretend to give his own opinions, but
merely aims to present fairly, with all their pros
and cons, the theories of others. Kingsborough has
a theory to prove, and to accomplish his object he
drafts every shadow of an analogy into his service.
But though his theory is as wild as the wildest, and
his proofs are as vague as the vaguest, yet Lord
Kingsborough cannot be classed with such writers as
Jones, Ranking, Cabrera, Adair, and the host of
other dogmatists who have fought tooth and nail,
each for his particular hobby. Kingsborough was
an enthusiast—a fanatic, if you choose—but his enthusiasm
is never offensive. There is a scholarly
dignity about his work which has never been attained
by those who have jeered and railed at him; and
though we may smile at his credulity, and regret
that such strong zeal was so strangely misplaced, yet
we should speak and think with respect of one who
spent his lifetime and his fortune, if not his reason,
in an honest endeavor to cast light upon one of the
most obscure spots in the history of man.



 KINGSBOROUGH'S ARGUMENTS.



The more prominent of the analogies adduced by
Lord Kingsborough may be briefly enumerated as
follows:



 HEBREW AND AMERICAN ANALOGIES.



The religion of the Mexicans strongly resembled
that of the Jews, in many minor details, as will be
presently seen, and the two were practically alike, to
[85]
a certain extent, in their very foundation; for, as
the Jews acknowledged a multitude of angels, archangels,
principalities, thrones, dominions, and powers,
as the subordinate personages of their hierarchy, so
did the Mexicans acknowledge the unity of the Deity
in the person of Tezcatlipoca, and at the same time
worship a great number of other imaginary beings.
Both believed in a plurality of devils subordinate to
one head, who was called by the Mexicans Mictlantecutli,
and by the Jews Satan. Indeed, it seems
that the Jews actually worshiped and made offerings
to Satan as the Mexicans did to their 'god of hell.'
It is probable that the Toltecs were acquainted with
the sin of the first man, committed at the suggestion
of the woman, herself deceived by the serpent, who
tempted her with the fruit of the forbidden tree,
who was the origin of all our calamities, and by
whom death came into the world.[I-169] We have seen
in this chapter that Kingsborough supposes the
Messiah and his story to have been familiar to the
Mexicans. There is reason to believe that the Mexicans,
like the Jews, offered meat and drink offerings
to stones.[I-170] There are striking similarities between
the Babel, flood, and creation myths of the Hebrews
and the Americans.[I-171] Both Jews and Mexicans
were fond of appealing in their adjurations to the
heaven and the earth.[I-172] Both were extremely superstitious,
and firm believers in prodigies.[I-173] The character
and history of Christ and Huitzilopochtli present
certain analogies.[I-174] It is very probable that
the Sabbath of the seventh day was known in some
parts of America.[I-175] The Mexicans applied the blood
of sacrifices to the same uses as the Jews; they
poured it upon the earth, they sprinkled it, they
[86]
marked persons with it, and they smeared it upon
walls and other inanimate things.[I-176] No one but the
Jewish high-priest might enter the Holy of Holies.
A similar custom obtained in Peru.[I-177] Both Mexicans
and Jews regarded certain animals as unclean
and unfit for food.[I-178] Some of the Americans believed
with some of the Talmudists in a plurality of
souls.[I-179] That man was created in the image of God
was a part of the Mexican belief.[I-180] It was customary
among the Mexicans to eat the flesh of sacrifices
of atonement.[I-181] There are many points of
resemblance between Tezcatlipoca and Jehovah.[I-182]
Ablutions formed an essential part of the ceremonial
law of the Jews and Mexicans.[I-183] The opinions of
the Mexicans with regard to the resurrection of the
body, accorded with those of the Jews.[I-184] The Mexican
temple, like the Jewish, faced the east.[I-185] "As
amongst the Jews the ark was a sort of portable
temple in which the Deity was supposed to be continually
present, and which was accordingly borne on
the shoulders of the priests as a sure refuge and
defence from their enemies, so amongst the Mexicans
and the Indians of Michoacan and Honduras an ark
was held in the highest veneration, and was considered
an object too sacred to be touched by any
but the priests. The same religious reverence for
the ark is stated by Adair to have existed among the
Cherokee and other Indian tribes inhabiting the
banks of the Mississippi, and his testimony is corroborated
by the accounts of Spanish authors of the
[87]
greatest veracity. The nature and use of the ark
having been explained, it is needless to observe that
its form might have been various, although Scripture
declares that the Hebrew ark was of the simplest
construction." And again: "it would appear from
many passages of the Old Testament, that the Jews
believed in the real presence of God in the ark, as
the Roman Catholics believe in the real presence of
Christ in the sacrament, from whom it is probable
the Mexicans borrowed the notion that He, whom
the heaven of heavens cannot contain, and whose
glory fills all space, could be confined within the precincts
of a narrow ark and be borne by a set of
weak and frail priests. If the belief of the Mexicans
had not been analogous to that of the ancient
Jews, the early Spanish missionaries would certainly
have expressed their indignation of the absurd credulity
of those who believed that their omnipresent
god Huitzilopochtli was carried in an ark on priests'
shoulders; but of the ark of the Mexicans they say
but little, fearing, as it would appear, to tread too
boldly on the burning ashes of Mount Sinai."[I-186]




The Yucatec conception of a Trinity resembles the
Hebrew.[I-187] It is probable that Quetzalcoatl, whose
proper name signifies 'feathered serpent,' was so
called after the brazen serpent which Moses lifted up
in the wilderness, the feathers perhaps alluding to
the rabbinical tradition that the fiery serpents which
god sent against the Israelites were of a winged
species.[I-188]




[88]
The Mexicans, like the Jews, saluted the four
cardinal points, in their worship.[I-189] There was much
in connection with sacrifices that was common to
Mexicans and Jews.[I-190] It is possible that the myth
relating to Quetzalcoatl's disappearance in the sea,
indicates a knowledge of the book of the prophet
Jonah.[I-191]




The Mexicans say that they wrestled at times
with Quetzalcoatl, even as Jacob wrestled with
God.[I-192] In various religious rites and observances,
such as circumcision,[I-193] confession,[I-194] and communion,[I-195]
there was much similarity. Salt was an article
highly esteemed by the Mexicans, and the Jews
always offered it in their oblations.[I-196] Among the
Jews, the firstling of an ass had to be redeemed with
a lamb, or if unredeemed, its neck was broken. This
command of Moses should be considered in reference
to the custom of sacrificing children which existed in
Mexico and Peru.[I-197] The spectacle of a king performing
a dance as an act of religion was witnessed
by the Jews as well as by Mexicans.[I-198] As the
Israelites were conducted from Egypt by Moses and
Aaron who were accompanied by their sister Miriam,
so the Aztecs departed from Aztlan under the guidance
of Huitziton and Tecpatzin, the former of whom
is named by Acosta and Herrera, Mexi, attended likewise
by their sister Quilaztli, or, as she is otherwise
named Chimalman or Malinalli, both of which latter
names have some resemblance to Miriam, as Mexi
has to Moses.[I-199] In the Mexican language amoxtli
[89]
signifies flags or bulrushes, the derivation of which
name, from atl, water, and moxtli, might allude to
the flags in which Moses had been preserved.[I-200] The
painting of Boturini seems actually to represent
Huitzilopochtli appearing in a burning bush in the
mountain of Teoculhuacan to the Aztecs.[I-201] The
same writer also relates that when the Mexicans in
the course of their migration had arrived at Apanco,
the people of that province were inclined to oppose
their further progress, but that Huitzilopochtli aided
the Mexicans by causing a brook that ran in the
neighborhood to overflow its banks. This reminds us
of what is said in the third chapter of Joshua of the
Jordan overflowing its banks and dividing to let the
priests who bore the ark pass through.[I-202] As Moses
and Aaron died in the wilderness without reaching
the land of Canaan, so Huitziton and Tecpatzin died
[90]
before the Mexicans arrived in the land of Anáhuac.[I-203]
The Mexicans hung up the heads of their sacrificed
enemies; and this also appears to have been a Jewish
practice, as the following quotation from the twenty-fifth
chapter of Numbers will show: "And the Lord
said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people,
and hang them up before the Lord against the sun,
that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned
away from Israel."[I-204] In a Mexican painting in the
Bodleian library at Oxford is a symbol very strongly
resembling the jaw-bone of an ass from the side of
which water seems to flow forth, which might allude
to the story of Samson slaying a thousand of the
Philistines with such a bone, which remained miraculously
unbroken in his hands, and from which he
afterwards quenched his thirst.[I-205] They were fond of
wearing dresses of scarlet and of showy colors, as
were also the Jews. The exclamation of the prophet,
"Who is this that cometh from Bozrah?" and many
other passages of the Old Testament might be cited
to show that the Jews entertained a great predilection
for scarlet.[I-206] It is impossible, on reading
what Mexican mythology records of the war in
heaven and of the fall of Tzontemoc and the other
rebellious spirits; of the creation of light by the
word of Tonacatecutli, and of the division of the
waters; of the sin of Ytztlacoliuhqui, and his blindness
and nakedness; of the temptation of Suchiquecal,
and her disobedience in gathering roses from
a tree, and the consequent misery and disgrace of
herself and all her posterity,—not to recognize Scriptural
analogies.[I-207] Other Hebrew analogies Lord
Kingsborough finds in America, in the dress, insignia,
and duties of priests; in innumerable superstitions
concerning dreams, apparitions, eclipses, and
[91]
other more common-place events; in certain festivals
for rain; in burial and mourning ceremonies; in the
diseases most common among the people; in certain
regularly observed festivals; in the dress of
certain nations; in established laws; in physical
features; in architecture; in various minor observances,
such as offering water to a stranger that he
might wash his feet, eating dust in token of humility,
anointing with oil, and so forth; in the sacrifice of
prisoners; in manner and style of oratory; in the
stories of giants; in the respect paid to God's name;
in games of chance; in marriage relations; in childbirth
ceremonies; in religious ideas of all sorts; in
respect paid to kings; in uses of metals; in treatment
of criminals, and punishment of crimes; in
charitable practices; in social customs; and in a vast
number of other particulars.[I-208]




[92]


 HEBREW RELICS.



Relics unmistakeably Hebrew have been very
rarely found in America. I know of only two instances
of such a discovery, and in neither of these
cases is it certain or even probable that the relic
[93]
existed in America before the Conquest. The first
and best known instance is related by Ethan Smith,
according to Priest,[I-209] as follows:




"Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character
in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following
account: That in 1815, he was levelling some ground
under and near an old wood-shed, standing on a place
of his, situated on Indian Hill. He ploughed and
conveyed away old chips and earth, to some depth.
After the work was done, walking over the place,
he discovered, near where the earth had been dug
the deepest, a black strap, as it appeared, about six
inches in length, and one and a half in breadth, and
about the thickness of a leather trace to a harness.
He perceived it had, at each end, a loop, of some
hard substance, probably for the purpose of carrying
it. He conveyed it to his house, and threw it into
an old tool box. He afterwards found it thrown out
at the door, and again conveyed it to the box.




"After some time, he thought he would examine
it; but in attempting to cut it, found it as hard as
bone; he succeeded, however, in getting it open, and
found it was formed of two pieces of thick raw-hide,
sewed and made water tight with the sinews of some
animal, and gummed over; and in the fold was contained
four folded pieces of parchment. They were
of a dark yellow hue, and contained some kind of
writing. The neighbors coming in to see the strange
discovery, tore one of the pieces to atoms, in the true
Hun and Vandal style. The other three pieces Mr.
Merrick saved, and sent them to Cambridge, where
they were examined, and discovered to have been
written with a pen, in Hebrew, plain and legible.
The writing on the three remaining pieces of parchment,
was quotations from the Old Testament."[I-210]




[94]


 HEBREW TABLETS.



The other discovery was made in Ohio, and was
seen by my father, Mr A. A. Bancroft, who
thus describes it: "About eight miles south-east
of Newark there was formerly a large mound
composed of masses of free-stone, which had been
brought from some distance and thrown into a heap
without much placing or care. In early days, stone
being scarce in that region, the settlers carried
away the mound piece by piece to use for building-purposes,
so that in a few years there was little more
than a large flattened heap of rubbish remaining.
Some fifteen years ago, the county surveyor (I have
forgotten his name), who had for some time been
searching ancient works, turned his attention to
this particular pile. He employed a number of
men and proceeded at once to open it. Before long
he was rewarded by finding in the centre and near
the surface a bed of the tough clay generally known
as pipe-clay, which must have been brought from a
distance of some twelve miles. Imbedded in the
clay was a coffin, dug out of a burr-oak log, and in a
pretty good state of preservation. In the coffin was
a skeleton, with quite a number of stone ornaments
and emblems, and some open brass rings, suitable for
bracelets or anklets. These being removed, they
dug down deeper, and soon discovered a stone dressed
to an oblong shape, about eighteen inches long and
twelve wide, which proved to be a casket, neatly
fitted and completely water-tight, containing a slab
of stone of hard and fine quality, an inch and a half
thick, eight inches long, four inches and a half wide
at one end, and tapering to three inches at the other.
Upon the face of the slab was the figure of a man,
[95]
apparently a priest, with a long flowing beard, and a
robe reaching to his feet. Over his head was a
curved line of characters, and upon the edges and
back of the stone were closely and neatly carved letters.
The slab, which I saw myself, was shown to
the episcopalian clergyman of Newark, and he pronounced
the writing to be the ten Commandments
in ancient Hebrew."[I-211]







 MORMON DOCTRINE OF ORIGIN.



The account given by the Book of Mormon, of
[97]
the settlement of America by the Jews, is as follows:[I-212]




After the confusion of tongues, when men were
scattered over the whole face of the earth, the Jaredites,
a just people, having found favor in the sight
of the Eternal, miraculously crossed the ocean in
eight vessels, and landed in North America, where,
they built large cities and developed into flourishing
and highly civilized nations. But their descendants
did evil before the Lord, in spite of repeated prophetic
warnings, and were finally destroyed for their
wickedness, about fifteen hundred years after their
arrival, and six hundred before the birth of Christ.




These first inhabitants of America were replaced
by an emigration of Israelites, who were miraculously
[98]
brought from Jerusalem in the first year of
the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah. For some
time they traveled in a south-easterly direction, following
the coast of the Red Sea; afterwards they
took a more easterly course, and finally arrived at
the borders of the Great Ocean. Here, at the command
of God, they constructed a vessel, which bore
them safely across the Pacific Ocean to the western
coast of South America, where they landed. In the
eleventh year of the reign of this same Zedekiah,
when the Jews were carried captive to Babylon,
some descendants of Judah came from Jerusalem to
North America, whence they emigrated to the northern
parts of South America. Their descendants
were discovered by the first emigrants about four
hundred years afterwards.




The first emigrants, almost immediately after their
arrival, separated themselves into two distinct nations.
The people of one of these divisions called
themselves Nephites, from the prophet Nephi, who
had conducted them to America. These were persecuted,
on account of their righteousness, by the
others, who called themselves Lamanites, from Laman,
their chief, a wicked and corrupt man. The
Nephites retreated to the northern parts of South
America, while the Lamanites occupied the central
and southern regions. The Nephites possessed a
copy of the five books of Moses, and of the prophets
as far as Jeremiah, or until the time when they left
Jerusalem. These writings were engraved on plates
of brass. After their arrival in America they manufactured
similar plates, on which they engraved
their history and prophetic visions. All these records,
kept by men inspired of the Holy Ghost,
were carefully preserved, and transmitted from generation
to generation.




God gave them the whole continent of America
as the promised land, declaring that it should be a
heritage for them and for their children, provided
[99]
they kept his commandments. The Nephites, blessed
by God, prospered and spread east, west, and north.
They dwelt in immense cities, with temples and fortresses;
they cultivated the earth, bred domestic animals,
and worked mines of gold, silver, lead, and
iron. The arts and sciences flourished among them,
and as long as they kept God's commandments, they
enjoyed all the benefits of civilization and national
prosperity.



 NEPHITES AND LAMANITES.



The Lamanites, on the contrary, by reason of the
hardness of their hearts, were from the first deserted
of God. Before their backsliding they were white
and comely as the Nephites; but in consequence of
the divine curse, they sank into the lowest barbarism.
Implacable enemies of the Nephites, they waged war
against that people, and strove by every means in
their power to destroy them. But they were gradually
repulsed with great loss, and the innumerable
tumuli which are still to be seen in all parts of the
two Americas, cover the remains of the warriors slain
in these bloody conflicts.




The second colony of Hebrews, mentioned above,
bore the name of Zarahemla. They also had many
civil wars, and as they had not brought any historical
records with them from Jerusalem, they soon fell
into a state of atheism. At the time when they
were discovered by the Nephites they were very
numerous, but lived in a condition of semi-barbarism.
The Nephites, however, united themselves with
them, and taught them the sacred Scriptures, so that
before long the two nations became as one. Shortly
afterwards the Nephites built several vessels, by
means of which they sent expeditions towards the
north, and founded numerous colonies. Others emigrated
by land, and in a short time the whole of
the northern continent was peopled. At this time
North America was entirely destitute of wood, the
forests having been destroyed by the Jaredites, the
first colonists, who came from the tower of Babel;
[100]
but the Nephites constructed houses of cement and
brought wood by sea from the south; taking care,
besides, to cultivate immense plantations. Large
cities sprang up in various parts of the continent,
both among the Lamanites and the Nephites. The
latter continued to observe the law of Moses; numerous
prophets arose among them; they inscribed
their prophecies and historical annals on plates of
gold or other metal, and upon various other materials.
They discovered also the sacred records of the
Jaredites, engraved on plates of gold; these they
translated into their own language, by the help of
God and the Urim Thummim. The Jaredite archives
contained the history of man from the creation
of the world to the building of the tower of Babel,
and from that time to the total destruction of the
Jaredites, embracing a period of thirty-four or thirty-five
centuries. They also contained the marvelous
prophecies which foretold what would happen in the
world until the end of all things, and the creation of
a new heaven and a new earth.



 THE BOOK OF MORMON.



The Nephites were informed of the birth and
death of Christ by certain celestial and terrestrial
phenomena, which had long before been predicted
by their prophets. But in spite of the numerous
blessings which they had received, they fell at
length from grace, and were terribly punished for
their ingratitude and wickedness. A thick darkness
covered the whole continent; earthquakes cast
mountains into valleys; many towns were swallowed
up, and others were destroyed by fire from heaven.
Thus perished the most perverse among the Nephites
and Lamanites, to the end that the blood of the
saints and prophets might no longer cry out from the
earth against them. Those who survived these judgments
received a visit from Christ, who, after his
ascension, appeared in the midst of the Nephites, in
the northern part of South America. His instructions,
the foundation of a new law, were engraved on
[101]
plates of gold, and some of them are to be found in
the Book of Mormon; but by far the greater part of
them will be revealed only to the saints, at a future
time.




When Christ had ended his mission to the Nephites,
he ascended to heaven, and the apostles designated
by him went to preach his gospel throughout
the continent of America. In all parts the Nephites
and Lamanites were converted to the Lord, and for
three centuries they lived a godly life. But toward
the end of the fourth century of the Christian era,
they returned to their evil ways, and once more they
were smitten by the arm of the Almighty. A terrible
war broke out between the two nations, which
ended in the destruction of the ungrateful Nephites.
Driven by their enemies towards the north and
north-west, they were defeated in a final battle near
the hill of Cumorah,[I-213] where their historical tablets
have been since found. Hundreds of thousands of
warriors fell on both sides. The Nephites were
utterly destroyed, with the exception of some few
who either passed over to the enemy, escaped by
flight, or were left for dead on the field of battle.
Among these last were Mormon and his son Moroni,
both upright men.




Mormon had written on tablets an epitome of the
annals of his ancestors, which epitome he entitled
the Book of Mormon. At the command of God he
buried in the hill of Cumorah all the original records
in his possession, and at his death he left his own
book to his son Moroni, who survived him by some
years, that he might continue it. Moroni tells us in
his writings that the Lamanites eventually exterminated
the few Nephites who had escaped the general
slaughter at the battle of Cumorah, sparing those
only who had gone over to their side. He himself
escaped by concealment. The conquerors slew without
mercy all who would not renounce Christ. He
[102]
tells, further, that the Lamanites had many dreadful
wars among themselves, and that the whole land was
a scene of incessant murder and violence. Finally,
he adds that his work is a complete record of all
events that happened down to the year 420 of the
Christian era, at which time, by divine command, he
buried the Book of Mormon in the hill of Cumorah,
where it remained until removed by Joseph Smith,
September 22, 1827.[I-214]



 SCANDINAVIAN THEORY.



Much has been written to prove that the north-western
part of America was discovered and peopled
by Scandinavians long before the time of Columbus.
Although a great part of the evidence upon which
this belief rests, is unsatisfactory and mixed up with
much that is vague and undoubtedly fabulous, yet it
seems to be not entirely destitute of historical proof.
Nor is there any improbability that such daring
navigators as the Northmen may have visited and
colonized the coasts of Greenland, Labrador, and
Newfoundland. I find in this opinion an almost
exact parallel to the so-called 'Tartar theory.' It is
true the distance between Europe and north-eastern
America is much greater than that between Asia
[103]
and north-western America, but would not the great
disparity between the maritime enterprise and skill
of the Northmen and Asiatics, make the North Atlantic
as navigable for the former as Bering Strait
for the latter? It is certain that Iceland was settled
by the Northmen from Norway at a very early date;
there is little reason to doubt that Greenland was in
turn colonized from Iceland in the tenth century;
if this be conceded, then the question whether the
Northmen did actually discover the country now
known as America, certainly ceases to wear any
appearance of improbability, for it would be unreasonable
to suppose that such renowned sailors could
live for a great number of years within a short voyage
of a vast continent and never become aware of
its existence. It would be absurd, however, to believe
that the entire continent of America was peopled
by Northmen, because its north-eastern borders
were visited or even colonized by certain adventurous
sea-rovers.




All that is known of the early voyages of the
Northmen, is contained in the old Icelandic Sagas.
The genuineness of the accounts relating to the discovery
of America has been the subject of much
discussion. Mr B. F. De Costa, in a carefully studied
monograph on the subject, assures us that there can
be no doubt as to their authenticity, and I am
strongly inclined to agree with him. It is true that
no less eminent authors than George Bancroft and
Washington Irving have expressed opinions in opposition
to De Costa's views, but it must be remembered
that neither of these distinguished gentlemen made a
very profound study of the Icelandic Sagas, indeed
Irving directly states that he "has not had the
means of tracing this story to its original sources;"
nor must we forget that neither the author of the
'Life of Columbus,' nor he of the 'History of the
Colonization of the United States,' could be expected
to willingly strip the laurels from the brow of his
[104]
familiar hero, Christopher Columbus, and concede
the honor of the 'first discovery' to the northern sea-kings,
whose exploits are so vaguely recorded.[I-215]



 THE ICELANDIC SAGAS.



De Costa's defence of the genuineness of the accounts
referred to is simple and to the point. "Those
who imagine," he writes, "that these manuscripts,
while of pre-Columbian origin, have been tampered
with and interpolated, show that they have not the
faintest conception of the state of the question. The
accounts of the voyages of the Northmen to America
form the framework of Sagas which would actually
be destroyed by the elimination of the narratives.
There is only one question to be decided, and that is
the date of these compositions." "That these manuscripts,"
he adds, "belong to the pre-Columbian age,
is as capable of demonstration as the fact that the
writings of Homer existed prior to the age of Christ.
Before intelligent persons deny either of these points
they must first succeed in blotting out numberless
pages of well-known history. The manuscripts in
which we have versions of all the Sagas relating to
[105]
America is found in the celebrated Codex Flatöiensis,
a work that was finished in the year 1387, or 1395 at
the latest. This collection, made with great care,
and executed in the highest style of art, is now preserved
in its integrity in the archives of Copenhagen.
These manuscripts were for a time supposed to
be lost, but were ultimately found safely lodged in
their repository in the monastery library of the island
of Flatö, from whence they were transferred to Copenhagen
with a large quantity of other literary material
collected from various localities. If these Sagas
which refer to America were interpolations, it would
have early become apparent, as abundant means exist
for detecting frauds; yet those who have examined
the whole question do not find any evidence that invalidates
their historical statements. In the absence,
therefore, of respectable testimony to the contrary,
we accept it as a fact that the Sagas relating to
America are the productions of men who gave them
in their present form nearly, if not quite, an entire
century before the age of Columbus."[I-216]




The accounts of the voyages as given in the original
manuscripts are too numerous and prolix to be
reproduced in their entirety here; but I will endeavor
to give a résumé of them, following, to a
[106]
great extent, an 'abstract of the historical evidence
for the discovery of America by the Scandinavians
in the tenth century,' given in the Journal of the
Royal Geographical Society.[I-217]




Eric the Red, in the spring of 986,[I-218] emigrated
from Iceland to Greenland, and founded a settlement
there. One of his companions was Heriulf Bardson,
whose son, Biarne, was at that time absent on a
trading voyage to Norway. Biarne, on his return to
Iceland, resolved "still to spend the following winter,
like all the preceding ones, with his father," and to
that end set sail for Greenland. But, owing to the
northerly winds and fogs, and to the fact that neither
he nor any of his followers had ever navigated these
seas before, Biarne lost his way. When the weather
cleared up they found themselves in sight of a
strange land, which they left to larboard. After
two days' sail they again sighted land; and once
more standing out to sea, they, after three days, saw
land a third time, which proved to be an island.
Again they bore away, and after four days' sailing
reached Greenland.



 VOYAGES OF THE NORTHMEN.



Some time after this, Leif, a son of Eric the Red,
having heard of Biarne's discoveries, bought his ship,
manned it with a crew of thirty men, and set out
from Greenland, about the year 1000. The first land
they sighted was that which Biarne had seen last;
this they named Helluland.[I-219] They put out to sea
[107]
and soon came to another land, which they named
Markland.[I-220] Again they stood out to sea, and after
two days came to an island. They then sailed westward,
and afterwards went on shore at a place where
a river, issuing from a lake, fell into the sea. Bringing
their ship up the river, they anchored in the lake.
Here they settled for a time, and finding vines in
the country, they named it Vinland.[I-221] In the spring
they returned to Greenland.




This expedition to Vinland was much talked of,
and Thorwald, Leif's brother, thought that the new
country had not been thoroughly enough explored.
Then Leif lent his ship to Thorwald, who set out
for Vinland about the year 1002. There he and his
crew wintered, and about the year 1004 they set sail
to the eastward. On this voyage Thorwald was
killed by the natives. At his request his followers
returned to Vinland and buried his remains there.
In 1005 they sailed again to Greenland, bearing the
sad news of his brother's death to Leif.




Thorstein, Eric's third son, soon afterwards set out
in the same ship for Vinland, to fetch his brother's
body. He was accompanied by his wife Gudrida,
and twenty-five strong men, but after tossing about
on the ocean during the whole summer, they finally
landed again on the Greenland coast, where Thorstein
died during the winter.




[108]
The next voyage to Vinland was made by one
Thorfinn Karlsefne, a man of noble lineage, who
occupied his time in merchant voyages and was
thought a good trader. In the summer of 1006 he
fitted out his ship in Iceland for a voyage to Greenland,
attended by one Snorre Thorbrandson and a
crew of forty men. At the same time another ship
was fitted out for the same destination by Biarne
Grimolfson and Thorhall Gamlason, and manned with
a crew of forty men also. All being ready, the two
ships put out to sea, and both arrived safely at
Ericsfiord in Greenland, where Leif and Gudrida, the
widow of Leif's late brother, Thorstein, dwelt.
Here Thorfinn fell in love with the fair Gudrida, and
with Leif's consent, married her that winter.




The discovery of Vinland was much talked of
among the settlers, for they all believed that it was
a good country, and that a voyage there would be
very profitable; and Thorfinn was urged and at
length persuaded to undertake the adventure. Accordingly,
in the spring of 1007 he fitted out his ship,
and Biarne Grimolfson and Thorhall Gamlason did
the same with theirs. A third ship, commanded by
one Thorward, also joined the expedition. And on
Thorward's ship a man named Thorhall, 'commonly
called the hunter,' who had been the huntsman of
Eric in the summer, and his steward in the winter,
also went.



 THE NORTHMEN AND SKRELLINGS.



As this is probably the most important of all the
Northmen's voyages to America, I will give it in
full: "They sailed first to the Westerbygd, and
afterwards to Biarney. From thence they sailed in
a southerly direction to Helluland, where they found
[109]
many foxes. From thence they sailed again two
days in a southerly direction to Markland, a country
overgrown with wood, and plentifully stocked with
animals. Leaving this, they continued sailing in a
S.W. direction for a long time, having the land to
starboard, until they at length came to Kialarnes,[I-222]
where there were trackless deserts and long beaches
and sands, called by them Furdustrandir. When
they had past these, the land began to be indented
by inlets. They had two Scots with them, Hake
and Hekia, whom Leif had formerly received from
the Norwegian King Olaf Tryggvason, and who were
very swift of foot. They put them on shore, recommending
them to proceed in a S.W. direction, and
explore the country. After the lapse of three days
they returned bringing with them some grapes and
some ears of wheat, which grew wild in that region.
They continued their course until they came to a
place where a firth penetrated far into the country.
Off the mouth of it was an island past which there
ran strong currents, which was also the case farther
up the firth. On the island there were an immense
number of eyderducks, so that it was scarcely possible
to walk without treading on their eggs. They
called the island Straumey (Stream-Isle), and the
firth Straumfiördr (Stream-Firth).[I-223] They landed on
the shore of this firth, and made preparations for
their winter residence. The country was extremely
beautiful. They confined their operations to exploring
the country. Thorhall afterwards wished to
proceed in a N. direction in quest of Vineland.
[110]
Karlsefne chose rather to go to the S.W. Thorhall,
and along with him eight men, quitted them, and
sailed past Furdustrandir and Kialarnes, but they
were driven by westerly gales to the coast of Ireland,
where, according to the accounts of some traders,
they were beaten and made slaves. Karlsefne, together
with Snorre and Biarne, and the rest of the
ships' companies, in all 151 (CXXXI.) men, sailed
southwards, and arrived at the place, where a river
falls into the sea from a lake. Opposite to the
mouth of the river were large islands. They steered
into the lake, and called the place Hóp (í Hópe).
On the low grounds they found fields of wheat growing
wild, and on the rising grounds vines. While
looking about one morning they observed a great
number of canoes. On exhibiting friendly signals
the canoes approached nearer to them, and the
natives in them looked with astonishment at those
they met there. These people were sallow-coloured
or ill-looking, had ugly heads of hair, large eyes, and
broad cheeks. After they had gazed at them for a
while, they rowed away again to the S.W. past the
cape. Karlsefne and his company had erected their
dwelling-houses a little above the bay; and there
they spent the winter. No snow fell, and the cattle
found their food in the open field. One morning
early, in the beginning of 1008, they descried a number
of canoes coming from the S.W. past the cape.
Karlsefne having held up a white shield as a friendly
signal, they drew nigh and immediately commenced
bartering. These people chose in preference red
cloth, and gave furs and squirrel skins in exchange.
They would fain also have bought swords and spears,
but these Karlsefne and Snorre prohibited their people
from selling them. In exchange for a skin entirely
gray the Skrellings took a piece of cloth of a
span in breadth, and bound it round their heads.
Their barter was carried on this way for some time.
The Northmen then found that their cloth was beginning
[111]
to grow scarce, whereupon they cut it up in
smaller pieces, not broader than a finger's breadth;
yet the Skrellings gave as much for these smaller
pieces as they had formerly given for the larger ones,
or even more. Karlsefne also caused the women to
bear out milk soup, and the Skrellings relishing the
taste of it, they desired to buy it in preference to
everything else, so they wound up their traffic by
carrying away their bargains in their bellies. Whilst
this traffic was going on, it happened that a bull,
which Karlsefne had brought along with him, came
out of the wood and bellowed loudly. At this the
Skrellings got terrified and rushed to their canoes,
and rowed away southwards. About this time Gudrida,
Karlsefne's wife, gave birth to a son, who
received the name of Snorre. In the beginning of
the following winter the Skrellings came again in
much greater numbers; they showed symptoms of
hostility, setting up loud yells. Karlsefne caused
the red shield to be borne against them, whereupon
they advanced against each other, and a battle commenced.
There was a galling discharge of missiles.
The Skrellings had a sort of war slings. They elevated
on a pole a tremendously large ball, almost the
size of a sheep's stomach, and of a bluish colour; this
they swung from the pole upon land over Karlsefne's
people, and it descended with a fearful crash. This
struck terror into the Northmen, and they fled along
the river. Freydisa came out and saw them flying;
she thereupon exclaimed, 'How can stout men like
you fly from these miserable caitifs, whom I thought
you could knock down like cattle? If I had only a
weapon, I ween I could fight better than any of you.'
They heeded not her words. She tried to keep pace
with them, but the advanced state of her pregnancy
retarded her. She however followed them into the
wood. There she encountered a dead body. It was
Thorbrand Snorrason; a flat stone was sticking fast
in his head. His naked sword lay by his side.
[112]
This she took up, and prepared to defend herself.
She uncovered her breasts, and dashed them against
the naked sword. At this sight the Skrellings became
terrified, and ran off to their canoes. Karlsefne
and the rest now came up to her and praised her
courage. Karlsefne and his people were now become
aware that, although the country held out many advantages,
still the life that they would have to lead
here would be one of constant alarm from the hostile
attacks of the natives. They therefore made preparations
for departure, with the resolution of returning
to their own country. They sailed eastward, and
came to Streamfirth. Karlsefne then took one of
the ships, and sailed in quest of Thorhall, while the
rest remained behind. They proceeded northwards
round Kialarnes, and after that were carried to the
north-west. The land lay to larboard of them.
There were thick forests in all directions, as far as
they could see, with scarcely any open space. They
considered the hills at Hope and those which they
now saw as forming part of one continuous range.
They spent the third winter at Streamfirth. Karlsefne's
son Snorre was now three years of age.
When they sailed from Vineland they had a southerly
wind, and came to Markland, where they met
with five Skrellings. They caught two of them (two
boys), whom they carried away along with them, and
taught them the Norse language, and baptised them;
these children said that their mother was called Vethilldi
and their father Uvæge; they said that the
Skrellings were ruled by chieftains (kings), one of
whom was called Avalldamon, and the other Valdidida;
that there were no houses in the country, but
that the people dwelled in holes and caverns. Biarne
Grimolfson was driven into the Irish Ocean, and
came into waters that were so infested by worms,
that their ship was in consequence reduced to a sinking
state. Some of the crew, however, were saved
in the boat, as it had been smeared with seal-oil tar,
[113]
which is a preventive against the attack of worms.
Karlsefne continued his voyage to Greenland, and
arrived at Ericsfiord."




During the same summer that Karlsefne returned
from Vinland, a ship arrived at Greenland from Norway,
commanded by two brothers, Helge and Finnboge.
And Freydisa, she who had frightened the
Skrellings, went to them and proposed they should
make a voyage to Vinland, and she offered to go
with them on condition that an equal share of what
they obtained there should be hers; and they agreed
to this. It was arranged between the brothers and
Freydisa that each should have thirty fighting men,
besides women. But Freydisa secretly brought away
five men more than the allotted number. They
reached Vinland and spent the winter there. During
their stay Freydisa prevailed on her husband to slay
the two brothers and their followers; the women that
were with them she killed with her own hand. In
the spring of the next year they returned to Greenland.[I-224]




In the latter part of the tenth century,[I-225] one Are
Marson, of Iceland, was driven by storms to Hvitramannaland,
or Land of the Whitemen. This country,
which was also called Great Ireland, has been thought
to be "probably that part of the Coast of North
America which extends southwards from Chesapeak
Bay, including North and South Carolina, Georgia,
and Florida."[I-226] Here, also, one Biörn Asbrandson
is said to have ended his days.[I-227]




[114]
I do not propose to give here all that has been
said about these voyages, as it would not be pertinent
to the question which we are reviewing, namely,
the origin of the Americans. Indeed, the entire
subject of the Northmen's voyages and colonization,
might almost be said to be without our province, as
it is not asserted that they were actually the first
inhabitants of the New World.




The relics that have been thought to prove their
former presence in the continent, are neither numerous
nor important. One of these is the Dighton
Rock, of which I have had occasion to speak before,
in connection with the Phœnician theory.[I-228] In 1824,
a stone engraved with Runic characters was found on
the island of Kingiktorsoak, on the western coast of
Greenland.[I-229]



 SCANDINAVIAN THEORY.



Priest is strongly inclined to believe that a glass
[115]
bottle about the size of a common junk bottle, "having
a stopple in its nuzzle," an iron hatchet edged
with steel, the remains of a blacksmith's forge, and
some ploughed-up crucibles, all found in the town of
Pompey, Onondaga County, New York, are of Scandinavian
origin.[I-230]




Brasseur de Bourbourg has found many words in
the languages of Central America which bear, he
thinks, marked Scandinavian traces; little can be
proven by this, however, since he finds as many
other words that as strongly resemble Latin, Greek,
English, French, and many other languages. The
learned Abbé believes, moreover, that some of the
ancient traditions of the Central American nations
point to a north-east origin.[I-231] Viollet-le-Duc is
struck with the similarity that existed between the
religious customs and ideas of the ancient Northmen
and of the Quichés as expressed in the Popol Vuh.[I-232]




[116]


 A WELSH COLONY IN AMERICA.



We come now to the theory that the Americans,
or at least part of them, are of Celtic origin. In
the old Welsh annals there is an account of a voyage
made in the latter half of the twelfth century,[I-233] by
one Madoc, a son of Owen Gwynedd, prince of North
Wales. The story goes, that after the death of
Gwynedd, his sons contended violently for the sovereignty.
Madoc, who was the only peaceable one
among them, determined to leave his disturbed
country and sail in search of some unknown land
where he might dwell in peace. He accordingly procured
an abundance of provisions and a few ships
and embarked with his friends and followers. For
many months they sailed westward without finding
a resting-place; but at length they came to a large
and fertile country, where, after sailing for some distance
along the coast in search of a convenient landing-place,
they disembarked, and permanently settled.
After a time Madoc, with part of his company, returned
to Wales, where he fitted out ten ships with
all manner of supplies, prevailed on a large number
of his countrymen to join him, and once more set
[117]
sail for the new colony, which, though we hear no
more about him or his settlement, he is supposed to
have reached safely.[I-234]



 THE AMERICANS OF WELSH ORIGIN.



The exact location of Madoc's colony has only
been guessed at. Baldwin says it is supposed that
he settled 'somewhere in the Carolinas.' Caradoc,
in his history of Wales,[I-235] has no doubt that the
country where Madoc established his colony was
Mexico; this he thinks is shown by three facts: first,
the Mexicans believed that their ancestors came from
a beautiful country afar off, inhabited by white people;
secondly, they adored the cross; and thirdly,
several Welsh names are found in Mexico. Peter
Martyr affirms that the aborigines of Virginia, as
well as those of Guatemala, celebrate the memory of
an ancient and illustrious hero, named Madoc. Harcourt,
in the preface to the account of his voyage to
Guiana,[I-236] says that that part of America was discovered
[118]
and possessed by the Welsh prince, Madoc.
Herbert, according to Martyr, says that the land
discovered by the prince was Florida or Virginia.[I-237]
Catlin is inclined to believe that Madoc entered the
Mississippi at Balize and made his way up the river,
or that he landed somewhere on the Florida coast.
He thinks the colonists pushed into the interior and
finally settled on the Ohio river; afterwards, being
driven from that position by the aboriginal tribes,
they advanced up the Missouri river to the place
where they have been known for many years by the
name of Mandans, "a corruption or abbreviation,
perhaps, of Madawgwys, the name applied by the
Welsh to the followers of Madawc." The canoes of
the Mandans, Mr Catlin tells us, which are altogether
different from those of all other tribes, correspond
exactly to the Welsh coracle,[I-238] the peculiarity
of their physical appearance was such that
when he first saw them he "was under the instant
conviction that they were an amalgam of a native,
with some civilized race," and the resemblance that
exists between their language and Welsh, is, in his
opinion, very striking.[I-239] There have been several
reports that traces of the Welsh colony and of their
language have been discovered among the native
tribes, but none of them seem entitled to full credit.
The best known report of this kind, and the one that
claims, perhaps, the most respectful consideration, is
that of the Rev. Morgan Jones, written in 1686, and
published in the Gentleman's Magazine for the year
1740. In 1660 the reverend gentleman, with five
companions, was taken prisoner by the Tuscarora
tribe, who were about to put him to death when he
[119]
soliloquized aloud in Welsh; whereupon they spared
him and his companions, and treated them very
civilly. After this Mr Jones stayed among them for
four months, during which time he conversed with
them familiarly in the Welsh language, "and did
preach to them in the same language three times a
week."[I-240]




A certain Lieutenant Roberts states that in 1801
he met an Indian chief at Washington, who spoke
Welsh "as fluently as if he had been born and
brought up in the vicinity of Snowdon." He said
it was the language of his nation, the Asguaws, who
[120]
lived eight hundred miles north-west of Philadelphia.
He knew nothing of Wales, but stated that his
people had a tradition that their ancestors came to
America from a distant country, which lay far to the
east, over the great waters. Amongst other questions,
Lieutenant Roberts asked him how it was that
his nation had preserved their original language so
perfect; he answered that they had a law which
forbade any to teach their children another tongue,
until they were twelve years old.[I-241]




Another officer, one Captain Davies, relates that
while stationed at a trading-post, among the Illinois
Indians, he was surprised to find that several Welshmen
who belonged to his company, could converse
readily with the aborigines in Welsh.[I-242] Warden
tells a story of a Welshman named Griffith, who
was taken prisoner by the Shawnee tribe about the
year 1764. Two years afterwards, he and five
Shawnees, with whom he was traveling about the
sources of the Missouri, fell into the hands of a
white tribe, who were about to massacre them when
Griffith spoke to them in Welsh, explaining the
object of their journey; upon this they consented to
spare him and his companions. He could learn
nothing of the history of these white natives, except
that their ancestors had come to the Missouri from
a far distant country. Griffith returned to the Shawnee
nation, but subsequently escaped and succeeded
in reaching Virginia.[I-243] There are many other reports
[121]
of a similar kind, but these will be sufficient
to show on what manner of foundation the Welsh
theory rests, and to justify in a measure the outspoken
opinion of Mr Fiske, that "Welch Indians
are creatures of the imagination."[I-244]



 SCOTCH AND IRISH THEORIES.



Lord Monboddo, a Scotchman, who wrote in the
seventeenth century, quotes several instances to show
that the language of the native Highlanders was
spoken in America. In one of the English expeditions
to discover the North Pole, he relates, there
were an Eskimo and a Scotchman, who, after a few
days practice, were able to converse together readily.
He also states "that the Celtic language was spoken
by many of the tribes of Florida, which is situated
at the north end of the gulf of Mexico; and that he
was well acquainted with a gentleman from the
Highlands of Scotland, who was several years in
Florida, in a public character, and who stated that
many of the tribes with whom he had become acquainted,
had the greatest affinity with the Celtic in
their language."[I-245]




Claims have also been put in for an Irish discovery
of the New World; St Patrick is said to
have sent missionaries to the 'Isles of America,'[I-246]
and early writers have gravely discussed the probability
[122]
of Quetzalcoatl having been an Irishman.
There is no great improbability that the natives
of Ireland may have reached, by accident or otherwise,
the north-eastern coasts of the new continent,
in very early times, but there is certainly no evidence
to prove that they did.[I-247]




The nations of southern Europe have not been
entirely forgotten by the theorists on the question of
origin. Those who have claimed for them the honor
of first settling or civilizing America, are not many,
however; nor is the evidence they adduce of a very
imposing nature.




Lafitau supposes the Americans to be descended
from the ancient inhabitants of the Grecian archipelago,
who were driven from their country by the
subjects of Og, King of Bashan. In every particular,
he says, the people of the New World resemble
the Hellenes and Pelagians. Both were idolators;
used sacred fire; indulged in Bacchanalian revels;
held formal councils; strong resemblances are to be
found in their marriage customs, system of education,
manner of hunting, fishing, and making war, in their
games and sports, in their mourning and burial customs,
and in their manner of treating the sick.[I-248]
García knew a man in Peru who knew of a rock on
which was what looked very much like a Greek inscription.
The same writer says that the Athenians
waged war with the inhabitants of Atlantis, and
might therefore have heard of America. That the
Greeks were navigators in very early times is shown
by Jason's voyage in search of the Golden Fleece.
Both Greeks and Americans bored their ears and
sang the deeds of their ancestors; besides which,
many words are common to both peoples.[I-249] Like
[123]
García, Mr Pidgeon also knew a man—a farmer of
Montevideo, in Brazil—who in 1827 discovered in
one of his fields a flat stone, upon which was engraven
a Greek inscription, which, as far as it was
legible, read as follows: "During the dominion of
Alexander, the son of Philip, King of Macedon, in
the sixty-third Olympiad, Ptolemaios." Deposited
beneath the stone were found two ancient swords, a
helmet, and a shield. On the handle of one of the
swords was a portrait of Alexander; on the helmet
was a beautiful design representing Achilles dragging
the corpse of Hector round the walls of Troy.
"From this discovery, it is evident"—to Mr Pidgeon—"that
the soil of Brazil was formerly broken by
Ptolemaios, more than a thousand years before the
discovery by Columbus."[I-250] Brasseur de Bourbourg
seeks to identify certain of the American gods with
Greek deities.[I-251] Jones finds that the sculpture at
Uxmal very closely resembles the Greek style.[I-252]




The vastness of some of the cities built by the
civilized Americans, the fine roads they constructed,
their fondness for gladiatorial combats, and a few unreliable
accounts that Roman coins have been found
on the continent, constitute about all the evidence
that is offered to show that the Romans ever visited
America.[I-253]



 THE ANCIENT ATLANTIS.



The story of Atlantis, that is, of a submerged, lost
land that once lay to the west of Europe, is very old.
It was communicated to Solon, according to Plutarch,
by the Egyptian priests of Psenophis, Sonchis,
[124]
Heliopolis, and Saïs; and if we may believe Plato,
Solon did not hear of the events until nine thousand
Egyptian years after their occurrence. Plato's version
is as follows:




"Among the great deeds of Athens, of which
recollection is preserved in our books, there is one
which should be placed above all others. Our books
tell that the Athenians destroyed an army which
came across the Atlantic Sea, and insolently invaded
Europe and Asia; for this sea was then navigable,
and beyond the strait where you place the Pillars of
Hercules there was an island larger than Asia
(Minor) and Libya combined. From this island one
could pass easily to the other islands, and from these
to the continent which lies around the interior sea.
The sea on this side of the strait (the Mediterranean)
of which we speak, resembles a harbor with a narrow
entrance; but there is a genuine sea, and the land
which surrounds it is a veritable continent. In the
island of Atlantis reigned three kings with great and
marvelous power. They had under their dominion
the whole of Atlantis, several other islands, and some
parts of the continent. At one time their power
extended into Libya, and into Europe as far as Tyrrhenia,
and, uniting their whole force, they sought to
destroy our countries at a blow; but their defeat
stopped the invasion and gave entire independence to
all the countries this side of the Pillars of Hercules.
Afterward, in one day and one fatal night, there
came mighty earthquakes and inundations, which
ingulfed that warlike people; Atlantis disappeared
beneath the sea, and then that sea became inaccessible,
so that navigation ceased on account of the
quantity of mud which the ingulfed island left in its
place."[I-254]




It is only recently that any important signification
has been attached to this passage. It was previously
[125]
regarded rather as one of those fabulous accounts in
which the works of the writers of antiquity abound,
than as an actual statement of facts. True, it had
been frequently quoted to show that the ancients had
a knowledge more or less vague of the continent of
America, but no particular value was set upon the
assertion that the mysterious land was ages ago submerged
and lost in the ocean. But of late years it
has been discovered that traditions and records of
cataclysms similar to that referred to by the Egyptian
priests, have been preserved among the American
nations; which discovery has led several learned
and diligent students of New World lore to believe
that after all the story of Atlantis, as recorded by
Plato, may be founded upon fact, and that in bygone
ages there did actually exist in the Atlantic Ocean a
great tract of inhabited country, forming perhaps
part of the American continent, which by some
mighty convulsion of nature was suddenly submerged
and lost in the sea.



 BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG'S THEORIES.



Foremost among those who have held and advocated
this opinion stands the Abbé Brasseur de
Bourbourg. This distinguished Américaniste goes
farther than his fellows, however, in that he attempts
to prove that all civilization originated in America,
or the Occident, instead of in the Orient, as has
always been supposed. This theory he endeavors to
substantiate not so much by the Old World traditions
and records as by those of the New World,
using as his principal authority an anonymous manuscript
written in the Nahua language, which he entitles
the Codex Chimalpopoca. This work purports
to be on the face of it a 'History of the Kingdoms
of Culhuacan and Mexico,' and as such it served
Brasseur as almost his sole authority for the Toltec
period of his Histoire des Nations Civilisées. At
that time the learned Abbé regarded the Atlantis
theory, at least so far as it referred to any part of
America, as an absurd conjecture resting upon no
[126]
authentic basis.[I-255] In a later work, however, he
more than retracts this assertion; from a sceptic he
is suddenly transformed into a most devout and enthusiastic
believer, and attempts to prove by a most
elaborate course of reasoning that that which he
before doubted is indubitably true. The cause of
this sudden change was a strange one. As, by constant
study, he became more profoundly learned in
the literature of ancient America, the Abbé discovered
that he had entirely misinterpreted the Codex
Chimalpopoca. The annals recorded so plainly upon
the face of the mystic pages were intended only for
the understanding of the vulgar; the stories of the
kings, the history of the kingdoms, were allegorical
and not to be construed literally; deep below the
surface lay the true historic record—hidden from all
save the priests and the wise men of the West—of
the mighty cataclysm which submerged the cradle
of all civilization.[I-256] Excepting a dozen, perhaps, of
the kings who preceded Montezuma, it is not a
history of men, but of American nature, that must
be sought for in the Mexican manuscripts and paintings.
The Toltecs, so long regarded as an ancient
civilized race, destroyed in the eleventh century by
their enemies, are really telluric forces, agents of
subterranean fire, the veritable smiths of Orcus and
of Lemnos, of which Tollan was the symbol, the
[127]
true masters of civilization and art, who by the
mighty convulsions which they caused communicated
to men a knowledge of minerals.[I-257]




I know of no man better qualified than was Brasseur
de Bourbourg to penetrate the obscurity of
American primitive history. His familiarity with
the Nahua and Central American languages, his indefatigable
industry, and general erudition, rendered
him eminently fit for such a task, and every word
written by such a man on such a subject is entitled
to respectful consideration. Nevertheless, there is
reason to believe that the Abbé was often rapt away
from the truth by excess of enthusiasm, and the
reader of his wild and fanciful speculations cannot
but regret that he has not the opportunity or ability
to intelligently criticise by comparison the French
savant's interpretation of the original documents.
At all events it is certain that he honestly believed
in the truth of his own discovery; for when he admitted
that, in the light of his better knowledge, the
Toltec history, as recorded in the Codex Chimalpopoca,
was an allegory—that no such people as the
Toltecs ever existed, in fact—and thereby rendered
valueless his own history of the Toltec period, he
made a sacrifice of labor, unique, I think, in the
annals of literature.




Brasseur's theory supposes that the continent of
America occupied originally the Gulf of Mexico and
the Caribbean Sea, and extended in the form of a
peninsula so far across the Atlantic that the Canary
islands may have formed part of it. All this extended
portion of the continent was many ages ago
engulfed by a tremendous convulsion of nature, of
which traditions and written records have been preserved
by many American peoples.[I-258] Yucatan,
[128]
Honduras, and Guatemala, were also submerged,
but the continent subsequently rose sufficiently to
rescue them from the ocean. The testimony of many
modern men of science tends to show that there
existed at one time a vast extent of dry land between
Europe and America.[I-259]




It is not my intention to enter the mazes of Brasseur's
argument here; once in that labyrinth there
would be small hope of escape. His Quatre Lettres
are a chaotic jumble of facts and wild speculations
that would appal the most enthusiastic antiquarian;
the materials are arranged with not the slightest
regard for order; the reader is continually harassed
by long rambling digressions—literary no-thoroughfares,
as it were, into which he is beguiled in the
hope of coming out somewhere, only to find himself
more hopelessly lost than ever; for mythological evidence,
the pantheons of Phœnicia, Egypt, Hindostan,
Greece, and Rome, are probed to their most obscure
depths; comparative philology is as accommodating
to the theorist as ever, which is saying a great deal;
the opinions of geologists who never dreamed of an
Atlantis theory, are quoted to show that the American
continent formerly extended into the Atlantic in
the manner supposed.




I have presented to the reader the bare outline of
what Brasseur expects to prove, without giving him
the argument used by that learned writer, for the
reason that a partial résumé of the Quatre Lettres
would be unfair to the Abbé, while an entire résumé
would occupy more space than I can spare. I will,
however, deviate from the system I have hitherto
observed, so far as to express my own opinion of the
French savant's theory.




Were the original documents from which Brasseur
drew his data obtainable, we might, were we able to
read and understand them, know about how far his
[129]
enthusiasm and imagination have warped his calmer
judgment; as it is, the Atlantis theory is certainly
not proved, and we may therefore reasonably decline
to accept it. In my opinion there is every reason to
believe that his first interpretation of the Codex Chimalpopoca
was the true one, and that the 'double
meaning' had no existence save in his own distorted
fancy.[I-260]



 AUTOCHTHONIC ORIGIN.



It only remains now to speak of the theory which
ascribes an autochthonic origin to the Americans.
The time is not long past when such a supposition
would have been regarded as impious, and even at
this day its advocates may expect discouragement if
not rebuke from certain quarters.[I-261] It is, nevertheless,
an opinion worthy of the gravest consideration,
and one which, if we may judge by the recent results
[130]
of scientific investigation, may eventually prove
to be scientifically correct. In the preceding pages it
will have been remarked that no theory of a foreign
origin has been proven, or even fairly sustained.
The particulars in which the Americans are shown
to resemble any given people of the Old World are
insignificant in number and importance when compared
with the particulars in which they do not
resemble that people.




As I have remarked elsewhere, it is not impossible
that stray ships of many nations have at various
times and in various places been cast upon the
American coast, or even that adventurous spirits,
who were familiar with the old-time stories of a
western land, may have designedly sailed westward
until they reached America, and have never returned
to tell the tale. The result of such desultory visits
would be exactly what has been noticed, but erroneously
attributed to immigration en masse. The
strangers, were their lives spared, would settle among
the people, and impart their ideas and knowledge to
them. This knowledge would not take any very
definite shape or have any very decided effect, for the
reason that the sailors and adventurers who would be
likely to land in America under such circumstances,
would not be thoroughly versed in the arts or sciences;
still they would know many things that were
unknown to their captors, or hosts, and would doubtless
be able to suggest many improvements. This,
then, would account for many Old World ideas and
customs that have been detected here and there in
America, while at the same time the difficulty which
arises from the fact that the resemblances, though
striking, are yet very few, would be satisfactorily
avoided. The foreigners, if adopted by the people
they fell among, would of course marry women of
the country and beget children, but it cannot be
expected that the physical peculiarities so transmitted
would be perceptible after a generation or two
[131]
of re-marrying with the aboriginal stock. At the
same time I think it just as probable that the analogies
referred to are mere coincidences, such as might
be found among any civilized or semi-civilized people
of the earth. It may be argued that the various
American tribes and nations differ so materially from
each other as to render it extremely improbable that
they are derived from one original stock, but, however
this may be, the difference can scarcely be greater
than that which apparently exists between many of
the Aryan branches.[I-262]



 CONCLUSIONS.



Hence it is many not unreasonably assume that
the Americans are autochthones until there is some
good ground given for believing them to be of exotic
origin.[I-263] To express belief, however, in a theory
incapable of proof appears to me idle. Indeed, such
belief is not belief; it is merely acquiescing in or
accepting a hypothesis or tradition until the contrary
[132]
is proved. No one at the present day can tell the
origin of the Americans; they may have come from
any one, or from all the hypothetical sources enumerated
in the foregoing pages, and here the question
must rest until we have more light upon the subject.




[133]



CHAPTER II.

INTRODUCTORY TO ABORIGINAL HISTORY.



Origin and Earliest History of the Americans Unrecorded—The
Dark Sea of Antiquity—Boundary between Myth and
History—Primitive Annals of America compared with those
of the Old World—Authorities and Historical Material—Traditional
Annals and their Value—Hieroglyphic Records
of the Mayas and Nahuas—Spanish Writers—The
Conquerors—The Missionaries—The Historians—Converted
Native Chroniclers—Secondary Authorities—Ethnology—Arts,
Institutions, and Beliefs—Languages—Material Monuments
of Antiquity—Use of Authorities and Method of
Treating the Subject.




The preceding résumé shows pretty conclusively
that the American peoples and the American civilizations,
if not indigenous to the New World, were
introduced from the Old at a period long preceding
any to which we are carried by the traditional or
monumental annals of either continent. We have
found no evidence of any populating or civilizing
migration across the ocean from east or west, north
or south, within historic times. Nothing approaching
identity has been discovered between any two
nations separated by the Atlantic or Pacific. No
positive record appears even of communication between
America and the Old World,—intentionally
by commercial, exploring, or warlike expeditions, or
accidentally by shipwreck,—previous to the voyages of
[134]
the Northmen in the tenth century; yet that such
communication did take place in many instances and
at different periods is extremely probable. The numerous
trans-oceanic analogies, more or less clearly defined,
which are observed, may have resulted partially
from this communication, although they do not
of themselves necessarily imply such an agency. If
scientific research shall in the future decide that all
mankind descended from one original pair, that the
centre of population was in Asia rather than in
America, and that all civilization originated with one
Old World branch of the human family—and these
are all yet open questions—then there will be no
great difficulty in accounting for the transfer of both
population and culture; in fact the means of intercontinental
intercourse are so numerous and practicable
that it will perhaps be impossible to decide on
the particular route or routes by which the transfer
was effected. If, on the other hand, a contrary decision
be reached on the above questions, the phenomena
of American civilization and savagism will
be even more easily accounted for.



 THE MYSTERY OF ANTIQUITY.



Regarding North America then, at the most remote
epoch reached by tradition, as already peopled
for perhaps hundreds of centuries, I propose in the
remaining pages of this volume to record all that is
known of aboriginal history down to the period when
the native races were found by Europeans living under
the institutions and practicing the arts that have
been described in the preceding volumes of this
work. Comparatively little is known or can ever be
known of that history. The sixteenth century is a
bluff coast line bounding the dark unnavigable sea of
American antiquity. At a very few points along the
long line headlands project slightly into the waters,
affording a tolerably sure footing for a time, but
terminating for the most part in dangerous reefs and
quicksands over which the adventurous antiquarian
may pass with much risk still farther from the firm
[135]
land of written record, and gaze at flickering mythical
lights attached to buoys beyond. As a rule,
nothing whatever is known respecting the history of
savage tribes until they come in contact with nations
of a higher degree of culture possessing some system
of written record. Respecting the past of the Wild
Tribes by whom most of our territory was inhabited,
we have only a few childish fables of creation, the
adventures of some bird or beast divinity, of a flood
or some other natural convulsion, a victory or a defeat
which may have occurred one or a hundred generations
ago. These fables lack chronology, and have
no definite historical signification which can be made
available. The Civilized Nations, however, had recorded
annals not altogether mythical. The Nahua
annals reach back chronologically, although not uninterruptedly
to about the sixth century of our era;
the Maya record is somewhat less extensive in an
unbroken line; but both extend more or less vaguely
and mythically to the beginning of the Christian era,
perhaps much farther. Myths are mingled in great
abundance with historical traditions throughout the
whole aboriginal period, and it is often utterly impossible
to distinguish between them, or to fix the
boundary line beyond which the element of history is
absolutely wanting. The primitive aboriginal life,
not only in America but throughout the world, is
wrapped in mystery. The clear light of history
fades gradually, as we recede from the present age,
into an ever-deepening shadow, which, beyond a
varying indefinable point, a border-land of myth and
fable, merges into the black night of antiquity. The
investigations of modern science move back but
slowly this bound between the past and present, and
while the results in the aggregate are immense, in
shedding new light on portions of the world's annals,
progress toward the ultimate end is almost inappreciable.
If the human mind shall ever penetrate the
mystery, it will be one of its last and most glorious
[136]
triumphs. America does not differ so much as would
at first thought appear from the so-called Old World
in respect to the obscurity that shrouds her early
history, if both are viewed from a corresponding
stand-point—in America the Spanish Conquest in
the sixteenth century, in the eastern continent a
remote period when history first began to be recorded
in languages still in use. Or if we attach greater
importance to Biblical than to other traditions, still
America should be compared, not with the nations
whose history is traced in the Hebrew record, but
with the distant extremities of Asia, Europe, and
Africa, on whose history the Bible throws no light,
save the statement that they were peopled from
a common centre, in which populating movement
America has equal claims to be included. To all
whose investigations are a search for truth, darkness
covers the origin of the American peoples, and their
primitive history, save for a few centuries preceding
the Conquest. The darkness is lighted up here and
there by dim rays of conjecture, which only become
fixed lights of fact in the eyes of antiquarians whose
lively imagination enables them to see best in the
dark, and whose researches are but a sifting-out of
supports to a preconceived opinion.




The authorities on which our knowledge of aboriginal
history rests are native traditions orally
handed down from generation to generation, the
Aztec picture-writings that still exist, the writings
of the Spanish authors who came in contact with the
natives in the period immediately following the Conquest,
and also of converted native writers who wrote
in Spanish, or at least by the aid of European letters.
In connection with these positive authorities the
actual condition, institutions, and beliefs of the
natives at the Conquest, together with the material
monuments of antiquity, all described in the preceding
volumes, constitute an important illustrative,
corrective, or confirmatory source of information.




[137]


 TRADITION AS AN AUTHORITY.



Oral tradition, in connection with linguistic affinities,
is our only authority in the case of the wild
tribes, and also plays a prominent part in the annals
of the civilized nations. In estimating its historical
value, not only the intrinsic value of the tradition
itself, but the authenticity of the version presented
to us must be taken into consideration; the latter
consideration is, however, closely connected with that
of the early writers and their reliability as authorities
on aboriginal history. No tribe is altogether
without traditions of the past, many—probably most—of
which were founded on actual occurrences, while
a few are wholly imaginary. Yet, whatever their
origin, all are, if unsupported by written records,
practically of little or no value. Every trace of the
circumstances that gave rise to a tradition is soon
lost, although the tradition itself in curiously modified
forms is long preserved. Natural convulsions,
like floods and earthquakes, famines, wars, tribal
migrations, naturally leave an impression on the
savage mind which is not easily effaced, but the fable
in which the record is embodied may have assumed a
form so changed and childish that we pass over it
to-day as having no historical value, seeking information
only in an apparently more consistent tale, which
may have originated at a recent date from some very
trivial circumstance. Examples are not wanting of
very important events in the comparatively modern
history of Indian tribes, the record of which has not
apparently been preserved in song or story, or the
memory of which at least has become entirely obliterated
in little more than a hundred years. Oral
tradition has no chronology that is not purely imaginary;
"many moons ago," "our fathers did thus
and so," may refer to antediluvian times or to the
exploits of the narrator's grandfather. Among the
American savages there was not even a pride in the
pedigree of families or horses to induce care in this
respect, as among the Asiatic hordes of patriarchal
[138]
times. But the traditions of savages, valueless by
themselves for a time more remote than one or two
generations, begin to assume importance when the
events narrated have been otherwise ascertained by
the records of some contemporary nation, throwing
indirectly much light on history which they were
powerless to reveal. Three traditions are especially
prevalent in some form in nearly every section of
America;—that of a deluge, of an aboriginal migration,
and of giants that dwelt upon the earth at some
time in the remote past. These may be taken as
examples and interpreted as follows, the respective
interpretations being arranged in the order of their
probability.




The tradition of a flood would naturally arise, 1st,
from the destruction of a tribe or part of a tribe by
the sudden rising of a river or mountain stream—that
is from a modern event such as has occurred at
some time in the history of nearly every people, and
which a hundred years and a fertile imagination
would readily have converted into a universal inundation.
2d. From the finding of sea-shells and other
marine relics inland, and even on high mountains,
suggesting to the natives' untutored mind what it
proves to later scientific research—the fact that water
once covered all. 3d. From the actual submersion
of some portions of the continent by the action of
volcano or earthquake, an event that geology shows
not to be improbable, and which would be well calculated
to leave a lasting impression on the minds of
savages. 4th. From the deluge of the scriptural
tradition, the only one of the many similar events
that may have occurred which makes any claims to
have been historically recorded. The accompanying
particulars would be naturally invented. Some must
have escaped, and an ark or a high mountain are the
natural means.




A traditional migration from north, south, east, or
west may point to the local journeying of a family
[139]
or tribe, either in search of better hunting-grounds,
or as a result of adverse fortune in war; in a few
cases a general migration of many tribes constituting
a great nation may be referred to; and finally, it is
not quite impossible that a faint memory of an Old
World origin may have survived through hundreds
of generations.



 INTERPRETATION OF TRADITION.



So with the giant tradition, resulting, 1st, from
the memory of a fierce, numerous, powerful, and
successful enemy, possibly of large physique. No
tribe so valiant that it has not met with reverses,
and the attributing of gigantic strength and supernatural
powers to the successful foe, removes among
the descendants the sting of their ancestors' defeat.
2d. From the discovery of immense fossil bones of
mastodons and other extinct species. It is not
strange that such were deemed human remains by
the natives when the Spaniards in later times have
honestly believed them to be the bones of an extinct
gigantic race. 3d. From the existence of grand
ruins in many parts of the country, far beyond the
constructive powers of the savage, and therefore in
his eyes the work of giants—as they were intellectually,
in comparison with their degenerate descendants.
4th. From an actual traditional remembrance
of those who built the ruined cities, and intercourse
with comparatively civilized tribes. 5th. From the
existence in primitive times of a race of giants.




Numerous additional sources for each of these
traditions might doubtless be suggested; but those
given suffice for illustration, and, as I have remarked,
they are arranged in each case in what would seem
the natural order of probability. The near and
natural should always be preferred to the remote and
supernatural; and the fables mentioned should be
referred to Noah's deluge, Asiatic origin, and the
existence of a gigantic race, only when the previous
suppositions are proved by extraneous evidence to be
untenable. The early writers on aboriginal America,
[140]
using their reason only when it did not conflict with
their faith, reversed the order of probability, and
thus greatly impaired the usefulness of their contributions
to history. The supposition of a purely
imaginary origin, common to aboriginal legend and
modern romance, should of course be added to each
of the preceding lists, and generally placed before
the last supposition given.




Passing from the wild tribes to the civilized nations
of Mexico and Central America, we find tradition,
or what is generally regarded as such, much
more complete and extensive in its scope, less childish
in detail, and with a more clearly defined dividing
line between history and mythology. Theoretically
we might expect a higher grade of tradition among
a partially civilized people; but on the other hand,
what need had the Nahuas or Mayas of oral tradition
when they had the art of recording events? In
fact, our knowledge of Aztec and Maya history is
not in any proper sense traditional, although commonly
spoken of as such by the writers. Previous
to the practice of the hieroglyphic art—the date of
whose invention or introduction is unknown, but
must probably be placed long before the Christian
era—oral tradition was doubtless the only guide to
the past; but the traditions were recorded as soon as
the system of picture-writing was sufficiently perfected
to suggest if not to clearly express their import.
After picture-writing came into general use,
it is difficult to imagine that any historical events
should have been handed down by tradition alone.
Still in one sense the popular knowledge of the past
among the Mexicans may be called traditional, inasmuch
as the written records of the nation were not
in the hands of the people, but were kept by a class
of the priesthood, and may be supposed to have been
read by comparatively few. The contents of the
records, however, except perhaps some religious mysteries
[141]
which the priests alone comprehended, were
tolerably well known to the educated classes; and
when the records were destroyed by Spanish fanaticism,
this general knowledge became the chief source
whence, through the 'talk of the old men,' the earlier
writers drew their information. It is in this light
that we must understand the statement of many able
writers, that the greater part of our knowledge of
early American history is traditional, since this
knowledge was not obtained by an actual examination
of the records by the Spaniards, but orally from
the people, the upper classes of whom had themselves
read the pictured annals, while the masses
were somewhat familiar through popular chants and
plays with their contents. The value of history
faithfully taken from such a source cannot be
doubted, but its vagueness and conflicting statements
respecting dates and details may be best appreciated
by questioning intelligent men in the light of nineteenth
century civilization respecting the details of
modern history, withholding the privilege of reference
to books or documents.



 HIEROGLYPHIC RECORDS.



Of the Nahua hieroglyphic system and its capabilities
enough has been said elsewhere.[II-1] By its aid,
from the beginning of the Toltec period at least, all
historical events were recorded that were deemed
worthy of being preserved. The popular knowledge
of these events was perpetuated by means of poems,
songs, and plays, and this knowledge was naturally
faulty in dates. The numerous discrepancies which
students of the present day meet at every step in
the investigation of aboriginal annals, result chiefly
from the almost total destruction of the painted
records, the carelessness of those who attempted to
interpret the few surviving documents at a time
when such a task by native aid ought to have been
feasible, the neglect of the Spanish priesthood in
allowing the art of interpretation to be well-nigh
[142]
lost, their necessary reliance for historical information
on the popular knowledge above referred to, and to a
certain degree doubtless from their failure to properly
record information thus obtained.




But few native manuscripts have been preserved
to the present time, and only a small part of those
few are historical in their nature, two of the most
important having been given in my second volume.[II-2]
Most of the events indicated in such picture-writings
as have been interpreted are also narrated by the
early writers from traditional sources. Thus we see
that our knowledge of aboriginal history depends
chiefly on the hieroglyphic records destroyed by the
Spaniards, rather than on the few fragments that
escaped such destruction. To documents that may
be found in the future, and to a more careful study of
those now existing, we may look perhaps for much
corrective information respecting dates and other
details, but it is not probable that newly discovered
picture-writings or new readings of old ones will
extend the aboriginal annals much farther back into
the past. These remarks apply of course only to
the Aztec documents; the Maya records painted on
skin and paper, or inscribed on stone, are yet sealed
books, respecting the nature of whose contents conjecture
is vain, but from which the future may evolve
revelations of the greatest importance.



 THE SPANISH WRITERS.



Closely connected with the consideration of tradition
and hieroglyphic records as authorities for my
present subject, is that of the Spanish and native
writers through whom for the most part American
traditions, both hieroglyphically recorded and orally
transmitted—in fact, what was known to the natives
at the Conquest of their own past history—are made
known to the modern student. These were Catholic
missionaries and their converts, numerous, zealous,
and as a class honest writers. Through an excess of
[143]
religious zeal they had caused at the first irreparable
harm by destroying the native records, but later they
seem to have realized to a certain extent their error,
and to have done all in their power to repair its consequences
by zealously collecting such fragments of
historical knowledge as had been preserved among
the people. Their works have passed the test of
severe criticism, and the defects of each have been
fairly pointed out, exaggerated, or defended, according
to the spirit of the critic; but the agreement of
the different works in general outline, and even their
differences in detail and their petty blunders, show
that in their efforts to record all that could be ascertained
of the history of the New World and the
institutions of its people, their leading motive was
the discovery of the truth, although they were
swayed like other writers of their time, and all other
times, by the spirit of the age, and by various religious,
political, and personal prejudices.




The prevailing weakness of Spanish writers on
America is well known—their religious enthusiasm
and strong attachment to church dogmas, which, in
view of some of its consequences, is pronounced at
least mistaken zeal even by devoted churchmen of
the present day. They believed in the frequent
miraculous interposition of God in the work of converting
the native pagans; in the instrumentality of
the devil in the spiritual darkness preceding the
Conquest. In their antiquarian researches a passage
of scripture as commented by the Fathers brought
infinitely stronger conviction to their minds than any
sculptured monument, hieroglyphic record, historical
tradition, or law of nature. In short, they were
true Catholics of their time.[II-3] The prevalence of this
[144]
religious spirit among the only men who had an
opportunity to clear up some of the mysteries of the
American past is to be regretted. They could have
done their work much better without its influence;
but, on the other hand, without such a motive as
religious enthusiasm there is little probability that
the work would have been done at all. It is not
only in American researches, however, that this imperfection
prevails. As we recede from the present
we find men more and more religious, and religion
has ever been an imperious mistress, brooking no
rivalry on the part of reason. Reliance on superstition
and prejudice, rather than facts and reason, is
not more noticeable perhaps in works on ancient
America than in other old works. The faith of the
Spaniards renders their conclusions on origin and the
earlier periods of primitive history valueless, but if
that were all, the defect would be of slight importance,
for it is not likely that the natives knew anything
of their own origin, and the Spaniards had no
means not now accessible of learning anything on
that subject from other sources. We may well
pardon them for finding St Thomas and his Christian
teachings in the Toltec traditions of Quetzalcoatl;
the ten lost tribes of Israel in the American aborigines;
Noah's flood and the confusion of tongues in
an Aztec picture of a man floating on the water and
a bird speaking from a tree; provided they have left
us a correct version of the tradition, a true account
of the natives and their institutions, and an accurate
copy of the picture referred to. But it is not improbable
that their zeal gave a coloring to some
traditions and suppressed others which furnished no
support to the Biblical accounts, and were invented
wholly in the interests of the devil. Fortunately it
was chiefly on the mythological traditions supposed
to relate to the creation, deluge, connection of the
Americans with the Old World peoples, and other
very remote events that they exercised their faith,
[145]
rather than on historical traditions proper; fortunately,
because the matters of origin and the earliest
primitive history were entirely beyond the reach of
such authorities, even had they been represented
with the most perfect accuracy.




The writings of the authors in question were moreover
submitted to a rigorous system of censorship by
Spanish councils and tribunals under the control of
the priesthood, without the approval of whose officials
no work could be published. The spirit that
animated these censors was the same as that alluded
to above, and their zeal was chiefly directed to the discovery
and expurgation of any lurking anti-Catholic
sentiment. Many valuable works were doubtless
suppressed, but such of them as were preserved in
manuscript, or those whose contents have since been
made known, have not proved that the censors directed
their efforts against anything but heterodoxy
and unfavorable criticism of Spanish dealings with
the natives.




Spanish credulity accepted as facts many things
which modern reason pronounces absurd; shall we
therefore reject all statements that rest on Spanish
authority? Do we reject all the events of Greek
and Roman history, because the historians believed
that the sun revolved about the earth, and attributed
the ordinary phenomena of nature to the actions of
imaginary gods? Should we deny the historical value
of the Old Testament records because they tell of
Jonah swallowed by a whale, and the sun ordered to
stand still? Do we refuse to accept the occurrences of
modern Mexican history because many of the ablest
Mexican writers apparently believe in the apparition of
Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe? And finally, can we
reject the statements of able and conscientious men—many
of whom devoted their lives to the study of
aboriginal character and history, from an honest desire
to do the natives good—because they deemed themselves
bound by their priestly vows and the fear of
[146]
the Inquisition to draw scriptural conclusions from
each native tradition? The same remarks apply to
the writings of converted and educated natives, influenced
to a great degree by their teachers; more
prone, perhaps, to exaggeration through national
pride, but at the same time better acquainted with
the native character and with the interpretation of
the native hieroglyphics. To pronounce all these
works deliberately executed forgeries, as a few modern
writers have done, is too absurd to require refutation.




The writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
who derived their information from original
sources, and on whose works all that has been
written subsequently is founded, comprise, 1st, the
conquerors themselves, chiefly Cortés, Diaz del Castillo,
and the Anonymous Conqueror, whose writings
only touch incidentally upon a few points of ancient
history. 2d. The first missionaries who were sent
from Spain to supplement the achievements of Cortés
by spiritual conquests. Such were José de Acosta,
Bernardino Sahagun, Bartolomé de Las Casas, Juan
de Torquemada, Diego Duran, Gerónimo de Mendieta,
Toribio de Benavente (Motolinia), Diego García
de Palacio, Didaco Valades, and Alonzo de Zurita.
Of these Torquemada is the most complete and comprehensive,
so far as aboriginal history is concerned,
furnishing an immense mass of material drawn from
native sources, very badly arranged and written.
Duran also devotes a large portion of his work[II-4] to
history, confining himself chiefly, however, to the
annals of the Aztecs. The other authorities named,
although containing full accounts of the natives and
their institutions, devote comparatively little space to
historical traditions; Sahagun is the best authority
of all, so far as his observations go in this direction.
[147]
All have been printed, either in the original Spanish
or in translations, except Las Casas, whose great
historical works exist only in manuscript. 3d. The
native writers who after their conversion acquired
the Spanish language and wrote on the history of
their people, either in Spanish or in their own language,
employing the Spanish alphabet. Most of
them were thoroughly imbued with the spirit of their
converters, and their writings as a class are subject
to the same criticism. Domingo Muñoz Camargo,
a noble Tlascaltec, wrote, about 1585, a history of
his own people, which has been published only in a
French translation. Fernando de Alvarado Tezozomoc,
descended from the royal family of Azcapuzalco,
wrote the chronicles of Mexican history from the
standpoint of the Tepanecs, represented at the time
of the Conquest by the kingdom of Tlacopan. Fernando
de Alva Ixtlilxochitl was a grandson of the
last king of Tezcuco, from whom he inherited all
that were saved of the records in the public archives.
His works are more extensive than those of any other
native writer, covering the whole ground of Nahua
history, although treating more particularly of the
Chichimecs, his ancestors.[II-5]



 SECONDARY AUTHORITIES.



In this class should be included the reported but
little known writings of Juan Ventura Zapata y Mendoza,
Tadeo de Niza, and Alonzo Franco.[II-6] There are
also many manuscripts by native authors whose names
are unknown, brought to light by comparatively recent
researches, and preserved for the most part in the
[148]
Brasseur and Aubin collections in Paris. Their contents
are unknown except through the writings of
the Abbé Brasseur. The Popol Vuh is another important
document, of which there are extant a Spanish
and a French translation. 4th. Spanish authors
who passed their lives mostly in Spain, and wrote
chiefly under royal appointment. Their information
was derived from the writers already mentioned,
from the official correspondence of the colonists, and
from the narratives of returning adventurers. Most
of them touched upon aboriginal history among other
topics. To this class belonged Peter Martyr, Francisco
Lopez de Gomara, Antonio de Herrera, and
Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdés. 5th. Catholic
priests and missionaries who founded or were in
charge of the missions at later periods or in remote
regions, as Yucatan, Guatemala, Chiapas, Oajaca,
Michoacan, and the north-western provinces of New
Spain. They wrote chiefly in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, and treat principally of the conversion
of the natives, but include also in many cases
their historical traditions and their explanations of
the few aboriginal documents that fell into the possession
of the converts. The number of such works
is very great, and many of them have never been
printed. Among the most important writers of this
class are Diego de Landa, Diego Lopez Cogolludo,
Padre Lizana, and Juan de Villagutierre Soto-Mayor,
on Yucatan; Ramon de Ordoñez y Aguiar,[II-7] Fuentes
y Guzman,[II-8] F. E. Arana,[II-9] Francisco García Pelaez,[II-10]
and Domingo Juarros, on Guatemala; Francisco
Nuñez de la Vega,[II-11] Francisco Ximenez,[II-12] and Antonio
[149]
de Remesal, on Chiapas; Ribas, Alegre, and
Arricivita on the north-western provinces; and Francisco
de Burgoa on Oajaca. To the above should be
added the regular records kept in all the missions,
and the numerous letters and reports of the missionaries
in distant provinces, many of which have been
preserved, and not a few printed. There may also
be included in this class the writings of some later
Mexican authors, such as Boturini, Sigüenza y Góngora,
Veytia, Leon y Gama, and Clavigero. Their
works were mostly founded on the information supplied
by their predecessors, which they did much to
arrange and classify, but they also had access to some
original authorities not previously used. Clavigero is
almost universally spoken of as the best writer on the
subject, but it is probable that he owes his reputation
much more to his systematic arrangement and clear
narration of traditions that had before been greatly
confused, and to the omission of the most perplexing
and contradictory points, than to deep research or new
discoveries.




The preceding classes include all the original authorities,
that is, all founded on information not accessible
to later writers. These works have been the
foundation of all that has been written since, except
what has been developed from linguistic and other
scientific researches. All that modern authors have
done may be followed step by step, their facts as well
as their conclusions.




Of the secondary authorities already alluded to, the
condition and institutions of the natives, with the
material relics of their past, not much need be said.
It is only indirectly by means of comparisons that
these authorities can help us in the study of history.
How little they can teach unaided is illustrated in the
case of the wild tribes, for whose history they are
practically the only authorities. In Mexico and Central
America the state of civilization as shown in native
art, religion, government, or manners and customs,
[150]
may indicate by resemblances or dissimilarities a connection
or want of it between the different civilized tribes,
and may thus corroborate or modify their written annals;
it may even throw some light on the unity or
diversity of its own origin by showing the nature of
the connection between the Nahua and Maya cultures,
in which striking resemblances as well as contrasts
are observed. Outside of the regions mentioned, where
there were no tangible records, we can only search
among the wilder tribes for points of likeness by
which to attach their past to that of the civilized nations.
It may be foreseen that the results of such a
search will be but meagre and unsatisfactory, yet on
several important branches of the subject, such as the
relation borne by the Mound-Builders and Pueblos to
the southern nations, it furnishes our only light.



 LANGUAGE AS A HISTORICAL AUTHORITY.



Of the historical aids now under consideration, ethnology
proper, the study of physical and mental characteristics,
has yielded and promises apparently the
least important results. In fact, as has been already
pointed out in another part of this work, it has hardly
acquired the right to be classed among the sciences, so
far as its application to the American people is concerned.
Theoretically it may, in a more perfect state
of development than now exists, throw some light on
the route and order of American migrations, possibly
on the question of origin; thus far, however, ethnological
studies have been practically fruitless. Results
obtained from a comparison of the miscellaneous arts
and customs of various tribes have likewise furnished
and will continue to furnish but very slight assistance
in historical investigations. Resemblances and dissimilarities
in these respects depend intimately on environment,
which in comparatively short periods works
the most striking changes. Strongly marked analogies
are noted in tribes that never came in contact
with each other, while contrasts as marked appear in
people but a short time separated. Under the same
circumstances, after all, men do about the same things,
[151]
the mind originating like inventions; and coincidences
in arts and customs, unless of an extraordinary nature,
may be more safely attributed to an independent origin
resulting from environment, than to international
identity or connection. That language is by far the
best of these secondary authorities is conceded by all.
No better proof of relationship between native tribes
can be desired than the fact that they speak the same
language, or dialects showing clear verbal and constructive
resemblances. The most prominent abuse
of this authority has been a disposition to connect the
past of tribes in whose languages slight and forced
verbal similarities are pointed out. There is also
some difference of opinion about the use of the authority.
That two tribes speaking the same languages or
similar dialects have had a common origin, or have at
least been intimately connected in the past, as tribes,
is evident; but how far back that origin or connection
may extend, whether it may reach back through the
ages to the first division of the human race, or even
to the first subdivision of the American peoples, is a
disputed point. Fortunately the doubts that have
been raised concern chiefly the question of origin,
which for other reasons cannot yet be settled.[II-13]




[152]
Having thus given a sketch of the sources to which
we may look for all that is known and has been conjectured
respecting the American past, I shall proceed
to place before the reader in the remaining chapters
of my work what these authorities reveal on the
subject. I have not, I believe, exaggerated their
value, but fully comprehend the unsubstantial character
which must be attributed to many of them. I
am well aware that aboriginal American history, like
the ancient Egyptian and Hebrew annals, differs materially
in its nature and degree of accuracy from the
history of England since the expedition of William
the Conqueror, or of Mexico since the Conquest by
Hernan Cortés. I do not propose to record such events
only as may be made to conform to the modern idea
of chronologic exactitude, rejecting all else as fabulous
and mythic. Were such my purpose, a chapter
on the subject already given in the second volume
would suffice, with some contraction for the earlier
epochs, and a corresponding expansion, perhaps, for
Aztec history during the century immediately preceding
the Conquest. On the contrary, I shall tell
the tale as I find it recorded, mingled as it doubtless
is at many points with myth and fable, and shall recount,
as others have done, the achievements of heroes
that possibly never lived, the wanderings of tribes
who never left their original homes. It is not in a
spirit of real or feigned credulity that I adopt this
course,—on the contrary, I wish to clearly discriminate
between fact and fancy wherever such discrimination
may be possible, and so far as an extensive study of
my subject may enable me to do so—but it is in accordance
with the general plan of the whole work to
record all that is found, rejecting only what may be
proven false and valueless rather than what may possibly
be so.




[153]


 TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT.



I have compared the American past to a dark sea,
from the bluff coast line of which projects an occasional
cape terminating in precipitous cliffs, quicksands,
and sunken rocks, beyond which some faint
lights are floated by buoys. The old authors, as Torquemada,
Clavigero, and Veytia, had but little difficulty
in crossing from the headlands to the tower of
Babel beyond the Sea of Darkness; they told the
story, fables and all, with little discrimination save
here and there the rejection of a tale infringing apparently
on orthodoxy, or the expression of a doubt
as to the literal acceptation of some marvelous occurrence.
Of modern authors, those who, like Wilson,
refuse to venture upon the projecting capes of solid
rock and earth, who utterly reject the Aztec civilization
with all its records, are few, and at this day their
writings may be considered as unworthy of serious
notice. Other writers, of whom Gallatin is a specimen,
venture boldly from the main coast to the extremity
of each projecting point, and acknowledge the
existence of the rocks, sands, and buoys beyond, but
decline to attempt their passage, doubting their security.
These men, in favor of whose method there
is much to be said, accept the annals of the later Aztec
periods, but look with distrust upon the traditions
of the Chichimec, Toltec, and Olmec epochs; and
hardly see in the far distance the twinkling floating
lights that shine from Votan's Empire of Xibalba.
Then there are writers who are continually dreaming
they have found secure footing by routes previously
unknown, from rock to rock and through the midst of
shifting sands. Such are the advocates of special
theories of American history resting on newly discovered
authorities or new readings of old ones. They
carefully sift out such mythic traditions as fit their
theories, converting them into incontrovertible facts,
and reject all else as unworthy of notice; these, however,
have chiefly to do with the matter of origin.
Finally, I may speak of Brasseur de Bourbourg,
[154]
rather a class by himself, perhaps, than the representative
of a class. This author, to speak with a degree
of exaggeration, steps out without hesitation from
rock to rock over the deep waters; to him the banks
of shifting quicksand, if somewhat treacherous about
the edges, are firm land in the central parts; to him
the faintest buoy-supported stars are a blaze of noon-day
sun; and only on the floating masses of sea-weed
far out on the waters lighted up by dim phosphorescent
reflections, does he admit that his footing is becoming
insecure and the light grows faint. In other
words, he accepts the facts recorded by preceding
authors, arranges them often with great wisdom and
discrimination, ingeniously finds a historic record in
traditions by others regarded as pure fables, and thus
pushes his research far beyond the limits previously
reached. He rejects nothing, but transforms everything
into historic facts.




In the present sketch I wish to imitate to a certain
extent the writers of each class mentioned,
except perhaps the specialists, for I have no theory
to defend, have found no new bright sun to illumine
what has ever been dark. With the Spanish writers
I would tell all that the natives told as history, and
that without constantly reminding the reader that
the sun did not probably stand still in the heavens,
that giants did not flourish in America, that the
Toltec kings and prophets did not live to the age of
several hundred years, and otherwise warning him
against what he is in no danger whatever of accepting
as truth. With Wilson and his class of antiquarian
sceptics I would feel no hesitation in rejecting
the shallow theories and fancies evolved by
certain writers from their own brain. With Gallatin
I wish to discriminate clearly, when such discrimination
is called for and possible, between the
historic and the probably mythic; to indicate the
boundary between firm land and treacherous quicksand;
but also like Brasseur, I would pass beyond
[155]
the firm land, spring from rock to rock, wade through
shifting sands, swim to the farthest, faintest, light,
and catch at straws by the way;—yet not flatter myself
while thus employed, as the abbé occasionally
seems to do, that I am treading dry-shod on a wide,
solid, and well-lighted highway.




[156]



CHAPTER III.

THE PRE-TOLTEC PERIOD OF ABORIGINAL HISTORY.



Subdivision of the Subject—Tzendal Tradition of the Votanic
Empire—Votan's Book and its Contents as reported by
Nuñez de la Vega, Cabrera, and Ordoñez—Testimony of
Manners and Customs, Religion, Languages, and Monuments
of the Civilized Nations respecting the Primitive
Maya Peoples—The Quiché Record, or Popol Vuh—Civilizing
Efforts of Gucumatz and his Followers—Exploits
of Hunahpu and Xbalanque—Conquest of Xibalba—Migration
from Tulan Zuiva, the Seven Caves—Meaning of the
Quiché Tradition—Nahua Traditions—The Toltecs in Tamoanchan
according to Sahagun—The Codex Chimalpopoca—Pre-Toltec
Nations in Mexico—Olmecs and Xicalancas—The
Quinames—Cholula and Quetzalcoatl—The
Totonacs—Teotihuacan—Otomís, Miztecs, Zapotecs, and
Huastecs—The Toltecs in Huehue Tlapallan—Migration
to Anáhuac—The Chichimecs in Amaquemecan—Ancient
Home of the Nahuatlacas and Aztecs—Primitive Annals
of Yucatan—Conclusions.



 TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT.


 DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT.



In order to render more vivid than it would otherwise
have been a picture of Nahua and Maya institutions
as they were found in the sixteenth century,
I have devoted one chapter of a preceding volume to
an outline view of aboriginal history; to fill in so far
as possible its details, is my remaining task. The
sketch alluded to will prove convenient here, since
it will enable me at various points to refer intelligibly
and yet briefly to events somewhat in advance
[157]
of their chronologic order. As has been stated, the
sixth century is the most remote period to which we
are carried in the annals of Anáhuac by traditions
sufficiently definite to be considered in a strict sense
as historic records. Prior to the sixth century there
were doubtless other periods of Nahua greatness, for
there is little evidence to indicate that this was the
first appearance in Mexico of this progressive people,
but previous development cannot be definitely followed—in
a historical sense—although affording occasional
glimpses which supply interesting matter for
antiquarian speculation.




In the southern regions, where the Maya culture
flourished, or what may be considered geographically as
Central America, we have seen that the chronologic
record is much less extensive and perfect even than in
the north, taking us back in an oft-broken line only a
few centuries beyond the Conquest. Yet we have caught
traditional glimpses far back in the misty past of a
mighty aboriginal empire in these tropical lands, of the
earlier and grander stages of Maya culture, of Votan,
of Xibalba, of even the early periods of Nahua civilization
and power. Palenque, Copan, and their companions
in ruin, the wonderful material monuments of
the ancient epoch, proving it to be no mere creation
of the imagination, have been described and pictured.
With the breaking-up of the Maya empire into separate
nations at an unknown date, the aboriginal history
of Central America as a whole ceases, and down
to a period closely preceding the Conquest, we have
only an occasional event, the memory of which is preserved
in the traditions of two or three nations.




The history of the Native Races may be most conveniently
subdivided as follows;—1st. The Pre-Toltec
Period, embracing the semi-mythic traditions of the
earliest civilization, extending down to a date—always
preceding the sixth century, but varying in
different parts of the territory—when the more properly
[158]
historic annals of the different nations begin, and
including also the few traditions referring to pre-Toltec
nations north of Tehuantepec. 2d. The Toltec
Period, referring like the two following periods to
Anáhuac alone, and extending down to the eleventh
century. 3d. The Chichimec Period, extending from
the eleventh century to the formation of the tri-partite
alliance between the Aztecs, Acolhuas, and Tepanecs
in the fifteenth century. 4th. The Aztec Period,
that of Aztec supremacy during the century preceding
the Conquest. 5th. The annals of such Nahua
nations outside the limits of the Aztec Empire proper
as cannot be conveniently included in the preceding
divisions. 6th. Historical traditions of the Wild
Tribes of the north. 7th. The Quiché-Cakchiquel
nations of Guatemala. 8th. Miscellaneous nations
and tribes of Central America. 9th. The Maya nations
of Yucatan.




The first division, the Pre-Toltec Period, to which
the present chapter is devoted, will include the few
vague traditions that seem to point to the cradle of
American civilization, to the Votanic empire, to Xibalba,
and to the deeds of the civilizers, or culture-heroes,
in Tabasco and Chiapas. Who can estimate
the volumes that would be required for a full narration
of all that actually occurred within this period,
had the record been made or preserved;—the development,
from germs whose nature is unknown, of American
civilization; the struggles and misfortunes of
infant colonies; the exploits of native heroes; plots of
ambition, glorious success, utter failure; the rise and
fall of princes and of empires; wars, triumphs, defeats;
oppression and revolt; political combinations
and intrigues; religious strife between the fanatic
devotees of rival divinities; seasons of plenty and of
famine; earthquake, flood, and pestilence—a tangled
network of events spread over the centuries;—to relate
all that we may know of it a chapter will suffice.




[159]


 VOTAN AND HIS DEEDS.



I have told in another volume the mythic tale of
Votan,[III-1] the culture-hero, how he came to America
and apportioned the land among the people. He
came by divine command from Valum Chivim by
way of Valum Votan, built a great city of Nachan,
'city of the serpents'—so called from his own name,
for he was of the race of Chan, a Serpent—and
founded a great empire in the Usumacinta region,
which he seems to have ruled over as did his descendants
or followers for many centuries. He was not
regarded in the native traditions as the first man in
America; he found the country peopled, as did all the
culture-heroes, but by his teachings and by the aid of
his companions he firmly established his own ideas of
religion and government. So far as his memory was
preserved by tradition he was a civilizer, a law-giver,
the introducer of the Maya culture, worshiped moreover,
after his disappearance, as a god. He came by
sea from the east, but with the locality whence he
started I have nothing to do here; neither is it necessary
to indulge in speculation respecting the four mysterious
visits which he paid after his arrival in America
to his original home in the Old World, where it is
gravely asserted he was present at the building of
Solomon's temple and saw the ruins of the tower of
Babel. His reported acts in the New World, whose
people he came to civilize, were;—the dividing or apportioning
of the lands among the people; their
instruction in the new institutions they were required
to adopt; the building of a great city, Nachan, afterwards
the metropolis of an empire; the reception of
a new band of disciples of his own race, who were allowed
to share in the success already achieved by his
enterprise; the subdividing of his empire after its
power had become wide-spread in the land into several
allied monarchies subordinate in a certain degree to
Nachan, among whose capitals were Tulan, Mayapan,
and Chiquimula; the construction of a subterranean
[160]
road or 'snake hole' from the barranca of Zuqui to
Tzequil; the deposit of a great treasure with tapirs as
sacred animals in a 'house of gloom' at Huehuetan
in Soconusco, protected by guardians called tlapianes,
at whose head was a Lady Superior; and finally the
writing of a 'book' in which was inscribed a complete
record of all he had done, with a defense or proof of
his claims to be considered one of the Chanes, or Serpents.[III-2]



 THE BOOK OF VOTAN.



This document is the authority, indirectly, for
nearly all that is known from Tzendal sources of Votan
and his empire. Francisco Nuñez de la Vega,
Bishop of Chiapas, claims to have had in his possession[III-3]
and to have read this historical tract. He does
not describe it, but from his having been able to read
the contents, it would seem to have been, if genuine,
not the original in hieroglyphics but an interpretation
in European letters, although still perhaps in the
Tzendal language. Of the contents, besides a general
statement of Votan's coming as the first man sent by
God to portion out the land, and some of his experiences
in the Old World, this author says nothing
definite. He claims to have had much knowledge of
Tzendal antiquity derived from the work mentioned
and other native writings, but he feared to perpetuate
this knowledge lest it might "confirm more strongly
an idolatrous superstition." He is the only authority
for the deposit of the treasure in the Dark House at
Huehuetan, without saying expressly that he derived
his information from Votan's writings. This treasure,
consisting of aboriginal relics, the bishop felt it to be
his duty to destroy, and it was publicly burned in
1691. It is not altogether improbable that a genuine
Maya document similar to the Manuscript Troano or
Dresden Codex,[III-4] preserved from the early times, may
[161]
have found a native interpreter at the time of the
Conquest, and have escaped in its disguise of Spanish
letters the destruction that overtook its companions.




The next notice of this manuscript is found in the
writings of Dr Paul Felix Cabrera,[III-5] who in the
last part of the eighteenth century found it in the
possession of Don Ramon de Ordoñez y Aguiar, a
native and resident of Ciudad Real in Chiapas.[III-6] He
describes the document as consisting of "five or six
folios of common quarto paper, written in ordinary
characters in the Tzendal language, an evident proof
of its having been copied from the original in hieroglyphics,
shortly after the conquest."[III-7] The manuscript,
according to Cabrera, recounted Votan's arrival
with seven families, to whom he apportioned
the lands; his voyages to the Old World; and his
reception of the new-comers. Returning from one
of his voyages "he found seven other families of the
Tzequil nation, who had joined the first inhabitants,
and recognized in them the same origin as his own,
that is, of the Culebras. He speaks of the place
where they built their first town, which, from its
founders, received the name of Tzequil; he affirms
the having taught them refinement of manners in
the use of the table, table-cloth, etc.; that, in return
for these, they taught him the knowledge of God and
of his worship; his first ideas of a king and obedience
[162]
to him; and that he was chosen captain of all
these united families."




Ordoñez, at the time of Cabrera's visit, was engaged
in writing his great 'History of the Heaven
and Earth,'[III-8] a work, as the learned Doctor predicts,
to be "so perfect in its kind, as will completely astonish
the world." The manuscript was never published,
part of the historical portion was lost, and the remaining
fragments or copies of them fell into the
hands of Brasseur de Bourbourg, whose writings
contain all that is known of their contents; and it
must be confessed that from these fragments little or
nothing of value has been extracted by the abbé
in addition to what Nuñez de la Vega and Cabrera
had already made known. Ordoñez was familiar
with the Tzendal language and character, with the
ancient monuments of his native state, and was zealously
devoted to antiquarian researches; he had excellent
opportunities to collect and record such scraps
of knowledge as the Tzendal tribes had preserved
from the days of their ancestors' greatness;[III-9] but his
enthusiasm seems rather to have led him to profitless
speculations on the original population of the New
World and "its progress from Chaldea immediately
after the confusion of tongues." Even after rejecting
the absurd theories and speculations which seem
to have constituted the bulk of his writings, one cannot
help looking with some distrust on the few traditional
statements respecting Votan not given by other
[163]
authors, and thinking of possible transformations that
may have been effected in Tzendal fables under the
pens of two writers like Ordoñez and Brasseur, both
honest investigators, but of that enthusiastic class of
antiquarians who experience few or no difficulties.



 TZENDAL TRADITIONS.



The few items of information respecting the Votanic
period not already mentioned, some of them not
in themselves improbable, but few traceable to any
very definite native source, are the following: The
date of the foundation of the empire, according to
Ordoñez, was about 1000 B.C. Whether he had any
other reason for this supposition than his theory that
the building of Solomon's temple, attributed by some
writers to that period, took place during Votan's life,
is uncertain. The name Tzequiles, applied to Votan's
followers by the aborigines,—or rather, it would seem,
by the first to the second division of the Serpents—is
said to mean in Tzendal 'men with petticoats,' and to
have been applied to the new-comers by reason of
their peculiar dress.[III-10] To them was given, after the
permanent establishment of the empire, one of the
great kingdoms into which it was divided, with Tulan
as their capital city. This kingdom with two others,
whose capitals were Mayapan in Yucatan and Chiquimula,
possibly Copan, in Honduras, were allied with,
yet to a certain degree subordinate to, the original empire
whose capital was Nachan, built and ruled by Votan
himself and his descendants. The only names which
seem to have been applied in the Tzendal traditions
to the people and their capital city were Chanes, or
Serpents, and Nachan, or City of Serpents; but these
names acquire considerable historical importance when
it is noted that they are the exact equivalents of Culhuas
and Culhuacan, names which will be found so
exasperatingly prevalent in the Nahua traditions of
[164]
the north. Ordoñez claims, however, that the name
Quiché, at a later period that of a Guatemalan kingdom,
was also in these earlier times applied to Votan's
empire.[III-11]




Of Votan's death there is no tradition, nor is anything
definite reported of his successors, save, what is
perhaps only a conjecture, that their names are recorded
in the Tzendal calendar as the names of days,[III-12]
the order being that of their succession. In this case
it is necessary to suppose that Votan had two predecessors,
Igh and Imox; and in fact Brasseur claims
to find in one document a statement that Igh brought
the first colony to America.[III-13] Chinax, the last but
two of the line, a great soldier, is said to have been
put to death by a rival of another nation.[III-14] Nuñez
de la Vega notes the existence of a family of Votans
in his time, claiming direct descent from the great
founder; and Brasseur states that a wild tribe of the
region are yet known as Chanes.[III-15]



 THE VOTANIC EMPIRE.



Such are the vague memories of the Chiapan past
so far as they were preserved by the natives of the
region, and collected by Europeans. The nature of
the traditions themselves, the sources whence they
sprang, the medium through which they are given to
us, are not such as to inspire great confidence in the
accuracy of the details related, although some of the traditions
are not improbable and were very likely founded
on actual occurrences. But whatever value may be
[165]
attached to their details, the traditions in question have
great weight in establishing two general propositions—the
existence in the remote past of a great and
powerful empire in the Usumacinta region, and a general
belief among the subjects of that empire that the
beginning of their greatness was due to a hero or
demi-god called Votan. They point clearly to the
appearance and growth of a great race, nation, or dynasty;
and they carry us no farther. Respecting the
questions who or what was Votan, man or mythic
creation, populator, colonizer, civilizer, missionary, conqueror,
foreign or native born? When, how, and
whence did he come to the central tierra caliente?
Who were the people among whom he wrought his
mighty deeds, and what was their past history? we
are left to simple conjecture,—conjecture of a class
which falls without the limits of my present purpose,
and to which the first chapter of this volume has been
devoted. Doubtless the Votanic was not the first
period of American civilization and power, but none
earlier is known to us. In addition to the Tzendal
traditions there are several other authorities bearing
more or less directly on this primitive empire, which
I proceed to investigate.




In the second volume of this work I have described
the physique, character, manners and customs,
arts, and institutions of the civilized nations of
our territory, dividing them into two great families
or groups, the Mayas and the Nahuas, "the former
the more ancient, the latter the more recent and
wide-spread." The many contrasts observed between
the institutions of the northern and southern nations
seemed sufficiently marked to outweigh the frequently
recurring resemblances, and to justify me in
the opinion there expressed that their culture had
either been distinct from the beginning, or—what is
more probable and for my purpose practically the
same thing—that it had progressed in different paths
[166]
for a long time previous to the coming of the Spaniards.
The contrasts observed were attributed to a
distinct origin of the two national groups, or, with
more probability, to their long separation; while the
analogies were to be referred either to unity of origin,
to the tendency of humanity to like development
under like circumstances, to frequent communication
and friction by commerce or war, or still better, to the
influence of all these causes combined.



 THE MAYAS AND NAHUAS.



The picture presented in the third volume of the
myths and languages of the same nations favored the
view previously taken. In the religious fancies, divinities,
forms of worship, ideas of a future state,
physical, animal, and creation myths, to which the
first part of the volume was devoted, the analogies,
it is true, seemed somewhat stronger and the contrasts
less striking than in the characteristics previously
portrayed; this was perhaps because the myths
of any people point farther back into their past than
do the so-called manners and customs; but in the
consideration of languages which followed, the contrasts
between the two groups came out more distinctly
marked than at any previous stage of the
investigation. A very large proportion of the tongues
of the civilized nations were found to belong more or
less closely to one or the other of two linguistic families.
Finally, in the fourth volume a study of material
relics tended very strongly to confirm the
opinion before arrived at respecting the development
of Maya and Nahua culture in distinct channels, at
least during the historic period. I need not repeat
here even en résumé the facts exhibited in the preceding
volumes, nor the lessons that have at different
points been drawn from them; but I may briefly
mention some general conclusions founded on the
preceding matter which bear on my present purpose
of historical investigation. First, as already stated,
the Maya and Nahua nations have been within traditionally
historic times practically distinct, although
[167]
coming constantly in contact. Second, this fact is
directly opposed to the once accepted theory of a
civilized people, coming from the far north, gradually
moving southward with frequent halts, constantly
increasing in power and culture, until the highest
point of civilization was reached in Chiapas, Honduras,
and Yucatan, or as many believed in South
America. Third, the theory alluded to is rendered
altogether untenable by the want of ruins in California
and the great north-west; by the utter want
of resemblance between New Mexican and Mexican
monuments; by the failure to discover either Aztec
or Maya dialects in the north; and finally by the
strong contrasts between the Nahuas and Mayas,
both in language and in monuments of antiquity.
Fourth, the monuments of the south are not only different
from but much more ancient than those of Anáhuac,
and cannot possibly have been built by the
Toltecs after their migration from Anáhuac in the
eleventh century, even if such a migration took place.
Fifth, these monuments, like those of the north, were
built by the ancestors of the people found in possession
of the country at the Conquest, and not by an
extinct race or in remote antiquity.[III-16] Sixth, the cities
of Palenque, Ococingo, and Copan, at least, were unoccupied
when the Spaniards came; the natives of
the neighboring region knew nothing of their origin
even if they were aware of their existence, and no
notice whatever of the existence of such cities appears
in the annals of the surrounding civilized nations during
the eight or nine centuries preceding the Conquest;
that is, the nation that built Palenque was not
one of those found by Europeans in the country, but
its greatness had practically departed before the rise
of the Quiché, Cakchiquel, and Yucatan powers.
Seventh, the many resemblances that have been noted
between Nahua and Maya beliefs, institutions, arts,
[168]
and relics, may be consistently accounted for by the
theory that at some period long preceding the sixth
century the two peoples were practically one so far as
their institutions were concerned, although they are
of themselves not sufficient to prove the theory.
Eighth, the oldest civilization in America which has
left any traces for our consideration, whatever may
have been its pre-historic origin, was that in the
Usumacinta region represented by the Palenque
group of ruins.[III-17]




It is not likely that Américanistes of the present
day will disagree materially with the preceding conclusions,
especially as they do not positively assert
the southern origin of the Nahua peoples or deny
their traditional migration from the north. The general
theory alluded to of a great migration from north
to south, and the theory of a civilized race of foreign
origin extinct long before the Conquest, will find few
defenders in view of the results of modern research.
It is true that many writers attribute more or less
positively the grand ruins of Central America to the
Toltecs after their migration southward in the eleventh
century; but their decision has been generally reached
without even considering the possible existence of any
other civilized nation in the annals of American antiquity.
Their studies have shown them that Palenque
was not the work of an extinct race, and they
have consequently attributed the ruins to the oldest
people mentioned in the popular version of American
traditional history—the Toltecs, and the more naturally
because that people, according to the tradition,
had migrated southward. Mr Stephens, who arrived
at this conclusion in the manner indicated, admits that
from a study of the ruins themselves he would have
assigned the foundation of the cities to a much more
remote period.[III-18]




[169]


 MONUMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS.



Thus the monumental relics of Central America by
themselves and by comparisons with other American
ruins, point directly to the existence of a great empire
in the Palenque region; and the observed phenomena
of myths, language, and institutions agree
perfectly with such a conclusion, which, however, unaided,
they could not have established. We may then
accept as a reality the Votanic Maya empire on the
authority of the native traditions confirmed by the
tangible records of ruined cities, and by the condition
of the southern civilized nations in the sixteenth century.
It is more than probable that Palenque was
the capital, as Ordoñez believes—the Nachan of the
Votanic epoch—and not improbable that Ococingo,
Copan, and some of the older Yucatec cities were the
centres of contemporaneous, perhaps allied powers.[III-19]




[170]


 TRADITIONS OF THE QUICHÉS.



I pass next to the traditions of the Quiché nations
as preserved in the Popol Vuh, or National Book, and
known to the world through the Spanish translation
of Ximenez and the French of Brasseur de Bourbourg.[III-20]
These traditions, the authenticity and general
accuracy of which there is no reason to doubt,
constitute a hopelessly entangled network of mythic
tales, without chronology, but with apparent although
vague references here and there, to actual events in
the primitive history of the peoples whose descendants
were the Quichés and Cakchiquels, and with a
more continuous account in the closing chapters, of the
Quiché annals of a much later period, immediately
preceding the Conquest. In the introduction we read:
"This is the origin of the ancient history of Quiché.
Here we write the annals of the past, the beginning
of all that has taken place in the city of Quiché,
among the tribes of the Quiché nations. Behold we
bring about the manifestation of what was in obscurity,
its first dawning by the will of the Creator and
of the Former, of Him who begets and of Him who
gives being. Their names are Hunahpu Vuch—'shooter
of the blowpipe at the opossum,' Hunahpu
Utïu—'shooter of the blowpipe at the coyote,' Zaki
Nima Tzyiz—'great white pricker,' Tepeu—the 'dominator,'
and Gucumatz—the 'plumed serpent;' Heart
of the Lakes, Heart of the Sea, Master of the Verdant
Planisphere, Master of the Azure Surface.
Thus it is that these also are named, sung, and celebrated—the
grandmother and the grandfather, whose
names are Xpiyacoc and Xmucane, preserver and protectrice;
twice grandmother and twice grandfather, as
it is stated in the Quiché annals; concerning whom
was related all that they did afterwards in the light
of life, in the light of the word, (civilization). Behold
that which we shall write after the word of God,
and in Christianity; we shall bring it to light because
[171]
the Popol Vuh, the national book, is no longer visible,
in which it was clearly seen that we came from beyond
the sea—'the narrative of our life in the land of
shadow, and how we saw the light and life,' as it is
called. It is the first book, written in olden times;
but its view is hidden from him who sees and thinks.
Wonderful is its appearance, and the narrative of the
time when he (the Creator) finished everything in
heaven and on earth."[III-21]




Then follows an account, which has already been
presented in a condensed translation,[III-22] of a time when
all was silent, and there was yet no earth, and no
living thing, only the immobility and silence of a
boundless sea, on the surface of which floated the
Creator and his companion deities named above, including
Gucumatz, the 'plumed serpent.' Then the
light appeared and the earth with its vegetation was
created by Gucumatz and the Dominator at the word
of Hurakan, Heart of Heaven, the Thunderbolt.
Life and fecundity were given to the animals and
birds, who were distributed as guardians of the forests
and mountains, and called upon to speak and
praise the names of those that had made them; but
the poor animals, after efforts twice repeated, could
not obey, and were assigned a position far below that
which they had been intended to fill. Two attempts
at the creation of intelligent beings followed, both
failures. First man was made of earth, and although
he could speak, he was intellectually stupid and
physically clumsy, unable to stand erect, and soon
mingled with the water like a man of mud. He was
destroyed by the disgusted creators. The sorcerers,
Xpiyacoc and Xmucane, grandmothers of the sun and
of the moon, were consulted in the second creation,
and the 'chief of Toltecat' is mentioned in addition to
the names already given. Lots were cast, all needful
precautions were taken, and man was made again of
[172]
wood and pith; but he lacked intelligence, led a useless
life, and forgot the Heart of Heaven. They
became numerous on the face of the earth, but the
gods were wroth and sent upon them a flood, and a
resinous shower from heaven; their houses refused to
cover them, the trees shook them from the branches
where they sought shelter, the animals and even the
household implements turned against the poor wooden
men, reviling and persecuting them, until all were destroyed,
save a few who remained as a memorial in
the form of apes.[III-23]




At this point the character of the narrative changes
somewhat, and, although an account of a third and
final creation of man, given on a subsequent page,[III-24]
should, in the opinion of Brasseur, be introduced here,
I proceed with a résumé of the Quiché tradition in
the order of its arrangement in both the Spanish and
French version, devoting a paragraph to each chapter
of the French translation.




There was sky and earth, but little light; and a
man named Vucub Cakix, 'seven aras, or paroquets,'
was puffed up with pride and said, "those that were
drowned were like supernatural beings;[III-25] now will I
be great above all created beings. I am their sun and
their moon; great is my splendor." He was not the
sun, nor did his view reach over the whole earth, but
he was proud of his riches. This was when the flood
destroyed the wooden manikins. Now we will tell
when Vucub Cakix was defeated and man was made.



 VUCUB CAKIX AND ZIPACNA.



This is the cause of his destruction by two young
men, Hunahpu (or Hunhunahpu) and Xbalanque,
'little tiger,' who were really gods, and thought it not
good that Vucub Cakix should swell with pride and
offend the Heart of Heaven; and they plotted against
his life and wealth. He had two sons, Zipacna and
Cabrakan, the 'earthquake,' by his wife Chimalmat.
[173]
Zipacna's work was to roll the great mountains which
he made in a night, and which Cabrakan shook at
will. The death of the father and son was resolved
upon by the two young men.




Vucub Cakix was shot by them while eating the
fruit called nanze in a tree-top, and his jaw broken,
although in revenge he carried home the arm of Hunahpu,
which he hung over the fire. But an old man
and an old woman, Zaki Nim Ak and Zaki Nima
Tzyiz—divinities already named, in human disguise—were
induced by the two young men to volunteer
their services in curing the jaw of Vucub Cakix, who
seems to have been a king, for they found him on his
throne howling with pain. They pulled out his broken
teeth of precious stones, in which he took great pride,
substituting grains of maize; they dimmed his eyes,
took away his riches, and recovered the missing arm.
Then the king died as did his wife, and the purpose
of Hunahpu and Xbalanque was accomplished against
him who was proud and regarded not the will of the
Heart of Heaven.




These are the deeds of Zipacna, son of Vucub
Cakix, who claimed to be creator of the mountains.
Bathing at the river-side he found four hundred
young men striving in vain to carry away a tree
which they had cut. Generously he bore the burden
for them, and was invited to join their band, being
an orphan; but they soon plotted against him, casting
a tree upon him in a deep pit they had employed
him to dig. He cunningly took refuge in a branch
gallery, cut off his hair and nails for the ants to
carry up to his foes, waited until the four hundred
had become intoxicated in their rejoicing at his
supposed death, emerged from the pit, and toppled
over their house upon them so that not one escaped.




But in his turn Zipacna was conquered by Hunahpu
and Xbalanque, who were grieved that the four
hundred had perished. Zipacna, bearing the mountains
by night, wandered in the day by the river and
[174]
lived on fish and crabs; by an artificial crab his two
foes enticed him in a time of hunger to crawl on all
fours into a cavern at the bottom of a ravine, where
the mountain, previously mined, fell upon him.
Thus perished and was turned to stone, at the foot
of Mt Meavan, the self-styled 'maker of the mountains,'
the second who by his pride displeased the
deities.




One only now remained, Cabrakan. "It is I who
destroy the mountains," he said; but it was the will
of Hurakan, 'the thunderbolt,' that his pride also
should be humbled, and the order was given to Hunahpu
and Xbalanque. They found him at his favorite
employment of overturning the hills, enticed him
eastward to exhibit his skill and overthrow a particularly
high mountain which they claimed to have
seen, killed a bird with their blowpipe on the way,
and poisoned it with earth before it was given Cabrakan
to eat. Thus was his strength destroyed; he
failed to move the mountain, was tied, and buried.



 THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.



Thus ends the first of the four divisions of the Popol
Vuh.[III-26] Next we are to hear something of the
birth and family of Hunahpu and Xbalanque. The
recital is, however, to be covered with mystery, and
only half is to be told of the relation of their father.[III-27]
Xpiyacoc and Xmucane had two sons, Hunhunahpu
and Vukub Hunahpu, the first being as the French
translation unintelligibly renders it a sort of double
personage. The former had also by his wife Xbakiyalo
two sons, Hunbatz and Hunchouen, very wise, great
artists, and skillful in all things; the latter never
married. All four spent the day in playing at dice
and at ball, and Voc, the messenger of Hurakan,
came to see them, Voc who remained not far from
here nor far from Xibalba.[III-28] After the death of Xbakiyalo,
[175]
the two played ball, journeying toward Xibalba,
having left Hunbatz and Hunchouen behind, and
this became known to Hun Came and Vukub Came,
monarchs of Xibalba, who called together the council
of the empire and sent to summon them or to challenge
them to a game of ball, that they might be
defeated and disgraced.




The messengers were owls, four in number; and
the players, after a sad parting from their mother,
Xmucane, and from the young Hunbatz and Hunchouen,
followed them down the steep road to Xibalba
from the ball-ground of Nimxob Carchah.[III-29]
Crossing ravines and rivers, including one of blood,
they came to the royal palace of Xibalba, and saluted
two wooden figures as monarchs, to the great amusement
of the latter and the assembled princes. Then
the brothers were invited to a place on the seat of
honor, which proved to be a red-hot stone, and the
contortions of the guests when they sat upon it provoked
a new burst of laughter which well-nigh resulted
in apoplexy. Five ordeals are here mentioned
as existing in Xibalba, to the first of which only,
that of the House of Gloom,[III-30] were the brothers
subjected; then they were sacrificed and their bodies
buried together. But the head of Hunhunahpu was
hung in a tree, which at once became covered with
gourds from which the head could not be distinguished,
and it was forbidden to all in Xibalba to
approach that tree.




But Xquiq, a virgin princess, daughter of Cuchumaquiq,
heard of the tree, and went alone to taste
the forbidden fruit. Into her outstretched hand the
head of Hunhunahpu spat, and the spittle caused
the young girl to conceive, and she returned home,
after a promise from the head that no harm should
result to her. All this was by the order of Hurakan.
[176]
After six months her condition was observed
by her father, and in spite of her protestations that
she had known no man, the owls, the royal messengers,
were ordered to sacrifice her and bring back
her heart in a vase. She persuaded and bribed the
royal officers, however, by the promise of future
emoluments, to carry back to the kings the coagulated
sap of the blood-wort instead of her blood and
heart, and she escaped; thus were Hun Came and
Vukub Came tricked by this young girl.




Xquiq, far advanced in pregnancy, went for protection
to the place where Xmucane was living with
the young Hunbatz and Hunchouen. The old
woman was not disposed at first to credit the
stranger's tale that she was with child by Hunhunahpu,
and therefore entitled to protection as a granddaughter
at the hands of Xmucane; but by calling
upon the gods and gathering a basket of maize
where no maize was growing, the young girl proved
the justice of her claim, and was received by the
great grandmother of her unborn children.



 HUNAHPU AND XBALANQUE.



The virgin mother brought forth twin sons, and they
were named Hunahpu and Xbalanque. From their
very birth they were ill-treated. They were turned
out of the house by their grandmother for crying, and
throughout childhood and youth were abused by Hunbatz
and Hunchouen, by reason of jealousy. They
passed their time shooting birds in the mountains with
their blowpipes, while their brothers, great musicians,
painters, and sculptors, remained at home singing and
playing the flute. But at last Hunbatz and Hunchouen
were changed by the young heroes into monkeys.
Xmucane was filled with sadness, and she was
offered the privilege of beholding again the faces of
her favorite grandsons, if she could do so without
laughing; but their grimaces and antics were too ludicrous;
the old lady failed in three interviews to restrain
her laughter, and Hunbatz and Hunchouen
appeared no more. Hunahpu and Xbalanque became
[177]
in their turn musicians and played the air of hunahpu
qoy, the 'monkey of Hunahpu.'[III-31]




The first work undertaken by the twins was the
clearing of a milpa or cornfield. It was not very
difficult on the first day, for their enchanted tools
worked by themselves while the young agriculturists
went hunting, taking care to put dirt on their
faces and to pretend to be at work when their grandmother
brought their lunch at noon. In the night,
however, the wild beasts met and replaced all the
trees and shrubbery that the brothers had removed.
Hunahpu and Xbalanque watched for them the next
night, but in spite of their efforts the beasts all
escaped—although the deer and rabbit lost their tails—except
the rat, which was caught in a handkerchief.
The rat's life was spared by the youths and in return
this animal revealed the glorious deeds of their fathers
and uncles, their games at ball, and the existence of
a ball of India rubber with other implements of the
game which they had left about the house. All of
the implements and the ball came into their possession
with the knowledge of the secret.




Joyful at their discovery Hunahpu and Xbalanque
went away to play in the ball-ground of their fathers,
and the monarchs of Xibalba, Hun Came and Vukub
Came, heard them and were angry, and sent messengers
to summon them as their fathers had been summoned
to play at Xibalba. The messengers came to
the house of Xmucane, who, filled with alarm, dispatched
a louse to carry the summons to her grandsons.
On the way the louse consented, to insure
greater speed, to be swallowed by a toad, the toad by
a serpent, and the serpent by the great bird Voc. On
arrival a series of vomitings ensued, until the toad
was free; but in spite of his most desperate efforts he
could not throw up the louse, who, it seems, had
played him a trick, lodged in his gums, and not been
[178]
swallowed at all. However, the message was delivered,
and the players returned home to take leave
of their grandmother and mother. Before their departure
they planted each a cane in the middle of the
house, the fate of which should depend upon their
own, since it would wither at their death.




The ball-players set out for Xibalba by the route
their fathers had followed, passing the bloody river
and the river Papuhya; but they sent in advance an
animal called Xan, with a hair of Hunahpu's leg to
prick the kings and princes. Thus they detected the
artificial men of wood, and also learned the names of
all the princes by their exclamations and mutual inquiries
when pricked. On their arrival at court they
refused to salute the manikins or to sit upon the red-hot
stone; they even passed through the first ordeal
in the House of Gloom, thus thrice avoiding the
tricks which had been played upon their fathers.




The kings were astonished and very angry, and the
game of ball was played, and those of Xibalba were
beaten. Then Hun Came and Vukub Came required
the victors to bring them four bouquets of flowers, ordering
the guards of the royal gardens to watch most
carefully, and committed Hunahpu and his brother to
the House of Lances—the second ordeal—where the
lancers were directed to kill them. Yet a swarm of
ants in the brothers' service entered easily the royal
gardens, the lancers were bribed, and the sons of
Xquiq were still victorious. Those of Xibalba turned
pale, and the owls, guards of the royal gardens, were
punished by having their lips split.




Hunahpu and Xbalanque were subjected to the
third ordeal in the House of Cold, but warmed by
burning pine-cones they were not frozen. So in the
fourth and fifth ordeals, since they passed a night in
the House of Tigers and in the House of Fire without
suffering injury; but in the House of Bats, although
the occupants did them no harm, Hunahpu's
[179]
head was cut off by Camazotz, 'ruler of bats,' who
came from on high.




The beheading of Hunahpu was by no means fatal,
but after a combination of events utterly unintelligible,
including an assemblage of all the animals, achievements
particularly brilliant by the turtle and rabbit,
and another contest at ball-playing, the heroes came
out uninjured from all the ordeals to which they
were subjected in Xibalba.



 DEATH OF THE TWIN BROTHERS.



At last, instructing two sorcerers, Xulu and Pacam,
that those of Xibalba had failed because the brutes
were not on their side, and directing them also what
to do with their bones, Hunahpu and Xbalanque
stretched themselves voluntarily face down on a funeral
pile, still in Xibalba, and died together. Their
bones were pulverized and thrown into the river,
where they sank and were changed into fine young
men.




On the fifth day they re-appeared, like man-fishes;
and on the day following in the form of ragged old
men, dancing, burning and restoring houses, killing
and restoring each other to life, and performing other
wonderful things. They were induced to exhibit
their skill before the princes of Xibalba, killing and
resuscitating the king's dog, burning and restoring
the royal palace; then a man was made the subject
of their art, Hunahpu was cut in pieces and brought
to life by Xbalanque. Finally, the monarchs of Xibalba
wished to experience personally the temporary
death; Hun Came, the highest in rank, was first
killed, then Vukub Came, but life was not restored to
them; the two shooters of the blow-pipe had avenged
the wrongs of their fathers; the monarchs of Xibalba
had fallen.




Having announced their true names and motives,
the two brothers pronounced sentence on the princes
of Xibalba. Their ball was to appear no more in
the favorite game, they were to perform menial
service, with only the beasts of the woods as vassals,
[180]
and this was to be their punishment for the wrongs
they had done; yet strangely enough, they were to
be invoked thereafter as gods, or rather demons, according
to Ximenez. The character of the Xibalbans
is here described. They were fond of war, of frightful
aspect, ugly as owls, inspiring evil and discord;
faithless, hypocritical, and tyrants, they were both
black and white, painting their faces, moreover, with
divers colors. But their power was ruined and their
domination ceased. Meanwhile, the grandmother
Xmucane at home watched the growth of the canes,
and was filled alternately with grief and joy, as these
withered and again became green according to the
varying fortunes of the grandsons in Xibalba.[III-32]
Finally, to return to Xibalba, Hunahpu and Xbalanque
rendered the fitting funeral honors to their
fathers who had perished there, but who now
mounted to heaven and took their places as the sun
and moon; and the four hundred young men killed
by Zipacna became stars in the skies. Thus ends
the second division of the National Book of the
Quichés.[III-33]



 MIGRATION FROM TULAN.



The first chapter of the third division relates another
and final creation of man from maize, in Paxil,
or Cayala, 'land of divided and stagnant waters,' and
has already been translated in full in another volume.[III-34]
According to Brasseur's opinion it should follow the
account of the preceding creations,[III-35] and precede the
narrative of the struggle with Xibalba; but was introduced
here at the beginning of the Quiché migrations
intentionally in order to attach the later Quiché
[181]
nations more closely to the heroic epochs of their history.
The remaining chapters of the division have
also been translated in substance.[III-36] In them are related
the adventures of Balam-Quitzé, Balam-Agab,
Mahucutah, and Iqi-Balam, the product of the final
creation by Gucumatz and his companion deities, and
the founders of the Quiché nations. The people multiplied
greatly in a region called the East, and migrated
in search of gods to Tulan-Zuiva, the 'seven
caves,' where four gods were assigned to the four
leaders; namely, Tohil, Avilix, Hacavitz, and Nicahtagah.
Here their language was changed or divided,
and the division into separate nations was established.
Suffering from cold and endeavors to obtain fire while
they were awaiting the sun, are the points most dwelt
upon during their stay in Tulan, and in connection
with these troubles the coming of an envoy from Xibalba
is mentioned,[III-37] which circumstance may indicate
that Tulan was in the Xibalban region. But they
determined to abandon or were driven from Tulan,
and after a tedious journey, including apparently a
crossing of the sea, they reached Mt Hacavitz, where
at last they beheld the sun. Mt Hacavitz was apparently
in Guatemala, and the events mentioned in
the record as having occurred subsequently to the
arrival there, although many are of a mythical nature
and few can be assigned to any definite epoch, may
best be referred to the more modern history of the
Quiché-Cakchiquel nations in Guatemala, to be
treated in a future chapter.




The events preceding the rising of the sun on Mt
Hacavitz, are not easily connected with the exploits
of Hunahpu and Xbalanque; but to suppose that they
follow in chronologic order, and that the traditions in
question reflect vaguely the history of the heroes or
tribes that prevailed against Xibalba is at least as
consistent as any theory that can be formed. The
[182]
chief objection is the implied crossing of the sea during
the migration from Tulan, which may be an interpolation.
A lamentation which they chanted on
Mt Hacavitz has considerable historical importance.
"Alas," they said, "we were ruined in Tulan, we
were separated, and our brothers still remain behind.
Truly we have beheld the sun, but they, where are
they now that the dawn has appeared? Truly Tohil
is the name of the god of the Yaqui nation, who was
called Yolcuat Quitzalcuat (Quetzalcoatl) when we
parted yonder in Tulan. Behold whence we set out
together, behold the common cradle of our race,
whence we have come. Then they remembered their
brothers far behind them, the nation of the Yaqui
whom their dawn enlightened in the countries now
called Mexico. There was also a part of the nation
which they left in the east, and Tepeu and Oliman
were the places where they remained."[III-38]




A Cakchiquel record of what would seem to be the
same primitive traditions contained in the Popol Vuh,
exists but has never been published. It is only known
through an occasional reference or quotation in the
writings of Brasseur de Bourbourg. From one of
these references[III-39] we learn that the barbarian Utïu,
Jackal, or Coyote, that conducted Gucumatz to Paxil
where maize was discovered, was killed by one of the
heroes or deities; hence the name Hunahpu Utïu,
'shooter of the blowpipe at the coyote.' The following
quotation from the same document refers to the
name Tulan, which with its different spellings occurs
so perplexingly often in all the primitive traditions of
American civilization. "Four persons came from
Tulan, from the direction of the rising sun, that is
one Tulan. There is another Tulan in Xibalbay and
another where the sun sets, and it is there that we
came; and in the direction of the setting sun there is
another where is the god: so that there are four
[183]
Tulans; and it is where the sun sets that we came to
Tulan, from the other side of the sea where this Tulan
is, and it is there that we were conceived and begotten
by our mothers and our fathers."[III-40]



 MEANING OF THE QUICHÉ TRADITIONS.



Such in a condensed form are the tales that make
up the primitive annals of the Quiché nations of
Guatemala. We may be very sure that, be they
marvelous or common-place, each is founded on an
actual occurrence, and has its meaning. That meaning,
so far as details are concerned, has been doubtless
in most instances lost. We may only hope to
extract from the tenor of the record as a whole, a
general idea respecting the nature of the historic
events thus vaguely recorded; and even this would
be perhaps a hopeless task, were it not for the aid
derived from the Tzendal traditions, with monumental,
institutional, and linguistic arguments already
considered, and the Nahua records yet to be
examined. It is not altogether visionary to behold in
the successive creations by Gucumatz, the 'plumed
serpent,' and his companions, as we have done in the
coming of Votan, the introduction or growth of a new
civilization, new forms of government or religion, new
habits of life in America; even if we cannot admit
literally the arrival at a definite time and place of a civilizer,
Gucumatz, or hope to reasonably explain each
of his actions. It is not necessary to decide whether
the new culture was indigenous or of foreign origin; or
even to suppose it radically different from any that
preceded or were contemporaneous with it. We
need not go back to ancient times to see partisans or
devotees attach the greatest importance to the slightest
differences in government or religion, looking
with pity or hatred on all that are indifferent or
opposed. Thus in the traditions before us opponents
and rivals are pictured as the powers of darkness,
while tribes that cling to the freedom of the forests
and are slow to accept the blessings of civilized life,
[184]
are almost invariably spoken of as brutes. The final
creation of man, and the discovery of maize as an
essential element in his composition, refer apparently
to the introduction among or adoption by the new
people or new sect of agriculture as a means of support,
but possibly to the creation of a high rank of
secular or religious rulers. Utïu, the Jackal, a barbarian,
led Gucumatz and his companions to Paxil
Cayala where maize was found, but was killed by the
new-comers in the troubles that ensued. Early in
the narrative, however, the existence of a rival power,
the great empire of Xibalba, almost synonymous with
the infernal regions, is explicitly indicated, and a
large portion of the Popol Vuh is devoted to the
struggle between the two. The princes and nations
of Xibalba, symbolized in Vukub Cakix, Zipacna,
Cabrakan, Hun Came, and Vukub Came, were numerous
and powerful, but, since the history is written
by enemies, they were of course bad. Their chief
fault, their unpardonable sin, consisted in being
puffed up with pride against the Heart of Heaven,
in refusing to accept the views of the new sect.
Consequently the nations and chiefs that had arrayed
themselves on the side of Gucumatz, represented by
Xbalanque and Hunahpu, of several generations,
struggle long and desperately to humble their own
enemies and those of the supreme god, Hurakan.
The oft-repeated struggles are symbolized by games
at ball between the rival chiefs. The ball grounds
or halls are battle-fields. The animals of the forests
often take a prominent part on one side or the other;
that is, the savage tribes are employed as allies.
Occasionally men are for some offense or stupidity
changed to monkeys, or tribes allied with the self-styled
reformers and civilizers prove false to their
allegiance and return to the wild freedom of the
mountains. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine
the meaning of that portion of the narrative
which recounts the immaculate conception of the
[185]
princess Xquiq; but Brasseur, not without reason,
sees in the birth of Hunahpu and Xbalanque from a
Xibalban mother, an indication that the rival nations
became more or less mixed by intermarriage. The
same author conjectures that the quarrels between
the two twins and their elder half-brothers record
dissensions that arose between the chiefs of pure and
mixed blood. After a long series of wars with varying
results, symbolized by the repeated games of ball,
and the ordeals to which Xbalanque and his brother
were successively subjected, the princes of Xibalba
were defeated. From the terms in which the victory
is described in the tradition, the general impression
is conveyed that it was not a conquest involving the
destruction of cities and the extermination or enslaving
of the people; but rather the overthrow of a
dynasty; the transfer of the supreme power to nations
that formerly occupied subordinate positions.
The chief feature in the celebration of the triumph
was the apotheosis of the heroes who had fallen
during the struggle.




After the triumph of Gucumatz' followers, the
written tradition is practically silent. Of the greatness
of the newly constituted empire we know nothing;
the record only re-opens when misfortune has
again come upon the nations and they are forced to
abandon Tulan for new homes. Neither their defeats
nor the names of their conquerors were thought worthy
of a place in the annals of the Quiché nations,
afterwards so powerful in Guatemala; yet we can
hardly doubt that the princes of Xibalba contributed
to their overthrow. Forced to leave Tulan, spoken of
as the cradle of their race, they migrated in three
divisions, one towards the mountains of Guatemala,
one towards Mexico, and the third toward the east by
way of Tepeu and Oliman, which the Cakchiquel manuscript
is said to locate on the boundary of Peten and
Yucatan.



 CONQUEST OF XIBALBA.



The Quiché traditions, then, point clearly to, 1st,
[186]
the existence in ancient times of a great empire
somewhere in Central America, called Xibalba by its
enemies; 2d, the growth of a rival neighboring power;
3d, a long struggle extending through several generations
at least, and resulting in the downfall of the
Xibalban kings; 4th, a subsequent scattering,—the
cause of which is not stated, but was evidently war,
civil or foreign,—of the formerly victorious nations
from Tulan, their chief city or province; 5th, the
identification of a portion of the migrating chiefs with
the founders of the Quiché-Cakchiquel nations in possession
of Guatemala at the Conquest. The National
Book, unaided, would hardly suffice to determine the
location of Xibalba, which was very likely the name
of a capital city as well as of the empire. Utatlan,
in the Guatemalan highlands, is clearly pointed out
as the place whence Xbalanque set out for its conquest,
and several other names of localities in Guatemala
are also mentioned, but it should be noted that
the tradition comes through Guatemalan sources, and
it is not necessary even to suppose that Utatlan was
the centre of the forces that struggled against the
powers of darkness. Yet since we know through
Tzendal traditions and monumental relics, of the great
Votanic empire of the Chanes, which formerly included
the region of Palenque, there can hardly be
room for hesitation in identifying the two powers.
The description of Paxil Cayala, 'divided and stagnant
waters,' "a most excellent land, full of good things,
where the white and yellow maize did abound, also
the cacao, where were sapotes and many fruits, and
honey; where all was overflowing with the best of
food," agrees at least as well with the Usumacinta
region as with any other in Central America. The
very steep descent by which Xbalanque reached Xibalba
from Utatlan, corresponds perfectly with the
topography of the country towards the Usumacinta.
The statement that in the final migration from Tulan
to Guatemala, two parties were left behind, one of
[187]
which went to Mexico, and the other was left in the
east, also seems to point in the same direction. The
Cakchiquel Manuscript tells us that there was a Tulan
in Xibalba, evidently the one whence the final migration
took place, and from the Tzendal tradition
through Ordoñez we have learned that Tulha, or Tulan,
was one of the great cities of Votan's Empire.
Finally there is absolutely nothing in the narrative
which points to any other location.



 XIBALBA THE VOTANIC EMPIRE.



Xibalba was then the Empire of the Serpents, to
which tradition assigns Votan as a founder; the same
name was applied also to its capital city Nachan, probably
identical with Palenque; and Tulan, or Tulha,
the centre of nations which were successively subjects,
allies, rivals, and conquerors of the imperial city, may
be conjecturally identified with the ruined Ococingo
or Copan. Vukub Cakix, the last but two of the
Xibalban monarchs, was perhaps the same as Chinax
who occupied the same position in the Tzendal tradition
and calendar. But who were the followers of
Gucumatz, the nations before whose leaders, Hunahpu
and Xbalanque, the pride of Xibalba was humbled,
and to whom the traditions thus far studied have
assigned no name? It is most natural to identify
them with the Tzequiles, who, according to the tradition,
arrived during Votan's absence, gave his followers
new ideas of government and religion, were
assigned lands, and became a powerful people with
Tulan as their capital. This makes the Tzendal tradition
much more intelligible and complete, and agrees
much better with the Quiché record, than the opposite
one adopted without any apparent reason by
Brasseur de Bourbourg. According to the Quiché
chant of lamentation, one division of the refugees from
Tulan went north to Mexico, where they found their
'dawn,' their greatness. This seems to point toward
the Nahua nations, which alone achieved greatness in
Mexico during historic times. The tribes which migrated
northward are called, in the Popol Vuh, Yaqui,
[188]
a name which according to Brasseur de Bourbourg,
has much the same signification etymologically as
Nahuatl, and was commonly applied by the Maya-Quiché
peoples of Central America to the Mexicans.
Moreover, their god, Tohil, was called by
these Yaqui tribes, even while they were yet in Tulan,
Yolcuat Quitzalcuat, while the most prominent of
the Nahua divinities is well known to the readers of
the preceding volumes to have been Quetzalcoatl.
Chanes, the only name given to the subjects of Votan
and his successors, is the equivalent of Culhuas, a
word which, especially in composition, is of frequent
occurrence in all the native tongues. Culhuacan was
one of the most celebrated cities of Anáhuac, as the
Acolhuas were among the most noted peoples. Again
Tulan Zuiva is defined as the Seven Caves, in the
Nahua tongues Chicomoztoc, which the Aztecs are well
known to have claimed as a former home. One of the
divinities engaged in the creation, or in the propagation
of the new doctrines in the region of Xibalba was
the chief of Toltecat, another name prominent in all
Nahua traditions as that of their most famous nation,
the Toltecs; and finally Gucumatz, the great leader of
Xibalba's conquerors, was identical with Quetzalcoatl,
since both names signify equally the 'plumed serpent,'
the former in Quiché, the latter in Aztec.
These facts seem significant and naturally direct our
attention to an examination of the early Nahua records.



 THE NAHUAS IN TAMOANCHAN.



The records of the Nahua nations, so far as they
relate to the pre-Toltec period, if more extensive and
numerous, are not less confused than those of the
south. To bring into any semblance of order this
mass of contradictory semi-mythical, semi-historic details,
to point out and defend the historic meaning of
each aboriginal tale, is an impossible task which I do
not propose to undertake. The only practicable course
is to present the leading points of these early traditions
[189]
as they are given by the best authorities, and to
draw from them, as I have done from the Tzendal and
Quiché records, some general conclusions respecting
the most probable course of primitive history; for
conclusions of a very general nature, and bearing on
probabilities only, are all that we can expect to reach
respecting pre-Toltec America. Sahagun, justly esteemed
as one of the best authorities, speaks in substance
as follows:[III-41]




Countless years ago the first settlers arrived in New
Spain. Coming in ships by sea, they approached a
northern port; and because they disembarked there it
was called Panutla, or Panoaia, 'place where they
arrived who came by sea,' now corruptly called Pantlan
(Pánuco); and from this port they began to follow
the coast, beholding the snowy sierras and the volcanoes,
until they reached the province of Guatemala;
being guided by a priest carrying their god, with
whom he continually took counsel respecting what
they ought to do. They came to settle in Tamoanchan,
where they remained a long time, and never
ceased to have their wise men, or prophets, called
amoxoaque, which means 'men learned in the ancient
paintings,' who, although they came at the same time,
did not remain with the rest in Tamoanchan; since
leaving them there, they re-embarked and carried
away with them all the paintings which they had
brought relating to religious rites and mechanical arts.
Before their departure they spoke as follows:—"Know
that our god commands you to remain here in these
lands, of which he makes you masters and gives you
possession. He returns to the place whence he and
we came; but he will come back to visit you when it
shall be time for the world to come to an end; meantime
you will await him in these lands, possessing
them and all contained in them, since for this purpose
you came hither; remain therefore, for we go with
our god." Thus they departed with their god wrapped
[190]
in blankets, towards the east, taking all the paintings.
Of the wise men only four remained, Oxomoco, Cipactonal,
Tlaltetecui, and Xuchicaoaca, who, after the
others had departed, consulted together, saying:—A
time will come when there will be light for the direction
of this republic; but during the absence of our
god, how shall the people be ruled? What order will
there be in all things, since the wise men carried away
their paintings by which they governed? Therefore
did they invent judicial astrology and the art of interpreting
dreams; they composed the calendar, which
was followed during the rule of the Toltecs, Mexicans,
Tepanecs, and Chichimecs. By this calendar, however,
it is not possible to ascertain how long they remained
in Tamoanchan,—although this was known by
the paintings burned in the time of the Mexican ruler,
Itzcoatl, in whose reign the lords and princes agreed
that all should be burned that they might not fall
into the hands of the vulgar and be unappreciated.
From Tamoanchan they went to sacrifice at Teotihuacan,
where they built two mountains in honor of the
sun and moon, and where they elected their rulers,
and buried the lords and princes, ordering the tumuli,
still to be seen, to be made over their graves. Some
description of the mounds follows, with the statement
that they were the work of giants. The town of
Teotl, or god, was called Teotihuacan, because the
princes who were buried there were made gods after
death, and were thought not to have died but to have
waked from a sleep. From Tamoanchan certain families
went to settle the provinces called Olmeca Vixtoti.
Here are given some details of these Olmecs
and of the Huastecs, to be spoken of later.




After the centre of power had been a long time in
Tamoanchan, it was afterwards transferred to the
town called Xumiltepec. Here the lords and priests
and the old men discovered it to be the will of their
god that they should not remain always in Xumiltepec,
but that they were to go farther; thus all gradually
[191]
started on their migration, having first repaired
to Teotihuacan to choose their leaders and wise men.
In this migration they came to the valley of the
Seven Caves. There is no account of the time they
remained there, but finally the Toltecs were told by
their god that they must return (that is towards Teotihuacan,
or Anáhuac), which they did and came to
Tollancingo (Tulancingo), and finally to Tulan (Tollan).



 THE NAHUA TRADITIONS.



In the introduction to the same work[III-42] we are told
also that the first settlers came from towards Florida,
followed the coast, and landed at the port of Pánuco.
They came in search of the 'terrestrial paradise,'
were called Tamoanchan, which means 'we seek our
house,' and settled near the highest mountains they
found. "In coming southward to seek the earthly
paradise, they did not err, since it is the opinion of
those that know that it is under the equinoxial line."




In Sahagun's version of the tradition we find Tamoanchan,[III-43]
the first home of the Nahua nations in
America, definitely located down the coast from Pánuco
in the province of Guatemala. The coast region
of Tabasco was probably included in this author's
time in Guatemala; at least it is as near Guatemala
as the new-comers could get by following the coast.
The location therefore agrees with that of Xibalba
and the Votanic empire as derived from other
sources; and in fact the whole narrative may with
great plausibility be applied to the events described
in the Quiché tradition—the arrival of Gucumatz
and his companions (although Sahagun does not
name Quetzalcoatl as the leader of the immigrants),
the growth of a great power in the central region,
and the final forced migration from Tulan Zuiva, the
Seven Caves. The absence of the name Tulan, as
[192]
applied to a city or county in Central America, from
the northern traditions as they have been preserved
for our examination, may be very satisfactorily accounted
for by the fact that another great city
founded much later in Anáhuac, the capital of the
Toltec monarchy, was also called Tollan; consequently
such traditions as the Spaniards gathered from the
natives respecting a Tulan, were naturally referred by
them to the later city. It is to be noted, moreover,
in this connection, that the descriptions given by the
Spanish writers of Tollan, with its luxuriant vegetation,
and birds of brilliant plumage, often apply
much better to the southern than to the northern
Anáhuac. In addition to the points mentioned in
the Quiché record, we learn from Sahagun that the
Toltec calendar was invented or introduced during
the stay in that southern country of Tamoanchan;[III-44]
that the Nahua power in the south extended north
to Anáhuac and embraced Teotihuacan, a holy city
and religious centre, even in those remote times;
that the Olmecs, Miztecs, and Huastecs belonged to
the same group of nations and their rise or appearance
to the same period; and that from the Seven
Caves the Toltecs migrated—that is their centre or
capital was transferred—to Tulancingo, and later to
Tollan. All these points we shall find confirmed more
or less directly by other authorities.



 THE CODEX CHIMALPOPOCA.



A very important Nahua record, written in Aztec
with Spanish letters by an anonymous native author,
and copied by Ixtlilxochitl, which belonged to the
famous Boturini collection, is the Codex Chimalpopoca.[III-45]
Unfortunately it has never been published,
[193]
and its contents are only known by occasional references
in the works of Brasseur de Bourbourg, who
had a copy of the document. From the passages
quoted by the abbé I take the following brief account,
which seems of some importance in connection
with the preceding:




"This is the beginning of the history of things
which came to pass long ago, of the division of the
earth, the property of all, its origin and its foundation,
as well as the manner in which the sun divided
it six times four hundred plus one hundred plus thirteen
years ago to-day, the twenty-second of May,
1558." "Earth and the heavens were formed in the
year Ce Tochtli; but man had already been created
four times. God formed him of ashes, but Quetzalcoatl
had perfected him." After the flood men were
changed into dogs.[III-46] After a new and successful attempt
at creation, all began to serve the gods, called
Apantecutli, 'master of the rivers,' Huictlollinqui,
'he who causes the earth to shake,' Tlallamanac, 'he
who presides on the earth,' and Tzontemoc, 'he whose
hair descends.' Quetzalcoatl remained alone. Then
they said, "the vassals of the gods are born; they have
already begun to serve us," but they added, "what
will you eat, O gods?" and Quetzalcoatl went to search
for means of subsistence. At that time Azcatl, the
'ant,' going to Tonacatepetl, 'mount of our subsistence,'
for maize, was met by Quetzalcoatl, who said,
[194]
"where hast thou been to obtain that thing? Tell
me." At first the Ant would not tell, but the
Plumed Serpent insisted, and repeated, "whither
shall I go?" Then they went there together, Quetzalcoatl
metamorphosing himself into a 'black ant.'[III-47]
Tlaltlauhqui Azcatl, the 'yellow ant,'[III-48] accompanied
Quetzalcoatl respectfully, as they went to seek maize
and brought it to Tamoanchan. Then the gods
began to eat, and put some of the maize in our
mouths that we might become strong.[III-49] The same
record implies that Quetzalcoatl afterwards became
obnoxious to his companions and abandoned them.[III-50]




In this document we have evidently an account of
substantially the same events that are recorded in
the Tzendal and Quiché records:—the division of the
earth by the Sun in the year 955 B.C., or as Ordoñez
interprets the Tzendal tradition, by Votan 'about
1000 B.C.'; the formation of the earth by the supreme
being, and the successive creations of man, or
attempts to introduce civilization among savages
through the agency of Quetzalcoatl,—acts ascribed by
the Quiché tradition to the same person under the
name of Gucumatz; the flood and resulting transformation
of men into dogs, instead of monkeys as in
the Popol Vuh, symbolizing perhaps the relapse into
savagism of partially civilized tribes;—the adoption
of agriculture represented in both traditions as an
expedition by Quetzalcoatl, or Gucumatz, in search of
maize. According to the Popol Vuh he sought the
maize in Paxil and Cayala, 'divided and stagnant
waters,' by the aid of Utïu, 'the coyote;' while in
the Nahua tradition, aided by Azcatl, 'the ant,' he
finds the desired food in Tonacatepetl, 'mount of our
subsistence.' Finally, the Codex Chimalpopoca identifies
[195]
the home of the Nahua nations, whence the
search for maize was made, with Tamoanchan, which
Sahagun has clearly located in Tabasco.



 PRIMITIVE NATIONS OF MEXICO.



Before considering the traditions that relate the
migration of the Toltecs proper to Tollan in Anáhuac,
it will be most convenient to give the little that is
known of those nations that are supposed to have
preceded the Toltecs in Mexico. The chief of these
are the Quinames, Olmecs, Xicalancas, Totonacs,
Huastecs, Miztecs, Zapotecs, and Otomís.[III-51] The
Olmecs and Xicalancas, who are sometimes represented
as two nations, sometimes as divisions of
the same nation, are regarded by all the authorities
as Nahuas, speaking the same language as the Toltecs,
but settled in Anáhuac long before the establishment
of the Toltec Empire at Tollan. As nations
they both became extinct before the Spanish Conquest,
as did the Toltecs, but there is little doubt
that their descendants under new names and in new
national combinations still lived in Puebla, southern
Vera Cruz, and Tabasco—the region traditionally settled
by them—down to the coming of the Spaniards.
They are regarded as the first of the Nahua nations
in this region and are first noticed by tradition on the
south-eastern coasts, whither they had come in ships
from the east. Sahagun, as we have seen, identifies
them with certain families of the Nahuas who set out
from Tamoanchan to settle in the northern coast region.
Ixtlilxochitl tells us they occupied the land in
the third age of the world, landing on the east coast as
[196]
far as the land of Papuha,[III-52] 'muddy water,' or in the
region about the Laguna de Terminos. Veytia names
Pánuco as their landing-place, and gives the date as
a few years after the regulation of the calendar,
already noticed in Sahagun's record.[III-53] Their national
names are derived from that of their first rulers Olmecatl
and Xicalancatl. Two ancient cities called
Xicalanco are reported on the gulf coast; one of them,
which flourished nearly or quite down to the time of
the Conquest, and whose ruins are still said to be visible,[III-54]
was just below Vera Cruz; the other, probably
the more ancient, stood at the point which still bears
the name of Xicalanco at the entrance to the Laguna
de Terminos. This whole region is also said to
have borne the name of Anáhuac Xicalanco.[III-55] Mendieta
and Torquemada[III-56] relate that the followers of
Xicalancatl peopled the region towards the Goazacoalco,
where stood the two cities referred to. The people
of that part of the country were generally known
at the time of the Conquest as Nonohualcas. The
chief development of this people, or of its Olmec
branch, was, so far as recorded in tradition, in the
state of Puebla further north and inland.



 OLMECS AND XICALANCAS.



This tradition of the arrival of strangers on the
eastern coast, and the growth of the Olmec and Xicalanca
powers on and north of the isthmus, in view
of the facts that these nations are universally regarded
as Nahuas and as the first of the race to settle in
Anáhuac, cannot be considered as distinct from that
given by Sahagun respecting the Nahua race, especially
as the latter author speaks of the departure of
certain families from Tamoanchan to settle in the
[197]
provinces of Olmeca Vixtoti. It is most natural to
suppose that the new power extended gradually northward
to Puebla as well as inland into Chiapas, where
it came more directly in contact with its great rival.
This view of the matter is likewise supported by the
fact that Quetzalcoatl, the culture-hero, is said to have
wrought his great works in the time of the Olmecs
and Xicalancas—according to some traditions to have
been their leader when they arrived on the coast.
Sahagun also applies the name Tlalocan, 'land of
riches,' or 'terrestrial paradise,' to this south-eastern
region, implying its identity with Tamoanchan.[III-57]




Our knowledge of Olmec history subsequent to
their first appearance, is confined to a few events
which occurred in Puebla. Here, chiefly on the Rio
Atoyac near Puebla de los Angeles and Cholula,
they found the Quinames, or giants, a powerful people
who long kept them subordinate in rank and
power, or, as the tradition expresses it, 'enslaved
them.' These Quinames, as Ixtlilxochitl states, were
survivors of the great destruction which closed the
second age of the world. They were, according to
Veytia, "more like brutes than rational beings; their
food was raw meat of birds and beasts which they
hunted indiscriminately, fruits and wild herbs, since
they cultivated nothing; but they knew how to make
pulque with which to make themselves drunk; going
entirely naked with disheveled hair." They were
cruel and proud, yet they received the strangers
kindly, perhaps through fear of their great numbers,
they being so few, and magnanimously permitted
them to settle in their lands. The Olmecs were
[198]
treated well enough at first, although they looked
with terror upon the giants. The latter, aware of
the fear they inspired, became more and more insolent,
claiming that as lords and masters of the land
they were showing the strangers a great favor in permitting
them to live there. As a recompense for
this kindness they obliged the Olmecs to serve as
slaves, neither hunting nor fishing themselves, but
depending on their new servants for a subsistence.
Thus ill-treated, the Nahuas soon found their condition
insupportable. Another great cause of offence
was that the Quinames were addicted to sodomy, a
vice which they refused to abandon even when they
were offered the wives and daughters of the newcomers.
At last it was resolved at a council of the
Olmec chiefs to free themselves once for all from
their oppressors. The means adopted were peculiar.
The giants were invited to a magnificent banquet;
the richest food and the most tempting native beverages
were set before the guests; all gathered at the
feast, and as a result of their unrestrained appetites
were soon stretched senseless like so many blocks of
wood on the ground. Thus they became an easy
prey to the reformers, and perished to a man. The
Olmecs were free and the day of their national prosperity
dawned.



 THE QUINAMES, OR GIANTS.



The Quinames, traditionally assigned as the first
inhabitants of nearly every part of the country, have
been the subject of much discussion among the Spanish
writers. Veytia indeed rejects the idea that a
race of giants actually existed, and Clavigero considers
their existence as a race very doubtful, although
admitting that there were doubtless individuals of
great size. Most other writers of this class accept
more or less literally the tradition of the giants who
were the first dwellers in the land, deeming the discovery
of large bones in various localities and the
scriptural tales of giants in other parts of the world,
to be sufficient corroborative authority. Veytia thinks
[199]
the Quinames were probably of the same race as the
Toltecs, but were tribes cast out for their sloth; Ixtlilxochitl
records the opinion entertained by some
that they were descended from the Chichimecs. The
former fixes the date of their destruction as 107, the
latter as 299, A.D. Oviedo adopts the conclusion of
Mendoza that the giants probably came from the
Strait of Magellan, the only place where such beings
were known to exist. Boturini saw no reason to
doubt the existence of the giants. Being large in
stature, they could out-travel the rest of mankind,
and thus became naturally the first settlers of distant
parts of the world. Torquemada, followed by Veytia,
identifies them with a similar race that traditionally
appeared at a very early time in Peru, where they
were destroyed by fire from heaven.[III-58]




The Quinames were of course not giants, and it is
not at all probable that they were savage tribes. Such
tribes are described as animals rather than giants in
the American traditionary annals. The spirit of the
narrative, the great power ascribed to the Quinames,
their kind reception of the strangers, their growing
insolence, even their vices, point clearly, here as in
Chiapas, to a powerful nation, at first feared as masters,
then hated as rivals, but finally ruled as subjects
by the newly risen power. While it is impossible to
decide authoritatively in the matter, it may be regarded
as more than likely that this foe was a branch
of that overthrown in the south; that the Xibalban
power, as well as that of the Nahuas, extended far
[200]
towards Anáhuac in the early days; that the great
struggle was carried on in the north as well as in
the south.




About the time the Quinames were defeated, the
pyramid of Cholula was erected under the direction
of a chief named Xelhua. The occasion of its being
built seems to have been connected in some way with
a flood, probably that mentioned in the Quiché tradition,
the reports of which may or may not be
founded on an actual inundation more than usually
disastrous in a country subject to periodical overflow.
The authorities are not agreed whether the mighty
mound was intended as a memorial monument in
honor of the builder's salvation from a former flood,
or as a place of refuge in case the floodgates of the
skies should again be opened; neither is it settled
whether Xelhua was an Olmec or a Quiname chieftain,
although most authors incline to the former
opinion. Pedro de los Rios tells us that the bricks
for the construction of the pyramid were manufactured
at Tlalmanalco and passed by a line of men
from hand to hand for a distance of several leagues.
Of course the Spanish writers have not failed to
connect this pyramid in some way with the Hebrew
traditions respecting the tower of Babel, especially
as work on the Cholula tower was stopped by fire,
sent from heaven by the irritated deities.[III-59]



 QUETZALCOATL, THE CULTURE-HERO.



During the Olmec period, that is, the earliest
period of Nahua power, the great Quetzalcoatl appeared.
We have seen that in the Popol Vuh and
Codex Chimalpopoca this being is represented as the
half-divinity, half-hero, who came at the head of the
first Nahuas to America from across the sea. Other
[201]
authorities imply rather that he came later from the
east or north, in the period of the greatest Olmec
prosperity, after the rival Quinames had been defeated.
To such differences in detail no great importance
is to be attached; since all that can be
definitely learned from these traditions is the facts
that Quetzalcoatl, or Gucumatz, was the most prominent
of the Nahua heroes, and that his existence is
to be attributed to this earliest period, known in
Mexico as Olmec, but without a distinctive name
in the south. Quetzalcoatl was a white, bearded
man, venerable, just, and holy, who taught by
precept and example the paths of virtue in all
the Nahua cities, particularly in Cholula. His
teachings, according to the traditions, had much in
common with those of Christ in the Old World, and
most of the Spanish writers firmly believed him
to be identical with one of the Christian apostles,
probably St Thomas. During his stay in this region
his doctrines do not seem to have met with a satisfactory
reception, and he left disheartened. He predicted
before his departure great calamities, and
promised to return in a future year Ce Acatl, at
which time his doctrines were to be fully accepted,
and his descendants were to possess the land. Montezuma
is known to have regarded the coming of
Cortés and the Spaniards as a fulfillment of this
prediction, and in his speech to the new-comers states
further that after his first visit Quetzalcoatl had
already once returned,[III-60] and attempted unsuccessfully
to induce his followers to go back with him across
the sea. The first part of the prophet's prediction
actually came to pass, as traditions tell us, for only a
few days after his departure occurred the earthquake
which destroyed the pyramid at Cholula, the American
Babel, and ushered in the new or fourth age of
fire, according to Ixtlilxochitl. On the ruins of the
[202]
pyramid was built a temple to Quetzalcoatl, who was
afterwards worshiped as a god.[III-61]




We shall find very similar traditions of another
Quetzalcoatl who appeared much later, during the
Toltec period, and who also made Cholula a centre of
his reform. As we shall see, the evidence is tolerably
conclusive that the two are not the same, yet it is
more than likely that the traditions respecting them
have been considerably mixed both in native and European
hands. After the time of Quetzalcoatl we
know nothing of Olmec or Xicalanca history down to
the establishment of the Toltec empire, when these
nations were still in possession of the country of Puebla
and Tlascala. Boturini conjectures that, being driven
from Mexico, they migrated to the Antilles and to
South America. There is not, however, the slightest
necessity to suppose that the Olmecs ever left the
country at all. Their institutions and language were
the same as that of the Toltec peoples that nominally
succeeded them, and although like the Toltecs they
became extinct as a nation, yet there is no reason to
doubt that their descendants lived long in the land,
and took part in the new political combinations that
make up Nahua history down to the Conquest.[III-62]




[203]


 THE TOTONACS AND TEOTIHUACAN.


 APOTHEOSIS OF NANAHUATZIN.



The Totonacs are included by the authorities among
the primitive, or Pre-Toltec nations in Anáhuac. At
the time of the Conquest they occupied central Vera
Cruz, their chief city being Zempoala; but they
claimed to have migrated from the valley of Mexico,
and to have lived long near the banks of Lake Tezcuco,
where they built the pyramids at Teotihuacan,
a place already noticed as a religious centre in this
early period. Torquemada seems to be the original
authority for the Totonac traditions respecting their
primitive history, having obtained his information
from an aged native. His brief account, quoted in
substance by all others who have mentioned the subject,
is as follows:—"Of their origin they say that
they set out from the place called Chicomoztoc, or
Seven Caves, together with the Xalpanecs; and that
they were twenty divisions, or families, as many of
one as of the other; and although thus divided into
families, they were all of one language and of the
same customs. They say they started from that
place, leaving the Chichimecs still shut up there; and
they directed their journey towards this part of Mexico,
and having arrived at the plains on the lake, they
halted at the place where Teotihuacan now is; and
they affirm that they built these two temples which
were dedicated to the sun and moon. Here they remained
for some time, but either not contented with
the place, or with a desire to pass to other places,
they went to Atenamitic, where Zacatlan now stands."
Thence they gradually moved eastward until at last
they settled on the coast in their present location.
That the pyramids of Teotihuacan[III-63] were built by the
Nahuas—the Olmecs or one of their companion nations—and
became their religious centre and the
burial-place of their kings and priests long before the
[204]
establishment of the empire of Tollan, there can be
but little doubt; nor is it improbable that the Totonacs
were, as they claim to be, a pre-Toltec tribe in
Anáhuac; but that they were in this early time a
Nahua tribe, a nation contemporaneous with the Olmecs
and of the same institutions, that they were the
builders of Teotihuacan, is only proved by their own
claim as recorded by Torquemada. This evidence
must probably be regarded as insufficient in view of
the fact that the Totonac language is wholly distinct
from the Nahua.[III-64] It is true that, as will be seen
later, all the ancient tribes, that adopted more or less
the Nahua institutions, and joined in the struggle
against the rival Maya powers, did not speak the
same language; but it is also very probable that many
nations in later times, when the Nahua power as represented
by the Aztecs had become so predominant,
claimed ancient Nahua affinities to which they had
no right.[III-65] In addition to what has already been said
respecting Teotihuacan, only one event is mentioned
in its pre-Toltec history,—the apotheosis of Nanahuatzin,
an event which probably preceded rather
than followed the erection of the pyramids. The
strange fable respecting this event, already related in
a preceding volume,[III-66] is, briefly, to the effect that the
gods were assembled at Teotihuacan for the purpose
of inducing the sun to appear and illumine their darkness.
A great fire having been kindled, and the announcement
made that the honors of apotheosis would
[205]
be given to him who should give himself up as a living
sacrifice, Nanahuatzin threw himself into the fire,
was instantly devoured and transformed into the sun,
which at once appeared in the east. Metztli followed
the example of Nanahuatzin, and took his place in
the heavens as the moon, less brilliant than his companion,
since the heat of the fire had somewhat
abated before his sacrifice. The true historic signification
of this account we cannot hope to ascertain,
yet it is of great interest, since it seems to point to
the introduction in these regions of sun-worship and
of human sacrifice; indeed, the Codex Chimalpopoca,
according to Brasseur, expressly states that "then
began divine immolation at Teotihuacan." The same
authority gives this event also as the beginning of a
new chronologic period called Nahui Ollin Tonatiuh,
'the sun in its four movements,' thus suggesting some
connection between this assemblage and that mentioned
by Sahagun as having taken place in the south,
when the new calendar was invented. The remark in
the same document that "on that day the kings did
tremble," may point to this epoch as that of the great
revolution—carried on chiefly in Chiapas, but which
may have extended to Anáhuac—by which the kings
of Xibalba were overthrown; especially since the narrative
of the sacrifice at Teotihuacan bears a striking
resemblance to the apotheosis of Hunhunahpu and
his fellow-heroes at Xibalba.[III-67]




So far as the other so-called primitive nations of
New Spain are concerned, little can be said, except
that they claim and have always been credited with
a very ancient residence in this land, dating back far
beyond the beginning of the historic period. The
Otomís, one division of whom are known as Mazahuas,
differ entirely from the Nahua nations in language,
[206]
having possibly a slight linguistic affinity with
the Totonacs, and although far from being savages,
they have always been to a certain extent an outcast
and oppressed race, the 'Jews of Anáhuac,' as one
writer terms them, down-trodden in succession by
Toltec, Chichimec, and Aztec. They probably occupied
a very large portion of Anáhuac and the surrounding
mountains, when the Toltecs proper established
their power. Ixtlilxochitl, followed by
Veytia, represents the Otomís, though differing in
language, as having been one of the Acolhua tribes
that made their appearance in Anáhuac many centuries
later, but the event referred to as their coming
to the country at that period, may probably be their
coming down from the mountains and adopting more
or less the civilized life of the Acolhuas at Tezcuco.[III-68]




The Miztecs and Zapotecs are simply mentioned
by the authorities in connection with the Olmecs and
Xicalancas as having occupied the south-eastern
region during the primitive period. Later they became
powerful nations in the country now constituting
the state of Oajaca, and were probably at
least the equals of the Aztecs in civilization. Their
own annals do not, so far as they may be interpreted,
reach back to the pre-Toltec times, and although
they may very likely have come in contact with the
Olmecs in Puebla, or even have been their allies,
receiving from them or with them the elements of
Nahua culture, yet the fact that their languages are
distinct from the Nahua, shows that they like the
Totonacs were not, as some authors imply, simply a
branch of the Nahua people in Tamoanchan. It is
[207]
more natural to suppose that these three nations were
either wild tribes, or, if partially civilized, connected
with the Maya, Xibalban, or Quiname nations, and
that they accepted more or less fully the Nahua
ideas after the Olmec nations had risen to power in
Anáhuac. The statement of Brasseur that the tribes
of Oajaca received their civilization from the two
brothers of Xibalba's conquerors, Hunbatz and Hunchouen,
is probably unfounded, since nothing of the
kind appears in the chapter of García's work to
which the abbé refers.[III-69]



 THE HUASTECS IN VERA CRUZ.



To the Huastecs of Northern Vera Cruz, the preceding
remarks may also be applied, save that their
language, while distinct from the Nahua, is also
very evidently connected with the great Maya linguistic
family of the south. Yet the ruins of Huastec
and Totonac Vera Cruz,[III-70] are more like the
Nahua monuments than like those of Yucatan or
Chiapas, showing how powerful was the influence of
the Nahua element in the north. The only historical
tradition relating to the Huastecs is the following
from Sahagun:—In the time of the Olmecs, after the
art of making pulque had been invented in the mountain
called thereafter Popoconaltepetl, 'mountain of
foam,' the inventors prepared a banquet on the same
mountain. All the principal old men and old women
were invited, and before each guest were placed four
cups of the new wine,—the quantity deemed sufficient
[208]
to exhibit the excellence of the newly-discovered beverage,
and to cheer without inebriating the dignitaries
present. But one chief, Cuextecatl by name,
was so rash as to indulge in a fifth cup, and was
moved thereby to discard the maxtli which constituted
his court dress, and to conduct himself in a
very indecorous manner; so much so that after recovering
his sound sense, he was forced by very
shame to flee with all his followers, and all those of
his language, to the region of Pánuco, where they
settled, and were called from their leader Cuextecas,
afterwards Guaxtecas or Huastecs.[III-71]



 THE TOLTECS IN HUEHUE TLAPALLAN.



I now come to what may be termed the regular
annals of that branch of the Nahua nations which
finally established a kingdom in Anáhuac with Tollan
for a capital, and which acquired the name of Toltec.
These annals will be found not more satisfactory or
less mythical than the traditions that have been
given in the preceding pages, although in their more
salient points they seem to agree with those traditions.
They were recorded in a most careless and
confused manner by the native writer Fernando de
Alva Ixtlilxochitl, who derived his information from
the documents which survived the destruction by the
Spanish priests. The comments of later writers, and
their attempts to reconcile this author's statements
one with another and all with scriptural traditions
and with the favorite theory of a general migration
from the north, have still further confused the subject.
I have no hope of being able to reduce Ixtlilxochitl's
statements to perfect order, or to explain
the exact historical meaning of each statement; still,
by the omission of a large amount of profitless conjecture,
[209]
scriptural comparison, and hopelessly entangled
chronology, the tradition may be somewhat
simplified so as to yield, as other traditions have
done, some items of general information respecting
the primitive Nahua period.




At the end of the first age of the world or the 'sun
of waters,' as we are told by Ixtlilxochitl, the earth
was visited by a flood which covered even the most
lofty mountains. After the repeopling of the earth
by the descendants of a few families who escaped destruction,
the building of a tower as a protection
against a possible future catastrophe of similar nature,
and the confusion of tongues and consequent
scattering of the population—for all these things were
found in the native traditions, as we are informed—seven
families speaking the same language kept together
in their wanderings for many years; and after
crossing broad lands and seas, enduring great hardships,
they reached the country of Huehue Tlapallan,
or 'Old' Tlapallan; which they found to be fertile
and desirable to dwell in.[III-72] The second age, the
'sun of air,' terminated with a great hurricane which
swept away trees, rocks, houses, and people, although
many men and women escaped, chiefly such as took
refuge in caves which the hurricane could not reach.
After several days the survivors came out to find a
multitude of apes living in the land; and all this time
they were in darkness, seeing neither the sun nor
moon. The next event recorded, although Veytia
[210]
makes it precede the hurricane, is the stopping of the
sun for a whole day in his course, as at the command
of Joshua as recorded in the Old Testament. "When
the mosquito, however, saw the sun thus suspended
and pensive, he addressed him saying, 'Lord of the
world, why art thou thus motionless, and doest not
thy duty as is commanded thee? Dost thou wish
to destroy the world as is thy wont?' Then seeing
that he was yet silent and made no response, the
insect went up and stung him in the leg, whereupon
he, feeling himself stung, started anew on his accustomed
course."




Next occurred an earthquake which swallowed up
and destroyed all the Quinames, or giants—at least
all those who lived in the coast regions—together
with many of the Toltecs and of their neighbors the
Chichimecs. After the destruction of these Philistines,
"being at peace with all this new world, all the
wise Toltecs, both the astrologers and those of other
arts, assembled in Huehue Tlapallan, the chief city
of their dominion, where they treated of many things,
the calamities they had suffered and the movements
of the heavens since the creation of the world, and of
many other things, which on account of their histories
having been burned, have not been ascertained further
than what has been written here, among which they
added the bissextile to regulate the solar year with the
equinox, and many other curiosities as will be seen in
their tables and arrangement of years, months, weeks,
days, signs, and planets as they understood them."




One hundred and sixteen years after this regulation
or invention of the Toltec calendar, "the sun
and moon were eclipsed, the earth shook, and the
rocks were rent asunder, and many other things and
signs happened, though there was no loss of life.
This was in the year Ce Calli, which, the chronology
being reduced to our systems, proves to be the same
date when Christ our Lord suffered" (33 A.D.)




Three hundred and five years later, when the empire
[211]
had been long at peace, Chalcatzin and Tlacamihtzin,
chief descendants of the royal house of the
Toltecs, raised a revolt for the purpose of deposing
the legitimate successor to the throne. The rebellious
chiefs were after long wars driven out of their
city Tlachicatzin in Huehue Tlapallan, with all their
numerous families and allies. They were pursued by
their kindred of the city or country of Tlaxicoluican
for sixty leagues, to a place discovered by Cecatzin,
which they named Tlapallanconco or 'little' Tlapallan.
The struggle by which the rebels were conquered
lasted eight years,—or thirteen, according to
Veytia—and they were accompanied on their forced
migration by five other chiefs. The departure from
Huehue Tlapallan seems to have taken place in the
fifth or sixth century.[III-73]



 EXILE OF THE TOLTECS.


 THE TOLTEC MIGRATION.



They remained at Tlapallanconco[III-74] three years,
and towards the end of their stay the seven chieftains
assembled to deliberate whether they should
remain there permanently or go farther. Then rose a
great astrologer, named Hueman, or Huematzin, saying
that according to their histories they had suffered
great persecutions from heaven, but that these had
always been followed by great prosperity; that their
persecutions had always occurred in the year Ce Tecpatl,
but that year once passed, great blessings ensued;
that their trouble was a great evil immediately
preceding the dawn of a greater good, and consequently
it did not behoove them to remain so near
[212]
their enemies. Moreover, his astrology had taught
him that towards the rising sun there was a broad
and happy land, where the Quinames had lived for
many years, but so long a time had now passed since
their destruction that the country was depopulated;
besides, the fierce Chichimecs, their neighbors, rarely
penetrated those regions. The planet which ruled
the destinies of that new country yet lacked many
years of carrying out its threats, and in the meantime
they and their descendants to the tenth generation
might enjoy a golden and prosperous century. Again,
the threatening planet did not rule their nation, but
that of the giants, so that possibly it might do no
great injury even to their descendants. He advised
that some colonists be left here to people the country,
become their vassals, and in time to turn upon their
enemies and recover their native land and original
power. These and other things did Hueman counsel,
and they seemed good to the seven chiefs; so that
after three years were passed, or eleven years from
the time when they left Huehue Tlapallan, they started
on their migration. The first stopping-place, about
seventy leagues distant and reached in twelve days
was Hueyxalan—'great sandy' as Veytia interprets
it—a place discovered by Cohuatzon where they remained
four years. They next halted after a journey
of twenty days at Xalisco, a country about a hundred
leagues farther east—or as Veytia says west—near
the seashore. They lived eight years in this land,
which was discovered by Ziuhcohuatl. Other twenty
days and hundred leagues took them to Chimalhuacan
Atenco on the coast where there were certain
islands, and here they dwelt five years. At the start
they had taken a vow, under penalty of severe punishment,
to have no intercourse with their wives for
twenty-three years; but as the time was now expired
they began here to increase and multiply. After the
five years they resumed their journey eastward for
eighteen days or eighty leagues to Toxpan, discovered
[213]
by Mezotzin, where they lived for five years also.
Quiyahuitztlan Anáhuac, discovered by Acapichtzin—was
twenty days' journey or a hundred leagues east of
Toxpan, also on the coast, with inlets so that they
were obliged to pass in boats from one place to another.
They remained here six years suffering great hardships.
The next halting-place was Zacatlan, distant
eighteen days or eighty leagues in a direction not
stated. Chalcatzin was the discoverer, and during
the first of their seven years' stay here—just fifty-two
years, or a xiuhtlalpilli, after their wars began—a son
was born to the chief, and named from the place Zacapantzin.
At Totzapan, eighty leagues distance from
Zacatlan, they lived six years, in the last of which a
son named Totzapantzin was born to Cecatzin, who
discovered this place. This was just fifty-two years
after they left their native country. Twenty-eight
days or one hundred and forty leagues brought them
to Tepetla, Cohuatzon being the discoverer for the
second time, where they remained seven years. At
Mazatepec eighteen days or eighty leagues distant,
discovered by Ziuhcohuatl, they tarried eight years;
at Ziuhcohuatl, at the same distance, discovered by
Tlapalmetzin, also eight years; at Yztachuexucha,
twenty days or one hundred leagues northward, discovered
by Metzotzin, twenty-six years. Finally a
journey of eighteen days or eighty leagues brought
them to Tulancingo—written also Tulantzinco and
Tollantzinco—discovered by Acapichtzin. Here they
built a house sufficiently large to contain all the
people, and remained eighteen years before transferring
their capital to Tollan farther east and establishing
what was afterwards known as the Toltec empire.
The third year of their stay in Tulancingo completed
an age, or one hundred and four years since the departure
from their country.[III-75] According to Ixtlilxochitl,
[214]
the Toltecs reached Anáhuac in the sixth century, or
according to Veytia and others who have attempted
to reconstruct his chronology, near the end of the
seventh century.[III-76]




This tradition of the Toltecs affords in itself no
sufficient data from which to locate accurately Huehue
Tlapallan, their most ancient home in America.
The name is interpreted as 'ancient red land, or land of
color,' and might perhaps apply as well to the north as
to the south. Pedro de Alvarado writing from Santiago,
or Old Guatemala, to Cortés in 1524, announces
his intention to set out in a few months to explore the
country of Tapalan "which is in the interior fifteen
days' march from here. It is pretended that the
capital is as large as Mexico."[III-77] This indicates that
at the time of the Conquest the name was still
applied to a region which may correspond very well
to Honduras, Peten, or Tabasco. Ixtlilxochitl himself,
in relating the expeditions on which his ancestor
of the same name accompanied Cortés, mentions one
to "Tlapalan, a province which lies toward Ihueras,"
or Ibueras, being the former name of Honduras.[III-78]
Brasseur says that "Mexican geography at the time
of the discovery applied this name only to the
provinces north of Guatemala, between the tributaries
[215]
of the Rio Usumacinta and Honduras;" and
also that the country was spoken of by authors at
the time of the Conquest as Tlapallan de Cortés, on
account of Cortés' expedition to Honduras, but he
mentions no authors except those I have referred
to.[III-79] The same author believes that the name Tlapallanconco
given by Ixtlilxochitl to the first station,
sixty leagues from Huehue Tlapallan, should be
Tlapallantzinco. He tells us that the Guatemalan
histories mentions such a city conquered by the
Quichés in Soconusco on the coast, at a point not far
from sixty leagues distant from the Ococingo region.[III-80]
Again, according to Sahagun and Torquemada, when
Quetzalcoatl, the second of the name, who flourished
while the Toltecs were at Tollan, left the country, he
embarked or disappeared on the gulf coast near the
Goazacoalco River, announcing his intention to go to
Tlapallan. This would certainly favor the idea that
Tlapallan was a southern country.



 THE COUNTRY OF HUEHUE TLAPALLAN.



On the other hand, the eastward direction attributed
to the migration from Tlapallanconco to Anáhuac
is not consistent with any Central American
location of the starting-place; but, in connection
with the fact that Xalisco is given as the second
station about a hundred and seventy leagues distant
from Tlapallanconco, would agree somewhat better
with the theory generally adopted by the Spanish
writers that the original home of the Toltecs was in
the north-west, probably on the Gulf of California;
yet the name Tlapallan has never been found in the
north-west.[III-81] Material relics of any great empire
are wanting in that region, at least beyond Quemada
in Zacatecas, and the itinerary is full of inconsistencies
which prove it to be unreliable as a historic
record. For instance, an eastern course of a hundred
[216]
leagues to any point on the coast of Jalisco
would be an impossibility; the next two moves led
a hundred leagues down the Pacific Coast, and then
across the continent to Toxpan, or Tuxpan, on the
gulf coast in Vera Cruz; then, although Tuxpan is
on the eastern coast, the migration continued still a
hundred leagues eastward, another impossibility of
course. How they returned to the states of Vera
Cruz and Mexico, where the other stations would
seem to be located, does not appear. In fact the
tradition of this migration as it reads, so far as directions,
distances, and names are concerned, is meaningless,
a fact due either to the carelessness of the
compiler or the scantiness of his materials. Intrinsically
then the evidence, while not conclusive,
favors the idea that Huehue Tlapallan was in the
south.




Comparing the Toltec tradition with those that
have been already given, we find, except in names, a
strong resemblance in general features. In the successive
creations and destructions of men; the apes
that peopled the land after one of the destructions;
the ancient settlement and growth to power of the
Toltecs in a fertile country named Huehue Tlapallan;
the destruction of a rival power, that of the Quinames;
the regulation or invention of the calendar by an assemblage
of wise men in Huehue Tlapallan; and a final
forced migration to new homes—in all these features
the tradition seems to represent a vague memory of
events already familiar to us as having occurred in
the central region; in the Votanic empire of the Tzendal
traditions; in the Xibalba, Paxil, and Tulan
Zuiva, or Seven Caves, of the Quiché record; and
especially in the Tamoanchan and Tonacatepetl of the
annals gathered by Sahagun.



 SOUTHERN ORIGIN OF THE TOLTECS.



In opposition to those analogies we have the fact
that the Spanish writers locate Huehue Tlapallan in
the north, as they do also the original homes of all
the nations that are reported by native tradition to
[217]
have migrated successively into Anáhuac. It is not
probable that this idea of a northern origin was a pure
invention of the Spaniards; they doubtless found
among the Aztecs with whom they came in contact
what seemed to them a prevalent popular notion that
the ancestors of the race came from the north. Yet
the tradition given by Sahagun—and referring to a
time long prior to the Toltec migration of the fifth or
sixth century—relating to the first appearance of the
Nahua civilizers on the gulf coast, whither they had
come by sea from the north-east, probably from Florida,
would have been perhaps a sufficient foundation
for such a popular idea; and the not improbable fact
that the Aztecs proper and some other nations, prominent
in rank and power at the time of the Conquest,
did actually come into Anáhuac from the region immediately
adjoining it on the north or north-west,
would certainly have contributed to confirm that idea.
In other words the Aztecs when questioned by the
Spaniards may have replied that they came from the
north, referring in most cases to the latest move of
their nation into Anáhuac, but possibly in some instances
to the vague traditions of their fathers respecting
the very earliest periods of their existence as a
race. The Spaniards at once connected the reported
northern origin with the world-peopling migration
from Central Asia after the confusion of tongues; and
since the old and new world were supposed to be connected
or nearly so in the north, they found the native
tradition strongly confirmed by the scriptures. When
the theory of successive migrations from the north,
thus confirmed, had once been established in their
minds, nothing could overthrow it; it became in a certain
sense a part of their religion. Each migration
subsequently found recorded in the native annals, as
means of communication between the conquerors and
conquered became perfected, was at once given a
north-to-south direction. The natives themselves
were in many instances not unwilling to please their
[218]
masters by orthodox interpretations of their picture-writings.
Finally the ruins of Quemada, the Casas
Grandes of Chihuahua, and the adobe buildings on
the Gila were discovered—doubtless traces left by migrating
nations, and thus the last doubt on the subject,
if any could exist, was removed even from the
minds of later and more intelligent class of Spanish
writers, like Clavigero and Veytia.[III-82]



 THE PRIMITIVE CHICHIMECS.



In the Toltec tradition we have found the Chichimecs
mentioned as a powerful and fierce people and
their neighbors in Huehue Tlapallan. Since this is
the first mention of that famous people, since all the
best authorities insist that the Toltecs and Chichimecs
were of the same blood and language, and since the
Chichimecs afterwards succeeded the Toltecs in Anáhuac,
we naturally turn to the Chichimec traditions
of their early home for additional information respecting
Huehue Tlapallan, although the Chichimec migration
occurring several centuries later would come chronologically
beyond the limits of this chapter. Our
search in this direction for data from which to determine
the location of the ancient Nahua empire is,
however, fruitless. Although Ixtlilxochitl is still the
chief authority, we have no mention of Huehue Tlapallan.
The country—or a country, for it is not certain
[219]
that it was the original Chichimec home and not
one located in central Mexico, although some of the
traditions seem to point to primitive times—of immense
extent, is called Amaquemecan; one of its chief
cities seems to have borne the same name, and another
city was Oyome. The names Necuametl and
Nacuix are also applied to the country by Ixtlilxochitl,
and he further states that the Chichimecs came like
the other nations from Chicomoztoc. Some fourteen
kings are named as having ruled over the kingdom,
beginning with Chichimecatl who brought the people
to the country and from whom they took their
name. Nothing is known of the reigns of any except
the last three, the first of whom is reported to
have sent his son at the request of the Toltecs to become
the first king in Tollan. Ixtlilxochitl in his account
of the sending for this king says that the Chichimecs
were at that time in the region of Pánuco,
and that fear of hostility from them was the chief
motive of the Toltecs in inviting a Chichimec to rule
over them. It is not, however, stated that the Chichimec
capital was in that part of the country. When
at last the empire came into the hands of two brothers,
one of whom Xolotl, with all his people, decided to
migrate, not one of their halting-places is named,
until they had journeyed for a whole year and reached
the vicinity of Anáhuac; consequently there is no
clue to the course of their migration. Besides the
statement that the Chichimecs came from the Seven
Caves, and another by Veytia that the kings wore
quetzal-feathers, there seems to be absolutely nothing
in the tradition to indicate whether Amaquemecan
was in the north or south. Yet the Spanish writers
have no hesitation in fixing the direction, although
disagreeing somewhat about the locality. From two
to three hundred leagues north of Jalisco, beyond New
Mexico, and in Alaska are some of the decisions in
this matter,—decisions resting on authority that the
reader already understands. It seems probable that
[220]
the great original Nahua empire whether it be
called Huehue Tlapallan, Tamoanchan, Tulan, or
Amaquemecan, was the Chichimec empire—that is,
that the Toltecs or revolting branch constituted but a
small portion of the Chichimec or Nahua people.[III-83]



 MIGRATION FROM THE SOUTH.



The Chichimec migration was followed by many
others at irregular intervals, ending with that of the
Aztecs, all of which will be spoken of in their proper
place. The chronologic order attributed by tradition
to these migrations is not to be relied on, giving, as
may be supposed, only a vague idea of the order in
which the different nations acquired some prominence
in and about the valley of Mexico. In its ancient
centre—not in Anáhuac, whether it was in the north
or south—the primitive Nahua power was overthrown,
or from that centre it was transferred to be
re-established by exiled princes and their descendants
on the Mexican plateaux. This transfer, whose nature
we may vaguely comprehend, but of whose
details we know nothing, is the event or series of
events referred to by the various migration-traditions.
The recollections of these events assumed
different forms in the traditions of different tribes
until each nation claimed or were deemed by the
Spaniards to claim a distinct migration from its
former home. The accounts of the migrations following
the Toltec will be given in their proper place,
and here we have only to notice that the Seven
[221]
Caves are mentioned as a starting-place or station in
most if not all of these migrations, and that the
only names that appear in the traditions applied to
the ancient Nahua dwelling-place are Aztlan, Culhuacan
or Teo Culhuacan, and Aquilasco. These
names are perhaps applied to cities in the ancient
home, but it is by no means certain, as will appear
later, that they did not all belong to localities in central
Mexico. At least neither the names nor the
events of the migrations as reported afford any proof
of geographical location. The analogy between Culhuacan
and Culiacan is not a strong argument in favor
of a north-western location, or at most does not outweigh
the identity of the names Culhuacan and Nachan.
A palm-tree painted on the picture-writing
supposed to record one of the migrations, in connection
with the starting-place, as has been remarked by
several authorities, seems to favor the idea that the
point of departure was in the south rather than in
the north, and would certainly be a circumstance of
considerable weight against an extreme northern location
for Aztlan.




The Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg attempts to
reconcile the general fact shown by all the earlier traditions
that the primitive Nahua power was in the
south, with the idea of a migration from the north
apparently entertained by each of the nations of Anáhuac
and by the Spanish writers. According to his
idea the Nahuas, overcome by the monarchs of Xibalba,
were driven from Chiapas, dwelt a few years on
the Pacific coast at Tlapallantzinco, and thence migrated
north-westward in different bands, following
the general direction of the coast, to Sonora and Upper
California. Along this route, as this author
claims, distinct traces of their migration are apparent,
referring perhaps, although he does not say so, to linguistic
traces. In this northern region, about the
Gulf of California, they established great kingdoms
and built great cities, each Nahua colony becoming a
[222]
centre of civilization to the wild tribes with whom it
came in contact. From this region, to places in which
the names Teo Culhuacan, Aztlan, etc., of the traditions
may be applied, the different Nahua nations descended
into Anáhuac in successive migrations from
the seventh to the twelfth century, impelled by civil
convulsions or the pressure of outside and warlike
tribes.[III-84]




I am inclined to find in the abbé's theory a statement—too
definite perhaps—of a general fact. That
is, the Nahua power—established in eastern and south-eastern
Mexico by the Olmec tribes almost simultaneously
with its growth in the south—was after its
overthrow in Central America established by exiled
nobles over western and north-western Mexico. I
find no evidence, however, that the Nahua power ever
became settled and flourishing farther north than Durango
and Sinaloa, although the influence of their institutions
may, not improbably, have extended to the
Sonora tribes; into California and the far north-west
the Nahuas never penetrated. If a Nahua empire or
political power ever really existed in the north-west,
its centre was probably in the region of Quemada, in
Zacatecas and Jalisco. Soon, however, the valley of
Mexico became the political centre, and the subsequent
history of the country was essentially a history
of Anáhuac. The modern aboriginal annals of each
nation dated from its rise to notice in Anáhuac, and
in the traditions of previous history imperfectly communicated
to the Spaniards, their former greatness in
the south, their defeat and exile, their life in outside
provinces, and their settlement in the valley were
sadly confused.




[223]


 ANNALS OF YUCATAN.



Mendieta, Torquemada, Gomara, and others, record
the popular tradition of the settlement of Mexico as
follows: An old man Iztac Mixcohuatl, by his wife
Ilancueitl, in Chicomoztoc, or the Seven Caves, had
six sons, Xelhua, Tenuch, Ulmecatl, Xicalancatl,
Mixtecatl, and Otomitl. Tenuch's descendants were
the Aztecs; Xelhua gave his name to no nation, but
his followers settled at various points in the south-east;
the others founded the nations which took their
names. Mendieta adds that by another wife the
same old man had a son named Quetzalcoatl.[III-85] Piñeda
tells us that a nephew of Votan divided the land
of Anáhuac.[III-86] According to Arlegui the Toltecs
came from the west and divided New Spain between
their seven families.[III-87] I believe I have now given
all the important traditions that seem to belong to
the pre-Toltec period in Mexico, and I deem it unnecessary
to refer to the authors who merely give an
abridged version of the same accounts, many of them
confining themselves to the simple statement that the
Toltecs, a very skillful people, came first from the
north and settled in the region afterwards known as
New Spain.




Returning to the south, it only remains to examine
briefly the primitive Maya annals of Yucatan, which
confirm in a few points those of other peoples, so far
as they relate to the great American centre of civilization
in the south. These annals will be given in
full elsewhere; a very general view, with especial
reference to the points referred to, will suffice here.
A prevalent belief among the Mayas at the time of
the Conquest was, that the peninsula was settled in
ancient times by two races, one from the east, the
other from the west. It is not implied that they
[224]
came at the same period, but rather that the migration
from the east preceded that from the west by
many centuries. Lizana tells us that in ancient
times the east was called cenial, or 'little descent,'
and the west nohenial, or 'great descent,' believing
that these names indicate the comparative numbers
of the respective colonies. Landa and Herrera record
a tradition that the oldest inhabitants came from
the east, the sea being divided to afford them a passage.
Cogolludo concludes, contrary to the opinion
of Lizana, that the colony from the east must have
been much more numerous as well as more ancient
than the other, because of the universal use of the
Maya language and of Maya names of places throughout
the peninsula—a conclusion that carries little
weight, since it rests mainly on the assumption that
those who came from the west spoke the Aztec language,
an assumption for which there is no authority
whatever.



 ZAMNÁ'S EMPIRE.



The personage whose name appears first in the
Maya tradition is Zamná, son of the chief deity, who
taught the people, invented the hieroglyphic alphabet,
and gave a name to each locality in Yucatan.
His rôle, so far as anything is known of it, was precisely
the same as that of Votan in Chiapas. Zamná
is reported to have lived long in the land and to have
been buried at the close of his career at Izamal.
During his life he founded Mayapan, 'standard (or
capital) of Maya,'—Maya being the native name of
the country and signifying according to some authorities
'land without water'—a city which was several
times ruined and rebuilt after its founder's time.
Zamná may be most naturally connected with the
traditional migration from the east. Cogolludo, it is
true, states that he was at the head of the other
colony, and this statement is repeated in one place by
Brasseur, but as the Spanish writer directly contradicts
his statement on the same page, not much importance
is to be attached to it. Vague as it is, the
[225]
tradition of Zamná and his followers from the east
seems identical with that of Votan. If we suppose
that such persons as Zamná and Votan actually had
an existence—a supposition which like its opposite
forms no part of this chapter—it would be impossible
to determine whether the two were the same, or Zamná
the companion, disciple, or descendant of Votan;
but we may well believe that the period, the empire,
the institutions alluded to in the Maya record are the
same as those connected with the Votanic or Xibalban
traditions. The ancient power whose centre was in
Chiapas, Tabasco, and Honduras, extended north-eastward
into Yucatan as it did north-westward into
Anáhuac. Ordoñez states, as usual without giving
his authority, that Mayapan was one of the allied
capitals, which with Nachan and Tulan constituted
the Votanic empire. The fact that the name of the
Cocomes, the most ancient people, or at least the
oldest line of kings and nobles, in Yucatan signifies in
the Nahua tongue 'serpents,' like the name Chanes
applied to Votan's followers, may have some significance,
although in the Maya tongue Cocome is also
said to mean 'listener.'




At an unknown date, but subsequent to that of
Zamná's rule, we find three brothers, the Itzaob,
reigning at Chichen over a people called from them
the Itzas, as the city also was called thereafter Chichen
Itza. They came from the west, were just and
chaste men, and their reign a long and glorious one.
One of them, however, having finally left the country,
the others gave themselves up to immoral practices,
and were put to death. Notwithstanding the
fact that the brothers came, according to the Spanish
writers, from the west, there is much reason to suppose
that the nation whose capital was at Chichen,
was an ancient people dating back to the time of Zamná,
since the most satisfactory interpretation of the
name 'Itza' is that it came from 'Ytzamna,' the
more ancient form of the great founder's name. Connected
[226]
with the three brothers in a manner not clearly
defined by the tradition—either ruling conjointly with
them or more probably coming into power immediately
after their downfall—was Cukulcan, who also
came from the west, who was also famous for the
purity of his life, and whose teachings in fact were
identical with those of Quetzalcoatl among the Nahua
peoples. He also is credited with the founding, or
re-founding of Mayapan, which under his rule became
the political centre of the whole country, although
Chichen still retained great prominence. Cukulcan
having raised the country to a condition of the highest
prosperity, finally abandoned Yucatan for some unknown
motive and returned westward, disappearing at
Champoton, or Potonchan, on the coast, where he dwelt
for some time and where a temple in his honor was
afterwards erected. After his departure the Cocome
princes came into power, their capital being still Mayapan.




The identity in character, teachings, and actions
between Cukulcan and Quetzalcoatl, suggests the
first appearance in Yucatan, at this time, of Nahua
tribes or Nahua institutions, corresponding to a certain
extent with the appearance of the Olmecs and
Xicalancas in Anáhuac, and indicating that the Nahua
influence was exerted during its earliest period
of development in the north-east as well as in the
north-west. Indeed, Veytia records a tradition to
the effect that Yucatan was settled by the Olmecs
and Xicalancas driven from Mexico at the coming of
the Toltecs; this author justly rejects the latter part
of this report, but expresses his belief that bands
from these nations did actually settle in the peninsula.
When to the analogies already noticed between
Quetzalcoatl and Cukulcan we add the fact
that their names are etymologically identical, both
signifying 'plumed serpent,' little reason remains to
doubt that the Maya tradition refers, like the others
that have been noticed, to the first coming into
prominence of the Nahuas in America.




[227]


 THE TUTUL XIUS IN YUCATAN.



The next prominent event in Yucatan history, as
it is also the last that has any special bearing upon
the period now under consideration, and the most
important in that connection, is the arrival of the
Tutul Xius. According to the traditions of the
natives as recorded by the Spaniards, this peaceful
but highly cultivated people came from the south,
perhaps from Chiapas, after wandering for forty years
in the unsettled and mountainous portions of the
country, and settled near Mayapan. The Cocomes,
successors to the Itza brothers and Cukulcan, having
at the time governed the country long and prosperously,
received the new-comers kindly and formed an
alliance with them, an alliance which continued for
a long time until the Cocome kings, becoming tyrannical,
were overthrown by a revolution in which the
Tutul Xius were the most prominent actors. It is,
however, with their arrival and not with their subsequent
actions that we have to do here. The mere
tradition of their arrival after a long migration from
the southern highlands would at best furnish only
slight grounds for the conjecture of the Spaniards
that they came from Chiapas; but another document
unknown to the Spanish missionary-authors throws
great light upon this people, and invests their appearance
in Yucatan with increased importance. The
document referred to is the Maya manuscript translated
by Pio Perez, first published in Mr Stephens'
work on Yucatan, and later with the work of Bishop
Landa, which begins as follows:—"This is the series
of katunes elapsed since the four Tutul Xius departed
from the house of Nonoual, which was west of Zuina,
and came from the land of Tulapan. Four katunes
passed after they set out before they arrived here with
Holonchan Tepeuh and his companions, before they
reached this peninsula; the 8 Ahau had passed, the
6 Ahau, the 4 Ahau, and the 2 Ahau—eighty-one
years before they arrived in this peninsula, eighty-one
years that they spent in their journey from their
[228]
country to this peninsula of Chacnouitan." Here we
find it distinctly stated that this people came from
Tulapan, 'capital of Tula,' the very place from which,
according to the Quiché record, the Nahua nations
migrated, and it is more than likely that Zuina should
be Zuiva, defined in the Popol Vuh as the Seven
Caves. This, in connection with the Quiché lamentation
over that division of their brothers which they
had left in the east, is amply sufficient to identify the
Tutul Xius as one of the Nahua tribes that migrated
from the original centre. The family of Nonoual
seems to have given a name to the tribes that occupied
Tabasco down to the Conquest. This document
assumes to give the date of the Tutul Xiu migration,
a most important date, since it is also that of the
overthrow of Nahua power in Chiapas and its transfer
to Anáhuac; but until the Maya system of Ahau
katunes[III-88] shall have been the object of much additional
research, there is little hope of arriving at
an accurate interpretation of the date. Sr Perez
gives it as 144 A.D. The Abbé Brasseur, relying
on the same document, gives the date repeatedly as
171 A.D.; but in his translation of the document in
Landa's work he concluded that it should be 401
A.D., reckoning each Ahau katun as twenty years,
and remarking that this date agrees much better than
the earlier one with Ixtlilxochitl's chronology. Of
the Perez manuscript Mr Gallatin remarks that it
contains all we know of the history and chronology of
Yucatan. To ascertain dates is out of the question;
but it is probable that the events are stated in their
respective order.[III-89]




[229]


 OVERTHROW OF THE NAHUAS.



A Mexican document, known only through Brasseur
de Bourbourg, and by him called the Codex
Gondra, furnishes some additional information respecting
the overthrow of the Nahua power in Central
America, and especially respecting the house of
Nonoual alluded to in the Perez document. I quote
from the author named as follows:—"The manuscript
begins with a description of the twenty wards of the
great city of Tollan, or Tulhá, Huey Tollan; but it
gives the names of only the first twelve, the translator,
who apparently attached but little importance
to names, having deemed it proper to omit the other
eight. The author relates the events that precipitated
the ruin of the throne, occasioned by the minority
of the last Chane prince, whose guardianship
was claimed by two powerful families, one called the
Chichimec-Toltecs, and the other the Chichimecs of
Nonohualco. The quarrel terminated in the insurrection
of the latter and the assassination of the
young monarch. But the prince was beloved by the
people, and on account of the popular indignation,
the murderers were forced to flee by night with all
their followers. On their departure from Tulhà,
Xelhua, the chief the Nonohualcos, went to consult
the oracle of Culhuacan, [Palenque?] which enjoined
him to depart. On the way he did penance for his
crime, and after several defeats at the hands of the
tribes through whose lands he was forced to pass, he
at last founded the kingdom of the Nonohualcos,
fixing the capital at Quetzaltepec in the mountains
about the country of the Zoques, who were conquered
by his successors. The author gives the names of
the thirteen princes who occupied the throne after
Xelhua with the leading events of their reigns. But
while Xelhua was establishing a new empire, Ieyxcohuatl,
chief of the Toltec party, who had seized
upon the power after the death of the young king of
[230]
Tulhà, of which he had been the principal cause, was
forced after a few years of power to abandon in his
turn the capital, with all his followers, to avoid the
vengeance of the people. He went into exile with
the Toltecs, and the manuscript gives their itinerary
as far as Tlachihualtepec, or Cholula, at the time
occupied by the Olmecs and Xicalancas, who ruled
the whole Aztec plateau."[III-90]




I have placed before the reader such historical
traditions of the civilized nations as seem to bear
upon the earliest period of their development. Their
exact meaning, so far as details are concerned, is with
the aid of existing authorities beyond the reach of
the most careful study, and no attempt has been
made to attach a definite significance to each aboriginal
tale, or to form from all a symmetrical chronologic
whole; indeed, their interpretation has not
been carried so far in many cases as the authorities
seemed with considerable plausibility to justify.
Taking up one after another the annals of the leading
nations as recorded by the best authorities, I have
endeavored to point out only the apparent general
significance of each. The evidence thus elicited by a
separate examination of each witness has pointed—with
varying force, but with great uniformity of direction—towards
the Central or Usumacinta region,
not necessarily as the original cradle of American civilization,
but as the most ancient home to which it can
be traced by traditional, monumental, and linguistic
records. In obtaining this evidence there has been
no occasion to resort to the sifting process of rejecting
all testimony seemingly opposed to a preconceived
theory. Almost the only argument against the general
tenor of the traditions, monuments, and languages,
[231]
has been the prevalent idea among Spanish writers
favoring a migration from the north; and the force of
this argument has proved to be more apparent than
real. Comparison of the records one with another
has greatly strengthened the evidence derived from
them separately; and the cumulative proof afforded
by their successive examination has been deemed sufficient
to confirm the general conclusions of the preceding
pages, which may be expressed as follows:



 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.



Throughout several centuries preceding the Christian
era, and perhaps one or two centuries following,
there flourished in Central America the great Maya
empire of the Chanes, Culhuas, or Serpents, known
to its foes as Xibalba, with its centre in Chiapas at or
near Palenque, and with several allied capitals in the
surrounding region. Its first establishment at a remote
period[III-91] was attributed by the people to a being
called Votan, who was afterwards worshiped as a god.
Whether such a person as Votan ever had an actual
existence; who, or what he was; whence, or how, or
among what people the civilization attributed to him
was introduced—we can only form vague conjectures.
America was certainly peopled before the Votanic
era, and that most likely by civilized as well as savage
tribes, but pre-Votanic nations have left absolutely no
record.[III-92] Perhaps the most reasonable conjecture is
that the Votanic power was of gradual growth, at
first humble and subordinate, but constantly increasing,
overcoming, absorbing, succeeding other powers
as others in later times succeeded, absorbed, and overcame
it. The Votanic institutions can only be known
by the traces they may be supposed to have left in
those of the later Maya nations. The prevailing language
was doubtless either the Maya, the Tzendal, or
[232]
a mother-tongue from which these as well as the
Quiché, Cakchiquel, and others of the same linguistic
family, have sprung; although it is not unlikely that
the empire embraced some nations speaking other
languages. From its centre in the Usumacinta region
the Votanic power was gradually extended north-westward
towards Anáhuac, where its subjects vaguely
appear in tradition as Quinames, or giants. It also
penetrated north-eastward into Yucatan, where Zamná
was its reputed founder, and the Cocomes and Itzas
probably its subjects. In other regions where its influence
was doubtless felt it seems to have left no
definite traces.




Much of our knowledge respecting the original
Maya empire is drawn from the traditions of a rival
power. It is not quite certain even that any of the
ruined temples or palaces in the central region were
entirely the work of the ancient people before they
came under Nahua influences; the differences noted
in the monuments referred to suggest the effects of
such influences exerted in different degrees.[III-93] The
Maya empire seems to have been in the height of its
prosperity when the rival Nahua power came into
prominence, perhaps two or three centuries before
Christ.[III-94] The origin of the new people and of the
[233]
new institutions is as deeply shrouded in mystery as
is that of their predecessors, although the nature of
the institutions themselves is well known to us in a
later and doubtless somewhat modified state of development.
The language of the nations among
which these institutions were first established was
doubtless the Nahua, or old Aztec. The Plumed
Serpent, known in different tongues as Quetzalcoatl,
Gucumatz, and Cukulcan, was the being who traditionally
founded the new order of things. The
Nahua power grew up side by side with its Xibalban
predecessor, having its capital Tulan apparently in
Chiapas. Like the Maya power, it was not confined
to its original home, but was borne by the Olmec
colonies towards Anáhuac, where it came in contact
with that of the Quinames; and in the person of
Cukulcan it penetrated the peninsula of Yucatan to
exert its influence upon the Itzas and Cocomes. The
two powers seem not to have been on unfriendly
terms at first. In fact there is much reason to suspect
that their respective institutions did not differ
radically, and that their rivalry developed into open
hostility only after the Nahuas had succeeded in introducing
their ideas among so many Maya nations,
and in reducing to a life of civilization so many wild
tribes, that they had acquired a balance of political
power. For it is certain that, whatever may have
been true of the Maya culture, the Nahua institutions
and power were by no means confined to nations
of the Nahua language, and that some of the leading
nations which accepted the Nahua ideas of religion
and government spoke other and even Maya tongues.
The struggle on the part of the Xibalbans seems to
have been that of an old effete monarchy against a
young and progressive people. Whatever its cause,
[234]
the result of the conquest was the overthrow of the
Votanic monarchs at a date which may be approximately
fixed within a century before or after the
beginning of our era.[III-95] From that time the ancient
empire disappears from traditional history, and there
is no conclusive evidence that the Xibalban kings or
their descendants ever renewed the struggle. Yet
we read of no great destruction or enslavement or
migration of the Chanes resulting from the Nahua
victory. The result was only a change of dynasty
accompanied by the introduction of some new features
in government and religious rites. The old civilization
was merged in the new, and practically lost its
identity; so much so that all the many nationalities
that in later times traced their origin to this central
region were proud, whatever their language, to claim
relationship with the successful Nahuas, whose institutions
they had adopted and whose power they had
shared.




Respecting the ensuing period of Nahua greatness
in Central America nothing is recorded save that it
ended in revolt, disaster, and a general scattering of
the tribes at some period probably preceding the fifth
century. The national names that appear in connection
with the closing struggles are the Toltecs, Chichimecs,
Quichés, Nonohualcas, and Tutul Xius, none of
them apparently identical with the Xibalbans. Indeed
there seems to be very little reason to suppose
that this final struggle was a renewal of the old contest
between the followers of Votan and Quetzalcoatl,
although Brasseur de Bourbourg seems inclined to
take that view of it; but a series of civil wars between
rival Nahua tribes, or tribes that had accepted
Nahua government, seems rather to have been the
agency that brought about their final forced migrations.
Of the subsequent history of the nations that
[235]
finally remained masters of their central home nothing
is known; it may be conjectured that the Tzendales
and Chiapanecs found by the Spaniards in that
part of the country were their somewhat degenerate
descendants. Of the tribes that were successively
defeated and forced to seek new homes, those that
spoke the Maya dialects, although considering themselves
Nahuas, seem to have settled chiefly in the
south and east.[III-96] Some of them afterwards rose to
great prominence in Guatemala and Yucatan, and
their annals will form the subject of future chapters.
The Nahua-speaking tribes as a rule established
themselves in Anáhuac and in the western and north-western
parts of Mexico, as their companion tribes, the
Olmecs and Xicalancas, had already established themselves
in the south-eastern region. The valley of
Mexico and the country immediately adjoining soon
became the centre of the Nahuas in Mexico; its history
or that of the nations that successively rose to
power there, will be continued in the following chapter.




From this epoch of separation in Chiapas the
Mayas of the south and the Nahuas of the north
were practically distinct peoples, as they have been
considered in the preceding volumes of this work.
At the date of separation all were in a certain sense
Nahua nations, and the Nahuas proper had doubtless
been considerably affected by the ancient peoples
whom they had overcome or converted, and with
whom they had so long associated:—hence the analogies
that appear between the institutions and monuments
of the north and south. Of the contrasts that
also appear, some date back to original differences between
the two rival powers; others result from development
and progress in different paths, during the
[236]
ten centuries that elapsed before the coming of the
Spaniards.




Bradford, Squier, Tylor, Viollet-le-Duc, Bartlett,
and Müller,[III-97] may be mentioned with Brasseur de
Bourbourg among the authorities who practically
agree with the conclusions expressed above, at least
so far as the southern origin of the Nahua culture is
concerned. It is true that the Abbé Brasseur's general
conclusions differ in many points from those that
I have given; that his opinions expressed in different
works and even in different parts of the same work
differ most perplexingly from each other; that his
theories in many of their details rest on foundations
that seem purely imaginary; that his style, while
fascinating to the general reader, is most confusing to
the student; and that his citations of authorities are
often inaccurate;—yet he must be regarded as the
true originator of the views advanced in this chapter,
inasmuch as the material from which they are built
up was largely the fruit of his investigations, and his
researches have done more than those of all other
writers combined to throw light on primitive American
history.




[237]



CHAPTER IV.

THE TOLTEC PERIOD.



The Nahua Occupation of Mexico in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries—Condition
of Anáhuac—The Mixcohuas and Chichimec
Culhuas—The Toltecs at Tulancingo and Tollan—Establishment
of a Monarchy and Choice of a King, 710-720 A.D.—Kingdoms
of Culhuacan and Quauhtitlan—The Teoamoxtli—Prophecies
and Death of Hueman—Birth of Quetzalcoatl—Foundation
of the Empire, 856 A.D.—Alliance between Culhuacan,
Otompan, and Tollan—Reign of Topiltzin Ceacatl
Quetzalcoatl at Tollan—Excesses of Huemac II., or Tecpancaltzin—Xochitl,
the King's Mistress—Fulfillment of the
Prophet's Predictions—Toveyo's Adventures—Plagues sent
upon the Toltecs—Famine and Pestilence—Reign of Acxitl,
or Topiltzin—Debauchery of King, Nobles, and Priests—Tokens
of Divine Wrath—Foreign Invaders—Final Overthrow
of the Toltec Empire.




The sixth and seventh centuries of our era saw the
Nahua power, represented by the various Toltec Chichimec
tribes, transferred from Central America to
the Mexican plateaux, with its centre about the lakes
of the valley. The general nature of this transfer we
may comprehend from what has been said in the preceding
chapter; of its details we know little or nothing.
Each tribe that rose to national prominence
in Anáhuac during the succeeding centuries, preserved
a somewhat vague traditional memory of its past history,
which took the form in every case of a long migration
from a distant land. In each of these records
[238]
there is probably an allusion to the original southern
empire, its disruption, and the consequent tribal scattering;
but at the same time most of the events thus
recorded relate apparently to the movements of particular
tribes in and about Anáhuac at periods long
subsequent to the original migration and immediately
preceding the final establishment of each tribe. The
Toltec version of this common record has already been
given, down to the establishment of one of the many
exiled tribes—the Toltecs proper—at Tulancingo
just north-east of the valley of Mexico. The annals
of other Nahua tribes, the Chichimecs, Nahuatlacas,
Tepanecs, Acolhuas, and Aztecs—all of which may
be regarded to a great extent as different versions of
the same common record—will be presented in a
future chapter with all their particulars, fabulous or
historical, so far as they have been preserved. The
migrations narrated may all be supposed to date back
to a common beginning, but are arranged by the
authorities chronologically according to the dates of
their termination.




We have seen the Olmec tribes established for
several centuries on the eastern plateaux, or in the
territory now constituting the states of Puebla and
Tlascala. Cholula was the Olmec capital, a flourishing
city celebrated particularly for its lofty pyramid
crowned with a magnificent temple built in honor of
Quetzalcoatl. Teotihuacan within the valley of Anáhuac
had long been as it long continued to be the religious
centre of all the Nahua nations. Here kings
and priests were elected, ordained, and buried. Hither
flocked pilgrims from every direction to consult the
oracles, to worship in the temples of the sun and moon,
and to place sacrificial offerings on the altars of their
deities. The sacred city was ruled by the long-haired
priests of the Sun, famous for their austerity and for
their wisdom. Through the hands of these priests, as
the Spanish writers tell us, yearly offerings were
made of the first fruits of all their fields; and each
[239]
year at harvest-time a solemn festival was celebrated,
not unattended by human sacrifice. It is true that
the Spanish authorities in their descriptions of Teotihuacan
and the ceremonies there performed, refer for
the most part to the Toltec rather than the pre-Toltec
period; but it has been seen in the preceding chapter
that this city rose to its position as the religious centre
of the Nahuas in Mexico long before the appearance
of the Toltecs, and there is no evidence of any essential
change in its priesthood, or the nature of its theocratic
rule.[IV-1] No national name is applied in tradition
to the people that dwelt in Teotihuacan at this period,
although the Totonacs claim to have built the pyramids
before they were driven eastward by Chichimec
tribes. Tabasco, Vera Cruz, and Tamaulipas were
occupied by Xicalancas, Totonacs, and Huastecs, respecting
whom little more than their names is known.
Southward in Oajaca were already settled the Miztecs
and Zapotecs. The Otomís, a very numerous people,
whose primitive history is altogether unknown, occupied
a large part of the valley of Mexico, and the surrounding
mountains, particularly toward the north
and north-west. There were doubtless many other
tribes in Mexico when the later Nahua nations came,
particularly in the north and west, which tribes were
driven out, at least from the most desirable locations,
subjected, or converted and partially civilized by the
new-comers; but such tribes have left no traces in
history.[IV-2]



 ANÁHUAC IN THE SIXTH CENTURY.



During the sixth and seventh centuries we must
[240]
imagine Anáhuac and the adjoining territory on the
north and west, for a broad but unknown extent, as
being gradually occupied by numerous Nahua nations
of varying power and numbers and of varying degrees
of civilization. Some were originally or soon
became in their new homes wild hunting tribes, powerful
but rude, the terror of their neighbors; others
settled in the fertile valleys, lived by agriculture, and
retained much of their original culture. The more
powerful nations, probably the most advanced in culture
as well, established themselves in and about the
valley of Mexico, where their capitals were soon flourishing
cities, and where all branches of aboriginal art
received more attention than elsewhere and were correspondingly
developed. These central peoples became
known, perhaps at once, but more probably at a
later date, as Toltecs, a name which, whatever its
original derivation and signification, became synonymous
with all that is skillful and excellent in art. On
the other hand the outside Nahua nations, many of
which had lost in their new life something of the true
Nahua polish, and all of whom were regarded more
or less as barbarians by their more favored brothers
of the lake shores, were from this time known as
Chichimecs, whatever may have been the original
application of that name.



 THE MIXCOHUAS.



It has been remarked that little or nothing is
known of the events that occurred during these two
centuries, during which the whole western section of
the country came into possession of numerous Nahua
tribes, as the eastern section had done long before,
and as the whole country remained down to the
Spanish Conquest; for there is little evidence of any
subsequent migrations from or into Mexico. Ixtlilxochitl
and the Spanish writers, Torquemada, Vetancvrt,
Clavigero, Duran, Veytia, and the rest, confine
their attention to the Toltecs proper, their migration
from Huehue Tlapallan to Tulancingo, which I have
already narrated, their subsequent removal to Tollan,
[241]
the establishment of their monarchy, and the succession
of their kings. According to these authors, the
Toltecs met no opposition, Tollan had no rivals nor
allied capitals. Brasseur de Bourbourg, however,
finds in the Codex Chimalpopoca, already alluded to,[IV-3]
and the Memorial de Culhuacan,[IV-4] another similar
chronologic record in the Nahua language, a slight
account of some of the other nations that settled in
Anáhuac at this period, even prior to the establishment
of the Toltecs at Tollan. These two documents
are the chief authorities for the whole Toltec period,
and since neither of them has ever been published,
nothing remains but to accept the version given by
the abbé.[IV-5] The Mixcohuas were the first of the new
tribes that came into notice in the annals. They
first appear at Chalchiuhapan, afterwards Tlascala,
but soon present themselves before the priests of
Teotihuacan to receive their sanction and become
'vassals of the Sun.' Faithless to the vows taken
at the sacred city, the new-comers, instead of establishing
themselves peaceably in the land, proved at
first a torment to the older inhabitants and a source
of great anxiety to the priests who had encouraged
their coming; but the first bands of Mixcohuas were
finally subdued and forced to submit to the requirements
of the priests of the Sun by the aid of other
succeeding but kindred bands of Chichimecs. Thus
the first epoch of Nahua occupation was one of strife,
during which the name of Mixcohuatl, or Mixcohuatl
Mazatzin, 'the hunter,' is most prominent;
[242]
together with those of Xiuhnel and Mimich, who
defeat the Olmecs at Huitzilapan. The united bands
under Mixcohuatl are known in the tradition as Chichimec
Culhuas, the founders of the city of Culhuacan
on the lake shore, who in a period of sixteen
years—from 670 to 686, according to the authorities—became
masters of nearly the whole region south and
east of the lakes.[IV-6] At about the same time the province
of Quauhtitlan, 'land of forests,' north-west of the
lakes, seems to have been occupied by another Chichimec
nation—for all are known in the traditions as
Chichimecs whenever they are alluded to as coming
from without the valley, but become good Toltecs as
soon as they acquire a degree of power within its
limits. Chicon Tonatiuh, 'seven suns,' is named as
the leader of this nation, and the chief cities of the
province were Huehuetocan, 'city of old men,' and
Macuexhuacan, 'city of necklaces.'



 FOUNDATION OF TOLLAN.



Meanwhile the exiles from Huehue Tlapallan were
tarrying at Tulancingo, where they had arrived toward
the end of the seventh century,[IV-7] and where—contrary
to the advice of their prophet Hueman, if we
may credit the tradition—weary with their long wanderings,
they lived from sixteen to twenty years in a
house which they built sufficiently large to accommodate
them all. During their stay they sent out parties
to make settlements in the adjoining territory, as
had been their custom wherever they had stopped
in their long migration. Finally they listened to the
counsels of the venerable Hueman, and, still under the
[243]
command of their seven chiefs, transferred their home
to Xocotitlan on the river Quetzalatl, since called Tula,
Tullanatl, or Montezuma, where they founded the city
of Tollan,[IV-8] where now stands the little village of Tula,
about thirty miles north-west of the city of Mexico.
According to Brasseur the Otomí city that stood here
before the coming of the Toltecs was called Mamhéni.
It cannot be supposed that the Otomís yielded up
their fertile valley to the strangers without a struggle;
but the relation of this struggle like that of many a
subsequent one in which the Toltecs must have engaged
in order to establish and maintain their power,
seems to have been intentionally omitted in the
native annals as recorded by the Spanish writers.




During the first six years of their stay in the
valley of the Quetzalatl, the Toltecs gave their
attention to the building of the new city, and the
careful cultivation of the surrounding lands; at least
such is the account given by Ixtlilxochitl and those
who have followed him; but, according to Brasseur's
interpretation, they spent the six years in the conquest
of the province and siege of the ancient city
which they re-named Tollan. Up to this time the
exiles from Huehue Tlapallan had lived under the
command of the rebel princes Chalcaltzin and Tlacamihtzin
with their five companions acting as chiefs
of the different families,[IV-9] but all acting under the
directions of Hueman the prophet. The great age
attributed to both prophet and chiefs, who for over
a century at the least had directed the wanderings of
their people, does not, of course merit serious discussion,
[244]
since it cannot be literally accepted. The
most natural, yet a purely conjectural, interpretation
of the tradition is that a line or family of chieftains
is represented by its founder or by its most famous
member; and that by Hueman is to be understood
the powerful priesthood that ruled the destinies of
the Toltecs, from the earliest days to the fall of their
empire. The government was a theocratic republic,
each chief directing the movements of his band in
war and, so far as such direction was needed, in
peace, but all yielding, through fear of the gods or
veneration for their representatives, implicit obedience
to the counsels of their spiritual leader in all
matters of national import. But in the seventh year
after their arrival in Tollan, when the republic was
yet in a state of peace and prosperity, undisturbed
by foreign or internal foes, the chiefs convened an
assembly of the heads of families and the leading
men. The object of the meeting was to effect a
change in the form of their government, and to
establish a monarchy. The motive of the leaders, as
represented by the tradition, was a fear of future disturbances
in a commonwealth governed by so many
independent chieftains. They recommended the election
of an absolute monarch, offering to surrender
their own power and submit to the rule of whatever
king the people might choose. The members of the
convention acquiesced in the views of the chieftains,
and approved the proposed change in their form of
government. An election being next in order, a
majority expressed their preference for one of the
seven chiefs to occupy the new throne.



 A MONARCHY ESTABLISHED.



At this stage of the proceedings Hueman addresses
the meeting; though entertaining the highest
opinion of the character, ability, and patriotism of the
candidates proposed, he deems it his duty to oppose
their election. He reminds the people that the main
object of the proposed change was to secure a peaceable
and independent possession of their new country;
[245]
that the Chichimecs had pursued and already caused
them much trouble; that much was to be feared from
their confirmed hostility; that their foes were not far
distant, and would very likely invade the country at
no very distant day. He recommended as the most
efficient means of avoiding future strife, that an embassy
with rich presents be sent to the Chichimec
monarch, asking for a son or other near relative who
should be crowned king of the Toltecs. An express
stipulation must, however, be required on the part of
the Chichimec king that the Toltecs should ever be a
perfectly free and independent people, owing no allegiance
whatever to the Chichimecs, although the two
powers would enter into an alliance for mutual defense
and assistance. The advice of the aged and venerated
counsellor was of course accepted without objection; in
fact, as pictured by the Spanish writers, Toltec history
is for the most part but a record of sage counsels of
wise rulers cheerfully acquiesced in by an appreciative
and obliging people. Ambassadors of the highest
rank, laden with gifts of value, were dispatched by the
shortest routes to the court of Huehue Tlapallan—notwithstanding
the implied vicinity of some Chichimec
nations—where Icauhtzin[IV-10] occupied the throne.
The mission was entirely successful. The second son
of the king, still a young man, whose name in his own
country is unknown, was with the required stipulations,
brought back by the embassy and crowned at
Tollan under the name of Chalchiuh Tlatonac,[IV-11] 'shining
precious stone.'




The young king, by reason of his fine personal appearance,
his character, intelligence and amiability,
[246]
seems to have greatly pleased from the first the people
over whom he was called to rule. The events related
above, the settlement at Tollan and the connection of
the first king, must be attributed to the first quarter
of the eighth century, between 710 and 720.[IV-12] Immediately
after the accession of the young monarch, a
law was established by him and his counsellors to the
effect that no king should reign more than fifty-two
years, but at the expiration of this term should abdicate
in favor of his eldest son,[IV-13] whom he might,
however, still serve as adviser. Should the king die
before the allotted time had elapsed, it was provided
that the state should be ruled during the unexpired
term by magistrates chosen by the people. In addition
to the inherent improbability of such extraordinary
legislation, it should be noted that subsequent
events, even as related by Ixtlilxochitl, do not in all
cases agree with it. Its meaning can only be conjectured;
it is noticeable, however, that the time
allotted to each reign was exactly a cycle of fifty-two
years, and it is not altogether unlikely that a custom
prevailed of alluding in the pictured annals to each
cycle by the name of the most famous king whose
reign fell within the period. The next event, and the
only one particularly recorded in the reign of Chalchiuh
Tlatonac, was his marriage. Realizing the
importance of providing for heirs that the dynasty
might be perpetuated, he left the choice of a wife entirely
to his subjects, much to their satisfaction, as indicating
a desire on the part of royalty to please the
people. The choice fell upon a beautiful daughter of
Acapichtzin. The latter had himself been a favorite
candidate for royal honors when a kingdom was first
proposed, and was thus rewarded by seeing his
daughter raised to the dignity of first Toltec queen.
[247]
The Olmec, Xicalanca, and other Toltec nations had
voluntarily given their allegiance to the monarch of
Tollan, who reigned long and prosperously for fifty-two
years, when he died and was buried in the chief
temple in 7 Acatl, or about 771 A.D.[IV-14]



 THE KINGDOM OF TOLLAN.



Thus in the record preserved by the Spanish
writers, all participation in the new monarchy by
other Chichimec Toltec tribes than those in and
about Tollan, is altogether ignored. The Olmecs and
other pre-Toltec nations are represented as having voluntarily
offered their allegiance, new towns founded
by colonists sent out from Tollan and Tulancingo
became of course tributary to the new kingdom, and
it is even admitted that powerful Chichimec nations
were established not far distant, and were regarded
with some anxiety in view of probable future events
until the danger was averted by the selection of a
Chichimec prince as king, and the consequent transformation
of their rivals into allies. The absence of
any further mention of these allied and friendly nations
throughout the whole period of Toltec history
is certainly most extraordinary, and might be sufficient
in itself to arouse a suspicion that in the records
from which this account was drawn the kingdom of
Tollan was given unmerited prominence, while its
allies and rivals were intentionally denied their share
in the glories of the Toltec empire. This suspicion
seems to be to a considerable extent confirmed by
[248]
the two Nahua documents already referred to.[IV-15]
These authorities relate substantially the same course
of events as the others, and refer them to approximately
the same date; they tell us of the original
theocratic republic ruled by independent chieftains
who were subordinate to a central sacerdotal power;
the determination finally reached to adopt a monarchical
form of government; and the choice of a
king, who does not seem to have been one of the
tribal chieftains. But they attribute these acts to
several more or less closely allied nations, of which
that established at Tollan was only one, and not the
chief. The sacerdotal supremacy attributed to the
priesthood of Tollan under the name of Hueman,
was really exercised by the priests of the sun at
Teotihuacan; there were the deliberations held; and
there probably did the first king receive the rites of
coronation. The leading nation in Anáhuac at the
time was that of the Chichimec Culhuas under Mixcohuatl
Mazatzin; those at Tollan and Quauhtitlan,
and perhaps others whose name has not been preserved,
having been less powerful allies. The choice
of the chiefs fell upon Nauhyotl, or Nauhyotzin, as
the first Toltec king, and having been crowned probably
at Teotihuacan, he established his capital at
Culhuacan, then, as for a long time after the metropolis
of Anáhuac, in 11 Calli, or 721 A.D. Of
Nauhyotl's family and previous rank nothing is
known. Whether he was a prince high in rank in
a foreign land, identical with the Chalchiuh Tlatonac
of Ixtlilxochitl, or, as Brasseur conjectures, sprung
from the union of a native princess of the pre-Toltec
tribes and a Chichimec Culhua chief, we have no
means of determining. He was the first, so far as
can be known, to assume the titles Tlatoani and
Topiltzin,[IV-16] both of which endured to the time of the
[249]
Conquest, the former signifying 'lord' or 'monarch,'
and implying the highest rank in matters temporal,
as the latter in matters spiritual, corresponding very
nearly with that of 'pope' in Catholic countries.
The close connection between church and state in all
the Nahua nations has been frequently pointed out in
this work; as the Abbé Brasseur says, "the empire
and the priesthood were one, and the ritual was the
base of the throne. In order to firmly establish the
monarchy, and ensure the fruits of their conquests,
the Toltecs must rule not only the bodies but the conscience
of their subjects. Where persuasion and the
imposing spectacle of religious ceremonies were of no
avail, violence and terror were resorted to, and insensibly
the peoples of Mexico adopted the civilization of
their masters together with their superstitious rites."[IV-17]



 KINGDOM OF QUAUHTITLAN.



In 725 Chicon Tonatiuh, assumed the title of Tlatoani
and became king of Quauhtitlan, probably in
some degree subordinate to the king at Culhuacan.
The first mention by these authorities of a king in
Tollan is to the effect that Mixcohuatl Mazatzin was
called to that throne in 752. Meantime one of Mixcohuatl's
sons, named Texcatlipocatl, afterwards deified
as Tezcatlipoca, had founded the dominion of Tezcuco,
and another son, named like his father Mixcohuatl,
but better known and afterwards worshiped as Camaxtli,
had continued the conquests of the Mixcohuas on
the eastern plateau of Huitzilapan, or Tlascala.[IV-18] In
753 Chicon Tonatiuh, who had died two years before,
was succeeded in Quauhtitlan by Xiuhnel; the new
king was murdered soon after by his subjects, or as
the tradition has it, was stabbed through the liver by
[250]
a native woman in whose arms he was sleeping. A
revolt followed, by which the Toltec power in that
province was temporarily overthrown by the aboriginal
inhabitants, whoever they may have been. In 767
Nauhyotl, king at Culhuacan, died and was succeeded
by Totepeuh, identical with Mixcohua Camaxtli, also
known as Nonohualcatl, and whose father was at
the time reigning at Tollan. Early in the reign of
Totepeuh a wide-spread war is vaguely reported as
having been waged chiefly in the regions outside the
valley. In this war the original inhabitants of the
country, the Toltec tribes already settled there, and
newly arrived Chichimec bands are vaguely mentioned
as the combatants; Xochitzin, a beautiful
princess possessed of supernatural powers, or at least
holding communication with the gods and regarded as
an oracle, was the prime mover in this war; Huactli
was the most prominent leader, in full sympathy apparently
with the Toltec sovereign; and at the end of
the strife Huactli married Xochitzin and became
king of the re-established dominion of Quauhtitlan in
804. Thirteen years later after a long reign Mixcohuatl
Mazatzin, king of Tollan, died. He had been
a very famous warrior, one of the most prominent of
all the Toltec chieftains in Anáhuac, and was in after
years worshiped as one of the gods of war.[IV-19] His
successor was Huetzin, whom Brasseur conjectures to
have been a son of the late king and identical with
Tezcatlipoca.



 THE TEOAMOXTLI, OR DIVINE BOOK.



Returning now to the other version of Toltec
history we learn that after the death of the first
king of Tollan, his son Ixtlilcuechahuac mounted the
throne.[IV-20] His reign, like that of his predecessor, was
[251]
peaceful and prosperous; but the only event recorded
was a meeting of all the sages under the direction of
the aged Hueman, which took place only a few years
before the end of the second king's term of office. At
this assembly there were brought forward all the Toltec
records reaching back to the earliest period of their
existence, and from these documents, after a long conference
and the most careful study, the Teoamoxtli, or
'book of God,' was prepared. In its pages were inscribed
the Nahua annals from the time of the deluge,
or even from the creation; together with all their religious
rites, governmental system, laws and social
customs; their knowledge respecting agriculture and
all the arts and sciences, particular attention being
given to astrology; and a complete explanation of
their modes of reckoning time and interpreting the
hieroglyphics. To the divine book was added a chapter
of prophecies respecting future events and the
signs by which it should be known when the time of
their fulfillment was drawing near.




After the completion of the Teoamoxtli, Hueman,
now three hundred years old, announced his approaching
end and made known to the Toltecs their future.
After ten cycles had elapsed from the time when they
left Huehue Tlapallan, they were to be ruled by a
king whose right to the royal power would not be undisputed
among his subjects. From his mother's
womb he would have certain personal peculiarities by
which he might be known; his curly hair would
assume the form of a mitre or tiara. The earlier
years of his reign were to be years of great prosperity;
his rule would be wise, just, and able. In middle life
the king would abandon the ways of wisdom and
virtue, giving himself up to all manner of vice
leading infallibly to disaster; and worst of all his
subjects would imitate his vicious conduct and share
[252]
in his misfortunes. Great calamities were to come
upon the Toltecs, sent by Tloque Nahuaque, the great
God, and like unto these with which their ancestors
were afflicted in the remote past. Finally the kingdom
was to be destroyed by civil wars, and the king,
driven from his possession, after nearly all his subjects
had perished, was to return to the ancient home
of their race, there in his later years to become once
more wise and discreet. Yet a sign was not denied
this fated people; for certain unnatural phenomena
were to announce their destruction as drawing nigh.
When the rabbit should have horns like a deer, and
the humming-bird be found with spurs, and stones
yield fruit; when the priests of the temples should
forget their vows of chastity with noble ladies, pilgrims
to the shrines of the god—then might they
look for the fulfillment of Hueman's predictions; for
lightnings and hail and snow, for famine and pestilence
and devouring insects, to be followed by desolating
wars. For such as escaped these disasters, or for
their descendants, another visitation of divine wrath
was reserved in the form of a foreign people from the
east, who ten cycles later were to take possession of
the country in fulfillment of the words of the ancient
prophet Quetzalcoatl. No further information is
given of Hueman's death or of Ixtlilcuechahuac's
rule.




Huetzin, the third king, was crowned, according
to Veytia's chronology, in 823,[IV-21] a date that very
nearly agrees with that given in the other version, or
817. Totepeuh,[IV-22] the fourth, elsewhere mentioned as
second king at Culhuacan, took the throne from his
father after fifty-two years; and handed it down after
a like period to his own son Nacaxoc,[IV-23] the fifth monarch
[253]
at Tollan, who was in turn succeeded by Mitl in
979.[IV-24] These reigns, the last of which lasted fifty-nine
years, were marked by the occurrence of no
event specially important, though in all great progress
was made, new towns founded, old cities beautified,
and new temples built, including one of great
magnificence at Quauhnahuac (Cuernavaca, possibly
Xochicalco) and another at Tollan intended to rival
that of the Sun at Teotihuacan, which city is incidentally
admitted to have surpassed Tollan in extent
and magnificence. During this period the Toltec power
was firmly established over a broad territory, and
there were yet no tokens of approaching destruction.[IV-25]



 TOTEPEUH KING OF TOLLAN.


 VENGEANCE OF QUETZALCOATL.



In the annals of Culhuacan we left Totepeuh on
the throne. His first military expedition was directed
towards the eastern plateau, where Chalchiuhapan,
later Tlascala, seems to have been founded at
about this time, and where this king was afterwards
worshiped under his name of Camaxtli. In his next
expedition, to the province of Huitznahuac, he encountered,
defeated after many fruitless attempts,
and finally married a bold princess Chimalman, who
fought entirely naked at the head of a body of amazons.
The conquest of Cuitlahuac next claimed his
attention, for this was the only city on the lakes that
had been able to withstand the power of his father
and predecessor. To this city and this period Brasseur
traces back the foundation of the Nahual
Teteuctin, an order of chivalry, whence proceeded
the highest titles of learning and nobility, down to
the coming of the Spaniards.[IV-26] Queen Chimalman,
[254]
becoming enceinte immediately after marriage,
dreamed that she bore in her bosom a chalchiuite, or
precious stone, and decided to name her son, predestined
to a glorious career, Quetzalcoatl Chalchiuitl.
At his birth, which occurred nine months later, the
heir was named also Ceacatl, probably from the
day on which he was born. In addition to his
mother's dream and the auguries drawn from it, the
fact that Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl united in his veins
the noblest blood of the Toltecs and the pre-Toltec
peoples, gave special import to his birth, and the
event was celebrated with great pomp at Culhuacan,
and gifts of great value were sent from all directions.[IV-27]
839 is the approximate date to which Ceacatl
Quetzalcoatl's birth is referred; his mother
died in childbed, and the child was entrusted to the
king's sister Cohuatl, a priestess of the temple, perhaps
the same as Cihuacoatl, or Cioacoatl, afterwards
deified as the goddess of childbirth.[IV-28] In 845
King Totepeuh Nonohualcatl himself, now far advanced
in years, was murdered by conspiring nobles
under the leadership of Apanecatl, Zolton, and Cuilton;
he was succeeded by Yohuallatonac, and at the
same time Ihuitimal,—a name that bears no resemblance
to that of Huetzin's successor according to
the Spanish writers,—took Huetzin's place on the
throne of Tollan. Brasseur believes that Huetzin left
Tollan to become king at Culhuacan, and that he was
the same as Yohuallatonac. It must be noted that
the confused state of the aboriginal annals is due not
only to the incompleteness of the native records—many
having been destroyed—and the errors of interpreters,
but also largely to the unfortunate custom of
the Nahua peoples of giving many names to the same
person, and multiplying names apparently in proportion
[255]
to fame and rank. It is recorded that Ceacatl,
while yet a boy, wreaked a terrible vengeance on the
murderers of his father. The latter took refuge
in the fortress of Cuitlahuac on one of the lake
islands deemed impregnable, but by a subterranean
passage leading under the waters, the prince and his
followers gained access to fort and temple. The
leaders of the conspiracy were sprinkled with red
pepper after a preparatory flaying and mangling, and
dying in indescribable torture were sacrificed to the
memory of Totepeuh, the first of the many thousand
victims subsequently offered to the same divinity under
his name of Camaxtli. From this time nothing
whatever is recorded of Ceacatl for about twenty
years, until he re-appears under his name of Quetzalcoatl
as the most celebrated of the Toltec kings and
high-priests, afterwards deified like most heroes of
this early time.




The only event recorded before the re-appearance of
Quetzalcoatl is one of great importance, a convention
of the princes and wise men of Anáhuac and vicinity.
At this assemblage the system of government and the
laws of succession were perfected and as may be supposed
given substantially the form which they preserved
down to the Conquest; but the most important
act was the establishment of an alliance between the
crowns of Culhuacan, Otompan, and Tollan. Each
king was to be perfectly independent in the affairs of
his own domain; but in matters affecting the general
interests the three monarchs were to constitute a
council, in which the king of Culhuacan was to rank
first, assuming a title nearly equivalent to that of
Emperor. Otompan took the second place and Tollan
the third. This is the first mention of Otompan as a
capital, but since its domain seems to have included
the territory of Teotihuacan and Tezcuco, its prominent
position in the league is not improbable. The
establishment of this alliance, or, as it may be more
[256]
conveniently termed, empire, is referred to the date
1 Tecpatl, 856.[IV-29]



 CEACATL QUETZALCOATL.



Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl re-appears in history, still following
the same authorities, about the year 870, and
succeeded Ihuitimal as king of Tollan, assuming the
title Topiltzin, on the death of that king in 873.[IV-30] All
[257]
the Spanish writers have much to say of Quetzalcoatl,
although none of them—except Sahagun, who expresses
himself very clearly on the subject—[IV-31] seem to
have regarded him as one of the Toltec kings in the
regular order of succession to the throne; and their
accounts are inextricably confused by reason of their
having made no distinction between Quetzalcoatl the
original culture-hero, and Quetzalcoatl, the pontiff-ruler
of Tollan, applying indiscriminately to one person
all the traditions in which the name occurred. I
will give first the regular Spanish version of these
traditions.




Mendieta records the tradition that he was the
son of Camaxtli and Chimalman, and also another
to the effect that Chimalman became pregnant by
swallowing a chalchiuite, which she found when
sweeping; but other authorities, without going back
to his birth, represent him as appearing on the eastern
coast, most of them agreeing on the region of
Pánuco as the locality. He was tall, well formed,
with broad forehead and large eyes, of fair complexion,
[258]
with long black hair[IV-32] and a full beard.
Bare as to his head and feet, he wore a long white
robe ornamented with black flowers, according to
Las Casas, or with black or red crosses, as other
writers say, supporting his steps with a staff. He
was austere in manner, but in character all that is
good, and gentle, disapproving all acts of violence
and blood, and withal most chaste, neither marrying
nor knowing women. With him was a large company
of artists and men learned in every branch of
science, whom some of the authors seem to consider
a colony from a foreign land. From Pánuco Quetzalcoatl,
with his companions, came to Tollan after
having tarried for some time, as Camargo tells us, at
Tulancingo. He was at first received by the Toltecs
with much enthusiasm, and during his stay in Tollan
filled the position of high-priest or supreme spiritual
ruler. His rule was mild, but he insisted on a strict
performance of all religious duties, and subjected
himself to severe penances, such as the drawing of
blood from tongue and limbs by means of maguey-thorns.
He was not without supernatural powers,
since his announcements made by a crier from the
top of a neighboring mountain could be heard for a
distance of three hundred miles. He introduced
many new religious rites, including the practice of
fasting and the drawing of blood from their own
body by penitents, also according to some authorities,
the establishment of convents and nunneries, and the
sacrifice of birds and animals; to human sacrifices he
was ever opposed. He was a patron of all the arts
and sciences, which in his time reached their highest
state of development.[IV-33] Finally, Quetzalcoatl left
Tollan and went to Cholula, which city with others
[259]
on the eastern plateau, some authors—still referring
to another Quetzalcoatl, and another epoch—credit
him with having founded. There are many versions
of his motives for abandoning Tollan, most referring
to certain troubles between him and a rival Huemac
or Tezcatlipoca. Playing ball with Tezcatlipoca, the
latter assumed the form of a tiger, scared the spectators
so that many fell over a precipice, and pursued
his opponent from town to town until he reached
Cholula; or he was driven away by the tricks of a
sorcerer named Titlacaâon, or Titlacahua, who appeared
in the form of an old man. By dint of much
persuasion the magician induced Quetzalcoatl, who was
unwell, to drink a medicine which he had brought, recommended
to act as a narcotic. The medicine proved
to be pulque, the high-priest was soon intoxicated, and
in this condition was easily persuaded that by going to
the ancient country of Tlapallan he might regain his
youth. The other tricks of this sorcerer are many,
but they seem to belong to the final overthrow of the
Toltec empire rather than to Quetzalcoatl's time.
Many details are given of the high-priest's journey
towards Tlapallan, of the places through which he
passed, and the wonderful traces which he left. He
is generally credited with having stopped a short
time at Quauhtitlan, and with having lived some
years at Cholula, where he was especially popular,
and where in after years his doctrines found their
most devoted followers. But his chief enemy, Huemac,
and the necromancers followed him even to
Cholula with their persecutions, and he was forced
to set out again on his journey towards Tlapallan.
He finally disappeared in the Goazacoalco region,
after predicting the future coming of bearded white
men from the east. I have given here only a brief
outline of the traditions respecting Quetzalcoatl, because
a full account has been presented in another
volume, to which the reader is referred.[IV-34]




[260]


 FLIGHT OF QUETZALCOATL.



The supposition that Quetzalcoatl was a member of
the Toltec royal family and reigned as a king at Tollan,
together with the evident confounding in the
traditions as recorded by the Spanish writers of two
distinct persons named Quetzalcoatl,[IV-35] remove most of
the difficulties connected with this famous personage,
the second of the name. It seems to me most probable
that the traditions relating to Quetzalcoatl's
foreign origin or his long absence in distant parts of
the country, his arrival at Pánuco, and his final disappearance
in the south—although these are all accepted
by Brasseur—should be referred to the Quetzalcoatl
of primitive times. The young prince, unable
for some unrevealed reason, to obtain after his arrival
at years of discretion the crown of his murdered
father, retired to some city in or near Anáhuac, probably
Tulancingo, where he first comes into notice, to
bide his time. Here he settled on his future policy
including some religious reforms, communicated with
powerful friends throughout Anáhuac, and perfected
his plans for recovering his lost throne. Some crosses
and other relics seen by the Spaniards in the mountains
of Meztitlan, were attributed by native tradition to
Ceacatl's residence in Tulancingo.[IV-36] Such was the
force of his claim as son of Totepeuh, and such the influence
of the religious dogmas zealously promulgated
by him and his disciples, that at last on the death of
Ihuitimal, perhaps his brother, he was raised to the
throne of Tollan, as has been said, in 873, under the
title of Topiltzin Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl.




[261]


 REIGN OF CEACATL.



There is nothing in the Spanish version of the
Quetzalcoatl traditions by which to fix the epoch in
which he flourished. It is merely implied that Huemac,
his chief enemy, was temporal ruler at the same
time that he exercised the functions of high-priest,
and succeeded him in power. Huemac is identified
by Brasseur, not without some reason, with Nacaxoc,
the fifth king of the Spanish writers, whose reign is
represented by them as having been most peaceful
and uneventful. He is also known as Tezcatlipoca,
and was closely related to Yohuallatonac,[IV-37] the king of
Culhuacan. In the Codex Chimalpopoca he is called
both Huemac and Matlacxochitl.




After Quetzalcoatl had been about ten years on the
throne, opposition to his power, fomented by his enemies
from the first, assumed serious proportions. Several
causes are plausibly attributed by the records and
their interpreters to this opposition. The new pontiff-king
had effected many innovations in religious ceremonies.
It does not appear that his doctrines differed
very materially from those entertained by his predecessors,
but the changes introduced by him had been
so readily admitted by reason of the popularity and
zeal of their author and his subordinates, as to excite
jealousy among the ecclesiastical powers. Most prominent
among his peculiar reforms, and the one that is
reported to have contributed most to his downfall, was
his unvarying opposition to human sacrifice. This
sacrifice had prevailed from pre-Toltec times at Teotihuacan,
and had been adopted more or less extensively
in Culhuacan and Tollan. By Quetzalcoatl it was
absolutely prohibited in the temples of the latter
capital, and thus the powerful priesthood of Otompan,
and Culhuacan was arrayed against him. Again it
is thought that under Quetzalcoatl the spiritual power
always closely connected with the temporal in Nahua
governments, became so predominant as to excite the
jealousy and fears of the nobility in Tollan, who were
[262]
restive under a priestly restraint not imposed on their
brothers of corresponding rank in the other nations
of the empire. Finally, under the rule of Ceacatl,
Tollan had become the metropolis of the empire. It
does not appear that the terms of the alliance, according
to which the monarch of Culhuacan outranked
the others, had been changed; but in the magnificence
of her palaces and temples, and the skill and
fame of her artists, if not in population, Tollan now
surpassed the cities of the valley, and thus naturally
was looked upon as a too successful rival. The dissatisfied
element at home was headed by Huemac, or
Tezcatlipoca, who had perhaps some well-founded
claim to the throne, and received the support of the
allied monarchs. The ensuing struggle is symbolized
in the record of the Spanish writers by the successive
tricks of the necromancers; and the religious strife
between rival sects was continued with more or less
bitterness down to the latest Aztec epoch. Such was
Quetzalcoatl's repugnance to the shedding of human
blood, that he seems to have voluntarily abandoned
his throne against the wishes of his more warlike partisans,
and after a brief stay in Quauhtitlan, to have
crossed to the eastern plateau of Huitzilapan in 895.
Huemac, Tezcatlipoca, or Nacaxoc succeeded immediately
to the royal power in Tollan.[IV-38]



 CONQUEST OF CHOLULA.



The teachings and influence of Quetzalcoatl had
preceded him among the Olmec nations of the eastern
region. His father, under the name of Camaxtli,
had done more than any other to bring these nations
under the Toltec power, had founded the city afterwards
known as Tlascala, and was perhaps already
worshiped as a deity. Moreover the Quetzalcoatl of
old had traditionally introduced Nahua institutions in
this region, where he was still the object of supreme
veneration. Whether the city of Cholula was actually
founded at this time or by the first Quetzalcoatl, it is
[263]
impossible to determine,[IV-39] but the coming of Ceacatl
seems to have marked the beginning of a new era of
prosperity on the eastern plateau. Temples in honor
of Camaxtli were erected in Tlascala and Huexotzinco,
while Cholula became the capital of what may
almost be termed a new Toltec monarchy. All the
southern and eastern provinces subject to the empire
during Ceacatl's reign at Tollan, gave in their adhesion
to him at Cholula. Large numbers of his partisans
also followed him from Tollan, and all the primitive
peoples, among whom human sacrifice in pre-Toltec
times had been unknown, were glad to submit
to the royal high-priest. His reign in Cholula lasted
about ten years,[IV-40] and during this time his doctrines
are thought to have been introduced by disciples dispatched
from Cholula into the southern regions of
Oajaca.




In 904 Yohuallatonac was succeeded in Culhuacan
by Quetzallacxoyatl, and Huemac, having subdued
by his strict and severe measures all open opposition
to his rule at home, but looking with much uneasiness
on the prosperity of Ceacatl in his new capital,
and the constant emigration of his own subjects eastward,
resolved again to attack his former rival. At
the head of a large army he directed his march
towards Cholula. Quetzalcoatl as before, notwithstanding
the remonstrance of his people, refused to
resist his progress, but departed before Huemac's
arrival for other lands as before related. Cholula,
with the neighboring cities and provinces fell an easy
prey to the valiant Huemac; but so long did he
remain absent in his insatiable desire to conquer new
territory, that his subjects revolted and with the
co-operation of the king of Culhuacan proclaimed
Nauhyotl king about the year 930.[IV-41] Huemac did
[264]
not yield without a struggle. Returning westward
to defend his throne he met Nauhyotl on the lake
shores; his army was routed and he was killed, or at
least disappeared. As Tezcatlipoca and under various
other titles he ever after ranked among the highest
in the pantheon of Nahua divinities.[IV-42]




During the ensuing era of peace among the Toltecs
under Nauhyotl, or Mitl, and his allies, it seems that
Cholula regained its prosperity, re-established the
institutions and worship of Quetzalcoatl, and soon
rivaled in magnificence Tollan, Culhuacan, and Teotihuacan.
Still remaining to a certain extent a part of
the Toltec empire, under the rule of the king at
Tollan, Cholula seems to have preferred from this
period a republican form of home rule, similar, if not
identical, to that in vogue on the eastern plateau at
the coming of the Spaniards.[IV-43] Four of Quetzalcoatl's
chief disciples were charged with the establishment
of a permanent government, which they
entrusted to two supreme magistrates, one chosen
from the priesthood and exercising the functions of
high-priest under the title of Tlachiach or 'lord from
on high,' and the other from the nobility being at
the head of the civil government with the title
Aquiach.



 REIGN OF NAUHYOTL.



The reign of Nauhyotl, or Mitl,[IV-44] at Tollan was
one of great prosperity and peace. The new king
devoted all his energies to promoting the glory of
his capital city, where he re-established nearly all
the reforms instituted by Ceacatl and partially abolished
[265]
by Huemac. He is represented as having
looked with some uneasiness on the growing prosperity
of Cholula, and on the pilgrimages continually
undertaken by residents of Tollan to the eastern
shrines; but instead of resorting like his predecessor
to hostile measures, he determined to eclipse the
glory of Cholula by the erection of new and magnificent
temples at home. The finest of these temples
was that built in honor of the Goddess of
Water,[IV-45] or the Frog Goddess, to which was attached
a college of priests vowed to celibacy. Meantime
the worship of Camaxtli and Tlaloc were more firmly
established than before at Tlascala and Huexotzinco,
and grand temples were built in several Toltec provinces
without Anáhuac, particularly in the south, one
of the most famous being near Quauhnahuac, later
Cuernavaca, the ruins of which may be supposed with
some plausibility to be identical with those of Xochicalco.[IV-46]
After having restored Tollan to the position
it had occupied under Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, Nauhyotl
died after a reign of fifteen years in 945.[IV-47]




All the authorities agree that Nauhyotl was succeeded
at his death by his queen Xiuhtlaltzin,[IV-48] who
reigned four years, showing great zeal and wisdom in
the management of public affairs, and dying deeply
regretted by all her subjects.[IV-49] The Spanish writers
name Tecpancaltzin as the successor of the lamented
[266]
queen, referring to his reign and to that of his successor
the events which brought about the overthrow
of the Toltec empire. The Nahua records, however,
represent queen Xiuhtlaltzin as having been followed
by her son Matlaccoatl, who reigned from 949 to 973,
and who in his turn was succeeded by Tlilcoatzin,
ruling from 973 to 994, and preceding Tecpancaltzin,
respecting whose reign these records agree to a great
extent with the other authorities. We have no
record of any specific events that occurred during
the reign of the three sovereigns last mentioned, save
that in Culhuacan Quetzallacxoyatl was succeeded
in 953 by Chalchiuh Tlatonac, and the latter in 985
by Totepeuh, the second of the name.[IV-50]




I come now to the last century of the period to
which this chapter is devoted, a century whose annals
form a continuous record of civil and religious strife
in Anáhuac, invasions by powerful bands from the
adjoining regions on the north and north-west, pestilence
and famine, resulting in the utter overthrow of
the Toltec empire. There is somewhat less contradiction
among the two classes of authorities quoted respecting
the events of this century than in the case
of those preceding. The Spanish writers still speak
of Tollan, it is true, as if that city alone constituted
the empire; but the Nahua documents also ascribe
almost exclusively to Tollan the occurrences which
caused the destruction of the Toltec power. The
latter documents, however, still keep up the thread of
historical events at Culhuacan and in other provinces,
and they are doubtless much more reliable in the
matter of dates than the Spanish version, besides
narrating the invasions of foreign tribes, a disturbing
element in Toltec politics almost entirely ignored by
Ixtlilxochitl and his followers. Notwithstanding the
[267]
general agreement of the authorities referred to,
it must be noted that the record is but a succession of
tales in which the marvelous and supernatural largely
predominate, conveying a tolerably accurate idea of
the general course of history during this period, but
throwing very little light on its details. In accordance
with my plan already announced, I have but to
tell the tales as they are recorded; their general meaning
is sufficiently apparent, and I shall offer but rarely
conjectures respecting the specific significance of each.



 REIGN OF HUEMAC II.



Huemac II., also known as Tecpancaltzin,[IV-51] the eldest
son of Totepeuh II. of Culhuacan, mounted the
throne of Tollan in 994,[IV-52] at a time when that city in
respect of art and high culture was at the head of the
empire, although Culhuacan still retained her original
political supremacy, while both Teotihuacan and Cholula
were rivals in the power and fame of their respective
priesthood. There are no data for assigning
even approximately exact limits to the Toltec empire
at this period. It is probably, however, that while
the Toltec was less absolute and despotic than the
Aztec power in the sixteenth century, yet it was
exerted throughout fully as wide an extent of territory,
including Michoacan and a broad region in the north-west
never altogether subjected to the Aztec kings.
The Toltec domain had been enlarged gradually by
the influence of the priesthood, particularly under
Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, until there were few provinces
from Tehuantepec to Zacatecas, from the North to the
South Sea, which did not render a voluntary allegiance
to the allied monarchs of the central region.
And at the same time it cannot be believed that
foreign conquest by force of arms had so small a place
among the events of Toltec history as the records
[268]
would imply. Huemac II., unlike the first of the
same name, belonged to the sect of Quetzalcoatl,
using his power to restrain the practice of human
sacrifice if not altogether abolishing it in the temples
of Tollan. He even seems to have added the name
of Quetzalcoatl to his other royal and pontifical titles,
or possibly had this title before his coronation, as
high-priest of the sect at Culhuacan. The application
of this title to Huemac, and that of Tezcatlipoca to
the high-priest of the rival sect, has been productive
of no little confusion in the record, since it is sometimes
impossible to decide whether certain events
should be attributed to this reign or to the time of
Ceacatl and Huemac I. The new king was endowed
with fine natural qualifications for his position, and
enjoyed to a remarkable degree the confidence and
esteem of the people. During the first year he ruled
with great wisdom, speaking but little, attending
most strictly to the performance of his religious duties,
and always prompt in the administration of justice to
his subjects of whatever station; but the old fire of
religious strife, though smouldering, was yet alive and
ready to be fanned into a conflagration which should
consume the whole Toltec structure. The leaders of
the rival sect, followers of the bloody Tezcatlipoca
and bitter enemies to all followers of Quetzalcoatl,
although now in the minority were constantly intriguing
for the fall of Huemac. But they well knew the
popularity of their hated foe, and bent all their energies
to the task of dragging him down from his lofty
pedestal of popular esteem, by tempting him into the
commission of acts unworthy of himself as high-priest,
king, and successor of the great Quetzalcoatl. A
scandal was to be created; wine and women were naturally
the agents to be employed; the tale is a very
strange one.



 THE KING'S MISTRESS.



Papantzin, a Toltec noble of high rank, presented
himself one day at court, together with his daughter,
[269]
the beautiful Xochitl,[IV-53] bearing with other gifts to the
king a kind of syrup and sugar made from maguey-juice
by a process of which Papantzin was the
inventor. This syrup is generally spoken of as
pulque, but there seems to be little reason for making
a fermented liquor of 'miel prieta de maguey.'[IV-54]
Whatever the nature of the syrup, it pleased the
royal palate, and the lovely face and form of the
young Xochitl were no less pleasing to the royal eye.
The king expressed his appreciation of the new invention,
and his desire to receive additional samples
of the sweet preparation, at the same time telling
the father that he would be pleased to receive such
gifts at the hands of the daughter, who might visit
him for such a purpose unattended save by a servant.
Proud of the honor shown to his family, and without
suspicion of evil intentions, Papantzin only a few
days later sent Xochitl, accompanied by an elderly
female attendant, with a new gift of maguey-syrup.
The attendant was directed to await her mistress in
a distant apartment of the palace, while Xochitl
was introduced alone to the presence of Huemac.
Bravely the maiden resisted the monarch's blandishments
and protestations of ardent love, but by threats
and force was compelled to yield her person to his
embrace. She was then sent to the strongly-guarded
palace of Palpan near the capital, and there, cut off
from all communication with parents or friends, lived
as the king's mistress. Her parents were notified
that their daughter had been entrusted by Huemac
to the care of certain ladies who would perfect her
education and fit her for a prominent position among
[270]
the ladies of the court and for a brilliant marriage.
To Papantzin the royal manner of showing honor to
his family seemed at best novel and strange, but he
could suspect no evil intent on the part of the pious
representative of Quetzalcoatl. New favors were
subsequently shown the dishonored father, in the
shape of lands and titles and promises. For three
years Huemac continued his guilty amour in secret,
and in the meantime, in 1002,[IV-55] a child was born,
named Meconetzin, 'child of the maguey,' or at a
later period Acxitl. According to the Codex Chimalpopoca
the king during these three years gave
himself up to the pleasures of the wine cup also,
yielding to the temptations placed before him by the
crafty followers of Tezcatlipoca, and during one of
his drunken orgies revealed the secret of his love;
but however this may have been, that secret was
finally suspected; Papantzin in the disguise of a
laborer visited the palace of Palpan, met his daughter
with the young Meconetzin in her arms, and listened
to the tale of her shame. The angry father seems
to have been quieted with the promise that his
daughter's son should be proclaimed heir to the
throne, since the queen had borne her husband only
daughters; but the scandal once suspected was spread
far and wide by the priesthood of Tezcatlipoca, and
the faith of the Toltecs in their saintly monarch was
shaken. The queen having died, Xochitl with her
young son was brought to the royal palace, and there
is some reason to suppose that she was made Huemac's
legitimate queen by a regular marriage. Very
serious dissatisfaction, and even open hostility among
the princes of highest rank, were excited by the
king's actions, both on account of the shameful
nature of such acts, and also because their own
chance of future succession to the throne was destroyed
by Huemac's avowed intention to make
Acxitl his heir. Everything presaged a revolution,
[271]
and the foes of Quetzalcoatl were cheered with hopes
of approaching triumph. Huemac's mind was filled
with trouble, which all the flattery of the court could
not wholly remove, and the prospects of his family
were not brightened by the fact that the young
Acxitl from his birth had the physical peculiarities
predicted by the prophet Hueman of olden time, in
connection with such wide-spread and fatal disasters.
Yet it was hoped that by careful instruction and
training, even the decrees of fate might be reversed
and impending disaster averted, especially as in childhood
and youth prince Acxitl gave most cheering
promise of future goodness and ability.[IV-56]



 TOVEYO'S ADVENTURES.



Another event served to increase the troubles that
began to gather about the throne. It appears that
Huemac by his first queen Maxio had three daughters,
who were much sought in marriage, rather for
motives of political ambition, perhaps, than love, by
the Toltec nobles. One especially was greatly beloved
by her father and none of the many aspirants to her
hand found favor in her eyes. One day while walking
among the flowers in the royal gardens, she came
upon a man selling chile. Some of the traditions say
that the pepper-vender, Toveyo,[IV-57] was Tezcatlipoca
who had assumed the appearance of a plebeian; at
any rate he was entirely naked and awakened in the
bosom of the princess a love for which her Toltec
suitors had sighed in vain. So violent was her passion
as to bring on serious illness, the cause of which
was told by her maids to Huemac, and the indulgent
father, though very angry with Toveyo at first, finally,
as the only means of restoring his daughter to health,
sought out the plebeian vender of pepper and forced
him, perhaps not very much against his will, to be
[272]
washed and dressed and to become the husband of the
love-sick princess. This marriage caused great dissatisfaction
and indignation among the Toltecs; an indignation
that is easily understood, however the legend
be interpreted. In case a literal interpretation be accepted,
the upper classes in Tollan may naturally
have been shocked by the admission of a low-born
peasant to the royal family; on the other hand the
version given may have originated with the disappointed
suitors, who gratified their spite by reviling
the successful Toveyo. It is also possible that the
legend symbolizes by this marriage the granting of
new privileges to the lower classes against the will of
the nobility; however this may be, the result was
wide-spread discontent ready to burst forth in open
revolt.[IV-58]




Among the disaffected lords who openly revolted
against Tollan, Cohuanacotzin, Huehuetzin, Xiuhtenancaltzin,
and Mexoyotzin[IV-59] are mentioned, by Ixtlilxochitl
as rulers of provinces on the Atlantic, by Veytia
as lords of regions extending from Quiahuiztlan
(according to Brasseur, Vera Cruz) northward along
the coast of the North Sea to a point beyond Jalisco.
Respecting the events of this revolution of Toltec provinces
thus vaguely located, we have only the continuation
of Toveyo's adventures, which seems to belong
to this war. The tale runs that Huemac, somewhat
frightened at the storm of indignation which followed
his choice of a son-in-law, sent him out to fight in the
wars of Cacatepec and Coatepec, giving secret orders
that he should be so stationed in battle as to be inevitably
killed. The main body of the Toltec army
yielded to the superior numbers of the foe and fled to
Tollan, leaving Toveyo and his followers to their fate;
but the latter, either by his superior skill or by his
powers as a magician, notwithstanding the small force
[273]
at his command, utterly routed the enemy and returned
in triumph to the capital, where the king and
people received him with great honors and public demonstrations
of joy. For a time the kingdom seems
to have remained without disturbance, and fortune
once more smiled on Huemac.[IV-60]



 OMENS OF DESTRUCTION.



As to the exact order in which occurred the subsequent
disasters by which the Toltec empire was
overthrown, the authorities differ somewhat, although
agreeing tolerably well respecting their
nature. Many events ascribed by Brasseur to Huemac's
reign are by Veytia and others described as
having happened in that of his successor. There
can, however, be but little hesitation in following the
chronology of the Nahua documents often referred
to, in preference to that of the Spanish writers. The
latter is certainly erroneous; the former at the worst
is only probably so. With his returning prosperity
the king seems to have returned to his evil ways
while the partizans of Tezcatlipoca resumed their
intrigues against him. The sorcerer assembled a
mighty crowd near Tollan, and kept them dancing
to the music of his drum until midnight, when by
reason of the darkness and their intoxication they
crowded each other off a precipice into a deep ravine,
where they were turned to stone. A stone bridge
was also broken by the necromancer and crowds precipitated
into the river.[IV-61] Other wonderful acts of
the sorcerer against the well-being of the Toltecs as
[274]
related by Sahagun have been given in another volume.[IV-62]
From one of the neighboring volcanoes a
flood of glowing lava poured, and in its lurid light
appeared frightful spectres threatening the capital.
A sacrifice of captives in honor of Tezcatlipoca, was
decided upon to appease the angry gods, a sacrifice
which Huemac was forced to sanction. But when a
young boy, chosen by lot as the first victim, was
placed upon the altar and the obsidian knife plunged
into his breast, no heart was found in his body, and
his veins were without blood. The fetid odor exhaled
from the corpse caused a pestilence involving
thousands of deaths. The struggles of the Toltecs
to get rid of the body have been elsewhere related.[IV-63]
Next the Tlaloc divinities appeared to Huemac as he
walked in the forest, and were implored by him not
to take from him his wealth and his royal splendor.
The gods were wroth at this petition, his apparent
selfishness, and want of penitence for past sins, and
they departed announcing their purpose to bring
plagues and suffering upon the proud Toltecs for six
years. The winter of 1018 was so cold that all
plants and seeds were killed by frost, and was followed
by a hot summer, which parched the whole
surface of the country, dried up the streams, and
even calcined the solid rocks.



 PLAGUES SENT UPON THE TOLTECS.



Here seem to belong the series of plagues described
by the Spanish writers, although attributed by them
to the following reign.[IV-64] The plagues began with
heavy storms of rain, destroying the ripening crops,
flooding the streets of towns, continuing for a hundred
days, and causing great fear of a universal deluge.
Heavy gales followed, which leveled the finest buildings
[275]
to the ground; and toads in immense numbers
covered the ground, consuming everything edible and
even penetrating the dwellings of the people. The
next year unprecedented heat and drought prevailed,
rendering useless all agricultural labor, and causing
much starvation. Next heavy frosts destroyed what
little the heat had spared, not even the hardy maguey
surviving; and then came upon the land great swarms
of birds and locusts and various insects. Lightning
and hail completed the work of devastation, and as a
result of all their afflictions Ixtlilxochitl informs us
that nine hundred of every thousand Toltecs perished.
Huemac and his followers were held responsible for
disasters that had come upon the people; a hungry
mob of citizens and strangers crowded the street of
Tollan and even invaded the palace of the nobles,
instigated and headed by the partizans of Tezcatlipoca;
and the king was even forced at one time to abandon
the city for a time. The Codex Chimalpopoca represented
the long rain already referred to as having
occurred at the end of six years' drought and famine,
and to have inaugurated a new season of plenty.
Ixtlilxochitl refers to bloody wars as among the evils
of the time. All we may learn from the confused
accounts, is that the Toltec empire at that period
was afflicted with war, famine, and pestilence; and
that these afflictions were attributed to the sins of
Huemac II., by his enemies and such of the people as
they could influence.




After the plagues were past, and prosperity had
again begun to smile upon the land, Huemac abandoned
his evil ways and gave his whole attention to
promoting the welfare of his people; but he still
clung with fatal obstinacy to his purpose of placing
his son on the throne, and determined to abdicate
immediately in favor of Acxitl. His father, king of
Culhuacan, died in 1026, and the crown, to which
Huemac himself, as the eldest son would seem to
have been entitled, passed to Totepeuh's second son,
[276]
Nauhyotl II. It is possible that Huemac consented
to this concession in consideration of the support of
the new king in his own projects at Tollan. After
thoroughly canvassing the sentiments of his vassal
lords, and conciliating the good will of the wavering
by a grant of new honors and possessions, he publicly
announced his intention to place Acxitl on the
throne. The immediate consequence was a new revolt,
and from an unexpected source, since it was
abetted if not originated by the followers of Quetzalcoatl,
who deemed Acxitl, the child of adulterous
love, an unworthy successor of their great prophet.
Maxtlatzin was the most prominent of the many
nobles who espoused the rebel cause, and Quauhtli
was the choice of the malcontents for the rank of
high-priest of Quetzalcoatl. To such an extremity
was the cause of Huemac and his son reduced that
they were forced to a compromise with the two
leaders of the revolt, who consented to support the
cause of Acxitl on condition of being themselves
raised to the highest rank after the son of Huemac,
and of forming with him a kind of triumvirate by which
the kingdom should be ruled. All the authorities
agree respecting this compromise, although only the
documents consulted by Brasseur speak of open revolt
as the cause which led to it. It is evident, however,
that nothing but the most imminent danger
could have induced the king of Tollan to have entered
into so humiliating an arrangement. Immediately
after the consummation of the new alliance, the 'child
of the maguey' was crowned king and high-priest
with great ceremony in 1029, under the title of Topiltzin
Acxitl Quetzalcoatl. Topiltzin is the name
by which he is usually called by the Spanish writers,
although it was in reality, like that of Quetzalcoatl,
a title held by several kings. Acxitl is the more
convenient name, as distinguishing him clearly from
his father and from Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl. Huemac
[277]
and Queen Xochitl retired ostensibly from all connection
with public affairs.[IV-65]



 EXCESSES OF ACXITL.



The three lords of distant provinces, Huehuetzin,
Xiuhtenancaltzin, and Cohuanacotzin, who had once
before rebelled against the king of Tollan, now refused
their allegiance to Acxitl; but at first they for some
reason, perhaps their own difficulties with the wild
tribes about them, engaged in no open hostilities.
The new monarch, then about forty years of age, justified
the high promise of his youth, and guided by
the sage counsels of his reformed father, ruled most
wisely for several years, gradually gaining the confidence
of his subjects. But the decrees of the gods
were infallible, and Acxitl, like his father before him,
yielded to temptation and plunged into all manner of
lasciviousness and riotous living. So low did he fall
as to make use of his position of high-priest to gratify
his evil passions. His inciters and agents were still
Tezcatlipoca and his crafty partisans, who persuaded
ladies of every rank that by yielding to the king's
embraces they would merit divine favor. The royal
example was followed by both nobles and priests.
High church dignitaries and priestesses of the temples
consecrated to life-long chastity forgot all their vows;
force was employed where persuasion failed. So
openly were the requirements of morality disregarded,
that the high-priestess of the Goddess of the Water,
a princess of royal blood, on a pilgrimage to the
temple of Quetzalcoatl at Cholula, lived openly with
the chief pontiff of that city and bore him a son, who
afterwards succeeded to the highest ecclesiastical rank.
Vice took complete possession of society in all its
classes, spreading to cities and provinces not under the
immediate authority of Tollan. Public affairs were
[278]
left to be managed by unscrupulous royal favorites;
the prayers of the aged Huemac and Xochitl to the
gods, like their remonstrances with Acxitl, were unavailing;
crimes of all kinds remained unpunished;
robbery and murder were of frequent occurrence; and
the king was justly held responsible for all.




But Acxitl was at last brought to his senses, and
his fears if not his conscience were thoroughly aroused.
Walking in his garden one morning, he saw a small
animal of peculiar appearance, with horns like a deer,
which, having been killed, proved to be a rabbit.
Shortly after he saw a huitzilin, or humming-bird,
with spurs, a most extraordinary thing. Topiltzin
Acxitl was familiar with the Teoamoxtli, or 'divine
book,' and with Huemac's predictions; well he knew,
and was confirmed in his opinion by the sages and
priests who were consulted, that the phenomena observed
were the tokens of final disaster. The king's
reformation was sudden and complete; the priests
held out hopes that the prodigies were warnings, and
that their consequences might possibly be averted by
prayer, sacrifice, and reform. The Spanish writers
introduce at this period the series of plagues, which I
have given under Huemac's reign; and Brasseur adds
to the appearance of the rabbit and the humming-bird
two or three of the wonderful events attributed
by Sahagun to the necromancer Titlacaâon, without
any reason that I know of for ascribing these occurrences
to this particular time. Such were the appearance
of a bird bearing an arrow in its claws and
menacingly soaring over the doomed capital; the falling
of a great stone of sacrifice near the present
locality of Chapultepec; and the coming of an old
woman selling paper flags which proved fatal to every
purchaser.[IV-66] These events occurred in 1036 and the
following years. The king was wholly unable to
check the torrent of vice which was flowing over the
land; indeed, in his desire to atone for his past faults,
[279]
he seems to have resorted to such severe measures as
to have defeated his own aims, converting his former
friends and flatterers into bitter foes.



 CHICHIMEC INVASION.



In the midst of other troubles came the news that
Huehuetzin was marching at the head of the rebel
forces towards Tollan, and was already most successful
on the northern frontier. The other two lords
from the gulf coasts, who had refused to acknowledge
the power of Acxitl, were in league with Huehuetzin.
Unable to resist this formidable army, the Toltec
king was compelled to send ambassadors bearing
rich presents to sue for peace,—according to the Spanish
writers at the capitals of the distant rebellious
provinces; but as Brasseur says to the headquarters
of the hostile army not very far from Tollan. The
presents were received, but no satisfactory agreement
seems to have been made at first. Veytia and Ixtlilxochitl
speak vaguely of a truce that was concluded
as a result of this or a subsequent embassy, to the
effect that the Toltecs should not be molested for ten
years, an old military usage requiring that ten years
should always intervene between the declaration of
war and the commencement of hostilities; and the
latter states that the army was withdrawn in the
meantime, because sufficient supplies could not be obtained
in the territory of the Toltecs. Brasseur,
without referring to any other authorities than those
named, tells us that after remaining a whole year near
Tollan, Huehuetzin was forced to return to his own
province to repel the invasions of hostile tribes, which
tribes, it is implied, were induced to come southward
and to harass the Toltec nations.[IV-67]




Taking advantage of the precarious condition of
the Toltecs, many of the tribes even in and about
Anáhuac shook off all allegiance to the empire, and
became altogether independent; and at the same
[280]
time numerous Chichimec tribes from abroad took
advantage of the favorable opportunity to secure
homes in the lake region. These foreign tribes are
all reported to have come from the north, but it is
extremely doubtful if any accurate information respecting
the invaders has been preserved. For the
conjecture that all or any of them came from the
distant north, from California, Utah, or the Mississippi
Valley, there are absolutely no grounds; although
it is of course impossible to prove that all
came from the region adjoining Anáhuac. By far
the most reasonable conjecture is that the invaders
were the numerous Nahua bands who had settled in
the west and north-west, in Michoacan, Jalisco, and
Zacatecas, about the same time that the nations called
Toltecs had established themselves in and about
Anáhuac. Brasseur finds in his authorities, the only
ones that give any particulars of the invaders, that
among the first Chichimec bands to arrive were the
Acxotecas and Eztlepictin, both constituting together
the Teotenancas. The Eztlepictin settled in the
valley of Tenanco, south of the lakes, while the
Acxotecas took possession of the fertile valleys about
Tollan. A war between Nauhyotl II. of Culhuacan
and the king of Tollan is then vaguely recorded, in
which Acxitl was victorious, but is supposed to have
suffered from the constant hostility of Culhuacan
from that time forward, although that kingdom soon
had enough to do to defend her own possessions.
The Eztlepictin introduced a new divinity, and a
new worship, which Acxitl, as successor of Quetzalcoatl
made a desperate effort to overthrow. He
marched with all the forces he could command to
Tenanco, but was defeated in every battle. What
was worse yet, during his absence on this campaign,
the Acxoteca branch of the invaders were admitted,
under their leader Xalliteuctli, by the partisans of
Tezcatlipoca into Tollan itself. Civil strife ensued
in the streets of the capital between the three rival
[281]
sects, until Tollan with all her noble structures was
well-nigh in ruins. At the same time wars were
waged between the three allied kingdoms, and pest
and famine came once more upon the land. These
events occurred between 1040 and 1047.[IV-68]



 TOKENS OF DIVINE WRATH.



It was evident that the gods were very angry with
this unhappy people. To avert their wrath, as Torquemada
relates, a meeting of all the wise men, priests,
and nobles, was convened at Teotihuacan, where the
gods from the most ancient times had been wont to
hear the prayers of men. In the midst of the propitiatory
feasts and sacrifices a demon of gigantic proportions
with long bony arms and fingers appeared
dancing in the court where the people were assembled.
Whirling through the crowd in every direction the
demon seized upon the Toltecs that came in his way
and dashed them lifeless at his feet. Multitudes
perished but none had the strength to fly. A second
time the giant appeared in a slightly different form
and again the Toltecs fell by hundreds in his grasp.
At his next appearance the demon assumed the form
of a white and beautiful child sitting on a rock and
gazing at the holy city from a neighboring hilltop.
As the people rushed in crowds to investigate the
new phenomena, it was discovered that the child's
head was a mass of corruption, exhaling a stench so
fatal that all who approached were stricken with sudden
death. Finally the devil or god appeared in a
form not recorded and warned the assembly that the
fate of the Toltecs in that country was sealed; the
gods would not listen to further petitions; the people
could escape total annihilation only by flight. The
assembly broke up, and the members returned to their
homes utterly disheartened.[IV-69]




Large numbers of the Toltec nobles had already
[282]
abandoned their country and departed for foreign
provinces, and this emigration was constantly on the
increase even before it was definitely determined by
the ruler to migrate. In the meantime, if Brasseur's
authorities may be credited, a new sect, the Ixcuinames
or 'masked matrons,' introduced their rites,
including phallic worship and all manner of sorcery
and debauchery, into Tollan, thus adding a new element
of discord in that fated city. The Ixcuinames
originated in the region of Pánuco among the Huastecs,
and began to flourish in Tollan about 1058.[IV-70]
To civil and religious strife, with other internal
troubles, was now added the peril of foreign invasion.
According to the Spanish writers the ten years'
truce concluded between Acxitl and his foes under
the command of Huehuetzin, was now about to expire,
and the rebel prince of the north appeared at
the head of an immense army, ready to submit his
differences with the Toltec king to the arbitration of
the battle-field. According to Brasseur, the Teo-Chichimecs
invaded the rest of Anáhuac, while the
former foes of Huemac and his son, under Huehuetzin,
from the provinces of Quiahuiztlan and Jalisco,
threatened Tollan. I may remark here that I have
little faith in this author's division into tribes of the
hordes that invaded Anáhuac at this period and in
the following years. We know that many bands from
the surrounding region, particularly on the north, most
of them probably Nahua tribes, did take advantage
of internal dissensions among the Toltec nations to
invade the central region. For a period of many
years they warred unceasingly with the older nations
and among themselves; but to trace the fortunes of
particular tribes through this maze of inter-tribal
conflict is a hopeless task which I shall not attempt.
Many of these so-called Chichimec invading tribes
afterwards became great nations, and played a prominent
part in the annals to be given in future chapters;
[283]
and while it is not improbable that some of
them, as the Teo-Chichimecs, Acolhuas, or Tepanecs,
were identical with the invading tribes which overthrew
the Toltec empire, there is no sufficient authority
for attempting so to identify any one of them.
Neither do I find any authority whatever for the
conjecture that the invaders were barbarian hordes
from the distant north, who broke through the belt
of Nahua nations which surrounded Anáhuac, or
were instigated by those nations from jealousy of
Toltec power to undertake its overthrow. Yet it
would be rash to assume that none of the wild tribes
took part in the ensuing struggle; as allies, or under
Nahua leaders, they probably rendered efficient aid
to the Chichimec invaders, and afterwards in many
cases merged their tribal existence in that of the
Chichimec nations.



 CONQUEST OF ANÁHUAC.



The other Toltec cities, Otompan, Tezcuco, Culhuacan,
seem to have fallen before the invaders even before
Tollan, although it is vaguely reported that after
the destruction of Otompan the king of Culhuacan
formed a new alliance for defense with Azcapuzalco
and Coatlichan, excluding Tollan. All the cities
were sacked and burned as fast as conquered except
Culhuacan, which seems to have escaped destruction
by admitting the invaders within her gates and probably
becoming their allies or vassals. This was in
1060.[IV-71] Meantime Huehuetzin's forces were threatening
Tollan. By strenuous efforts a large army had
been raised and equipped for the defense of the royal
cause. The princes Quauhtli and Maxtlatzin, lately
allied to the throne, brought all their forces to aid the
king against whom they had formerly rebelled. The
aged Huemac came out from his retirement and strove
with the ardor of youth to ward off the destruction
which he could but attribute to his indiscretions of many
years ago. Even Xochitl, the king's mother, is reported
to have enlisted an army of amazons from the
[284]
women of Tollan and to have placed herself at their
head. Acxitl formed his army into two divisions, one
of which, under a lord named Huehuetenuxcatl,
marched out to meet the enemy, while the other, commanded
by the king himself, was stationed within
intrenchments at Tultitlan. The advance army, after
one day's battle without decisive result, fell back and
determined to act on the defensive. Reinforced by
the division under Huemac, and by Xochitl's amazons,
who fought most bravely, General Huehuetenuxcatl
carried on the war for three years, but was at last
driven back to join the king. At Tultitlan a final
stand was made by Acxitl's orders. For many days
the battle raged here until the Toltecs were nearly
exterminated, and driven back step by step to Tollan,
Xaltocan, Teotihuacan, and Xochitlalpan successively.
Here Huemac and Xochitl were slain, also Quauhtli
and Maxtlatzin. Acxitl escaped by hiding in a cave
at Xico in Lake Chalco. In a final encounter General
Huehuetenuxcatl fell, and the small remnant of
the Toltec army was scattered in the mountains and
in the marshes of the lake shore.[IV-72]



 FLIGHT OF ACXITL



From his place of concealment at Xico, Topiltzin
Acxitl secretly visited Culhuacan, gathered a few
faithful followers about him, announced his intention
of returning to Huehue Tlapallan, promised to intercede
in their behalf with the Chichimec emperor of
their old home, and having committed his two infant
[285]
children Pochotl and Xilotzin to faithful guardians to
be brought up in ignorance of their royal birth, he
left the country in 1062.[IV-73] He is supposed to have gone
southward accompanied by a few followers. Other
bodies of Toltecs had previously abandoned the country
and gone in the same direction, and large numbers are
reported to have remained in Culhuacan, Cholula,
Chapultepec and many other towns that are named.
Veytia, Ixtlilxochitl, Torquemada, and Clavigero tell
us that of these who fled some founded settlements
on the coasts of both oceans, from which came parties
at subsequent periods to re-establish themselves in
Anáhuac. Others crossed the isthmus of Tehuantepec
and passed into the southern lands. The other
authors also agree that of those who escaped destruction
part remained, and the rest were scattered in
various directions. None imply a general migration
en masse towards the south.[IV-74] Lists are given of the
[286]
Toltec nobles that remained in Anáhuac and of the
cities where they resided. The larger number were at
Culhuacan, under Xiuhtemoc, to whom the king's children
were confided. These remaining Toltecs were
afterwards called from the name of their city Culhuas.[IV-75]




Brasseur finds in his two Nahua records data for
certain events that took place after the flight of Topiltzin
Acxitl. Maxtlatzin, as he claims, escaped
from the final battle and intrenched himself in one of
the strong fortresses among the ruins of Tollan. The
Chichimecs soon took possession of the city in two
divisions known as Toltec Chichimecs and Nonohualcas.
They even went through the forms of choosing
a successor to Acxitl, selecting a boy named Matlacxochitl,
whom they crowned as Huemac III. To
him the chiefs rendered a kind of mock allegiance, but
still held the power in their own hands. Desperate
struggles ensued between the two Chichimec bands
led by Huehuetzin and Icxicohuatl, the followers of
Tezcatlipoca under Yaotl, and the forces of Maxtlatzin
in the fortress. The result was the murder of the
mock king about 1064, and the final abandonment of
Tollan soon after. It is claimed by the authorities
which record these events that Huemac II. survived
all these troubles and died at Chapultepec in 1070.[IV-76]




[287]


 DOWNFALL OF THE EMPIRE.



It is not difficult to form a tolerably clear idea of
the state of affairs in Anáhuac at the downfall of the
Toltec empire, notwithstanding the confusion of the
records. There is, as we have seen, no evidence of a
general migration southward or in any other direction.
It is true the records speak of a large majority of the
Toltecs as having migrated in different directions as a
result of their disasters, but it must be remembered
that in America, as elsewhere, historical annals of
early periods had to do with the deeds and fortunes of
priests and kings and noble families; the common
people were useful to fight and pay taxes, but were
altogether unworthy of a place in history. It is probable
that the name Toltecs, a title of distinction
rather than a national name, was never applied at all
to the common people. When by civil strife and
foreign invasion their power was overthrown, many of
the leaders, spiritual and temporal, doubtless abandoned
the country, preferring to try their fortunes in
the southern provinces which seem to have suffered
less than those of the north from the Toltec disasters.
Their exiles took refuge in the Miztec and Zapotec
provinces of Oajaca, and some of them probably
crossed to Guatemala and Yucatan, where they were
not without influence in molding future political
events. The mass of the Toltec people remained in
Anáhuac; some of them kept up a distinct national
existence for a while in Culhuacan, and perhaps in
Cholula; but most simply became subjects of the invading
chiefs, whose language and institutions were
for the most part identical with those to which they
had been accustomed. The population had been considerably
diminished naturally by the many years of
strife, famine, and pestilence; but this diminution was
greatly exaggerated in the records. The theory that
the population was reduced to a few thousands, most
of whom left the country, leaving a few chiefs with
their followers in a desolate and barren land, from
which even the invading hordes had retired immediately
[288]
after their victory, is a very transparent absurdity.
The Toltec downfall was the overthrow of a
dynasty, not the destruction of a people. The ensuing
period was one of bitter strife between rival
bands for the power which had been wrested from
the Toltec kings. The annals of that period cannot
be followed; but history recommences with the success
of some of the struggling factions, and their development
into national powers.




[289]



CHAPTER V.

THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.



The Chichimecs in Amaquemecan—Migration to Anáhuac under
Xolotl—The Invaders at Chocoyan and Tollan—Foundation
of Xoloc and Tenayocan—Xolotl II., Emperor of the Chichimecs—Division
of Territory—The Toltecs at Culhuacan—Rule
of Xiuhtemoc and Nauhyotl III.—Pochotl, Son of Acxitl—Conquest
of Culhuacan—Death of Nauhyotl—Huetzin,
King of Culhuacan—Migration and Reception of the
Nahuatlaca Tribes—The Acolhuas at Coatlichan and the
Tepanecs at Azcapuzalco—Nonohualcatl, King of Culhuacan—Revolt
of Yacanex—Death of Xolotl II.—Nopaltzin, King
at Tenayocan, and Emperor of the Chichimecs—Reigns of
Achitometl and Icxochitlanex at Culhuacan—Tendencies
toward Toltec Culture.




The Chichimec occupation of Anáhuac begins with
the traditional invasion under Xolotl, but in order to
properly understand that important event, it will be
necessary to glance at the incidents which preceded
and led to it.




The little that is known of the early history of
the Chichimecs has been told in a former chapter; I
will therefore take up the narrative at the time of
King Tlamacatzin's death at Amaquemecan,[V-1] which
[290]
event occurred in the same year as the final destruction
of Tollan. As I have already explained sufficiently
my idea of the nature of the migrations by
which Anáhuac is represented as having been re-peopled,
I may relate these migrations literally, as
they are given by the authorities, without constantly
reminding the reader of their general signification.
Tlamacatzin left two sons, Acauhtzin[V-2] and Xolotl,[V-3]
who, after wrangling about the succession for some
time, finally agreed to divide the kingdom between
them.[V-4]




Now, for a great number of years a harassing
system of border warfare had been carried on between
the Chichimecs and the Toltecs; the former
doubtless raided upon their rich and powerful neighbors
for purposes of plunder, and the latter were
probably not slow to make reprisals which served as
an excuse for extending their already immense territory.
When the Toltec troubles arose, however, and
the direful prophecies of Hueman began to be fulfilled,
the people of Anáhuac found that they had
enough to do to take care of themselves, and that
their legions could be better employed in defending
the capital than in waging aggressive wars upon the
[291]
distant frontiers of the empire. They therefore recalled
their troops, and the Chichimec border was
left undisturbed. It was not long before the brother
monarchs of Amaquemecan began to wonder at this
sudden cessation of hostilities, and determined to find
out the cause, for they were ignorant of the struggles
and final overthrow of the Toltec empire. They at
once dispatched spies into the Toltec territory. In a
short time these men returned with the startling
announcement that they had penetrated the enemy's
country for a distance of two hundred leagues from
Amaquemecan, and had found all that region deserted,
and the towns, formerly so strong and populous,
abandoned and in ruins.



 XOLOTL'S INVASION.



Xolotl, who seems to have been of a more ambitious
and enterprising disposition than his brother,
listened eagerly to this report, which seemed to
promise the fulfillment of his dreams of independent
and undivided sway. Summoning his vassals to the
capital, he told them what his spies had seen, and in
an eloquent speech reminded them that an extension
of territory was needed for their increasing population,
expatiated on the richness and fertility of the
abandoned region, pointed out to his hearers how
easy it would be to avenge on their crippled enemies
the injuries of many years, and concluded by requiring
them to be ready to accompany him to conquest
within the space of six months.[V-5]




[292]
It is difficult to credit the statements of the old
authors respecting the number of Chichimecs that
espoused Xolotl's cause. Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia
state that no less than three million two hundred and
two thousand men and women, besides children, rallied
to his standard, leaving one million six hundred thousand
subjects of Acauhtzin, and thus making it not a
mere expedition, but a decided emigration. Torquemada,
who fears he will not be believed if he states
the actual number who took part in the exodus, takes
pains to assure us that the historic paintings mention
over a million warriors, commanded by six great lords,
and over twenty (two?) thousand inferior chiefs and
captains, and as each of these had under him more
than a thousand men, the total number would approach
nearer to the larger numbers than to Torquemada's
unwontedly modest statement. The number
was ascertained by census, taken at five different places
to check the increase or decrease caused by leaving
colonists along the route, by new arrivals, and especially
by deserters. The counting was effected by each
plebeian casting a small stone into a heap set apart
for his class, and each lord or officer a larger stone
into another heap. Ixtlilxochitl mentions two of
these nepohualcos, or 'counting-places,' one near
Oztotipac in Otompan district, and another three
leagues from Ecatepec, near Mexico; while Torquemada
refers to twelve similar hillocks near Tenayocan.[V-6]




[293]


 XOLOTL'S INVASION.



Having taken leave of his brother Acauhtzin,
Xolotl started on his journey. Halts were made at
a number of stations to gather supplies, and when
camp was broken, settlers were left—generally selected
from among the old and feeble—and their
places filled by fresh recruits. Owing to these detentions
it took the army some time to reach
Chocoyan, or 'place of tears,' in Anáhuac, where
many Toltec ruins were found. After proceeding
some distance farther, and making several halts,
Xolotl dispatched the six principal chiefs of his army,
each with an appropriate force, in various directions,
with instructions to explore the country, and reduce
the inhabitants, if they found any, to subjection; at
the same time he recommended these officers to use
the people kindly, except where they offered resistance,
in which case they were to be treated as
enemies.[V-7]




Xolotl himself proceeded with the body of the
army, and after halting in several places, he finally
reached Tollan. But the ancient splendor of the
Toltec capital was departed, its streets were deserted
and overgrown with vegetation, its magnificent
temples and palaces were in ruins, and desolation
reigned where so lately had been the hum and bustle
of a mighty metropolis.[V-8] The site of Tollan being
too important to be abandoned, Xolotl established
[294]
some families there, which formed the nucleus of a
future population. He then continued his march to
Mizquiyahualan and Tecpan, and finally came to
Xaltocan, on the shore of the lake of the same name,
where he and his followers abode for a long time in
the caves that abounded in that region, and where
they subsequently founded the town of Xoloc or
Xolotl, which afterwards became a city of considerable
importance in Anáhuac.[V-9]




The narrative becomes somewhat confused at this
point, owing to the conflicting accounts of the various
authorities. It seems, however, that the Chichimecs
remained for a long time, several years perhaps, at
the settlement of Xoloc, doing little but sending out
scouting parties to reconnoitre the immediately surrounding
country. Finally, according to the majority
of the Spanish writers, Xototl dispatched certain
chiefs on regular exploring expeditions, and set out
himself with his son Nopaltzin and a large force; journeying
by way of Cempoala, Tepepulco, Oztolotl,
Cohuacayan, and Tecpatepec, until he reached the hill
of Atonan. Here he descried a goodly region lying
to the south and east, which he at once sent his son
Nopaltzin to take possession of, while he returned to
Xoloc.[V-10]



 CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY.



Nopaltzin wandered for some time from place to
place, seemingly making it his object rather to search
for an inhabited country than to take possession of an
uninhabited one. At first his efforts met with no
success, notwithstanding he ascended several high
mountains for the purpose of seeing afar off. At last
he came to Tlalamoztoc, whence his view extended over
[295]
the country toward Tlazalan, and Culhuacan valley,[V-11]
and Chapultepec, on the other side of the lake;
throughout this region smoke arose in various places,
denoting the presence of human inhabitants. Without
loss of time, the prince returned to his father with
the news of his discovery, passing the ruined city of
Teotihuacan on his way. Xolotl had in the meantime
visited the large Toltec city of Cuhuac (Culhuacan?),
and had also received information of Toltec
settlements on the coast and in the interior. A consultation
was held, and it was decided that Tultitlan
was the most eligible site for a capital. Accordingly
Xolotl left Xoloc in the care of a governor and proceeded
to that region and there founded Tenayocan
opposite Tezcuco, on the other side of the lake.[V-12]




Brasseur's version of these events is somewhat different.
He does not mention Xolotl's expedition to
the hill of Atonan, though he does not omit to relate
that Toltec settlements were described from that elevation
by the reconnoitering parties sent out from the
Chichimec camp at Lake Xaltocan; neither does he in
any way refer to Nopaltzin's journey, at his father's
command, to Tlalamoztoc. The reason of this difference
is that according to Brasseur's version Nopaltzin
was not the son of Xolotl, the first Chichimec emperor
but of Amacui, one of six great chiefs, who were
the first to follow in the successful invaders' wake, this
they did not do, however, until after Xolotl had established
himself at Tenayocan.[V-13] It seems that this
Amacui has been confounded throughout with Xolotl
by the majority of the Spanish chroniclers; in their
version of the events which followed the founding of
Tenayocan, during a period of nearly two hundred
[296]
years, the deeds of the former are all ascribed to the
latter, or at least the narrative is continued without
any break, and no mention is made of any change of
kings.[V-14]




The Spanish writers relate that the chiefs of whom
Amacui was one were attracted to Anáhuac by the reports
which reached them of Xolotl's unopposed invasion,
and of the richness of the land that he had appropriated.[V-15]
Upon their arrival in Anáhuac they respectfully
asked the Chichimec king's permission to settle
near him, and to hunt in his newly acquired territory.
Xolotl evinced no jealousy, but welcomed the new-comers
with generous hospitality; doubtless the politic
monarch saw that such arrivals could not fail to
strengthen his position, as all who came were pretty
sure to acknowledge his supremacy and ally themselves
to him, as chief of all the Chichimecs. From
what source Amacui derived the influence which he
afterwards used for his own aggrandizement is not
known; it could scarcely have been from his personal
power as a prince, because we are told that the number
of his followers was small; but at all events,
whatever were the means he used, he succeeded, at
Xolotl's death, in getting elected to the throne.[V-16]
This being in all probability the true version, the
events that are now to be recorded may be regarded
as happening in the reign of Amacui, or Amacui
Xolotl, as he was styled on his accession.



 REMNANTS OF THE TOLTECS.



One of the first acts of the new king, whom we may
call Xolotl II., was to remove from his capital at Tenayocan
and take up his residence at Quauhyacac,
at the foot of the mountains of Tezcuco. Calling
[297]
his chiefs together, he next proceeded to take
formal possession of the country. The ceremony,
which consisted in discharging arrows towards the
cardinal points, and in burning wreaths of dry grass,
and scattering the ashes towards the four quarters,
was performed in the royal presence at a great number
of places; the spots selected being generally the
summits of mountains. He also dispatched four lords,
with the necessary forces, in the direction of the four
quarters, instructing them to take possession of the
country along their route, but not to disturb the Toltecs,
except those who offered resistance, who were to
be subjected by force. Either the progress made by
these four expeditions must have been very slow, or
the extent of country traversed by them must have
been very great, for we are told that they did not return
until four years after their setting-out. The most
populous Toltec settlements were found at Culhuacan,
Quauhtitenco, Chapultepec, Totoltepec, Tlazalan, and
Tepexomaco, all ruled by lords, and at Cholula, where
two priests held the reigns of government.[V-17] The
name of the ruler at Chapultepec was Xitzin, with
his wife Oztaxochitl and a son;[V-18] at Tlazalan was
Mitl with his wife Cohuaxochitl,[V-19] and two sons,
Pixahua and Axopatl,[V-20] who, instructed by their
father, afterwards revived the art of working in
metals; at Totoltepec were Nacaxoc, his wife, and
his son Xiuhpopoca; at Tepexomaco were Cohuatl,
his wife, and his son Quetzalpopoca; at Cholula
ruled Ixcax, the issue of the adulterous connection of
the pontiff with the high-priestess of the Goddess of
Water. All these princes hastened to acknowledge
[298]
the supremacy of Xolotl II., though without actually
paying him homage. Besides this, the four lords
who had been dispatched to the four quarters, announced
on their return that they had visited a
great number of places, among which were Tehuantepec,
Guatemala, and Goazacoalco.[V-21]




The invaders had hitherto met with no opposition
from the few Toltecs who were left in Anáhuac;
their plans had all been effected deliberately and
slowly, but surely and without any trouble. Matters
having now begun to assume a settled aspect, the
Chichimec king at once turned his attention to a partition
of lands among the nobles who had accompanied
him and assisted his enterprise, and, as is usual
in such cases, he dispensed with a free hand that
which of right was not his to give. To each lord he
assigned a defined section of the territory and a
certain number of dependents, with instructions to
form a town, to be named after its founder.[V-22] Toltec
cities retained their original names, and orders were
issued that their inhabitants should not be interfered
with, nor intruded upon by Chichimec settlers. One
of the most thickly settled districts was that lying
north and north-east of Tenayocan, named Chichimecatlalli,
or 'land of Chichimecs.' Within its boundaries
were the towns of Zacatlan, Quauhchinanco,
Totoltepec, Atotonilco. Settlements were also formed
on the coast, the whole extent of country appropriated
by the Chichimecs being, according to Ixtlilxochitl,
over two hundred leagues in circumference.[V-23]
It was about this time that Xolotl II., as supreme
[299]
ruler, assumed the title of Huey Tlatoani Chichimecatl
Tecuhtli, 'great lord and king of the Chichimecs.'[V-24]



 AFFAIRS IN CULHUACAN.



At this juncture it will be necessary to glance
at the state of affairs in Culhuacan.[V-25] It has been
related how Topiltzin, when he fled from Anáhuac,
left Culhuacan, the most populous of the Toltec
settlements at the time of the fall of the empire, to
the care of Xiuhtemoc, an old relative, who was to
act as a kind of honorary king, or regent, and as such
receive obedience and tribute. The Toltec monarch
also entrusted to Xiuhtemoc the charge of his son
Pochotl, then an infant, with instructions that the
young prince should be sent to the village of Quauhtitenco,
situated in a forest near the ancient capital,
and there brought up in secrecy and in ignorance of
his royal birth. Another of Topiltzin's relatives
named Cocauhtli, who was married to Ixmixuch and
had a son called Acxoquauh, seems also to have assisted
Xiuhtemoc in governing Culhuacan, or at least to
have had great influence there.[V-26]




For a number of years Xiuhtemoc continued to
govern Culhuacan with much wisdom, and the province
flourished wonderfully under his prudent administration.
He never attempted to claim any other
title than 'father,' and was well beloved by his subjects.
In the meantime Pochotl, Topiltzin's son,
grew to be a young man, of a suitable age to be associated
with Xiuhtemoc, according to his father's directions.
[300]
Xiuhtemoc seems, however, to have been
in no hurry to draw the prince from his obscurity.
What his object was in this delay, is unknown; it
would appear at first sight as if he was scheming for
the succession of his own son Nauhyotl, but his patriotic
conduct and loyal character seems to render such
a cause improbable. At all events Pochotl was still
at Quauhtenanco where Xiuhtemoc died.




His son Nauhyotl, a prince well liked by the people,
immediately seized the throne, and being of a more
ambitious disposition than his father, lost no time in
assuming the royal titles and in causing himself to
be publicly proclaimed king and crowned with all the
rites and ceremonies sacred to the use of the Toltec
monarchs, being the third of the name on the throne
of Culhuacan. According to Brasseur, two princes,
Acxoquauh and Nonohualcatl, were admitted in some
way to a share in the government.[V-27]




This bold act of usurpation[V-28] met with little or no
outward opposition, notwithstanding it was well
known that Pochotl still lived. This was doubtless
due to the critical state of affairs in Culhuacan at
the time of Xiuhtemoc's death. The Chichimecs
were steadily increasing in power; Xolotl seemed disposed
to adopt a more decided policy toward the Toltecs
than his predecessor, and it might at any moment
be necessary to check his encroachments. In this
condition of things it was natural that the energetic
[301]
Nauhyotl, who had been brought up at court under
the immediate care and instruction of his politic father,
should be a more acceptable and fitting king than
Pochotl, who had been brought up in total ignorance
of the duties of a prince, and even of his own rights.
Nevertheless, there were some who murmured secretly
on seeing Topiltzin's son defrauded of his rights, and
Nauhyotl being aware of this discontent, determined
to set the public mind at rest. He accordingly sent
for Pochotl, publicly acknowledged him as the descendant
of the Toltec kings, declared his intention
of leaving the crown to him at his death, and gave
him the hand of his young and beautiful daughter Xochipantzin[V-29]
in marriage, all of which proceedings met
with general approval both from the people and from
Pochotl himself, whose unexpected elevation does not
seem to have rendered him very exacting.[V-30]



 RULE OF XOLOTL II.



Favored by the peaceful, non-interfering policy of
Xolotl I., the Toltecs at Culhuacan had increased rapidly
in wealth and population. Xolotl II. seems to
have grown impatient of this rivalry, and to have determined
to define the position of Culhuacan and
assert his own supremacy in Anáhuac without farther
delay. Of the way in which he accomplished this
end there is more than one version.




According to Veytia and others, he informed Nauhyotl
that by right of the cession of the land of Anáhuac
made to the monarch of Amaquemecan by Topiltzin,[V-31]
he should require him to do homage and pay
a small tribute to the Chichimec empire in recognition
of its supremacy; this done, he would recognize
[302]
him as king of the Toltecs. To this demand Nauhyotl
answered haughtily that Toltec kings acknowledged
no superiors but the gods, and paid tribute to
no earthly sovereign. Xolotl I., he added, had been
permitted to enter Anáhuac and people it, because he
had done so peaceably. Topiltzin's cession was invalid,
and he, Nauhyotl, merely governed during the
minority of the rightful heir of Pochotl, now deceased,
and had no power to dispose of any rights to
the land.[V-32]




Such a reply could have but one effect on the fierce
Chichimec. He resolved to crush his rival at once
before he became too strong, and for this purpose gave
orders to Nopaltzin to advance without delay against
Culhuacan. In the meantime Nauhyotl was not idle.
A number of canoes were brought out to defend the
water-line, and he himself issued forth at the head of
a force which, though greatly inferior to the Chichimec
army in point of numbers, attacked the enemy
without hesitation, and succeeded in maintaining the
field valorously until evening. Gradually, however,
Nopaltzin's numbers began to tell, until at length the
Toltecs were routed. The Chichimecs then entered
Culhuacan without difficulty, despite its advantageous
position. The carnage was immediately suspended
and no disorder allowed. The Toltecs had suffered
great loss, and among the slain was Nauhyotl, whose
death was deeply deplored by his subjects and regretted
by the conquerors.



 CULHUAS AND CHICHIMECS.



Nopaltzin gave orders that the dead king should be
buried with all the usual honors, and after leaving a
garrison in the town, departed to carry the news of
his success to his father. This battle was the first
[303]
in which the Chichimecs had engaged since their arrival
in Anáhuac, and Nopaltzin was much praised for
its successful issue by Xolotl. The Chichimec emperor
now proceeded in person to Culhuacan, to assure the
inhabitants of his good will and to receive their homage.
Pochotl's first-born, Achitometl, then only five
years of age, was solemnly proclaimed king, with the
condition that he should pay yearly a small tribute in
fish to the Chichimec government. After this amicable
arrangement, the intercourse between the two
nations became daily stronger, to the no small benefit
of the Chichimecs.[V-33]




Torquemada gives another account of the events
which led to the war. Itzmitl, who succeeded to the
lordship of Coatlichan on the death of his father
Tzontecoma, had a son named Huetzin by Malinalxochitl,
daughter of Cozcaquauhtli of Mamalihuasco,[V-34]
for whom he was anxious to secure a temporary regency
until he should in natural course succeed to the
government of Coatlichan. Relying on a promise
made by Xolotl I. to Tzontecoma, Itzmitl asked Xolotl
II. to award his son a lordship, and pointed to Culhuacan
as available since it was an unappropriated
Toltec settlement, to which he had a certain right
from the marriage of Tzontecoma with a member of
its royal family. Xolotl informed Achitometl, a grandson
of Nauhyotl, of his wish that Huetzin should
stay with the king of Culhuacan until he succeeded
to his own inheritance.[V-35] Achitometl, pretending to
favor the project, immediately sent information to
Nauhyotl, who at once took steps to secure himself.
Xolotl paid a visit to Culhuacan to make formal
[304]
arrangements for the reception of his protégé, and
was received with the most friendly assurances. But
when Huetzin arrived, after the departure of Xolotl,
an armed force opposed his entrance, and he precipitately
retreated. This breach of faith caused a war,
which resulted in the death of Nauhyotl, and the
elevation of Huetzin to the throne.[V-36]




Brasseur's relation of these events, partly derived
from the manuscripts to which he had access, differs
from the others in some particulars, though it generally
agrees with Torquemada's account. According
to this writer, Huetzin, who, it is here stated, was
Pochotl's grandson on the mother's side,[V-37] coveted and
endeavored to obtain the crown of Culhuacan prior to
the arrangement made between his father and Xolotl.
To gain this end he had, on account of his descent,
the assistance of the Acolhuas, who were at all times
disposed to reëstablish the original Toltec dynasty,
and the sympathy of Xolotl II. and his son Nopaltzin,
who were of course inclined to favor any scheme that
would cripple Nauhyotl. The king of Culhuacan defeated
Huetzin's plans for the time, however, by proclaiming
Achitometl—Pochotl's eldest son, by the
princess Xochipantzin, and consequently Nauhyotl's
grandson—as his successor, thus restoring the ancient
dynasty, and doing away with the pretext under which
the pretender had won so much sympathy. It seems
that the claims of Huetzin met with no farther notice
until the death of Quauhtexpetlatl, a son of Nauhyotl
II., who had accompanied his father into exile, and
after his death had returned to Culhuacan and been
[305]
associated with Nauhyotl III., the present king.
Upon the death of this prince, which occurred in
1129, Xolotl entered into an agreement with the lord
of Coatlichan to procure for Huetzin, the son of the
latter, Quauhtexpetlatl's share in the government of
Culhuacan. Hence followed the struggle, detailed
by Torquemada, which resulted in Huetzin's elevation
to the throne he had so long coveted.[V-38]



 THE NAHUATLACA TRIBES.



A digression is necessary at this point, in order
to refer to the traditional arrival in Anáhuac of the
Nahuatlaca tribes, which occurred at irregular intervals
during a period extending from the early
years of the Chichimec occupation down to, and a
little beyond, the events recorded above.



 NAHUATLACA MIGRATION.



The original home of the Nahuatlacas was Aztlan,
the location of which has been the subject of much
discussion.[V-39] The causes that led to their exodus
[306]
from that country can only be conjectured;[V-40] but they
may be supposed, however, to have been driven out
by their enemies, for Aztlan is described as a land
too fair and bounteous to be left willingly in the
mere hope of finding a better.[V-41] The native tradition
relates that a bird was heard for several days
constantly repeating the word tihui, tihui, meaning
'let us go,' 'let us go.' This, Huitziton, foremost and
wisest among the Nahuatlaca chiefs, took to be a
message from the gods directing the people to seek
a new home. In making a declaration of such moment
he needed the support of another influential
man. He accordingly persuaded another chief called
Tecpatzin, who at first seemed sceptical, that the
[307]
bird's note was nothing less than a divine message,
and the two announced it as such to the people.[V-42]




Whether all the numerous tribes into which the
Nahuatlacas were divided, left Aztlan at the same
time, or, if not, in what order they left, it is impossible
to tell. It seems, however, that after several
years' wandering, a number of them were together
at a place called Chicomoztoc, the famous 'seven
caves.'[V-43] The little that is known of their wanderings
before reaching this point will be found in the
next chapter, in connection with the Aztec migration.




The list of tribes settled at Chicomoztoc at this
time comprises only seven according to most authors.
They are named for the most part after the locality
in which they subsequently settled in and about Anáhuac,
and are as follows: the Xochimilcas, Chalcas,
Tepanecs, Acolhuas, Tlahuicas, Tlascaltecs, and Aztecs
or Mexicans; to which some writers add the Tarascos,
Matlaltzincas, Malinalcas, Cholultecs, Huexotzincas,
Cuitlahuacs, Mizquicas, and Cohuixcas.[V-44] Some authors
[308]
do not include the Acolhuas and Tepanecs; no
importance is, however, to be attached to the traditional
tribal divisions of the invading hordes before
they settled in Anáhuac.




It was at Chicomoztoc that the separation of the
Aztecs from the rest of the Nahuatlacas took place.
The tradition relates that while the people were
seated beneath a great tree partaking of a meal, a
terrible noise was suddenly heard to issue from the
summit of the tree; the idol which stood upon the
altar at its foot then called the chiefs of the Aztec
tribe aside and commanded them to order the other
tribes to depart in advance, leaving the Aztecs at
Chicomoztoc. The number of tribes that were thus
sent in advance is not known; Torquemada says
eight, Acosta and Duran say six,[V-45] and others greater
or smaller numbers.



 ACOLHUAS AND TEPANECS.



From the time of the separation we hear little
more of the Nahuatlaca tribes until we find them
coming into Anáhuac and settling in various parts of
the country. In this manner we hear of the Xochimilcas,
'cultivators of flowers,' coming into the valley
and occupying a district south of Tezcuco Lake, where
[309]
they founded Xochimilco; but all we know of their
former history is that they left Aquilazco, their
original home, which we may suppose to have been
a district of Aztlan, under a chief named Huetzalin,[V-46]
who, dying on the journey, was succeeded by Acatonal,
who conducted the tribe as far as the ruined
city of Tollan and there died, after having ruled
twenty-three years. The tribe then proceeded under
the conduct of Tlahuil Tecuhtli[V-47] to the Culhuacan
territory and attempted to settle there, one year after
the accession of Huetzin.[V-48] But the people of Culhuacan
were suspicious of the new comers and drove
them to the other side of the lake to a place called
Teyahualco, at the same time forbidding them to settle
on any part of the lands belonging to the capital.
For some years the Xochimilcas remained quietly at
Teyahualco, but in 1141 Tlahuil Tecuhtli pounced
suddenly upon Culhuacan, and before its defenders
could gain their arms he penetrated into the heart of
the city and sacked it remorselessly. The inhabitants
soon rallied, however, and not only drove the marauders
out of the city, but pursued them as far as the
site of the ancient city of Ocopetlayuca. Here Tlahuil
Tecuhtli resolved to establish himself and, with
the permission of the king of Culhuacan, he forthwith
founded the city of Xochimilco, which subsequently
became one of the principal places in Anáhuac.[V-49]
The Chalcas settled on the east side of the
lake of Chalco and founded a number of towns of
[310]
which the principal was Chalco. For the Tlahuicas
no room could be found about the lake; they therefore
proceeded to a district south of Mexico, where
before long a number of settlements rose around their
capital Quauhnahuac.[V-50] Of the other tribes included
by some authors among the Nahuatlacas, we find the
Tarascos settled in Michoacan, the Matlaltzincas in the
province of that name, and extending towards Michoacan;
the Malinalcas in the province of Malinalco;
the Cuitlahuacs in the province of Cuitlahuac; the
Mizquicas in Mizquic; the Cohuixcas in Guerrero.[V-51]



 ACOLHUAS AND TEPANECS.



The Tepanecs and Acolhuas become prominent in
the affairs of Anáhuac at this period, that is, during
the reign of the Chichimec emperor Xolotl II.
They were among the numerous bands that contributed
to the overthrow of the Toltec empire, and
are classed by several writers among the Nahuatlaca
tribes.[V-52] One of their chiefs, Tzontecoma of Coatlichan,
was, as we have seen, the grandfather of Huetzin,
the present king of Culhuacan. The event
that brings them into prominent notice at this time
is their tendering allegiance to Xolotl II. In doing
this they claimed descent from the Citin,[V-53] illustrious
for nobility of race and for heroic deeds.
According to many of the Spanish writers the Otomís
[311]
came into Anáhuac and tendered their allegiance to
Xolotl II. in company with the Acolhuas and Tepanecs.
We have already seen, however, that the
Otomís were one of the most ancient nations of
Anáhuac, and were there long before the Toltecs;
this reputed entry of theirs was perhaps nothing
more than their coming in from the mountains and
adopting, to a certain extent, a civilized life.[V-54] The
story goes that Xolotl II. and his son Nopaltzin were
flattered by the propositions of these powerful chiefs
and entertained their guests right royally. Nor did
the Chichimec monarch delay to confer upon the three
principal chiefs substantial marks of his favor and
consideration. To the lord Acolhua with the Tepanecs
he assigned several districts south of Tenayocan,
with Azcapuzalco for a capital, and gave him the hand
of his eldest daughter, Cuetlaxochitl, in marriage;
the lord of the Otomís received the emperor's second
daughter, and a district four or five leagues north of
Azcapuzalco, with Xaltocan for its capital; Tzontecoma,
the third chief, a young man, was awarded for
the Acolhua home a district one league south of
Tezcuco, with Coatlichan for a capital, and, as Xolotl
had no more daughters, he was given for a wife
the princess next in rank.[V-55] It was in compensation
for this inferior marriage that Xolotl afterwards
obtained the throne of Culhuacan for Tzontecoma's
grandson, Huetzin, according to Torquemada's account
given on a preceding page. The three marriages
[312]
were celebrated at Tenayocan with extraordinary
pomp, and were followed by a succession of public
games, gladiatorial exhibitions, and amusements of
all sorts, which lasted sixty days.




It is difficult to say in what relation the Acolhua
and Tepanec princes stood towards the Chichimec emperor.
According to most of the Spanish authorities,
they swore allegiance to Xolotl, and took rank as
the first vassals of the empire, though they were
exempted from payment of tribute. It is Brasseur's
opinion, however, that this statement must not be
accepted too literally. Nothing was more jealously
guarded by all these peoples than their independence
and sovereign rights in the land they occupied. At
the same time, the right of first occupation being
held sacred by them, it was natural that the tribes
that came in after the Chichimecs, should address
themselves to Xolotl, before attempting any formal
settlement. The act of the new tribes was, therefore,
an observance of international etiquette rather than
an acknowledgment of vassalage.[V-56]



 THE TOLTECS IN ANÁHUAC.



The settlement of the Acolhuas and Tepanecs in
Anáhuac resulted in an improved order of things, and
in the rapid advance of culture throughout the country.
Their comparatively high state of civilization was
not slow to impart itself to the ruder Chichimecs,
who were proud to ally themselves by marriage to
the polished strangers, and eager to emulate their
refinement. For the same reasons the name Acolhua
soon came to designate the Chichimecs of the
capital and surrounding districts. Nor was it the
people alone who received this impulse from the
new-comers. Xolotl began to perceive that if he
wished to establish a permanent and hereditary monarchy
it would be necessary to cure his fierce nobles
of their nomadic tastes and habits by giving them
possessions, and thus making it to their interest to
lead an orderly and settled life. To this end he
[313]
created a number of fiefs, and distributed them among
his lords, according to their rank and quality. Those
lying nearest to the centre of the empire were
granted to the princes of the royal family, or to chiefs
of undoubted loyalty; while to the more turbulent
nobles distant provinces were assigned.[V-57]




For some time after the accession of Huetzin to the
throne of Culhuacan, where, the reader will recollect,
he had been placed by Xolotl II. after the defeat and
death of Nauhyotl, it seems that Nonohualcatl, Nauhyotl's
eldest son,[V-58] and Ameyal, Pochotl's eldest son
by Nauhyotl's daughter, were permitted to retain
their position as heirs to the throne which they had
enjoyed during the reign of the late king. But this
did not last very long; the ruse by which Ameyal
had endeavored to frustrate Xolotl's designs upon the
throne of Culhuacan was not forgotten, and before
many months had elapsed the young prince was despoiled
of his dignities and cast into prison, where he
was kept closely confined for several years.




Although the Toltec element in Anáhuac was
growing weaker every year, and threatened to totally
disappear in a short time, yet what little there was
left of it possessed great importance in the eyes of
Xolotl II. The Chichimec emperor, partly perhaps
from motives of pride, partly because he saw that
it would tend to ensure his son's succession, desired
nothing so much as to ally his family by blood with
the ancient Toltec dynasty. With this end in view,
the old monarch had for some time been looking
about for a suitable bride for his son Nopaltzin. At
length the lady was found in the person of Azcatlxochitl,
sister of Ameyal, and therefore daughter of
Pochotl, the son of Topiltzin, the last Toltec king.
This princess, who was then about twenty-five years
of age, was possessed of singular beauty and rare
[314]
accomplishments, and was withal a model of modesty.
Her father being dead, and her brother in captivity,
she lived in seclusion with her mother at Tlaximaloyan,
a town on the frontier of Michoacan. Whatever
dislike the Chichimec nobles may at first have
had for this alliance, was speedily overcome; the hand
of the Toltec princess was formally demanded and
given, and soon afterwards the marriage was celebrated
with great magnificence. By this union Nopaltzin
had three sons, Tlotzin Pochotl,[V-59] who subsequently
succeeded his father as Chichimec emperor, Huizaquen
Tochin Tecuhtli, and Coxanatzin Atencatl.[V-60]
When these came of age, their father obtained Tlazatlan
from Xolotl for the eldest son to rule, until
he should succeed to the imperial throne; for the
second son he obtained a grant of Zacatlan, and for
the third Tenamitec. Before departing to his fief,
Tlotzin was married to Tocpacxochitzin, daughter of
the lord of Quahuatlapal, one of the great chiefs
that came with Xolotl from Amaquemecan.[V-61]




Brasseur states that the tributes of the seigniory
of Oztoticpac, in the province of Chalco, were
granted to Tlotzin at his birth,[V-62] and there the prince
[315]
usually resided during his youth, under the able instruction
of a noble Toltec named Tecpoyo Acauhtli,
who, it is said, accompanied his pupil to Tlazatlan,
whither he went after his marriage, and continued
to educate him there.[V-63] It was at this latter
place that Tlotzin's son Quinantzin, who afterwards
became emperor, was born.



 REIGN OF XOLOTL II.



About this time Xolotl's peace was much disturbed
by a conspiracy which nearly put an end to
his life. It seems that for a long time a number of
powerful Chichimec nobles had regarded with growing
disfavor the civilization which the emperor, his
son, and his grandson, were so anxious to advance,
though whether this was their only reason for conspiring
against the old monarch's life is not clear.
Of course any plot which tended to weaken the
Chichimec empire called for the sympathy of the
people of Culhuacan and the Toltecs generally
throughout the country,[V-64] and thus the discontented
faction grew to be quite formidable. At first the
conspirators confined themselves to grumbling, and
made no active demonstration; but as time went on
and the aged emperor showed no signs of failing,
their impatience for his death grew unbearable, and
finally they deliberately plotted his assassination.




During the later years of his life Xolotl left the
government almost entirely in the hands of his son
Nopaltzin, and passed the greater part of his time in
the royal gardens at Tezcuco. He had several times
expressed a wish to have an additional supply of
water brought into these grounds, and it was in gratifying
his desire that the traitors attempted to take
his life. The new supply having been introduced
from a neighboring mountain stream, the conspirators
waited until a time when the emperor was supposed
to be reposing in a low-lying part of the gardens, and
then suddenly breaking down a dam which had been
[316]
constructed for the purpose, they let the water overflow
the grounds. But their design was happily frustrated.
It happened that Xolotl had not lain down
in the usual spot, but had sought an elevation, where
the flood could not reach him. From his conduct it
would seem that he had been apprised of the plot, for
instead of being disconcerted, he made merry over
the disaster, saying: "I have long been convinced of
the love of my subjects; but I now perceive that they
love me even more than I imagined; I wished to increase
the supply of water for my gardens, and, behold,
they even exceed my wishes; therefore I will
commemorate their devotion with feasts." And he
accordingly gave orders that the next few days should
be devoted to public rejoicing, to the great confusion
of his enemies. But the old monarch's heart was
sore within him, nevertheless, and the treachery of
his subjects weighed heavily upon him.[V-65]




But the disaffection that had given rise to this iniquitous
plot was not quelled by its failure, and
received a new impulse from a love-quarrel which led
to serious consequences. Before narrating this event,
it should be stated that Ameyal, henceforth known
as Achitometl,[V-66] had been released from captivity,
probably through the influence of his sister, Nopaltzin's
wife, and that Nonohualcatl[V-67] had succeeded to
the throne of Culhuacan by reason of Huetzin's falling
heir to his father's seigniory of Coatlichan.[V-68]



 REVOLT OF YACANEX.



Now, Achitometl had a daughter named Atotoztli,
whose exceeding beauty and high rank
brought countless admirers to her feet. Most
favored among these, or most daring, it is not clear
[317]
which, was Yacanex,[V-69] lord of Tepetlaoztoc, and vassal
of Huetzin. This noble presented himself before
Achitometl, and imperiously demanded his
daughter's hand. Angered at his insolence, the Culhua
prince responded that Atotoztli was promised to
Huetzin, but that if she were not he could never entertain
a request made in such a manner. Yacanex,
furious at this rebuff, but not in a position to proceed
to extremes at the moment, returned to his fief and
set about stirring up a rebellion against his rival and
suzerain, Huetzin. His own people rose to a man at
his call, and he was soon joined by several powerful
neighboring chiefs.[V-70] According to Brasseur, Yacanex,
having gathered his forces, marched to Culhuacan,
and there repeated his demand to Achitometl; but
that prince reminded the rebellious noble of his promise
to Huetzin, and declared his determination to
yield his daughter's hand to no one else. Upon this
Yacanex returned, with threats, to Tepetlaoztoc.[V-71]
There his army was swelled by a number of malcontents,
among whom were two of Huetzin's sons,
who thought themselves robbed of their inheritance,
because their father had left the crown of Culhuacan
to Nonohualcatl when he succeeded his father at Coatlichan.
The provinces of Otompan and Tezcuco
also broke out into open revolt, and before long there
[318]
was danger that the whole of Anáhuac would be involved
in war.




Xolotl and Nopaltzin now began to feel seriously
alarmed. Tochin Tecuhtli, who, as we have seen, had
been previously disgraced,[V-72] and who had therefore
joined the rebels, was secretly sent for, and induced by
fair promises to desert Yacanex and take command of
the imperial troops. He immediately proceeded to
join Huetzin, and the two with their united forces
then marched against the rebels. But Yacanex had
taken up an unassailable position in the mountains,
and for some months could not be drawn into an engagement.
At length, his strength being greatly
increased by the numbers that flocked to his standard,
he decided to risk a battle and descended into the
plain. The engagement, which lasted an entire day
and was attended with great loss on both sides, ended
in the rout and almost total annihilation of the rebels.
Yacanex, with his ally Ocotox and a small remnant
of his followers, escaped to the mountains in the
east; and Huetzin's two sons[V-73] fled to Huexotzinco.[V-74]



 NOPALTZIN EMPEROR.



At this time Nopaltzin, with his son Tlotzin and
his grandson Quinantzin, then about nine or ten years
old, were sojourning in the forest of Xolotl, near Tezcuco.
Ocotox, who had escaped with Yacanex, conceived
the bold idea of capturing this royal party.
But the princes were secretly informed of the plot,
and, gathering what men they could, they rushed suddenly
upon the concealed enemy with such fury that
but few escaped. Quinantzin, though so young, is
said to have been foremost in the melée and to have
fought so valorously that Xolotl rewarded him with
[319]
the lordship of Tezcuco, and ceded him its revenues.[V-75]
Tochin Tecuhtli was well rewarded for his services; he
received in marriage the hand of Tomiyauh, daughter
or grand-daughter of Upantzin, king of Xaltocan, and
was made lord of the seigniory of Huexotla, which
comprised the towns of Teotihuacan and Otompan;
Huetzin returned to Coatlichan and there married the
Helen of the war, Atotoztli, daughter of Achitometl.[V-76]
Thus was this rebellion brought to an end in the year
1151.[V-77]




A few years after these events Xolotl II. expired
at Tenayocan in the arms of his son Nopaltzin, to
whom he left the crown, exhorting him to maintain
peace in the empire if possible.[V-78]




After the body of the late emperor had been interred
with the customary ceremonies, Nopaltzin was
crowned Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, and formally received
the homage of his vassals. The coronation
fêtes were on a scale of unusual magnificence, and
lasted forty days.[V-79]




In spite of the wishes of the late emperor, Nopaltzin's
reign was anything but a peaceful one. Anáhuac
was at this time divided into a great number of
states, many of which had their peculiar languages,
[320]
manners, and customs. The principal of these divisions
were Tenayocan, Coatlichan, Azcapuzalco, Xaltocan,
Quauhtitlan, Huexotla, and Culhuacan. Each
of these communities was exceedingly watchful of its
own interests and regarded all the others with more
or less jealousy. In the early part of his reign the
people of Tulancingo rebelled, and Nopaltzin marched
in person to subdue them; it is doubtful, however, if
he would have succeeded had not Tlotzin opportunely
come to his aid, when, after a campaign of nineteen
days, victory was obtained.[V-80] On another occasion,
Aculhua, King of Azcapuzalco, usurped the lands of
Chalchiuhcua, lord of Tepotzotlan, at a time when
Nopaltzin was too busy to prevent it.




In 1171 Nonohualcatl, king of Culhuacan, died and
was succeeded by Achitometl, or Ameyal.[V-81] This
prince, whose life had been such an eventful one,
labored hard to advance civilization, and during his
life the city of Culhuacan made great progress.
But his reign was a short one, and he had been on
the throne but a few years, when he died, and was
succeeded by his son Icxochitlanex.




Nopaltzin, following the example set by his father,
did all in his power to further Toltec culture. Great
attention was paid to agriculture; masters were appointed
in the several towns to teach the various arts,
new laws were made and old ones revised, and civilization
began to assume a higher phase than it had
hitherto done since the fall of the Toltec empire.




[321]



CHAPTER VI.

THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.—CONTINUED.



Migration of the Aztecs—Nations of Anáhuac at Beginning of
the Thirteenth Century—The Aztecs submit to the Tepanecs—Reign
of the Emperor Tlotzin—Quinantzin, King of Tezcuco
and Chichimec Emperor—Transfer of the Capital—Tenancacaltzin
usurps the Imperial Throne at Tenayocan—The
Usurper defeated by Tepanecs and Mexicans—Acolnahuacatl
proclaimed Emperor—Quinantzin's Victories—Battle
at Poyauhtlan—Quinantzin again Emperor—Toltec Institutions
at Tezcuco—Events at Culhuacan—Mexicans
driven from Chapultepec—Alliance between Mexicans and
Culhuas—Religious Strife—Foundation of Mexico—Reign
of the Emperor Techotl—Political Changes—Ruin of the
Culhua Power—Tezozomoc, King of Azcapuzalco—Separation
of Mexicans and Tlatelulcas—Acamapichtli II., King of
Mexico—Quaquauhpitzahuac, King of Tlatelulco.




The last of the so-called foreign tribes that came
into notice in Anáhuac, from out the confusion that
followed the downfall of the Toltecs, was the Aztec,
or Mexican, which settled at Chapultepec in the last
years of the twelfth century.[VI-1] According to their
traditions they set out on their migration from Aztlan
together with the Nahuatlaca tribes, whose
arrival has already been noticed; but were left behind
by those tribes at Chicomoztoc, one of their
first stopping-places. The migration of the Aztecs
[322]
from Chicomoztoc is described much more fully than
that of the tribes that preceded them; but in the
details of this journey, so far as dates, names, and
events are concerned, the traditions are inextricably
confused. I have already expressed my opinion that
some of these traditions may refer very vaguely to
the pre-Toltec events in Nahua history, but that
they chiefly refer to the movements of the Nahua, or
Chichimec, tribes which occupied the Toltec provinces
during the continuance of the empire, and which
after a long struggle became powerful in and about
the Valley of Mexico. We have no means of determining
in a manner at all satisfactory whether
Aztlan and Chicomoztoc were in Central America or
in the region of Zacatecas and Jalisco; nor indeed of
proving that they were not in Alaska, New Mexico,
or on the Mississippi, although there is absolutely no
evidence in favor of the latter locations; but we know
at least that all the halting-places of the migrating
tribes after Chicomoztoc were in the immediate vicinity
of Anáhuac. The record as a whole is exactly
what might be expected, were the traditions of half
a dozen kindred bands respecting their wanderings
about the central plateau, and efforts to establish
themselves in permanent homes, united in one consecutive
narrative; and I have little doubt that such
was substantially the process by which the Spanish
version of the Aztec migration was formed. Whatever
the cause of the confusion that reigns in that
version, it is utterly useless to attempt its clearing-up;
and I dispose of the whole matter by simply
presenting in a note the dates and successive halting-places
attributed to this migration by the principal
authorities; the opinions of these authorities respecting
the location of Aztlan and Chicomoztoc have
been previously given.[VI-2]




[323]


 THE AZTEC MIGRATION.



Some of the events and circumstances connected
with the migration, however, must be noticed, although
there is little agreement as to the place or
date of their occurrence. At Aztlan the Aztecs are
said to have crossed each year a great river or channel
to Teo-Culhuacan, to make sacrifices in honor of
[324]
the god Tetzauh. Prompted by the cry of a bird, as
has already been related, they left their home under
command of Huitziton, or Huitzilopochtli, probably
identical with Mecitl, or Mexi, whence was derived
their name of Mexicas, or Mexicans. They seem to
have left Aztlan about 1090, and to have settled in
[325]
Chicomoztoc, after several halts, in 1116.[VI-3] Chicomoztoc,
to which Brasseur adds the name Quinehuayan,
was also on the bank of a river, and the Aztecs
continued the profession of boatmen which they had
practiced at Aztlan, being subject to a tyrannical
monarch to whom the name of Montezuma is applied
by some of the traditions. After the other Nahuatlaca
tribes had separated themselves from the Aztecs
by divine command, the leader, or high-priest, or god,—Huitzilopochtli—for
the exact epoch of his death
and deification it is impossible to determine—informed
the latter that he had selected them as his peculiar
people, for whom he destined a glorious future. He
ordered them to abandon the name of Aztecs and
adopt that of Mexicas, and to wear upon their forehead
and ears a patch of gum and feathers, as a distinguishing
mark, presenting them at the same time
with arrows and a net as insignia.[VI-4] This separation
at Chicomoztoc, or the Seven Caves, presents strong
analogies to that which took place in Tulan Zuiva; it
is not impossible that the events related are identical,
the earlier portions of this tradition referring vaguely
back to the primitive epochs of Nahua history, while
the later portions relate the events which followed the
Toltec destruction. After the separation, and while
the Aztecs were yet at Chicomoztoc,[VI-5] an event occurred
to which is traditionally referred the origin of
the differences that in later years divided this people
into two rival parties, the Mexicans and Tlatelulcas.
Two small bundles mysteriously appeared among
them one day when all were assembled; the first
opened contained an emerald of extraordinary size
and beauty, for the possession of which a quarrel ensued.
The second bundle proved to contain nothing
[326]
more attractive than a few common sticks, and the
party into whose possession it fell deemed themselves
most unfortunate, until Huitziton made known to
them a novel process of producing fire by rubbing
two sticks together.[VI-6] According to Brasseur's authorities
one of the princes of Chicomoztoc, named Chalchiuh
Tlatonac, was induced to depart with the Aztecs,
assuming a rank second only to that of the high-priest
Huitziton. It is also claimed that certain Toltec
nobles with their followers, who had been driven
from Chapultepec by the Chichimecs, joined their
fortunes with those of the Aztecs at an early period
of their migration, perhaps, however, before they left
Aztlan.[VI-7]



 DEATH OF HUITZITON.



After leaving Chicomoztoc, and while in Michoacan
according to most authorities, although by some
of them Huitzilopochtli is spoken of as a god long before,
the aged high-priest Huitziton died or disappeared
suddenly during the night. It is hinted that
he was foully disposed of by the priesthood, through
jealousy of his popularity and power; but whether
responsible or not for his death, the priests resolved
to take advantage of it to advance their own interests.
Consequently the next morning a report was
circulated that Huitziton had been called to take his
place among the gods with the great Tetzauh, or
Tezcatlipoca, who on his arrival had addressed to
him the following craftily prepared speech: "Welcome
brave warrior, and thanks for having so well
served me and governed my people. It is time that
thou take thy rest among the gods; return, then, to
thy sons the priests and tell them not to be afflicted
at thy absence; for although they may no longer
behold thee, thou wilt not cease to be in their midst
to guide and rule them from on high. For I will
[327]
cause thy flesh to be consumed, that thy skull and
bones may remain to thy sons as a consolation, that
they may consult thee respecting the routes they
have to follow and in all the affairs of government,
and that thou mayest direct them and show unto
them the land which I have chosen for them, where
they will have a long and prosperous empire." Brasseur
adds to the speech, "where they shall find a
nopal growing alone on a rock in the midst of the
waters, and on this nopal an eagle holding a serpent
in his claws, there they are to halt, there will be the
seat of their empire, there will my temple be built,"
although this is not given by Veytia or Torquemada,
the authorities referred to by the abbé. The god
also gave directions that the bones of Huitzilopochtli
should be carried in an urn by the priests on
their migration, or according to some authorities that
an idol should be made and carried in an ark on the
shoulders of four priests. The four priests were of
course designated for the important position of teomama,
or 'god-bearers,' who were to constitute the
medium through which the idol should make known
his commands to the people. The people dared make
no opposition to the will of their god, and the plans
of the crafty priests were most successfully carried
out.




But an episode that is related of this period, indicates
that the plots of the priests were perfectly
comprehended by at least one person. This was
Malinalxochitl, the sister, friend, or mistress of Huitziton,
a brave princess who rendered great aid to
the high-priest against the machinations of his foes.
She was charged, however, probably by the hostile
priests, with the possession of the black art. She
could kill with a glance, turn the course of rivers,
and transform herself into any form at will. After
the death of Huitziton the priests, whose tricks she
very likely tried to expose, resorted to their new
divinity to rid themselves of Malinalxochitl. The
[328]
idol from its ark was made to issue an order that the
sorceress should be abandoned while asleep. With
her followers she went to Mt Texcaltepec, where she
afterwards founded the town of Malinalco, and bore
a son named Copil, or Cohuitl, to whom she entrusted
her revenge on the Mexicans.[VI-8]




While they were yet in Michoacan, on the banks
of Lake Patzcuaro, a trouble is said to have occurred
which resulted in the separation of the Tarascos from
the Aztecs, and their settlement in this region. The
tale, to which very little importance is to be attached,
from the fact that the Tarascan language was different
from the Aztec, is as follows: A number of
men and women were bathing together, when the
rest, at the instigation of the priests, took their clothing
and departed. The bathers were obliged to improvise
a dress, which pleased them so much that
they retained it ever after in preference to the
maxtli; but they never forgave the Aztecs, resolved
to remain where they were, and even changed their
language that they might have nothing in common
with that people. Camargo's version is that in crossing
a river a part of the travelers used their maxtlis
to fasten together their rafts, and were forced to borrow
the women's huipiles to cover their nakedness;
and Veytia adds that so imperfectly did these garments
perform their office that the rest of the tribe,
shocked at the appearance of their companions, abandoned
them in disgust, calling them Tarascos from a
circumstance that has been already given.[VI-9]




[329]


 AZTECS AT TOLLAN AND ZUMPANGO.



Quauhtlequetzqui seems to have been the priest
who of the four assumed the highest rank after the
death of Huitziton; and coming under his command
or that of their idol through him expressed, to
Coatepec in the vicinity of Tollan, the Mexicans, at
the order of their god, stopped the current of the
river so as to form a kind of lake surrounding
the mountain. Their stay in this place was one
of great prosperity and increase in population and
wealth; here they placed the sacred ark in a grand
temple; and here they were taught to make balls
of india-rubber and initiated by the gods into the
mysteries of the tlachtli, or game of ball, which afterward
became their national diversion.[VI-10] But the
will of Huitzilopochtli was made known that this fair
land must be abandoned, and their wanderings recommenced.
The people murmured and showed
signs of revolt, but the god appeared before them in
so frightful an aspect as to fill them with terror;
some of the malcontents were found dead near the
temple with their hearts cut out; the dam was broken,
thus destroying the great charm of their new
home; and finally the will of the leader was obeyed,
though not apparently until several revolting chiefs
with their followers had separated themselves from
the main body.[VI-11]




At Tzompanco, now Zumpango on the northern
lake, the Mexicans—not perhaps the main body,
judging from the names given to the leaders—were
most kindly received, possibly as allies in the wars
waged by Tochpanecatl, the lord of that city. This
lord's son Ilhuicatl married Tlacapantzin, a Mexican
girl, and, as Brasseur states, the same lord gave his
daughter Tlaquilxochitl as a wife to Tozcuecuex, the
[330]
Aztec leader, at the same time giving to the Mexicans
through her the possession of Tizayocan their
next halting-place. From one of these marriages
sprung Huitzilihuitl, who afterwards became, according
to many authors, the first king, or ruler, of the
Mexicans.[VI-12]




Several other intermarriages with tribes in Anáhuac
are reported, and also some hostilities during the
subsequent frequent changes of residence, but no
important events are definitely reported before the
arrival and settlement at Chapultepec in 1194 as
already stated, although there is but little agreement
in the dates, many traditions assigning the arrival to
a much later period. As has been before stated,
these traditions refer to different bands, and the disagreement
in dates would be natural even if the
chronology of the records had been correctly interpreted
by the Spanish writers, which is not probable.
There can be little doubt of the comparative accuracy
of Brasseur's dates.



 THE AZTECS AT CHAPULTEPEC.



At this period Nopaltzin was still on the throne of
Tenayocan, but was succeeded in 1211 by Tlotzin
Pochotl.[VI-13] Acolnahuacatl, called by the Spanish
writers Acolhua II., reigned over the Tepanecs at
Azcapuzalco; Culhuacan was governed successively
after Achitometl by Icxochitlanex, Quahuitonal, Mazatzin,
Cuetzal, Chalchiuh Tlatonac II., Tziuhtecatl,
Xihuiltemoc, and Coxcoxtli, down to about the end of
the thirteenth century; the Teo-Chichimecs, one of
the invading bands that have so vaguely appeared in
preceding annals together with the Nahuatlaca
tribes, were settled at Poyauhtlan in the vicinity of
Tezcuco, a source of great uneasiness to all the nations,
although nominally friends of the emperor
[331]
Tlotzin; and Quinantzin, the son of Tlotzin, was chief
lord at Tezcuco and heir to the imperial throne.[VI-14]
The Aztecs meantime fortified their naturally strong
position at Chapultepec, and in 2 Acatl, 1195, celebrated
the completion of their cycle.[VI-15] Huitzilihuitl,
in spite of the sacerdotal opposition was made chief,
or as some say, king; the scattered Mexican bands,
and even the main body of the Mexicans under the
high priest Quauhtlequetzqui, or his successor of the
same name, came to join those of Chapultepec; and
the colony began to assume some importance in the
eyes of the surrounding monarchs. The king of
Azcapuzalco sought to make the Mexicans his vassals,
desiring their aid as warriors, but Huitzilihuitl
proudly refused to pay tribute. Their first war,
something over thirty years after their arrival, was
with Xaltocan, against which province they had
aided the lord of Zumpango when first they entered
the valley. The armies of Xaltocan, under Huixton,
attacked and defeated the Aztecs near Chapultepec,
forcing them to retreat within their fortifications,
acting probably by the encouragement of the Tepanecs.[VI-16]
According to Brasseur's authorities, the
Tepanecs again proposed an alliance, and on refusal,
marched with their own army, and soldiers from
other nations, against Chapultepec, and at last forced
Huitzilihuitl to submit to the payment of tribute.[VI-17]
Before yielding, however, the Mexican chief sent ambassadors
to Quinantzin at Tezcuco, offering him the
[332]
allegiance of his people and asking aid; but the Tezcucan
lord was not in condition to help them, and
advised them to submit temporarily to Acolnahuacatl,[VI-18]
which they did about 1240.



 REIGN OF THE EMPEROR QUINANTZIN.



The reign of Tlotzin, the Chichimec emperor, was,
for the most part, one of great prosperity, although
his enemies were constantly on the watch for an
opportunity to overthrow his power. He seems to
have used his influence against a tendency exhibited
by the Chichimecs to a rudeness of manners, and
independence of all control, which threatened, in his
opinion, a relapse into comparative barbarism. He
favored rather the elegance of Toltec manners, and
the strictness of Toltec discipline. In his efforts for
reform he was seconded, or even excelled, by his son,
Quinantzin, lord of Tezcuco. Ixtlilxochitl tells us
that Tlotzin, soon after his ascension, made a long
tour of inspection through his territory, correcting
abuses and enforcing the laws, but exciting thereby
the enmity of some vassal lords. Tenayocan was
properly the Chichimec capital, but the emperor spent
much of his time at Tezcuco, which had become one
of the finest cities in Anáhuac. For the embellishment
of this city, many Toltecs are said to have been
called in from various towns, by the orders of Quinantzin.
Some of the officers placed in charge of the
parks and public works of Tezcuco, particularly Icuex
and Ocotox, abused their trust, were banished,
headed revolts, and were defeated by Quinantzin.
About this time Tlotzin formed a new monarchy
at Tezcuco, abdicating his own rights there and
giving the crown to his son, Quinantzin. Another
son, Tlacateotzin, was given the province of Tlazalan,
subject to the crown of Tezcuco, and still other sons,
Tochintecuhtli and Xiuhquetzaltzin, were made by
Tlotzin, rulers of Huexotzinco and Tlascala, indicating
[333]
that the eastern plateau was at this time a part of
the empire, though it is not probable that a very
strict allegiance was enforced. As monarch, Quinantzin,
from his royal palace of Oztoticpac, labored more
earnestly and successfully than before for a return to
the old Toltec civilization, thus exciting the opposition
of many Chichimec nobles, and preparing the way
for future disasters. Tlotzin became, at last, so fond
of his son's beautiful home, that he practically abandoned
Tenayocan, appointing Tenancacaltzin, probably
his brother, to rule in his stead. The newly appointed
lieutenant had no fondness for Toltec reform, became
secretly the chief of the opposition to the emperor,
and only awaited an opportunity to declare his independence.
Tlotzin Pochotl, at last, after an illness
whose chief feature is said to have been a profound
melancholy, was carried, at his request, to Tenayocan,
where he died in 1246, after appointing Quinantzin
as his heir. His funeral was accompanied with great
pomp and display; all the kings of Anáhuac, both
friends and foes, assisting in the ceremonies, and
eulogizing his character.[VI-19]




Taking the title of Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, or
Emperor of the Chichimecs, Quinantzin transferred
the capital to Tezcuco, re-appointing, it would seem,
Tenancacaltzin as ruler of Tenayocan. He immediately
annexed the powers of Huexotla and Coatlichan
to his dominion, forcing the princes of those cities,
Tochintecuhtli, or Ihuimatzal, and Huetzin II., to
reside in his capital, and forming from the three kingdoms
that of Acolhuacan. As emperor, he gave freer
vent than ever to his old inclinations to pomp and ceremony.
Whenever he appeared in public he caused
himself to be borne in a magnificent royal palanquin
on the shoulders of four Chichimec nobles. The
[334]
ill-will which Quinantzin's strict discipline and Toltec
inclinations had previously excited; the fears
aroused by his annexation of Huexotla and Coatlichan,
and other decided political measures; displeasure
of those of Tenayocan at the change of capital; and
the humiliation of the Chichimec nobles, in being
obliged to bear the royal palanquin, soon resulted in
a revolution. By the support of the Tepanec king
at Azcapulzalco, Tenancacaltzin was proclaimed emperor
at Tenayocan, and all Anáhuac, save Culhuacan,
Coatlichan, Xaltocan, and Huexotla, were arrayed
against the Tezcucan monarch, many of his own
relatives joining in the movement against him, and
his brother, Tlacateotzin, being driven from the
dominion of Tlazalan. In so unequal a struggle
Quinantzin seems to have made no effort to overthrow
the usurper, but rather to have employed all the
force that could be furnished by his remaining vassals
in fortifying his position at Tezcuco, where he
patiently awaited future opportunities for revenge
and recovery of his imperial throne.[VI-20]



 TENANCACALTZIN USURPS THE THRONE.



Acolnahuacatl, the Tepanec king, seems to have
supported the usurpation of Tenancacaltzin not from
any feelings of friendship, but from ambitious motives
for his own interests. He took no steps to accomplish
the conquest of Tezcuco, but on the contrary
soon began to plot against the usurping emperor.
He made use of the Mexicans, who had suffered much
from the people of Tenayocan and were eager for
vengeance, to accomplish his purpose. Reinforced by
some Tepanec troops in Aztec dress, they made several
raids for plunder against Tenayocan and the
adjoining towns. Thus provoked, Tenancacaltzin
marched with an army to punish the robbers, but was
met at Tepeyacac, where now the church of Guadalupe
stands, by the Mexicans and Tepanecs combined,
[335]
and utterly defeated. The conquered emperor fled to
Xaltocan, expecting aid from the enemies of the Mexicans,
but the princes of Xaltocan were also friends of
Quinantzin, to whom they delivered Tenancacaltzin,
but who refused to revenge his wrongs upon his uncle,
and permitted him to leave the country. The Tepanec
king took possession of Tenayocan and had
himself declared emperor of the Chichimecs, Quinantzin
apparently making at first no opposition, but
awaiting a more favorable opportunity to regain his
power.[VI-21]



 QUINANTZIN CHICHIMEC EMPEROR.



I now come to the chain of events by which Quinantzin
regained the imperial throne and a power
surpassing that of any preceding monarch. The
northern provinces of Meztitlan, Tulancingo, and
Totoltepec, excited by the rebels Icuex and Ocotox,
formerly banished by Quinantzin, raised the standard
of revolt and marched to attack the capital. They
were even joined by the four eldest sons of the king,
according to Brasseur and Ixtlilxochitl, although
other authorities make this rebellion a distinct and
later affair, and disagree somewhat as to the time of
the northern rebellion. Dividing his available force
into four divisions, Quinantzin took command of one
division, entrusting the others to his brothers Tochintzin,
or Tochintecuhtli, and Nopaltzin, and to
Huetzin II. of Coatlichan, while his son Techotl
remained in command at Tezcuco. All the divisions
were equally successful and the rebels were driven
back with great loss. Nopaltzin killed Ocotox in
personal combat but was himself killed later in the
battle. The king's rebel sons had not actually taken
part in the fight, and on offering their submission
were, at the intercession of their mother, pardoned,
on condition of leaving Anáhuac and joining the Teo-Chichimecs
[336]
on the eastern plateau. This success in
the north was not without its effect in the valley.
Many cities that had declared their independence, or
had become subjects of Acolnahuacatl, now offered
anew their allegiance to the monarch of Acolhuacan
at Tezcuco. Congratulations flowed in from Culhuacan
and other friendly powers, with various plausible
excuses for not having aided Quinantzin in his
time of trouble. Prisoners taken during the war
were released, and some of the lords of the northern
provinces were even restored to their former positions
on promise of future loyalty. Thus the wise king
laid the foundations of future success. The pardoned
sons of Quinantzin, before proceeding to Tlascala and
Huexotzinco, joined the Teo-Chichimecs at Poyauhtlan.
This people, by their encroachments, had
made enemies of all the nations of Anáhuac; it is
even said that they had instigated the northern revolt
in the hope that the formation of a league against
themselves might be prevented. But this hope was
vain, and soon after Quinantzin's victory, they were
attacked before their city by the united forces of the
Tepanecs, Culhuas, Xochimilcas, and Mexicans. A
battle ensued described as the most terrible ever
fought in the valley, in which the Teo-Chichimecs
held their ground, but which so exhausted the forces
on both sides that it was long before any nation concerned
was in condition to renew hostilities. The
king of Acolhuacan seems not to have taken part in
this struggle, perhaps because of the presence of his
sons at Poyauhtlan and the fact that his relatives
were ruling the Teo-Chichimecs in Tlascala. The
state of affairs was now altogether favorable to Quinantzin,
and after, as some authors state, another campaign
against the northern provinces, he began to
turn his attention toward his lost dominions about
the lakes. The emperor Acolnahuacatl, at Tenayocan,
seems to have clearly perceived that fortune
favored his rival, and that in his exhausted condition
[337]
since the battle at Poyauhtlan, he could not possibly
defend either the imperial crown or even that of
Azcapuzalco, and craftily resolved to voluntarily
abandon his claims to the former in the hope of retaining
the latter. His plans, as usual, were successful;
Quinantzin accepted his proposition without
any manifestation of ill-will, and was crowned emperor
with the most imposing ceremonies in 1272,
forming a friendly alliance with the kings of Culhuacan
and Azcapuzalco, and becoming practically
the master of Anáhuac. The Teo-Chichimecs soon
after, by the advice of their god, and with the consent
of the emperor, migrated eastward to Tlascala.[VI-22]




In his efforts to embellish his capital, and to restore
his empire to the glory and his subjects to the
culture of the ancient times, it has been stated that
Quinantzin called in the aid of many Toltecs, showing
them great favor. A few years after his accession,
two of the Toltec tribes that had left the valley
[338]
at the fall of the empire and settled on the coast
of the Pacific in Oajaca, the Tailotlacs and Chimalpanecs,
are said to have returned and to have been
received by the emperor and granted lands in Tezcuco,
after having stayed some time in Chalco. The
new chiefs were even allowed to become allied by
marriage to the royal family. The new-comers seem
to have belonged to the partisans of Tezcatlipoca.
Additional bands of Huitznahuacs, Tepanecs, Culhuas,
and Mexicans, from distant lands, are also
vaguely alluded to as having settled in Tezcuco, Azcapuzalco,
and Mexico.[VI-23] About the same time the
northern province of Tepepulco revolted, according
to Torquemada,[VI-24] and was conquered by Quinantzin,
spoken of as Tlaltecatzin by this and several other
writers. The province was joined to the dominions
of Tezcuco under a royal governor, its lord having
been put to death. Another source of prosperity for
Tezcuco seems to have been a fresh out-burst in Culhuacan
of the old religious dissensions between the
partisans of Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca, causing
many of the inhabitants to make their homes in the
Acolhua capital where they were gladly received;
although Ixtlilxochitl tells us that Quinantzin erected
no temples in his capital, and permitted the erection
of none, being content, and obliging all the citizens to
be so, with the simple religious rites of his Chichimec
ancestors.[VI-25] Xihuiltemoc, a descendant of Acxitl,
the last king of Tollan, was on the throne of Culhuacan
at this time, and seems to have formed some kind
[339]
of an alliance with the Mexicans at Chapultepec, and
to have admitted to his city the worship of Huitzilopochtli—a
fact that leads Brasseur to think that
the Culhua king was a partisan of Tezcatlipoca,
almost identical with Huitzilopochtli so far as the
bloody rites in his honor are concerned.[VI-26] In the
last years of the thirteenth century, about 1281,
Xihuiltemoc was succeeded by Coxcoxtli whose
mother is said to have been a Mexican, but who was
a devoted partisan of Quetzalcoatl.[VI-27]



 THE AZTECS LEAVE CHAPULTEPEC.



The Aztecs had, in the meantime, gained much in
power, and although few in numbers, compared with
the other nations, had, by their skill as warriors and
the ferocity of their character, made themselves hated
by all, becoming, indeed, the pests of Anáhuac,
although nominally the allies of the Culhuas and
Tepanecs. The story of their overthrow at Chapultepec
is a brief one, as told by the Spanish writers.
Copil, son of Huitziton's sister, the sorceress Malinalxochitl,
had, as has been already related,[VI-28] been
sworn by his mother to vengeance on the Mexicans.
He now came to the lake region and used all his
influence to excite the surrounding nations against his
enemies, denouncing them as everything that is bad,
and urging their extermination. Hearing of his
plots, the priest Quauhtlequetzqui went with a party
to Tepetzingo, where Copil was, killed him, tore out
his heart and threw it into the lake. The place
was known as Tlalcocomocco, and here afterwards
sprang up the tunal which guided the Aztecs in
founding their city; here was also a hot spring, called
Acopilco. Immediately after this the Aztecs were
attacked by many nations, chiefly the Culhuas and
Chalcas, driven to Acoculco, amid the reeds of the
[340]
lake, and many of their number carried captives to
Culhuacan, among whom was their chief, Huitzilihuitl,
who was sacrificed. Afterwards they were given, by
the Culhuas, the district of Tizaapan, which abounded
in snakes, lizards, etc., on which chiefly they lived,
paying heavy tribute to the king of Culhuacan, and
leading a very hard life for many years.[VI-29]




Brasseur throws much light upon the events of
this period. It seems that the Aztecs provoked
Copil's efforts for their destruction by two raids
against Malinalco, which belonged to Culhuacan, and
that the Mexicans treacherously drew the son of Malinalxochitl
into their power by offering him the position
of high-priest, according to a pretended revelation
of Huitzilopochtli's will. His daughter, Azcaxochitl,
was forced to become the mistress of Quauhtlequetzqui;
all his nobles were taken prisoners, and a band of
Culhuas who came to Tlalcocomocco soon after, were
massacred. All the rulers of the valley, save, perhaps,
Quinantzin, were soon leagued together for the
destruction of these marauders and butchers. Huitzilihuitl
made a valiant and long-continued defence,
defeating the Tepanecs in a fierce battle, but exciting
renewed horror by murdering and cutting in pieces
Acolnahuacatl, king of Azcapuzalco, and formerly
emperor. They were at last conquered through
their rash bravery, since, while their army was fighting
the Culhuas whom they had been challenged to
meet, another body of the enemy took and burned
Chapultepec, carrying off the surviving inhabitants
as prisoners. The Mexican army was then defeated,
nearly exterminated, and the remnants scattered in
the lake marshes, while Huitzilihuitl was taken, and,
with his daughter and sister, put to death in revenge
[341]
for the murder of Copil and the Tepanec king. These
events occurred about 1297. For two years the scattered
Mexican remnants were subjected to every indignity,
but in 1299, perhaps through the influence of Acamapichtli,
his son and heir, Coxcoxtli was induced to
grant this unfortunate people the small, barren, and
serpent-infested isle of Tizaapan.[VI-30]



 WAR WITH THE XOCHIMILCAS.



The Spanish writers do not imply that Acolnahuacatl,
king of the Tepanecs, was killed by the
Aztecs, or that he even fell in battle. His son,
Tezozomoc, was heir to the throne, but as he was
very young, his mother seems to have ruled as regent
during his minority, and as she was the wife of Coxcoxtli,
the power was practically in the hands of the
Culhua monarch.[VI-31] Coxcoxtli thus saw his power in
Anáhuac largely increased, but he was continually
annoyed with petitions from the Mexicans for larger
territory and permission to settle at various points in
his dominions, and at the same time harassed by the
encroachments of the Xochimilcas, particularly in the
lake fisheries. He at last proposed to grant the requests
of the Aztecs on condition that they would
aid him in chastising the insolent and powerful Xochimilcas.
The services of the followers of Huitzilopochtli
were always in demand when there was fighting
to be done. The secret plan of the king was to
place the new allies in the front to receive the force
of the attack; the heavier their loss the better, for
his troops would have an easy victory, and a dead
Aztec was a much less troublesome neighbor or subject
[342]
than a live one. No arms were supplied to the
allies, but their priests taught them to make shields
of reeds, and arm themselves with clubs and obsidian
knives. By a strange freak of fancy they resolved to
retain no captives, though a reward was offered for
them, but to disarm and release all they captured after
having marked them by cutting off the right ear
of each. The fury of their attack and their novel
method of warfare struck terror into the hearts of the
enemy, who were defeated and driven back to their
capital in confusion, the Mexicans obtaining much
plunder, and the Culhuas an extraordinary number
of prisoners. Returning to Culhuacan, the Culhua
braves proudly displayed their captives, ridiculing
their allies, until the latter pointed out the lack of
ears among the victims of Culhua valor, and calmly
produced the missing features from their sacks; the
effect was complete, and they carried off the honors of
the day. Coxcoxtli was proud of such allies, their
petitions were granted, and the two nations were also
connected by intermarriage.[VI-32]



 THE MOTHER OF THE GODS.



The history of the Mexicans and Culhuas, during
the early part of the fourteenth century, down to the
founding of the city of Tenochtitlan in 1325, presents
a confusion unequaled, perhaps, in any other period
of the aboriginal annals. A civil war on the eastern
plateau at Cholula, in which king Coxcoxtli was involved
to a certain extent, will be mentioned elsewhere,
as it only slightly concerns the general history
of Anáhuac. Torquemada, Clavigero, and others,
relate that after the battle with the Xochimilcas, the
Aztecs had secreted four captives destined for sacrifice,
and had, besides, asked the Culhua king to
provide them with a suitable offering and to be
present at the ceremonies. They were sent a dead
body and a mass of filth which the Mexicans, restraining
[343]
their anger at the insult, placed upon the
altar and said nothing. When Coxcoxtli and his
suite appeared, the priests, after a religious dance,
brought out the four captives and performed the
bloody rites of sacrifice before the guests. The Culhuas
left the place in disgust, and orders were immediately
given that the Mexicans should be driven from
the territories of Culhuacan.[VI-33] As Acosta and Duran
tell the story, the Aztecs sent from Tizaapan, where
it seems many of them were still living, to the Culhua
king, requesting him to give them his daughter
to rule over them and be the mother of their god.
The request was cheerfully granted and the young
princess conducted with great pomp to the town of
her future subjects. A great festival was prepared,
the princess was privately sacrificed to Huitzilopochtli,
who, it seems, had signified his intention of
adopting her as his mother; her body was flayed, and
her skin placed as a garment on a youth, or an idol,
which was set up in the temple to receive the
offerings of visitors. Among those who came to
make such offerings, as a compliment to their allies,
were Coxcoxtli and his nobles. Their rage at the
sight that met their eyes may be imagined. The
bloody followers of Huitzilopochtli were driven from
their homes, and the allies their bravery had gained
were lost to them.[VI-34] Ixtlilxochitl, without mentioning
their return to Culhua favor by the Xochimilco war,
says that the Aztecs escaped from their bondage at
Culhuacan on hearing that king Calquiyauhtzin intended
to massacre them, and resided, for a time, at
Iztacalco, whence they made inroads upon Culhua
territory, but finally retreated to the island where
Tenochtitlan was founded.[VI-35] I append in a note an
abstract of Veytia's version of Nahua history during
[344]
this and the immediately preceding period, since this
version agrees with others at but few points.[VI-36]




Hardly more can be gathered from the preceding
records than that the Mexicans, after living for a time
in Culhuacan, were forced, on account of their bloody
religious rites and of their turbulent disposition, to
leave that city, and to wander for several years about
the lake before settling where the city of Mexico
afterwards stood. Coxcoxtli is said to have been a
devoted follower of Quetzalcoatl, and a zealous persecutor
of all other sects, so much so, that many
families were forced to abandon Culhuacan, and were
gladly received at Tezcuco, as has been stated. It
seems to have been an ineradicable Toltec tendency to
indulge in religious controversy to the prejudice of
their national prosperity. Brasseur[VI-37] finds in his documents
many additional details of some importance
respecting the period in question. The religious
strife in Culhuacan broke out into open war between
the sects of Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca, the former
headed by the king and his son Achitometl, the
latter under another son, Acamapichtli, and seconded
by the Mexicans, who had been driven by persecution
from the city. This is the alliance alluded to by
[345]
Veytia, when he states that Acamapichtli, of Culhuacan,
was chosen king of the Mexicans. The rebellious
son, at the head of the Mexicans, was victorious,
and compelled his father to flee from his capital, but
did not at once assume the title of king, and was, not
long after, in his turn defeated and driven from the
city. This was the final departure of the Mexicans,
most of whom gathered at Iztacalco, where a band of
their nation had been for some years residing, under
the chief Tenuch. Many, however, settled at other
points near at hand on the lake shores and islands,
and to this period is attributed also their invention
of the Chinampas, or floating gardens.



 FOUNDATION OF MEXICO.



The localities thus occupied at this period, simultaneously
or successively, besides Iztacalco, were
Mexicaltzinco, Acatzintitlan, Mixiuhtlan, and Temazcaltitlan.
At last the priests selected what
they deemed a suitable place for permanent settlement,
the same spot where Copil had been sacrificed,
an island, or raised tract in the lake marshes, and
pretended to find there the nopal, eagle, and serpent
which had been promised by their god as a token that
the proper location had been found. The nopal grew
on a rock in the midst of a beautiful pool, into which
one of the two discoverers was instantly drawn, and
admitted to an interview with the Tlalocs, who confirmed
the belief that here was to be their permanent
home. According to some authorities, a title to this
site was obtained from the king of Azcapuzalco. The
first task was to erect a rude temple of rushes for the
ark of the idol Huitzilopochtli, which was located
exactly over the stone which bore the famous nopal;
the huts of the people were built around this as a
centre, divided by divine command into four wards,
or districts. Then all set industriously to work, the
men leveling and filling in the site of their town, or
fishing and killing wild ducks on the lakes, the products
being mostly bartered by the women in the
cities of the main land, for stone and wood for building
[346]
material. The first victim sacrificed to the god
in his new temple was a Culhua noble, of hostile sect,
opportunely captured.[VI-38] Thus was founded, in 1325,[VI-39]
the city named—probably from Mexi, the original name
of Huitziton, and Tenuch, their chief leader at the
time the city was formed—Mexico Tenochtitlan.[VI-40]



 DEATH OF QUINANTZIN.



Quinantzin continued in his glorious career at Tezcuco,
allowing the surrounding kings to weaken their
power by their intrigues and contentions one with
another, while he devoted all his energies as a diplomatist,
and all the strength of his armies to the
strengthening of his imperial power, the enlargement
and embellishment of his capital, where refugees
from all directions were kindly welcomed, the
quelling of rebellion in various provinces, and the
conquest of new lands. Not only did he promptly
put down every attempt at revolt in his own dominions,
but insisted that the kings of Culhuacan
and Azcapuzalco should check the attempts of their
revolting vassals. Huehuetlan, Mizquic, Cuitlahuac,
Zayollan, Temimiltepec, and Totolapan, are named as
the rebellious provinces thus subdued during the last
years of this emperor's reign. No monarch in Anáhuac
[347]
could have resisted Quinantzin's power, but he
seems to have had no disposition to encroach on what
he deemed the legitimate domains of his brother sovereigns.
In spite of the opposition of the Chichimec
nobles to his reforms, his tendency to Toltec usages,
and his fondness for display, the emperor after his
power had become firmly established enjoyed the
love and respect of all his subjects. His surname,
Tlaltecatzin, 'he who lords the earth,' is said to have
been given him in consideration of his success in subduing
so many provinces. He died in 8 Calli, 1305,[VI-41]
at an advanced age, and his funeral ceremonies
were conducted with all the pomp that had been
characteristic of him in life. Seventy rulers of provinces
are said to have assisted. His body, embalmed,
was seated in full royal apparel on the throne, an
eagle at the feet, a tiger at the back, and the bow
and arrows in his hands. All the people crowded to
the palace to take a last look upon their emperor, and
after eighty days, according to Torquemada, his body
was burned, and the ashes, in an emerald urn with a
golden cover, placed in a cave near Tezcuco; or, as
Veytia and Ixtlilxochitl say, buried in a temple of
the Sun in the Tezcocingo forest.[VI-42]



 LIMITS OF THE CHICHIMEC EMPIRE.



Quinantzin's elder sons having proved rebellious
during their father's reign, and having, therefore,
been banished, his youngest son, Techotl, Techotlalatzin,
or Techotlala, was chosen as his successor.
Techotl reigned from 1305 to 1357, a
period during which the dominions attached to the
crown of Tezcuco were almost entirely undisturbed
by civil or foreign wars. Only one war is recorded,
by which the province of Xaltocan, peopled chiefly
by Otomís, with the aid of the chiefs of Otompan,
Quahuacan, and Tecomic, attempted to regain her
[348]
independence of Chichimec imperial authority. The
revolt was, however, promptly repressed by the emperor
and his allies after a campaign of two months.
Tezozomoc had now succeeded to the throne of Azcapuzalco,
and with his Tepanec forces, took a very
prominent part in this war against Xaltocan and the
northern provinces. The Mexicans also sent an army
to this war, and received some territory as a result,
the rest of the provinces being joined to the domains
of Tezcuco and Azcapuzalco.[VI-43] Techotl's tastes
and ambitions were similar to those of his father, and
his fifty-two years of peaceful and prosperous reign
enabled him to successfully carry out his projects.
To him, as emperor, belonged the allegiance of the
kings of Culhuacan, Azcapuzalco, and Mexico in the
latter part of his rule, when the latter power had
risen to some prominence; but no tribute was paid by
these kings, and their allegiance was probably only
nominal.[VI-44] Over the provinces that belonged to Tezcuco,
or rather the kingdom of Acolhuacan, Techotl
ruled in precisely the same manner as the other
kings over their respective territories. The lord of
each province acknowledged his allegiance to his king,
paid tribute according to the wealth of his people, and
was bound to aid his sovereign, if so requested, in
time of war; in other respects he was perfectly independent,
and governed his dominion with almost
absolute sway. The long list of vassal provinces and
lords given by the records[VI-45] show that the authority
[349]
of the Chichimec emperor extended far beyond
Anáhuac, but do not enable us to fix definitely its
limits; it probably was but little less extensive than
that of the emperor at Culhuacan, in Toltec times,
and was very similar to the Toltec rule in its nature.[VI-46]
Techotl's efforts seem to have been directed to
the complete re-establishment of Toltec culture; to
the building-up and embellishment of his capital; to
the enacting of just laws and their strict enforcement
by the appointment of the necessary courts and
officials; to the work of attracting new settlers into
his kingdom and capital, by kind treatment of all
new-comers, and a toleration of all their religious
beliefs and rites; and above all, to the centralization
of his imperial power, and the gradual lessening of
the prerogatives of his vassal lords. The refugees
[350]
from different nations were given separate wards of
Tezcuco for a residence, and were permitted to erect
temples, and to perform all their various rites. Human
sacrifice and religious strife were alone prohibited.
The different creeds and ceremonials of Toltec times
became almost universal in his kingdom,[VI-47] although
the emperor himself is said to have ridiculed all these
creeds and sacrifices, contenting himself with the
worship of one god, of whom he deemed the sun a
symbol. He is credited with having entertained
sentiments on religious topics several centuries in
advance of his time.




In his efforts for the centralization of the Chichimec
power, he first summoned the chief lords of
his provinces, some twenty-six in number, to Tezcuco,
and practically compelled them to live there, although
heaping upon them honors and titles which made it
impossible for them to refuse obedience to his wishes.
All together constituted a royal council, consulted
on matters of national import; and from them were
selected sub-councils, to whose management were entrusted
the superintendence of various branches, such
as the administration of justice, military regulations,
art and science, agriculture, etc. Five of the leading
lords were entrusted with the most important and
honorable positions, and placed at the head of the
chief councils.[VI-48] As an offset to the favors granted
[351]
these lords at the capital and in the general government,
their prerogatives at home were greatly diminished.
The twenty-six provinces were subdivided
into sixty-five departments; the lords retained their
original titles and the absolute command of twenty-six
of the departments, but over the other thirty-nine
governors were placed who were supposed to be
wholly devoted to the interests of the emperor. Techotl
is even said to have gone so far as to transfer
the inhabitants belonging to different tribes from one
province to another, so that the subjects of each chief,
although the same in number as before, were of different
tribes, and, as the emperor craftily imagined,
much less easily incited to revolt in the interests of
ambitious chieftains, who were ever ready to take advantage
of favorable circumstances to declare their
independence. If the Chichimec nobles objected to
these extraordinary measures, their opposition is not
recorded.



 REIGN OF TECHOTL.



At one of the grand assemblies of kings and lords,
held at Tezcuco, to deliberate on the general interests
of the empire, in 1342, Techotl announced his intention
to leave his crown to his eldest son, Ixtlilxochitl,
and caused that prince to be formally
acknowledged as heir apparent to the imperial throne.
It does not appear that any opposition to his succession
was made at the time,[VI-49] although as we shall see,
his right was not undisputed at the death of his
[352]
father. At one of these assemblies, as all the authorities
agree, it was ordered that the Nahua language
should be employed exclusively at court, in the tribunals,
and in the transaction of all public affairs. It
has been inferred from this, by many writers, that the
language of the Chichimec nations was different from
that of the Toltecs;[VI-50] but such a supposition would be
inconsistent with the whole tenor of the aboriginal
annals, and cannot be admitted. Among the new
tribes that occupied Anáhuac after the Toltecs, there
were doubtless some that spoke another tongue; the
enforced use of the Nahua at court was aimed at the
chiefs of such tribes, and was a part of the emperor's
general policy. Of course it is just possible that one
of the tribes of foreign tongue had become powerful
and constituted a large part of the population of Tezcuco,
but such a state of affairs is not probable, and
the statement of some writers that the many learned
Culhuas and Mexicans gathered at the Chichimec
capital during this period, came as teachers of
the Nahua language at the court of Techotl, cannot
be accepted. Brasseur's idea, as implied throughout
this period of aboriginal history, that the
Chichimecs were barbarians, gradually civilized by
the few Toltecs that remained in the country, and
forced by their kings to adopt Nahua language and
institutions, I regard as wholly imaginary. The
struggles of Quinantzin and his successors were directed,
not to the introduction of Toltec usages, but
to the preservation of their culture, threatened by the
spirit of anarchy and independence that followed the
downfall of the Toltec empire.



 DEATH OF TECHOTL.



Feeling, at last, that his end was drawing near,
and that the work to which he had devoted his energies
must be committed to other hands, the aged
monarch is reported to have held a long interview
[353]
with his son and heir, Ixtlilxochitl. Most earnestly
he instructed his son concerning his future duties, and
warned him against dangers whose occurrence he
already foresaw. He feared, above all, the projects
of Tezozomoc, the Tepanec king, who had already,
although nominally loyal to Techotl, shown tokens
of far-reaching ambition and the possession of great
executive ability, and who evidently remembered that
Acolnahuacatl, his predecessor, had once been emperor.
Special advice was given to Ixtlilxochitl, who
was probably a very young man, although there is
some disagreement about the date of his birth,[VI-51] as to
the best policy to be followed with the king of Azcapuzalco,
and after jealously striving to imbue his successor
with the spirit that had made his own reign so
glorious, the emperor died, as has been stated, in 8
Calli, 1357.[VI-52]



 AZTECS AT MEXICO TENOCHTITLAN.



Having traced the glorious, though peaceful career
of the emperor Techotl, I have to close this chapter
by narrating the events of Culhua and Mexican
history during a corresponding period; a period most
fatal to Culhuacan, the metropolis of Anáhuac in Toltec
times, and the only Toltec city that had retained
its prominence through the dark days of Chichimec
invasion. We have seen the Mexicans expelled from
Culhuacan at the triumph of Achitometl over his
brother Acamapichtli; and, after a series of wanderings
[354]
about the lake, founding their city of Mexico
Tenochtitlan in 1325. One year before the city was
founded, however, Acamapichtli seems to have regained
his power, and this time, his father Coxcoxtli
having died, he assumed the title of king. His rule
was probably very advantageous to the Mexicans, his
friends, during their first years in their new city,
while they were strengthening their position; but in
1336 he died, murdered, as some of the records imply,
and was succeeded by his brother Achitometl II., the
avowed enemy of the Mexicans and their religious
rites. His accession drove many of the rival sect to
Mexico, and he thus aided, involuntarily, in building
up the new power. The infant son of the dead king,
also named Acamapichtli, was saved either by his
mother, or, as others say, by the princess Ilancueitl.[VI-53]
During the troubles between the rival sects headed
by Acamapichtli and Achitometl, large numbers of
Culhuas had left their city and either taken refuge in
Tezcuco, or had joined kindred tribes in different localities.
On the final accession of Achitometl this
depopulating movement was continued to a greater
extent than ever before. According to Brasseur's
documents, a war with Chalco in 1339, fomented by
Tezozomoc, who had succeeded to the Tepanec throne
eight years before, gave the finishing blow to the
power of Culhuacan, which was practically abandoned
by king and people about 1347, her weaker tributary
provinces being in part appropriated by the stronger,
which now became independent of all save imperial
[355]
power, although a large portion fell into the hands of
the kings of Azcapuzalco and Acolhuacan. The
larger part of the Culhuas proper were divided between
Quauhtitlan,—which soon became practically
a Culhua, or Toltec, city, under Iztactototl, grandson
of Coxcoxtli, who succeeded in 1348,—and Mexico.[VI-54]




The territory on which Mexico Tenochtitlan was
built seems to have belonged to the domain of Azcapuzalco,
and the Mexicans were obliged to pay to the
Tepanec king a certain amount of tribute in fish and
other productions of the lake. Their prosperity, the
improvements they were constantly making in their
city, and their strong position in the lake, taken in
connection with their well-known valor and ambition,
excited much jealousy among the surrounding nations.
Possibly this jealousy is alluded to in the fable of a
fatal epidemic which prevailed at this time, ascribed
in the popular tradition to the fumes of fried fish and
other delicacies, wafted from the island town, which
created so violent a longing as to occasion illness.[VI-55]
The Tepanecs were the only people that had the
power to oppress the Aztecs, which they are said to
have done, not only by the exaction of the regular
tribute due them, but by imposing special taxes, to
be paid in articles of no value to the receivers, but
which could be obtained by the Mexicans only with
great difficulty or danger.[VI-56] Brasseur says that Tezozomoc
even went so far as to send his son Tlacotin
to rule in Mexico after Tenuch's death, and he dying
after a short time, another son, Teuhtlehuac, became
governor.[VI-57] I find nothing in the Spanish writers
respecting Tepanec governors in Mexico, although
none of them give any very definite idea how the city
was governed in the early period of its existence.
[356]
Some authors mention Tenuch as one of the chiefs
that directed the original Aztec migration; others, as
we have seen, make him the chief of an Aztec band
at Iztacalco, just before the founding of the city, and
imply that he was the leader under the priesthood at
the time of its foundation, and for some time after;
while still other writers state that he was elected
chief three years after the foundation.[VI-58]




At this period took place the division of the
Aztecs into Mexicans and Tlatelulcas, although
Veytia dates it back before the foundation of the city,
and before many of the events already related. It
was caused by a quarrel between the priests and
nobles, and was a secession of the latter when unable
to check the growing power of the former. Torquemada
attributes the separation merely to the overcrowded
state of the city; and the fable of the two
bundles which originated the dissension in early times
has already been related.[VI-59] Brasseur sees in this
division the inevitable Nahua tendency to struggle
bravely and unitedly against misfortune, but at the
first dawn of prosperity to indulge in internal strife.
The priesthood used their influence to excite the lower
classes against the nobility, and particularly against
their Tepanec governor, whom they denounced as a
tyrant. They finally succeeded in raising such a
storm that Teuhtlehuac was driven out, and his party,
including most of the nobility, determined to seek a
new home. The connection of a Tepanec governor
with the matter, removes some of the difficulties involved
in other versions, but it is not easy to understand
why Tezozomoc permitted his son to be driven
from Tenochtitlan. Whatever the circumstances
which led to the secession, the location of the new
[357]
establishment was miraculously pointed out. The
nobles were attracted by a whirlwind to a sandy spot
among the reeds of the lake, about two miles from
Tenochtitlan, and found there the shield, arrow, and
coiled serpent, which they deemed a most happy
augury. They obtained a title of the land from the
Tepanec king, on condition of a yearly tribute,[VI-60] and
called their new home Xaltelulco, afterwards, Tlatelulco.[VI-61]



 GROWTH OF MEXICO AND TLATELULCO.



Both cities grew rapidly, and acquired much prosperity
and power, notwithstanding the separation, by
reason of the large immigration that they received,
and of the rivalry that sprang up between the two
divisions. The additions to the population in Tenochtitlan
were chiefly Culhuas, who came in so large
numbers as to outnumber, perhaps, the original
Mexicans; while Tlatelulco received a corresponding
influx of Tepanecs, and many from other neighboring
nations. We have no further details of their history
down to the death of the emperor Techotl, at Tezcuco,
except that the establishment of a monarchy in
each of the two cities. The Mexicans were at first
ruled by the priests, with certain chiefs not definitely
named; although by some Tenuch is still spoken of
as alive and ruling down to 1357. It was finally
decided, in an assembly of priests and wise men of
the nation, to choose a king, and the choice fell upon
Acamapichtli II., son of Acamapichtli of Culhuacan.
The large Culhua element in Tenochtitlan doubtless
had a great influence in this choice; and other
[358]
motives were the friendship of the candidate's father
for the Mexicans in past times, the possibility of
reconquering the old Culhua possessions and joining
them to the Aztec domain, and possibly the extreme
youth of Acamapichtli, which offered to the priesthood
a prospect of easily controlling his actions. The
young candidate was summoned from Tezcuco, where
he had taken refuge, together with the princess
Ilancueitl, who had rescued him, who seems to have
been regent during his minority, and who is even said
to have become his wife. 1350 was the date of the
accession of Acamapichtli II., the first king of Mexico
Tenochtitlan.[VI-62] Soon after, probably the following
year, 1351, the Tlatelulcas also determined to establish
a monarchical form of government. They also
sent abroad for a king, and received a son of the
Tepanec king, Tezozomoc, named Quaquauhpitzahuac.[VI-63]




[359]



CHAPTER VII.

THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.—CONCLUDED.



Aztec History—Reigns of Acamapichtli II. and Quaquauhpitzahuac—Rebuilding
of Culhuacan—Huitzilihuitl II., King
of Mexico—Tlacateotzin, King of Tlatelulco—Chimalpopoca
Succeeds in Mexico—Funeral of Techotl—Ixtlilxochitl,
Emperor of the Chichimecs—Symptoms of Discontent—Plans
of Tezozomoc, the Tepanec King—Secret council of
Rebels—Religious Toleration in Tezcuco—Conquest of Xaltocan
and Cuitlahuac—Birth of Nezahualcoyotl—War between
Tezcuco and Azcapuzalco—Victories of Ixtlilxochitl—Siege
and Fall of Azcapuzalco—Treachery of Tezozomoc—Fall
of Tezcuco—Flight and Death of Ixtlilxochitl—Tezozomoc
proclaimed Emperor—Reorganization of the Empire—Adventures
of Nezahualcoyotl—Death of Tezozomoc—Maxtla
usurps the Imperial Throne—Murder of the Mexican
Kings—Nezahualcoyotl's Victory—Itzcoatl, King of
Mexico—Acolhua and Aztec Alliance—Fall of Azcapuzalco—The
Tri-partite Alliance, or the New Empire.




The next and final chapter of the Chichimec annals
covers a period of three quarters of a century,
extending from the death of the emperor Techotl
in 1357, to the formation of the tri-partite alliance
between the Acolhuas, Aztecs, and Tepanecs, in
1431. It embraces the reigns of three emperors,
Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, and Maxtla; and is a record
of continued struggles for the imperial power between
the Acolhuas and Tepanecs, resulting in the humiliation
[360]
of the latter and the triumph of the former,
through the aid of a third power, which is admitted
as an equal to the victor in the final reconstruction of
the empire. The rôle of the other nations of Anáhuac
during this period, is that of allies to one or
the other of the powers mentioned, or, occasionally,
of rebels who take advantage of the dissensions of
the ruling powers to declare their independence, enjoyed
as a rule only until such time as the masters
may have an opportunity to reduce them to their old
allegiance. We find the aboriginal record more and
more complete as we approach the epoch of the conquest,
with much less confusion in chronology, so far
as leading events are concerned, although perfect
agreement among the authorities is yet far from being
attained in the minor details with which the narrative is
crowded. A new source of disagreement is, moreover,
reached as we approach the final century of the
native annals—national prejudices on the part of the
native historians through whom those annals have
been handed down, and a constant tendency among
such writers as Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, Chimalpain,
and Camargo, to exhibit in their highest colors the
actions of the nations from which they have descended,
while ever disposed to cloud the fame of rival powers.
Fortunately, one authority serves, generally, as an
efficient check upon another in such cases.



 REIGN OF ACAMAPICHTLI II.


 THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.



Before relating the general history of Anáhuac
during the successive reigns of the emperors Ixtlilxochitl
and Tezozomoc, in which history the Mexicans
took a prominent part as allies of the latter, it will
be well to glance, briefly—for there is little to say
on the subject—at the course of events in the new
cities on the lake marshes. We left Tenochtitlan
under the rule of its Culhua king, Acamapichtli II.,
or rather under the regency of his queen, Ilancueitl;
while Quaquauhpitzahuac, son of the Tepanec king
Tezozomoc, was on the throne of Tlatelulco, both
kingdoms being tributary to that of Azcapuzalco.
[361]
One of the last acts of the queen was the re-settlement
of Culhuacan in 1378, by means of a colony
sent from Mexico under Nauhyotl, the fourth of that
name who had ruled in the Culhua city. This was done
partly from motives of pride in restoring the capital
of her own and her husband's ancestors, and partly to
serve as a check on the encroachments of the Chalcas
in the south.[VII-1] In 1383 the queen died. Ixtlilxochitl
states that she bore her husband three sons, one of
whom was Huitzilihuitl; Clavigero tells us she was
barren, but took charge of the education of two of
her husband's sons, Huitzilihuitl and Chimalpopoca,
by another wife; Torquemada confounds the two
Acamapichtlis, and is, consequently, greatly puzzled
about Ilancueitl's children; and finally, Brasseur
shows that she was espoused at an advanced age by
the king solely for political motives, and that she
lived harmoniously with his other two wives, one of
whom bore him Huitzilihuitl, and the other Chimalpopoca.[VII-2]
The reign of Acamapichtli II. dates, in a
certain sense, from the death of his queen, who for
many years had, at least, ruled jointly with him.
The beginning of the wars between the Mexicans and
Chalcas, which were waged so bitterly for many
years, is attributed to Acamapichtli's reign, as are
the conquests of Quauhnahuac, Mizquic, and Xochimilco;
but it must be understood that it was only as
the allies of the Tepanec king that the Mexicans
engaged in these wars. Torquemada and Acosta
assert that Acamapichtli's reign was a very peaceful
one.[VII-3] It was after the conquest of Quauhnahuac,
[362]
later Cuernavaca, that the first gold-workers came to
ply their art in Tenochtitlan.[VII-4] After having ruled
wisely and justly, greatly enlarging and improving
his capital, he died in 1403, leaving the choice of a
successor wholly to his nobles and priests.[VII-5] There is
great disagreement among the authorities respecting
the length of his reign, some dating it from his first
call to the throne, and others from the death of
the queen. Immediately after the funeral of
Acamapichtli, an assembly of the wise men of the
nation was held to deliberate on the choice of a successor.
The priests made an effort to acquire the
control by discontinuing the monarchy. They wished
the temporal affairs of the state to be managed by a
senate or council, with a military chieftain to lead
their armies in war; but the majority believed that
their only hope of national safety and future power
was in a monarchy, and Huitzilihuitl II., the eldest
son of the late king was called to the throne during
the same or the following year. The speeches by
which the old men convinced the assembly that their
yet precarious condition, considering their isolated
position and the powerful nations surrounding them,
made it necessary to call to their throne a wise,
prudent, and powerful king, are recorded by Duran,
Tezozomoc, and Torquemada; as are the addresses of
advice to the new king at his coronation, in which
he was reminded that his position was no sinecure,
but that on him depended the future greatness of the
Mexicans foretold by the gods. The choice of the people
was ratified by king Tezozomoc of Azcapuzalco; and
at the same time it is reported that Itzcoatl, a natural
son of the late king, by a woman of rank, was appointed
commander of the Mexican armies. One of
[363]
the means by which the Aztecs struggled to attain
to their predestined greatness, was by contracting
foreign matrimonial alliances with powerful nations;
and as Huitzilihuitl had yet no wife, an embassy was
sent to Tezozomoc with a most humble and flattering
petition, begging that all-powerful sovereign to favor
his most obedient vassal by sending one of his daughters,
"one of his pearls, emeralds, or precious
feathers," as Torquemada expresses it, to share with
the new king his poor home in the marshes. The
petition was granted, the princess Ayauhcihuatl was
given to Huitzilihuitl, and the following year his
brother Chimalpopoca won the hand of the beautiful
princess Miahuaxochitl, daughter of the lord of
Quauhnahuac, who became the mother of Montezuma.[VII-6]
By the alliance with Quauhnahuac, the city
of Tenochtitlan received a large accession of artists
and skilled workmen; while from Tezozomoc, who is
said by Veytia to have personally visited the city at
the birth of his grandson, the Mexicans obtained the
removal of the tribute which they had so long been
obliged to pay, or, at least, its reduction to a merely
nominal amount, including a few wild fowl and fishes
for the royal table. From this time the Mexicans
are said to have felt more at their ease, to have paid
more attention to the arts and sciences, and to have
abandoned their coarse garments of nequen for more
sumptuous apparel.[VII-7]




[364]


 AZTEC ALLIANCES.


 REIGN OF HUITZILIHUITL II.



Very soon after Huitzilihuitl's accession to the
throne, the Tlatetulcan king Quaquauhpitzahuac died,
and was succeeded by his son Tlacateotzin, according
to Brasseur's authorities; although Veytia places at
about this date the succession and marriage of Quaquauhpitzahuac,
soon followed by Tlacateotzin's birth,
the latter becoming king only in 1414. This subject
of the Tlatetulcan succession is inextricably confused,
since some authors make Mixcohuatl precede Quaquauhpitzahuac
as first king; and Ixtlilxochitl, in one
of his relations, even puts another king, Amatzin, between
the two. The matter is not one of great importance,
since it is certain that Tlacateotzin reigned
after 1414 during a most exciting period, being one
of the chief military leaders in Tezozomoc's army.[VII-8]
The two cities had by this time been extended greatly
beyond their original limits, and were separated only
by a narrow tract of marsh, which was dry at low
water. Notwithstanding the fair promises made by
the Tepanec king to his vassals and allies on the
lake, some of his tyrannical acts seem to have been
directed at them even at this early time, if we may
credit the statement that Nauhyotl IV., in command
[365]
of the Aztec-Culhua colony at Culhuacan for the past
thirty-five years, was murdered by Tezozomoc's orders
in 1413.[VII-9] Tlatelulco was yet in its buildings
and some other respects superior to its rival, perhaps
by reason of being less under priestly control, or
through the greater favor shown its people by the
Tepanecs. But Huitzilihuitl had done much to build
up and embellish Tenochtitlan, and particularly to
promote her commercial industries, by digging canals,
multiplying the number of chinampas, and by a wise
system of trade regulations. He is also accredited
with a new code of laws, and with the introduction of
war canoes and the training of his soldiers in their
skillful management.[VII-10] Mendieta states that this
king conquered Tultitlan, Quauhtitlan, Chalco, Tulancingo,
Xaltocan, Otompan, Tezcuco, and Acolman,
during his reign, but the reference is of course to the
wars of the Tepanec king by the aid of his Mexican
allies; and Sahagun says he fought against Culhuacan,
referring doubtless to a former ruler of the same
name.[VII-11] Huitzilihuitl II. died in 1417,[VII-12] and his half
brother, Chimalpopoca, was immediately chosen to
succeed him, in the absence of any legitimate son.
We have seen that there is much disagreement respecting
Huitzilihuitl's marriage and his children;
some authors even state that Chimalpopoca was his
son, but the majority of the best authorities agree
that the new king was the son of Acamapichtli II.,
and a brother of Huitzilihuitl. The latter's only legitimate
son, Acolnahuacatl, was killed, in childhood,
by Maxtla, son of Tezozomoc, in 1399, through fear
that he might inherit the crown of Azcapuzalco, as
[366]
Clavigero states. Acosta, confounding this tradition
with the fact that king Chimalpopoca was long after
killed by Maxtla's orders, tells us Chimalpopoca was
killed in childhood. Torquemada adds to the fact of
the young Acolnahuacatl's murder, another motive for
the crime, in a tale to the effect that Tezozomoc had
given Maxtla's wife to the Mexicans for a queen,
hence the wrath and vengeance of the Tepanec prince.
The choice of the Mexicans is said to have been approved
both by the emperor Ixtlilxochitl and by Tezozomoc.
Chimalpopoca's marriage has already been
noted, and the birth of his son Montezuma Ilhuicamina;
Veytia states that his wife, by whom he had
seven children, was the princess Matlalatzin, a
daughter of the king of Tlatelulco. I shall have occasion
to speak again of this king.[VII-13]



 SUCCESSION OF IXTLILXOCHITL.



To return to the general history of the Chichimec
empire, the kings and lords were assembled at Tezcuco
to perform the last honors to the dead emperor
Techotl, and to celebrate the accession of his son
and chosen heir Ixtlilxochitl. We have seen that
Techotl had by his great ability and by a series of
most extraordinary political measures checked the
independent spirit of his vassal lords, avoided all internal
strife, centralized the imperial power, and
made himself almost absolute master of Anáhuac.
Another Techotl might perhaps have retained the
mastery; but we have seen that many of his acts
were calculated to excite the opposition of the Chichimec
lords, that on his death-bed he expressed his
misgivings respecting future events, and that his son
had already made of the Tepanec king an enemy.
It is quite possible that the last years of Techotl's
[367]
reign were marked with troubles which have not
been recorded, and that there were causes of enmity
towards Ixtlilxochitl which are unknown to us.
Brasseur attributes the misfortunes that ensued to
Ixtlilxochitl's vacillating spirit and love of ease; but
his acts as recorded by the Spanish writers indicate
rather a peaceful and forgiving disposition, joined to
marked and brilliant abilities as a warrior. However
this may be, trouble ahead was indicated at the
very funeral of his mighty and popular father. Many
lords invited to participate in the ceremonies were
not present. Veytia, and Ixtlilxochitl in one of his
relations, say that only four lords attended the obsequies;
but the latter author elsewhere, and also Boturini,
make the number present over sixty, which is
much more probable. The absentees sent in various
pretexts for not attending; if they had come they
would have been obliged to swear allegiance to the
new emperor or to openly rebel, an act for which
they were not yet ready. Torquemada and Clavigero
tell us that Tezozomoc was present at the funeral,
but departed immediately after without giving
his adhesion to the new emperor. Ixtlilxochitl, however,
was crowned king of Acolhuacan by the princes
present at Tezcuco, and in all probability assumed at
that time the title of Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, or emperor,
that was his due, although no author states
this directly, and both Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia state
expressly that he was not crowned as emperor for
many years. Ixtlilxochitl says, however, in one
place that he was proclaimed 'lord paramount' by
the assembled princes, and there was no apparent
motive for delay in this respect.[VII-14] Ixtlilxochitl was
at first disposed to resort to force and to avenge the
insult offered him. Putting his army in order and
stationing his forces in and about the capital, he sent
[368]
a summons to Azcapuzalco, ordering the Tepanec
king to appear forthwith at court to pay allegiance to
his emperor. Tezozomoc, not yet ready for open
revolt, pleaded illness, assured Ixtlilxochitl of his
good intentions and loyalty, and promised to come as
soon as his health would permit. The emperor understood
that this was but a pretext, but he was unwilling
to resort to harsh measures if they could be
avoided, and was induced by his counselors, many of
them perhaps in full sympathy with Tezozomoc, to
await the better health of his opponent.[VII-15]



 PLOTS OF TEZOZOMOC.



In the meantime Tezozomoc called a secret meeting
of the disaffected lords, with many of whom he
may be supposed to have been already in communication.
The kings of Mexico and Tlatelulco were
among the allies on whom he counted most, and to
whom he made the most flattering promises in case of
future success. In a long speech before the assembly
he expatiated upon the acts of the late emperor
which had been most calculated to offend the lords
before him. He spoke of their rights as independent
Chichimec rulers, of which they had been deprived
and only repaid by empty honors at the imperial
court; urged upon them the necessity of making an
effort to shake off the tyranny that oppressed
them while they retained the power to act; reminded
them of Ixtlilxochitl's youth and general unfitness to
direct the affairs of a mighty empire. He boasted of
having himself already shown his independence by
absenting himself from the new emperor's coronation.
According to most authorities, he disclaimed any
ambitious aims of his own, or any intention to
despoil Ixtlilxochitl of his domains as king of Acolhuacan,
his only avowed design being to restore to all
Chichimec lords their ancient independence; but
others state that he openly expressed his intention to
wear the imperial crown. At any rate, the assembled
princes signified their approval of his views,
[369]
and looked to him for directions; pledged to secrecy
for the present, they were dismissed, and Tezozomoc
began his preparations for the coming struggle. But
he proceeded slowly, for he knew that Ixtlilxochitl
was not a foe to be easily overcome.[VII-16] Ixtlilxochitl
probably knew of the meeting, but still took no active
steps against the Tepanec king, although, as the
Spanish writers say, he was constantly arming and
disciplining his forces. It is said that immediately
upon his accession he removed all restrictions upon
religious rites among the many nationalities and sects
which composed the population of Tezcuco, even
permitting human sacrifice, so strictly prohibited by
his ancestors. He thus laid the foundation for
troubles analogous to those that had destroyed Tollan
and Culhuacan.[VII-17]




Tezozomoc carefully prepared his way to future
power by establishing Tepanec colonies in different
localities. One of them was at Tultitlan, near
Quauhtitlan. We have seen the latter city pass
under Culhua control at the fall of Culhuacan; but
after the reigns of king Iztactototl and queen Ehuatlycue,
the Chichimecs had regained control in 1372.
In 1395 an army, composed chiefly of Tepanecs and
Mexicans, under Xaltemoc, lord of Quauhtitlan, conquered
and burned the Otomí city of Xaltocan, and
a large extent of territory between that city and Tollan,
of which Tezozomoc took for himself the larger
share, giving also portions to his allies for their services.
In 1392 the Cuitlahuacs had been conquered
by the Mexicans and entrusted to a governor devoted
to the interests of Tezozomoc, who embraced every
opportunity to place his sons or his friends in positions
where they might be of use to him in the
future.[VII-18] Ixtlilxochitl watched the aggressive movements
without interfering, from cowardice or weakness
[370]
as one would think were it not for subsequent
events, and at last Tezozomoc proceeded to test his
adversary's feelings towards him, by sending, for
three years successively, a quantity of cotton to Tezcuco,
at first with the request, but finally with the
order, that it should be woven into fine fabrics and
returned to Azcapuzalco. Twice the request was
granted and the cloths sent back with a polite message,
still, as is said, at the advice of the Acolhua
counselors; and the Tepanec king evidently began
to think he had overrated his emperor's courage.
He was disposed to begin hostilities at once, but was
induced by his allied counselors rather to increase
year by year the quantity of cotton sent to Tezcuco,
and thus to gradually accustom the Acolhua king to
a payment of tribute, while he was also constantly
winning over to his side lords that yet wavered. On
the third year a very large amount of cotton was
sent, without any formal request, but with a mere
message directing that the staple be forthwith woven
into the finest cloths, and to ensure dispatch that it
be divided among the Acolhua lords.



 PREPARATIONS FOR WAR.



Ixtlilxochitl was at last fully aroused, refused to
be controlled by his advisers, and returned to Tezozomoc's
message a reply substantially as follows:
"I have received the cotton kindly furnished by you,
and thank you for it. It will serve to make quilted
garments to be worn by my soldiers who go to chastise
a pack of rebels who not only refuse allegiance to
their emperor, but relying on my forbearance, have
the impudence to ask for tribute. If you have more
cotton send it also; my soldiers do not need armor to
fight against such foes, but these quilted garments
will give my armies a finer appearance in their triumphal
march." With this reply, or soon after, according
to Brasseur, a formal challenge was sent to
Tezozomoc, whose gray hairs and near relationship,
as Ixtlilxochitl said, could no longer protect him.
The other authorities speak of no formal challenge,
[371]
but of long preparation on both sides for the approaching
conflict. The Tepanec king summoned his
allies, chief among whom were the Mexicans and
Tlatelulcas, promised to divide the conquered domain
of Acolhuacan among them, and prepared to march
on Tezcuco. Ixtlilxochitl also called upon his vassal
lords, including those of Coatlichan, Huexotla, Coatepec,
Iztapalocan, Tepepulco, Chalco, and others,
explained to them the ambitious plans of Tezozomoc,
recalled to them the favors they had received from
his ancestors, and ordered them to aid him immediately
with all their resources. Many of the authors
state that he wished at this time to be crowned as
emperor, but postponed the ceremonies at the wish of
his lords, until after the defeat of his enemy, when
they might be performed with fitting pomp. All the
lords promised their assistance, although some of
them are supposed to have been in sympathy with
Tezozomoc. The Spanish writers represent these
events as having occurred from 1410 to 1412, but it is
evident from what follows that they are to be attributed
to the last years of the fourteenth century.[VII-19]




Brasseur, relying on a chapter of Torquemada's
work,[VII-20] states that in the challenge mentioned above,
the region of Quauhtitlan was mentioned as a battle-ground,
and that it was followed by a three years'
war, in which Ixtlilxochitl succeeded, at least, in
holding his ground, and thereby greatly increased his
strength by inspiring confidence in the minds of his
wavering vassals. Other authorities, however, state
that open hostilities were not engaged in for a long
time after the affair of the cotton, although preparations
were made on both sides; and this was probably
the case, since I find nothing in Torquemada's account
to indicate that he intended to make this war distinct
[372]
from that which, according to all the authorities, took
place some years later.




Ixtlilxochitl had married a sister of prince Chimalpopoca
of Mexico—half-sister to king Huitzilihuitl
II.—by whom he had two children, the princess
Atototzin and prince Nezahualcoyotl, 'the fasting
coyote.'[VII-21] All the authorities agree on 1402 as the
date of his birth, although disagreeing somewhat
respecting the month, day, and hour, these variations
being, perhaps, not worth discussion from a
historical point of view. The predictions of the
astrologers at his birth were most flattering for his
future career, and he was entrusted for education and
training to a Toltec gentleman of high culture.[VII-22]
Xaltemoc of Quauhtitlan, who in 1395 had commanded
the allied forces in the conquest of Xaltocan,
had, it seems, gained the good-will of both the Chichimec
and Culhua branches of the population of
that city, the power of which had been greatly increased;
but this ruler, not lending himself readily
to the plans of Tezozomoc, is reported to have been
assassinated by the latter's orders in 1408, and his
domain to have been divided and put under sons or
friends of the Tepanec tyrant, as governors.[VII-23]



 WAR BETWEEN ACOLHUAS AND TEPANECS.



The first act of open hostility took place in 1415,
when Tezozomoc sent an army in several divisions
round the lake southward to devastate the country,
destroy the minor towns belonging to the emperor, to
join forces at Aztahuacan, take and fortify Iztapalocan,
an important city near by, and from that place
to march on Tezcuco and capture the emperor. The
plan succeeded at first and many towns were pillaged.
A traitor led them by the best routes and gave them
[373]
instructions as to manner of assaulting, or, as Brasseur
says, admitted them into the city of Iztapalocan;
but the inhabitants under the brave governor, Quauhxilotzin,
succeed in repulsing the Tepanec forces
although not without considerable loss of prisoners,
to which misfortune was joined the death of the brave
governor, murdered by the hands of the same traitor
mentioned above. Ixtlilxochitl, hearing of the march
of his enemy, came to Iztapalocan from Tezcuco soon
after the battle, with a small army hastily gathered;
but the Tepanecs finding that their plan had failed in
its main object, had retreated to Azcapuzalco, and the
emperor's force was too small to attack Tezozomoc in
his intrenchments.[VII-24]




Before beginning a campaign against Tezozomoc,
Ixtlilxochitl called a meeting of such vassal lords as
were accessible, and had his son Nezahualcoyotl proclaimed,
with all the pomp of the old Toltec rites, as
his successor on the imperial throne. The high-priests
of Huexotla and Cholula assisted at the ceremonies,
and the only lords present were those of
Huexotla,[VII-25] Coatlichan, and Iztapalocan; others who
were faithful were busy preparing their forces for
war. The authorities do not agree whether this
meeting took place in Tezcuco or Huexotla, and some
imply that Ixtlilxochitl was crowned at the same
time.[VII-26]




Tezozomoc, too old to lead his armies in person,
gave his son Maxtla and the kings of Mexico and
Tlatelulco, the highest places in command, making
[374]
the latter, Tlacateotzin, commander-in-chief. He also
took especial care in strengthening his fortifications
on the frontier. Ixtlilxochitl divided his forces in
three divisions; the first, commanded by Tochintzin,
grandson of the lord of Coatlichan, was stationed in
towns just north of the capital; the second, under
Ixcontzin, lord of Iztapalocan, was to protect the
southern provinces; while the third, under the emperor
himself, remained near Tezcuco, ready to render
aid to his officers where it should be most needed.
They were ordered to remain within their intrenchments
and await the enemy's movements. The Tepanecs
and their allies crossed the lake in canoes,
landed in the region of Huexotla, carried some small
settlements on the lake shores, and assaulted the
Acolhuas in their intrenched positions. Day after
day they repeated the assault, and were driven back
each time with heavy loss, both sides in the meantime
receiving strong reinforcements. Finally Tochintzin
feigned a retreat towards Chiuhnauhtlan, drew
the Tepanecs in pursuit, faced about suddenly and
utterly routed the forces of Tlacateotzin. The lake
shore was covered with the dead, and the defeated
army retired in confusion to Azcapuzalco. The good-natured
emperor gave orders to discontinue offensive
operations, and sent an embassy proffering peace on
condition of submission to him as emperor, and offering
to forget the past. Tezozomoc haughtily declined
the overtures, claimed a right, as the nearest relative
of the great Xolotl, to the title of Chichimecatl Tecuhtli,
and announced his intention to enforce his
claims, naming a day when his armies would again
meet the Acolhuas on the field of Chiuhnauhtlan.
This may be the challenge already referred to as
recorded by Torquemada. At any rate, it was
accepted, a large army was concentrated at the point
indicated, and another at Huexotla, which place, as
was ascertained, Tezozomoc really intended treacherously
to attack, and which he expected to find comparatively
[375]
undefended. Tlacateotzin crossed the lake
as before in canoes with an immense army, but as
before was defeated in a succession of battles, and
after some days forced to retreat to the Tepanec
capital, branches of the Acolhua army in the meantime
sacking several towns in the enemy's domain,
and punishing several lords who had deserted the
emperor to join Tezozomoc.[VII-27]



 IXTLILXOCHITL'S VICTORIES.



Ixtlilxochitl's star was now in the ascendant; his
valor and success in war inspired new confidence; and
many lords who had hitherto held aloof, now declared
their allegiance to the emperor. As usual, the Tezcucan
monarch was disposed to suspend his military
operations, and receive the allegiance which he supposed
Tezozomoc would now be ready to offer; but
he soon learned that his adversary, far from abandoning
his projects, had succeeded, by new promises of a
future division of territory and spoils, in gaining over
to his side the lords of two powerful provinces, one of
which was Chalco, adjoining the Acolhuan domain on
the north and south. Exasperated at his foe's persistence,
and having a larger army than ever before
at his command, Ixtlilxochitl determined to punish
Tezozomoc and his allies in their own territory.
Leaving at and about Iztapalocan, and under the lord
of that city, a sufficient army to keep the Chalcas in
check, he marched at the head of a large army northward
and round the lakes, taking in his course Otompan
and Tollan with many towns of minor importance.
Now without opposition, now after a bloody combat,
town after town fell before the advancing conqueror,
whose fury was directed against Tepanec soldiers and
treacherous vassals, women and children being in all
cases spared. In the province of Tepotzotlan he was
met by the regular Tepanec army of 200,000 men
under the Tlatelulcan king Tlacateotzin, who attempted
[376]
to stay the tide of invasion, but after a desperate
conflict, was forced back to Quauhtitlan, and then to
Tepatec, where a second great battle was fought.
Defeated at every step, the allied rebels were at last
forced to retreat within the fortifications of Temalpalco,
which defended Tezozomoc's capital, Azcapuzalco.
For four months, as some authorities state,
the siege of the city was prolonged, Ixtlilxochitl endeavoring
rather to harass the pent-up enemy, and
gradually reduce their number, than to bring about a
general engagement. Finally, when he could hold
out no longer, Tezozomoc sent an embassy to the emperor,
throwing himself entirely upon his mercy, but
pleading most humbly for pardon, reminding Ixtlilxochitl
of their near relationship, pledging the submission
of all his allies, and promising to come
personally to Tezcuco, on an appointed day, to swear
the allegiance he had so long and unjustly withheld.
The too lenient emperor, tired of war and bloodshed,
granted the petition, raised the siege against the advice
of all his lords, returned to Tezcuco, and disbanded
his armies. Brasseur makes this campaign
end in 1416; others in 1417. Ixtlilxochitl states
that the campaign lasted four years, and that Tezozomoc
had under his command 500,000 men.[VII-28]



 TREACHERY OF TEZOZOMOC.



By this act Ixtlilxochitl sealed his fate. Some of
his truest allies who had fought for glory and loyalty,
understanding Tezozomoc's hypocrisy and deeming
their labors thrown away, were disgusted at their
emperor's ill-timed clemency and withdrew their support.
Many more lords had undertaken the war with
the expectation, in case of victory, of sharing among
themselves the Tepanec dominions. The rank and
file, with the lesser chieftains, had borne the toil and
[377]
danger of a long campaign, and now that it was
ended, were denied the spoils that belonged to them
as victors. The discontent was loud and wide-spread,
and Ixtlilxochitl's prestige outside of Tezcuco and
one or two adjoining cities, was lost forever. The
Tepanec king, without the slightest idea of fulfilling
his pledges, fomented the spirit of mutiny by promising
the lords as a reward of rebellion, what they had
failed to obtain in loyal combat, new domains from
the Tezcucan possessions, together with independence
of imperial power. Another motive of hatred on the
part of Tezozomoc toward Ixtlilxochitl is mentioned
by Brasseur's documents as having come to the knowledge
of the former king about this time. His son's
wife, a near relative of the Tezcucan king, who had
left her husband and Azcapuzalco for good reasons,
was now found to be living in or near Tezcuco as the
mistress of an Acolhua chief, thus degrading the
honor of the Tepanec royal family.[VII-29]



 DEATH OF IXTLILXOCHITL.



Having completed as secretly as possible his preparations
for a renewal of the war, Tezozomoc announced
his readiness to swear allegiance to his
sovereign, and his intention to celebrate that act and
the return of peace by grand festivities. As his age
and the state of his health would not permit him, he
said, to go to Tezcuco, he appointed a suitable location[VII-30]
for the ceremonies and invited Ixtlilxochitl to
be present with his son Nezahualcoyotl, accompanied
only by unarmed attendants, for the Tepanecs had not
yet recovered, he said, from their terror of the Acolhua
soldiers. The emperor at first consented, although
by this time he had no faith in the Tepanec
monarch, and, abandoned in his capital by all his
leading nobles, bitterly repented of his unwise course;
but at the last moment he sent Prince Tecuiltecatl,
his brother, or as some say his natural son, in his
[378]
stead to make excuses for his absence, and try to
have the ceremony postponed. The substitute was
flayed alive on his arrival at Tenamatlac, and Tezozomoc,
finding that the prey had temporarily escaped
his trap, ordered his troops to march immediately on
Tezcuco, entered the Acolhua domains on the day
after the murder, and the following day surrounded
the capital. The lords of Huexotla, Iztapalocan, and
Coatepec,[VII-31] were the only ones to render aid to the
emperor in this emergency. The city was gallantly
defended by the small garrison for many days,[VII-32] but
at last the emperor with Nezahualcoyotl and a few
companions, by the advice of his lords, left the city
at night and took refuge in the forest of Tzincanoztoc,
where he soon learned that Toxpilli, chief of
the Chimalpanec ward, had pronounced for Tezozomoc
and opened the city to the enemy. A scene of
carnage and plunder ensued, such of Ixtlilxochitl's
partizans as survived fleeing to Huexotzinco and
Tlascala. From his retreat at Tzincanoztoc the emperor
sent to demand protection of the lord of Otompan,
a man deeply indebted to him for honors in the
last campaign; but his petition was denied, and
his messenger, who was also his son or nephew, a
famous general, was murdered, his body torn in pieces,
and his nails strung on a cord for a necklace. By
this time quite a company had gathered about the
emperor, and the enemy had also ascertained his
whereabouts. Aided by the natural strength of his
position, he defended himself for many days, until,
without food or hope of succor, he decided to strive
for life no longer. The authorities differ widely in
the details of his death, and the matter is not sufficiently
important to warrant a repetition of all that
has been said about it. Torquemada and Clavigero
state that he was drawn out of his last retreat by
[379]
promised favorable conditions of surrender, and was
treacherously murdered; but most agree that at the
last approach of the foe, a band of Chalcas and men
of Otompan, he induced his son to conceal himself in
a tree, turned alone upon the enemy, and fell covered
with wounds. At the close of his last conversation
with Nezahualcoyotl, he urged him to escape to his
friends in Tlascala, always to deal leniently with his
enemies, for he did not repent of his own mercy,
though it had cost him so dear; he concluded by saying:
"I leave to thee, my son, no other inheritance
than thy bow and arrow; strive to acquire skill in
their use, and let thy strong arm restore the kingdom
of thy Chichimec ancestors."[VII-33] The emperor's
death took place probably in 1419.[VII-34]




Respecting Tezozomoc's short reign of eight years,
we find in the records a general account of the leading
events, but learn very little about the order of
their occurrence. Of the lords that had remained
faithful to Ixtlilxochitl to the last, those in Anáhuac
were forced to submit for a time to Tezozomoc or flee
for protection to the eastern plateau; but the ruler of
more distant provinces, like those in the east about
Huexotzinco and Tlascala, and those in the north in
the Tulancingo region, beyond the reach of Tepanec
power, utterly refused allegiance to the new sovereign.
Of the powers that had supported Tezozomoc, few or
none seem to have done so from any friendship to
him, or respect for his claims, but for the direct
benefit which they hoped to gain from the change.
[380]
Some fought simply to gain their independence, or re-establish
the old Chichimec feudal system broken up
by Techotl, and such, at the close of the war,
simply assumed their independence, the stronger
provinces retaining it, and the weaker being kept in
subjection by force of arms only, and keeping the
Tepanec king so busy during his short term that he
had hardly leisure to consolidate his empire. The
other class of Tepanec allies had been drawn into the
war by Tezozomoc's extravagant promises of new
honors, domains, and other spoils; these awaited
the complete establishment and re-organization of the
empire, and the fulfillment of the emperor's promises.




Tezozomoc proposed as a basis of reconstruction of
the empire, the division of power in Anáhuac among
seven kings according to the old feudal system, the
conquered Acolhua domains to be divided among
the seven—himself, of course, taking the largest share,
and each of the other six to be independent in the
government of their realms, but to acknowledge him
as emperor and to pay a regular tribute. The seven
kingdoms were to be Azcapuzalco, Mexico, Tlatelulco,
Chalco, Acolman, Coatlichan, and Huexotla, the last
two being given to the lord of Otompan and his
son.[VII-35] King Chimalpopoca of Mexico was to receive
the province of Tezcuco and certain Cuitlahuac districts;
to king Tlacateotzin of Tlatelulco, was to be
given portions of Huexotla and Cuitlahuac. Some
minor rewards were also awarded to the lesser allied
chiefs. The conditions were accepted, although not
without some dissatisfaction on the part of the Mexicans,
who had expected much more, and of such chiefs
as were not among the seven chosen kings. Amid
grand ceremonies and festivities in an assembly of the
allied lords, Tezozomoc proclaimed himself emperor,
and the six kings as his colleagues, to be consulted in
all matters of general government; announced the
transfer of his capital to Azcapuzalco; offered a general
[381]
amnesty to the followers of Ixtlilxochitl on
condition of submission to the new political arrangement;
offered a reward for the capture of Nezahualcoyotl,
dead or alive, proclaiming that all should be
treated as traitors and punished with death who
should dare to give aid or shelter to the fugitive
prince; and appointed officers to publicly proclaim his
accession and the new measures that accompanied
it, in every city in the empire.[VII-36]



 REIGN OF TEZOZOMOC.



Some authorities state that the amnesty proclaimed
by Tezozomoc in favor of the Acolhua provinces,
included freedom from tribute for one year; however
this may have been, the matter of tribute was not
arranged until after the grand assembly and the
swearing of allegiance to the new emperor, but was
reserved by the crafty Tepanec as a means of practically
retaining for himself what he had apparently
given to the six kings, and what had in most cases
proved satisfactory to them. Finally the system of
tribute was announced. The amount of tribute and
of personal service required was made much more
burdensome than it had ever been, greatly to the dissatisfaction
of the people and subordinate chiefs;
then each king was to collect the tribute from his
dominions, to retain one third for himself, and to pay
over at Azcapuzalco the remaining two thirds into
the imperial treasury. Thus the allied powers discovered
that Tezozomoc had outwitted them; that he
had taken for himself in the division of territory the
lion's share; that he had greatly increased the burden
of taxation throughout the country; that, not content
with the revenues of his own states, and a nominal
tribute from his colleagues as a token of their allegiance,
he claimed two thirds of that from other
[382]
states; and that while they had gained the empty
titles of kings and associates in the imperial power,
they were in reality only governors, poorly paid for
the labor of collecting taxes and administering the
government. The Mexicans and Tlatelulcas had
been promised, moreover, or at least had expected,
an establishment on the basis of the old Toltec alliance,
with their own kings as the two allies of
Tezozomoc, owing him only a nominal allegiance.
Moreover Chimalpopoca had now succeeded to the
throne of Mexico, and he was a friend of Nezahualcoyotl
and had never been favorably disposed toward
the Tepanec monarch. The Mexicans, however,
masked their discontent, until such time as they
should see an opportunity for revenge; the other
powers made open and loud complaint, so far as they
dared to do so. The final establishment of Tezozomoc's
empire, so far as it was ever established, is
placed by the Abbé Brasseur in 1425.[VII-37]



 ADVENTURES OF NEZAHUALCOYOTL.



Prince Nezahualcoyotl, after the death of his
father, had been joined by a few faithful friends and
had succeeded in making his escape to Tlascala and
Huexotzinco, where he found the people and lords true
to him, and confident of their ability to repel any
force the Tepanec usurper could send against them,
but not strong enough at this time to warrant them
in undertaking an offensive war against the allied
forces of Anáhuac for the restoration of Nezahualcoyotl
to his ancestral throne. They advised him to
put himself in communication with the many disaffected
chieftains of the valley, and to await his
opportunity, which was sure to come, and that soon,
promising him their aid in such an emergency. The
prince thereupon turned boldly about and returned to
Anáhuac in disguise. His adventures and hair-breadth
[383]
escapes during his wanderings are related in
detail by the Spanish writers, but must be omitted
here as having no special importance in connection
with the general history of the country. He found
friends in every direction, and was especially protected
by Chimalpopoca of Mexico. It is said that
he was present in disguise at the assembly when Tezozomoc
was crowned, and when he heard a reward
offered for his murder, was with difficulty prevented
by his friends from making himself known, so great
was his rage. Finally his aunts, the queens of Mexico
and Tlatelulco, went with a large company of
ladies to the palace of Tezozomoc, and interceded for
their nephew with so much earnestness that the king
countermanded his previous orders, and granted him
permission to reside, in a private capacity, at Mexico;
and soon after he was even allowed to live at Tezcuco
in a palace that had belonged to him personally
from his birth.[VII-38]




Tezozomoc was now very old and infirm; for several
years he had been kept alive only by means of artificial
warmth and the most careful attentions. By a
temperate life and freedom from all excess, in addition
to a robust constitution, he had prolonged his life
even beyond the usual limit in those days of great
longevity, and retained the use of all his mental
faculties to the last. In his last days he repented of
the pardon that he had extended to Nezahualcoyotl;
for he dreamed that an eagle tore his head in pieces
and consumed his vitals, while a tiger tore his feet.
The astrologers informed him that the eagle and the
tiger were Nezahualcoyotl, who would surely overthrow
the Tepanec power, punish the people of
Azcapuzalco, and regain his father's imperial power,
unless he could be put to death. The old monarch's
last charge to his sons and to his nobles was that
[384]
Nezahualcoyotl should be killed, if possible, during
his funeral exercises, when he would probably be
present. He died in 1427, naming Tayauh, one of
his sons, as his successor on the Tepanec and Chichimec
thrones, and charging him, after the Acolhua
prince's death, to strive by every means in his power
to make friends among his vassal lords, and to avoid
all harsh measures. Maxtla, another son, seems to
have had more ability and experience than his
brother, but his father feared the consequence of his
hasty temper and arbitrary manner, by which he
had already made a multitude of enemies.[VII-39] A large
number of princes and lords were assembled at the
royal obsequies, among them Nezahualcoyotl himself,
against the advice of his friends, but relying on his
good fortune and on the assurance of a sorcerer in
whom he had great faith, that he could not be killed
at that time. The heir to the throne was disposed to
have his father's recommendations carried out during
the funeral exercises, but Maxtla claimed that it
would be bad policy—for himself, probably, in consideration
of his own ambitious plans—to disgrace so
solemn an occasion by murder. All the authorities
agree that Tezozomoc was the most unscrupulous and
tyrannical despot that ever ruled in Anáhuac; the only
good that is recorded of him is his own strict morality,
and his strict and impartial enforcement of just
laws and punishment of crimes within his own
dominions. His extraordinary ability as a diplomatist
and politician is evident from the events of
his career as related above.[VII-40]




[385]


 MAXTLA USURPS THE THRONE.



Maxtla, although deprived of the succession to the
imperial throne, had been made king of Coyuhuacan,
a province of which he had long been ruling lord.
He had, however, no intention of giving up his claim
to his father's crown; Tayauh was of a weak and
vacillating disposition, having no enemies, but also no
friends except the kings of Mexico and Tlatelulco
who probably hated his brother rather than favored
him; Maxtla by reason of his high military rank had
control of the army; and only a few days after the
funeral of Tezozomoc, he had himself proclaimed emperor
of the Chichimecs. He offered his brother in
exchange his lordship of Coyuhuacan, but the latter
seems to have gone to reside in Mexico. Chimalpopoca
blamed the deposed sovereign for having so
easily relinquished his claims; and by his advice a
plot was formed some months later to assassinate the
usurper. Tayauh was to have a palace erected for
himself at Azcapuzalco, Maxtla was to be invited to
be present at the ceremonies of dedication, and was to
be strangled with a wreath of flowers while being
shown the apartments. A page overheard and revealed
the plot; Maxtla aided in the erection of the
palace for his brother, and had him stabbed in the
midst of the festivities, instead of waiting to be
shown the rooms and himself becoming the victim.[VII-41]




Chimalpopoca and Tlacateotzin had excused themselves
from attending the fêtes, else they very likely
might have shared Tayauh's fate. Now that the
plot was revealed and their connection with it, they
well knew that Maxtla, who before had reasons to be
unfriendly to them,[VII-42] would neglect no opportunity of
[386]
revenge. A strange story is here given, to the effect
that Chimalpopoca, overwhelmed by misfortune, resolved
to sacrifice himself on the altar of the gods,
or, as some authorities state, by announcing such a
resolve to test the feelings of his people and possibly
to provoke a revolt in his favor. Maxtla, fearing the
latter motive, sent a force of men to Mexico and arrested
the royal victim just before the sacrifice was
to be performed, taking him as a prisoner to Azcapuzalco,
or as others say, confining him in his own
prison at Mexico. Chimalpopoca died soon after this
event, probably killed by order of Maxtla, but there
is no agreement as to the details of his death, or that
of Tlacateotzin which took place about the same time.[VII-43]
The death of the Aztec kings took place in 1428, and
was followed by a re-imposition, and even a doubling,
of the tributes of early days, accompanied by every
[387]
kind of oppression and insult towards the inhabitants
of the lake cities.[VII-44]



 NEZAHUALCOYOTL PREPARES FOR WAR.



Maxtla had resolved that Nezahualcoyotl, as well
as Chimalpopoca and Tlacateotzin, must die.
Whether he came to intercede for Chimalpopoca, or
as other authors say was summoned by Maxtla, the
Acolhua prince visited Azcapuzalco at this time, and
very narrowly escaped death at the hands of the
soldiers posted about the palace with orders to kill
him, by fleeing through the royal gardens and returning
to Tezcuco. A Tepanec force was immediately
dispatched to the latter city, with instructions
to kill or capture him at a banquet to which he was
to be invited by the governor of the city,—a bastard
brother of Nezahualcoyotl, but his deadly foe,—but he
was again fortunate enough to elude their pursuit,
and after having received offers of aid from several
lords in Anáhuac, escaped to Huexotzinco and Tlascala.
He found the provinces of the eastern plateau,
including Zacatlan, Tototepec, Cempoala, Tepepulco,
Cholula, and Tepeaca, more enthusiastic than ever
in his favor, and moreover convinced that the time
had come for decisive action with a view to restore
him to the imperial throne of his ancestors. Armies
were raised and placed at his disposal; word came
that the Chalcas would join in the enterprise; the
sympathy of the Mexicans and Tlatelulcas he was
already assured of; he consequently returned to Anáhuac
and established his headquarters at a small
village near Tezcuco.[VII-45] After having, according to
Veytia, taken Otompan and some of the adjoining
[388]
towns, the allied army was divided into three corps.
The first, composed of the Huexotzinca and Tlascaltec
forces, was to move on Acolman; the second,
made up chiefly of Chalca troops, was to attack Coatlichan;
while Nezahualcoyotl himself, with the
remaining allied forces, was to operate against Tezcuco.
The first two divisions were perfectly successful,
capturing the capitals, Acolman and Coatlichan,
and laying waste the surrounding territory. According
to Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia, Nezahualcoyotl was
equally fortunate, took possession of the Acolhua
capital, and disbanded a large part of his army; but
the author of the Codex Chimalpopoca, partially
confirmed by Torquemada, and followed by the Abbé
Brasseur, states that the prince imperial failed at
this time in his assault on the city, and only succeeded
in fortifying himself advantageously in the
suburb of Chiauhtla. Subsequent events make this
the more probable version of the matter.[VII-46]



 ITZCOATL, KING OF MEXICO.



The murder of Chimalpopoca and Tlacateotzin
caused the wildest excitement in Tenochtitlan and
Tlatelulco. From these acts, together with the
burden of tribute and the many insults heaped upon
them, the people well knew Maxtla's intention to
destroy forever their kingdoms and reduce them to
their former condition of abject vassalage. A mass
meeting composed of all classes was held in Mexico,
which anxiously awaited the decision of the senate,
where the question of their future condition and policy
was long and hotly discussed. The old and the timid
members were in favor of yielding to the demands of
[389]
an emperor whose power they could not hope successfully
to resist; they implored their colleagues not to
plunge the people into war and the horrors of future
slavery by their rash spirit of independence. But
the young men of all classes, seconded by most of
the nobility, were in favor of war, chiding the
cowardice of the rest, and boldly proclaiming their
choice of death rather than a dishonorable submission
to the tyrant's commands. Moreover, the gods had
foretold their future greatness, and should they render
themselves unworthy of divine favor, and bring disgrace
on the memory of their valiant ancestors?[VII-47] It
was decided by a large majority to proceed to the
election of a king who should lead them to victory.
According to the Codex Chimalpopoca, the first choice
of the assembly was Montezuma, eldest son of Chimalpopoca,
but he declined to accept the crown,
pleading youth and inexperience, and urged the claims
of his uncle Itzcoatl, for many years commander of
the armies. The other authorities do not mention
the choice of Montezuma. However this may have
been, Itzcoatl was unanimously elected, and was
crowned with the usual ceremonies and with something
more than the usual amount of speeches and
advice, in view of the gigantic task assumed by the
new king, of shaking off the Tepanec yoke. Tempanecatl,
or Tlacaeleltzin, was sent to demand a
confirmation of the people's choice at the hands of the
emperor Maxtla. But he found that the news had
preceded him and had been ill-received, war had
practically begun, and a blockade was established.
The embassador succeeded in reaching the royal
presence; but though assured of Itzcoatl's loyalty,
Maxtla haughtily replied that Mexico must have no
[390]
king, must be ruled by Tepanec governors, or take
the consequences of a fruitless revolt. Tlacaeleltzin's
return with these tidings caused a new panic among
the more timid of the Mexicans, but by renewed
exhortations, by promises of honors and booty in case
of victory, their courage was brought to the sticking
point, and the same embassador was sent to Azcapuzalco
with a formal declaration of war.[VII-48] Only a
few days after Itzcoatl's coronation the Tlatelulcas
also chose a king and joined the Mexicans in their
fight for national existence. There was some jealousy
between the two powers, but their interests were now
identical. The choice of the Tlatelulcas fell upon
Quauhtlatohuatzin, a celebrated warrior, but not of
royal blood; and to this inferiority in the rank of her
ruler is attributed, by some authors, the inferior
position thereafter occupied by Tlatelulco, previously
equal, if not superior, in power to her sister city.[VII-49]



 SIEGE OF MEXICO.



Such was the state of affairs in the early part of
1429, when the news of Nezahualcoyotl's success
reached Azcapuzalco and Mexico. All communication
had been cut off between the cities of the lake
and the mainland; many sharp attacks had been
made by Itzcoatl on the enemy's lines; but no general
engagement had taken place. The Mexicans
[391]
began to find their condition critical; Maxtla expected
to be at an early date in possession of the
Aztec strongholds, and deferred until after such success
all offensive operations against Nezahualcoyotl;
the besieged Aztecs naturally looked towards the
Acolhua prince for assistance against their common
foe. Here the national prejudices of the original
native authorities, followed by Spanish writers, begin
to appear in the historic annals. Ixtlilxochitl and
Veytia favoring the Acolhua interests, represent the
Aztecs, hard pressed by the Tepanecs, as having
humbly implored the aid of Nezahualcoyotl, who
graciously came to their relief; Tezozomoc, Duran,
and Acosta make the Mexicans conquer the Tepanec
king unaided, and render assistance to the Acolhua
prince afterwards; while Torquemada, Clavigero, and
the authorities followed by Brasseur state, what in
the light of future events is much more probable, that
the two powers formed an alliance on equal terms, and
for mutual advantage against the usurping emperor.
At any rate Montezuma[VII-50]—identical, as Clavigero
and Brasseur think, with Tlacaeleltzin—was sent to
Nezahualcoyotl, in company with two other lords.
The ambassador succeeded in penetrating the enemy's
lines, although one of his companions was captured,
made known to Nezahualcoyotl the wishes and condition
of the Mexicans, and received assurances of
sympathy, with promises to consult with his allies,
render aid if possible, and at least to have an interview
with Itzcoatl. His chief difficulty would seem
to have been that most of his allies not without
reason detested and feared the Mexicans more than
the Tepanecs, and by too hastily following his own
inclinations and espousing the Aztec cause, he might
risk his own success. The fact that an alliance was
finally concluded between these powers shows clearly
that neither alone could overthrow the formidable
[392]
Maxtla, and that it was no act of condescension or
pity on the part of either, but rather of necessity, to
join their forces. On his return Montezuma was
captured by the Chalcas, or being sent, as some
authorities state, to Chalco for aid was retained for a
time as a prisoner, but set at liberty by his jailer,
and reached Mexico in safety.[VII-51] This action of the
Chalcas is said to have so displeased the surrounding
nations that neither party would accept their alliance,
but this may well be doubted, considering the strength
of that people. The Huexotlas, according to Torquemada,
withdrew their allegiance on hearing that
the Aztecs were to be aided. Nezahualcoyotl and
Itzcoatl had an interview soon after at Mexico,[VII-52]
where the former was received with great rejoicing,
and a plan settled for the campaign against Maxtla,
whose territory was to be invaded by the allied
armies. At about this time, according to the Codex
Chimalpopoca, the province of Quauhtitlan succeeded
after a succession of reverses and victories in shaking
off the Tepanec yoke and announced their friendship
to the Mexicans, although they were unable to render
any open assistance in the early part of the campaign.[VII-53]



 SIEGE OF AZCAPULZALCO.



The campaign by which Maxtla was overthrown
and the imperial power wrested from the hands of the
Tepanecs, lasted over a hundred days. To relate in
detail all that the authorities record of this campaign,
the marches and counter-marches, the attacks and
repulses, the exploits of the leaders and lesser chieftains,
noting all the minute variations in statement
respecting the names of chiefs, places attacked,
number of troops engaged, and the chronological
order of events, would require a chapter much longer
[393]
than my space will allow, would be monotonous to the
general reader, and could not probably be made sufficiently
accurate to be of great value to the student
of aboriginal military tactics. The general nature of
the war and the results of the victory may be told
in a few lines. The allied Acolhua, Tlascaltec, Cholultec,
Mexican, and Tlatelulcan forces, under Nezahualcoyotl,
Itzcoatl, Montezuma, and other leaders,
amounted to three or four hundred thousand men.
Most entered Mexico in canoes from the east; but
some divisions marched round the lake. At a
preconcerted signal, the lighting of a fire on Mt
Quauhtepec, all the forces advanced—probably in
canoes, for it is not certain that causeways had yet
been constructed—on the Tepanec territory. The
lord of Tlacopan, by a previous understanding with
the allies, opened that city to the invaders, thus
giving them a sure footing in the country of their
foe, and in a few days Azcapuzalco was closely besieged.
Maxtla had an army somewhat smaller than
that of his opponents but they fought for the most
part behind intrenchments. The emperor personally
took no part in the battles that ensued, but placed his
greatest general, Mazatl, at the head of his armies.
Day after day the conflict was waged at different
points about the doomed capital without decisive
result, although many local victories were won by
both sides. At last, by a desperate effort, Mazatl
succeeded in driving the Mexicans back to the lake
shore; in the panic that ensued many Mexican soldiers
threw down their arms and begged for quarter; Itzcoatl
deemed the battle and his cause lost. Cursing
the cowardice of his troops, he called upon his nobles
and chieftains to rush upon the foe and die bravely;
his call was responded to by large numbers, the
troops followed with new courage, and, re-inforcements
having arrived opportunely, the tide of battle was
turned, Mazatl was slain in hand-to-hand combat by
Montezuma, and the Tepanec capital carried by
[394]
assault. Large numbers of the soldiers were put to
the sword, a few bands escaped to the marshes and
mountains, the city was plundered and burned, and
the emperor was found in a bath and slain. Azcapuzalco
never regained a prominent place among the
cities of Anáhuac; it was chiefly noted in later times
as a slave mart, and the disgraceful traffic is said to
have been inaugurated by the sale of the Tepanec
inhabitants after the Acolhua and Aztec victory.
For a short time the victorious armies ravaged the
territories on the west of the lakes, which still remained
faithful to Maxtla, and were then recalled, and
the allied troops dismissed, laden with spoils, to their
own provinces. Itzcoatl and Nezahualcoyotl had no
doubt of their ability to keep their foes in check and
complete the conquest by the aid of their own troops;
they consequently returned to Mexico to celebrate
their victory.[VII-54]




The fêtes in honor of the victory and victors were
long continued, and conducted on a scale unprecedented
in the Mexican capital. After Itzcoatl
and Nezahualcoyotl, Montezuma seems to have
carried off the highest honors. The altars ran
with the blood of sacrificed human victims, rites most
repulsive, as is stated, to the Acolhua king, but
which he could not prevent on such an occasion. A
prominent feature of the ceremonies was the rewarding
by lands and honors of the chiefs who had distinguished
[395]
themselves for bravery in the war, and, as
some authorities say, the punishment by exile of such
as had shown cowardice. The fêtes were immediately
followed, perhaps interrupted, by the tidings
that Huexotla, Coatlichan, Acolman, and the adjoining
towns, had revolted; and the Mexican, Acolhua,
and Tlatelulca forces, with some assistance from the
eastern plateau, marched through the eastern part of
the valley, and after a series of hard-fought battles
conquered the cities mentioned, together with Teotihuacan
and in fact nearly all the towns from Iztapalocan
to the northern mountains, excepting probably
Tezcuco, although some authors include the conquest
of that capital in this campaign. In some of the
cities no mercy was shown to any class, but all were
slain. Veytia moreover divides this campaign into
two, and places in the interval between them the
final establishment of the empire to be given later.
Torquemada and Clavigero connect the latter part of
this campaign with a subsequent one against Coyuhuacan.[VII-55]



 THE TRI-PARTITE ALLIANCE.



At this time, in the year 1431, and before Nezahualcoyotl
had regained the capital of his father's
empire, as Brasseur insists, took place the events
which closed the Chichimec period of aboriginal history,
the division of Anáhuac between the victors,
the re-establishment of the empire on a new basis.
The result is well known, but respecting the motives
that led to it there is great confusion. It was decided
to re-establish with slight modifications the
ancient Toltec confederacy of three kingdoms, independent
so far as the direction of internal affairs was
concerned, but allied in the management of foreign
affairs and in all matters affecting the general interests
of the empire, in which matters neither king could
[396]
act without the consent of his two colleagues. The
three kingdoms were Acolhua with its capital at
Tezcuco, under Nezahualcoyotl with the title of Chichimecatl
Tecuhtli; the Aztec with Mexico for its
capital, under Itzcoatl bearing the title of Culhua
Tecuhtli; and the Tepanec capital Tlacopan, under
Totoquihuatzin with the title Tepaneca Tecuhtli. A
line drawn in a general north and south direction
through the valley and lake just east of the city of
Tenochtitlan, divided the Acolhua domains on the
east from those of Mexico on the west. The capital
Tlacopan, with a few surrounding towns, and as some
say the Otomí province of Mazahuacan in the northwest,
made up the limited Tepanec domain.[VII-56] Tezcuco
and Mexico seem to have been in all respects
equal in power, while Tlacopan was far inferior to
either. As a descendant and heir of the Chichimec
emperors, Nezahualcoyotl nominally took precedence
in rank, presiding at meetings, occupying the place of
honor at public ceremonies with his colleagues on his
right and left, but had no authority whatever over
them, and was probably in respect to actual military
power somewhat inferior to Mexico. Provinces conquered
by the allied forces, together with all
the spoils of war, were to be divided equally between
Mexico and Tezcuco after deducting one fifth
for Tlacopan.[VII-57]




[397]


 TERMS OF THE ALLIANCE.


 CLOSE OF THE PERIOD.



The confusion among the authorities about the circumstances
and motives that led to the tri-partite
alliance on the above basis, arises chiefly from the
patriotism of the native authors. The narrative as
given by Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia, to the effect that
Nezahualcoyotl suspended his triumphal march
through his old dominion of Acolhuacan to assist his
friend and relative in overthrowing Maxtla, dismissed
his allies, and then, out of kindness, admitted Itzcoatl
to an equal share with himself in the empire, before
completing the conquest of Tezcuco, must evidently
be accepted with many allowances. There is still
more evident exaggeration in the tale of Clavigero,
Tezozomoc, and Duran, that Itzcoatl overthrew the
Tepanecs, held the power in his own hands, and
graciously put the Acolhua prince on the throne of
Tezcuco in consideration of his friendship and assistance.
It is evident, as already stated, that the
alliance between Itzcoatl and Nezahualcoyotl was
formed for the protection of mutual interests; that
no allied troops were disbanded which could be
retained; that if the conquest of Tezcuco was postponed
after the fall of Azcapuzalco, it was because the
allies had their hands full in other directions; and
that in the final division and establishment of the
empire necessity and policy played a much more
prominent part than friendship or condescension. On
the one hand, if we suppose that the Aztec military
force, as is very probable, was at the time superior to
that of the Acolhuas, it must be remembered that
Nezahualcoyotl had the prestige of being the legitimate
[398]
heir to the imperial throne of the Chichimecs,
that he was popular in Anáhuac and had the support
of the eastern cities; while the Aztecs were universally
hated and could depend only on the valor of
their chiefs and the numbers of their army. It is not
impossible that the delay in taking possession of the
Acolhua capital, was because the allies of Nezahualcoyotl
refused to complete the conquest until their
prince had some guaranty against the ambition of the
Mexicans. On the other hand, if we credit the
statements of those who represent Nezahualcoyotl as
holding the balance of power in the first alliance, it is
to be noted that the struggle had been a desperate
one, even with the aid of Mexico; that it was yet
far from ended, that revolts were occurring in every
direction, and that with the Aztecs as foes, the success
of Nezahualcoyotl was more than doubtful. On this
supposition the delay in taking Tezcuco is to be
attributed, as indeed some authors claim, to the fear
of Itzcoatl that if he contributed further to increase
his ally's power he would soon be in a position to
dictate terms. Neither power could stand alone,
Mexico against all Anáhuac, Tezcuco against Mexico
and her own independent and revolting vassals;
hence the foundation of the alliance on equal terms
is perfectly comprehensible. To account for the admission
of Tlacopan to the alliance, we have the
facts that that city had rendered important service in
the defeat of Maxtla at Azcapuzalco; that she may
very likely have been promised a place in the empire
in case of success; that in any event it was policy to
concentrate the yet powerful Tepanec element in a
friendly kingdom; and finally, as several authors
state, that the families of Totoquihuatzin and Nezahualcoyotl
were closely related by marriage. Some
authorities state that Tlacopan was admitted through
the influence of Itzcoatl, others insist that it was
Nezahualcoyotl's idea. The inauguration of the new
order of things, including the crowning of Nezahualcoyotl,
[399]
king of Acolhuacan, and the conferring of the
proper titles upon each of the colleagues, was celebrated
in Mexico with great pomp in 1431. Thus
ends the Chichimec period, during which a small
band of turbulent marauders had passed through oppression
and misfortune to a leading place among the
American nations. Many strong tribes were yet to
be persuaded or forced to submit to the new order of
political affairs; the measures by which this was accomplished,
and the Aztec power spread far and wide
from Anáhuac as a centre, until it came in contact
with a greater power from beyond the ocean, will
form the subject of the following chapters.[VII-58]




[400]



CHAPTER VIII.

THE AZTEC PERIOD.



Outline of the Period—Revolt of Coyuhuacan—Nezahualcoyotl
on the Throne of Tezcuco—Conquest of Quauhtitlan,
Tultitlan, Xochimilco, and Cuitlahuac—Conquest of Quauhtitlan—Destruction
of the Records—Death of Itzcoatl
and Accession of Montezuma I.—New Temples at Mexico—Defeat
of the Chalcas—Troubles with Tlatelulco—Conquest
of Cohuixco and Mazatlan—Flood and Six Years'
Famine—Conquest of Miztecapan—The Aztecs Conquer the
Province of Cuetlachtlan and reach the Gulf Coast—Final
Defeat of the Chalcas—Campaign in Cuextlan—Birth of Nezahualpilli—Improvements
in Tenochtitlan—Embassy to Chicomoztoc—Death
of Montezuma I. and Accession of Axayacatl—Raid
in Tehuantepec—Chimalpopoca succeeds Totoquihuatzin
on the Throne of Tlacopan—Nezahualpilli succeeds
Nezahualcoyotl at Tezcuco—Revolt of Tlatelulco—Conquest
of Matlaltzinco—Defeat by the Tarascos—Death
of Axayacatl.



 OUTLINE OF AZTEC HISTORY.



The annals of the Aztec period constitute a record
of successive conquests by the allied Tepanec, Acolhua,
and Mexican forces, in which the latter play the
leading rôle, and by which they became practically
masters of the whole country, and were on the point
of subjugating even their allies, or of falling before
a combination of their foes, when they fell before
a foe from across the sea. Besides the frequently
recurring campaigns against coveted provinces or revolted
chieftains, we have the constant growth of
[401]
Tenochtitlan and Tezcuco; the construction of causeways,
canals, aqueducts, and other public works; the
erection of magnificent temples in honor of blood-thirsty
gods; and nothing more, save the inhuman
sacrifice of countless victims by which this fanatic
people celebrated each victory, each coronation of a
new king, each dedication of a new temple, strove to
avert each impending disaster, rendered thanks for
every escape, and feasted their deities for every
mark of divine favor. From two sources there is introduced
into this record a confusion unequaled in
that of all preceding periods. The national prejudices
of the original authorities have produced two
almost distinct versions of each event, one attributing
the leading rôle and all the glory to Tezcuco, the
other to Mexico. The other source of confusion is in
the successive campaigns against or conquests of the
same province, as of Chalco for example. This province,
like others, was almost continually in a state of
revolt; and there was no king of Mexico who had
not to engage in one or more wars against its people.
In the aggregate about the same events are attributed
to the Chalca wars, but hardly two authorities
group these events in the same manner. Some group
them in two or three wars, others in many, and as
few attempt to give any exact chronology, the resulting
complication may easily be understood. To
reconcile these differences is impossible; to give in
full the statement of all the authorities on each point
would amount to printing the whole history of the
period three or four times over, and would prove most
monotonous to the reader without serving any good
purpose; the choice is therefore between an arbitrary
grouping of the events in question and the adoption
of that given by Brasseur de Bourbourg. As the
latter has the claimed advantage of resting on original
documents in addition to the Spanish writers, I
prefer to follow it. In respect to the difficulty
arising from a spirit of rivalry between Mexico and
[402]
Tezcuco, I shall continue the assumption already
made that the two powers entered into the alliance
on terms of equality, carefully noting, however, the
views of the authorities on both sides respecting all
important points.




While Nezahualcoyotl was still residing in Mexico,
a desperate attempt was made to retrieve the
defeat at Azcapuzalco, by Coyuhuacan, the strongest
of the remaining Tepanec provinces. The rulers of
this province applied for aid to all the lords in the
region, picturing the danger that hung over all from
the Aztec power and ambition; but for some reason,
probably fear of the new alliance, all refused to take
part in the war, and the Tepanecs were left to fight
their own battles. They began by robbing and insulting
Mexican market-women visiting their city for
purposes of trade; afterwards invited the Mexican
nobles to a feast and sent them back clad in women's
garments; and finally openly declared war. Their
strong towns of Coyuhuacan and Atlacohuayan soon
fell, however, before the allied armies under Itzcoatl
and Montezuma, and the whole south-western section
as far as Xochimilco was brought under subjection,[VIII-1]
Itzcoatl making a triumphal return into his capital in
1432.



 OCCUPATION OF TEZCUCO.



It was determined in the following year that Nezahualcoyotl
should return to Tezcuco and take
possession of his ancestral throne of Acolhuacan. A
large army was fitted out for the conquest, but its aid
was not required; for the lords that had thus far held
out in the capital, realized that their cause was hopeless,
[403]
fled to Tlascala and in other directions, allowing
the king to enter Tezcuco without resistance, where
he was gladly received by the people, was publicly
crowned by Itzcoatl, and proclaimed a general
amnesty, which course soon brought back many even
of the rebel lords.[VIII-2] Soon after his return he made a
visit to Tlascala, concluding with that power a treaty
of alliance, and afterwards ruling in great harmony
with all his allies; at least, such is the version of the
Abbé Brasseur, and Clavigero speaks of no trouble
at that period; but other Spanish writers, although
not agreeing among themselves, give a very different
version of the events that occurred immediately
after the occupation of Tezcuco. According to the
statements of Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia,[VIII-3] Itzcoatl soon
repented of having allowed Nezahualcoyotl the
supreme rank of Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, and made
some disparaging remarks about his colleague. Nezahualcoyotl,
enraged, announced his intention to
march on Mexico within ten days; Itzcoatl,
frightened, made excuses, and sent twenty-five virgins
as a conciliatory gift, who were returned untouched;
a bloody battle ensued, and the Mexican
king was obliged to sue for peace, and submit to the
payment of a tribute. Ixtlilxochitl even says that
the Acolhuas entered Mexico, plundering the city
and burning temples. Torquemada[VIII-4] mentions a difficulty
between the two monarchs, and Nezahualcoyotl's
challenge, but states that Itzcoatl's excuses
were accepted and an amicable arrangement effected.
Boturini refers the quarrel and challenge to the later
reign of Axayacatl. Ortega, Veytia's editor, denies
that any difficulties occurred;[VIII-5] and, indeed, the story
is not a very reasonable one, which is perhaps Brasseur's
reason for ignoring it altogether.




[404]
Once seated on the throne of Acolhuacan, Nezahualcoyotl
devoted himself zealously to the reconstruction
of his kingdom, following for the most part
the plan marked out by his grandfather Techotl, and
establishing the forms of government that endured to
the time of the conquest, and that have been fully
described in a preceding volume. Unlike the king
of Mexico, and against his advice, he restored to a
certain extent the feudal system, and left many of
his vassal lords independent in their own domains,
instead of appointing royal governors. He was
prompted to this course by a sense of justice, and by
it his popularity was greatly increased; the plan was
very successful; but whether it would have succeeded
in later years without the support of the Mexican
and Tepanec armies, may perhaps be doubted. Many
however, of the strongest, the most troublesome, and
especially the frontier provinces, or cities, were placed
under the king's sons or friends. Full details of the
governmental system introduced by this monarch, of
the many councils which he established, are given by
the authorities but need not be repeated here. Particular
attention was given to science and arts, and to
educational institutions, which continued to flourish
under his son, and for which Tezcuco was noted at
the arrival of the Spaniards. The city was definitely
divided into six wards called after the inhabitants of
different nationalities, Tlailotlacan, Chimalpanecan,
Huitznahuac, Tepanecapan, Culhuacan, and Mexicapan,
and was enlarged and embellished in every
direction with new palaces, temples, and both public
and royal parks and pleasure-grounds.[VIII-6]



 CONQUEST OF XOCHIMILCO.



In 1434 the Chichimec-Culhua city of Quauhtitlan
was brought under subjection to Mexico, or at
[405]
least entrusted to governors appointed by Itzcoatl,
who made certain troubles among the people in the
choice of a ruler an excuse for marching an army into
that part of the country. Tultitlan was also conquered,
probably in the same expedition.[VIII-7] Xochimilco
was now one of the largest cities in Anáhuac,
and by reason of its location partially on the lake,
and of a deep moat which guarded the land side, was
also one of the strongest. Cuitlahuac was even more
strongly defended; but both cities were forced to
yield to the Mexicans and their allies during this
year and the following. Many Tepanecs had taken
refuge in these towns after the fall of Azcapuzalco,
and their rulers, trusting to their increased force and
the strength of their defences, were disposed to regard
the Aztecs without fear. Some authors accuse
the Xochimilcas of having provoked a war by encroachments;
others state that they were formally
summoned by Itzcoatl to submit and pay tribute or
resort to the lot of battle. They made a brave resistance,
but Itzcoatl's forces crossed their moat by
filling it with bundles of sticks and brambles, and
entered the town, driving the army to the mountains,
where they soon surrendered. Authorities differ as
to the treatment of the people and the government
imposed, as they do in the case of most of the conquered
cities; but Xochimilco was certainly made
tributary to the Mexican king. The Cuitlahuacs
were conquered in a later expedition. The cause of
the war, as Tezozomoc tells us, was the refusal to
send their young girls to take part in a festival at
Mexico. The battle was fought for the most part in
canoes, the city was taken, as is said, by a detachment
of students under the command of Montezuma,
and many prisoners were brought back to be sacrificed
in honor of the god of war. According to
[406]
Tezozomoc and Duran, the people of Xochimilco with
those of Coyuhuacan were ordered to furnish material
and build a causeway, the first, it is said, which
led from Mexico to the mainland. Herrera and
Acosta tells us that after the conquest of Cuitlahuac,
Nezahualcoyotl, seeing that it was useless to resist
the destiny of the Mexicans, voluntarily offered his
allegiance to Itzcoatl and retired to the second rank
in the alliance. The latter adds that to content the
monarch's subjects with such a measure, a sham battle
was fought, in which the Acolhua armies pretended
to be defeated.[VIII-8]



 AFFAIRS IN QUAUHTITLAN.



An opportunity was soon offered the allied powers
to test their strength outside the limits of the valley,
where reports of their valor and rapidly growing
power had preceded them. The rich city of Quauhnahuac
in the south-west, had once, as we have seen,
formed an alliance by marriage with the Mexicans,
but friendly relations seem to have ceased. In a
difficulty between the lords of Quauhnahuac and
Xiuhtepec, a neighboring city, about the hand of the
former's daughter, the latter called upon the Mexicans
for aid, which they were only too ready to grant.
The three kings, together with the Tlahuica forces of
Cohuatzin, lord of Xiuhtepec, marched against the
fated town, entered it after hard fighting, burned its
temple, imposed a heavy tribute of cotton, rich cloths,
and fine garments, thus taking the first step in their
victorious march toward the South Sea.[VIII-9] The re-building
[407]
and re-peopling of Xaltocan, by colonies of
Mexicans, Acolhuas, and Tepanecs, and by a gathering
of scattered Otomís, is attributed by the Codex
Chimalpopoca to the year 1435. At the same time
were laid the foundations of a new temple in honor of
Cihuacoatl, and work on the grand temple of Huitzilopochtli,
begun long before, was actively prosecuted.
So zealous was king Itzcoatl in advancing
the glory of his people that he is reported by Sahagun[VIII-10]
to have destroyed the ancient records which
related the glorious deeds of more ancient peoples.
Nothing further is recorded during Itzcoatl's reign
save the execution of the death penalty on certain
Chichimec families of Quauhtitlan, who refused to
participate in some of the religious rites in honor of
the Aztec gods, a short campaign against the province
of Ecatepec, and a vaguely mentioned renewal
of hostilities with Chalco.[VIII-11]




I have already noticed the statements of Acosta
and Herrera, that after the conquest of Cuitlahuac
Nezahualcoyotl resigned his supremacy in favor of
the Mexican king. Other authors, as Tezozomoc,
Duran, Gomara, and Sigüenza y Góngora, also imply
that from the end of Itzcoatl's reign, the Mexican
king was supreme in the alliance; but their statements
disagree among themselves, and with previous
statements by the same authors to the effect that the
Mexican king was supreme monarch at the foundation
of the alliance. Although Itzcoatl and his successors,
[408]
by their valor and desire of conquest, took a
leading part in all wars, and were in a sense masters
of Anáhuac, there is no sufficient evidence that they
ever claimed any superiority in rank over the Acolhua
monarch, or that any important difficulties
occurred between the two powers until the last years
of the Aztec period.[VIII-12] The king died in 1440, recommending
the allies above all things to live at peace
with each other, ordering work to be continued on the
temple of Huitzilopochtli, and making provision for
statues of himself and his predecessors on the throne
of Mexico. He was succeeded by his nephew,
Montezuma Ilhuicamina, or the elder, who was
already commander of the armies and high-priest
of Huitzilopochtli.[VIII-13]



 REIGN OF MONTEZUMA I.



His election having been confirmed by the kings of
Tezcuco and Tlacopan, Montezuma I. was crowned
with something more than the usual ceremonies,
both because of his high ecclesiastical position and
because he was the first monarch crowned by the
Mexicans as a perfectly independent nation. According
to several authors this king made an expedition
against the Chalcas before his coronation to
[409]
obtain the necessary prisoners for sacrifice.[VIII-14] From
the first days of his reign Montezuma gave great
attention to the building of temples in his capital,
obtaining many of his workmen from Tlacopan, and
his plans from the skilled architects of Tezcuco. He
seems to have instituted the custom so extensively
practiced in later years, of erecting in Mexico temples
in honor of the gods of foreign provinces conquered
or about to be conquered, making these gods
subordinate to Huitzilopochtli as their worshipers
were subject to the Mexicans. Two temples are
especially mentioned by the documents which Brasseur
follows; one called Huitznahuateocalli, and the
other that of Mixcohuatepec. The latter was built
to receive the relics of the ancient chief Mixcohuatl,[VIII-15]
which had been preserved for centuries in their temple
at Cuitlahuac, an object of veneration to all of
Toltec descent. A quarrel between Tezozomoc and
Acolmiztli, rival lords of that city, afforded a sufficient
pretext for sending thither a Mexican army;
the temple caught fire, by accident as was claimed,
and the lord who had received aid could not refuse
Montezuma's request for the now shelterless relics,
which were transferred to their new resting-place
in Tenochtitlan. This was in 1441.[VIII-16]




The Chalcas whom we have often found fighting,
now on the side of the Acolhuas, now on the side of
the Tepanecs, but always hating the Mexicans most
bitterly, seem to have managed their alliances so
shrewdly up to this time, as to have avoided becoming
involved in the ruin that at different times had
overwhelmed the leading powers of Anáhuac. Since
the formation of the new alliance, in which they had
[410]
no part, their soldiers had fought many skirmishes
with the allied forces, but the latter had made no
united effort to conquer them. Having become numerous
and powerful, the Chalcas now dared, in 1443,
to measure their strength against the allies, their
chief purpose being to humble Mexico. They provoked
hostilities by seizing and putting to death a
party of noble young men who were hunting near
their frontier. The party included some members of
the Mexican royal family, and two sons of Nezahualcoyotl.
The dead bodies of the latter were embalmed
and made to do service in the palace of Toteotzin,
lord of Chalco, as torch-bearers. The effect of such
an indignity was immediate, and brought upon the
perpetrators the whole strength of the allied kings.
The Mexicans and Tepanecs approached by water,
the Acolhuas by land; they were met by the Chalca
army, and for several weeks the conflict raged fiercely
without decisive advantage on either side. Kings
Montezuma and Totoquihuatzin commanded in person;
Nezahualcoyotl's forces were under his two eldest
sons. Another son, Axoquentzin, only about seventeen
years old, performed prodigies of valor and
turned the tide of victory. Visiting his brothers in
camp, he was about to eat with them, when they
ridiculed his youth and told him that was no place
for a boy who had done no deed of valor. Ashamed
and angry, he seized arms and rushed alone against
the enemy, taking captive one of their mightiest
warriors—their aged lord Toteotzin himself, Ixtlilxochitl
says—and creating a panic which caused ultimate
defeat. The victory was complete, the Chalca
army was scattered, the city taken and made tributary
to the central powers, although these people were
able subsequently to cause the victors much trouble.
Nezahualcoyotl was so angry at the murder of his
sons that for once he shared to some extent the
bloodthirsty spirit of the Aztecs, and gladly gave up
[411]
the Chalca captives, among whom was their chief,
to the sacrificial block.[VIII-17]



 CONQUEST OF TLATELULCO.



The exact status of Tlatelulco under the tri-partite
alliance is not clearly recorded; but the inferior position
accorded that city had doubtless caused much jealousy
and dissatisfaction, which had already produced
some trouble, though not open rupture, between the
two kings, if we may suppose Quauhtlatohuatzin to
have been at this date considered as a king. During
Montezuma's absence in the Chalca war, the Tlatelulca
chief ventured so far as to engage in plots
against the existing state of things; Montezuma, on
his return declared war; the people were reduced to
submission, their ruler was killed, and Moquihuix,
supposed to be in the interests of the Mexicans, was
put in his place.[VIII-18] On his return from the Chalca
war, and while Montezuma was punishing the treason
of the Tlatelulca chief, Nezahualcoyotl was engaged
in quelling a revolt in the northern province of Tulancingo,
where the rebels had burned some towns
and driven out the Acolhua garrisons. The province
was now finally conquered and joined to the domain
of Acolhuacan under royal governors. Nezahualcoyotl
is also said to have founded a new town in
this region, and sent colonists from Tezcuco to dwell
in it.[VIII-19]




The rich provinces of Cohuixco and Mazatlan,
just south of Anáhuac and of the province of Quauhnahuac,
at the time the southern limit of Mexican
conquest, had long been coveted by the Aztec kings;
[412]
and in 1448 the desired opportunity presented itself.
The Cohuixcas attacked and put to death a large
number of traveling merchants from Mexico, provoked
to the outrage doubtless by the arbitrary
conduct of the latter, who deemed that the great
power of their own nation freed them from all obligation
to obey the laws of nations which they visited.
The murder of the traders was more than a sufficient
cause of war to the belligerent allies, and by a campaign
concerning which no details are recorded, the
two provinces, or at least most of their towns, were
conquered and annexed as tributaries to the Aztec
domains.[VIII-20] During the following years the Aztecs
were called upon to suspend their foreign conquests
and to struggle at home against water and snow and
frost and drought and famine, foes that well nigh
gained the mastery over these hitherto invincible
warriors. In 1449 heavy and continuous rains so
raised the waters of the lake as to inundate the
streets of Tenochtitlan, destroying many buildings
and even causing considerable loss of life. The misfortune
was bravely met; the genius of Nezahualcoyotl,
the engineering skill of the valley, and the
whole available laboring force of the three kingdoms
were called into requisition to guard against a recurrence
of the flood. A dike, stretching from north to
south in crescent form, was constructed for a distance
of seven or eight miles, separating the waters of the
lake into two portions, that on the Mexican side
being comparatively independent of the fresh water
flowing into the lake in the rainy season. The dike
was built by driving a double line of piles, the
interior space being filled with stones and earth,
the whole over thirty, or, as many authors say,
[413]
sixty feet wide, and forming a much-frequented
promenade. This work may be considered a great
triumph of aboriginal engineering, especially when
we consider the millions spent by the Spaniards
under the best European engineers in protecting
the city, hardly more effectually, against similar
inundations. The Chalcas seem to have taken advantage
of the troubles in Mexico to revolt, but
were easily brought into subjection by an army under
Montezuma.[VIII-21]



 FAMINE AND PLAGUES.



The famine and other plagues already alluded to
began two years later, and continued for a period of
six years.[VIII-22] The authorities do not altogether agree
respecting the exact order of the visitations, but
severe frosts, a heavy fall of snow, long-continued
drought, consequent failure of all crops, famine, and
epidemic pestilence are mentioned by all. All the
valley and many provinces without its limits were
visited by the famine; indeed, Totonacapan, or
northern Vera Cruz, is reported to have been the only
part of the country that entirely escaped its effects.
The suffering and mortality among the lower classes
were terrible; the royal granaries were thrown open
by order of Nezahualcoyotl and Montezuma, but the
supply of maize was soon exhausted, and the fish,
reptiles, birds, and insects of the lakes were the only
sources of food. Thousands of the poor sold themselves
into slavery, some at home, others in foreign
provinces, to obtain barely food enough to sustain life.
Several Mexican colonies attribute their origin to this
period of want. The rulers could not prevent the
sale of slaves, but they forbade children to be sold
at less rates than four or five hundred ears of corn
each, according as they were boys or girls. This
[414]
national disaster was, of course, attributed to the
anger of the gods, and the utmost efforts were made
to conciliate their irate divinities by the only efficacious
means known, the sacrifice of human victims.
But since fighting and conquest had ceased, such
victims were exceedingly scarce. Nezahualcoyotl
would allow none but prisoners of war to be
sacrificed in his dominions, arguing that such forfeited
their lives by being defeated, and that it made but
little difference to them whether they died on the
field of battle or on the sacrificial altar. Moreover,
only strong soldiers were believed to be acceptable
to the gods in such an emergency; the sickly and
famishing plebeians and slaves could not by their
worthless lives avert the divine wrath. The result of
this difficulty was one of the most extraordinary compacts
known in the world's history. It was agreed in
a solemn treaty that between the Mexicans, Tepanecs,
and Acolhuas in the valley, and the Cholultecs, Tlascaltecs,
and Huexotzincas of the eastern plateaux,
battles should take place at regular intervals, on
battle-grounds set apart for this purpose, between foes
equal in number, for the sole purpose of obtaining
captives for sacrifice. Such battles were actually
fought during the years of famine, and perhaps in
later years, although the almost constant wars rendered
such a resort rarely necessary. In the last
years of the famine Nezahualcoyotl laid the foundations
of a great teocalli at Tezcuco, in 1455 the
tying-up of the cycle and the renewal of the sacred
fire were celebrated, and the following year of 1456
was one of great abundance. The time of want and
disaster was at last completed; a period of plenty and
prosperity ensued.[VIII-23]




[415]


 CONQUEST OF MIZTECAPAN.



With returning plenty and prosperity at home,
came back the spirit of foreign conquest. The first
to fall before the allied forces was the province of
Cohuaixtlahuacan, or Upper Miztecapan, lying in
the south-west, in what is now Oajaca, and adjoining
that of Mazatlan, which had already been added to
the Aztec domain. As in the case of the last-mentioned
province and of many others, ill-treatment of
Mexican traders was the alleged motive of the war.
The Miztec king, called Dzawindanda in his own
country and Atonaltzin by the Mexicans, had caused
many of the traveling merchants to be put to death
and had finally forbidden the whole fraternity to
trade in or to pass through his territory. There is
every reason to believe that this prohibition was merited
by the conduct of the Mexicans. At this time,
and still more so in later years, the monarchs of
Anáhuac made use of their merchants as spies to report
upon the wealth and power of different provinces,
to ascertain the best methods of attack, and to provoke
a quarrel when the conquest had once been
determined upon. The province of Miztecapan was a
rich field of traffic and was moreover on the route to
the rich commercial towns on the southern coast of
Anáhuac Ayotlan, where the products of the countries
both north and south of the isthmus were offered
for sale at the great fairs. The Mexicans attended
these fairs in companies which were well armed and
were little less than small armies, trusting in their
own strength and that of their sovereign, and showing
but little respect for the laws of provinces traversed.
[416]
Atonaltzin was a proud and powerful ruler,
and was not at all unwilling to measure his strength
against that of the central nations. Montezuma sent
an embassy to hear his complaints; Atonaltzin sent
back by the same embassy a great quantity of valuable
gifts, samples, as he said, of the tribute the
Mexicans might expect if they should succeed in
conquering his armies in the war which must decide
which king was to pay tribute to the other. Montezuma's
reply was to march at the head of a large
army towards Tilantongo, the capital of Cohuaixtlahuacan.
The result was that the allied forces were
utterly routed and driven back with great loss to
their home. Montezuma had underrated the strength
of his adversary and had undertaken the conquest
without sufficient preparation.




A few months were now spent in new preparations
on both sides for a renewal of the struggle. The
Aztecs in some way formed a secret alliance with the
lord of Tlachquiauhco, near Tilantongo, who was an
enemy to Atonaltzin. The Miztecs on the other hand
obtained aid from the Tlascaltecs and Huexotzincas,
who before the Aztec alliance had been the leading
traders of the country, and who were jealous of the
commercial enterprise shown and success achieved by
their rivals. The war began with an assault by the
Miztec leader and his eastern allies on Tlachquiauhco;
but the Mexicans, Acolhuas, and Tepanecs, under
Montezuma, inflicted this time as severe a defeat as
they had suffered before; Atonaltzin was forced to
surrender, and the whole province was annexed to
the domain of the victors, as were Tochtepec, Zapotlan,
Tototlan, and Chinantla, soon after. The auxiliary
army of the Tlascaltecs and Huexotzincas was
almost annihilated. The record closes with a romantic
episode of Montezuma's love for Atonaltzin's
queen; the Miztec king was killed shortly after by
his own subjects, not improbably at the instigation of
the Aztecs, and the assassins brought his queen with
[417]
the news of his death to Mexico. A palace was
built for her, but she is said to have resisted the Aztec
monarch's ardor, and to have remained faithful to
her first husband. The conquest of Cozamaloapan
and Quauhtochco, also in the Miztec region, followed
during the same year and the following, provoked as
before by the pretended murder of traveling merchants.[VIII-24]



 CONQUEST OF CUETLACHTLAN.



Elated by their success in the south-west, the allied
kings next turned their attention toward the south-eastern
province of Cuetlachtlan, in what is now
central Vera Cruz, lying between the Aztec possessions
and the thriving commercial towns of the Xicalancas
on the gulf coast in the Goazacoalco region.
According to Veytia, Torquemada, and Clavigero,
the chiefs of the province, incited by the Tlascaltecs
and promised aid by them and the other cities of the
eastern plateau, declared or adopted measures to
provoke the war. Duran and Tezozomoc, on the
contrary, represent the Mexicans as having sent an
embassy to the south-eastern provinces, demanding a
tribute of rare shells, or even of live shell-fish, and
threatening war as an alternative. The ambassadors
were to include the Totonac territory in their demands,
but were seized and murdered in Cuetlachtlan,
their dead bodies being subjected to great
indignities, at the instigation of the Tlascaltecs.
The army immediately dispatched from the lake
cities was one of the strongest which had yet fought
for the glory of the Aztec alliance, and numbered
among its leaders three Mexican princes, Ahuitzotl,
Axayacatl, and Tizoc, who afterwards occupied the
throne, and Moquihuix the ruler of Tlatelulco. The
alliance of the Olmec province with Tlascala and the
[418]
other cities seems not to have been known at Mexico
when the army began its march, and when it became
known excited so much apprehension that orders
were sent to the generals in command to fall back
and postpone the conflict until further preparations
could be made. All were disposed to obey the royal
command, save Moquihuix, who bravely announced
his purpose to attack and defeat the enemy with his
Tlatelulca soldiers unaided. His enthusiasm had an
electric effect on the whole army; there was no
longer any thought of retreat; the battle was fought
in disobedience of orders, near Ahuilizapan, now Orizava;
the army of the enemy was defeated; the
Aztecs were masters of a broad tract, extending from
Anáhuac south-eastward to the sea; and over six
thousand captives were brought back to die on the
sacrificial block. Duran and Tezozomoc state that
the nations of the eastern plateau did not give the
aid they had promised, treacherously leaving the
province of Cuetlachtlan to its fate; but this is consistent
neither with the character nor interests of the
Tlascaltecs, and it is more likely that their army
shared the defeat. The victors were received at
Mexico with the highest honors, the kings, priests,
and nobles marching out to meet them; the leaders
were rewarded for their bravery with lands and
honors, particularly Moquihuix, who received besides
the hand of a Mexican princess nearly related to the
royal family; and the blood of the six thousand captives
furnished an offering most acceptable to the
gods at the dedication of a temple that had just been
completed.




A revolt of the province of Cuetlachtlan is recorded
by Duran and Tezozomoc at a later date not definitely
fixed, when the Mexican governor was murdered, the
payment of tribute suspended, and the ambassadors
sent to ascertain the cause of such suspension, shut
up in a tight room and suffocated with burning chile.
The Tlascaltecs, as before, offered aid which was not
[419]
forthcoming; the guilty parties were put to death
by order of the Aztec monarchs, and the tributes of
the province were doubled.[VIII-25]



 REVOLT OF THE CHALCAS.



The Chalcas never missed an opportunity for revolt,
and did not fail to take advantage of the events which
obliged the hated Aztecs to give their whole attention
to foreign wars. During the war in Cuetlachtlan,
they are said to have defied the Aztec power by
refusing certain blocks of stone from their quarries
needed for building-purposes in the capital, and also
to have seized and imprisoned several Mexicans of
high rank. Among the latter was a brother of Montezuma,
whom, according to several authorities, they
offered to make king of Chalco; he refused to betray
his country, but at last, influenced by entreaties and
threats, pretended to consent. At his request a high
platform was erected for the performance of certain
ceremonies designed to fire the hearts of the Chalcas
in the new cause; but from its summit the captive
prince denounced the treachery of his captors, called
upon the Mexicans to avenge him, predicted the defeat
and slavery of the people of Chalco, and threw himself
headlong to the earth below. The total annihilation
of this uncontrollable people was determined
upon by the kings of Mexico, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan;
and a peculiar air of mystery enshrouds the war
which followed. During the whole period of preparation,
of conflict, and of victory, the people of the
capital engaged in solemn processions, chants, prayers,
sacrifices, and other rites in honor of the Aztecs who
had perished in past Chalca wars. Signal fires
blazed on the hills and in the watch-towers; and it is
even said that the gods sent an earthquake to warn
the Chalcas of their impending doom. The battle
[420]
raged for a whole day before the fated city and the
Aztecs were at last victorious, as they had been in a
previous war against the same city. Great numbers
of the enemy fell in battle or were put to the sword
during the pursuit; the almost deserted town was
entered by the Aztec army; surviving Chalcas were
scattered in all directions; many took refuge in the
cities of the eastern plateau, others perished in the
mountains rather than to submit to their hated foe;
but enough were finally pardoned by Montezuma and
allowed to return to their city to cause not a little
trouble in later years.[VIII-26]




Other events recorded as having occurred before
1460 are few in number. The most important was
the conquest and annexation to the Tezcucan domain
of many towns in the north-eastern provinces of Tziauhcohuac,
Atochpan, and Cuextlan, the home of the
Huastecs in the Pánuco region on the gulf coast. In
this campaign the allied troops were under two of
Nezahualcoyotl's sons, and this was the only important
addition to the Acolhua possessions since the
date of the tri-partite alliance; yet there is no evidence
that Nezahualcoyotl expressed or felt any dissatisfaction
at the rapid growth of the Mexican domain;
he was not ambitious of conquest, and doubtless
received his full share of other spoils and of
tribute. At about the same time the Mexicans conquered
several strong cities on the southern edge of
the Cholultec plateau, such as Tepeaca, Quauhtinchan,
and Acatzingo, thus threatening the independence
of the eastern republics; outrages on traveling
merchants were as usual the real or pretended excuse
for these conquests. Tenochtitlan and Tlatelulco
had now grown so far beyond their original limits as
to form really but one city, the boundary line being
[421]
a narrow and shallow ditch. This ditch was now
deepened and widened at the joint expense of the
two powers, and formed into a navigable canal.
Great improvements were also made, particularly in
the market buildings of Tlatelulco, which had now
become the commercial headquarters of the whole
country north of Tehuantepec. The commercial interests
of the empire had been most jealously promoted
by the reigning monarchs, and the Aztec merchants
had contributed no less than the Aztec armies
to the glory and prosperity of their nation.[VIII-27]



 BIRTH OF NEZAHUALPILLI.



In 1463 Nezahaulcoyotl married a daughter of the
king of Tlacopan, obtaining her hand, if we may
credit Ixtlilxochitl and Torquemada, in a manner
that reflected no credit on his honor. She had been
from an early age the wife of Temictzin, a Tlatelulca
general, somewhat advanced in years, but the
marriage had not yet been consummated on account
of her youth. The Acolhua monarch desiring by
marriage to leave a legitimate heir to the throne,
and becoming enamored of the young Azcaxochitl's
charms, sent her husband away to the wars, and
managed to have him killed. After her period of
mourning was past, the fair Azcaxochitl was made
queen of Tezcuco; the nuptial feasts lasted eighty
days among great rejoicings of nobles and people; and
within a year the queen gave birth to Nezahualpilli,
the emperor's only legitimate son and his successor.[VIII-28]
[422]
The year 1465 is given as the date of the final submission
of the Chalcas; that is the surrender and
return to the city of the last bands that had since
their defeat lived under chieftains of their own
choice in the mountains, and kept up some show of
hostility to Mexico.[VIII-29] In 1466, the causeway and
aqueduct extending from Chapultepec to Mexico, and
supplying the capital with pure water through a pipe
of burned clay, were completed. This work had
been planned by Nezahualcoyotl during his residence
at Mexico, and had been commenced by Itzcoatl.
Work was continually pushed forward on the grand
temple of Huitzilopochtli, and many teocallis were
built at this period in each of the three allied capitals.
One in Tezcuco is particularly mentioned,
which was very richly decorated with gold and precious
stones, and was dedicated by Nezahualcoyotl to
the invisible god of the universe. This pyramid was
completed in 1467, but, according to the Codex Chimalpopoca,
fell as soon as finished. It was necessary
to rebuild the structure, and that it might be done
rapidly, the Tezcucan monarch called upon Montezuma
for laborers from his tributary city of Zumpango
and other northern towns. The permission
was given, but the people of Zumpango refused to
send workmen, and raised a revolt, which was, however,
quelled by the Acolhua forces in a short campaign.[VIII-30]



 MISSION TO CHICOMOZTOC.



A remarkable story told by Duran and attributed
to the reign of Montezuma I., may be introduced
here as well as anywhere, although it is more than
doubtful whether it should receive any credit as a
historic record. In the midst of the glory acquired
by his valor, Montezuma determined to send an
armed force to the region of the Seven Caves whence
his people came. Though armed they were to bear
[423]
rich presents, with orders to explore the country and
search for the mother of Huitzilopochtli, who if yet
alive would be pleased to know of her son's prosperity
and glory, and would gladly receive the gifts of his
chosen people. The intention was made known to
Tlacaeleltzin—a famous prince who seems to be identical
with Montezuma before the latter became king, but
of whom many wondrous tales are told even after the
latter ascended the throne—who gave his approval,
but recommended that a peaceful embassy of wise
men and sorcerers be sent on this mission. At Coatepec
in the region of Tollan, after performing various
religious rites, the sixty sorcerers chosen for the expedition
were transformed into different animal forms
and transported with their treasure to the land of
their fathers, to the lake-surrounded hill of Culhuacan.
Here they found certain people who spoke
their language and to them announced their purpose.
The priests of this people remembered well the
departure of the Aztec tribes, and were surprised
to learn that their original leaders were dead, for
their companions left behind were yet alive. The
messengers were promised an interview with Coatlicue,
mother of their god, and had a most tiresome
journey up the sandy hill with their gifts,
much to the wonder of the guiding priests, who
wondered what they could live upon in their new
home to have become so effeminate. At last they
found the aged mother of Huitzilopochtli weeping
bitterly, and stating that since her son's departure
she had neither washed her body and face,
combed her hair, nor changed her garments; neither
did she propose to attend to her toilet until his
return. The old woman expressed, however, considerable
interest in the affairs of Mexico, and made
known some prophecies of her son about the coming
of a strange people to take the land from the Mexicans.
The messengers were finally dismissed with
presents of fowls, fish, flowers, and clothing, for
[424]
Montezuma; and, re-adopting their disguises, were
brought back in eight days to Coatepec, where they
discovered that twenty of their number were missing.
These lost members of the company were never heard
of more.[VIII-31]




Montezuma died in 1469,[VIII-32] leaving his country in a
more flourishing condition than it had ever known,
notwithstanding the six years' famine that had occurred
during his reign. He left to his people or to
his nobles the choice of his successor from among his
three grandsons—by his daughter Atotoztli and
Tezozomoc, son of Itzcoatl—Tizoc, Axayacatl, and
Ahuitzotl, expressing, however, a preference for the
second, who was now commander of the Mexican
armies. His remains were enclosed in an urn and
deposited in the walls of the grand temple now approaching
completion, and his wishes were followed
in the choice of a successor.[VIII-33]



 RAID IN TEHUANTEPEC.



Before the coronation of the new monarch could be
[425]
celebrated with fitting solemnity, and in a manner
worthy of his predecessors, victims for sacrifice must
be captured in large numbers; and it had now become
an established custom for each newly elected king to
undertake in person a campaign with the sole object
of procuring captives. Axayacatl, in complying with
the usage, distinguished himself by the most daring
raid yet undertaken by Aztec valor. Passing rapidly
southward by mountain routes at the head of a large
force, and avoiding the Miztec and Zapotec towns of
Oajaca, he suddenly presented himself before the
city of Tehuantepec, routed the defending army,
drawing them into an ambush by a pretended retreat,
entered and pillaged the city, captured the rich commercial
city of Guatulco some distance above on the
coast, left a strong garrison in each stronghold, and
returned to Mexico laden with plunder and with
thousands of captives in his train, almost before his
departure was known throughout the country. Brasseur
tells us that he crossed the isthmus in this
campaign, and for the time subjected to Aztec rule
the province of Soconusco, even reaching the frontiers
of Guatemala; but Torquemada is given as the authority
for this statement, and this author implies
nothing of the kind, consequently we may doubt it.
The sacrifice of captives from distant and strange
lands, together with the rich spoils brought back
from the south-sea provinces, imparted unusual éclat
to the coronation ceremonies; the successful warrior
was congratulated by his colleagues at Tezcuco and
Tlacopan; and the people felt assured that in Axayacatl
they had a monarch worthy of his subjects'
admiration.[VIII-34]




[426]
During the same year, perhaps, a battle was fought
against Huexotzinco and Atlixco on the frontier, in
which the three kings took part personally; and it is
recorded that in the midst of the conflict Tezcatlipoca
appeared to the Aztec armies, cheering them on
to victory. On the return of the victors, Axayacatl
and Moquihuix of Tlatelulco each erected a new
temple to the gods of Huexotzinco to propitiate those
divinities in case of the war being resumed, which was
foretold by the oracles. The Mexican temple was
called Coatlan, and that in Tlatelulco Coaxolotl; the
latter was a grander structure than the former and
its erection in a spirit of rivalry excited some ill-feeling
on the part of the Mexicans, and was not
without an influence in fomenting the troubles that
broke out between the cities a few years later.[VIII-35] An
eclipse of the sun which took place about the time
the temples were completed, was thought to portend
disaster, and was followed within a period of two years
by the death of the Tepanec and Acolhua monarchs.
Totoquihuatzin, king of Tlacopan, died in 1470 at an
advanced age and after a long and prosperous reign,
during which he had gained the respect of his subjects
and colleagues, fighting bravely in the wars of
the empire and accepting without complaint his small
share of the spoils as awarded by the terms of the
alliance. He was succeeded by his son Chimalpopoca.[VIII-36]



 DEATH OF NEZAHUALCOYOTL.



The burning of an immense tract of forest lying to
the west of Azcapuzalco toward the Matlaltzinco region,
is recorded by one authority as having occurred
[427]
in 1471;[VIII-37] and in the next year took place the death
of Nezahualcoyotl, the king of Acolhuacan, and considered
as the greatest and wisest of the Chichimec
monarchs. His adventures in early life while deprived
of his ancestral throne have cast a glamour of
romance about his name; and the fortitude with
which he supported his misfortunes, his valor in regaining
the Tezcucan throne, and the prominent part
taken by him in the wars of the allies, are enthusiastically
praised by his biographers. His chief glory,
however, depends not on his valor as a warrior, but
on his wisdom and justice as a ruler. During his
reign his domain had been increased in extent far less
than that of Mexico; but he had made the city of
Tezcuco the centre of art, science, and all high culture—the
Athens of America, as Clavigero expresses
it, of which he was the Solon—and his kingdom of
Acolhuacan a model of good government. Such was
his inflexibility in the administration of justice and
enforcement of the laws, that several of his own sons,
although much beloved, were put to death for offenses
against law and morality. Official corruption met no
mercy at his hands, but toward the poor, the aged,
and the unfortunate, his kindness was unbounded.
He was in the habit of traveling incognito among his
subjects, visiting the lower classes, relieving misfortune,
and obtaining useful hints for the perfection of
his code of laws, in which he took especial pride.
Ever the promoter of education and culture, he was
himself a man of learning in various branches, and a
poet of no mean talent.[VIII-38] His religious views, if correctly
reported by the historians, were far in advance
of those of his contemporaries or of the Europeans
who in the cause of religion overthrew Tezcucan culture;
he seems to have been unable to resist the
Aztec influence in favor of human sacrifices, but he
deserves the credit of having opposed the shedding of
[428]
blood and ridiculed the deities that demanded it.
The only dishonorable action of his life is the method
by which he obtained his queen, and that may have
received a false coloring at the hands of unfriendly
annalists. Some of his poems were afterwards regarded
as prophecies, in which was vaguely announced
the coming of the Spaniards. He died in
1472, leaving over a hundred children by his concubines,
but only one legitimate son.[VIII-39]




Feeling that his death was near, Nezahualcoyotl
had assembled his family and announced Nezahualpilli
as heir to the throne. He informed his older
natural sons that only by leaving the throne to a
legitimate successor could he hope to secure a peaceful
succession and future prosperity. He expressed
great esteem for his oldest son Acapipioltzin, who
was now at the head of his armies, and great confidence
in his ability, calling upon him to serve as
guardian and adviser of Nezahualpilli, at the time
only eight years old, during his minority, and to
protect his interests against possible attempts of his
other brothers to usurp the crown. Acapipioltzin
promised to obey his wishes, and was ever after
faithful to his promise. Several authors say that the
king gave orders that his death should not be announced
until after his son was firmly seated on the
throne; others state that it was a popular belief
among the common people that Nezahualcoyotl had
not died, but had been called to a place among the
gods. After the funeral of the dead king, at which
assisted an immense crowd of nobles, even from foreign
and hostile provinces, such as Tlascala, Cholula,
Tehuantepec, Pánuco, and Michoacan, three of his
sons showed such evident designs of disloyalty to the
appointed successor, that the young prince was removed
to Mexico by his Aztec and Tepanec colleagues,
and the ceremony of coronation was performed
[429]
there. Axayacatl is said to have spent most of his
time in Tezcuco during Nezahualpilli's minority, and
it is not improbable that he took advantage of his colleague's
youth to strengthen his own position as practically
head of the empire.[VIII-40]



 CONQUEST OF TLATELULCO.



In the year of Axayacatl's accession three hills
trembled in Xuchitepec, that is, there was an earthquake
foreboding disaster, which came upon the people
in 1472, in the shape of an Aztec army under
Axayacatl. During a raid of a few days, the province
was ravaged and a crowd of captives brought
back to die on the altars of Huitzilopochtli. Such
is Torquemada's account, which is interpreted by
Brasseur as referring to a raid across the isthmus
into the Guatemalan province of Xuchiltepec, or
Sochitepeques, but there seems to be very little
reason for such an interpretation when we consider
that there were two towns named Xuchitepec in the
immediate vicinity of Anáhuac.[VIII-41]



 DEATH OF MOQUIHUIX.



All the authorities relate with very little disagreement
that in 1473 Tlatelulco lost her independence,
and was annexed to Mexico under a royal governor.
Hitherto this city, notwithstanding the troubles
during the reign of Montezuma resulting in the
death of her king and the elevation of Moquihuix,
had been more independent and enjoyed greater
privileges than any of the other cities tributary to
the Mexican throne. But the Tlatelulcas viewed
the rapid advance of Mexican power with much
jealousy; they could not forget that for many years
their city had been superior to her neighbor; they
were proud of their wealth and commercial reputation,
and of the well-known valor of their prince
[430]
Moquihuix. We have seen that there had been considerable
dissatisfaction about the building of the temples
a few years earlier; and frequent quarrels had
taken place in the market-places between the men
and women of the two cities. Duran and Tezozomoc
relate certain outrages on both sides at the beginning
of the final struggle. Moquihuix at last, counting
on the well-known hatred and jealousy of the
different nations in and about the valley toward the
Aztec king, formed a conspiracy to shake off the
power of Axayacatl, and invited all the surrounding
nations except Tlascala, whose commercial rivalry
he feared, to join it. Except Tlacopan, Tezcuco,
and Tlascala, nearly all the cities of the central
plateaux seem to have promised aid, and the plot
began to assume most serious proportions, threatening
the overthrow of the allied kings by a still stronger
alliance. But, fortunately for his own safety, Axayacatl
was made aware of the conspiracy almost at
the beginning. It will be remembered that a near
relative of his—his sister, as most authorities state—had
been given to Moquihuix for a wife in reward for
his bravery in the south-eastern campaign. She had
been most grossly abused by her husband, and learning
in some way his intentions, had revealed the plot
to her brother, who was thus enabled to obtain from
his allies all needed assistance, and to be on his guard
at every point. I shall not attempt to form from the
confused narratives of the authorities a detailed account
of the battles by which Tlatelulco was conquered.
At the beginning of open hostilities the
wife of Moquihuix fled to Mexico. A simultaneous
attack by all the rebel forces had been planned; but
none of the rebel allies actually took part in the
struggle, approaching the city only after the battle
was over and devoting their whole energy to keep
from Axayacatl the knowledge of their complicity.
Moquihuix, confident of his ability to defeat the unprepared
Mexicans without the aid of his allies,
[431]
having excited the valor of his chieftains and soldiers
by sacrificial and religious rites, giving them to drink
the water in which the stone of sacrifice had been
washed, began the conflict before the appointed time.
For several days the conflict raged, first in one city,
then in the other; but at last the Mexicans invaded
Tlatelulco, sweeping everything before them. The
surviving inhabitants fled to the lake marshes; the
remnants of the army were driven in confusion to the
market-place; and Moquihuix amid the imprecations
of his own people for the rashness that had reduced
them to such straits, was at last thrown down the
steps of the grand temple, and his heart torn from his
breast by the hand of Axayacatl himself. The city
was for a time devoted to plunder; then the inhabitants
were gathered from their retreats, after having
been compelled—as Tezozomoc, Acosta, and Herrera
tell us—to croak and cackle like the frogs and birds
of the marshes in token of their perfect submission;
heavy tributes were imposed, including many special
taxes and menial duties of a humiliating nature; and
finally the town was made a ward of Tenochtitlan
under the rule of a governor appointed by the Mexican
king. The re-establishment of peace was followed
by the punishment of the conspirators. The Tlatelulca
leaders had for the most part perished in the
war, but two of them, one being the priest Poyahuitl
who had performed the religious rites at the beginning
of hostilities, were condemned to death. The
same fate overtook all the nobles in other provinces
whose share in the conspiracy could be proven. So
terrible was the vengeance of Axayacatl and so long
the list of its victims, that the lords of Anáhuac were
filled with fear, and it was long before they dared
again to seek the overthrow of the hated Aztec
power.[VIII-42]




[432]
A strange anecdote is told respecting the fate of
Xihuiltemoc, lord of Xochimilco, who had either
taken part in the Tlatelulca war on the rebel side,
or more probably had failed to aid the Mexican king
in a satisfactory manner. Both Axayacatl and
Xihuiltemoc were skilled in the national game of
tlachtli, or the ball game, and at the festivals in honor
of his victory, the former challenged the latter to a
trial of skill. The Xochimilca lord, the better player
of the two, was much embarrassed, fearing either to
win or to allow himself to be beaten, but the king
insisted, and wagered the revenues of the Mexican
market and lake for a year, together with the rule
of certain towns, against the city of Xochimilco, on
the result. Xihuiltemoc won the game, and Axayacatl,
much crest-fallen, proclaimed his readiness to
pay his wager; but either by his directions, or at
least according to his expectation, his opponent was
strangled with a wreath of flowers concealing a slip-noose,
by the people of the towns he had won, or as
some say by the messengers charged to deliver the
stakes.[VIII-43]



 CONQUEST OF MATLALTZINCO.



Thus far the Aztec conquests had been directed
toward the south-east and south-west, while the fertile
valleys of the Matlaltzincas, immediately adjoining
Anáhuac on the west, had for some not very clear
reason escaped their ambitious views. A very favorable
opportunity, however, for conquest in this
direction presented itself in 1474, when the Matlaltzincas
were on bad terms with the Tarascos of
Michoacan, their usual allies, and when the lord of
Tenantzinco asked the aid of the Mexicans in a quarrel
with Chimaltecuhtli the king. Axayacatl was
[433]
only too glad to engage in an undertaking of this
nature, but, in order to have a more just cause of
interference—for, as Duran says, the Aztecs never
picked quarrels with other nations!—he peremptorily
ordered the Matlaltzincas to furnish certain building-material
and a stone font for sacrificial purposes, and
on their refusal to comply with his commands,
marched against their province at the head of the
allied troops, and accompanied, as Torquemada says,
by his colleagues. Town after town in the southern
part of the province fell before his arms, and were
placed under Mexican governors. Such were Xalatlauhco,
Atlapolco, Tetenanco, Tepemaxalco, Tlacotempan,
Metepec, Tzinacantepec, and Calimaya.
Some Aztec colonists were left in each conquered
town, and Torquemada tells us that people were taken
from the other towns to settle in the first, Xalatlauhco.
Tezozomoc relates that the king at one time in this
campaign concealed himself in a ditch with eight
warriors, and fell upon the rear of the enemy who
had been drawn on by a feigned retreat of the Aztecs,
causing great panic and slaughter. Flushed with
victory, the allies pressed on to attack Xiquipilco in
the north, the strongest town in the province, and
Toluca, the capital. Xiquipilco is spoken of as an
Otomí town under the command of Tlilcuetzpalin,
with whom Axayacatl had a personal combat during
this battle, being wounded so severely in the thigh
that he was lame for life, and narrowly escaped
death. Tezozomoc claims that the Otomí chieftain
was hidden in a bush and treacherously wounded the
Mexican king, who was in advance of his troops; Ixtlilxochitl,
ever ready to claim honor for his ancestors,
tells us that it was the Acolhua commander who
saved Axayacatl's life; while Clavigero and Ortega
imply that a duel was arranged between the two
leaders. The enemy was defeated, their leader and
over eleven thousand of his men were taken captives,
and the town surrendered, as did Toluca a little later,
[434]
and other towns in the vicinity. The news of the
conquest was received with great joy at the capital;
the senate marched out to meet and receive the
victorious army on its return; triumphal arches were
erected at frequent intervals, and flowers were strewn
in the path of the victors. The captives were sacrificed
in honor of the god of war, or as Tezozomoc
says, at the dedication of a new altar in his temple,
except the brave Tlilcuetzpalin and a few comrades
who were reserved to grace by their death another
festival, which took place somewhat later. During
this Matlaltzinca war a very severe earthquake was
experienced.[VIII-44]




A year or two later the Matlaltzincas revolted and
obtained the promise of assistance from the Tarascos,
who were anxious to measure their strength against
that of the far-famed Aztecs. But the Tarasco
monarch was unused to the celerity of Mexican
tactics, and Axayacatl's army, thirty-two thousand
strong, had entered Matlaltzinco, re-captured Xiquipilco
and other principal towns, crossed the frontiers
of Michoacan, and captured and burned several cities,
including Tangimaroa, or Tlaximaloyan, an important
and strongly fortified place, before the news of their
departure reached Tzintzuntzan, the Tarasco capital.
But the Tarasco army, superior to that of the
Aztecs, and constantly re-inforced, soon reached the
seat of war, attacked the invaders with such fury that
they were driven back, with great loss, to Toluca.
This was doubtless the disaster indicated by an
eclipse during the same year. After thus showing
their power by defeating the proud warriors of the
valley, the Tarascos did not follow up their advantage,
[435]
but returned to their own country, leaving the
Mexicans still masters of Matlaltzinco. Another
attempt at revolt is vaguely recorded some years
later, but in 1478 the Matlaltzinca cities were permanently
joined to the Mexican domain, and the leading
Matlaltzinca divinities transferred to the temples of
Tenochtitlan.[VIII-45]



 DEATH OF AXAYACATL.



Axayacatl died in 1481, just after his return, as
Duran informs us, from Chapultepec whither he had
gone to inspect his image carved on the cliff by the
side of that of Montezuma I. Brasseur states that
his days were shortened by the excessive number of
his concubines. He was succeeded, according to the
wish of his predecessor, by Tizoc, Tizocicatzin, or
Chalchiuhtona, his brother, who was succeeded in
his office of commander of the army by Ahuitzotl.
Duran insists that the throne was again offered to the
mythical Tlacaeleltzin, who declined the honor but
offered to continue to be the actual ruler during
Tizoc's reign.[VIII-46]




[436]



CHAPTER IX.

THE AZTEC PERIOD—CONCLUDED.



Reign of Tizoc—Nezahualpilli defeats the Huexotzincas—Ahuitzotl,
King of Mexico—Campaigns for Captives—Dedication
of Huitzilopochtli's Temple—Seventy Thousand Victims—Totoquihuatzin
II., King of Tlacopan—Mexican Conquests—Conquest
of Totonacapan—Aztec Reverses—Successful
Revolt of Tehuantepec and Zapotecapan—Conquest of
Zacatollan—Anecdotes of Nezahualpilli—New Aqueduct,
and Inundation of Mexico—Montezuma II. on the Throne—Condition
of the Empire—Montezuma's Policy—Unsuccessful
Invasion of Tlascala—Famine—Conquest of Miztecapan—Tying-up
of the Cycle in 1507—Omens of coming Disaster—The
Spaniards on the Coast of Central America—Trouble
between Mexico and Tezcuco—Retirement and Death of
Nezahualpilli—Cacama, King of Acolhuacan—Revolt of
Ixtlilxochitl—Final Campaigns of the Aztecs—The Spaniards
on the Gulf Coast—Arrival of Hernan Cortés.



 REIGN OF TIZOC.



Tizoc's coronation was preceded by a campaign in
the north-east, where the provinces stretching from
Meztitlan to the gulf had taken advantage of the
Tlatelulca and Matlaltzinca wars to shake off the
yoke of their conquerors. Tezozomoc and Duran
represent this campaign as having been undertaken
by Tizoc, after most extensive preparations, for the
purpose of obtaining captives, but attended with little
success, only about forty prisoners having been secured.
The former author tells us that this war
took place during Nezahualcoyotl's reign. Acosta
[437]
implies that the failure resulted from Tizoc's cowardice
or bad generalship. Ixtlilxochitl, followed by
Brasseur, makes Nezahualpilli the leader in this his
first war, accompanied by both his colleagues. He
seems to have felt, notwithstanding his extreme
youth, much shame at not having performed any glorious
deed of arms, ruling as he did over so valorous
a people as the Acolhuas, and even to have been
ridiculed on the subject by his elder brothers; but in
this war he made for himself a lasting reputation
worthy of his ancestors and his rank. The war is
represented by these authors as a succession of victories
by which Cuextlan and the surrounding
provinces were brought back to their allegiance. No
reverses are alluded to. The captives taken were
sacrificed at Tizoc's coronation, the new king attempting
to surpass his predecessors by giving a
series of magnificent festivals which continued for
forty days.[IX-1] An expedition against Tlacotepec, mentioned
by Torquemada without details, seems to be
the only other war in which Tizoc engaged during
his reign.[IX-2] He either lacked the valor and skill in
war which distinguished his predecessors, or like the
Tezcucan monarchs believed he could best promote
his nation's welfare by attention to peaceful arts.
Very little is recorded of this king; his reign was
very short, and was marked by no very important
events. During this period, however, occurred a war
between Nezahualpilli and Huehuetzin, the lord of
Huexotzinco. This war seems to have been caused
by the plots of Nezahualpilli's brothers who had obtained
the aid of Huexotzinco. According to Brasseur
the Acolhua king and Huehuetzin were born in
the same day and hour, and the astrologers had
predicted that the former would one day be conquered
[438]
by the latter, whose defeat would, however, be celebrated
by the Acolhuas. Huehuetzin ascertained
from the malcontent Acolhua princes a statement of
the forces that were to march against him, with a
description of Nezahualpilli's armor, and directed all
his men to make it their chief object to kill the king.
But Nezahualpilli learned the intention of his opponent,
clad a captain with his armor, placed him at
the head of one division of his army, while he himself
in disguise took command of the other division. So
furious was the attack upon the mock king that he
was killed, his soldiers driven back, and the Huexotzincas
elated with victory; but in the meantime the
main body of the Tezcucan army came up and
attacked the foe as they were chanting their song of
victory. The real Nezahualpilli killed Huehuetzin
in personal combat, after receiving a serious wound
in the foot; the Huexotzincas were utterly routed
and their city was sacked, the Acolhua king returning
to his capital laden with honors and spoils. At his
return to Tezcuco Nezahualpilli enclosed an area of
land equal to the space that had separated him from
his army during the battle, or, as some say, equal to
that occupied by the Huexotzinca army, erecting
within the enclosure a grand palace with magnificent
gardens and immense granaries. He also completed
the temple of Huitzilopochtli commenced by his
father, and sacrificed at its dedication the captives
brought from the last war; for although he is said to
have inherited to some extent his father's repugnance
to human sacrifice, he certainly consented to such sacrifices
on several occasions. Tizoc also completed in
1483 the grand temple of Huitzilopochtli at Mexico, on
which his predecessors had expended so much labor.[IX-3]
The Mexican king, however, died in 1486, after a
reign of six years. His death is reported to have occurred
[439]
from the effects of poison, or, as the records have
it, of magic spells, administered by certain sorceresses
at the command of Techotl, lord of Iztapalapan, with
the connivance of Maxtla, lord of Tlachco, probably
from motives of personal spite. Some authors, as
Duran, Acosta, and Herrera, assert that he was poisoned
by his own subjects, who were disgusted with
his cowardice and inferiority to his predecessors; but
his former position as commander of the Mexican
armies is opposed to the charge of cowardice, as is
the indignation of the people at his murder and the
summary execution of all connected with the crime.[IX-4]



 ACCESSION OF AHUITZOTL.



Ahuitzotl, the last of the three brothers, was now
called to the throne, the famous Tlacaeleltzin still
refusing the crown, if we may credit Duran and
Tezozomoc. During the first year of the new king's
reign successful campaigns are vaguely recorded
against the Mazahua region adjoining the city of
Xiquipilco, against the towns of the Tziuhcoacas
and Tochpanecas, subject to the kingdom of Jalisco,
against the south-eastern provinces of the Miztecs and
Zapotecs, and even against the Chiapanec frontiers,
while Nezahualpilli in the meantime conquered Nauhtlan
on the gulf coast. No details of these campaigns
are given save that the fortress of Huaxyacac, in Oajaca,
since known as Monte Alban,[IX-5] was built and
garrisoned by the Aztecs; but the object of these wars
was to procure captives for the coronation of Ahuitzotl
and for the dedication of the grand temple of
Huitzilopochtli, which took place in 1486 or 1487.[IX-6]
[440]
This dedication was witnessed by millions of visitors,
including representatives from all parts of the country,
from hostile as well as friendly provinces, the former
being given the best positions to view the festivities,
and being loaded with rich presents at their departure.
The chief feature of the exercises was the
sacrifice of captives, of whom from seventy to eighty
thousand perished on the altar. The victims were
arranged in two lines, stretching from the temple far
out on the causeways; the kings began the bloody
work with their own hands, and the priests followed,
each continuing the slaughter until exhausted, when
another took his place. This was the most extensive
sacrifice that ever took place in Anáhuac, and it was
followed by others on a somewhat smaller scale in the
lesser cities, among which one at Xalatlauhco in the
Matlaltzinca region is particularly mentioned.[IX-7]



 AHUITZOTL'S CONQUESTS.



The campaign against the frontiers of Chiapas,
during which some strongholds were taken by the
Mexicans, as Chinantla and Cinacantlan, but which
was altogether unsuccessful in the conquest of the
Chiapanecs, is placed by Brasseur in 1488, the year
after the dedication of the temple.[IX-8] In 1489 Chimalpopoca,
king of Tlacopan, made a brilliant campaign
against Cuextlan, although leaving many slain
on the battle-field of Huexotla; but he died soon
after his return, and was succeeded by his son Totoquihuatzin
[441]
II. Earthquakes and the appearance of
phantoms in the air had indicated approaching disasters.
Sahagun also mentions an eclipse about this
time.[IX-9] In the same year the allied troops conquered
the southern provinces of Cozcaquauhtenanco,
Quapilollan, Quauhpanco, and Quetzalcuitlapillan
according to the Spanish authors, although Brasseur
makes that place retain its independence down to the
coming of the Spaniards. In 1490 Quauhtla, one of
the strongest towns of Cuextlan on the gulf coast,
was taken, giving Montezuma, afterwards king, an
opportunity to display his valor and form a reputation,
which he sustained in an engagement with the
Huexotzincas a little later. A battle at Xonacatepec
also against the Huexotzincas, aided by the forces of
Totolpanco, is attributed to the same year. The captives
obtained in these battles were sacrificed at the
dedication of the temple of Tlacatecco, and during
the ceremonies another temple in the ward called
Tlillan was discovered to be on fire, and burned to
the ground. The conflagration was popularly regarded
as a visitation from the gods, and excited
much superstitious fear.[IX-10]




Next in the catalogue of Aztec expeditions against
revolting provinces was that in 1491, against the
Huastecs of the north-east, who were this time assisted
by the Totonacs. Something has been said of
this ancient people in a preceding chapter on the pre-Toltec
period. Of their history since they left, as
their traditions claim, the central plateaux for the
region of Zacatlan, and afterward for the gulf coast,
nothing is recorded save some troubles with the Teo-Chichimecs
[442]
on the first appearance of that people, a
subsequent alliance with them, and a list of eight Totonac
kings given by Torquemada. Their home was
now the coast region of central and northern Vera Cruz,
where, divided into thirty seigniories tributary to their
monarch, and allied with the Tlascaltecs, they had thus
far escaped the power, if not the attention, of the Aztecs.
But in an evil hour they consented to help the
revolting Huastecs on their northern frontier. Glad
of an excuse to annex to his empire the fertile lands
and flourishing towns of the Totonac coast, Ahuitzotl
marched through Cuextlan, easily reducing the rebel
chiefs to submission, and then directed his course
southward, taking town after town until the whole
province in terror gave up all hope of resistance and
became subjects of the Aztec monarchs, paying
tribute regularly down to the coming of the Spaniards,
who landed and began their march towards
Mexico in Totonac territory.[IX-11] On his return from
the north-east, the south-western provinces demanded
the warlike king's attention. The usual murder of
traders had taken place, and the lords, as one author
tells us, had refused to attend the dedication of
Huitzilopochtli's temple at the capital. Oztoman
was the centre of the revolting district, and with the
neighboring cities of Teloloapan and Alahuiztlan was
taken by assault. The inhabitants of the three
towns, except the captives taken for sacrifice and the
thousands massacred in the assault, were mostly
brought to the valley and distributed among the
towns about the lake; while the conquered districts
were given to Aztec colonies, composed of poor families
selected from Mexico, Tlacopan, and Tezcuco,
under the command of the warriors who had distinguished
themselves in the war.[IX-12]




[443]


 REVERSES TO AZTEC ARMS.



A series of reverses to Aztec arms has next to be
recorded. In 1494, as Ixtlilxochitl states, in a battle
at Atlixco, Tlacahuepatzin, a son of the former king
Axayacatl, was taken prisoner and sacrificed to Camaxtli
the war god of the eastern plateau. The
following year the Acolhua army was defeated in a
battle at Tliltepec.[IX-13] But the most important events
of these and the following years were the campaigns
in Miztecapan, Zapotecapan, and Tehuantepec. Under
the Zapotec king Cociyoeza a general revolt of
all these provinces took place, accompanied by a suspension
of tribute and a general plunder and murder
of Aztec merchants throughout the whole country.
At this time probably took place the exploit of the
Tlatelulca merchants recorded by Sahagun.[IX-14] Traveling
in a large company through the southern
regions, they were at Quauhtenanco in Miztecapan
when the persecution against their class began. As
the only means of saving their lives and property,
by a bold move they took possession of the town,
which had unusual facilities for defence, seizing the
lord and prominent men of the city, and holding
them as hostages for the good conduct of the inhabitants.
Here they maintained their position
against all attacks during a period of four years, and
even were able by occasional sorties to capture many
officers and soldiers from the armies sent against
them, whom they kept and fattened for the altars of
their god at home. Their valor won great honors for
themselves and for their class after their return to
Mexico. Meanwhile all the territory and towns
previously conquered by the Aztecs in Tehuantepec
were retaken; most of the Mexican garrisons in the
country of the Zapotecs and Miztecs farther north
were forced to surrender; and besides the merchant
garrison of Quauhtenanco, and the strong fortresses
[444]
of Huaxyacac and Teotitlan near where the capital
city of Oajaca now stands, the Aztec power was completely
overthrown. Other wars nearer home, which
have been alluded to above, at the time that they
heard of these events, claimed the attention of the
allied monarchs to such an extent that they could not
direct their united force against the rebellious provinces;
but soon an army of sixty thousand men,
under the command of an able officer, was dispatched
southward to quell the revolt and to capture Cociyoeza
dead or alive. This army seems to have carried all
before it in its march through the upper Zapotec
regions; but no details are recorded, except that they
took the sacred city of Mitla in their course, and
sent her priests to die on the altars of Huitzilopochtli.[IX-15]



 DEFEAT IN TEHUANTEPEC.



The march of the Aztec general was directed
towards Tehuantepec, and near that city on a series
of ravine-guarded plateaux the Zapotec king and his
allies had fortified an immense area supposed to be
sufficient to support his army by cultivation, and
awaited the approach of the invaders. The ruins of
Guiengola[IX-16] are supposed to be the remains of this
extensive system of defensive works. Burgoa even
claims that the king went so far as to form artificial
ponds and to stock them with fish as a further provision
against future want. The wily monarch seems
to have purposely refrained from making any effort
to defeat the Aztecs on their march through the
upper country, simply giving orders to such chieftains
as remained to guard their homes, to harass the
enemy continually, and reduce their numbers as much
as possible without bringing on a general engagement.
As soon as the invaders, wearied with their long
march and constant skirmishing, had entered the
labyrinth of ravines through which lay their road to
[445]
Tehuantepec, the brave defenders rushed down from
their mountain forts, and in a series of bloody battles
almost annihilated the invading force. The Aztecs
could neither retreat nor advance, and day by day the
leader saw his army melting away, by death and capture,
prisoners being put to death by torture, except
a few that were sent back to tell their comrades of
the strength and ferocity of their foes. When the
situation became known in Mexico, Ahuitzotl is said
to have sent a second army larger than the first to
relieve the blockaded force; and this re-inforcing
movement was repeated three times within a year,
but the Aztecs could not force the passage of Guiengola,
or if allowed to pass could only comfort their
brothers in arms by dying with them. The allied
Aztec monarchs were at last fairly defeated, and sent
an embassy with propositions of peace and alliance,
professing great admiration for Cociyoeza's valor and
genius.[IX-17]




Such is the version given by Burgoa. Nothing is
known of the negotiations which ensued, but Brasseur
deduces from subsequent events that by the
terms of the treaty formed, the Zapotec king was to
retain possession of Tehuantepec; Soconusco was to
be given up to Mexico; free passage was to be accorded
to Mexican travelers, and the fortress of
Huaxyacac was to remain in the hands of the Aztecs.
It is also stated by Burgoa that Cociyoeza was to
marry a Mexican princess. These conditions would
indicate that the condition of affairs was not after all
so desperate for the Aztecs in the south as the preceding
account implies. Nothing is said of the fate
of the Miztec provinces according to the terms of the
treaty;[IX-18] but we know that after the ratification of
the alliance, the merchant garrison of Quauhtenanco
was relieved from its state of siege, and with the aid
of re-inforcements, conquered the whole adjoining
[446]
province of Ayotlan on the South Sea, and then returned
to their homes, where they were received with
the highest honors at the hands of the monarchs and
of the people, who greeted them with festivities, the
details of which are given by Sahagun.[IX-19]



 MARRIAGE OF PELAXILLA.



It seems not to have been stipulated which one of
the Mexican princesses should be given to the Zapotec
king; and a strange version is given of the
manner in which this matter was settled. Cociyoeza
was bathing one evening in one of the miniature
lakes connected with his royal gardens. After he
had removed his clothing, a beautiful female form
appeared by his side in the moonlight, and announced
herself as the sister of Montezuma of Mexico, who
had heard of his valor, and had caused herself to be
miraculously transported to his side by the magic
arts of the Aztec enchanters. She assisted him in
his bath, left with him the bathing utensils of her
brother which she had brought, showed a peculiar
mark on the palm of her hand, by which she might
be identified, and disappeared as mysteriously as she
had come. Cociyoeza had before looked forward to
his marriage with some misgivings, but now, violently
enamored with the charms of his nocturnal
visitor, he made haste to send an embassy with the
richest gifts his kingdom could afford to bring back
his Aztec bride. A grand display was made in
Mexico at the reception of this embassy, doubtless
intended to impress upon its members an idea of
Mexican power and wealth. The Zapotec nobles
were brought into the presence of the assembled
court beauties, and noticed that one princess had
frequent occasion to arrange her tresses in such a
manner as to show her palm and its peculiar mark.
They were thus enabled at once to select the fair
sister of Montezuma, Pelaxilla, or Cotton-Flake, who
was borne in a litter on the shoulders of noblemen
with great pomp to the court of Teotzapotlan the
[447]
Zapotec capital, where a succession of brilliant fêtes
were given in her honor; and soon after the nuptial
ceremonies were performed at Tehuantepec amid
great popular rejoicings.[IX-20]




It was, perhaps, not without hidden motives of
future treachery that Ahuitzotl had insisted on a matrimonial
alliance between the Aztecs and Zapotecs;
at any rate, he is reported to have made an attempt
some years later to assassinate Cociyoeza through the
assistance of his wife. Ambassadors were sent to
communicate with her on this matter, but Pelaxilla
revealed the plot to her husband, who immediately
sent back the embassy laden with gifts, and prepared
his forts and his armies for war. The Aztecs, however,
knowing that their plot was discovered, made
no attack; they demanded permission to send troops
through Zapotec territory for the conquest of Amaxtlan
and Xuchiltepec, south of the isthmus, which
was granted; but Cociyoeza, suspecting treachery,
took the precaution to furnish a large army to attend
the Aztecs through his territory, both coming and
going, under pretense of furnishing an escort. Ahuitzotl's
forces seem to have been successful, although
no particulars are recorded.[IX-21]




The events related bring the history of the Aztec
[448]
empire down to the year 1497, and about the same
time the province of Zacatollan on the Pacific, south-west
of Michoacan, was annexed to the domain of
Tezcuco—a fact which does not seem to agree with
any version of the terms of the tri-partite alliance—by
the exploit of an Acolhuan officer named Teuhchimaltzin.
It seems that some efforts had already
been made by Nezahualpilli's orders for the conquest
of this province, but without success, when Teuhchimaltzin,
stimulated perhaps by the achievements
of the Tlatelulca merchants at Quauhtenanco, obtained
permission to enter the country disguised as a
merchant, with a few companions, promising to
subdue the province by taking the king, dead or
alive. He was, however, soon recognized and captured,
and the day was appointed for his sacrifice;
but while the king Yopicatl Atonal with his nobles
was drinking and dancing on the night before the
sacrificial festivities, Teuhchimaltzin escaped from his
prison, joined the dancers, and at last, when all were
overcome with frequent libations, cut off the king's
head and escaped with it to the frontier where an
army seems to have been in waiting. When the
nobles awoke and found what had taken place, they
forthwith dispatched an embassy after the escaped
prisoner, and for some reason that Ixtlilxochitl does
not make very clear, offered to surrender the province
to the Tezcucan monarch. Thus Zacatollan was
added to Nezahualpilli's possessions, Teuhchimaltzin
was honored as a hero, and an addition was made to
the stock of tales by which sober Tezcucans were
wont to illustrate the evils of intemperance.[IX-22]



 PUNISHMENT OF CHALCHIUHNENETZIN.



In 1498 took place in Tezcuco the public execution
of one of Nezahualpilli's wives. This monarch had
a great many wives and concubines—more than two
thousand, if we may believe Ixtlilxochitl, his descendant.
Among the former were three nieces of Tizoc,
[449]
one of them a daughter of Axayacatl, and a sister of
Montezuma II., and very likely all three sisters,
although there is great confusion on this point. Axayacatl's
daughter was named Chalchiuhnenetzin;
she was very young, and was assigned a secluded
palace while awaiting the consummation of the marriage.
She soon showed an extraordinary fondness
for decorating her apartments with richly decked
statues, the king noticing new ones at each visit; she
said they were her gods, and her future husband was
willing to humor her tastes, strange though they appeared.
But one day he noticed a noble of the court
wearing a ring that he had seen in the hands of Chalchiuhnenetzin,
and the following night went to visit
her. The maids in waiting said she had retired and
was sleeping, but he insisted on seeing her, and found
her couch occupied by a sort of puppet counterfeit of
herself. His suspicions now fully roused, he ordered
all the attendants arrested, pushed his search farther,
and at last found his virgin bride dancing in very
primitive costume with three noble lovers, one of
whom was he who wore the tell-tale ring. Further
investigation revealed that this Aztec Messalina had
been in the habit of giving herself up to every young
man that struck her fancy, and when weary of her
lovers had caused them to be put to death, and represented
in her apartments by the statues above
referred to. After the parties had been tried and
found guilty by the proper courts, the king sent to
all the cities round about Anáhuac and summoned all
the people to witness the punishment of his false wife.
With her three surviving lovers and about two thousand
persons who had in some way abetted the deception
of the king, the amorous queen was publicly
strangled. All acknowledged the justice of the act,
but the Mexican royal family, it is said, never forgave
the public execution of the sentence.[IX-23]




[450]


 ANECDOTES OF NEZAHUALPILLI.



Nezahualpilli is said to have inherited all the good
qualities of his father. Like Nezahualcoyotl he was
a patron of the arts and sciences, but is reported to
have given his chief attention to astrology, passing
many nights in reading the stars from a lofty observatory
erected for the purpose in the grounds of his
palace. Sorcerers and magicians were always welcome
at his court, whither they were often summoned
both to advise the monarch on affairs of state and to
impart to him a knowledge of their arts. Like his
father he was famed for his inflexibility in the administration
of justice and his kindness toward the poor
and unfortunate. A small window in one part of his
palace overlooked the market-place, and at this window
the king was wont to sit frequently, watching
the actions of the crowd below, noting cases of injustice
for future punishment, and of distress and poverty
that they might be relieved. How he condemned to
death a judge for deciding unjustly against a poor
man and in favor of a noble, and how he had his
favorite son Huexotzincatzin executed for having publicly
addressed his concubine, the lady of Tollan, has
been related in a preceding volume.[IX-24] Many other
anecdotes are told to illustrate the king's love of what
he deemed justice. One of his sons began the construction
of a palace somewhere in the Tezcucan
domains without having either consulted his father
or complied with the law requiring some brilliant
deed in battle before a prince was entitled to a palace
of his own. The guilty son was put to death.
Members of the royal family seem to have had the
greatest faith in the king's judgment and to have
accepted his decisions without complaint. There was
great rivalry between his two brothers Acapipioltzin
and Xochiquetzal respecting the credit of a certain
victory in the province of Cuextlan. Each had a
[451]
band of partisans who were accustomed on public occasions
to celebrate the deeds of their favorite by
songs and dances. So far did the rivalry proceed
that a resort to arms was imminent, when Nezahualpilli
appeared on the scene on the occasion of some
festivity and joining the dance on the side of his oldest
brother Acapipioltzin, decided the dispute in his
favor without complaint on the part of the younger
brother. The condemnation of two men, a musician
and a soldier, for adultery, was on one occasion
brought to the king for his approval. He ordered
the musician to be executed, but the soldier to be
sent for life to do duty in the frontier garrisons, declaring
that such thereafter should be a soldier's
punishment for the fault in question. Nezahualpilli
could also on occasion be most indulgent towards his
children; for instance, his son Ixtlilxochitl early displayed
an extraordinary fondness for having his own
way. At the age of three years he expressed his
emphatic disapproval of his nurse's views and conduct
by pushing that lady into a deep well, and then
amused himself by throwing stones upon her. When
seven years old he raised a company of boy soldiers
and skirmished about the city much to the terror of
peaceful citizens. Hearing that two members of the
royal council had advised his father to kill so unmanageable
a child, he proceeded one night with a
selected detachment of his juvenile veterans to the
house of the counselors and assassinated them both.
Nezahualpilli seems to have looked with much leniency
upon these youthful irregularities of his son,
who at fourteen distinguished himself in battle and
at seventeen was a captain. We shall hear of him
again in the last years of Aztec history. The king
on another occasion demanded from a brother a very
excellent teponaztli in his possession and his daughter
for a royal concubine; on his refusal the teponaztli
was taken by force, and his disobedient brother's
house was razed as the property of a rebel. Two
[452]
sons were strangled for having appropriated captives
actually taken by their soldiers; a daughter for having
spoken to the son of a lord; and two concubines
for drinking pulque. A judge was hung for hearing
a case in his own house instead of in the appointed
hall of justice; and another for unduly prolonging a
trial was condemned to have the front door of his
residence walled up. This king is accredited with
having abrogated the law which condemned the children
of slaves to the condition of their parents, and
with many other reforms calculated to ameliorate the
condition of his people. The possession of supernatural
powers was popularly attributed to him, and
often in infancy he astonished his nurses by appearing
before them in the form of a bird or beast.[IX-25]




In the years 1498 and 1499 it is recorded that
Ahuitzotl attacked Atlixco without warning, and was
defeated by the Huexotzincas who, under a famous
general Tultecatl sent re-inforcements to aid the
armies of Atlixco; and also that, by aiding Cholula
in a quarrel with Tepeaca, the same king greatly
increased his power on the eastern plateau. The
following year Tultecatl, before whose valor the Aztecs
had been forced to retreat, was driven from his
own country in consequence of certain religious
dissensions, and applied at one of the Mexican towns
for protection. He was put to death, however, with
all his companions, by Ahuitzotl's order, and the dead
bodies were forwarded to Huexotzinco to show the
rebellious inhabitants of that city with what relentless
zeal the Aztec ruler pursued his foes.[IX-26]



 INUNDATION OF MEXICO.



Ahuitzotl, finding the water supplied by the Chapultepec
aqueduct insufficient for the use of the
[453]
city, and moreover desirous of accomplishing during
his reign some great work of practical utility,
determined to conduct to his capital the waters of a
spring called Acuecuexatl, near Huitzilopochco, in
the province of Coyuhuacan. Tzotzomatzin, the
lord of the province, was unwilling that the spring
should be thus used, but his opposition was effectually
overcome by strangling him. Many tales
are told by different writers about his opposition
to the scheme, and his death. Some say that he
wished the water for the supply of his own cities;
others, that he told Ahuitzotl the spring was liable at
any time to overflow and flood the city, and was
killed by the latter in a fit of passion at his persistence
in that opinion; and still others represent him
as a great magician, who frightened away the Mexican
king's ambassadors who were sent to negotiate
with him in the matter, by appearing before them in
the form of a ferocious beast, or serpent. Tezozomoc
says he put the cord round his own neck to save his
people from the wrath of the Aztecs; and Duran,
that he did not die, but simply left Coyuhuacan at
this time. Difficulties being thus removed, the aqueduct
was constructed of stone and mortar, in a very
short time, owing to the number of workmen employed,
and its completion was celebrated with the
proper ceremonies and sacrifices. But soon—some
say in the midst of the ceremonies—so great was the
volume of water introduced, that the city was inundated
by the rising of the lake, and immense damage
resulted to public and private buildings. It is, of
course, impossible that the waters of any spring in
Anáhuac could have caused this effect; indeed, Torquemada
says the catastrophe was preceded by heavy
rains for a year, and Ortega also tells us that the
rains came down in torrents at the completion of the
aqueduct; it is, therefore, altogether probable that
the flood was not caused by the waters of the canal,
but was simply attributed to that cause from superstitious
[454]
motives, perhaps resulting from the predictions
of Tzotzomatzin, and his death. So rapid was
the rise of the waters, that king Ahuitzotl, who was
in the lower part of his palace, had great difficulty in
escaping, and in his haste struck his head against a
door-post, receiving a wound which, a few years later,
proved fatal. The engineering skill of Nezahualpilli,
with the laboring force of the whole empire, was at
once called into requisition to stop the flood and repair
damages. The old dike that had before saved
the city was strengthened and raised; the city was
repaired and paved with tetzontli, or porous amygdaloid,
the use of which is said to date from this period;
but to stop the waters of the unruly spring human
efforts were unavailing, and the aid of the gods was
invoked with magic rites. First the priests, whose
bodies were painted blue in honor of the Tlalocs,
stood round the fountain and uttered prayers,
burned incense, and scattered perfumes; then the
divers plunged into the waters, each with a young
child whose heart was torn out, and whose blood
stained the waters; and finally the priests entered
the water, and, as some say, Nezahualpilli with them.
Half an hour after their emergence the waters became
so quiet that the laborers were able to wall up
the spring and stop the overflow. Other cities about
the lake had suffered as much, or even more, than
Mexico, particularly Cuitlahuac, which is said to have
been uninhabitable for two years. Much damage was
also done to the crops in the valley, and the next
year was one almost of famine. The flood occurred
in 1500, and at least two years passed before Anáhuac
had recovered from its effects.[IX-27]



 ACCESSION OF MONTEZUMA II.



Campaigns against Cuextlan, Tlacuilollan, and
[455]
Xaltepec, are vaguely reported during the last two
years of Ahuitzotl's life, and may be distinct from
any of the wars that have been mentioned, but no
details are given, save that from Tlacuilollan twelve
hundred captives were brought back to Mexico.[IX-28]
The king died in 1503,[IX-29] as is generally supposed
from the effects of the blow mentioned above; although
Tezozomoc attributes his death to chagrin
and remorse at the misfortune of the flood, and
Duran hints that he was poisoned. His likeness is
said to have been sculptured with those of his predecessors
on the cliff at Chapultepec. Ahuitzotl's
leading passion was his love of war, so strong as to
amount almost to a hatred of peace. He was also
passionately fond of music, of display, and of women.
He was cruel, vindictive, and superstitious; and the
quality of generosity attributed to him was probably
closely connected with his reputed love of display
and flattery. Immediately after his death Montezuma
II., son of Axayacatl, was called to the throne;
although, according to Ixtlilxochitl, his elder brother
Macuilmalinatzin was the first choice of the electors,
but was rejected by the advice of Nezahualpilli, who
doubted his possession of the requisite qualities for
the ruler of a great nation. Montezuma had already
distinguished himself on many occasions in battle,
and was at the time of his election high-priest of
Huitzilopochtli. When the news of his election
reached him he is said to have been employed in
sweeping the temple, from a spirit of real or feigned
humility. The usual campaign for captives was successfully
directed against Atlixco, and foreign nobles
from hostile as well as friendly provinces came in
crowds by invitation to witness the coronation ceremonies.[IX-30]




[456]


 POLICY OF MONTEZUMA.



Ahuitzotl left the Aztec empire in the height of
its power and glory, yet even before his death the
seeds of future disaster may be said to have been
sown or even to have taken root, since the hitherto
unparalleled sacrifice of human victims on the altars
of the capital had filled the whole country with terror
and added much to the hatred of which the Aztecs
had been the objects from the date of their first appearance
in the valley; the rapid increase of the
Mexican power and their well-known greed of conquest
had added to the hatred of the conquered the
jealous fears of such nations as still retained their
independence; and finally the reverses suffered in
Tehuantepec, in Michoacan, and in several battles
against the eastern nations, had taught the peoples
of North America that the allied armies of the central
plateaux were not altogether invincible. The
dangers that thus began to threaten the empire, however,
were all external, and might perhaps have been
averted or long deferred by a series of successful wars
under brave but wise kings. Under the preceding
kings, the common interests of all classes in the success
of the government, had been a prominent element
of national glory. Commercial enterprise had done
as much as valor in war to promote the conquests of
kings and to build up the capitals; the common soldier
might by bravery and brilliant achievements in
battle hope to reach the highest military rank; the
menial service of the royal palace with many posts of
honor had been entrusted largely to plebeian hands;
and in fact Aztec policy had been strikingly analogous
[457]
to that which distinguished the French nation
under the first Napoleon. The granting of titles and
honors to the merchants had naturally excited much
opposition among those who derived their titles of
nobility from a long line of Chichimec or Toltec ancestors;
and what made the matter even more galling
to their pride, was the fact that these parvenu nobles
by reason of their wealth were able to completely
outshine their confrères of purer blood but slender
purses, in all public displays as well as in their palaces
and style of living. Montezuma II. from the
first days of his reign openly espoused the cause of
the ancient nobility against the merchants and plebeians.
What is known of his character renders
it probable that he was prompted to this course
chiefly by his own extremely aristocratic tastes;
but it is not impossible that he gained his election
by committing himself to such a policy. He
began by dismissing all plebeians employed about the
royal palaces and appointing youths of noble blood in
their places. He was warned that such a course
would separate the interests of the common people
from those of royalty and prove dangerous in the
future; but he replied that he wished nothing in
common with plebeians, who must be taught to keep
their place and give up their absurd aspirations. His
policy toward the merchants and the army was more
cautious but equally decided. Advantage was taken
of every opportunity to humble and oppress the
hated class, by constantly clogging with new restrictions
the wheels of trade, and by the promotion whenever
practicable of noble officers. Montezuma was,
however, a valiant and skillful warrior, and sacrificed
oftener his inclinations to his interests in the treatment
of his armies than in other cases. His policy
of course gradually alienated the classes on which the
prosperity of the empire chiefly rested, and ensured
the fall of the Aztec power whenever disaffection
should have an opportunity to ally itself with foreign
[458]
foes. The bursting of the storm was averted for
some fifteen years by the strength of the Acolhua
and Tepanec alliance, and by the strength of the
Mexican army. Montezuma's reign was a succession
of campaigns against revolting provinces, interspersed
with the erection of magnificent temples, frequent
and extensive immolations of human victims, and
omens of disaster sent by the gods to trouble the
mind of the superstitious monarch. When at last the
day drew near when Mexico must struggle single-handed
for the retention of her supremacy against a
combination of all the Nahua powers, the last chance
for success in such an unequal contest disappeared
with the re-inforcement of the enemy by Spanish valor,
Spanish armor, and Spanish horses; and Montezuma
personally had not even the melancholy satisfaction
of seeing his foes fall before the same wave of
foreign invasion which had destroyed forever his
own power.[IX-31]



 WAR AGAINST TLASCALA.



Tlascala had thus far never been the object of an
invasion by the united forces of the allies, although,
as we have seen, frequent battles had been fought on
the frontier, and the Tlascaltec armies as allies of
other nations had been several times defeated. During
the reigns of Montezuma I. and Axayacatl, however,
the Tlascaltec territory had become completely
surrounded by Aztec possessions, through the conquest
of Cuetlachtlan, Cuextlan, and Totonacapan.
Their communication with the coast having thus been
cut off, the Tlascaltec commerce had been almost
entirely destroyed, and for a period extending down
to the Conquest, this brave people were obliged to
do without many luxuries, and even necessities of
[459]
life. Their lack of salt is particularly recorded; a
small supply was occasionally smuggled into the
state by the nobles, but the common people are said
to have abstained entirely from its use, and to have
completely lost their relish for this article. The
other cities of the eastern plateau had in the meantime
become either the subjects or allies of the Mexicans.
Immediately after his accession to the throne,
Montezuma II. determined to direct his armies
against this last unsubdued territory in the east.
The excuse was an embassy sent by the Tlascaltecs,
probably to Axayacatl, complaining of the oppression
to which their merchants were subjected on the
coast, the claims of the embassy having been
received with insulting indifference, and threats
having been freely uttered on both sides. Huexotzinco
and Cholula seem both to have allied themselves
with Mexico in this affair; but, on the other
hand, Tlascala had received constant additions to
her population and armies in the refugees from all
parts of Anáhuac, who were continually applying
for protection to the only nation beyond the power
of the Aztecs. The war was begun by the Huexotzincas
and Cholultecs, who invaded Tlascala, killed
in battle one of their chief leaders, Tizatlacatzin,
and penetrated to within one league of the capital;
but they were driven back, and the Huexotzinca
towns were in turn ravaged by the Tlascaltecs, sending
couriers to Montezuma to hasten the march of
his forces. The Tlascaltecs, hearing of the approach
of the Aztecs, fell upon them before they could effect
a junction with their allies, and defeated them, inflicting
heavy losses, and killing among others Tlacahuepantzin,
the son of the Mexican king.[IX-32] After
[460]
the funeral ceremonies in honor of his son, Montezuma
made another attempt to subdue the Tlascaltecs,
sending against them the whole available force
of the empire; but after a hard-fought battle the invaders
were again driven back, and although skirmishes,
and even battles, took place afterwards
between the two nations, yet the Aztec allies never
repeated their attempt to crush Tlascala, and the
brave little republic retained her independence until
by the aid of Cortés she was able to take her revenge
on the tyrannical Mexicans and treacherous
Cholultecs.[IX-33]




In 1505 the crops were destroyed by the excessive
heat, and although the public granaries were generously
opened to the public by Nezahualpilli and
Montezuma—for the latter, notwithstanding his aristocratic
tendencies, was generous towards his people
so long as they claimed nothing more than a right to
exist—many perished of starvation or sold themselves
and children as slaves. Totonacapan was again apparently
the only province unaffected by the famine.
Another plague in the form of rats which over-ran
the country in immense numbers is recorded at about
the same time; but the volcano of Popocatepetl
ceased for twenty days to emit smoke, a good omen,
as the wise men said and as it proved, for the next
year was one of great plenty.[IX-34] During the year of
the famine a campaign against Guatemala, or as some
authors say Quauhnelhuatlan, which may have been
a Guatemalan province, is recorded as having yielded
[461]
many captives for the inauguration of the temple of
Centeotl, built in recognition of her services in staying
the drought and sending a year of plenty. The festivities
on the completion of certain repairs to the
causeway and aqueduct of Chapultepec at about the
same time were marred by the burning of a temple
in Mexico. It is related that the Tlatelulcas seeing
the flames, thought the city was invaded by an enemy
and rushed in to help protect it, but that Montezuma
chose to regard this as an act of rebellion and temporarily
removed all Tlatelulcas from their positions at
court.[IX-35]



 REVOLT OF THE MIZTECS.



Before the end of 1506, two campaigns were made
against the Miztecs by the last of which the whole
province was permanently subdued. The pretext of
the first was the refusal of Malinalli, lord of Tlachquiauhco,
to give Montezuma for his royal gardens a
very rare plant in his possession. An army was dispatched
to bring the plant and punish the people;
Tilantongo, Achiuhtla, and Tlachquiauhco fell before
the Mexican soldiers; and the rare tlapalizquixochitl,
or 'red flower,' was transplanted to Mexico, although
the Oajacan records insist, according to Burgoa, that
it died on the way. The Miztecs next determined
upon a final effort to shake off the Mexican yoke,
which well nigh succeeded. Cetecpatl, king of Cohuaixtlahuacan,
invited the garrison of the impregnable
Huaxyacac and other Aztec fortresses to a
grand banquet, and on their return they were set
upon by the ambushed troops of Nahuixochitl, lord
of Tzotzolan, and all put to death, save one that
escaped to tell the news. The Miztecs, now thoroughly
aroused, adopted the tactics that had proved
so effective in Tehuantepec, fortified their positions in
the mountains near Tzotzolan, and awaited the attack.
The first army sent by Montezuma was defeated and
[462]
driven back with great loss. A second army representing
the whole strength of the Aztec allies now
marched southward under Cuitlahuatzin, Montezuma's
brother; but the Miztec forces could not be dislodged
from their strong position until Cozcaquauhtli, lord of
Huauhtlan and a brother of Cetecpatl, betraying his
people, or faithful to his ruler Montezuma as the
Mexican writers put it, opened his city to the enemy,
revealed all Cetecpatl's plans, and led Cuitlahuatzin
by secret paths to a commanding position whence the
attack was made and the Miztecs routed. Nahuixochitl
soon came up with a fresh army from Tututepec,
but was in his turn defeated. The whole
province, including Tututepec and other cities on the
shores of the Pacific, was then over-run and permanently
subjected to Mexican authority. The captives
included the leaders, and were brought back to
Mexico in time to grace with their blood the festival
of tlacaxipehualiztli, or 'flaying of men,' although
according to some authorities the leaders, Cetecpatl
and Nahuixochitl, were reserved for a later occasion.[IX-36]



 TYING-UP OF THE LAST CYCLE.



Also in 1506 the Huexotzincas and Cholultecs had
a quarrel, in which the former had the advantage
and by a raid burned a few houses in the city of the
latter. Knowing that Montezuma had great veneration
for the city of Quetzalcoatl, the Huexotzincas
thought it best to send ambassadors to explain the
matter. The envoys for some reason not made clear
greatly exaggerated the matter, representing Cholula
as having been utterly destroyed and the inhabitants
[463]
driven to the mountains. Greatly enraged the allied
kings sent an army to chastise the perpetrators of
such an outrage on the holy city; but the Huexotzincas
escaped their punishment by stating the truth
of the matter and delivering up for sacrifice the
envoys with their ears and noses cut off. An
expedition at the same time against Itztitlan and
Itzcuintepec, and another according to Ortega and
Torquemada against Atlixco, together with a war in
Tecuhtepec, furnished a large number of captives,
some of whom were sacrificed at the dedication of the
Tzompantli[IX-37] or 'place of skulls,' while the rest were
reserved for the tying-up of the cycle and lighting
of the new fire which took place the following year,
accompanied by ceremonies that have been described
in a preceding volume. This was the last ceremony
of the kind the Mexicans ever had the opportunity to
perform; before another cycle had elapsed, the native
gods had lost their power, their rites had been abolished,
and replaced by others that did not include
human sacrifices. The rites of the Inquisition were
as cruel as those they replaced, but the number of
victims in America was comparatively small.[IX-38]




The year 1507 was marked by the occurrence of
an eclipse and an earthquake, by the drowning of
eighteen hundred soldiers in the Miztec country, and
[464]
according to Ixtlilxochitl, by the execution of Tezozomoc,
lord of Azcapuzalco and father-in-law of
Montezuma, for adultery. In his trial it is related
that the Mexican judges voted for his banishment,
the Tepanec added that the end of his nose should
be cut off, but Nezahualpilli, who had the final decision,
ordered him to be strangled, much to the displeasure
of Montezuma. During the same year the
allies sent an expedition to the region of Mitla, which
plundered a few towns and captured a small number
of prisoners. The provocation of this war is not recorded.
Immediately after its return an army was
sent under Cuitlahuatzin against Quauhquelchula in
the Huexotzinca region. The result was a victory
with a goodly array of captives, but obtained only
after a serious loss, including five Mexican leaders.
The captives served for the inauguration of the temple
previously burned, as has been noted, but now
rebuilt, and also for the festival of the 'flaying of
men.' According to Tezozomoc and Duran the
provocation of this war was the burning of the
temple of the goddess Toci in Mexico, or as Tezozomoc
understands it, the tociquahuitl, a wooden signal
tower on the hill of Tocitlan. Duran also informs
us that a representation of Mexican nobles attended
by invitation the festivals in honor of Camaxtli, at
which were sacrificed the Aztec captives taken during
the war. A renewal of hostilities with Huexotzinco
is mentioned in the eighth year of Montezuma's
reign.[IX-39]



 OMENS OF DISASTER.



With the new cycle began a period, during which,
down to the appearance of the Spaniards at Vera
Cruz, almost every event was invested with a mysterious
[465]
significance, every unusual phenomenon of nature,
every accident, every illness, every defeat in
battle, failure of crops, excessive heat or cold, rain
or snow, thunder and lightning, shooting star or
comet, earthquake or eclipse,—each and all portended
evil to the Aztec empire, evil which some seem even
at the time to have connected with the olden predictions
of Quetzalcoatl respecting the coming of a
foreign race to take possession of the country. The
superstitious monarchs, priests, and nobles were in a
constant state of terror. There are but two ways of
accounting for this state of affairs; first by supposing
that the supernatural element in the various events
referred to, the terror which they caused in the
minds of the natives, and many of the events themselves,
were pure inventions of the native historians
formed after the coming of the Spaniards to support
the claims of their sages to a foreknowledge of
events, or simply for the sake of telling a marvelous
tale; and second by supposing that the terror of
Montezuma and his companions, and their disposition
to carefully note and construe into omens of evil each
unusual occurrence, was caused by a knowledge more
or less vague that the Spaniards were already on the
American coasts. While there is every reason to
believe that there are both inventions and exaggerations
in the records written after the coming of
foreigners, I am disposed to attribute the effects referred
to above chiefly to the actual presence of
Europeans. For about fifteen years the Antilles had
been more or less completely in the possession of the
Spaniards; five years before the opening of the new
cycle Columbus had coasted Central America and
even established a colony in Veragua. It is altogether
improbable that no knowledge of the white
men and their wonderful winged vessels had reached
Mexico, however vague and exaggerated that knowledge
may have been. The Aztec traders were not
now such indefatigable and trustworthy spies as in
[466]
former times, but they would hardly have failed to
bring to Mexico exaggerated rumors of approaching
disaster. It is also quite possible that various articles
of European manufacture, or even human remains of
white men, had been washed on the Totonac or Xicalanca
shores. That Montezuma and his companions
attached considerable weight to the traditional
predictions of Quetzalcoatl and Hueman there is no
reason to doubt. The predictions referred to may
have been the threats of some exiled chieftain of
ancient times, or the vain imaginings of a fanatic
priest uttered to maintain his reputation among his
followers; possibly the result of some native cosmographer's
theorizing respecting other lands across the
ocean; not quite impossibly the remnant of an ancient
knowledge of trans-oceanic peoples; and of course not
the result of any prophetic foreknowledge; but like
all other pretended prophecies they became at once
most valid and authentic on the occurrence of circumstances
which might be interpreted as their fulfillment.



 MONTEZUMA AND NEZAHUALPILLI.



The signs and omens that followed those already
mentioned I shall briefly relate without paying much
attention to their chronologic order; very little else
than these omens and the means adopted to avert
their consequences is recorded from 1508 to 1512.
An army sent to the province of Amatlan perished
with cold and by falling trees and rocks; and a comet
with three heads, perhaps the one already mentioned,
hung over Anáhuac.[IX-40] Then a wonderful pyramidal
light appeared in the east, reaching from the earth to
the sky, visible for forty days, or, as some say, for a
whole year, in all parts of the country, from midnight
till morning, very similar, according to the description,
to the Aurora Borealis. Nezahualpilli was so
affected by these signs that he gave orders to discontinue
all hostilities. An interview was held between
[467]
him and Montezuma, although for some time they
had not been on speaking terms. Nezahualpilli saw
clearly in the strange omens the approaching end of
the empire and his own death, but was resigned to
the decrees of fate; Montezuma, on the contrary, instead
of resignation felt only anger, and is even
said by Tezozomoc and Duran to have strangled many
of his sorcerers for their unfavorable interpretation of
the signs, and their failure to avert evil omens. At
last a game of tlachtli was agreed upon between the
two monarchs to decide whose interpretation should
be accepted; and to show how little importance he
attached to his wealth and power, Nezahualpilli is
said to have wagered on the result his kingdom of
Acolhuacan against three turkey cocks. He won the
game, but still Montezuma was not disposed to yield
to the fates, and still persecuted his magicians in the
hope to elicit a more favorable prognostication, but in
vain; the magicians all agreed with the Tezcucan
monarch. About the same time the towers of Huitzilopochtli's
temple took fire in a clear night without
apparent cause, and were reduced to ashes in spite of
all efforts to extinguish the flames; and another temple
was set on fire by lightning. This was the
temple of the god of fire, and was now burned for
the second time.[IX-41] In this period, in the reign of the
second Montezuma, Brasseur puts the story of a
mysterious aerial journey of the two kings to the
ancient home of the Aztecs, referring perhaps to that
already taken from Duran and applied to the time of
Montezuma I.[IX-42] Torquemada, Clavigero, and Vetancvrt,
tell us of the resurrection of Papantzin, a
sister of Montezuma, who brought back from the
land of the dead to her royal brother an account of
the new people who were to occupy the land, and of
the new religion they would bring. This lady is said
[468]
to have been the first Mexican to receive the rites of
Christian baptism, and the priests took pains to send
a duly authenticated account of her miraculous resurrection
to Spain. The intimate connection of this
tale with the religious prejudices of the invaders,
renders it unnecessary to seek even a foundation in
truth for the report. Sahagun also speaks of a
resurrected woman who predicted the fall of the
empire, living twenty-one years thereafter and bearing
a son. Boturini attributes this return from the
dead to a sister of the king of Michoacan at a much
later date, while the Spaniards were besieging Mexico.[IX-43]
In 1509, as several authors say,[IX-44] the waters
of the lake became violently agitated, without wind,
earthquake, or other natural cause, and in consequence
the city was inundated. The fishermen of
the lake caught a large bird like a crane, wearing a
round transparent crown, through which Montezuma
saw the stars, though it was in the daytime, and also
many people that approached in squadrons, attired
like warriors, and seeming half men, half deer. The
bird disappeared before the sorcerers could satisfactorily
interpret this strange thing. Double-bodied
and double-headed men also were seen, and on being
brought before the king suddenly disappeared; and
the same happened with men who had no fingers and
toes. In 1511 armed men were seen fighting in the
air; and a bird appeared whose head seemed human;
and a large stone pillar fell near the temple of Huitzilopochtli,
no one knowing whence it came. An
earthquake and a deluge at Tusapan, are reported;
at Tecualoia a most ferocious and horrible beast was
captured; a female voice was several times heard bewailing
the fate of her children. At Tlascala a
bright light and a cloud of dust arising from the
summit of Mount Matlalcueje to the very heavens,
[469]
caused the people to fear the end of the world was
coming. The sorcerers of Cuetlachtlan also saw
many wonderful visions; but among the peoples outside
of Anáhuac the fearful phenomena and the predicted
coming of a foreign people were less terrible
than to the Aztecs, for with their terror was mingled
hope of relief from the Aztec yoke. A wild hare
invaded Nezahualpilli's garden, but the king would
not allow the animal to be killed, for in the same
manner, he said, would a strange people presently
invade his country. Tezozomoc and Duran give a
long and detailed account of Montezuma's sufferings.
It seems that he was not content with his own
dreams and omens, but instructed his subjects to report
to him all their visions; at last he was so distracted
that he determined to hide himself from impending
calamities in a cave, but was prevented from
such a course by a series of supernatural events more
absurd, if possible, than those that have been narrated.
Herrera tells us that Montezuma had in his
possession a box washed on the eastern shore containing
wearing-apparel and a sword of a style unknown
to the natives.[IX-45]



 VISIONS AND OMENS.



In the meantime military operations had not been
suspended, for the anger of the gods could only be
averted by sacrifice, and victims could only be obtained
by war; but the details of these campaigns
and their order are nowhere definitely recorded. It
is stated, however, that in 1511, the Cuetlachtecas,
encouraged by the visions of their magicians, and by
the troubles that had fallen upon Anáhuac, refused
openly to pay their tributes, and yet remained unpunished.[IX-46]
[470]
In the same or following year, the Cakchiquel
records note the arrival of a numerous
embassy of the Yaqui, or Mexicans, at their court.
Nothing whatever is said of the object of this mission,
or its results; but the Abbé Brasseur has no
doubt that the object sought was information respecting
the actions of the Spaniards on the coast of Central
America.[IX-47] Although Nezahualpilli seems to
have lost most of his interest in political affairs, and
to have contented himself with simply awaiting
future developments, no superstitious terror in Montezuma's
breast could overcome his ruling passion, ambition;
and according to the authorities he was
inclined to take advantage of his colleague's listlessness
for his own aggrandizement. Ixtlilxochitl
relates an act of treachery against the Tezcucan
monarch, which, in view of the author's well-known
prejudice against Montezuma, may be received with
much doubt; according to this author, the Mexican
king represented to Nezahualpilli that the anger of the
gods was caused to some extent by the failure to offer
captives from Tlascala, and the substitution of victims
from distant provinces obtained not in holy battle
but in a mere attempt to extend the imperial domain.
He proposed a joint campaign against Tlascala; Nezahualpilli
consented, saying that his inaction had not
been the result of cowardice, but he had ceased to
fight simply because the year of 1 Acatl was near
at hand when the empire must fall. He sent an
army under his two sons, but Montezuma had secretly
notified the Tlascaltecs that the Acolhua's motive
was not the capture of victims, but the conquest of
the republic, promising to take no part himself in the
battle. The Tlascaltecs were very angry and the
Aztec army stood calmly by and saw the Acolhua
forces led into ambush and massacred. The whole
[471]
march of Nezahualpilli's army had been marked by
the occurrence of many omens of evil. Immediately
on his return Montezuma openly proclaimed his opposition
to his colleague and ordered a suspension of all
Tezcucan tributes from the cities about the lake.
While there are reasons to doubt this act of treachery
and the openness of his opposition to Nezahualpilli,
it is evident that the two kings regarded each other
from this time as enemies.[IX-48]



 MONTEZUMA, AZTEC EMPEROR.



In 1512, with great festivities and the sacrifice of
twelve thousand captives—taken it is said in a war
against the revolting Miztec province of Tlachquiauhco—was
dedicated a new sacrificial stone. It was
only after a long search that a suitable stone was
found near Coyuhuacan, and after it was formed and
sculptured with the fitting devices, notwithstanding
the honors paid it on the way to the capital, it broke
through one of the causeways and carried with itself
to the bottom of the lake the high-priest and many of
his attendants. It was afterwards recovered and
placed in its appointed place. Tezozomoc and others
tell many marvelous tales of this stone, how it spoke
frequently on the way, and how after sinking it found
its way back to its original location. Tezozomoc also
states that in connection with the ceremonies at this
time Montezuma publicly proclaimed himself Zemanahuaca
Tlatoani, equivalent to 'emperor of the
world.'[IX-49]



 LIMITS OF THE AZTEC EMPIRE.



During the next few years Montezuma seems to
have determined by brilliant exploits in battle to
defy the predictions of his magicians and to shake off
his own superstitious fears. In 1512, according to Torquemada,
the Xuchitepecs and Icpactepecs were subjugated;
in 1513, the Yopitzincas, who had attempted
the destruction of the Mexican garrison at Tlacotepec,
[472]
were defeated; in 1514, the city of Quetzalapan
in Cuextlan was taken with many captives, although
at the cost of several Aztec leaders of high rank; and
in 1515 took place the conquest of Cihuapohualoyan
and Cuexcomaixtlahuacan, including the siege of the
strongholds of Quetzaltepec, Totoltepec and Iztactlalocan,
narrated at considerable length by Duran, who
represents this war as having been caused by the
refusal of the inhabitants to furnish a peculiar kind
of sand needed by the Mexican lapidaries in polishing
precious stones.[IX-50] Torquemada and Ortega relate
that an expedition was at about this time sent southward
to Honduras, Vera Paz, and Nicaragua, all of
which were subjected to the Mexican power, the two
former without much opposition, the latter only after
a hard battle, a defeat, and subsequent treachery on
the part of the Aztecs.[IX-51] There is every reason to
believe that this report is unfounded, and that the
countries south of the isthmus, save perhaps Soconusco,
were never conquered by the Mexicans. I
need not enter into any discussion here respecting the
limits of the Aztec empire; since the annals recorded
in the preceding pages, with a résumé of the subject
in a preceding volume,[IX-52] are sufficient. In general
terms the empire extended from the valley of Mexico
westward only to the adjoining province of Matlaltzinco,
Michoacan having always retained her independence;
north-westward only a few leagues beyond
the limits of the valley; in the north-east, east, and
[473]
south-east it embraced the whole country to the gulf
coast from the Rio Pánuco in the north to the Rio
Alvarado in the south, excepting the small territory of
Tlascala; in the south-west and south it reached the
Pacific coast, along which it extended from Zacatollan
to Tututepec; and it also included some towns and
garrisons in Soconusco, and on the frontiers of Chiapas.
Or, according to modern political geography,
the empire embraced the states of Mexico, Puebla,
Vera Cruz, Guerrero, and western Oajaca, with small
portions of Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosí, Querétaro,
and Chiapas. The whole of Oajaca, including Tehuantepec,
was at one time subjected, but the Zapotecs
regained their independence, as we have seen,
before Montezuma's reign. Beyond these limits
doubtless many raids were made, and towns, with
small sections of territory, were reduced momentarily
to Mexican provinces; hence the varying statements
of different authors on this subject.[IX-53]




The appearance of the Spaniards on the distant
American coasts, the predictions of disaster which all
the soothsayers agreed in deriving from constantly
recurring omens, the approaching subjugation of his
people to a race of foreigners in which Nezahualpilli
firmly believed, and above all the haughty and
treacherous manner and deeds of Montezuma, who
now made no secret of his intention to make himself
supreme monarch of the empire, had a most depressing
effect on the Tezcucan king. He retired with
[474]
his favorite wife and a few attendants to the palace
of Tezcocingo, announcing his intention of spending
his remaining days in retirement, but six months
later he returned to Tezcuco, retired to his most
private apartments, and refused to see visitors.
Some time afterwards, when his family insisted on
being admitted to his presence, his death was announced
to them, having been concealed for some
time by the attendants acting under his orders. The
peculiar circumstances of his decease caused the invention
of the popular tale, according to which he
had not died but had gone to the ancient Amaquemecan,
the home of his Chichimec ancestors. His
death occurred in 1515.[IX-54]



 REVOLT OF IXTLILXOCHITL.



For some unknown reason Nezahualpilli had not
named his successor on the throne, and the choice
thus devolved upon the royal council in conjunction
with the kings of Mexico and Tlacopan. So far as
can be determined from conflicting accounts the sons
of the deceased monarch and heirs to the throne were
as follows in the order of their age:—Tetlahuehuetquizitzin,
Cacama, Cohuanacoch, and Ixtlilxochitl. The
eldest son was deemed incompetent to rule the kingdom,
Cacama was chosen by the council, and the
choice warmly approved by Montezuma, who was
Cacama's uncle. When the decision was announced
to the other brothers, Cohuanacoch approved it, but
Ixtlilxochitl protested against the choice of Cacama,
insisting that his oldest brother should be proclaimed
king. Something has already been said about this
prince's fiery temper in early years,[IX-55] and age seems
to have had no effect in calming his violent character.
But on this occasion he seems to have been actuated
not only by his own ambition to reign or to control
[475]
the reigning monarch, but by patriotic motives and a
desire for his country's freedom. He denounced,
probably not without reason, the council as acting
wholly in the interests of the treacherous Montezuma,
who had insulted his father, and aspired to the imperial
power; and he regarded Cacama as a mere man
of wax to be molded at will by the crafty monarch of
the Mexicans. The details of the quarrel are given
at considerable length by the authorities, but are
hardly worth reproducing here; the trouble seems to
have lasted, if the chronology of the records may be
credited, two years, much of which time was passed
by Cacama at Mexico with his uncle. At last, however,
finding his efforts unavailing, Ixtlilxochitl left
Tezcuco with his partisans and went to the province
of Meztitlan with the intention of exciting a revolt in
his own behalf, while Cacama in 1517 proceeded to
his capital to receive the crown of his father.[IX-56]




Ixtlilxochitl was in a high degree successful in the
northern provinces, whose inhabitants were almost
unanimous in their approval of his opposition to
Montezuma, and gladly ranged themselves under his
banners. Marching southward from Meztitlan at the
head of a hundred thousand men, he was received as
[476]
king in Tepepulco and other towns until he reached
Otompan, where he met considerable resistance, but
at last entered the city and made it thereafter his
capital. He also took possession of all the northern
towns, such as Acolman, Chiuhnauhtlan, Zumpango,
and Huehuetoca. The news of his proceedings in
the north reached Tezcuco just after the coronation
ceremonies of Cacama, or, as some say, during their
continuance. Montezuma seems to have made one
effort to quell this northern revolt and to have sent
one of his bravest generals against Ixtlilxochitl, but
this general, Xochitl, was defeated, captured, and
burned alive by the fiery Chichimec prince; no
farther attack was made by the Mexican king. During
the course of this year, 1517, the Totonacs secretly
gave in their allegiance to Ixtlilxochitl, and of course
Tlascala, the inveterate foe of Mexico, supported his
cause. Montezuma's failure to renew his efforts
against the rebel, and the increasing spirit of revolt
among the Aztec provinces are in great measure accounted
for, when it is remembered that at this time
the Spaniards, under Hernandez de Córdova, again
appeared on the coast of Yucatan and Tabasco,[IX-57] and
the exaggerated reports of their appearance and
deeds served to cause a renewal of the old terror in
Mexico, and a corresponding hope, not altogether unmingled
with fear, in the oppressed provinces. Cacama,
either influenced by the same fears, or more
probably encouraged to yield to his own kindly feelings
towards his brother by Montezuma's failure to
proceed against Ixtlilxochitl, sent an embassy to his
brother, who, from his new headquarters at Otompan,
had shown no intention of marching against Tezcuco,
proposing an amicable settlement of their difficulties.
Ixtlilxochitl replied that he had none but the kindest
[477]
feelings towards his brother and the kingdom of
Acolhuacan, but renewed his denunciations of Montezuma,
and his warnings against that monarch's ambitious
designs. A division of the kingdom was
finally decided upon, Ixtlilxochitl retaining the sovereign
power in the northern provinces, Cacama
retaining his throne at Tezcuco and his place in the
Aztec alliance, and Cohuanacoch receiving a large
amount of revenue for his constant support of the
king. Ixtlilxochitl faithfully observed the terms of
the treaty, but retained all his enmity against the
Mexicans; he had an opportunity to strike a decisive
blow against the hated power a little later as
an ally of the Spaniards.[IX-58]



 FINAL WARS OF MONTEZUMA.



Yet wars were still waged by the allied kings as
before, for the only hope of averting impending disaster
was by drenching with human blood the altars
of the gods. Several campaigns are recorded as
having yielded captives in considerable numbers, but
no details are given. Battles against the Tlascaltecs
were continued down to the very last; the Mexicans
fighting generally as allies of the Huexotzincas. In
one of these battles the Huexotzinca chief Tlachpanquizqui
by a valiant feat of arms obtained pardon
for serious crimes which he had committed, and great
rewards besides. He captured the famous Tlascaltec
warrior Tlalhuicol and brought him to Mexico.
But the honor of his capture was all that Montezuma
desired; for he immediately offered Tlalhuicol his
freedom, which was refused. The Tlascaltec was
then put in command of a Mexican army and sent
against the Tarascos, whom he defeated, taking their
stronghold of Tangimaroa, or Tlaximaloyan, and subduing
many towns on his way. He returned laden
with spoils to Mexico, was entreated to accept the
permanent position of Commander-in-chief of the
[478]
Aztec armies, or at least to accept his release and
return to his country; but the brave Tlalhuicol
deemed it a dishonor to return or even to live after
his capture, and earnestly entreated the privilege of
dying like other prisoners of rank on the gladiatorial
stone. His request was sorrowfully granted, eight of
Anáhuac's best warriors fell before him in the conflict,
but by the ninth he was subdued, and his heart
was offered as a pleasing sacrifice to the god of war.[IX-59]




In the same year, 1517, it is related that Montezuma
in his zeal to appease the irate deities, ordered
the grand temple of Huitzilopochtli to be covered
from top to bottom with gold, precious stones, and
rare feathers. His Minister of Finance, ordered to
supply the cost of this extravagant act of piety by
imposing a new tax on the people, objected and
warned the tyrant that his subjects would endure no
increase of taxation. His objections were removed
by putting him to death, but we hear nothing farther
of the golden covering.[IX-60] The following year, or
1518, took place at Mexico the last of the long
series of sacrificial immolations on a large scale, at
the dedication of the temple of Coatlan, on which
occasion were sacrificed the captives that the last
campaigns had yielded.[IX-61] But almost before the
groans of the dying victims had died away there
came to the ears of the Aztec sovereign the startling
tidings that the eastern strangers had again made
their appearance, this time on the Totonac coasts of
his own empire. Juan de Grijalva and his companions
had followed the gulf coast northward, and
reached the spot where now stands the city of Vera
Cruz.[IX-62]




[479]


 ARRIVAL OF JUAN DE GRIJALVA.



All Aztec officials in the coast provinces had strict
orders to keep a constant look-out for the eastern
strangers, and in case of their arrival to treat them
kindly, but by pretence of traffic and by every possible
means to ascertain who they were, whence they
came, and the nature of their designs. In accordance
with these orders Pinotl the Aztec governor of Cuetlachtlan
and his Mexican subordinates were foremost
among the visitors to the wonderful ships of Grijalva;
paintings were quickly but carefully prepared of the
strangers, their ships, their weapons, and of every
strange thing observed, and with the startling news
and the pictured records the royal officials hastened
to Mexico and communicated their information to
Montezuma. The king, concealing as well as possible
his anxiety and forbidding the messengers to make
the news public, immediately assembled his royal
colleagues and his council of state, laid the matter
before them and asked their advice. The opinion
was unanimous that the strangers were the children
of Quetzalcoatl, returning in fulfillment of the ancient
prophecies, and that they should be kindly received,
as the only means of conciliating the good will of the
numerous followers of the ancient prophet. An embassy
was sent with rich presents to the coast, but
they were too late; the Spaniards had departed, with
a promise, however, of returning at an early date.




The events that followed down to the fulfillment of
that promise by the arrival of Hernan Cortés in 1519
are not very definitely recorded, but these months
formed a period of the greatest anxiety on the part of
the Aztec rulers and of mingled dread and hope for
their numerous enemies. Interest in the one absorbing
topic caused all else to be forgotten; there was
no thought of conquest, of revolt, of tributes; even
the bloody rites of Huitzilopochtli were much neglected
[480]
and the star of the peaceful Quetzalcoatl and his
sect was in the ascendant. Prophets and old men
throughout the country were closely questioned respecting
their knowledge of the old traditions; old
paintings and records were taken from every archive
and carefully compared with those relating to the
new-comers; the loss of the precious documents
burned by Itzcoatl was now seriously felt; the glass
beads and other trinkets obtained from the Spaniards,
and even carefully treasured fragments of ship biscuit,
were formally deposited with all the old Toltec ceremonies
in the temple of Quetzalcoatl. Many fictitious
paintings were palmed off on the credulous Montezuma
as ancient records in which the children of
Quetzalcoatl were pictured in an amusing variety of
absurd forms, but some of the documents agreed very
closely with the late paintings of Montezuma's agents,
showing that others had bethought them to represent
on paper Grijalva's company or some preceding band
of Spaniards.[IX-63]




At last the presence of Cortés on the southern
coasts, and his progress towards the Aztec possessions,
was announced, and an embassy was dispatched
to await his arrival, and to receive him with every
attention and with the richest gifts the empire could
afford. Subsequent events belong to the history of
the Conquest, and must be narrated in another work;
the remaining chapters of this volume being required
for such fragments as have been preserved respecting
the aboriginal history of other nations and tribes outside
the central plateaux of Mexico.



 ANÁHUAC IN 1519.



I close the chapter and the annals of the Aztec period,
with a brief glance at the general condition of
affairs in and about Anáhuac in 1519, and the most
extraordinary combination of circumstances that made
[481]
it possible for Hernan Cortés to overthrow with a
handful of Spanish soldiers a mighty aboriginal empire.
The power known as Aztec, since the formation
of the tri-partite alliance not quite a century before
under the Acolhua, Mexican, and Tepanec kings, had
gradually extended its iron grasp from its centre about
the lakes to the shores of either ocean; and this it
had accomplished wholly by the force of arms, receiving
no voluntary allegiance. Overburdened by
taxation; oppressed and insulted by royal governors,
Aztec tribute-gatherers, and the traveling armies of
Tlatelulca merchants; constantly attacked on frivolous
pretexts by blood-thirsty hordes who ravaged
their fields and carried away the flower of their
population to perish on the Mexican altars; the inhabitants
of each province subjected to this degrading
bondage entertained towards the central government
of the tyrants on the lakes feelings of the
bitterest hatred and hostility, only awaiting an opportunity
to free themselves, or at least to annihilate
their oppressors. Such was the condition of affairs
and the state of feeling abroad; at home the situation
was most critical. The alliance which had been
the strongest element of the Aztec power was now
practically broken up; the ambitious schemes of Montezuma
had alienated his firmest ally, and the stronger
part of the Acolhua force was now openly arrayed
against him under Ixtlilxochitl at Otompan, leagued
with the Tlascaltec leaders for the overthrow of the
Mexican power. It is probable that the coming of
the Spaniards retarded rather than precipitated the
united attack of the Acolhuas and the outside provinces
on Montezuma. But again, to meet the gathering
storm, the Mexican king could no longer count
on the undivided support of his own people; he had
alienated the merchants, who no longer, as in the
early days, did faithful duty as spies, nor toiled to
enrich a government from which they could expect
no rewards; the lower classes no longer deemed their
[482]
own interests identical with those of their sovereign.
Last but far from least among the elements of approaching
ruin was the religious sentiment of the
country. The reader has followed the bitter contentions
of earlier times in Tollan and Culhuacan,
between the rival sects of Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca.
With the growth of the Mexican influence
the bloody rites of the latter sect had prevailed under
the auspices of the god Huitzilopochtli, and the
worship of the gentler Quetzalcoatl, though still observed
in many provinces and many temples, had
with its priests been forced to occupy a secondary
position. But the people were filled with terror at
the horrible extent to which the latter kings had carried
the immolation of human victims; they were
sick of blood, and of the divinities that thirsted for
it; a re-action was experienced in favor of the rival
deities and priesthood. And now, just as the oppressed
subjects of ecclesiastical tyranny were learning
to remember with regret the peaceful teachings
of the Plumed Serpent, and to look to that god for
relief from their woes, their prayers were answered,
Quetzalcoatl's predictions were apparently fulfilled,
and his promised children made their appearance on
the eastern ocean. The arrival of Cortés at this particular
juncture was in one sense most marvelous;
but in his subsequent success there is little to be
wondered at; nor is it strange that the oppressed
Nahuas received almost with outstretched arms the
ministers of the new faith thus offered them by the
Spaniards.




[483]




CHAPTER X.

HISTORY OF THE EASTERN PLATEAU, MICHOACAN, AND
OAJACA.



Early History of the Eastern Plateau—The Chichimec-Toltecs—Arrival
of the Teo-Chichimecs in Anáhuac—They Conquer
and Settle the Eastern Plateau—Civil Wars—Miscellaneous
Events—Wars between Tlascala and the Nations of
Anáhuac—Early History of Michoacan—Wars between Wanacaces
and Tarascos—Founding of Tzintzuntzan—Metamorphosis
of the Tarasco Princes—Encroachments of the
Wanacaces—The King of the Isles—Murder of Pawacume
and Wapeani—Reigns of Curatame, Tariacuri, Tangaxoan
I., Ziziz Pandacuare, Zwanga, and Tangaxoan II.—Origin
of the Miztecs and Zapotecs—Wixipecocha—Rulers of Oajaca—The
Huaves and Mijes—Later Kings and History
of Oajaca—Wars with Mexico.




Although all that is known of the history of the
eastern plateau prior to the fall of the Toltec empire
has been already told, it will be well to briefly review
the events of that period before referring to the Chichimec
occupation of the region under consideration.




The earliest inhabitants of the plateau of whom we
have any definite knowledge were the Olmecs, one of
the oldest of the Nahua nations, who appear to have
settled the country about Puebla and Cholula with
the permission of the Quinames, or giants, the original
possessors, and to have been so badly treated by
them that at length, by a stratagem, they slew their
oppressors and became sole masters of the country.
[484]
Next we hear of the erection of the great pyramid of
Cholula by Xelhua, an Olmec chief; then of the advent
and subsequent disappearance of Quetzalcoatl,
the culture hero and reformer, who is not to be confounded
with Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, king of Tollan
and afterwards of Cholula, who appeared on the scene
at a much later period and was also a great reformer.
After this, history is silent concerning the Olmecs
until the founding of the Toltec empire, when we find
them still flourishing on the eastern plateau with
Cholula for their capital city. Then the king of Culhuacan,
Mixcohua, better known as Camaxtli, under
which name he was subsequently apotheosized and
worshiped on the plateau, directs a military expedition
towards Chalchiuhapan, afterwards Tlascala,
which seems to have been founded about this time.
But the most notable event of this pre-Chichimec
history of the plateau, and the one which most advanced
its importance and prosperity, was the coming
of Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, son of Camaxtli, to Cholula,
in 895, after he was forced from his throne at Tollan
by the ambitious Tezcatlipoca, or Huemac. As has
been already stated, this event was the beginning of
a new and golden era in the eastern region, which
lasted, if we except the conquest and temporary subjection
of Cholula by Huemac, up to the time of the
Toltec troubles, in which Cholula and her sister cities
on the plateau doubtless shared, though to what extent
is not certain; at all events they were not deserted
as the Toltec cities in the valley are traditionally
reported to have been at the time of the Chichimec
invasion.



 CHICHIMECS AT CHOLULA.



Brasseur has an account, drawn from one of his
manuscripts,[X-1] of the taking of Cholula shortly after
the fall of the Toltec empire by a tribe which he calls
the Chichimec-Toltecs, and the subsequent settlement
of the greater part of the plateau by this and other
fierce bands, the original inhabitants being driven out
[485]
of the country. This relation is, however, of doubtful
authenticity, and is, moreover, irreconcilable with
other statements made by the same writer;[X-2] it seems,
in short, to stand by itself, as an episode recorded in
one obscure manuscript only, and having no connection
whatever with the events that precede or follow
it. The account relates that among the fierce hordes
that contributed to the downfall of Tollan, was one
which, from the fact of its settling in the ruined capital,
and possibly founding a temporary power there,
received the name of Chichimec-Toltec. After the
death of Huemac III. this band left Tollan, under
the leadership of Icxicohuatl, Quetzaltehueyac, Totolohuitzil,
and other chiefs,[X-3] and after ravaging the
country about lake Tenochtitlan, entered the mountains
to the east of the valley of Anáhuac, and there
wandered about for a number of years without making
any permanent settlement. When next heard of
they were encamped near Cholula, their numbers
greatly reduced by famine or pestilence, and in a very
wretched condition. Weary of their wandering life
and not strong enough to take forcible possession of
one of the rich provinces of the plateau, or even to
forage for their subsistence, they resolved to humble
themselves before the princes of Cholula, and implore
their protection and assistance. Their small number
and apparently broken spirit, caused their prayer to
be granted with more readiness than they had expected,
and the fierce warriors, who in former times
had made the kings of Anáhuac tremble upon their
thrones, were now scornfully admitted into Cholula
as men too weak to be feared and upon the footing of
slaves and servants. But a few years of rest and abundance
roused the old spirit in the Chichimec-Toltecs,
and made them burn to throw off their self-imposed
yoke, and avenge the insults to which they were constantly
[486]
subjected by their masters. To obtain this end,
they resorted to a very ingenious stratagem, suggested
it is said, by their national god, Tezcatlipoca. A deputation
waited upon the Tlachiach and Aquiach, the
two chief princes of Cholula, and begged permission to
give a public entertainment, the chief feature of which
should be their national ballad and dance. For the
proper performance of this they must, however, be
supplied with their old weapons, which, since their
arrival in Cholula, had been shut up in the city arsenal.
Their petition was readily granted, great preparations
were made, and on the appointed day all the
people assembled to witness the novel spectacle. The
Tlachiach and Aquiach were present, surrounded by
their suites and a vast number of the nobility. The
entertainment opened with certain comic representations,
which made the spectators roar with laughter,
and excited them to drink freely and be merry. Then
the Chichimec warriors dressed in full war costume and
bearing their weapons in their hands, formed themselves
into a great circle, with the teponaztli player
in the centre, and the solemn mitote commenced. At
first the music was low and sad, and the dancers
moved with slow and measured steps, but gradually
the pace grew faster, and the deep voices of the warriors
as they chanted their battle song mingled with
the sound of the teponaztli. Higher and still higher
the shouts arose, accompanied now by terrible gestures
and brandishing of weapons; more madly yet
the circle whirled, until it was impossible to distinguish
one form from another; then, on a sudden, the
note of the teponaztli changed and became low and
sad once more. This was the signal for the massacre;
in a moment the mock fury became a terrible reality,
as the Chichimecs turned and fell upon the unarmed
and half-drunk spectators. A dreadful slaughter ensued,
and the streets of the city ran red with human
blood. The Tlachiach and Aquiach managed to
escape, and took refuge with a few of their relatives
[487]
and friends within the walls of Yancuitlalpan, which
became for the time their residence. By night the
Chichimec-Toltecs were masters of Cholula. The
news of this victory soon attracted other savage
tribes; the original inhabitants were driven from
place to place, and at the end of a few years, the
entire country "from the shores of the gulf of Mexico
to the mountains which encircled the port of
Acapulco," had changed masters.[X-4]



 TEO-CHICHIMEC ANNALS.



With the arrival of the Teo-Chichimecs in Anáhuac,
the history proper of the eastern plateau begins.
This people, as has been said, was one of the invading
bands that appear about the same time as the Nahuatlaca
tribes, with whom they are classed by some
writers. According to Camargo, the Tlascaltec historian,
they were at Chicomoztoc in 5 Tochtli; thence
they journeyed by way of Amaquetepec and Tepenec
to Tomallan, which they conquered; then with great
difficulty they fought their way through Culhuacan,
passed into Teotla Cochoalco, and so on to Teohuiznahuac,
where their march was opposed by Queen
Coatlicue, who, however, after a severe struggle
was forced to come to terms. They next advanced
to Hueypuchtlan, and then to Tepozotlan, where the
principal chiefs received certain military honors and
adopted new names. After passing with many halts
through other provinces they finally arrived in the
vicinity of Tezcuco, in the year 2 Tecpatl, where
they were well received by the king, and assigned
the plain of Poyauhtlan as a place of encampment.[X-5]
Veytia states that a great number of the Teo-Chichimecs,
who did not like to settle in a locality surrounded
by so many people, passed on into the
country east of the Valley of Mexico, where they
spread over Tlascala, Huexotzinco, and Cholula,[X-6]
[488]
which were probably occupied at that time by the
remnants of the Olmecs and Xicalancas, who had
formerly been subject to the Toltec empire.



 TEO-CHICHIMEC MIGRATION.



Notwithstanding the settlers at Poyauhtlan met
with no opposition on their arrival, and even appear
to have been well received, their presence soon became
a source of great uneasiness to all the surrounding
nations. At first they behaved themselves
well enough, and as they gave no cause for complaint,
were left undisturbed in their new country for a
number of years; but as time progressed, and their
numbers increased, they began to encroach upon and
ravage the adjoining territories. This led to reprisals
and bloody encounters, until at length the evil grew
to be unbearable, and was finally put an end to by
the famous battle of Poyauhtlan, and the departure of
the Teo-Chichimecs to join their countrymen upon the
eastern plateau, in the year 1272. Their real reason
for leaving the country was doubtless their weakened
condition, for though they had nominally won the
battle of Poyauhtlan, yet it had been but a Cadmean
victory for them, and they knew that another such
engagement must infallibly result in their annihilation.
But be this as it may, their god Camaxtli
spoke opportunely through the mouth of his priests,
saying, "arise, depart from hence, for the dawn of
your greatness shall not break in this place, neither
shall the sun of your splendor rise here." But the
strongest proof that the Teo-Chichimecs emigrated
because their enemies were too strong for them, lies
in the fact that they found it necessary to ask
the king of Tezcuco for permission to leave the
country, though Camargo gives as an excuse for
their submission that they wished to be able to
call upon him for assistance, should they meet
with reverses in their intended journey beyond
the mountains. The king of Tezcuco, doubtless
delighted to get rid of such troublesome neighbors,
not only gave the desired permission, but
[489]
granted them safe conduct through his dominions
and furnished them with trusty guides who were
to conduct them by the safest passes to the summit
of the range, and thence to point them out
their road toward the east. No time was lost in
setting out, and soon the whole Teo-Chichimec nation
was marching eastward. Their guides led them
to the peak of Tlalocan, from which elevation they
overlooked an immense extent of country. Behind
them the Lake of Mexico sparkled in the midst of
the valley of Anáhuac, before them lay the fertile
provinces of Tlascala, Huexotzinco, and Cholula. Descending
to the plain they gave vent to their joy in
feasts and rejoicings, and offered thanks to their god
Camaxtli, who had delivered them from their enemies
and brought them into such a fair land. It is
related, however, that the entire nation did not ascend
the peak. A large party under the leadership of
Chimalcuixintecuhtli refused to climb the great eastern
range, and proceeded northwards to Tulancingo,
Quauhchinanco, and other neighboring provinces
which they found to be already colonized by Macuilacatltecuhtli,
a kinsman of Chimalcuixintecuhtli,
who welcomed the wanderers with every mark of
friendship, and as an especial token of his favor conferred
wives upon their chiefs.[X-7]




Meantime the larger portion of the emigrants
pressed forward into the eastern country. They seem
to have kept together until they reached a place called
Tetliyacac,[X-8] situated near Huexotzinco, where they
separated into several divisions, and dispersed in
various directions. Most of the surrounding cities
and provinces fell into their hands one after another,
and before long they had gained possession of the
[490]
best part of the country. Thus the province of
Quauhquelchula was appropriated by Toquetzal and
Yohuallatonac, and the town of Coatepec was
founded by Quetzalxiuhtli;[X-9] another band went to
Ahuayopan, where a bloody fray took place among
them, which caused a chief named Izcohuatl to separate
from the rest and settle in Zacatlan. Tetzitzimitl
founded, or took possession of Totollan; Quauhtzintecuhtli
settled in Atlmayoacan; Cozcaquauh
Huehue established himself in the Teopan district;
Tlotlitecuhtli went a little lower down; Tempatlahuac
settled in the Contlan district; Cacamatecuhtli in the
Xaltepetlapan district; Calpan surrendered to Toltecatltecuhtli;
Cimatecuhtli obtained Totomihuacan;
Totomalotecuhtli gained possession of Tepeaca.[X-10]




For several years the Teo-Chichimecs continued to
extend their settlements over the entire plateau.
Some of the provinces yielded without a struggle,
others offered a desperate resistance, but though the
invaders occasionally met with a temporary repulse,
their arms were always victorious in the end. At
Nacapahuazcan they were visited by certain Chichimec
chiefs who are said to have preceded them on the
plateau, and who instructed the new-comers how to
cook meat in earthen pots which they presented to
them.[X-11] Here they conferred the dignity of Tecuhtli
upon a number of warriors who had distinguished
themselves. They next proceeded towards the plain
[491]
of Cholula, but their passage through the mountains
was opposed by the Tlachiach and Aquiach, who refused
to let them enter their country. They met
with a very haughty response, however, in which the
Teo-Chichimecs expressed their determination to continue
their march in spite of all opposition. Upon
this the Cholultec princes retreated, and the invaders
advanced without hindrance. At Tepeticpac, a city
strongly fortified by art and nature, their progress
was again stayed by the Olmec prince, Colopechtli,
but after a desperate resistance the city was taken
and its brave defender slain. Struck by the advantageous
position of this place, the Teo-Chichimec
leader, Quanez,[X-12] resolved to found his capital here.
The city was first known as Texcalticpac, then as
Texcalla, and finally as Tlaxcallan, or Tlascala.[X-13]



 CONQUEST OF CHOLULA.



So far everything had gone well with the invaders.
While they were united and occupied themselves
only in driving the rightful possessors from the soil
they had experienced a succession of brilliant conquests.
But, as is usual in such cases, they had no
sooner got possession of the country than they began
to quarrel among themselves. Quanez was the first
to give rise to a jealous feeling. He had fortified his
position at Tlascala more strongly than ever, and
seemed disposed to aim at the sovereignty of the
plateau. To this his brother chiefs at Huexotzinco
and other places would not submit. Each wanted to
be independent in the territory he had won, and they
clamored for a distinct division of the soil. Quanez,
however, persisted in his ambitious designs and soon
confirmed their suspicions by his acts. Upon this
the other chiefs held a consultation which resulted in
their uniting their forces and marching upon Tlascala.
[492]
It seems that they were met by Quanez, who, however,
was defeated in the engagement that ensued
and forced to retreat to his stronghold, where he was
closely besieged by his enemies.[X-14] The Tlascaltecs
did not remain shut up within their walls, however,
but made frequent and furious sallies against the besiegers.
The horrors of these engagements, in which
fathers fought against sons, and brothers against
brothers, are dilated upon by the historians. All efforts
were unavailing, outpost after outpost was lost
to the enemy until the Tlascaltecs were finally driven
within the walls of the city proper, without any hope
of escape. In this extremity Quanez managed to
secretly dispatch messengers to the king of Tezcuco
and to the princes of Xochimilco[X-15] and Xalpan, requesting
assistance. The Tezcucan monarch promptly
responded to the call with a considerable force, under
the command of a valiant chief named Chinametl,
and at the same time sent the beleaguered Quanez a
valuable alabaster vase as an encouraging token of
regard. This re-inforcement, together with certain
prophecies delivered by the oracle of Camaxtli, re-assured
the Tlascaltecs, and they at once set about
strengthening their position.




In the meantime Xiuhtlehui, prince of Huexotzinco,
who commanded the allied troops, seeing the
aid obtained by the enemy, and fearing that the
victory which had seemed so certain during the
earlier part of the campaign, was slipping out of his
hands, sent messengers to Coxcoxtli, king of Culhuacan,[X-16]
imploring his aid, and expatiating on the
[493]
strongest terms on the harm wrought by the Tlascaltecs.
Coxcoxtli was much puzzled how to act; he
was on friendly terms with both parties, and perhaps,
as Camargo says, he was afraid of the Tlascaltecs.
At length, after carefully considering the matter, he
adopted a very cautious policy. He instructed the
Huexotzinca envoys to tell their master that he
would send an army as required, but no sooner had
they departed than he sent a message to the Tlascaltec
chief, greeting him in the most friendly terms,
and informing him of the application he had received
and the promise he had given. This promise, he
said, he was bound to keep, but only as a matter of
form; his troops should take no active part against
the Tlascaltecs, who, he begged, in their turn, would
take care not to injure his soldiers.



 WAR BETWEEN TLASCALA AND HUEXOTZINCO.



Flattered by this proof of friendship, Quanez
returned his thanks to Coxcoxtli with assurances
that the latter's troops should suffer no harm at his
hands. The Tlascaltecs then prepared to meet the
expected attack, and all the people attended an elaborate
ceremony for the purpose of beseeching the
protection and aid of their god Camaxtli. The answer
of the god was favorable; he exhorted them to
take courage and fear nothing, for they should surely
be triumphant, and directed them to seek for a virgin
having one breast larger than the other, and sacrifice
her in his honor, which was done.




On the third day, when the last of the propitiatory
ceremonies had been completed, the Tlascaltecs
turned their attention towards the enemy; and,
behold, the hills and plains, far and near, were
swarming with hostile troops. Coxcoxtli's auxiliaries
had arrived and were posted as a reserve on a neighboring
mountain, where they remained inactive during
the combat that ensued. At this sight the
hearts of the valiant Tlascaltecs sank within them,
[494]
and they sought and obtained renewed assurances of
divine favor. Scarcely had they done so when the
battle commenced. At the first shock the Tlascaltecs
captured a warrior, who was hurried to Camaxtli's
altar, and sacrificed in their horrible manner.
The battle soon raged furiously, the air was black
with stones, arrows, and javelins, the rocks resounded
with the war-cries of the combatants, blood flowed
in torrents. Cheered on by their high-priest, and
strong in their faith in the oracles that had promised
them victory, the Tlascaltecs were irresistible, and
soon drove the enemy before them. Before long the
rout became general, and a terrible carnage ensued,
the like of which could be found only, say the annals,
upon the bloody plain of Poyauhtlan. In the
meantime Coxcoxtli's troops descended from the hill
from which they had witnessed the whole battle,
and quietly retreated to Anáhuac, without in any
way succoring the defeated army.




This great victory made the Tlascaltecs much respected,
and all the neighboring nations hastened to
congratulate Quanez upon his success and proffer him
their alliance, while the conquered people humbly
confessed that they had been in the wrong and prevailed
upon the elated victor to pardon their presumptuous
conduct. Thus Tlascala became the most powerful
state on the plateau, a position which it enjoyed
for some time in peace.[X-17]



 EASTERN ALLIANCE.



It was about this time, or shortly afterward, that
disturbances occurred in Cholula, of which there is
more than one account. Brasseur relates that the
ancient inhabitants of the city, who had groaned for
a number of years under the Teo-Chichimec yoke,
and whose principal men had long been in exile, resolved
at length to make an effort to recover their
freedom. They applied to Coxcoxtli of Culhuacan
[495]
for aid, and as a sure inducement appealed to his
piety, by reminding him that Cholula was in a spiritual
sense the daughter of Quetzalcoatl, while in a temporal
sense she was the vassal of the kings of Culhuacan,
whom she had never ceased to venerate as sovereigns.
Coxcoxtli granted their petition and at once
sent a force to their assistance. The Teo-Chichimecs
who were in power at Cholula, had leagued themselves
with the Huexotzincas, against Tlascala, but
since their humiliation, for some reason or other,
they had concentrated at Quauhquelchula, where
they continued to oppress the followers of Ceacatl.
The lineal descendants of the high-priests of Quetzalcoatl
were Iztantzin and Nacazpipilolxochi; they
managed to interest in their favor the prince of Tlascala,
by referring to the great things he had done to
the honor of Camaxtli, and reminding him that this
god was the father of Quetzalcoatl; was it not the
duty of the Tlascaltecs, they added, to do all in their
power to restore the ancient worship of the prophet
and deliver his ministers from their banishment.
This crafty argument had the desired effect. An alliance
was concluded between the Cholultecs and the
neighboring states of Tlascala, Huexotzinco, Totomihuacan,
Tepeaca, Quauhtecan, and Quauhtinchan,
and the exiled ministers of Quetzalcoatl were solemnly
conducted back to the sacred city. The towns
of the territory of Cholula were then subjected to the
Toltec authority, as of old, and the Teo-Chichimecs
of Quauhquelchula, Cuetlaxcoapan, and Ayotzinco,
hitherto leagued together against Iztantzin, were
forced to recognize him as their suzerain. These
events occurred between the years 1280 and 1299.[X-18]
Veytia's story of this disturbance in Cholula is
that Quauhquelchula, Cuetlaxcoapan, Ayotzinco, and
some other places in the province rose in rebellion
against the high-priest Iztamantzin,[X-19] who called
[496]
upon Xiuhtemoc, king of Culhuacan, for assistance.
The force furnished by this monarch was divided
into two parts, one led by himself, the other by
Nacazpipilolxochi. With this army the insurgents
were finally humbled, though not without considerable
bloodshed, and after the campaign had lasted
nearly a year.[X-20] After the return of its priests Cholula
quickly regained its ancient prosperity. The
old laws were enforced and the executive authority
was entrusted to a military chief, who was assisted
in his duties by a council of six nobles, and this form
of government was preserved until the time of the
Conquest. From this time the city was rarely
troubled with wars, but was respected and held in
veneration as a sacred place of pilgrimage by all the
surrounding peoples.[X-21]




The peace which followed the victory over the
Huexotzincas and their allies gave the Tlascaltecs an
opportunity to turn their attention to more peaceful
pursuits. Their position as leading nation on the
plateau was now assured, and for a time they devoted
themselves to the furtherance of culture and
commerce, fixing boundaries and granting lands to
those who had deserved them by their conduct in the
late wars. After remaining under one head for several
years the government took the form of a sort of
aristocratic republic. It was about this time that
Tlascala was divided into four wards, or districts.
Quanez had a brother named Teyohualminqui, to
whom, in his old age, he made over the district of
Ocotelulco,[X-22] giving him at the same time a part of
[497]
the relics of Camaxtli, which were so highly venerated
as to constitute in themselves a gift no less princely
than the lands.



 REIGN OF QUANEZ.



This prince so distinguished himself and enlarged
his domain by his bravery and conquests that he
eventually came to be regarded as chief of the whole
nation. Another district, called Quiahuiztlan,[X-23] was
granted by Quanez to a chief named Mizquitl, who,
according to Camargo, had been one of the leaders
of the Chichimecs who went north after the battle
of Poyauhtlan instead of crossing the eastern range.
He had led his band northwards to Tepetlaoztoc,
whence he had subsequently come to Tlascala, arriving
there in time to assist Quanez against the Huexotzincas.
It was for this service that the district
was awarded him. These were three of the four
wards, for the part that Quanez reserved for himself
formed one, probably the largest at that time, and
was called Tepeticpac. The history of the events
which led to the foundation of the fourth district is
much confused. Camargo relates that Acatentehua,
grandson of Teyohualminqui, and third lord of Ocotelulco,
after reigning mildly for some time, suddenly
became tyrannical. Tlacomihua, one of his nobles,
raised a revolt, killed him, and succeeded to the throne
of Ocotelulco. These events led to the disaffection of
one Tzompane, who went with his followers to a part
of Tepeticpac, and there established a separate government.
He was succeeded by his son Xayacamachan,
otherwise called Tepolohua, who was afterwards massacred,
[498]
together with all his relations. The next
rulers were Aztoguihua Aquiyahuacatl and Zococ Aztahua
Tlacaztalli, the latter of whom went with his
followers to the heights of Tianazatlan, where he
founded Tcatlaiz. His grandson, Xicotencatl, was
reigning at the time of Cortes' arrival.[X-24] According to
Brasseur, who follows Torquemada principally, a number
of the inhabitants of the two oldest quarters, Tepeticpac
and Ocotelulco, finding themselves too crowded,
descended into the neighboring valley of Teotlalpan,
where they constituted a separate government
under a chief named Tepolohua.[X-25] The number of
people that deserted the higher districts for the
pleasant valley, excited the jealousy of the other
chiefs. They united their forces, descended upon
the young settlement, and killed Tepolohua. The
followers of the late chief then departed to Tizatlan
where they founded a seigniory which continued to
thrive in peace up to the reign of Xicotencatl, who
was ruling when the Spaniards came. At Tepeticpac
the descendants of Quanez continued to reign, and
were regarded as ranking first in the state. It was
at this epoch that the united districts of Tlascala
adopted the peculiar form of government described
in a former volume,[X-26] and that Nezahualcoyotl paid
his first visit to the republic, in 1420.




The history of the plateau grows very dim and
disconnected from this time on, and has light thrown
upon it only here and there, as it happens to be connected
with the more important affairs of the Aztec
empire, which seems to have engrossed the attention
of the historians.



 MISCELLANEOUS EVENTS.



Almost all that is known of the events that remain
to be recorded has already been told. We have seen
[499]
that in 1428 Nezahualcoyotl, fleeing for his life from
Maxtla, took refuge for a second time in Huexotzinco
and Cholula, and was aided by the people of
these and other places on the plateau to recover his
father's throne at Tezcuco.[X-27] In 1451-6 came the
great famine, when the terrible compact was made
between the people of the plateau and those of Anáhuac
for the provision of human sacrifices.[X-28] Then
followed the war between the Miztecs and the allied
powers, in which the Tlascaltecs and Huexotzincas
espoused the cause of the former.[X-29] We next find the
restless Tlascaltecs stirring up a war between the
Mexicans and the Olmecs of Cuetlachtlan, allying
themselves with the latter and sharing in their defeat.[X-30]
Shortly before the year 1460 several important
cities upon the southern part of the plateau,
at the instigation of the Tlascaltecs and Huexotzincas,
killed some Mexican merchants, were instantly
attacked by the powers of the valley, reduced to the
rank of Mexican provinces, and appended to Montezuma's
empire.[X-31] About the year 1469 Axayacatl,
the Mexican monarch, having some cause of complaint
against the people of Huexotzinco and Atlixco, invaded
their country, and in the battle that ensued
the Mexicans, encouraged by the miraculous appearance
of Tezcatlipoca, routed their enemies.[X-32] During
the reign of Nezahualpilli, Huexotzinco was again
troubled, the reason for the war this time being, as
we have seen, the predictions of the astrologers that
Huehuetzin was fated to vanquish the Tezcucan
monarch—predictions which Nezahualpilli falsified, in
their literal meaning at least, by a stratagem.[X-33]
Ahuitzotl of Mexico is said by Camargo to have invaded
the plateau and conquered Huexotzinco and
[500]
Cholula,[X-34] and it would appear that this fierce king did
not leave the country empty handed, for of the eighty
thousand human victims immolated by him at the
dedication of the temple of Huitzilopochtli in 1487,
we read that sixteen thousand were Huexotzincas.[X-35]
His own nephew was afterwards taken captive in one
of the numerous battles or skirmishes which seem to
have been constantly occurring on the borders of the
plateau, principally at Atlixco, and offered as a sacrifice
on the altar of Camaxtli.[X-36] In 1498, an altercation
arose between the lords of Cholula and Tepeaca,
which led to a series of combats between those
states. The Cholultecs sought and obtained the aid
of Ahuitzotl, and we are left to suppose that they
then triumphed over their enemies. But the Mexican
emperor received a severe check soon afterwards
at Atlixco. The close proximity of that town to the
valley made it desirable for annexation to the empire.
Ahuitzotl accordingly entered its territory suddenly
with a considerable force. The Atlixcas gathered
what troops they could to oppose the Mexicans, and
at once dispatched messengers to their allies at Huexotzinco
for aid. One of the Huexotzinca captains,
named Tultecatl, who was playing at ball when the
news arrived, hurried off with a few followers to the
scene of combat without even taking time to arm
himself. Without hesitation he plunged into the
thick of the fight, slew a warrior with his hands,
seized his arms, and threw himself with such fury
upon the Mexicans that they were soon routed and
forced to abandon the field. For this valorous conduct
Tultecatl was made ruler of a Huexotzinca
town. But in little more than a year events occurred
which obliged him to retire from his post. For
some time past the priests of his town had been
indulging all manner of excesses with impunity;
[501]
entering and pillaging houses with the greatest
effrontery; taking away the women's clothes while
they were bathing; insulting the men; and, in short,
taking advantage of their sacred character to commit
every conceivable species of outrage. Tultecatl attempted
to put a stop to this disorder, and punish
its authors. For this purpose he armed a number of
the most respectable citizens. But the priests also
took up arms, and excited the populace in their favor.
It is said that Camaxtli aided his servants by various
enchantments, which so frightened the citizens that
they retreated in dismay. A great number of the
nobles with their followers, then betook themselves
to Itzcohuatl, lord of a neighboring province, to
whom they related the cause of their leaving Huexotzinco.
But Itzcohuatl was a creature of Ahuitzotl,
at whose hands he had received the lordship
he now enjoyed; he betrayed the refugees to his
master, by whom they were all put to death.[X-37]



 ADVENTURES OF TULTECATL.



Immediately after the accession of Montezuma II.,
Atlixco became once more the seat of war. This
unfortunate city seems to have been regarded by the
kings of the valley as the proper place to attack
whenever they required human victims for sacrifice.
It was customary for the kings of Anáhuac before
they were formally crowned to make a raid upon
some neighboring nation for the purpose of obtaining
captives that their blood might grace the coronation
ceremonies. This was the cause of Montezuma's expedition
against Atlixco on the occasion above
referred to. He accomplished his end and returned
with a great number of prisoners, though the victory
seems to have been dearly gained. But the armies
of the haughty Montezuma were not always triumphant
when they encountered the stronger nations of
the plateau, and a short time after the victory at
[502]
Atlixco they received a serious check at the hands of
the Tlascaltecs.



 WAR BETWEEN TLASCALA AND MEXICO.



For a long time Tlascala had been regarded with
much jealousy by the Huexotzincas, Cholultecs, and
other nations of the plateau, both because of its
great commercial prosperity, and of its successful resistance
to the conquering kings of the valley. The
Tlascaltecs seem at this period to have given up all
hopes of gaining the sovereignty of the entire
region—so long the object of their ambition—and
to have confined their resources to strengthening their
own position, and fortifying their frontiers. Almost
all the neighboring states appear at this time to have
been either allied to or conquered by the powers in
the valley, and consequently the defensive measures
adopted by the republic for the preservation of its independence
fanned their smouldering envy into flame,
so that they took every opportunity to provoke a
quarrel between Tlascala and the kings of Anáhuac.
They represented that the Tlascaltecs designed to
possess themselves of the eastern maritime provinces;
that they hindered the merchants of the other
nations from trading in those regions, by making
secret treaties with the inhabitants. Only too glad
of an excuse to humble his ancient enemies, the
Mexican monarch was easily prevailed upon to break
up the Tlascaltec trade in the east, and this he did
so effectually that for a number of years the people
of the republic were deprived of the luxuries and
even some of the necessaries they had previously
enjoyed. At length, weary of these privations, yet
not strong enough to better their condition by force,
they dispatched an embassy to the Mexican king to
inquire the cause of an enmity which they had done
nothing to provoke. For answer, they were told
contemptuously that the monarch of Mexico was lord
of the entire world, and they must pay tribute to him
or be prepared to take the consequences. To this
they returned a haughty reply, saying that their
[503]
nation had never payed tribute to any earthly king,
and that before submitting to do so now they would
shed more blood than their ancestors had shed at
Poyauhtlan. They then once more turned all their
attention to strengthening their position, and it was
probably at this period, says Clavigero, that they
built the six-mile wall on the east side of the city.
They received considerable assistance from the numerous
Zacatec, Chalca, and Otomí refugees, of whom
the garrisons on the frontier were chiefly composed.
But the privations which they suffered by reason of
the stoppage of their intercourse with the surrounding
peoples, constantly increased, and for over sixty
years, says Torquemada, salt and other staples were
unknown to the poorer classes, at least, though the
nobles may have fared somewhat better.[X-38] The date
of these events is not certain, but they probably occurred
during the reign of Axayacatl. From the
time of the defiance recorded above until the accession
of Montezuma II., there appear to have been no
important hostilities between the Mexicans and Tlascaltecs,
but no sooner had Montezuma ascended the
throne of Mexico than he determined to make a
grand effort to humble the stout little republic, and
forthwith issued a proclamation commanding all his
subjects and allies to assist in a general attack. At
this time the four lords of Tlascala were Maxixcatzin,
who ruled in the district of Ocotelulco; Xicotencatl,
in Tizatlan; Teohuayacatzin, in Quiahuiztlan; and
Tlehuexolotl, in Tepeticpac. Fifteen years afterwards
these four princes received Cortés and his companions
within their walls. The Huexotzincas and Cholultecs
were the first to begin the war, which may be
said to have lasted until the coming of the Spaniards.
Failing to bribe the Otomí garrison of Hueyotlipan,
on the Tezcucan frontier, to betray their trust, they
[504]
invaded the Tlascaltec territory under the command
of Tecayahuatzin of Huexotzinco, and advanced as
far as Xiloxuchitla, within a league of the capital.
Here they were met by Tizatlacatzin, a noble chief of
Ocotelulco, who with a mere handful of warriors succeeded
in checking their farther advance, though at
the price of his own life.[X-39] The Tlascaltecs hastened
to avenge the death of their brave leader by laying
waste the province of Huexotzinco. Shortly afterwards
they again encountered the Huexotzincas on
the heights of Matlalcueje, and pressed them so
hard that Tecayahuatzin sent off in haste to Montezuma
for re-inforcements. The Mexican monarch at
once responded with a large force under the command
of Tlacahuepantzin, his eldest son.[X-40] After receiving
re-inforcements at Quauhquelchula Tlacahuepantzin
proceeded by way of Atlixco valley to effect a union
with the Huexotzincas, but the Tlascaltecs, seeing
that this must be prevented at all hazards, bore down
upon him before he could join his allies with such
fury that his army was scattered in all directions.
In this battle Tlacahuepantzin was slain and a great
spoil fell into the hands of the victors, who probably
suffered severely also, as they now returned to their
capital to recuperate. But it seems[X-41] that they still
[505]
managed to keep the Huexotzincas penned up on the
heights of Matlalcueje, where they again attacked
them with fresh forces the following year. But the
delay had also given the Huexotzincas time to recuperate,
and to strengthen their naturally advantageous
position, so that the worst the Tlascaltecs could
do was to ravage the country, and this they did with
such effect that many of the Huexotzincas were
eventually compelled to migrate to Mexico in quest
of food. Tezozomoc makes this a more serious affair.
When the Huexotzincas, he says, were hard pressed
by the Tlascaltecs, the children and aged of the former
people were invited to take refuge in Mexico
while the Mexicans with their allies set out to assist
the Huexotzincas. For twenty days Tlahuicol, the
Tlascaltec general, fought bravely, retreating at the
same time before the superior number of the enemy.
Finally he was captured in a marsh, his army scattered,
and the land restored to the Huexotzincas.[X-42]



 ADVENTURES OF TLAHUICOL.



When Montezuma heard of the defeat of his troops
by the Tlascaltecs and the death of his son he was
furious, and in a public speech declared that he had
hitherto permitted the republic to exist as a supply
of captives for sacrifice and for the exercise of his
armies[X-43] but that now he was determined to utterly
[506]
annihilate the presumptuous and obstinate little state
now and forever. The people surrounding Tlascala
were ordered to renew the attack on all sides in conjunction
with the Aztec troops. But the Tlascaltecs
were, as usual, well prepared, and with the aid of the
Otomí frontier population, they gained a glorious
victory, and rich spoils. At the festivities which
ensued in Tlascala, the leaders of the Otomí auxiliaries
were rewarded with the title of tecuhtli, while
the defeated Mexican captains were, by Montezuma's
orders, deprived of their rank and privileges.[X-44] Thus
the brave Tlascaltecs preserved their independence in
spite of the united efforts of their enemies until the
coming of Cortés, when it was their assistance and
implacable animosity to the Mexicans that made it
possible for a handful of adventurers to conquer a
world.



 WAR BETWEEN TEZCUCO AND TLASCALA.



The above-recorded events occurred about 1505.
During the same year, the Huexotzincas and Cholultecs
fell out. In an engagement which ensued
the former put their enemies to flight and pursued
them into Cholula, where they killed a few citizens
and did some trifling damage to the temples. Anxious
to carry this version of the quarrel to Montezuma
before the Cholultecs could tell him another
story, they at once despatched an embassy to the
emperor. But the messengers mistook their rôle,
and in their anxiety to extol the valor of their
countrymen they lead Montezuma to believe that the
Cholultecs had been utterly annihilated and their
city destroyed. The emperor was much disturbed at
this news, because he had always been accustomed to
regard it as a holy city, secure from destruction.
[507]
Upon inquiry, however, he learned the true facts, and
at once sent a powerful army to punish the Huexotzincas
for the deception they had practiced upon him.
The Huexotzincas marched out to meet the imperial
troops, but an explanation ensued, and the lying
ambassadors having been properly punished, Montezuma
was pacified.[X-45] In 1507 the Huexotzincas, as
we have seen,[X-46] became embroiled with the Mexicans
once more, on account of their burning the lighthouse
at Acachinanco—an offense for which they
were severely chastised by Montezuma's troops.




A war between Tezcuco and Tlascala, which took
place a very few years before the conquest, is the
latest recorded event in which the people of the
plateau were concerned, prior to the coming of the
Spaniards. On this occasion Nezahualpilli was urged
by Montezuma to join him in making war upon the
Tlascaltecs, for the purpose of obtaining victims for
sacrifice. It seems that the Mexican monarch was
jealous of the greatness of his Tezcucan rival, and
planned this war for his destruction.[X-47] Nezahualpilli,
however, suspecting no harm from his colleague,
set out with his army towards Tlascala, and camped
in the ravine of Tlalpepexic. Montezuma had in the
meantime sent word to the Tlascaltecs of the threatened
invasion, informing them at the same time that
though he was bound, as a matter of form, to accompany
Nezahualpilli, his troops would not aid him but
rather favor the Tlascaltecs. The latter accordingly
formed an ambuscade in the ravine of Tlalpepexic,
and in the morning, just as the Tezcucans, warned by
certain evil omens of the impending danger, were
breaking camp in great haste, they fell upon them
furiously, and routed them with great slaughter.




[508]
From the eastern plateau we turn now to the kingdom
of Michoacan, which lay to the west of Anáhuac.
The boundaries of this flourishing state, as they existed
at the time of the Conquest, may be easily
defined. On the north and north-east the rivers
Tololotlan, Pantla, and Coahuayana separated Michoacan
from Tonala and Colima; on the west the
shores of the Pacific stretched south to Zacatollan;
the winding course of the river Mexcala marked the
southern frontier; and on the east lay the Mexican
provinces of Cohuixco and Matlaltzinco. The face of
the country enclosed within these limits presents a
series of undulating plains, intersected by numerous
mountain chains of varying height. The climate is
temperate, the land fertile, well wooded and watered,
and was celebrated, even in pre-Spanish times, for its
mines of gold and silver.



 EARLY TARASCO ANNALS.



It is a singular fact that the Tarascos, the representative
people of Michoacan, though they were
certainly equal, if not superior, to their Aztec neighbors
in civilization, wealth, and power, have left no
record of their history anterior to the thirteenth century,
while even the little that is known of their later
history is told chiefly by Aztec chroniclers. The
origin of the Tarascos[X-48] is consequently an unsolved
problem. Their civilization seems to have been of
the Nahua type, though their language was totally
distinct from the Aztec, the representative Nahua
tongue.[X-49] It is a prevalent opinion that Michoacan
formed part of the Toltec empire, and that though
from its position it was the first to suffer from the
invading tribes, yet it was not affected by the causes
which overthrew the empire to such an extent as the
[509]
valley of Anáhuac; thus this theory would make the
Tarascos the very best representatives of the oldest
Nahua culture.[X-50] Orozco mentions the Tecos as being
among the earliest inhabitants of Michoacan; the
subsequent possessors, he says, took the country from
this people about the time that the Toltecs settled in
Tollan.[X-51] Tello speaks of the Culhuas coming from
Aztlan, the home of the Nahuatlacas, and settling in
Sonora, Jalisco, and as far south as Etzatlan and Tonala.
Gil, commenting on this, expresses a belief
that there was a succession of early migrations into
this western and north-western region. Thus the
Culhuas came from the west and extended along the
coast to Zacatollan. They were followed by the
Coras, who settled in Acaponeta Valley and as far as
Zentipac. Then came the Thorames, who conquered
the previous settlers and drove them to Nayarit.
Afterwards various Aztec tribes arrived from the
north. The first immigrants appear to have been the
most civilized, and occupied Tuitlan Valley, founding
the city of that name. The next comers erected the
Teul temple. Last of all came a ruder people, who
destroyed the young culture in places.[X-52] But these
accounts of the earliest occupation of Michoacan are
very meagre and unsatisfactory. The authorities nearly
all tell the story of the Aztecs in their migration
from the Seven Caves to the valley of Anáhuac, passing
through this region and encamping on the shores
of Lake Patzcuaro, where they quarrel, in the manner
already related,[X-53] and separate, one portion proceeding
to Anáhuac, and the other, bearing the name Tarascos,
remaining and settling the country.[X-54] As I
[510]
have already remarked, however, no faith can be placed
in this story. The total dissimilarity in language
shows the Tarascos to have been a people entirely distinct
from the Mexicans. It must not, however, be
thought from this that there was any relationship
between the Toltec and Tarasco languages. We
have already seen that many nations adopted Nahua
institutions, who did not speak Nahua dialects.




Herrera states that Michoacan was occupied, during
its later years, by four peoples, each having a
different origin and language, namely, Chichimecs,
Mexicans, Otomís, and Tarascos.[X-55] Of these, says
Brasseur, the Chichimecs were savage tribes who
lived on the north-east frontier. Though they would
not conform to the rules of civilized life, yet they
recognized the sovereignty of the Tarasco princes,
and lent them their aid in time of war. Their language
was the Pame, which is spoken at the present
day by the tribes living in the mountains of Tzichu,
north-east of Guanajuato. The Mexican population
was composed of those Nahuas who had separated
from their companions on the march, or who had
from various causes been forced to flee from Anáhuac.
The Otomís were the primitive nations who dwelt in
the valleys west of Anáhuac, including the Mazahuas
on the north, and the Matlaltzincas on the
south-west.[X-56]




An anonymous manuscript written for Don Antonio
de Mendoza, viceroy of New Spain, formerly
belonging to the Peter Force collection, in Washington,
and quoted by Brasseur de Bourbourg, contains
nearly all that is known of the early history of
Michoacan.



 CHICHIMEC OCCUPATION.



At the period when the Chichimecs first made
their appearance in Anáhuac and the surrounding
regions, Michoacan was settled and its people were
civilized. At that time the country was divided into
[511]
a great number of little states, and the people of
the principal of these called themselves Betamas
and Ezcomachas. The most powerful of all the
chiefs was the king of the isles of Patzcuaro, who
bore the title of El Henditare, 'lord above all,' and
had subjected a number of the surrounding peoples,
including some Chichimec tribes, to his authority.




A little to the north of the lake was the independent
town and territory of Naranjan, which was
governed by a chief named Ziranziran Camaro. It
is in the neighborhood of this town that we first meet
with the wild Chichimec Wanacaces,[X-57] led by their
chief Iri Ticatame, who bore by virtue of his office
the image of their god Curicaneri. All we know of
the original home of this people is that, according to
their own account, they came from a distant land
called Bayameo. They were a wandering race of
daring hunters, and seem to have had no particular
object in coming to Michoacan other than to find
good hunting-grounds. Upon arriving at the borders
of the forest of Wiriu Quarampejo, within sight of
the city of Naranjan, they halted and built a great
altar to their gods as a token that they had found the
kind of country they wanted and intended to settle
there. The presence of the strangers created a great
deal of alarm among the original inhabitants, and this
was increased when Iri Ticatame sent word to Ziranziran
Camaro that his people must bring fuel to the
altar of Curicaneri. Such an insolent demand
showed unmistakably that their intentions were not
peaceful; and the priests, who in Michoacan had the
greatest influence in secular as well as ecclesiastical
affairs, at once began to propitiate the gods with sacrifice
and prayer, without seeming to think for a
moment of the expediency of even parleying with the
invaders. But Ziranziran Camaro was more prudent,
and calling his hot-headed ministers before him he
[512]
pointed out to them the hopelessness and folly of engaging
in a war with the Wanacaces. The invaders,
he argued, would never have dared to make such a
demand unless they had been confident of their power
to enforce it; it was better to conciliate them than to
risk the consequences of an open rupture; finally he
proposed that a noble lady, one of his own relations,
should be given as a wife to Iri Ticatame. His advice
was taken; the people of Naranjan hastened to
carry provisions and clothing to the strangers; the
lady was conducted to the wild chief's hut; and the
barbarians were appeased.




Of this marriage was born a son named Sicuiracha,
who was destined to play an important part in the
history of his country. When he was old enough to
leave his mother he was entrusted to the care of the
priests, to be instructed in all those things which it
was necessary for a youth of his country to know.
One of his principal duties was to kill game in the
forests and bring it to the altars for sacrifice. It
happened one day when he was hunting to supply a
special feast with offerings, that the quarry escaped to
the fields of Quierecuaro, but being mortally wounded
it died there, and was found by some women who
were gathering maize for the same festival. Now, it
seems that to wound game without killing it instantly
was thought to forebode evil to the hunter, so that
when the news of the discovery was carried to the
lord of Naranjan, he at once foresaw the downfall
of the Wanacaces, and lost no time before taking
council with his priests and nobles upon the subject.
It was not long before these things reached the ear
of Iri Ticatame, and he appears to have shared in
the superstition, for he resolved to change his place
of abode without delay. Having announced his intention
to his tribe, he departed with his family and
the image of Curicaneri to a place named Quereqto,
which does not seem to have been far distant; his
wife also took her god, Wasoricuare, wrapped up in
[513]
a rich cloth, to her new home.[X-58] Soon afterwards he
moved again to Zichajucuero, three leagues from the
city of Tzintzuntzan, where he erected a temple and
altars.




In the meantime Sicuiracha had grown up and
had become a brave warrior and skillful hunter; but
his father was now old, while his followers had lost
their ancient fierceness and energy by long repose.
The people of Naranjan had never forgotten the
humiliation they had suffered when the Wanacaces
first arrived. Now the time seemed ripe for vengeance.



 IRI TICATAME AND ORESTA.



At that time a very powerful prince named Oresta
was reigning at Cumachen. An embassy, laden with
costly presents, was sent to him from Naranjan, requesting
his assistance to drive the Wanacaces out
of the country. Oresta had as much reason as any
to fear the interlopers, and he readily entered into
the scheme. The united forces then marched rapidly
and secretly against the place where Iri Ticatame
was dwelling, intending to surprise him before he
could call upon his warriors. On the borders of the
lake they met his wife, who, comprehending the situation
at a glance, attempted to run and warn her
husband. But they caught her and reproached her
with wishing to betray her own people, and prevent
them from taking a just vengeance on their enemies.
She was a better wife than patriot, however; and
eluding the grasp of those who detained her, she fled
to warn Iri Ticatame. She arrived too late; the
allied troops reached the town before her, and at
once began the assault. The venerable chief of the
Wanacaces, attacked and surrounded in his own
house, defended himself valiantly for some time, but
at last overpowered by numbers, he fell dead upon a
heap of slain. His wife came up just at this moment,
[514]
and in spite of all that could be done to
prevent her, the devoted woman cast herself upon
the body of the fierce old chief and refused to be removed
or comforted. The victors then set fire to the
place and retired, carrying with them the idol Curicaneri.




Ignorant of the misfortune which had fallen upon
his house, Sicuiracha was hunting in a forest at
some distance from the doomed town when the news
was brought to him. He at once hastened to the
spot, but arrived only to find his mother weeping
upon the body of his father, amid the blazing buildings.
Filled with rage at the sight, and thirsting for
vengeance, he wasted no time in useless mourning,
but calling together the few warriors who had escaped
the massacre, he started in pursuit of the enemy.
His force was so small that this seemed an act of
madness; but fortune favors the brave. Elated with
their victory, or as the old chronicle has it, prompted
by the god they had stolen, the allied troops had
given themselves up to drunkenness, and in this state
the avengers found them. The idol stood neglected
at the foot of an oak; seizing this, the Wanacaces
rushed furiously upon their fallen foes. A great
number were massacred, and the rest were carried
in triumph to Wayameo, where Sicuiracha dwelt.
For some time they were kept in the condition of
slaves, but eventually they were released upon the
understanding that their chiefs should recognize the
supremacy of Sicuiracha, who now formally took the
title of king. The new monarch rapidly increased
his territory by conquering and annexing the numerous
petty states that lay around it; he built several
temples, notably one to Curicaneri, whom he regarded
as the author of his greatness; increased the
number of priests, and erected dwellings for them
about the temples; enforced religious observances;
and established his capital at Wayameo, where, after
[515]
a long and glorious reign, he died, leaving the kingdom
to his two sons, Pawacume and Wapeani.



 THE TARASCOS ON LAKE PATZCUARO.



Shortly after the accession of these princes, events
occurred in the flourishing region lying north of
Wayameo, on the southern shore of Lake Patzcuaro,
which affected the condition of the entire country,
and eventually added greatly to the power of the
Wanacace kings. The capital of this region was
Tzintzuntzan. The chronicle I have hitherto followed
gives no account of the origin of this city;
but other authors, who in their turn make no mention
of the events above recorded, furnish a story of
its foundation, which I will relate here, before continuing
the more consecutive narrative.




After the separation of the Tarascos from their
Aztec brethren, says Beaumont, the former, resolving
to settle, began at once to till the ground and
sow the seeds that they had brought with them.
They then proceeded to elect a king from among
their bravest warriors. So highly was this quality
of courage esteemed by them that even the later
kings, who succeeded to the throne by inheritance,
were not allowed to wear certain jewels and ornaments
until they had earned the right to do so by
capturing a prisoner in battle with their own hands.
Under the administration of such energetic men the
people progressed rapidly, both in wealth and power;
commerce was encouraged and the arts and sciences
flourished. But they especially excelled in feather-work,
for which the splendid plumage of the birds
of the country furnished abundant material.[X-59] This
curious art is said to have been suggested by the
phenomenon which led to the founding of their
capital. When the Tarascos first halted on the
southern shore of Lake Patzcuaro, they placed their
principal idol in a pleasant spot that the god might
repose, when, behold, a multitude of birds of gorgeous
[516]
plumage congregated in the air and formed a brilliant
shade or canopy above the sacred image. This was
at once hailed as a divine indication that they should
found their city here, and at the same time it suggested
the feather mosaics for which they afterwards
became so famous. In commemoration of this miraculous
manifestation of the divine will the city was
named Tzintzuntzan, 'place of celestial birds.'[X-60]




Little or nothing is known of the history of Tzintzuntzan
from this time until it is again brought into
notice by the events to which I have alluded as
occurring shortly after Sicuiracha was succeeded by
his sons on the throne at Wayameo. Granados, it is
true, states that nineteen kings ruled over the Tarascos
from the time of their settlement down to the
conquest, but he gives no account of any of them,
while Beaumont complains that he is able to find
records of three only, namely, Characu, 'the boy king,'
Zwanga,[X-61] and the son of the latter, Tangaxoan,[X-62]
better known by the name of Caltzontzin, 'he who is
always shod,' to distinguish him from those other
rulers who, being vassals of the Aztec monarch, appeared
bare-footed before their suzerain.[X-63] At what
period the boy king lived it is impossible to tell, but
as the other two certainly reigned at a later date
[517]
than our story has yet reached, they may all be
referred to hereafter.



 THE GODDESS XARATANGA.



Let us now return to the anonymous narrative.
At the time of Sicuiracha's death at Wayameo, three
brothers named Tarigaran, Pacimwane, and Sucurawe
were reigning in the region of which Tzintzuntzan
was the capital. On a hill overlooking the lake
stood the temple of their chief divinity, the goddess
Xaratanga, whose son was named Manowapa. Now,
the priests of this goddess obtained the wood which
they burned in the temple from the forest of Atamataho,
close to Wayameo, and they frequently took
advantage of their proximity to the temple of Curicaneri
to carry wood there, a courtesy which the
Wanacace priests returned by occasionally bearing
fuel to the sanctuary of Xaratanga. It happened
one day, when the feast of the goddess was approaching,
that Tarigaran and his two brothers,
with their attendants, went to the temple to assist
the priests to decorate the idol. But the princes had
been drinking deeply, and the goddess, perceiving
this, punished them for their irreverence by making
them very drunk. Then the brothers became
alarmed, and sent their women to the lake to procure
fish, by eating which they hoped to dissipate the
fumes of the liquor. But the outraged goddess had
hidden the fish, and the women succeeded only in
catching a large serpent, which they carried to the
priests, who cooked it and ate of it together with the
princes, at sunset. But no sooner had the strange
food passed their lips than, to their horror, they all
found themselves turned into serpents. Filled with
terror and dismay they plunged into the lake and
swam towards the mountain of Tiriacuri, amid the
recesses of which they disappeared upon landing.




The territory of Tzintzuntzan being now bereft of
its chief priests and princes offered an easy prey to
its Wanacace neighbors, and several chiefs, probably
vassals of the kings of Wayameo, soon began to encroach
[518]
upon its borders. Tarapecha Chanhori took
possession of Curincuaro Achurin and established
himself there, while Ipinchuari did the same at Pechetaro.
The royal brothers of Wayameo also took
up arms and possessed themselves first of Capacureo,
and then of Patamagua Nacaraho. At the latter
place they seem to have separated, each to make conquests
on his own behalf.[X-64]




The Tarasco population was now thoroughly
alarmed and with one accord the various states began
to prepare for war. The kings of Wayameo, however,
assured Cuyupuri, who had succeeded to the
office of high-priest of Xaratanga at Tzintzuntzan,
that he should receive no injury, and at their invitation
he removed to the spot where his metamorphosed
predecessors had disappeared. Later he removed to
Sipico, on the borders of the lake, where he erected a
temple and other buildings; after that he went to
several other places, but finally established himself
on Mount Haracotin, where Wapeani had taken up
his abode.




The two brothers now continued their conquests in
every direction, and before long they had gained possession
of most of the places on the south shore of
the lake Patzcuaro, including the fertile region of
Tzintzuntzan. Now it came to pass one day, when
Wapeani had climbed Mount Atupen, and was
gazing longingly at the beautiful islands which dotted
its surface, that his attention was attracted to a
pyramidal structure which rose in the centre of one
of the fairest of them. Perceiving a fisherman casting
his nets at some distance, he called him to him.
In answer to his inquiries, the fisherman informed
the prince that the island upon which the temple
[519]
stood was called Xaracuero, and was, together with
the island of Pacandan, ruled by a king named Curicaten,
who bore the title of El Henditare. He told
Wapeani, moreover, that there were Chichimecs on
these islands, though they did not speak the same
language as the Wanacaces. Wapeani was astonished
at this, as he had believed that his people were
the only Chichimecs in the country. The warriors
of his suite then asked the fisherman what his name
was, and if he had any daughters. He answered
that his name was Curipajan, and that he had no
children. They insisted, however, that he had
daughters, assuring him at the same time that they
intended no harm, but merely wanted to obtain wives
from the islands. At length, after repeated denials,
he confessed that he had one, who was little and
ugly, and quite unworthy of their consideration. It
matters not, they answered, say nothing to anybody,
but bring her here to-morrow.



 THE KING OF THE ISLES.



What induced the fisherman to act against his inclinations
after he had once got free, the chronicle
does not relate, but on the next day he returned at
the appointed time with his daughter. Wapeani
arrived at the rendezvous somewhat later, and finding
the girl to his taste he took her away with him, instructing
her father to return home, and if questioned
concerning the absence of his daughter, to say that
she had been carried off and enslaved by the Wanacaces.
Wapeani afterwards gave the woman to his
brother, Pawacume, who married her, and got by her
a son named Tariacuri, who subsequently became
king and was the founder of the kingdom of Michoacan.




When the king of the isles learned what had been
done by Wapeani, he was greatly enraged, and the
neighboring lords having been called together a
council was held to consider what action should be
taken in the matter. But the lords were in favor of
peace, and it was finally arranged that the brother
[520]
kings should be invited to come and settle among
them, when the office of grand sacrificer should be
conferred upon Pawacume and that of priest of the
god Cuangari Changatun upon Wapeani. Messengers
were accordingly sent to make these proposals to
the brothers. Flattered by such brilliant offers and
dazzled by the costly presents which the envoys
brought with them, the princes readily consented to
the arrangement, and at once embarked for the islands,
where they were received with great state, and
immediately invested with the promised dignities.
But it seems that the brothers' followers had not
been made acquainted with the details of this arrangement,
for after impatiently waiting some time
for the return of the princes, they also set out for the
islands to discover the cause of their detention. Upon
learning the true state of the case they were furious,
and demanded with many threats that Pawacume
and Wapeani, who, they said, had been appointed
by Curicaneri as their guardians, should
instantly be sent back to their own people. Curicaten
thought it prudent to yield, and the brothers reluctantly
returned with their followers to the mainland.



 CITY OF PATZCUARO.



But during their brief sojourn in the islands they
had seen much that was new to them, and having
observed the benefit to be derived from civilization,
they resolved to improve the condition of their country.
Knowing, however, that their influence alone
would not suffice to make the people suddenly change
their nomadic habits, they called to their aid the
voice of the gods. One day they announced that the
god of Hades had appeared to them in a dream, commanding
them to erect temples in honor of all the
Chichimec divinities. The people, whose religious
fervor seems to have been unbounded, were at once
anxious to begin the pious work. It only remained
to choose a suitable site. Under the guidance of the
brothers, they repaired to a densely wooded hill near
Tarimi Chundido, where there was a beautiful stream
[521]
of water, known henceforth by the name of Cuirizcatero.
Here they set to work in earnest; hewing
down the trees and clearing the ground for the foundations
of the temples. One after another the stately
edifices rose, and when they were finished the chiefs
began to vie with each other in building fine dwelling-houses,
so that in an incredibly short space of time
the sides of the hill were covered with buildings.
Such was the origin of the city of Patzcuaro,[X-65] for
a long time the capital, and afterwards one of the
principal cities of Michoacan.




Now, at that time the kingdom of Curincuaro,
which comprised part of the lake islands, was one of
the most powerful states in all that region, and in
common with its Tarasco neighbors, it regarded the
rapid progress of the Wanacaces with feelings of
jealousy and apprehension, which soon resulted in
actual hostilities. An ambassador was sent to Patzcuaro
to formally demand that its inhabitants should
bring fuel to the altars at Curincuaro. The Wanacaces
knew by experience what this meant, and at
once prepared for war. All being ready they marched
to meet the enemy. A terrible engagement took
place near the town of Ataquaro, in which Pawacume
and his brother were seriously wounded, and
finally forced to retreat with their troops to Patzcuaro.




Soon after this the great feast of the goddess
Curincuaro, the principal divinity of the kingdom
that bore her name, was celebrated. It appears that
it was arranged that all hostilities should cease
during this solemn period, that the Wanacaces might
join with their late enemies in the ceremonies. The
lords of Curincuaro were particularly anxious that
the brothers of Patzcuaro should appear at the feast,
and to ensure their presence they employed an old
[522]
woman, who had access to them, to expatiate on
the grandeur of the coming festivities, and the number
of sacrifices to be offered. She played her part
so well that the princes promised to be present; afterwards,
being assured by certain of their priests that
treachery was designed, they renounced their intention
of going; but emissaries from Curincuaro again
found means to persuade them, and when the day of
the feast arrived they set out to participate in it.
On the way they fell into an ambuscade, and Wapeani
was killed on the spot. His brother escaped
and fled to Patzcuaro, but he was pursued by his
enemies and slain in the city, which was deserted on
account of all the people having gone to the feast.
The bodies of the unfortunate princes were ransomed
by their sorrowing subjects, and after being formally
burned were buried with much ceremony in a grave
dug at the foot of the steps leading up to the temple
of Curicaneri.




Curatame, Wapeani's eldest son, now ascended the
throne at Patzcuaro. He had two brothers named
Xetaco and Aramen. Pawacume, as we have already
remarked, had also a son named Tariacuri, by the
fisherman's daughter. This prince was sent to the
island of Xaracuero, to be educated by the Tarasco
priests in the arts of civilized life. On his return to
Patzcuaro, Tariacuri showed himself to be a youth of
an excellent disposition, very pious and industrious,
and withal highly accomplished in matters both of
war and of peace. As soon as he arrived at a suitable
age he was crowned king of the Wanacaces;
whether his cousin Curatame continued to reign as
his colleague, or what became of him, is not stated.




Tariacuri soon began to extend his empire by conquest
in every direction. He carried his arms farther
than any of his predecessors had done, and his hostile
expeditions were invariably attended by success.
Again the Tarasco princes were alarmed, and uniting
their forces they marched upon Patzcuaro. But Tariacuri
[523]
was irresistible; he surprised and vanquished
the allies at Ataro and Tupuxanchuen, conquered the
kingdom of Zirumbo, and finally blockaded the lake
islands. Meanwhile, his cousins, jealous of his glory,
conspired with his enemies to betray him. But he
escaped their plots, and having possessed himself of
the islands he became king of the whole of Michoacan.
This king may be identical with Characu, the
'boy king,' to whom I have already referred. My
reason for thinking so is that the events above recorded,
or those immediately succeeding them, are
said to have happened in the time of Montezuma I.,
while the founding of a city named Charo, in the reign
of Characu, is also said by Beaumont to have taken
place during the life of the same Mexican monarch.
The founding of Charo was in this wise, according to
one account.



 CHARACU, THE BOY KING.



During the reign of 'the boy king' the Aztecs
made an inroad, aided by the Tecos and other unruly
tribes. Being hard pressed, the king applied to the
Matlaltzincas of Toluca for aid. Six captains started
with their troops, and the Mexicans were defeated.
In reward for this timely aid, the Matlaltzincas were
granted their choice of lands within the kingdom of
Michoacan, and selected the region around Tiripito,
where the lower class founded Undameo, and the
nobles, Charo, so named in honor of the king. This
settlement being in the center of Michoacan, says
Pimentel, the people came to be known as the Pirindas,
'those in the middle.'[X-66]




In another place Beaumont gives Padre Larrea's
version of the founding of Charo. In the time of Montezuma
I. the Aztecs appeared in conjunction with
the Tecos and Matlaltzincas to attack Michoacan.
The Tarascos who were only one-third as strong as
their enemies, had recourse to strategy. Large supplies
of food and drink were spread in the camp, and
[524]
when the Aztec forces attacked, the Tarascos fled,
abandoning the camp. The hungry Aztecs at once
commenced to gorge themselves, and when filled with
meat and drink the Tarascos returned upon them
making a great slaughter, and capturing a goodly
number of Tecos and Matlaltzincas, who were given
lands in Michoacan; the Tecos as the more turbulent
in Patzcuaro and the capital, and the Matlaltzincas
in Charo, which was founded by them.[X-67] The Matlaltzincas
who remained in Toluca were conquered by
Axayacatl, as has been already related.[X-68]




Before his death, Tariacuri divided the kingdom,
and generously provided for the children of the
cousins who had attempted his destruction. To Hicipan
he left Coyucan, a very important city; to Hicucaxe,
Patzcuaro and its dependencies, and to his son,
Tangaxoan, he gave the territory of Tzintzuntzan,
which comprised the lake islands. These events, says
Brasseur, to which the anonymous historian assigns
no date, occurred, in all probability, during the first
part of the fifteenth century, Tangaxoan having been
a contemporary of Montezuma I., of Mexico.




Michoacan did not remain long divided. Hicucaxe
had a great number of sons, all of whom he put to
death because they were disorderly and oppressed
the people. Another son which was born to him later
was killed by lightning, and apotheosized on that account.
Thus the king of Patzcuaro died without
leaving heirs, and his division was added to Tangaxoan's
territory. The kingdom of Coyucan, upon the
death of Hicipan, was also annexed to Tzintzuntzan,
where Tangaxoan's son Ziziz Pandacuare, was then
reigning. Michoacan became thus re-united under
one head. Ziziz Pandacuare used his great power
[525]
for the advancement and benefit of his country. He
embellished the city of Tzintzuntzan, and made it his
capital. His reign was a long and glorious one, and
it was chiefly to his able administration that Michoacan
owed its greatness.[X-69]



 REIGN OF ZWANGA.



Ziziz Pandacuare was succeeded by his son Zwanga.[X-70]
It was during the reign of this prince that the
valiant Tlascaltec general, Tlahuicol, invaded Michoacan
at the head of a Mexican army, and took Tangimaroa,
or Tlaximaloyan, and other towns, together
with great spoils.[X-71] Zwanga was still on the throne
at Tzintzuntzan when Cortés took Mexico. He
was appealed to for aid by Cuitlahuatl, who was
elected monarch after the death of Montezuma II.
After some hesitation he promised his assistance.
Ambassadors were sent to Mexico, who, when they
arrived, found Cuitlahuatl dead, and the small-pox
raging in the city. They hastened back to Tzintzuntzan,
but bore with them the germs of the disease,
which rapidly spread through the capital, and carried
off the king and a great number of his subjects.




Zwanga left several sons, and the eldest of these,
Tangaxoan II., seized the sceptre.[X-72] He appears to
have been a weak prince, and totally unfit to fill the
throne at such a critical period. One of his first acts
was to cause his brothers to be put to death, on the
pretense that they had conspired against his life, but
really because he was jealous of their power.[X-73] This
cruel murder caused serious disturbance in the capital,
and the fratricide brought great odium upon
himself. It was said that such a terrible deed portended
evil to the country—a prediction which was
[526]
verified strongly afterwards, by the appearance of a
Spanish soldier who had been sent by Cortés to
reconnoitre the country.




The Tarascos, like most of the other Nahua nations,
were warned by omens of their future subjection
to a foreign power. Beaumont, who makes
Tangaxoan II. a contemporary of Montezuma II.,
relates that the former was at first persuaded to
assist the latter against the Spaniards, but was cautioned
by the spirit of his dead sister, who, to prove
that her utterances were not meaningless, pointed
out certain signs in the heavens; namely, the figure
of a young man with a glittering hand, and a sword,
fashioned like those of the Spaniards, which appeared
in the east on the day of the great festival. In the
council convened to consider this warning it was decided
not to resist the strangers.[X-74] It is related,
moreover, that in Zwanga's time there lived a high-priest,
named Surites, who foretold the introduction
of a new religion, and in anticipation of it instituted
two Christian-like festivals.[X-75]



 THE MIZTECS AND ZAPOTECS.



Among the earliest peoples of Mexico were the
Miztecs and Zapotecs, whose country may be roughly
described as comprising the modern state of Oajaca.
The Miztecs occupied the western portion of this region,
and their territory was divided into upper and
lower Miztecapan,[X-76] the latter reaching to the coast,
and the former embracing the mountainous region
farther north, which is sometimes called Cohuaixtlahuacan.
Zapotecapan, the country of the Zapotecs,
lay to the east of Miztecapan, and extended, at the
time when we first hear of this people in history, to
Tehuantepec.[X-77]




The records of these nations are silent as to their
[527]
history before they settled here; everything previous
to this rests upon traditions of the vaguest character,
one of which represents their ancestors as birds,
beasts, and trees—to indicate their extreme antiquity,
courage, and stubbornness, naively adds Burgoa, the
historian of Oajaca.[X-78] But though their own annals
do not reach back to the pre-Toltec period, they are
stated by some authorities to have inhabited at that
time the region of Puebla, together with the Olmecs
and Xicalancas.[X-79] Most of the old writers connect
them with the Nahua stock, although their language
was distinct from the Nahua. Thus Torquemada derives
the Miztecs from Mixtecatl, the fifth son of Iztac
Mixcohuatl, of the Seven Caves; while Sahagun
states that they were of Toltec descent, and adds that
some go so far as to regard them as descendants of
Quetzalcoatl, because of the richness and beauty of
their country, in which the famous Tlalocan, the 'terrestrial
paradise,' was said to be situated.[X-80] At the
time when civilization was introduced into Yucatan
and Chiapas, says Brasseur, the mountains of Miztecapan
were inhabited by savage tribes without any
particular name, but who were afterwards known as
Miztecs, or Wild Cats.[X-81] Civilization is said by tradition
to have first appeared in the mountains of
Apoala. At the entrance of a gorge in this region
where, says García, the gods lived before man came
on earth, stood two majestic trees, from which sprung
two youths, the founders of the Miztec monarchy.[X-82]
The braver of the two went to Tilantongo, and there
[528]
had a contest with the Sun for the possession of the
country. After a desperate combat, which lasted a
whole day, the Sun was forced to go down behind
the hills, thus leaving the youth the victor.[X-83]




Other traditions relate that certain of the warlike
tribes from the north, that invaded Anáhuac from
the eighth to the eleventh century, passed from the
Aztec plateau into Miztecapan, coming down from
the mountains of Apoala to the beautiful and naturally
fortified valley of Yanguitlan, 'new land,'
where they determined to settle. The Miztecs resisted
the invaders for a long time, and their final
subjection was effected more by religious teachings
than by force of arms. On this plateau the immigrants
from Anáhuac founded Tilantongo, and built
a temple called Achiuhtla.[X-84] The date of this event
seems to coincide, says Brasseur, with the sending
out of missionaries from Cholula, though whether
the followers of Quetzalcoatl or the tribes from
Anáhuac arrived first is not known. But it appears
certain that from the union of the priests of Achiuhtla
and the Olmecs who fled from Cholula at the
time of Huemac's invasion, sprung the power which
civilized these regions.[X-85]




It is in Zapotecapan, however, that the disciples
of Quetzalcoatl appear most prominently. There
they are said to have founded Mitla, or Yopaa, and
to have diffused their arts and religious teachings
throughout the whole country, as far as Tehuantepec.[X-86]




The mysterious apostle Wixipecocha, of whom
a full account has already been given,[X-87] is said to
[529]
have appeared in these regions. The tradition,
which is very vague, relates that he came from the
south seas, and landed, bearing a cross, at Tehuantepec.
He taught morality, abstinence from women,
confession, and penance. He was generally respected
but was sometimes persecuted, especially in the Mije
country, whither he went after passing through the
Zapotec valley. The people there tried to kill him,
and pursued him to the foot of Mount Cempoaltepec,
where he miraculously disappeared, but re-appeared
shortly afterwards on the summit of the mountain.
His pursuers followed him, but he again vanished,
and was seen no more in that country, though he
afterward showed himself on the enchanted island
of Monapostiac, near Tehuantepec.



 THE PRIESTS OF ACHIUHTLA.



As I have already remarked, nothing definite is
known of the early history of the Miztecs and Zapotecs.
All that has been preserved is some account
of their spiritual rulers. Thus we are told that the
kingdom of Tilantongo, which comprised upper Mizteca,
was spiritually governed by the high-priest of
Achiuhtla, who bore the title of Taysacaa, and whose
power equaled, if it did not surpass, that of the
king; while in Zapotecapan the Wiyatao, or sovereign
pontiff, united in his person the supreme sacerdotal
and secular power. The origin of the city of
Yopaa, or Mitla, where the Wiyatao held his court,
is doubtful, though, as we have seen, it has been
attributed to the disciples of Quetzalcoatl, who came
from Cholula.




It is a singular fact that we hear nothing of the
early Miztec and Zapotec kings, save that there were
such, until we find the latter subjecting the Huaves
to their authority. These Huaves are said to have
come originally from the south, from Nicaragua or
Peru say some authors. The causes that led to
their migration are unknown; but the story goes
that after coasting northward, and attempting to disembark
at several places, they finally effected a
[530]
landing at Tehuantepec. Here they found the Mijes,
the original possessors of the country; but these
they drove out, or, as some say, mingled with them,
and soon made themselves masters of the soil. They
founded their first city at Arrianjianbaj, or Arriangui
Umbah, but afterwards extended their possessions
to the city of Jalapa, which they are said to have
founded also.[X-88]




But the easy life they led in this beautiful and fertile
region soon destroyed their ancient energy, and
they subsequently fell an unresisting prey to the Zapotec
kings.[X-89] Of the Mijes very little is known. They
are believed to have been the most ancient people of
the Oajaca region, and Burgoa affirms that they possessed
of old the greater part of Tehuantepec, Soconusco,
and Zapotecapan. The Beni-Xonos, who
lived between the Mijes and Zapotecs, are said to
have once belonged to the former people, but their
character seems to disprove this. They are described
as a tribe of rich, shrewd traders, very miserly, great
liars, "incorrigible and inveterate evil-doers"—the
Jews of Oajaca, Brasseur calls them. They were
among the first to submit to the Zapotec kings, in
the hope of being allowed to retain their wealth.[X-90]



 THE ZAPOTEC KINGS.



It was to one of these Zapotec princes that the
fortified city of Zaachilla Yoho, or Teotzapotlan, as
it was called by the Mexicans, owed its origin. At
the time when history first sheds its light on these
[531]
regions, Teotzapotlan was the capital of Zapotecapan,[X-91]
and rivaled in power and extent of territory
the Miztec kingdoms of Tututepec and Tilantongo.
It seems that during the war with the Mexicans
these three powers united against the common enemy,
though at other times they appear to have
quarreled considerably among themselves, by reason
of the ambitious designs of the Zapotec monarchs,
who, it is said, aimed at universal sovereignty.[X-92]




Of the kingdom of Tututepec, which stretched for
sixty leagues along the shore of the Pacific, nothing
is known, except that its princes were among the
richest in all Mexico, that its kings had many powerful
vassals, and that its principal city, which was
also called Tututepec, was very populous.[X-93]




One of the earliest conquests of the Zapotec kings
was that of the Mountain of the Sun, near the town
of Macuilxuchil. There dwelt on this mountain a
tribe of very fierce and blood-thirsty barbarians, who
lived by plundering the surrounding nations. At
length their depredations became so frequent, and
were attended with such cruelty that it became evident
that the country about the mountain would
soon be abandoned by its inhabitants unless the
robbers were annihilated. Accordingly, a large force
of picked troops was sent against them under the
command of two renowned warriors named Baali and
Baaloo. The expedition was successful. After a
desperate resistance the robbers were overpowered
and slaughtered to a man. A fortress and temple
were then erected on the summit of the mountain,
and the charge of them given to Baali and Baaloo,
as a reward for their valor. After their death these
heroes received divine honors, and were buried at the
foot of the mountain they had conquered. The veneration
in which their memory was held increased with
[532]
time; their tombs were visited by multitudes of pilgrims,
and a city called Zeetopaa, which eventually
became the principal seat of learning and religion,
and the nucleus of civilization in these parts, soon
rose upon the spot.[X-94]



 DEATH OF CONDOY.



The first Zapotec king of whom we have any
definite information is Ozomatli, who, it is said in
the Codex Chimalpopoca,[X-95] reigned in 1351. The
next king, whose name or deeds are recorded, is Zaachilla,
who, being master of all Zapotecapan, coveted
the region lying east of the river Nexapa, and inhabited
by the Chontales, Mijes, and Huaves. The
Chontales were the most powerful of these nations,
and against them Zaachilla proceeded first. He took
from them the city of Nexapa, which he fortified and
garrisoned with his own soldiers. To strengthen his
position in the conquered territory he also built the
fortresses of Quiechapa and Quiyecolani.[X-96] He next
entered the country of the Mijes, took the town of
Zoquitlan, and drove the inhabitants into the mountains.
The Mijes were now confined between the
Maya tribes of Chiapas and the Zapotecs. But,
though in this difficult position, with a territory so
small that it contained only one city of importance,
namely Xaltepec, and numbering, says Herrera, only
two thousand men, women, and children, the brave
little nation seems to have gallantly maintained its
independence for a number of years.[X-97] It was destined
to be subjected at last, however, and in the
hour of its greatest glory. Condoy, the last king of
the Mijes, who is said to have made his first appearance
from a cavern in the mountains, was a very
brave and energetic prince. He waged war with the
surrounding nations, and succeeded by his valor in increasing
[533]
the extent of his dominions. The Zapotec
and Miztec kings, jealous of these encroachments,
formed an alliance against the Mije prince, while the
tribes of Chiapas, from the same motives, attacked
him at the same time on the other side of his dominions.
In spite of all that the brave Condoy
could do, his capital was taken and burned to the
ground, and he and his followers, hotly pursued by
the enemy, were forced to take refuge in the recesses
of the mountains. Shortly after this Condoy disappeared
and was seen no more. The Zapotecs
claimed that their king slew him with his own hand,
but the subjects of the Mije prince insisted that,
tired of war and bloodshed, he had entered the cavern
from which he had originally issued, and, attended
by some of his warriors, had gone to far distant
provinces.[X-98]




About the year 1456 occurred the war between
Dzawindanda, king of Cohuaixtlahuacan or upper
Miztecapan, with his allies the Tlascaltecs and Huexotzincas,
and Montezuma I., with his allies of the
valley of Anáhuac. The details of this war having
been already given,[X-99] it remains only to repeat Burgoa's
account of the supernatural powers of Dzawindanda.
This prince, says the fable, when he wished
to make war upon some neighboring nation, caused
himself to be miraculously transported to the summit
of a mountain inaccessible to ordinary mortals. Arrived
there he prostrated himself upon a knoll, and
besought the gods to favor his designs. Then he
shook a bag which was suspended from his girdle,
and immediately there issued from it a multitude of
warriors, fully armed and equipped, who having
formed in military order descended from the mountain
in silence and marched at once to conquer the
coveted territory.[X-100] Dzawindanda's magical powers
[534]
must have deserted him on the occasion above referred
to, however, for, as we have seen, his armies
were terribly defeated, his kingdom was made tributary
to the domain of the victors, he himself was
assassinated, and his widowed queen was carried captive
to Mexico to gratify a passion which Montezuma
had conceived for her.




In 1469 Axayacatl of Mexico swooped suddenly
upon the cities of Tehuantepec and Guatulco, and
took them; according to Brasseur he even carried his
victorious arms into Soconusco.[X-101] At this time
Zaachilla III. was king of Zapotecapan. He was a
warlike and ambitious prince, and succeeded in adding
Jalapa and the valley of Nexapa to his kingdom,
driving the Huave population into the less desirable
region on the frontiers of Chiapas and Soconusco.
During the later years of his reign Zaachilla, with
the assistance of the Miztec king of Tilantongo, succeeded
in regaining possession of Tehuantepec and
the other places in that region which Axayacatl had
garrisoned with Mexican troops. But this brought
the Mexican king, Ahuitzotl, down upon him like a
thunderbolt, and being deserted by his Miztec allies,
Zaachilla's armies were quickly routed; he was forced
to flee for his life to the mountains, and Tehuantepec
once more became a Mexican possession.[X-102]




Cociyoeza, who succeeded Zaachilla III. on the
throne of Zapotecapan, was no less anxious than his
predecessor to rid his kingdom of the Aztec garrisons,
but being a very prudent, though brave, prince, he
acted with greater deliberation and caution. Before
proceeding to open hostilities he contracted a firm
alliance with the neighboring nations; he then chose
a favorable opportunity, when the prestige of the
Mexican arms had been damaged by reverses, to declare
war, massacre the Mexican merchants, and
retake Tehuantepec and most of the other places
[535]
occupied by Ahuitzotl's troops. The reader has been
made acquainted with the details of this war, in the
course of which the sacred city of Mitla, or Yopaa,
was taken, and of the final treaty by which it was
arranged that the Mexicans should keep Soconusco,
and that Cociyoeza should wed a Mexican princess
and remain in possession of Tehuantepec.[X-103]



 MONTEZUMA INVADES MIZTECAPAN.



In 1506, Miztecapan was invaded by Montezuma's
armies, and the cities of Tilantongo, Achiuhtla, and
Tlachquiauhco were taken. In the same year the
Miztecs made a determined effort to regain their independence,
but, as has been seen, only succeeded in
making their burdens heavier than before.[X-104] From
this time until the coming of the Spaniards Miztecapan
may be regarded as virtually subject to the
Mexican empire.




By his marriage with the faithful Pelaxilla, Cociyoeza
had a son named Cociyopu. It is related that
during the feasts with which the birth of this prince
was celebrated, fiery rays of light were seen to dart
across the sky. Such ominous phenomena did not
escape the notice of the soothsayers, and the downfall
of the kingdom was predicted. When Cociyopu had
reached the age of twenty-four years, his father conferred
upon him the crown of Tehuantepec.[X-105] It
was at this time, says Brasseur, that the news of
the conquests of the Spaniards reached Cociyoeza's
court at Teotzapotlan.[X-106] Upon this the nobles of
Tehuantepec besought Cociyopu to inquire of the gods
what the meaning of these things was, and if the
ancient prophecies concerning the introduction of a
new religion and the conquest of the country by a
race of white men, were about to be fulfilled. Cociyopu
did as they desired, and was told by the oracle
that the time had come for the fulfillment of the
[536]
prophecies. Then an embassy was sent to Coyuhuacan,
where Cortés then was, with instructions to
announce to the Spanish chief that according to the
directions of their oracles the people of Zapotecapan
and Tehuantepec acknowledged his right of sovereignty.[X-107]



 THE PUEBLOS OF NEW MEXICO.



In the subdivision of my present subject, given in
an early chapter of this volume,[X-108] I named as one of
its divisions the Historical Traditions of the Wild
Tribes of the North, to which topic I intended to
devote a short chapter. On further research, however,
I find that there is absolutely no material for
such a chapter. Some of the wild tribes had vague
traditions of how the world was created and peopled,
generally by the agency of a bird or beast; others
told wonderful tales of supernatural adventures of
their fathers many moons ago; a few named the direction,
north, south, east, or west, whence their
fathers came. Such traditions have been given in
those portions of this work relating to the subjects
of Mythology and Origin. There is great confusion
among the different versions of these traditions, and
even if we knew in each case which was the authentic
version, they would shed not a ray of light
on general aboriginal history; the very most that
could be hoped from them would be slight information
respecting modern tribal history. All the speculations
of modern travelers and writers on primitive
history in the north have been founded, so far as
they have had any foundation at all, on the material
relics of antiquity, fully described in volume IV. of
this work; on the traces of the Aztec tongue in the
north, a subject fully disposed of in volume III.;
and on the theory of the Spanish writers respecting
a general migration from the north, duly considered
in the present volume. Consequently all that could
[537]
be said on the history of the northern tribes here
would be but a repetition of what has already been
said; a collection of a few valueless speculations resting
on foundations already proven to be unsound; and
a renewed argument against the theory of a migration
from the north, a theory that has already received
more attention than it deserves. It may be
thought that the reported Montezuma-tradition of
the Pueblos in New Mexico deserves some investigation;
but besides the fact that all the force of evidence
and probability indicates that the myth was an
invention of white men, it is also true that if the
worship of Montezuma and the hope of his coming
from the east, were actually found among the Pueblos,
this would only prove what is not at all improbable,
that the fame of Montezuma I. and of the great
Aztec power had reached this northern region. It
has been seen that the Nahuas a few centuries after
the beginning of our era were driven northward and
established themselves in Anáhuac and the region
immediately north-west of that valley, but that their
possessions never extended farther north than Zacatecas.
Yet it is altogether probable that they came
more or less into contact with tribes further north,
and it is best to attribute to this contact at this
period the Nahua linguistic traces that have been
pointed out in the north. The Pueblos, who in
ancient times occupied the country as far south as
northern Chihuahua, were not Aztecs, as is clearly
proven by their language, their monuments, and
their institutions. The very slight Nahua analogies
that have been pointed out in their manners and
customs, do not necessarily imply any connection
whatever with the civilized peoples of the south; yet
I regard it as not improbable that the Pueblo tribes
were slightly influenced by Nahua contact at the
period referred to; and not altogether impossible that
the Nahua seed sown at this time fell into good
ground in some wild people of the north, and thus
[538]
originated Pueblo agriculture and later culture. In
favor of any closer connection between these peoples,
there is absolutely no evidence.



 THE MOUND-BUILDERS.



When we come to the Mound-Builders of the
Mississippi Valley, the matter presents far greater
difficulties. We know nothing of their language or
manners and customs, since they have become locally
extinct; but their material monuments, and their
religious rites as indicated by those monuments, bear
a very striking resemblance to those of the civilized
nations of the south. I have already expressed an
opinion that the Mound-Builders were in some way
connected with the civilized nations; the nature of
the connection is involved in difficulties, from which
there is no escape save by conjecture. We have
seen that the Aztec traces in the New Mexican
region, and possibly the Pueblo culture, may be attributed
to the migrating Nahua tribes after their
overthrow in Central America; but there is little or
no reason to attribute the establishment of the
Mound-Builders of the eastern states to the same
influence and the same epoch. The few Nahuas that
were scattered in the north are not likely to have
exerted so slight an influence in the Pueblo region,
and so powerful a one on the Mississippi; besides,
the Mississippi monuments bear marks of a much
greater antiquity than can be attributed to the
Pueblo buildings. Yet we have seen that it is much
more reasonable to believe that the culture of the
Mound-Builders was introduced by a colony or by
teachers from the south, than to regard the Mississippi
Valley as the original birth-place of American
civilization. The Natchez of the gulf states are said
to have been superior at the coming of Europeans to
other aboriginal tribes of the eastern states, and presented
some slight analogies in their institutions to
what the Mound-Builders may be supposed to have
been. It is also the opinion of several authorities
entitled to considerable credit, that their language
[539]
shows a very strong resemblance to those of the
Maya family. Without attaching very great importance
to the last argument, I am inclined to believe
that the most plausible conjecture respecting
the origin of the Mound-Builders, is that which
makes them a colony of the ancient Mayas, who
settled in the north during the continuance of the
great Maya empire of Xibalba in Central America,
several centuries before Christ. We have seen that
the ancient Mayas, under the name of Quinames,
probably occupied eastern Mexico at that epoch, and
in later times we find the Huastecs in southern
Tamaulipas speaking a Maya dialect. It is not at
all unlikely that a colony of these people passed
northward along the coast by land or water, and introduced
their institutions in the Mississippi Valley,
building up a power which became very flourishing
as the centuries passed, but was at last forced to
yield to the presence of environing barbarism. I
offer this not as a theory which can be fully substantiated
by facts, but simply as the most plausible
conjecture on the matter which has occurred to me.




[540]



CHAPTER XI.

THE QUICHÉ-CAKCHIQUEL EMPIRE IN GUATEMALA.



No Chronology in the South—Outline View—Authorities—Xbalanque
at Utatlan—The Migration from Tulan—Balam-Quitzé
and his Companions—Sacrifices to Tohil—the Quichés
on Mt Hacavitz—The Tamub and Ilocab—First Victories—Qocavib
Founds the Monarchy at Izmachi—the Toltec
Theory—Imaginary Empire of the East—Different Versions
of Primitive History—The Cakchiquel Migration—Juarros
and Fuentes—Lists of Kings—Cakchiquels under
Hacavitz—Reigns of Balam-Conache, Cotuha, and Iztayul,
at Izmachi—War against the Ilocab—The Stolen Tribute—Gucumatz,
Quiché Emperor at Utatlan—Changes in the
Government—Reigns of Cotuha II., Tepepul, and Iztayul II.—Cakchiquel
History—Conquests of Quicab I.—Revolt of
the Achihab—Dismemberment of the Empire—Cakchiquel
Conquests—Reigns of the last Guatemalan Kings—Appearance
of the Spaniards under Alvarado in 1524.



 PRELIMINARY VIEW.



In the south we have no connected history except
for two centuries immediately preceding the conquest,
and no attempt at precise chronology even for that
short period. The Quiché-Cakchiquel empire in
Guatemala was, at the coming of the Spaniards, the
most powerful and famous in North America, except
that of the Aztecs in Anáhuac, with which it never
came into direct conflict, although the fame of each
was well known to the other, and commercial intercourse
was carried on almost constantly. The southern
empire, so far as may be learned from the slight
[541]
evidence bearing on the subject, was about three
centuries old in the sixteenth century, and the
nearest approach to chronology in its annals is the
regular succession of monarchs who occupied the
throne, the achievements of each king given in what
may be considered to be their chronologic order, and
an apparent connection in a few cases with occurrences
whose date is known from the Aztec records.




In a preceding volume of this work I have presented
all that the authorities have preserved respecting
the manners and customs of the Guatemalan
peoples, and their condition at the coming of the
Spaniards, including their system of government and
the order of royal succession. In a chapter devoted
to a general preliminary view of these nations,[XI-1] I
have already presented a brief outline of their history
as follows: Guatemala and northern Honduras were
found in possession of the Mames in the north-west,
the Pokomams in the south-east, the Quichés in the
interior, and the Cakchiquels in the south.[XI-2] The two
latter were the most powerful, and ruled the country
from their capitals of Utatlan and Tecpan Guatemala,
where they resisted the Spaniards almost to the point
of annihilation, retiring for the most part after defeat
to live by the chase in the distant mountain gorges.
Guatemalan history from the time of the Votanic
empire down to an indefinite date not many centuries
before the conquest, is a blank. It re-commences
with the first traditions of the nations just mentioned.
These traditions, as in the case of every American
people, begin with the immigration of foreign tribes
into the country, as the first in the series of events
leading to the establishment of the Quiché-Cakchiquel
empire. Assuming the Toltec dispersion from
Anáhuac in the eleventh century as a well-authenticated
fact, most writers have identified the Guatemalan
nations, except perhaps the Mames, by some
[542]
considered the descendants of the original inhabitants,
with the migrating Toltecs who fled southward to
found a new empire. I have already made known
my scepticism respecting national American migrations
in general, and the Toltec migration southward
in particular, and there is nothing in the annals of
Guatemala to modify the views previously expressed.
The Quiché traditions are vague and without chronologic
order, much less definite than those relating to
the mythical Aztec wanderings. The sum and substance
of the Quiché and Toltec identity is the traditional
statement that the former people entered
Guatemala at an unknown period in the past, while
the latter left Anáhuac in the eleventh century.
That the Toltecs should have migrated en masse
southward, taken possession of Guatemala, established
a mighty empire, and yet have abandoned their language
for dialects of the original Maya tongue, is in
the highest degree improbable. It is safer to suppose
that the mass of the Quichés, and other nations of
Guatemala, Chiapas, and Honduras, were descended
directly from the Maya builders of Palenque, and
from contemporary peoples,—that is, as has been
shown in the chapter on pre-Toltec history in this
volume, from the Maya peoples after they had been
conquered by a new power and had become to a certain
extent, so far as their institutions were concerned,
Nahua nations.—Yet the differences between the
Quiché-Cakchiquel structures and the older architectural
remains of the Maya empire, indicate a new era
of Maya culture, originated not improbably by the
introduction of foreign elements. Moreover the apparent
identity in name and teachings between the
early civilizers of the Quiché tradition and the Nahua
followers of Quetzalcoatl, together with reported resemblances
between actual Quiché and Aztec institutions
as observed by Europeans, indicate farther that
the new element was engrafted on Maya civilization
by contact with the Nahuas, a contact of which the
[543]
presence of the exiled Toltec nobility may have been
a prominent feature. After the overthrow of the
original empire, we may suppose the people to have
been subdivided during the course of centuries by
civil wars and sectarian struggles into petty states,
the glory of their former greatness vanished and partially
forgotten, the spirit of progress dormant, to be
roused again by the presence of the Nahua chiefs.
These gathered and infused new life into the scattered
remnants; they introduced some new institutions,
and thus aided the ancient peoples to rebuild
their empire on the old foundations, retaining the
dialects of the original language. The preceding
paragraphs, however, gave an exaggerated idea of the
Toltec element in forming Quiché institutions, as has
been shown by the investigations of the present volume,
since, while the Nahua element in these institutions
was very strong, yet the Nahua influence was
exerted chiefly in pre-Toltec times while the two
peoples were yet living together in Central America,
rather than by the exiled Toltec nobles and priests.



 AUTHORITIES ON GUATEMALAN HISTORY.



The authorities for Quiché history are not numerous.
They include the work of Juarros, which is
chiefly founded on the manuscripts of Fuentes; the
published Spanish and French translations of the
Popol Vuh, or National Book, of which much has
already been said; and a number of documents similar
to the latter, written in Spanish letters, but in the
various Quiché-Cakchiquel dialects, by native authors
who wrote after the Conquest, of course, but relied
upon the aboriginal records and traditions, never published
and only known to the world through the writings
of Brasseur de Bourbourg, who, in Maya as in
many parts of Nahua history, is the chief and almost
the only authority.




In the earliest annals of Central America, while
the Xibalban empire was yet in the height of its
power, we find what is, perhaps, the first mention of
the territory known later as Guatemala, in the mention
[544]
by the Popol Vuh[XI-3] of Carchah, or Nimxob Carchah,
a locality in Vera Paz, as the place whence
Hunhunahpu and Vucub Hunahpu, the first Nahua
chiefs who conspired against the Xibalban monarchs,
directed their first expedition toward the region of
Palenque. Las Casas also names this as one of the
entrances to the road which lead to the infernal
regions, the sense probably given to Xibalba in the
traditions of the country.[XI-4] And from Utatlan, in the
same region, in later centuries the Quiché capital,
started Xbalanque and Hunahpu, the descendants of
the two chieftains already named, to avenge the defeat
of their ancestors, and to overthrow the proud
kings of Xibalba. The young princes left behind
them their mother and grand-mother, planting in
their cabin two canes which were to indicate to those
left at home their own fortune, to flourish with their
prosperity, to wither at each misfortune, and to die
should they meet the fate of their predecessors;
hence perhaps the Quiché name of Utatlan, Gumarcaah,
'house of withered canes.'[XI-5] The mention of Guatemalan
localities in this connection is not sufficient
to prove that the opposition to Xibalba had its beginning
or centre in Guatemala, but simply indicates
that the Nahua power in those primitive times extended
over that region, as did also the Maya power,
not improbably. In other words, the long struggle
between the two rival powers was no local contest at
and about Palenque, but was felt in a greater or less
degree throughout the whole country, from Anáhuac
to Guatemala, and perhaps still farther south.



 EXPEDITION OF XBALANQUE.



Xbalanque's expedition and some subsequent occurrences
are related by Torquemada, as follows:
"After the people of the earth had multiplied and
increased, it was made known that a god had been
born in the province of Otlatla (Utatlan), now known
[545]
as Vera Paz, thirty leagues from the capital called
Quauhtemallan (Guatemala), which god they named
Exbalanquen. Of him it is related, among other lies
and fables, that he went to wage war against Hell,
and fought against all the people of that region and
conquered them, and captured the king of Hell with
many of his army. On his return to the earth after
his victory, bearing with him his spoils, the king of
the Shades begged that he might not be carried
away. They were then in three or four grades of
light, but Exbalanquen gave the infernal monarch a
kick, saying 'go back, and thine be in future all that
is rotten, and refuse, and stinking, in these infernal
regions.' Exbalanquen then returned to Vera Paz
whence he had set out, but he was not received there
with the festivities and songs of triumph which he
thought he had deserved, and therefore he went away
to another kingdom, where he was kindly received.
This conqueror of Hell is said to have introduced the
custom of sacrificing human beings.""[XI-6] Brasseur adds
on this subject: "Copan, the name of which ('on the
vase') alludes mysteriously to the religious symbols
of the mixed, or Mestizo, Nahua race, was it then
chosen by this prince, whose mother (Xquiq) personified
the fundamental idea of this sanguinary worship?
However this may have been, it seems certain that
the latter city owed its origin to a fierce warrior
named Balam, who had entered the country by the
way of Peten Itza about fifteen centuries before the
Spanish conquest. During the last period of native
rule the province of which Copan was the capital
was called Payaqui ('in the Yaqui, or Nahuas') or
the kingdom of Chiquimula."[XI-7] But all this may be
regarded as purely conjectural.




[546]
From the time when Xbalanque and Hunahpu
marched to the conquest of Xibalba, and succeeded
in subordinating the ancient Maya to the Nahua
power, for several centuries down to the subsequent
scattering of both Nahua and Maya tribes, which
preceded the appearance of the Toltec branches in
Anáhuac, the history of Guatemala is a blank. That
civilized peoples occupied the country at that remote
time; that they had been more or less the subjects of
the ancient empire; and that they had been brought
within the new influences of the Nahua institutions,
there can be little doubt; but they have left no
record of their deeds, probably not even of their
names. The annals recommence with the traditional
migration from Tulan, by which the Toltecs established
themselves on the central plateaux of Mexico,
while the tribes afterwards known as Quichés wandered
southward to the highlands of Vera Paz; but
five or six centuries were yet to pass before we find
any record that may be properly termed history. I
return to the traditions of the Popol Vuh, it being
necessary to take up the thread of the story at a
period even preceding the arrival at Tulan, and thus
to repeat in a measure certain portions already referred
to in a preceding chapter.



 RECORD OF THE POPOL VUH.



After the creation of the first men, Balam-Quitzé,
Balam-Agab, Mahucutah, and Iqi-Balam, wives were
given them, and these were the parents of the Quiché
nation. Among the nations then in the East, that
received their names from those that were begotten,
were those of Tepeuh, Oloman, Cohah, Quenech, and
Ahau; also those of Tamub and Ilocab who came together
from the eastern land.[XI-8] Balam-Quitzé was the
ancestor of the nine grand families of Cawek; Balam-Agab
of the nine of Nihaïb; Mahucutah of the four of
Ahau-Quiché. There came also the thirteen of Tecpan,
and those of Rabinal, the Cakchiquels, those of
[547]
Tziquinaha, Zacaha, and others. All seem to have
spoken one language, and to have lived in great
peace, black men and white together. Here they
awaited the rising of the sun and prayed to the
Heart of Heaven. The tribes were already very
numerous, including that of the Yaqui (Nahuas).
At the advice of Balam-Quitzé and his companions,
they departed in search of gods to worship, and came
to Tulan-Zuiva, the Seven Caves, where gods were
given them, Tohil, Avilix, Hacavitz, and Nicahtagah.
Tohil was also the god of Tamub and Ilocab, and the
three tribes, or families, kept together, for their god
was the same.[XI-9] Here arrived all the tribes, the Rabinals,
the Cakchiquels, the Tziquinaha, and the
Yaqui; and here their language was confounded,
they could no longer understand each other, and they
separated, some going to the east and many coming
hither (to Guatemala). They dressed in skins and
were poor, but they were wonderful men, and when
they reached Tulan-Zuiva, long had been their journey,
as the ancient histories tell us.




Now there was no fire; Tohil was the first to create
it, but it is not known exactly how he did it, since it
was already burning when it was discovered by Balam-Quitzé
and Balam-Agab. The fire was put out
by a sudden shower and by a storm of hail, but the
fire of the Quichés was rekindled by Tohil. Then
the other tribes came shivering with chattering teeth
to ask for fire from Balam-Quitzé, which was at first
denied them; and a messenger from Xibalba appeared,
a Zotzil, or bat, as it is said, and advised the
high-priests to refuse the petition of the tribes until
they should have learned from Tohil the price to be
paid for the fire. The condition finally named by the
[548]
god was, that they consent to "unite themselves to
me under their armpit and under their girdle, and
that they embrace me, Tohil," a condition not very
clearly expressed, but which, as is shown by what
follows, was an agreement to worship the Quiché god,
and sacrifice to him their blood, and, if required, their
children. They accepted the condition and received
the fire. But one family stole the fire, the family of
Zotzil, of the Cakchiquels, whose god was Chamalcan,
and whose symbol was the bat; and they did not
submit to the conditions of Tohil. Here they began
to fast and to watch for the sun. It was not here
that they received their power and sovereignty, but
there where they subdued the great and the little
tribes, when they sacrificed them before the face of
Tohil, offering him the blood, the life, the breast, and
the armpit of all men. Thus at Tulan came to them
their majesty, that great wisdom which was in them
in the obscurity and in the night. They came then
and tore themselves away from there and abandoned
the regions of the rising sun. "This is not our
home; let us go and see where we shall establish it,"
said Tohil. Truly he spoke to Balam-Quitzé—and
the others. "Make first your thanksgiving, prepare
the holes in your ears, pierce your elbows, and offer
sacrifice; this will be your act of gratitude before
god." "It is well," they replied, piercing their ears;
and these things are in the song of their coming from
Tulan; and their hearts groaned when they started,
after they had torn themselves away from Tulan.
"Alas! we shall no longer behold here the dawn at
the moment when the sun comes up to illumine the
face of the earth," said they as they set out. But
some were left on the road; for some remained asleep,
each of the tribes arising so as to see the morning
star. It was the sign of the morning that was in
their thoughts when they came from the land of the
rising sun, and their hope was the same in leaving
[549]
this place which is at a great distance, as they tell us
to-day.



 THE QUICHÉS AT MT HACAVITZ.



They arrived and assembled on the mountain now
called Chipixab, the Quichés, Tamub, Ilocab, Cakchiquels,
Rabinals, and Tziquinaha. They took counsel
one with another, and were very sad, and hungry
too. Then, at their own request, were the gods
concealed in different ravines and forests,[XI-10] except
Hacavitz, who was placed on a pyramid on Mt Hacavitz,
and there all the tribes waited in great trouble
for the coming of the dawn. "Now behold lords
were made, and our old men and our fathers had their
beginning; behold we will relate the dawn and the
appearance of the sun, moon, and stars." The account
of the dawn and its attendant ceremonies,
which follows in the Popol Vuh, would seem, in
connection with the preceding quotations, to refer
vaguely to the election of rulers, the establishment of
temporal and spiritual government, the birth of
Quiché institutions. Here they sang the song of
lamentation for their separation from their kindred in
Tulan, already referred to.[XI-11]




Under Balam-Quitzé, Balam-Agab, Mahucutah,
and Iqi-Balam, they lived together on the mountain,
and the tribes of Tamub and Ilocab lived near by in
the forests of Dan, under the same god Tohil, the
god of the people of Rabinal being the same under
the name of Huntoh, while the god of the Cakchiquels
was different, Tzotziha Chamalcan, as was also
their language. Their hearts were heavy because
Tohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz were still hidden in the
grass and moss, although it has been stated before
that the latter was on the pyramid of Hacavitz.
They went to thank Tohil for the sunrise, and to
make offerings of resins and plants; and he spoke and
made known a rule of conduct for the sacrificers; and
[550]
they called upon him to aid them and said, "here
shall be our mountains and our valleys;" and the
gods predicted their future greatness. They still suffered
from hunger, and the places where the wives
abode were not clearly known.




And now many towns had been founded, apparently
by other than the Quiché tribes, but as to
Balam-Quitzé and his three companions they were
not clearly seen, but cried like wild beasts in the
mountains and on the roads, coming each day before
Tohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz, offering them the blood
of beasts, and blood drawn from their own bodies.
Afterwards began the slaughter of the surrounding
people who were overtaken on the roads, either one
by one or in small groups, and slain, as was supposed,
by wild beasts. After many had perished, suspicions
were aroused of the four sacrificers and of their
gods, but it was hard to track the pretended animals
on the fog-enveloped summits of the Guatemalan
heights. Now the gods Tohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz
assumed the appearance of three young men, and
were wont to bathe in a certain river, vanishing at
will whenever they were seen by the people; and a
council was held to devise means for effecting their
death, and to escape the destruction caused by these
Quichés of Cawek. They deemed themselves a great
people and those of Cawek only a handful; yet if
the power of the three gods was really so great that
it could not be overcome, then would they call upon
Tohil also to be their god. It was decided to send
to meet the three young men at the bath two of the
most beautiful of their virgins, that the passions of
the former might be excited. These virgins, in
obedience to the commands of their elders, went to
the river to wash linen, and both removed all their
clothing as soon as the three bathers appeared, and
began to talk with them, saying that their parents
had sent them to speak to the young men and to
bring some token of having had an interview with
[551]
them. But the young men did not, as was expected,
so far descend from their godlike dignity as to take
liberties with the fair Xtah and Xpuch, but after
consultation with Balam-Quitzé and his brother sacrificers,
gave the girls their painted mantles as tokens
to carry to those that had sent them. One of the
mantles was covered with painted wasps and bees
which came to life and stung the lord who put it on,
and thus was Tohil victorious over the princes, by
the aid of Balam-Quitzé and his companions. Then
an assault was determined upon by the numerous
tribes against the small forces of the Quiché sacrificers
on Mount Hacavitz, but Tohil knew of all their
plans, as did Balam-Quitzé. The invaders were to
make the attack by night, but they fell asleep on the
route, and their eyebrows and beard were shaven and
all their ornaments stolen by the valiant Quichés as
they slept. The Quiché leaders fortified their position
with palisades and fallen trees, and stationed
on them manikins of wood armed like soldiers and
decorated with the gold and silver stolen from the
sleeping foe. The sacrificers were sore afraid, but
Tohil re-assured them. They filled the shells of gourds
with hornets and wasps and placed them about the
defences of their town. Spies came from the enemy
and looked upon the wooden soldiers and rejoiced
that they were few in number, and at the victory
their countless armies were soon to win.



 THE THREE TEMPTERS.



The hostile forces, armed with bows and arrows,
and bearing shields, ascended the mountain and surrounded
the Quiché retreat, shouting and striving
with fearful clamor to strike terror into the hearts of
their foes, who meanwhile looked calmly on. At
the fitting moment the winged allies of the Quichés
were released from the gourds and in countless
hordes attacked the invaders right valiantly, fastening
themselves on the eyes and noses of the foe, who
threw down their arms in their agony, threw themselves
on the ground, and were slaughtered by the
[552]
followers of Tohil, both men and women joining in
the bloody work. Barely half of the invading army
escaped to their homes. The tribes were thus humiliated
before the face of the sacrificers, begged for
mercy, and were made subjects; the victors were
filled with exultation, and multiplied, begetting sons
and daughters on Mount Hacavitz.




The sons of the sacrificers were as follows; Balam-Quitzé
begat Qocaib and Qocavib, ancestor of the
Cawek, or first Quiché royal family. Balam-Agab
begat Qoacul and Qoacutec, from whom sprang the
family of Nihaïb. Mahucutah had but one son
Qoahau; and Iqi-Balam had none.[XI-12] The four sacrificers,
the first leaders and fathers of the Quiché
people, were now old and ready to die, and after
many words of counsel to their sons they disappeared
suddenly, leaving to their people what is called the
'enveloped majesty' as a most precious relic, the
form of which was not known for the envelope was
not removed; and thenceforth the Quichés from their
home on the mountain ruled all the surrounding
tribes now thoroughly subjected.



 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY.



The three elder sons, Qocaib, Qoacutec, and Qoahau,
were married long after the death of their
fathers, and they determined to go as their fathers
had ordered to the East on the shore of the sea,
whence their fathers had come, 'to receive the royalty,'
bidding adieu to their brothers and friends, and
promising to return. "Doubtless they passed over
the sea when they went to the East to receive the
royalty. Now this is the name of the lord, of the
monarch of the people of the East where they went.
And when they arrived before the lord Nacxit,[XI-13] the
name of the great lord, of the only judge, whose
[553]
power was without limit, behold he granted them
the sign of royalty and all that represents it; hence
came the sign of the rank of Ahpop and of that of
Ahpop Camha, and Nacxit finally gave them the
insignia of royalty, ... all the things in fact which
they brought on their return, and which they went
to receive from the other side of the sea, the art of
painting from Tulan, a system of writing, they said,
for the things recorded in the histories."




The three princes returned to Mount Hacavitz,
assembled all the tribes, including the people of Ilocab
and Tamub, the Cakchiquels, Tziquinaha, and the
tribe of Rabinal, assuming the authority over them to
the great joy of all. Then the wives of the original
sacrificers died, and many of the people left Mount
Hacavitz and founded innumerable other towns on
the neighboring hills,[XI-14] where their numbers were
greatly multiplied. The three princes who went to
the East to receive the royalty, had grown old and
died, but before their death they had established
themselves in their great city of Izmachi.[XI-15]




The narrative of the Popol Vuh condenses in the
preceding paragraphs, the history of the Quichés
during the whole time that elapsed between the scattering
of the Nahuas from Tulan before the fifth
century, and the final establishment of the Quiché
empire, an event whose exact date is unknown—for
we have nothing but approximate dates in the aboriginal
history of Guatemala—but which, judging by
the number of kings that are represented as having
occupied the throne afterwards down to the coming of
the Spaniards, is thought not to have been earlier
than the thirteenth century. The record implies, in
[554]
fact, that the Quichés lived long in their new home
before they acquired power among the surrounding
tribes. All this time they were directed by their
trinity, Tohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz, acting through
their four chief sacrificers, or high-priests, Balam-Quitzé,
Balam-Agab, Mahucutah, and Iqi-Balam,
the same who had led them in their migration from
the region of Xibalba, and even in their migration to
that region from the east. Of course many generations
of priests bearing these names or these titles
must have succeeded each other in the direction of
Quiché affairs during this period; but the record admits
the succession of sons to the ecclesiastical and
temporal power only after the nation had risen to
power. It has been noted, however, that another
document mentions several generations between Balam-Quitzé
and Qocavib. The surrounding peoples
are continually referred to in the Popol Vuh, but for
the most part simply as 'the tribes,' although the
tribes of Tamub and Ilocab, of Rabinals, of the Cakchiquels,
and several others are frequently named,
sometimes in a manner that would lead the reader to
suppose that these were 'the tribes' subdued, but
oftener as if these were from the first connected with
the Quichés. From the records of other Guatemalan
nations which have never been published, the Abbé
Brasseur attempts to throw some light on the history
of the tribes among which the Quichés lived so long
in a subordinate position, and on the period over
which the Popol Vuh passes so rapidly.



 MIGRATION FROM TULAN.



The many tribes that left the central region of Tulan
did not probably do so simultaneously, but
migrated at irregular intervals, so that the final destruction
of Tulan may not have occurred before the
sixth or seventh century. Juarros even gives a list
of four kings, Tanub, Capichoch, Calel-Ahus, and
Ahpop, who ruled in that city, although his account
taken from that of Fuentes is not worthy of great
confidence. According to the records followed by
[555]
Brasseur, the first tribes to migrate southward towards
Guatemala, were those of Tamub and Ilocab
together with the thirteen clans of Tecpan, the ancestors
of the Pokomams. We have seen, however,
that Guatemala was already more or less in possession
of the Nahuas before the overthrow of Xibalba, and
the vague references to the tribes of Tamub and Ilocab—the
oldest Nahua tribes in the country according
to all authorities—are insufficient to show clearly
whether they were already in Guatemala in the time
of Hunahpu and Xbalanque, or like the Quichés
proper migrated thither after the fall of Xibalba.
The chiefs of Tamub held the highest rank in a kind
of confederacy that seems to have been established at
this early time. Their capital was Amag-Dan, a few
leagues north of Utatlan. The family of Ilocab, the
second in the confederacy, had its capital, Uquincat,
at a short distance north-west of Utatlan, and was
divided into two branches called Gale-Ziha and
Tzununi-ha. The third chief of the alliance has escaped
the abbé's researches. The thirteen tribes of
Tecpan, under the names of Uxab and Pokomam,
occupied Vera Paz and the region south of the Motagua,
their capital, Nimpokom, being near where the
modern town of Rabinal now stands. The western
country towards Chiapas was held by the Mames, one
of the ancient peoples of Guatemala who were probably
found in the country by the first tribes from
Tulan. This nation was divided into many bands,
whose names and towns are given, the latter including
those afterwards known as Quezaltenango and
Huehuetenango. One document mentions a succession
of nine sovereigns in the Tamub dynasty before
the Quiché power began.




The Quichés entered the country at about the
same time as the tribes of Ilocab, Tamub, and the Pokomams,
but as we have seen in their own record, they
had no influence for many centuries among the nations
that preceded them. During this period, with
[556]
the Cakchiquels, the band of Rabinal, and the Ah-Tziquinaha,
they constituted a group of small tribes,
dwelling on the barren heights of Vera Paz, or the
Lacandon country. It is not probable that they were
yet known as Quichés, or 'men of the woods,' and all
that is known of them is the names of their gods,
Tohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz; of their chief priests,
whose names, or titles, were Balam-Quitzé, Balam-Agab,
Mahucutah, and Iqi-Balam; and of leaders
mentioned by the MS. Cakchiquel, and named Xurcah
and Totomay. According to our only authority
on early events, excepting the Popol Vuh, the time
which was occupied by the Quichés under Balam-Quitzé
and his companions in their long struggles as
animals against the other tribes, is not that which
elapsed between their arrival from Tulan at Mt
Hacavitz in the sixth or seventh century, and the
establishment of their monarchy in the thirteenth, but
rather that between their first coming prominently
into notice in the mountains of Vera Paz in the
twelfth century, and the founding of their empire.
According to this version, the annals of the whole
preceding period are included by the author of the
Popol Vuh in those of the migration to Mt Hacavitz;
Balam-Quitzé and the other sacrificers were
not their leaders when they left Tulan, but were given
to them much later by their god Tohil to guide the
unfortunate people out of their difficulties; in fact,
these sacrificers, so called, were Toltec chieftains who
fled from Anáhuac at the fall of their empire, joined
the partisans who accompanied their flight to the
forces of the Quichés, gathered the scattered tribes
on the heights of Vera Paz, and were enabled after
a century of contest—during which the Quichés were
regarded as a nation of brigands, much like the Aztecs
at the same time, or a little later, about the
Mexican lakes—to subdue the surrounding nations,
and thus become masters of Guatemala. There are
probably no sufficient reasons to deny that the empire
[557]
was founded in the twelfth or thirteenth century;—although
it should be noted that this gives to the following
kings down to the Conquest, as will be seen
later, an average reign of only twelve or fifteen years;—the
Quichés are known to have claimed relationship
with the Toltec sovereigns; and it is quite likely the
exiled chiefs and priests of Tollan had an influence on
the Quiché institutions; but that the Quiché empire
was thus founded by the Toltec exiles, there is, as I
have repeatedly shown, every reason to deny.



 EMBASSY TO ANÁHUAC.



The first tribes conquered by the followers of Tohil
were five of the thirteen Pokomam bands, which
were forced to pay tribute. Ahcan was now the high-priest
and leader of the bands who were gathered
about Mt Hacavitz, and he was the great-grandson
of Balam-Quitzé, and the father of Qocaib and Qocavib,
mentioned by the Popol Vuh as the founders
of the monarchy, and represented by that record
as the sons of Balam-Quitzé. It was at his command,
expressed just before his death, that the three princes
undertook a journey to the East, to obtain from the
great monarch of that region, the authority and insignia
which should render legitimate the power they
were about to assume. Other documents differ from
the Popol Vuh in stating that while one of the brothers,
Qocaib, thus visited the East, the other brother,
Qocavib, directed his course northward to Anáhuac to
seek the royal investiture at the hands of the Toltec
princes who had remained at Culhuacan. He
reached the valley, but such was the state of anarchy
he found prevailing there, that he was forced to return
without having attained his object, and reached
his home long before the return of his brother. He
even took advantage of Qocaib's absence to dishonor
his wife, who bore him a son. Qocaib, when he
came back from his successful mission and was
congratulated by the assembled chieftains, saw the
child in its mother's arms, and was not a little surprised
at its existence, but he seemed perfectly satisfied
[558]
with the assurance of his wife that the child was
of his own blood, and taking it in his arms, he named
it Balam Conache, who was the founder of the house
of Conache and of Iztayul, and the first to bear the
title of Ahpop Camha, or heir apparent to the
throne. It is not explained why the younger brother,
unsuccessful in his mission, was allowed to become
the head of the government instead of the older and
more successful Qocaib. A second journey to the
East by the two princes is also recorded before their
right to the throne was definitely established.




This subject of an eastern monarchy ruled by
Nacxit is shrouded in impenetrable mystery. Brasseur
claims confidently that the kingdom cited was
in Honduras with its capital probably at Copan, and
ruled by Acxitl Quetzalcoatl, the last of the Toltec
kings, or by his son; the sea alluded to as having
been crossed in the journey, must then have been
the gulf of Amatique or that of Dulce. The only
authority that I know of for this assumption is the
vague report by Ixtlilxochitl that Acxitl went southward
and established a great empire in Tlapallan,
where he died in the twelfth century; and the slight
resemblance in the names Acxitl and Nacxit. I
need not say that the authority is altogether insufficient,
and that it is much safer to give the tale of
the mission to the East some mythologic meaning,
or to admit that its meaning like that of many of
the traditions of this early period in Guatemalan
history is wholly unknown.



 REIGN OF QOCAVIB.



The monarchy as thus first established seems to
have included, besides the Quichés proper of the
house of Cawek, the Cakchiquels, Rabinals, and Ah-Tziquinaha,
as the principal Quiché branches or allies.
During the reign of Qocavib, the territory of the
kingdom was considerably extended by the conquest
of large portions of Vera Paz, which were taken
from the Pokomams in the south. At the assault of
Qoxbaholam, the stronghold of a powerful people
[559]
called the Agaab, the prince of that nation is reported
to have been captured, and to have made his
nation tributary to the Quiché king and worshipers
of the Quiché trinity, Tohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz.
This and succeeding events, down to the foundation
of Izmachi, already alluded to in the account from
the Popol Vuh, I quote from the only writer who
has had access to the other Guatemalan records.[XI-16]




"Already masters of Pachalum, and on the point
of entering Zquina, the Quichés found themselves
checked by strong forces, when an unexpected ally
was offered them; this was Cotuha, prince of Cakulgi,
hereditary guardian of the sacred stone of Tzutuha
in the temple of Cahbaha, whom they had just
made a prisoner. Like a skillful politician, Qocavib
took advantage of this occurrence so providential
for him. The annals reveal that in the midst of
their conquests the Quichés were divided by family
rivalries; and it seems probable that Qocavib, whose
name takes the place of that of his older brother,
had as enemies all the princes of the house of Ahcan,
sprung from Qocaib. Placing little reliance on
the support of his relatives, he sought to strengthen
himself by making allies among the conquered chiefs;
and thus Cotuha having become his captive, he offered
him in the order of the Ahqib and Ahqahb
the fourth rank, vacant at the time by the death of
the incumbent who had no offspring; so that this
prince was assured of eventually rising to the command
of the whole nation. Cotuha, proclaimed by
the nobility, soon proved his worthiness of that high
honor. After having powerfully aided the Quichés
in the conquest of Zquina, Bayal, Chamilah, Ginom,
Tocoy, and Patzima, returning to the Rio Chixoy
with his new allies and subjects, he guided them by
[560]
passes known only to himself to the centre of the
great city of Cawinal on the bank of the river, an
event soon followed by the submission of the whole
Agaab nation, to which it belonged. The Quiché
kings finding themselves pressed for room on Mount
Hacavitz, left this city for that of Cawinal, where
they established the seat of government. This was
not, however, the permanent capital. At the death
of Qocavib, Balam Conache, his successor, crossed
the river southward, probably even before his coronation,
and fixed his residence at Izmachi; and there
he had himself proclaimed Ahau Ahpop and consecrated
with all the Toltec ceremonial, conferring the
title of Ahpop Camha on his son Iztayul."



 MIGRATION FROM THE NORTH.



Here should be given such scattered items of information
respecting this primitive period of Guatemalan
history, given by the same author in an earlier
work,[XI-17] as are additional to or differ from those already
presented. The famous mythical queen Atit
is said by Fuentes to have lived four centuries, and
from her sprang all the royal and noble families of
Guatemala. The oldest nation, or tribe, in the country
was that of Tamub, whose son Copichoch had
come from the east with Cochochlam, Mahquinalo,
and Ahcanail, brought the black stone afterwards
venerated at Utatlan, and reigned for a time at
Tulan. The tribe of Ilocab ruled after that of
Tamub, or perhaps at the same time, over the adjoining
provinces. Brasseur seems here to favor the
idea that the tribes of Tamub and Ilocab were the
Nahuas who occupied Guatemala before the overthrow
of Xibalba in the time of Xbalanque and
Hunahpu, who refused to receive the former at his
return from the conquest, yet among whom he introduced
human sacrifice. A Zutugil document makes
[561]
the Seven Caves an earlier station on the Quiché
migration than Tulan, and speaks of wars that drove
the people from the latter place into the mountains of
Vera Paz. The worthy abbé finds room in his capacious
imagination for a theory that the Pokomams,
Quichés, Cakchiquels, and other kindred peoples,
originated in the regions north of Mexico, stayed a
while with the Toltecs at Tollan, but not long enough
to be influenced to any great extent by them, and
then migrated to the Guatemalan highlands. It does
not seem to occur to this author that there are no
arguments in favor of such a theory, that there is no
necessity for such a conjecture, and that it disagrees
radically with nearly all that he ever wrote before or
afterwards. The same writer notes that the Pokomams
were bitter foes of Acxitl, the last Toltec king,
while the other Quiché tribes were friendly to him,
and he infers from Nuñez de la Vega and other authorities
that the kingdom of Xibalba was still existing,
though with greatly diminished power, at the
time when the Quiché tribes came into notice in
Guatemala and Acxitl established his southern empire.
The Cakchiquels on their way are even said to
have been employed to defend the Xibalban frontiers,
and their chieftains, the Tukuches, took their name
of Zotziles, or bats, from that of Tzinacantla, their
residence at the time, which has the meaning of 'city
of bats.' In fact the tribes are here represented as
having gathered in the Xibalban region before they
mounted to their later homes in the highlands.[XI-18]




The accounts of this gathering are chiefly from
the Cakchiquel record. The locality is called Deozacuancu,
apparently in the tierra caliente of Tabasco;
but war was declared against some neighboring
power, and the tribes went to Oloman—perhaps the
[562]
Tepeu and Oliman, mentioned in a preceding chapter.[XI-19]
The cities against which this expedition was directed
were Nonualcat and Xulpiti, the former suggesting
the Nonohualcas, whose home was in the Tabascan
region. The leaders were the Cakchiquel, or Zotzil-Tukuche,
chiefs Hacavitz (Gagawitz) and Zactecauh;
the enemies were defeated in a battle fought chiefly
on the water; their cities were taken and their people
massacred. But even while engaged in the
massacre, their foes rallied, attacked them in the rear,
and in their turn routed the Quiché tribes with
great slaughter, not without the aid of magic arts,
as we are informed by the record. The remnants
of the vanquished were re-united on Mt Oloman,
but the influence of Hacavitz and Zactecauh was destroyed,
the tribes could be no longer kept together,
and they resolved to separate and each for itself to
seek the regions of the interior. No particulars are
preserved of their wanderings, but Brasseur believes
that the Quichés proper were the first to reach the
heights of Vera Paz, after a generation at least had
passed since they left the Xibalban region of Tabasco,
and the sufferings from cold and the giving of fire by
Tohil, are by him applied to the period immediately
following their arrival. Then the other tribes arrived
one by one and applied for fire, as has already been
stated, their languages having become different one
from another during that interval. The envoy from
Xibalba also appeared among them, a circumstance
that indicates to Brasseur that the Xibalban empire
still existed in the eleventh or twelfth century; but
which may, I think, be taken much more reasonably
as a proof that these events took place at a date as
early as the fifth or sixth century. The Cakchiquels
were the last to arrive, and they stole the fire
of Tohil without submitting to the required conditions,
coming, as it is said, like bats, another derivation
of their name of Zotziles.




[563]


 MAMES AND POKOMAMS.



The Cakchiquels are said to have applied, on their
arrival, the name Mem, or as the Spaniards afterwards
called it, Mames, or 'stutterers,' to the Maya-speaking
aboriginal tribes whom they found in
possession of the country, on account of their peculiar
pronunciation, although the Cakchiquel was also a
Maya dialect. The Mames in later times occupied
the north-western part of the country towards the
Chiapan frontiers, where they were never entirely
conquered by the Quiché nations down to the time of
the Conquest, their capital being Zakuléu, near Huehuetenango.[XI-20]
Besides the Mames, probably the
most ancient of the Guatemalan nations, the tribes
of Tamub and Ilocab also occupied the country before
the later Quiché tribes. According to Fuentes the
capital of the Tamub was Utatlan, or Gumarcaah,
and it is stated that the Ilocab were bitter enemies
of the Quichés, and were only conquered when
nearly annihilated. The Pokomams and Pokonchis,
kindred tribes or divisions of the same tribe, are here
estimated by Brasseur to have arrived something
more than a half century before the other Quiché
tribes, and are said to have conquered or allied themselves
with the Uxab, elsewhere[XI-21] spoken of as a
division of that tribe. Nothing is known of Pokomam
history, but some remains of their language and
of their towns may yet be studied. These people,
together with the Tamub and Ilocab, were perhaps
the chief foes of the Quichés in the earlier days of
their power.




In their wars against the Pokomams the Quiché
tribes made use of the ancient chieftains who had
been subjected by that people, among whom are
mentioned Zakbim and Huntzuy on the Chiquimula
frontier. The first battle and the first Quiché victory
was in the valley of Rabinal and brought into the
possession of the Cakchiquels—for these events are
[564]
taken from the Cakchiquel record—the stronghold
of Mount Zactzuy, and also made allies of Loch
and Xet, chieftains of the Ahquehayi, who afterwards
became almost identical with the Cakchiquels.
The next point against which Hacavitz proceeded
was Mount Cakhay; but the allied Quiché
forces were repulsed with great loss, and so weakened
that it was long before they were able again to attack
the warlike Pokomams. Then they retired
from a hopeless contest, and took refuge in the inaccessible
mountain fastnesses about Utatlan, now
Santa Cruz del Quiché in the department of Totonicapan.
The mountain where they established themselves
is called in the Cakchiquel record Tohohil,
'clashing of arms,' but in the Popol Vuh is known
as we have seen as Mount Hacavitz. All that is
known of their stay at Mount Hacavitz, of their
oppression by the neighboring tribes, their gradually
increasing power, their final victory over those tribes,
and the establishment of the Quiché monarchy with
its capital at Izmachi, related by Brasseur in the
work from which the preceding notes have been
extracted, is taken by him from the Popol Vuh, and
is substantially the same that I have already given
on the same authority.



 VERSION OF JUARROS.



To conclude this primitive period of Guatemalan
history, it only remains to present a few notes given
on the subject by the Spanish writers, chiefly by
Juarros, who follows the manuscript writings of
Fuentes y Guzman, founded as is claimed on native
documents, but full of inconsistencies, and doubtless
also of errors. Juarros, or the authority followed by
him, was fully imbued with the belief that the
Quichés were the Toltecs who left Anáhuac after
the fall of their empire, and his efforts to reconcile
the native records to this theory perhaps account for
many of his inconsistencies. I translate from this
author that part of his work which relates to this
primitive period. "The Toltecs referred to were of
[565]
the house of Israel, and the great prophet Moses
freed them from the captivity in which they were
held by Pharaoh; but, having passed the Red
Sea, they gave themselves up to idolatry, and persisting
in it notwithstanding the warnings of Moses,
either to escape the chidings of this law-giver or for
fear of punishment, they left him and their kindred
and crossed the sea to a place called the Seven Caves
on the shores of the Mar Bermejo (Gulf of California)
now a part of the Mexican kingdom,[XI-22] where
they founded the celebrated city of Tula. The first
chief who ruled and conducted this great band from
one continent to the other, was Tamub, ancestor of
the royal families of Tula and of Quiché, and first
king of the Toltecs. The second was Capichoch; the
third Calel Ahus; the fourth Ahpop; the fifth Nimaquiché,[XI-23]
who, being the best beloved and most distinguished
of all, at the order of his oracle, led these
people away from Tulan, where they had greatly
increased in numbers, and guided them from the
Mexican kingdom to this of Guatemala. In this
migration they spent many years, suffered unspeakable
hardships, and journeyed in their wanderings for
many leagues over an immense tract of country,
until, beholding a lake (that of Atitan), they determined
to fix their habitation at a certain place not
far from the lake, which they named Quiché, in
memory of the king Nimaquiché (or, the 'great'
Quiché), who had died during their long wanderings.
There came with Nimaquiché three of his brothers,
and by an agreement between the four they divided
the region; one founding the province, or seigniory, of
the Quelenes and Chiapanecs; another the department
of Tezulutan (Tezulutlan), or Vera Paz; the
[566]
third became the ruler of the Mames and Pokomams;
while Nimaquiché was the father of the
Quichés, Cakchiquels, and Zutugils. The latter
having died on the journey, Acxopil, a son of Nimaquiché,
entered Quiché at the head of his nation, and
was the first to reign at Utatlan. This prince, seeing
the great increase of his monarchy in numbers
and influence, appointed three captains, or governors,
with whom he shared the burden of the administration
of affairs. It is also added in the manuscripts
referred to, that Acxopil, at a very advanced age, determined
to divide his empire into three kingdoms,
that of the Quichés, that of the Cakchiquels, and that
of the Zutugils. Retaining for himself the first, he
gave the second to his oldest son, Jiutemal, and the
third to his second son, Acxiquat; and this division
was made on a day when three suns were seen, which
has caused some to think that it took place on the
day of the birth of our Redeemer, a day on which
it is commonly believed that such a meteor was observed."[XI-24]




[567]


 PRIMITIVE QUICHÉ PERIOD.



Torquemada[XI-25] briefly mentions a few of the points
in early Quiché history, agreeing with Juarros.
Orozco y Berra's reasoning from a linguistic point
of view respecting the primitive inhabitants of this
region, is not very clear, or at least it is difficult to
determine what are his conclusions on the subject.
In one place he says that Utatlan was founded at
the time of the Toltec migration southward; and
elsewhere, that the Toltecs could not have been the
ancestors of the Quichés, Cakchiquels, and Zutugils.[XI-26]
Gallatin accepts the popular theory that the Quichés
were a Toltec colony, but does not explain the linguistic
difficulties in the way of such a supposition.[XI-27]
Waldeck rejects the Toltec theory on account of differences
in language and physique; but states that
the Guatemalan tribes came originally from Yucatan[XI-28].




I have now given all the information accessible
respecting Quiché history preceding the establishment
of the empire, which began in the twelfth or thirteenth
century and endured with some modifications
down to the coming of the Spaniards. It has been
presented in the form of fragments, for the reader
will readily perceive that to form from the authorities
a connected narrative would have been an utter impossibility.
I have in a preceding chapter presented
the evidence of the existence during a few centuries
before and after the beginning of the Christian era, of
[568]
a great aboriginal empire in Central America, narrating
all that may be known of its decline and fall
resulting from the contentions of the great Maya and
Nahua powers. In the sixteenth century the Spaniards
found two powerful empires, the Aztec in the
north, the Quiché in the south, both of which doubtless
were offshoots of the great primitive monarchy.
The annals of the northern branch have been traced
more or less clearly back to the parent trunk, with
only a blank of one or two centuries at most, during
which the Nahua power was transferred northward;
but in the annals of the southern branch, whose connection
with the primitive empire was of precisely
the same nature, the blank is lengthened to some
eight centuries at least. From the Xibalban times
and the tribal separation at Tulan down to the establishment
of the Quiché empire we have only the
fragments of the preceding pages. These fragments
represent the history of many peoples for many centuries;
they are not necessarily contradictory, for in
the absence of all chronology we have no means of
knowing to what epoch each refers. The apparent
contradictions and inconsistencies result for the most
part from the efforts of authors through whose writings
the traditions are handed down to us to reconcile
them with the Toltec theory; to apply to one people
the traditions of many, to a modern people the traditions
of a remote antiquity; to compress the
events of eight or nine centuries into one. We shall
still find the Quiché annals fragmentary and far
from satisfactory, but from the foundation of Izmachi
I shall attempt to carry along the tale as
told by the different authorities together. By far
the most complete of these are the Quiché records as
given in the Popol Vuh and that of the Cakchiquels
contained in Brasseur's works.



 EARLY CAKCHIQUEL HISTORY.



I begin with the adventures of the Cakchiquels
after the defeat of Hacavitz and Zactecauh by the
[569]
Pokomams, already mentioned.[XI-29] They seem not to
have continued in the company with the Quichés at
Izmachi, but to have retired to other localities in
the country of the Mames somewhat further west,
among the Mames of Cholamag, as the record states
it. They found the people very friendly, but only
remained long enough among them to learn their
language, which they found most difficult. Leaving
this place they approached the Valley of Panchoy, in
the region of the volcanos, and twice they penetrated
the mountain of fire, Hunahpu, where a most wonderful
and unintelligible interview with Zakiqoxol, the
phantom or guardian of the fiery abysses is related,
all being possibly the account of a volcanic eruption.
Having reached the shores of Lake Atitlan the Cakchiquels
wished to settle there permanently although
the chief, Hacavitz, seems to have opposed the settlement.
Tolqom, a powerful chieftain and a most
wonderful magician, lived on Mount Qakbatzulu,
which extended like a promontory into the lake; but
the bold Hacavitz took him prisoner and became
master of his domain. The Cakchiquels, or the Cakchiquel
nobility, seem to have been divided in four
families, the Zotzil-Tukuches, the Cibakihay, the
Baqahol, and the Gekaquchi. All united in giving
to Hacavitz and Zactecauh, of the house of Zotzil-Tukuche,
after the victory over Tolqom, the supreme
power, the former having the first rank. The conquered
chieftain, Tolqom, was sacrificed at the coronation
of Hacavitz, in the midst of great festivities,
and a part of his body was thrown from the summit
of Qakbatzulu, his former home, into the waters of
the lake. Many of the Cakchiquels decided to
remain here and chose a site which they named Chitulul;
others built houses on a point called Abah,
afterwards the site of the city of Atitlan. But
Hacavitz was not pleased, and a violent wind arose
and an extraordinary white cloud hung over the
[570]
surface of the lake; the new dwellings were destroyed
and great damage was done. The Cakchiquels accepted
this as a warning to obey the will of the gods,
except the Ah-Tziquinihayi who decided to remain
with the Zutugils.




The other tribes retired under their leaders into
the mountains, and became much scattered. In
passing a deep ravine Zactecauh missed his footing
and was dashed to death on the rocks below, the
record hinting that his colleague and superior was
not wholly free from the suspicion of having caused
his death. This suspicion destroyed much of the
prestige of Hacavitz, but he regained it all and more
by extinguishing the fire of a volcano which by its
lava and flames had hemmed in and threatened with
total destruction all his followers. Zakitzunun aided
him and was given the second place in the government.
They then seem to have returned to the lake
shores, conquering and making allies of several
aboriginal tribes, including the people of Ikomag,
with a lady of which people Hacavitz seems to have
married. In the meantime the Gekaquchi, the Cibakihay,
and the Baqahol, three of the four principal
Cakchiquel families, had settled on the mountains in
the region of Iximché, or Tecpan Guatemala, and the
ambitious chief of the latter family had succeeded in
obtaining the allegiance of his companions, who
crowned him as supreme king of the three bands.




Hacavitz was filled with wrath, but being unable to
overthrow his rival, Baqahol, was obliged to be content
with establishing himself and his own band
of Zotziles on the shores of the lake, where their
dwellings were erected and the Cakchiquel god, Chimalcan,
had his altars. A little later Hacavitz is
reported to have aided Baqahol in overcoming
certain foes that had attacked him, and as having
received, at the end of the campaign, the voluntary
allegiance of that chief, thus regaining the supreme
power over the Cakchiquel tribes, whom he ruled
[571]
from his residence at a place known as Chigohom,
where he seems to have settled after his new accession
to power, somewhat away from the shores of
the lake. Here he died at a ripe old age, not long
after his wife gave birth to Caynoh and Caybatz, his
successors in later years.



 REIGN OF COTUHA AND IZTAYUL.



Returning to the Quiché record as given in the
Popol Vuh,[XI-30] we find nothing recorded of the reign
of Balam Conache,[XI-31] son of Qocavib, in his new capital
of Izmachi. He was succeeded early in the thirteenth
century, as it seems, by Cotuha, with Iztayul
as Ahpop Camha, and under this monarch many improvements
were made in the city, including many
houses of stone and mortar and three royal palaces,
one for the house of Cawek, one for the house of
Nihaïb, and a third for the house of Ahau Quiché.
"Now all were of one heart in Izmachi; there were
no enmities; there were no difficulties; the monarchy
was in a state of repose, without disputes or troubles;
peace and felicity were in all hearts." But their
power was yet confined to narrow limits; they had as
yet achieved no great success. The Rabinals, the Cakchiquels,
and the mingled Zutugils and Ah-Tziquinihayi
of Atitlan are spoken of as being at this time
allies and friends of the Quichés; but the descendants
of the ancient Ilocab were yet powerful, and
became hostile, although hitherto represented as
joined to the house of Cawek; their capital was but
a short distance from Izmachi. When Ilocab—the
tribal name being used, as is often the case, for that
of the ruling monarch—perceived the prosperity of
the Quichés, "war was kindled by Ilocab, who wished
to kill this king Cotuha, his people being unwilling
that there should be any king but their own. And
[572]
as to the king Iztayul, they desired to punish him
also, to put him to death, in the cause of Ilocab.
But their jealousy was not successful against the
king Cotuha, who marched against them. Such was
the origin of the revolt and of the war. At first
they entered the city (Izmachi) by assault, spreading
death in their way, for what they desired was the
ruin of the Quiché name, that they alone might rule.
But they came only to die; they were taken captives,
and but few escaped. Then their sacrifices began;
the people of Ilocab were immolated before the god,
and that was the penalty of their crime, which was
inflicted by the order of Cotuha. Many also were
reduced to slavery, now that they had brought ruin
upon themselves by kindling the flames of war
against the king and against the city. What they
had desired was that the name of the Quichés should
be ruined and disgraced, but nothing could be done.
Thus originated the usage of human sacrifices before
the god at the declaration of war; and this was the
origin of the fortifications which they began to erect
in Izmachi."




Another document[XI-32] is said to give some additional
information respecting the immediate cause of the
war, which is reported to have been connected in
some way with Cotuha's marriage. He married
Hamai-Uleü, 'rose of the earth,' a daughter of one
of the friendly Zutugil princes whose territory was
on Lake Atitlan, annexing that prince's domain to
his own, and giving his father-in-law, Malah by
name, high rank at the Quiché court. The favor
thus shown to Malah, with other acts of like nature,
seem to have excited the jealousy of other Zutugil
lords, who at last marched against Cotuha and were
utterly defeated. It was while Cotuha had this war
on his hands that the Ilocab engaged in the desperate
effort above recorded to check the Quiché monarchs
in their rapid progress to supreme power, and were
[573]
enabled, perhaps during the absence of Cotuha, to
penetrate his capital. After their final defeat,
Uquincat, the Ilocab capital, was taken and destroyed,
and many other towns fell into Cotuha's
possession.



 TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL TO UTATLAN.



The Quiché record narrates no further historical
events down to the time when Izmachi was abandoned.
It dwells, however, on the greatness of the
kingdom after the overthrow of the Ilocab, and mentions
the power and number of the surrounding princes
yet unsubdued as the strongest proof of Quiché valor,
since the new people even in the face of such environment
had been able to establish and extend their
monarchy. After the immolation which followed the
Ilocab's defeat, the practice of human sacrifice was
carried to such an extent that the surrounding tribes
were filled with terror at the number of captives slain
by order of Cotuha and Iztayul. At this period the
system of government was perfected by measures, the
exact nature of which is not clearly given, and magnificent
festivities with complicated ceremonial rites
were instituted. "Long they remained in Izmachi,
until they had found and had seen another city, and
had abandoned in its turn that of Izmachi. After
that they departed and came to the capital called
Gumarcaah (Utatlan), which was so named by the
Quichés, when the kings Cotuha and Gucumatz came
together with all the princes. They were then in
the fifth generation (of kings) from the commencement
of civilization and from the origin of their
national existence."




The same document already referred to[XI-33] disagrees
with the Quiché record respecting the peace and harmony
that followed Cotuha's victory, while the
people were yet at Izmachi. According to this
authority dissensions arose between the heads of the
government. Certain parties interested in fomenting
[574]
the dissatisfaction, constantly reminded ambitious
nobles that Cotuha was a foreigner,[XI-34] and Iztayul the
son of a bastard, both occupying the places that
belonged to more legitimate princes. Then going to
the Ahpop, Cotuha, they said, "the Ahpop Camha
looks with scorn upon thee; he says thou art a miserable
wretch, feeding only on the foam of the chiquivin
and other vile food unworthy of a great king." Then
to the Ahpop Camha, Iztayul, they said, "the king
Cotuha is filled with disdain for thee; to him thou
art but a useless man, who livest upon dung and the
eggs of flies and other insects, while his own table is
always loaded with excellent fresh fish and other
viands fit for a great prince." The perfidy of these
counselors was afterwards brought to light and they
were driven in disgrace from the court after an attempt
to assassinate Cotuha by suffocation in a steam
bath. Yet the king afterwards, according to the
same authority, fell a victim to another conspiracy.
Iztayul succeeded to the throne, with Gucumatz as
Ahpop Camha, and continued the conquests of his
predecessor, but no details of his reign are given in
the Quiché record.




In the Cakchiquel annals,[XI-35] however, Brasseur relates
certain events which would seem to belong to
the period of Iztayul's reign, although he is always
called in the record of this nation, Tepeuh, 'the dominator,
or conqueror.' We left Caynoh and Caybatz,
infant sons of the deceased Hacavitz, under the
guardianship of Baqahol and Gekaquch, who became
practically monarchs of the whole nation, having
their capitals on the mountain plateaux of Pantzic
and Paraxone.[XI-36] The Zotzil-Tukuche branch of the
nation were naturally unwilling that the sons of the
great Hacavitz, the former head of their family,
should occupy a secondary rank, and they were not
[575]
slow to urge Caynoh and Caybatz as soon as they
reached a proper age to declare their independence
and resume their legitimate place at the head of the
nation; but the aged chieftain Baqahol, who, it will
be remembered, had been for a time supreme monarch,
even before the death of Hacavitz, haughtily
refused to surrender his scepter; and the young
princes must perforce await a more favorable opportunity
to assume their due position. The Cakchiquels
seem at this time to have been tributaries to
the Quiché throne, now occupied by Iztayul, or Tepeuh,
of whom it is said, "he was the first to reign with
majesty; he dwelt in the castle of Chixnal; his
mysterious power spread abroad terror; he caused to
tremble the place where he had his dwelling, and
all people payed tribute before the face of Tepeuh."



 THE STOLEN TRIBUTE.



The two sons of Hacavitz were sent to present
the Cakchiquel tribute and homage at the Quiché
court, where Iztayul received them with great kindness,
giving them high rank and titles, and making
them the royal tribute-gatherers of his empire. In
this capacity they made a long tour through the
Quiché possessions, even penetrating the mysterious
region of the East, where the ancestors of the king
had received the investiture of their royalty. At
last they came to Lake Atitlan, where the united
Zutugils and Ah-Tziquinihayi were still living.
These vassals paid their tributes to the envoys, but
contrived a cunning plan to recover the treasure.
Two beautiful princesses, Bubatzo and Icxiuh, daughters
of the ruling lords, were appointed to wait upon
the royal tax-collectors. Caynoh and Caybatz were
not proof against their charms, and the maidens,
following the parental commands, allowed themselves
to be easily won; but they managed in the night
to escape from the couches of their royal lovers and
to steal back all the gold and silver which had
been paid as tribute. The princes complained bitterly
when they discovered their loss, but as a compensation
[576]
they received Bubatzo and Icxiuh for wives,
with the promise of an honorable position at Atitlan,
in case of Iztayul's displeasure. On their way back
to Izmachi with their wives, however, the prospective
anger of Tepeuh so overcome them that they
hid themselves in a cave for a long time; but at
last the Quiché king not only pardoned them for the
affair of the lost tribute and for their marriage, but
enabled them to overcome and put to death Baqahol
and Gekaquch, and reseated them on the Cakchiquel
throne as tributary monarchs on favorable terms to
the imperial crown of Izmachi. Caynoh was made
Ahpop Xahil, and Caybatz Ahpop Qamahay, corresponding
exactly with the Quiché royal titles of
Ahpop and Ahpop Camha.




Gucumatz mounted the throne at Izmachi on the
death of Iztayul, and Cotuha II. became Ahpop
Camha. This king began to reign probably towards
the middle of the thirteenth century.[XI-37] Internal dissensions
between the rival families of the Quiché
nobility are vaguely alluded to in the records, but
not with sufficient details to enable us to determine
how they influenced Gucumatz to abandon Izmachi
in favor of a new capital. He selected for this purpose
the ancient Utatlan, situated on a plateau not
far distant, which had probably long been in ruins.[XI-38]



 DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE.



It is now time to return to Juarros' version of
Quiché history during the reigns of the first kings,
although there is little hope of connecting it at any
point with the versions already presented. Nima
Quiché, who directed the people in their migration
to these Guatemalan regions, ceded to his brother the
command of the Mames and Pokomams, and at his
[577]
death left his son Acxopal, or Acxopil, king of the
Quiché tribes. This monarch, either by the increase
of his people or by his conquests among the aboriginal
tribes soon found himself master of the
provinces now called Sololá, Chimaltenango, and
Sacatepeques, with a part of Quezaltenango and
Totonicapan. In his old age his empire seemed to
him too vast and the duties of government too burdensome
for his failing strength. He consequently
divided his empire into three domains, keeping for
himself that of the Quichés, giving that of the Cakchiquels
to his oldest son Xiuhtemal, or Jiutemal,
and that of the Zutugils to his second son Acxoquauh,
or Acxiquat; the brother who ruled over the
Mames and Pokomams is not named here. The
bounds given by Juarros to the three kingdoms of
the empire are substantially the same as those of the
peoples speaking the same languages at the time of
the Conquest, and were doubtless ascertained from
the condition of affairs in the sixteenth century rather
than from ancient records or traditions.




After the division it was not long before ambition
began to produce what Juarros terms its usual
results. Acxoquauh, king of the Zutugils, found
his domain too small and wished to extend its limits
to the detriment of his brother, Xiuhtemal. With
this intent he marched at the head of a large army to
the Cakchiquel frontiers, but was forced to retire to
his fortified stronghold on Lake Atitlan, where the
contest raged for many days until a truce was
brought about by the aged Acxopal. Xiuhtemal
took advantage of the peace to fortify his capital at
Tecpan Guatemala, but during the extreme old age
of his father he was called to direct affairs at the
Quiché capital, and succeeded to the imperial throne
at his father's death, putting his own eldest son on
the Cakchiquel throne. Still fearful of his brother,
his first care was to fortify the Quiché capital,—which
Juarros represents as having been Utatlan from the
[578]
first—building, among other extensive works, the
castle of Resguardo.[XI-39] His precautions seem not to
have been unnecessary, for Acxoquauh soon recommenced
the war, fighting particularly for the possession
of the whole territory about the lake, which
seems to have been in some way divided between the
three monarchs. The war continued, with but brief
intervals, throughout the reign of Xiuhtemal and
during a part of that of Hunahpu, his son, who succeeded
him. Nothing further is recorded of Hunahpu's
reign, save that he distinguished himself by
introducing the cultivation of cacao and cotton.[XI-40]




Except in the general statement that the Quiché,
Cakchiquel, and Zutugil kingdoms formed a kind of
alliance at this early period, a conclusion to which
the other records have also led us, the version given
by Juarros, from Fuentes, has apparently nothing in
common with the others; and I shall not attempt to
conjecture what may have been the source whence
the names of kings given by these authors were derived.
There is no room for hesitation in deciding
which records are the more reliable. Brasseur in
one place, after narrating the foundation of Izmachi,
suddenly declares that with Qocavib and
Nima Quiché the symbolic recitals cease and history
begins, and then goes on for a few pages with an account
of Acxopal and his division of the empire between
his two sons, apparently accepting the version
of Juarros, except in the name of the capital at the
foundation of the empire. But shortly after, he
abandons this for the other version, as follows: "The
first king of Toltec race who appears after Acxopal is
Xiuhtemal, who in his turn seems to have placed his
son on the throne of Quauhtemalan, (Tecpan Guatemala,
the Cakchiquel capital). According to more
authentic documents, it is Balam II. of the house
of Cawek, who succeeds Qocavib. Except the
[579]
struggles mentioned by Fuentes, we find nothing
about this prince or his predecessor, after the foundation
of Izmachi," etc. Thus he implies that Qocavib
was identical with Acxopal, and Balam Conache with
Xiuhtemal. We hear no more of the names given
by Juarros until we have the statement by the same
author respecting Hunahpu that "everything favors
the opinion that he is the same who reigned under
the glorious name of Gucumatz," without any attempt
to account for the intermediate kings of the
Quichés, Cotuha and Iztayul. Consequently as I
am inclined to suspect, "everything favors the
opinion" that the worthy abbé has introduced the
names Acxopal, Xiuhtemal, and Acxoquauh, from
Fuentes solely because they are apparently Nahua
names and therefore may add some force to his Toltec
theory, and has then got rid of them as expeditiously
as possible.[XI-41]



 GUCUMATZ AT UTATLAN.



The first care of Gucumatz was to restore the
ancient buildings of Utatlan and to add to the city's
old-time splendor by the erection of new and magnificent
temples in honor of the gods. "There they
built their houses in great numbers, and there also
they built the house of the god in the centre of the
city at the most elevated point, where they placed
it when they came to establish themselves in that
place. Then their empire was much enlarged, and
when their numbers were already considerable, their
great families took counsel together, and were subdivided."
When the quarrels which had formerly
threatened their empire were at last terminated
"they carried into effect what had been resolved
upon, and the royalty was divided among twenty-four
grand houses or families." "There they increased
in greatness, having thus gloriously united
[580]
their thrones and their principalities; the titles of
all their honors having been distributed among the
princes, there were formed nine families with the
nine princes of Cawek, nine with the princes of Nihaïb,
four with the princes of Ahau Quiché, and two
with the lords of Zakik. They became very numerous,
and numerous were those that followed each
of the princes; they were the first at the head of
their vassals, and many families belonged to each of
the princes. We shall now tell the titles of these
princes and of each of the great houses." Then
follows a list of titles, substantially the same that I
have given in a preceding volume, when treating
of the Quiché governmental system.[XI-42]




"Thus were completed the twenty-four princes and
the twenty-four great houses; then was multiplied
the power and majesty in Quiché; then was strengthened
and extended its grandeur, when the city and its
ravines were built up with stone and mortar and
covered with cement. Both great and little nations
came under the power of the king, contributing to
the Quiché glory; power and majesty sprang up, and
the house of the god was built as well as the houses
of the princes. But it was not they who built them;
they did no work, neither constructing the temple of
their god, nor their own buildings, for all was done
by their vassals, whose numbers were multiplied. It
was not by stratagem nor by force that these vassals
were brought in; for truly each one belonged to some
one of the princes, and great was the number of
their brothers and relatives who gathered to hear what
the princes commanded. Truly were they loved and
esteemed, and great was the glory of the princes.
Veneration kept pace with their renown, and with
the lords were multiplied the dwellers in the ravines
round about the city. Thus nearly all the nations
surrendered themselves, not through war and force
directed against them in their ravines and cities, but
[581]
by reason of the marvels wrought by their kings,
Gucumatz and Cotuha.



 REIGN OF GUCUMATZ.



Verily, this Gucumatz became a most marvelous
king. In seven days he mounted to the skies—ascended
the mountain heights—and in seven days he
descended to the region of Xibalba.[XI-43] In seven
days he took upon himself the nature and form of a
serpent, and again of an eagle, and of a tiger; and
in seven days he changed himself into coagulated
blood. Truly the existence of this wonderful
prince filled with terror all the lords that came before
him. The knowledge thereof was spread abroad; all
the nations heard of this prodigious king. And this
was the origin of the Quiché grandeur, when the
king Gucumatz wrought these signs of his power.
The remembrance of his grandsons and sons was not
lost—or, as Ximenez renders it, he did not lack
descendants, both sons and grandsons. He had not
done these things merely that there might be a royal
worker of miracles, but as a means of ruling all nations,
and of showing himself to be the only chief of
the peoples. This prodigious king Gucumatz was of
the fourth[XI-44] generation of kings, Ahpop and Ahpop
Camha. He left descendants who also reigned with
majesty and begat children who did many things.
Thus were begotten Tepepul and Iztayul, whose
reign made the fifth generation. They were kings,
and each generation of these princes begat sons."[XI-45]




It is seen by the preceding account of Gucumatz'
reign that this king fully accomplished his object in
transferring the capital to Utatlan. By removing
his court to this ancient city he aroused the pride of
all the tribes of Quiché race, and revived their traditional
[582]
recollections of a glorious past; by restoring
the ancient temples and by erecting new ones he
enlisted the religious enthusiasm of the whole country
in his favor. The universal interest in the new enterprise
caused the former dissensions between rival
nobles to be for a time forgotten. All these circumstances
combined to create for Gucumatz a higher
degree of popularity than he had ever before enjoyed;
and when he felt sufficiently strong with the people,
he still further fortified his position by a partial
reconstruction of his empire. By the establishment of
twenty-four houses of nobility he not only made partisans
of those who were the recipients of new honors,
but effectually checked the ambition of the leading
nobles, whose quarrels had at one time threatened his
sovereignty. Two of the new dignities were given to
the family of Zakik, to which belonged the priest of
the ancient temple of Cahbaha at Utatlan; and he gave
the titles Ahau-Ah-Tohil and Ahau-Ah-Gucumatz,
or high-priests of Tohil and Quetzalcoatl, to members
of his own family, thus firmly attaching the priesthood
to his own interests. Each of the newly created
princes was required to have a palace in the capital
and to reside there during a certain part of each year;
in fact the policy pursued by Gucumatz resembles in
many points that which we have seen pursued by the
Chichimec emperor Techotl in Anáhuac as noted in a
preceding chapter. There are no data from which to
determine the extent of Gucumatz' domain; the descent
to Xibalba may indicate that the Palenque
region was subjected to his power, or simply that he
was wont to spend in the tierra caliente a portion of
each year. Brasseur believes that from this period
the Ahpop Camha of the Quichés spent his time
chiefly in the Zutugil capital at Atitlan.[XI-46]



 CAKCHIQUEL HISTORY.



After the death of Gucumatz, Cotuha II., already
holding the second rank of Ahpop Camha, mounted
[583]
the throne. He was in his turn succeeded by Tepepul,
and he by Iztayul II. with Quicab, or Kicab, as
Ahpop Camha. Respecting the reigns of these three
monarchs, the Popol Vuh gives no details whatever;
and but very little can be learned from other records.
The three reigns may, however, be supposed to have
extended to about the end of the fourteenth century,
a century which is thus almost a blank in the
annals of the empire. One document[XI-47] informs us
that the first of the three kings, Cotuha II., was
treacherously put to death by the lords of Qohaïl
and Ulahaïl, who drew him into an ambush, but his
sons Quicab and Cavizimah, afterwards kings, avenged
his murder by seizing and putting to death thirteen
of the supposed guilty parties.




The Cakchiquel record[XI-48] mentions the third of the
Quiché monarchs, Iztayul II., under the name of
Xitayul-Hax. Caynoh, whom we left on the Cakchiquel
throne,[XI-49] had been succeeded by his son
Citan-Qatu, a valiant and wise ruler who, under the
sovereignty of the Quiché emperor at Utatlan, had
considerably extended the power of his people. At
his death he was followed by his son Qotbalcan, 'the
coiled serpent,' and under his rule the subordinate
chieftains took advantage of his good nature or want
of ability, to reclaim their independence. The descendants
of the princes Baqahol and Gekaquch, who
had caused Hacavitz so much trouble in former years,
were the first to inaugurate this revolt, which the
other tribes were not slow to join, and thus the nation
was again split up practically into scattered
tribes, the king having little, if any, more authority
than the other chieftains. The same condition of
affairs continued during the reign of this king's son
and grandson, Alinam and Xttamer-Zaquentol; the
tribe under the royal command, after wandering for
[584]
a long time, having finally settled near the kindred
tribe of the Akahales, at the towns of Zakiqahol and
Nimcakahpec. The great grandson of Qotbalcan,
Chiyoc Queh, succeeded in again uniting under his
rule most of the Cakchiquel tribes, and having
founded the capital of Chiawar, somewhat further
west than the old capital Tecpan Guatemala, and
given the second rank of Ahpop Qamahay to his
brother Ttattah-Akbal, he was laboring most strenuously
to raise his nation to her old position at the
time when the record mentions the death of Iztayul
II., or Xitayul-Hax, and the accession of Quicab.



 WAR BETWEEN QUICHÉS AND ZUTUGILS.



I must now return to the version presented by
Fuentes and Juarros, for this version agrees with the
others respecting the name of the next king, Quicab,
and hence it may be inferred that the period between
the reigns of Hunahpu and Kicab, is identical with
that between Gucumatz and Quicab. The kings that
Juarros puts on the throne during this period were
Balam Kiché, Balam Acam, Maucotah, and Iquibalam,
names which are evidently identical with the
four high-priests or sacrificers of a much earlier
period. It seems probable that the authors cited
found these names in the aboriginal records, and
could make no better place for them than in the list
of kings. The events referred to in these reigns are
as follows:—Balam Kiché did nothing worthy of
record. Balam Acam, his successor, was a most kind-hearted
prince, and had great confidence in his cousin,
the king of the Zutugils at Atitlan. But the latter
abused this confidence by stealing the king's daughter
from the royal palace in Utatlan; and Ilocab, a near
relative of the Zutugil monarch—called Zutugilebpop
by Juarros, evidently a title rather than a name—at
about the same time abducted a niece of Balam
Acam. These abductions caused a war which, as we
are told, lasted with little intermission down to the
coming of the Spaniards. The Quiché army under
the king and Maucotah his chief general, marched on
[585]
Atitlan, taking several strong towns on the way, and
"the most terrible battle these countries had ever
known" was fought against the Zutugil and Ah-Tziquinihayi
forces under Ilocab. In this battle Ilocab
was slain and the Quichés victorious. The campaign
was continued, the Zutugils being aided by many
allies, including the Pipiles of Salvador, while the
Quichés were reinforced by the Cakchiquels and
forces from Vera Paz. In a later battle the loss on
both sides amounted to fourteen thousand, and among
the slain was Balam Acam, who is blamed by Juarros
for plunging the country in war for so slight a
cause, since the purpose of the abduction was honorable
marriage. Long wars between the Cakchiquels
and Pipiles,[XI-50] as well as between the Quichés and
Mames, resulted from Balam's attempt at vengeance.




Maucotah was named as the successor of Balam
Acam, while yet in the field. Zutugilebpop, flushed
with victory, besieged Xelahuh, one of the Quiché
strongholds, but the fortune of war seems to have
changed with the change of rulers, for the Zutugils
were defeated both before Xelahuh and in their own
territory about the lake, and their king died of grief
and disappointment soon after, leaving his throne to
Rumal-Ahaus, a young man of nineteen years. This
young king continued the war, but was unable to
retrieve the ill-fortunes of his people. In a battle
fought soon after his accession, he had a personal combat
with Maucotah, in which he was wounded, and
forced to retreat, the Quiché king remaining in possession
of the towns that his predecessor had conquered.
Maucotah died soon after his victory, and
was succeeded by Iquibalam, who marched with two
hundred thousand men into the Zutugil states, determined
to put an end to the resistance of the
valiant Rumal-Ahaus, who had recovered from the
effects of his wound. He captured many towns, particularly
[586]
in the territory of the Pipiles and about
Zapotitlan, but he also met with severe losses, and
seems not to have gained any permanent advantage
over the Zutugils. He died during the campaign,
and was succeeded by Kicab, or Quicab, and Rumal-Ahaus
was succeeded on the throne of Atitlan at
about the same time by Chichiahtulú.[XI-51]




The reign of Quicab is briefly disposed of by Juarros
as follows: "He ascended the throne at a mature
age, and with much experience in military and political
affairs. Chichiahtulú, who, with the rank of
Lieutenant General, had gained great advantages
over the Quichés in the memorable campaign of
Pinar (the one last referred to), having grasped the
Zutugil sceptre, besieged the famous stronghold of
Totonicapan. King Kicab not only opposed the
movements of Chichiahtulú with a formidable army,
but enlisting sixty thousand soldiers, he attacked
with them many cities and towns of the Pipiles and
Zutugils, among them Patulul; and although the
governors of these places made great efforts to defend
them, they were unable to resist the superior
numbers of the Quichés. Chichiahtulú, seeing that
his best possessions were being lost, hastened by
forced marches to defend them, abandoning the siege
of Totonicapan; but being taken grievously ill on
account of his haste in that march, he died within a
few days, greatly to the sorrow of his people. Still
his army did not suspend their march, being commanded
by the Lieutenant General Manilahuh, until
they arrived within sight of the Quiché camp. The
fury with which the attack was made on both sides
is unspeakable; but the column of King Kicab on account
of being close and double, being harder to break
[587]
than the feeble and extended lines of Manilahuh, the
latter were broken and scattered in less than an
hour, the commander and many Atitlan chiefs being
left on the field of battle, while the Quichés, chanting
victory, returned to Utatlan. We do not know in
detail the events under the seven monarchs of Quiché
who succeeded Kicab I.; but it is certain that
these two kingdoms were never for a long time at
peace."[XI-52]



 REIGN OF QUICAB I.



Now comes the version of Quicab's reign given by
the Popol Vuh, which document carries the Quiché
history no farther, save a mere list of monarchs
already mentioned. "Behold now the names of the
sixth royal generation,[XI-53] of the two great kings
Quicab, the name of the first king, and Cavizimah,
name of the second (Ahpop Camha). And behold
the great deed that Quicab and Cavizimah did, and
how Quiché was made famous by reason of their
really marvelous condition. Behold the conquest
and destruction of the ravines and cities of the nations
great and small, all very near, including the city of
the Cakchiquels, that now called Chuvila (Chichicastenango),
as also those in the mountains of the
Rabinals, that of Pamaca (Zacualpa), in the mountains
of Caokeb, that of Zacabaha (San Andres),
Zakuleu, Chuvi-Mugina, Xelahuh, Chuva-Tzak (Momostenango),
and Tzolohche (Chiquimula). These
abhorred Quicab, but truly he made war upon them
and conquered and ruined the ravines and the cities
of the Rabinals, of the Cakchiquels, and of the
people of Zakuleu. He conquered all the tribes and
carried his arms afar. One or two nations not having
brought their tribute he entered their towns that
they might bring their tribute before Quicab and
Cavizimah. They were reduced to servitude; they
were tortured and their people tied to trees and
pierced with arrows; there was for them no more
[588]
glory nor honor. Such was the ruin of these towns,
destroyed from the face of the earth; like the lightning
which strikes and breaks the stone, thus by
terror he blotted out the nations."




"Before Colche, as a signal of its conquest, there
stands to-day a monument of rock, as if he had
formed it with his axe; this is on the coast called
Petatayub, where it is still visible, so that everybody
looks upon it as a sign of Quicab's valor. He could
not be killed or conquered; verily he was a hero, and
all nations brought to him their tribute. Then, all
the princes having taken counsel, they went away to
fortify the ravines and the towns, having taken possession
of the towns of all nations. Then sentinels
(spies) were dispatched to observe the enemy, and
new tribes (or colonies) were formed to dwell in the
conquered countries." Then follows with frequent
repetitions an account of these colonies, their departure
for their posts, their victories, and a list of cities
occupied by them, including most of the names
already mentioned. "Everywhere they waged war,
taking continually new captives; they became in their
turn heroes, they who had been guards of frontier
posts; they became strong in their language as in
their thoughts before the kings when they brought in
their prisoners and captives."




"Then assembled the council at the order of the kings,
of the Ahpop and the Ahpop Camha, of the Galel,
and of the Ahtzic Winak; and it was decided that,
whatever might happen, they should remain at the
head, for their dignities were there to represent their
family. 'I am the Ahpop, I am the Ahpop Camha,
Ahpop to hold my rank like thine, O Ahau Galel.'
As to the Galels, their nobility shall be, replied all
the lords forming a decision. Likewise did those of
Tamub and Ilocab; equal was the condition of the
three races of Quiché, when the chiefs of the people
set themselves up against the kings and assumed
nobility. Such was the result of this assembly, but[589]
it was not there in Quiché that the power was seized.
The name of the place exists where the vassal chiefs
took possession of the power, for although they had
been sent each to a different place, all afterwards assembled
together.



 REVOLT OF THE PLEBEIANS.



Xebalax and Xecamac are the names of the place
where they took possession of the power, at the time
when they assembled their rank, and that took place
at Chulimal. Behold the nomination, the installation,
and the recognition of the twenty Galels, and
the twenty Ahpops who were installed by the Ahpop
and the Ahpop Camha, by the Galel and the Ahtzic
Winak. All the Galel-Ahpops entered into their
rank, eleven Nim-Chocoh, Galel-Ahpop, Galel-Zakik,
Galel-Achih, Rahpop-Ahih, Rahtzalam-Achih, Utzam-Achih,
titles of the warriors which they obtained
when they were nominated and titled on their thrones
and on their principalities, they who were the chiefs
of the vassals of the Quiché nation, its sentinels and
spies, its chiefs of the lances and chiefs of the slings,
the ramparts, the walls, and the towers which defended
Quiché. Thus also did the people of Tamub
and Ilocab, the chiefs of the people in each locality
having seized the power and caused themselves to be
titled. Such was the origin of the Galel-Ahpops and
of the titles that now exist in each of these places;
such was their source, when they sprang up at the
hands of the Ahpop and the Ahpop Camha, as also
of the Galel and of the Ahtzic Winak, from whom
they derived their existence."[XI-54]




From the preceding narrative we learn that Quicab
by his skill in war and the valor of his armies extended
the imperial Quiché power far beyond its
former limits, subjecting to the monarch of Utatlan
nearly the whole of Guatemala; and also that
later in his reign he was forced by a combination of
his vassal chieftains, to whom military power had
[590]
been entrusted during his conquests, to reorganize his
government, and to bestow on these chieftains of the
people nobility, and practically the control of the empire.
With this political revolution the record as
presented by the Popol Vuh ceases, the remainder of
the document being devoted to a description of
Quiché institutions already given in another volume
of this work. Whether a portion of the original work
has been lost, or the Quiché history was deemed by
the author to have ceased with the humiliation of the
ancient nobility by their forced association with plebeian
chiefs, it is impossible to determine. Ximenez
in his account of the Quiché kings devotes five lines
to Quicab and Cavizimah, whom, however, he unites
in one person.[XI-55] For additional details of Quicab's
reign and the political changes which marked it, as
well as for all subsequent Guatemalan history, we
have only the Cakchiquel record,[XI-56] with slight information
from other documents, as presented in the
history of Brasseur de Bourbourg, together with the
work of Juarros, whose version of Quicab's reign has
already been presented.



 TYRANNY OF QUICAB I.



We left Chiyoc Queh, the Cakchiquel monarch,
endeavoring to restore the former glory of his nation
by re-uniting its scattered tribes under one head.
The Zotzil-Tukuches were the only tribe that refused
to recognize his royal authority, and at last
the Cakchiquel monarch applied to the Quiché king
for aid. Quicab and Cavizimah had just succeeded
to the throne of Utatlan, probably early in the fifteenth
century. They sent an army and routed the
Zotziles, plundering and burning their towns and putting
the inhabitants to death without mercy. They
did not stop here, however, but forced Xiquitzal and
Rahamun, who succeeded Chiyoc Queh on the Cakchiquel
throne, to give up their sovereign rights and
[591]
submit to become vassal lords, such of the people as
resisted being massacred, sacrificed, or sold as slaves.
The Mames met with the same treatment, their
strongest towns including Zakuleu and Xelahuh
(Huehuetenango and Quezaltenango) being forced to
yield to the armies of Utatlan. Then the Rabinals
and Pokomams were conquered, and no power was
left that could make any resistance. Quicab claimed
to be absolute monarch of the whole Guatemalan
country; he admitted no allied kings paying homage
and a nominal tribute as they had done under the
reign of his predecessors, but reduced all rulers to the
condition of royal governors entirely subject to his
command. Few kings would submit to such conditions
and most were consequently removed to make
room for governors appointed by the Quiché emperor.
In his efforts to subordinate all rank and power to
his own personal sovereignty, he naturally arrayed
the nobility of even the Quiché royal families against
himself, and the means adopted to humble the ancient
aristocracy were the appointment to high positions in
the army of plebeian officers distinguished for their
valor, and the humiliation of the noble officers on every
possible occasion. The new chieftains were called
Achihab, and so numerous did they become and so
highly were they favored and stimulated against
the nobles, that they soon possessed, and fully realized
their possession of, the controlling power in the empire.
In his efforts to humiliate one class, Quicab
had created another which he could not control by
force and which he had zealously educated to disregard
all authority based on noble birth.




The Achihab, no longer content with military rank,
aspired to the higher dignities of the court; the people
were naturally enthusiastic in favor of their chiefs
and were by them encouraged to question the authority
of their king over them. Soon a deputation was
sent to the court to demand certain reforms in favor
of the people, including an abolition of personal service[592]
and labor on the highways. Quicab scornfully
refused the petition of the popular chiefs, and his
court was soon abandoned by the Achihab as it had
long been by most of the nobles. Two of his sons,
Tatayac and Ahytza, joined the Achihab in the revolt,
promising them all the property and titles of the nobility
in case of success, and being promised in turn
the inheritance of the throne with the palaces, slaves,
and wealth pertaining thereto. Quicab, in his extremity,
applied for aid to the very nobility he had
so oppressed, and seems to have received their zealous
support, for notwithstanding the treatment they had
suffered at the hands of the monarch, they saw plainly
that with the success of the rebels all their prestige
would be entirely destroyed. By the advice of the
assembled nobles the leaders of the Achihab, including
those who had composed the deputation demanding
reforms, were seized and put to death. This
caused an immediate rising of the people, who, incited
by their chiefs, and by the descendants of the
Tamub and Ilocab, invaded Utatlan, pillaged the
royal palaces, and almost annihilated by massacre the
ancient nobility. The king happened to be in a neighboring
town at the time, and his life was spared at
the intercession of his sons; but he was kept a prisoner
while the rebel chieftains assembled in council as
already narrated in the Popol Vuh, to reconstruct the
monarchy and to choose from their own number the
many lords that have been mentioned. At the close
of their deliberations the king and the surviving nobles
of the royal families were obliged to ratify the
appointments at Chuliman, where the new lords were
installed with great ceremony. The Ahpop and Ahpop
Camha, seem, however, to have been left nominally
in possession of their royal rank, although the
power was practically taken from them.



 WAR WITH THE CAKCHIQUELS.



A quarrel broke out between the Quichés and the
Cakchiquels residing in or near Utatlan, and the
chiefs of the latter, Vucubatz and Huntoh, although[593]
particular friends of Quicab, were forced to flee from
the city to avoid death at the hands of the Achihab.
During their flight, however, accompanied by a large
band of followers, they committed great ravages in
the Quiché lands until they arrived at the Cakchiquel
capital of Tecpan Quauhtemalan, or Iximché.
On their arrival they assembled the nobles, and every
preparation was made to resist the Quichés, who, it
was thought, would not long delay an attack. The
Cakchiquels determined to shake off the Quiché yoke;
Vucubatz and Huntoh were raised to the throne, with
the titles of Ahpozotzil and Ahpoxahil, borne by
their successors down to the Conquest. The war
began by the defeat of a Quiché army sent to punish
the Cakchiquels for their warlike demonstrations.
Other nations were ready to follow the example of
the Cakchiquels; the Zotziles, Tzendales, Quelenes,
Mames, Rabinals, Zutugils, and Ah-Tziquinihayi declared
their independence, and many of these peoples
not only threw off their allegiance to Quicab, but
were further divided into independent bands or cities.




The Cakchiquel monarchy soon extended over nearly
all of Guatemala south of Lake Atitlan and of the
Rio Motagua, including many Pokomam districts,
thus not only becoming independent of the crown of
Utatlan, but also acquiring for itself the balance of
power in the whole country, so long held by the Quichés.
Quicab, now the mere tool of the Achihab,
made little or no resistance, and was forced to see his
nation reduced to a secondary position, her territory
being constantly diminished by the revolt of new
provinces and cities. It is said, however, by the author
of the Cakchiquel document, that the Achihab
had been restrained from attacking their rivals in
the south by the influence of Quicab, who was
friendly to the Cakchiquel kings, but this seems
hardly probable. It is much more likely that the
Achihab did not attack Vucubatz and Huntoh because
all their power was required to repress hostile[594]
demonstrations nearer home. The idea of popular
rights which had robbed Quicab of his greatness and
raised the vassal chiefs to power was as dangerous
and unmanageable for the new as for the old nobility.




About the middle of the fifteenth century the
Quiché and Cakchiquel rulers died and were succeeded,
the former by Tepepul II. and Iztayul III.,
the latter by Oxlahuh-Tzy and Lahuh-Ah. The
Ahpoxahil, or second in rank at Iximché, however,
lived only a few years, and was followed by
his son Cablahuh-Tihax. Immediately after the
change of rulers war was declared between the two
nations, and at a time when the Cakchiquels were
weakened by a famine resulting from a failure of
crops, the Quiché army marched against Iximché.
The kings Tepepul II. and Iztayul III., accompanied
the army, escorting the idol of their god Tohil; but
their forces were routed with great loss after a terrific
contest, near the Cakchiquel capital; both kings with
the idol fell into the hands of the enemy, and nothing
farther is recorded of their lives. Ximenez[XI-57] puts the
revolt of the Cakchiquels and the establishment of
their monarchy in the reign of these kings instead of
that of Quicab; and he also mentions a successful
revolt of the tribes of Sacatepeques against the Cakchiquels,
and the arrival of a band of Pokomams
from Salvador, who were given lands within the
limits of the two kingdoms. The two captive monarchs
may have been put to death by their captors,
so that it is not certain that Iztayul III. ever held
a higher rank than that of Ahpop Camha.



 LATER KINGS AT UTATLAN.



Tecum, Tepepul II., Vahxaki-Caam, and Quicab
II. followed on the throne of Utatlan down to the
beginning of the sixteenth century, but nothing is
known of their reigns, and the Quichés seem to have
had but little to do with Guatemalan events beyond
the limits of their own territory during this period.
Juarros, however—and it is to be noted that this[595]
author gives no intimation of any serious reverses to
the Quiché monarchy—attributes to Quicab II. a
successful campaign against the Mames, undertaken
because his own territory was found to be overcrowded
with the increasing numbers of his subjects,
and because the Mames were a miserable people, who
should be content with less territory. At the report
of Quicab's warlike preparations, all the surrounding
nations made ready for defence, not knowing on which
of themselves the blow was to fall. The lord of the
Mames, Lahuhquieh by name, marched boldly to
meet the Quiché army under the command of the
king. The battle lasted all day, with no decisive
advantage on either side; but during the night
Quicab gained a commanding position on a hill, from
the summit of which, at sunrise, a storm of stones
and arrows was showered upon the foe. Lahuhquieh
was soon defeated—the lord of Iximché, as is said,
aiding in his overthrow—and his people were driven
from their possessions to the northern mountains.[XI-58]




About all that is known of the kings that reigned
at Utatlan from the death of Quicab II., probably
about the beginning of the sixteenth century, down to
1524, is their names as given by the Popol Vuh,
Vucub-Noh, Cavatepech, Oxib-Quieh, and Beleheb
Tzi, the last two being respectively Ahpop and
Ahpop Camha at the arrival of Pedro de Alvarado.
Juarros names as kings for a corresponding period,
Iximché, Kicab III., Kicab IV., Kicab Tanub, Tecum
Umam, Chignaviucelut, and Sequechul. This author
finds it recorded that during the reign of Kicab
Tanub an envoy arrived from Montezuma II., of
Mexico, announcing the presence of the Spaniards,
and his own imprisonment, news which caused the
Quichés to make active preparations for defence.
Juarros also relates that Ahuitzotl, king of Mexico,
after many unsuccessful attempts to conquer Guatemala,
sent an embassy to the different kings, ostensibly[596]
to form an alliance with them, but as the southern
rulers believed, to study the country and the best
means of attack; the embassadors were consequently
driven out of the country. The arguments of this
and other authors, that Guatemala was never subjected
to Mexican rule need not be repeated, since
there is absolutely no evidence in support of such a
subjection.[XI-59]




The Cakchiquel record[XI-60] gives some additional information
respecting the later period of Guatemalan
aboriginal history. The Cakchiquel monarch Oxlahuh-Tzy
seems to have been disposed to follow the
example of Quicab at Utatlan, by humbling the
pride of his vassal kings, and taking from them all
real power. Among the most powerful of his allies
were the Akahales of Sacatapeques under Ychal-Amollac.
This ruler was summoned before the royal
tribunal at Iximché on some pretext and was put to
death as soon as he appeared in the judgment-hall;
the domain of the Akahales was annexed to the possessions
of the Cakchiquel monarch, and placed under
the government of officers who were that king's creatures.
The natural consequence of Oxlahuh-Tzy's
ambition was the formation of a league against him
by powerful tribes unwilling to surrender their independence.
Among these were the Ah-Tziquinihayi of
Atitlan under Wookaok, and the Caokeb under Beleheb
Gih; the latter, however, were conquered by the
victorious king of Iximché. About this time internal
dissensions were added to the external combination
against Oxlahuh-Tzy. The Cakchiquels at Iximché
were divided into two branches, the Zotziles and the
Tukuches, and the leader of the latter, Cay-Hunahpu
took advantage of the ill-feeling produced by the
king's oppressive measures against the nobility, to
revolt with his partisans, leaving the capital and fortifying[597]
his new position near by. Here he awaited
the movements of the revolting tribes which were
leagued against the Cakchiquels, believing they
would take advantage of his secession to attack Iximché,
and hoping by aiding their attack and granting
their independence, to place himself on the throne.
The tribes in question and others did take advantage
of Cay-Hunahpu's secession, not however to attack
the capital and thus lend themselves to that chief's
ambitious projects, but to declare their independence,
establish governments of their own, and to make
preparations for the defence of their homes. The revolting
provinces included that of Sacatapeques as
already mentioned by Ximenez, and the seigniories of
Tzolola, Mixco, Yampuk, and Papuluka, established
at this time, maintained their independence of Cakchiquel
control down to the conquest, except perhaps
Mixco.



 REVOLT OF CAY-HUNAHPU.



Cay Hunahpu, disappointed in the movements of
his allies, attacked Iximché with the Tukuches under
his command, but his partisans were routed, most of
them being killed and the remainder fleeing to distant
provinces; while the leader was also among the
slain. Thus Oxlahuh-Tzy was still victorious, but
was in no condition to attempt the reduction of the
rebel provinces; for new internal troubles soon broke
out. Cinahitoh, one of his bravest commanders in
the last war, but apparently of plebeian birth, demanded
the rank of Ahtzih Winak made vacant by
the death of Cay-Hunahpu, but his claim was rejected,
the office given to Ahmoxnag, and the brave Cinahitoh
was put to death. The successful candidate
was also executed for treason within a year. Oxlahuh-Tzy
continued in his policy of opposition to the nobles,
and even succeeded in regaining a few of the
weaker tribes that had thrown off their allegiance to
his throne. In a war with the Akahales it is recorded
that a band of Yaqui, or Mexicans, probably traders,
took part against the Cakchiquels.[598]



 PROPHECY OF DISASTER.



About 1501 a defeat of the Zutugils and the capture
of their stronghold of Zakcab by the Cakchiquel
king is recorded; and about the same time the
Ah-Tziquinihayi under Wookaok were besieged in
Atitlan, but succeeded in defeating the invaders.
Respecting the last epoch of Cakchiquel history,
Juarros says: "The Cakchiquel king, Nimahuinac,
also enjoyed for a long time the promised tranquility,
having made peace and a perpetual alliance with the
Pipiles; but this king having made his near relative
Acpocaquil treasurer of his tributes, this traitor
seized upon the city of Patinamit, now Tecpan Guatemala
(Iximché) and all the country subject to that
Cakchiquel stronghold; and the Zutugil king having
declared himself an ally of the rebel Acpocaquil, an
obstinate war was waged between these two lords,
which lasted down to the arrival of the Spaniards.
And it even seems that this was the reason why
Sinacam, who had succeeded to the throne of the
Cakchiquels, summoned and received peacefully the
Spaniards, in order to regain by their aid the great
possessions of which Acpocaquil, aided by the king
of Atitlan, had despoiled him."[XI-61] The Guatemalans
were not left altogether without warnings of the
Spaniards' coming, for as early as the reign of Quicab
II.—which, however, was after the Spaniards
were actually on the American coasts—Ximenez relates
that the son of the Cakchiquel king, a great
sorcerer, was wont to visit the Quiché cities by night,
insulting the king with opprobrious epithets, and
disturbing his rest. Great rewards were offered for
his capture, and at last he was taken and brought
bound into Quicab's presence, where preparations
were made for his sacrifice, when, addressing the assembly
the captive spoke as follows: "Wait a little
and hear what I wish to say to you; know that a
time is to come in which you will be in despair by
[599]
reason of the calamities that are to come upon you;
and this mama-caixon, 'miserable old man,' (the
king) must die; and know that certain men, not
naked like you, but armed from head to foot, will
come, and these will be terrible and cruel men, sons
of Teja; perhaps this will be to-morrow, or day after
to-morrow, and they will destroy all these edifices,
which will become the habitations of owls and wildcats,
and then will come to an end all the grandeur
of this court." Thus having spoken, he was sacrificed
to the gods.[XI-62]




At the beginning of the sixteenth century, three
rival and hostile monarchies ruled Guatemala, that of
the Quichés at Utatlan, under Vucub-Noh and Cavatepech,
probably the Kicab Tanub of Fuentes;
that of the Cakchiquels at Iximché, under Oxlahuh-Tzy
and Cablahuh-Tihax; and that of the Zutugils
at Atitlan, under Wookaok. The condition of the
Cakchiquel and Zutugil powers has already been portrayed
so far as there is any information extant on
the subject. The Quiché monarchy had recovered in
a certain sense a large part of its former power. The
Achihab had shrewdly kept the descendants of the
ancient kings on the throne, and thus secured something
of the friendship and respect of the scattered
lords. True, these lords maintained their independence
of the king of Utatlan, but so long as their
privileges were not interfered with they were still
Quiché allies against the hated Cakchiquels and all
other foreign powers. So with all the independent
tribes in the country, who, although admitting no
control on the part of either monarch, were at heart
allies of one of them against the others. Thus the
ancient empire had been practically divided into
three, each with its allied kingdoms or seigniories, of
which three that of the Zutugils and Ah-Tziquinihayi
at Atitlan, was much less powerful and extensive
than the others.
[600]




There is no doubt that during this final period of
Guatemalan history the Mexican traders, who constantly
visited the cities of the coast in large caravans
for commercial purposes, and who became, as we have
seen, practically the masters of Soconusco, exerted an
influence also in the politics of the interior. We
have seen the prominent part this class played in the
conquest of provinces north of the isthmus, and there
is much evidence that they were already making
their observations and laying plans, by mixing themselves
in the quarrels of the Quichés and Cakchiquels,
which might have brought the whole country under
the Aztec rulers, had it not been for the coming of
the Spaniards, which broke up so many cunningly
devised plans in America. I have already noticed
the expulsion of ambassadors seeking ostensibly an
alliance with the southern powers, recorded by Juarros,
and also the Mexican aid said to have been furnished
the Akahales against the Cakchiquels.




Oxlahuh-Tzy died about 1510, and his colleague
two years later, leaving the Cakchiquel throne to
Hunyg and Lahuh-Noh. Early in the reign of these
kings there came from Mexico the embassy already
spoken of in a preceding chapter[XI-63] as having
been sent by Montezuma II. probably to obtain information
respecting the strangers on the eastern
coast, and to consult with the southern monarchs
about the best method of treating the new-comers.
It is possible also, that the political designs alluded
to above had something to do with the embassy, and
Brasseur believes that the Mexicans and Cakchiquels
formed at this time an alliance offensive and defensive
against all foes. War broke out immediately
afterwards between the Cakchiquels and Quichés,
and lasted almost uninterruptedly for seven years,
with no decisive results in favor of either party,
although the Cakchiquels, who acted for the most[601]
part on the offensive, seem to have had the best of
the struggle.



 RAVAGES OF THE SMALL-POX.



In 1514, while the war still continued, immense
numbers of locusts caused a famine in the Cakchiquel
dominions, and in the same year the city of
Iximché was almost entirely destroyed by fire. In
1519 the war was suspended, perhaps on receipt of
the news brought by the envoy already mentioned,
that the Spaniards had landed at Vera Cruz. Omens
of sinister import appeared here as at the north, one
of the most notable being the appearance of a ball of
fire which appeared every evening for many days in
the east, and followed the course of the sun until it
set in the west. The famous black stone in the
temple of Cahbaha was found, when the priests went
to consult it in this emergency, broken in two pieces.
In 1520 there came upon the Cakchiquels an epidemic
cholera morbus, accompanied by a fatal affection
of the blood which carried off large numbers,
but which were as nothing in their ravages compared
with the small-pox which raged in 1521, contracted
as is supposed, from the Nahua tribes of the coast
region. One half of the whole Cakchiquel population
are estimated to have fallen victims to this
pestilence, including the two monarchs, who were
succeeded by Belehe Qat and Cahi Imox. Whether
the pestilence also raged among the Quichés is not
known; but the monarchs of Utatlan renewed their
hostilities at this time, and the Cakchiquels, weakened
by disease and famine, harassed by rebellious vassals,
and now attacked again by a powerful foe, adopted
the desperate resort of sending an embassy to Mexico
to demand the aid of the Spaniards, advised to
this course doubtless by their Mexican allies. The
reply was the promise that relief would soon be sent.
In the meantime two Cakchiquel campaigns are
recorded, one most successful in aid of the rulers of
Atitlan against insurgents, and the other, less favorable[602]
in its results, in aid of the Ah-Tziquinihayi of
Pacawal.




The news of the Cakchiquel alliance with the
Spaniards caused the most bitter indignation, not
only at Utatlan, where Oxib-Quieh and Beleheb Tzy
had succeeded to the throne, but among all the tribes
of the country, which seem to have formed a combination
against the monarchs of Iximché, and to have
already begun hostilities when, in February 1524, the
approach of Pedro de Alvarado was announced.
The details of Alvarado's conquest belong to another
history; but in general terms, after having marched—not
without opposition—through Soconusco, he defeated
the native forces that attempted to check his
progress on the banks of the Rio Tilapa, the Guatemalan
frontier line, and advanced against the allied
forces that had assembled from all directions in the
region of Xelahuh, or Quezaltenango, under the
command of Tecum, the Nim Chocoh Cawek of the
Quiché monarchy. The two battles which decided
the fate of the Quichés were fought near Xelahuh
and Totonicapan, so that at Utatlan Alvarado met
no open resistance, but was invited to enter the city,
the plan being to burn the city and the Spaniards
with it. The plot was discovered and the Ahpop
and Ahpop Camha burned alive in punishment for
their intentions, the city then being burned by the
invaders. After the fall of Utatlan, Alvarado marched
to Iximché, where he was kindly received by the
Cakchiquel kings, and where he established his
headquarters for the conquest of other nations, beginning
with the Zutugils.[XI-64]
[603]




CHAPTER XII.

MISCELLANEOUS TRIBES OF CENTRAL AMERICA.



Scarcity of Historical Data—The Tribes of Chiapas—The Founders
and Heroes of the Chiapanec Nation—Wars with the
Aztecs—The People of the Southern Coast—They are vanquished
by the Olmecs—Their Exodus and Journey—They
settle and separate—Juarros' Account of the Origin and
later History of the Pipiles—Pipile Traditions—The Founding
of Mictlan—Queen Comizahual—Acxitl's Empire of the
East—The Cholutecs—Various Tribes of Nicaragua—Settlements
on the Isthmus.




It is my purpose to relate in this chapter all that
is known of the scattered tribes of Central America,
exclusive of the Quiché-Cakchiquels. The historical
information that has been preserved respecting these
tribes is, however, so meagre and of such a vague and
unsatisfactory character that the reader must expect
nothing more than a very disconnected and incomplete
account of them.




Chiapas, which is geographically the most northerly
portion of Central America, though politically
it belongs to Mexico, was inhabited in its
northern part by the Tzendales and Zoques, in its
central and southern region by the Chiapanecs,
Zotziles, and Quelenes.[XII-1] The Tzendales lived in the
vicinity of Palenque, and are said to have been directly[604]
descended from the builders of that city. Of
the Zotziles and Quelenes nothing is known, save
that they, together with the Tzendales and the
Zoques, were at a late date subjugated by the Chiapanecs.[XII-2]



 THE CHIAPANECS.



The Chiapanecs, according to some authorities,
came originally from Nicaragua. After a long and
painful journey they arrived at the river Chiapa.
Finding the region to their taste they resolved to
settle, and founded a strong city upon the neighboring
heights.[XII-3] Fuentes asserts that they were
descended from the Toltecs, and that their kingdom
was founded by a brother of Nima Quiché, one of the
chiefs who led the Toltecs to Guatemala.[XII-4] There can
be no doubt that the Chiapanecs were a very ancient
people; indeed their traditions refer us back to the
time of Votan.[XII-5] Boturini, on the authority of Bishop
Nuñez de la Vega, speaks of an original record in
which Votan is represented as the third figure in the
Chiapanec calendar. The record also enumerates the
places where Votan tarried, and states that ever
since his visit there has been in Teopixca a family
bearing his name. Vega believes that the original
population of Chiapas and Soconusco were of the race
of Cham.[XII-6] The twenty heroes whose names are immortalized
in the calendar of the Chiapanecs are commonly
said to have been the founders or first rulers
of that nation. We are told that they all distinguished
themselves, and that some died in their beds,
some on the battle-field, others at the hands of their
rivals, but beyond this scarcely any record of their
lives or deeds has survived. One of them named
Chinax, a military leader represented with a flag in[605]
his hand, was hanged and burned by an enemy; of
another named Been, it is stated that he traveled
through Chiapas, leaving special marks of his visits
in the places through which he passed. It appears
by the calendar that Imox, sometimes called Mox,
and occasionally Ninus, was the first settler in Chiapas.
According to the worthy prelate above mentioned,
this Ninus was the son of Belo, who was the son of
Nimrod, who was the son of Chus, who was the
grandson of Cham. He was represented by or
with the ceiba tree,[XII-7] from whose roots, it is said, the
Chiapanec race sprang.[XII-8] It is Orozco y Berra's opinion
that the Chiapanecs should be placed before the
better known tribes[XII-9] and after the builders of Palenque
and Copan. Their language has not been
classified, but is said to resemble that of the Nicoya
region.[XII-10]




The spot on which the pioneer settlers of the
Chiapan region established their first stronghold was
so difficult of access as to be almost unassailable, and
was fortified so strongly both by nature and art, that
it was practically impregnable. From here the inhabitants
kept up a constant warfare with the Aztec
garrisons at Tzinacatla, Soconusco and elsewhere.[XII-11]
They cordially hated the Mexicans, and persistently
refused to intermarry with them. Their enemies
seem to have been stronger than they, but by their
valor they not only maintained their independence[606]
until the time of the Conquest, but, as we have seen,
they subjugated the surrounding nations. They incurred
the bitter enmity of the Chinantecs, because
they forced the Zoques to pay tribute.[XII-12]



 THE PIPILES.



The southern coast region of Chiapas, between
Tehuantepec and Soconusco, was occupied by a
people whose origin is involved in some mystery.
Brasseur relates that they came from Cholula; probably
in the ninth century, at the time when Huemac
took that city and persecuted the followers of Quetzalcoatl.
Torquemada identifies them with the Pipiles
of Guatemala and Salvador,[XII-13] of whom I shall
speak presently. These coast people were an industrious,
frugal race, and for a long time they held
peaceable possession of their territory, and prospered
exceedingly. But their happy life was destined
to be rudely and suddenly changed to one of
bondage and oppression. A horde of fierce Olmecs
invaded and conquered their country, and immediately
reduced the vanquished to a state of miserable
slavery. Not only were they forced to pay excessive
and ruinous tribute, but they were compelled to yield
up their children of both sexes to gratify the unnatural
lusts of their masters. They were, besides,
made amenable to a most rigorous system of laws,
the least infraction of which was punished with death.
For a time they groaned passively under this cruel
yoke, but at length it grew unbearable. Then in
their deep trouble they appealed to their priests for
help and advice. The priests consulted the oracles
and at the end of eight days announced to the people
that the only way in which they could escape from
their persecutors was to leave the country in a body,
and go in search of another home. At first the
people seemed disposed to question the prudence and
feasibility of this step, but they were speedily re-assured[607]
by the priests, who declared that the gods
would aid and protect them in their flight. A day
was then set for their departure, and they were instructed
in the meantime to provide themselves with
everything necessary for a long journey. At the
appointed time they assembled secretly, and set out
at once. It would be difficult to believe that an entire
nation of slaves could have made such an exodus
unknown to and against the will of their masters,
even though we read of a parallel case in Holy Writ;
but, however this might be, they seem to have taken
the road towards Guatemala without hindrance, and
to have been pursued by no Olmec Pharaoh.[XII-14]




According to the tradition, they continued their
march down the coast for twenty days, until they
came to the banks of the river Michatoyatl. Here
their chief priest fell sick, and the country being
very pleasant, they halted for a time. Before long
the priest died, and they then proceeded on their
journey, leaving, however, some families behind, who
settled here and founded a city, afterwards known in
Guatemalan history by the name of Itzcuintlan.
After this there is some confusion in the different
accounts. Following the plainest version, similar
circumstances caused them to make another halt
twenty leagues lower down, in the neighborhood of
the volcano Cuzcatlan.[XII-15] Here they found a lovely
climate, and a productive soil, and that part of them
that has since borne the name of Pipiles resolved
to settle. The others went farther south, towards
the Conchagua Gulf;[XII-16] but of these I shall speak
again presently.
[608]




The authorities do not all assign this origin to the
Pipiles, however. Juarros says that Ahuitzotl, king
of Mexico, sent to Guatemala, in the garb of traders,
a large number of Mexicans of the lowest class, under
the command of four captains and one general.
These were instructed to settle in the country.
Ahuitzotl did this in order to have auxiliaries so
situated as to facilitate his intended military operations
against the chiefs of Guatemala. He died,
however, before he could carry out this policy. The
new settlers spoke the Mexican language very poorly,
much as children might speak it; for this reason
they were called Pipiles, which in Mexican signifies
children.[XII-17] They prospered and multiplied wonderfully
in their new home, and extended their settlements
to Sonsonate and Salvador. But after a time
they incurred the enmity of the Quichés and Cakchiquels,
by whom they were so sorely oppressed
that there was danger of their being speedily exterminated.
In this emergency the Pipiles formed a
military organization, much as Ahuitzotl had originally
intended. But some time later the chiefs began
to abuse the power with which they had been invested
by imposing heavy taxes and otherwise robbing
the people. Moreover, the principal lord,
named Cuaucmichin, introduced human sacrifice, and
made victims of some of the most highly esteemed
persons in the community. A riot broke out, during
which Cuaucmichin was put to death by the people
of his palace. The other chiefs were also deprived
of their authority, and left with the inferior rank of
Alahuaes, or heads of calpullis. A nobleman named
Tutecotzemit, a man of mild disposition, kind heart,
and good ability to govern was then invested with
the supreme authority. It appears that he was not
free from ambition, however. His first step was to[609]
form a council, or senate, of eight nobles, connected
with himself by blood or marriage, to whom he
granted a certain amount of authority. He then
appointed a number of subordinate officers, chosen
from among the nobility, who were subject to the
orders of the senate. He next proceeded to reduce
the imposts and to remedy the evils that had arisen
from previous misgovernment. Having thus gained
the confidence and affection of the people, he caused
himself to be formally proclaimed king of the Pipiles
with the right of transmitting the crown to his children
and their descendants. It is recorded that the
Pipiles played a very prominent part in the numerous
wars that took place between the several
kingdoms of Guatemala. In later years they were
engaged in a very long and bitter conflict with the
Cakchiquels, in which they were finally worsted by
Nimahuinac, king of that people, who forced Tonaltut,
lord of the Pipiles, to sue for peace, and only granted
it on the condition that the Pipiles should bind themselves
to a perpetual alliance with the Cakchiquel
kings.[XII-18]




All that has been preserved of their earlier history
is contained in two traditions, which are half if not
wholly mythical. The first of these refers to the
period immediately following the settlement of the
Pipiles at their last halting-place in Salvador, and
especially to the founding of Mictlan, a city which
subsequently corresponded in its sacred character to
Cholula on the eastern plateau of Mexico, and Mitla
in Oajaca. The story goes that there issued one day
from Lake Huixa a mysterious old man of venerable
aspect, clad in long blue robes, and wearing upon his
head a pontificial mitre. He was followed by a
young girl of peerless beauty, dressed in a similar
manner, excepting the mitre. Soon after his appearance
the old man betook himself to the summit of a
neighboring hill. There under his directions the[610]
people at once set about building a splendid temple,
which received the name of Mictlan. Round about
the sacred edifice the palaces of the chiefs rose in
rapid succession, and in an incredibly short space of
time a thriving and populous city had grown out of
the desert. The same mysterious personage gave
them laws and a system of government, under which
they continued to prosper until the end.[XII-19]




The other tradition to which I have alluded was
preserved at the time of the Conquest by the inhabitants
of Cerquin, a province in the mountainous region
of northern Honduras. There is reason to
believe that the people to whom it relates were Pipiles,
as they extended their possessions in this direction,
but their name is not given in connection with
the story, which attributes to a woman the honor of
having first introduced culture into this part of the
country, two hundred years before the advent of the
Spaniards. She is described as having been very
beautiful, of a fair complexion, and well versed in the
art of magic. She appeared suddenly, as if dropped
from the sky, for which reason, and because of the
great respect which she inspired, she was named Comizahual,
or 'flying tigress,' the tiger being an animal
held sacred by the natives. She took up her abode
at Cealcoquin, and erected there many temples which
she ornamented with monstrous figures of men and
animals. In the principal temple she placed a stone
having three sides, on each of which were three faces
of hideous aspect. By means of the magic virtues
which lay within this stone she overthrew her enemies
and added to her dominions. She reigned gloriously
for a number of years, and had three sons,
though she was unmarried and had never known a
man. When she felt her end drawing near, she summoned[611]

these princes to her presence, and after giving
them the best of advice regarding the way in which
they should govern, she divided her kingdom equally
between them. She then caused herself to be carried
on her bed to the highest terrace of the palace, and
suddenly vanished, amid thunder and lightning. It
is recorded that her three sons governed well and
wisely, but no particulars of their reigns are given.[XII-20]



 EMPIRE OF THE EAST.



Brasseur implies that the Pipiles were in some
way connected with or subject to the empire which
he believes Topiltzin Acxitl, the last Toltec king of
Anáhuac, to have founded in Central America, since
he speaks of Mictlan being the seat of the spiritual
power of that realm. I have already expressed my
opinion that this empire of the East is the offspring
of the Abbé's inventive imagination; but at the same
time, notwithstanding the two or three allusions upon
which he must found his theory are so vague as to
be practically meaningless, he manages to give a tolerably
definite description of the condition in which
the Cakchiquels found it when they came after a long
and arduous pilgrimage from Anáhuac to do homage
to Acxitl. He confesses his ignorance of the particulars
of the Toltec monarch's journey, and of the
means by which he attained universal dominion in the
east, but adds that it is certain that with the aid of
the Toltec emigrants, like himself, and the Chichimecs
of all languages, who followed in his footsteps,
he had succeeded in establishing a kingdom larger,
perhaps, than that which he had lost, and in conferring
upon his subjects the benefits of civilization as
well as the cult of Quetzalcoatl, of whom he was
the supreme representative. Taught by experience
the benefits of such a policy, he united under his authority
the bands of emigrants that were constantly
arriving, and with their assistance conquered by force
of arms such of the surrounding provinces as would[612]
not peaceably acknowledge his supremacy. It was
his custom to leave those princes who offered no resistance
to his encroachments in possession of their
titles and dignities, merely making them nominal vassals
of the empire. By pursuing this policy Acxitl
became so powerful that none of the numerous Quiché
and Cakchiquel chiefs who afterwards founded
states in these regions dared to assume the royal authority
until they had been formally instated in their
possessions by him. Thus it was that at the time
when the Cakchiquels descended from the mountains
to the plateau of Vera Paz, they found Acxitl occupied
in conferring the sovereignty of that region upon
one of the most renowned of the warriors who had
followed him from Tollan, named Cempoal Taxuch
before his coronation, and Orbaltzam afterwards.[XII-21]



 NICARAGUAN TRIBES.



Let us now follow the fortunes of the Xuchiltepecs,
or that part of the tribes of the coast of
Chiapas which separated from the Pipiles at Cuzcatlan.
Following the coast southward they arrived
at the Gulf of Conchagua. Here they were
forced to halt, by the illness and subsequent death of
the priest who had hitherto been their guide. Before
expiring, the old man, who seems in some way
to have gained a knowledge of that region, gave them
full information as to what they might expect of the
surrounding nations, exhorted them to settle and live
in peace, and predicted that their ancient enemies,
the Olmecs, would eventually become their slaves.
The Xuchiltepecs accordingly stayed permanently
where they were, on the borders of Honduras, Salvador,
and Nicaragua, and bore henceforward the
name of Cholutecs, from the country from which
they originally came.[XII-22]




Of the other tribes of Nicaragua nothing is known,
except the names and localities of those that inhabited
[613]
the strip of country between the Pacific coast
and the lakes. Of these, the Orotiñans occupied the
country about the Gulf of Nicoya and south of the
Lake of Nicaragua. Their principal towns were Orotiña,
Cantren, and Choroté.[XII-23] North of these were the
Dirians, whose chief cities were settled at the foot of
the volcano of Mombacho, and at Managua on the lake
of that name.[XII-24] North of the Dirians were the Nagrandans,
or Mangnés, whose territory lay between Lake
Managua and the ocean.[XII-25] The Chontales inhabited
the mountainous region north-east of Lake Nicaragua.[XII-26]
Immediately south of the Cholutecs were the
Chorotegans. These two nations are often regarded
as identical. According to Squier the Chorotegans
included the Orotiñans, Dirians, and Nagrandans.[XII-27]
The Niquirans, or Nicaraguans, were one of the most
prominent tribes in Nicaragua.[XII-28] There is some confusion
about their origin. Torquemada implies that
they were part of the tribes that were driven from
their home on the coast of Chiapas by the Olmecs,
who, after the death of their priest at the Gulf of
Conchagua, continued their journey to the Atlantic
coast, along which they traveled as far as Nombre
de Dios, founding several towns on the way.
Thence they returned, in search of a fresh-water
sea, to Nicoya, where they were informed that a
few leagues farther on was a fine lake. They accordingly
proceeded to the spot upon which Leon
now stands, and there formed settlements. But
growing dissatisfied with this site, they afterwards
went to Nicaragua, where, by a treacherous ruse,
they killed the inhabitants and took possession of the
land.[XII-29] Brasseur tells much the same story of their
travels and ultimate settlement in Nicaragua, but
asserts that they were Toltecs.[XII-30]
[614]




CHAPTER XIII.

HISTORY OF THE MAYAS IN YUCATAN.



Aboriginal Names of Yucatan—The Primitive Inhabitants from
the East and West—Zamná, the Pontiff-King—The Itzas
at Chichen—Rule of Cukulcan at Chichen and Mayapan—His
Disappearance on the Gulf Coast—The Cocome Rule
at Mayapan—Appearance of the Tutul Xius—Translation
of the Maya Record by Perez and Brasseur—Migration
from Tulan—Conquest of Bacalar and Chichen—Itza Annals—Tutul
Xius at Uxmal—Overthrow of the Cocome
Dynasty—The Confederacy, or Empire, of Tutul Xius, Itzas,
and Cheles—Fable of the Dwarf—Overthrow of the Tutul
Xius—Final Period of Civil Wars.




Respecting the original name of Yucatan, Bishop
Landa tells us that it was called Ulumil Cuz and
Etel Ceh, 'land of turkeys and deer.' Padre Lizana
writes the name U Luumil Cutz and U Luumil Ceb.
Malte-Brun claims to have found a tradition to the
effect that in the early time the interior plains of the
peninsula were submerged, forming lakes, and the
people lived in isolated groups by fishing and hunting.
Landa also applies the name Peten, 'isle,'
thinking that the natives believed their country to be
surrounded with water. The Perez manuscript terms
the peninsula Chacnouitan, which Gallatin believes
to have been its true name; while Brasseur regards
this as the ancient name of only the southern portion
of the country. There is no doubt that the native
[615]
name of Yucatan at the coming of Europeans and
afterwards was Maya. Several authors define this
as 'land without water,' a most appropriate name for
this region. Brasseur in one place derives the name
from Mai, that of an ancient priest; Cogolludo says
the country was named from its capital or chief city
thus differing at each successive epoch, being in ancient
times Mayapan, but in the time of the writer,
Campeche. Ternaux-Compans declares that from the
fall of Mayapan to the coming of the Spaniards the
country had no general name. All agree that the
name Yucatan originated from a misunderstanding
by the Spaniards of the words first pronounced by
the natives when questioned about the name of their
country.[XIII-1]



 MIGRATION FROM THE EAST.



The earliest inhabitants are supposed to have come
from the east. As they fled before their enemies their
god had opened a path for them through the sea.[XIII-2]
Lizana believes these first inhabitants came from
Cuba, which may have been connected with the
peninsula in those primitive times; while Orozco y
Berra seems to favor the idea that they came to
Cuba from Florida.[XIII-3] From this original population,
few in numbers, is supposed to have come the
ancient name cenial, or 'little descent,' applied by the
inhabitants to the east; while the name nohenial,
'great descent' by which the west was called, originated
from a larger migration from that direction.
Cogolludo, it is true, claims that the eastern colony
was the more numerous of the two, yet, this is not
tradition, but his theory, based on the prevalence of
the Maya language in connection with the unfounded
[616]
assumption that those who came from the west must
have spoken Aztec.[XIII-4] All that can be learned from
these traditions is the existence among the Mayas of
a vague idea that their ancestors came originally from
opposite directions. Their idea of the most primitive
period of their history, like the idea entertained by
other nations whose annals have been presented, was
connected with the arrival of a small band from
across the ocean. This was the 'little descent'; by
this first band and their descendants the country was
peopled and the Maya institutions established. The
'great descent' referred to the coming of strangers
from the south-west, probably at different times, and
at a much later period.




To account for the fact that but one language is
spoken in Yucatan, and that closely related to those
of Tabasco and Guatemala, Orozco y Berra supposes
that the Mayas destroyed or banished the former
inhabitants. They were evidently barbarians, as
shown by their abandonment of the ruins; perhaps
they were the same tribes that destroyed Palenque.[XIII-5]
But the reader already knows that the builders of
the cities were found in possession of the country,
and the unity of language is exactly what might be
expected, if the traditional colony from the east
peopled not only Yucatan, but the adjoining countries,
and the subsequent returning colonies from the
west came from the countries thus peopled. We
learn from Boturini that the Olmecs, Xicalancas, and
Zapotecs, of the eastern region of Mexico, fled at the
approach of the Toltecs and settled in Yucatan.
Veytia shows that if any of these peoples settled in
Yucatan, it was from choice, not necessity; Torquemada
and others add the Chichimecs and Acolhuas
to the peoples that settled Yucatan. Cogolludo and
[617]
Fancourt include the Teo-Chichimecs,[XIII-6] while most
modern writers favor the theory that the Toltecs
occupied Yucatan after their expulsion from Anáhuac
in the eleventh century, erecting the cities that
have since been found there in so great numbers.[XIII-7]



 TOLTEC THEORY.



The conjectures of the preceding paragraph and
many others of a similar nature, are a part of the
theory, so often noted in this work, of a general migration
of American nations from north to south, a
theory which has amounted almost to a mania for
dispatching every ancient northern tribe southward,
and for searching in the north for the origin of every
ancient southern people. It was not enough that the
people of Yucatan and Guatemala migrated from the
far north-west; but it was necessary to find in each
of these states traces of every nation whose presence
in Mexico during the past ages has been recorded by
tradition. After what has been said on this subject
in this and preceding volumes, it is needless to repeat
here the arguments against a Mexican origin for the
people and monuments of Yucatan. No people in
America show less indications of a past intermixture
with foreign tribes; the similarity between the monuments
and those farther north is sufficiently accounted
for by the historical events to be recorded in
this chapter; and the conjectures in question are not
only unfounded, but wholly uncalled for, serving only
to complicate a record which without them is comparatively
clear if not very complete.




The Yucatec culture-hero was Zamná, or Ytzamná,
who according to the traditions was the first temporal
and religious leader, the civilizer, high-priest, and
[618]
law-giver, who introduced the Maya institutions, divided
the country into provinces, and named all the
localities in Yucatan. He was accompanied, like
other culture-heroes, by a band of priests, artizans,
and even warriors. Ruling the country from his
capital of Mayapan, he gave the government of the
provinces to his companions, reserving the best positions
naturally for chieftains of his own blood. Zamná
was the reported inventor of the Maya hieroglyphic
art, and it is conjectured that the Cocomes, the oldest
royal family in Yucatan, were the descendants
of this first ruler. He died at an advanced age
and was interred at Izamal, supposed to have been
at that time near the sea shore, a city which was
named for him, and probably founded by him, where
his successors erected a sacred temple in honor of
his memory, which was for many centuries a favorite
shrine for Yucatec pilgrims. Another personage,
Kinich Kakmo, is prominent in the Maya mythology,
and may probably have been identical with Zamná,
or one of his companions.[XIII-8]




Zamná may best be connected with the first colony,
the 'little descent,' the first introduction of Maya institutions
into the country, although it is not expressly
stated that he was at the head of that colony; and
both the colony and its leader may be identified most
naturally with the introduction of the Votanic civilization
and the establishment of the Xibalban empire
already narrated from the traditions of the nations.
Whether Zamná was a companion or disciple of
Votan, or even identical with that personage, it is, of
course, impossible to determine; and it is not by any
means necessary to accept literally the arrival of
either colony or leader. But the rôle played by
Zamná was the same as that of Votan, and the same
events at the same epoch may be reasonably supposed
[619]
to have originated the Yucatec as well as the Tzendal,
Quiché, and Toltec traditions of this primitive
historic period. The statement of Ordoñez, already
referred to, that Mayapan was one of the allied capitals
which with Palenque, Tulan, and Copan, constituted
the Xibalban, or Votanic, empire, is not improbable,
although its truth cannot be fully substantiated.



 THE ITZAOB AT CHICHEN.



The next event in the annals of the peninsula is
the rule of the Itzaob, three most holy men, at
Chichen Itza, over the people also called Itzas.
Closely connected with these rulers, and perhaps one
of the three, was Cukulcan, or Quetzalcoatl, the
'plumed serpent.' Torquemada tells us that in very
remote times, at the time of Quetzalcoatl's disappearance
from Mexico, Cukulcan appeared from the west
with nineteen followers, all with long beards, and
dressed in long robes and sandals, but bare-headed.
This author identifies him with Quetzalcoatl. Cogolludo
in one place briefly refers to Cukulcan as a
great captain and a god; and elsewhere speaks of the
coming of Cozas with nineteen followers, introducing
the rites of confession and otherwise modifying the
religious institutions of the country. Landa speaks
of Cukulcan as having afterwards been regarded as a
god in Mexico, whence he had come to Yucatan, under
the name of Cezalcouati (Quetzalcoatl). Herrera
gives him two brothers, and states that the three
collected a large population and reigned together in
peace for many years over the Itzas at Chichen,
where they erected many magnificent temples in
honor of their gods. The three brothers lived a most
holy and continent life, neither marrying nor associating
carnally with women; but at last one of them,
Cukulcan, for most of the authorities agree that he
was one of them, left his companions and adopted
Mayapan as his capital. Landa says on this subject:
"It is the opinion of the natives that with the Itzas
who settled Chichen Itza there reigned a great lord
[620]
named Cukulcan, which is shown to be true by the
principal edifice called Cukulcan. They say that he
entered the country from the west, but they differ as
to whether he came before, with, or after the Itzas;
and they say he was very moral, having neither wife
nor children." In another place the same author
speaks of the three brothers also as having come from
the west, reigning at Chichen, agreeing in life and
character with Cukulcan, until one of the number
died, or at least abandoned his companions and left
the country.




After the departure or death of Cukulcan, the two
remaining lords gradually gave themselves up to an
irregular and dissolute life, and their conduct finally
moved their subjects to revolt, to kill the two princes,
and to abandon the city. Cukulcan in the meantime
devoted his attention to building up, beautifying, and
fortifying his new capital, erecting grand temples for
the gods and palaces for his subordinate lords, among
whom he divided the surrounding country and towns.
He ruled here most wisely and prosperously for several
years, but at last after fully establishing the
government, and instructing his followers respecting
their duties and the proper means of ruling the country
peacefully, he determined, for some motive not
revealed, to abandon the city and the peninsula. He
tarried awhile, however, at Champoton on the western
coast, where a temple was erected in commemoration
of his stay. According to Herrera it was
erected by himself.[XIII-9]



 CUKULCAN AND THE COCOMES.



It is evident enough that Cukulcan was the same
as Quetzalcoatl, but to determine with which Quetzalcoatl—the
Nahua culture-hero or the Toltec king—is
a difficult matter. We have seen what complications
in Mexican history arise from the fact that
[621]
the Spanish writers failed to make any distinction
between the two, most of them entirely ignoring the
latter. Cogolludo dates the departure of Cukulcan
in the middle of the twelfth century; Herrera makes
it precede by about five hundred and sixty years the
coming of the Spaniards; and Brasseur de Bourbourg,
in his history, implies that Cukulcan was Acxitl
Quetzalcoatl, thus placing his stay in Yucatan in or
after the eleventh century. Yet most of the traditions
seem to point to the Itzaob and to Cukulcan as preceding
the Tutul Xius. The Itzas seem to have
been among the most ancient nations in the country,
and their name is best derived from that of Ytzamná.
Even Brasseur de Bourbourg, in a later work,[XIII-10] offers
the conjectures that the Itzas were Xibalbans who
fled from Chiapas after the overthrow of their empire
by the Nahuas, and that Cukulcan "was the
same as the more or less mythologic personage of
whom Sahagun speaks, the leader of the Nahua race
to Tamoanchan, who seems identical with the Quetzalcoatl
of the Codex Chimalpopoca, and the Gucumatz
of the Popol Vuh."




There is no reason for bringing the Itza people
from Chiapas, since they appear to have been like
the Cocomes, descendants, or followers, of Zamná,
whose history from the death of their great ruler
down to Cukulcan's coming, is unknown. But it is
certainly most consistent to identify Cukulcan with
the first Quetzalcoatl and with Gucumatz, to regard
his appearance and the rule of the three 'holy
princes' at Chichen and Mayapan as the first introduction
of the Nahua influence in Yucatan, and to
date it within the first two centuries of the Christian
era, while the Nahua power was beginning to rival
that of the ancient Xibalba in Chiapas, and while the
Olmecs and Xicalancas were becoming established in
Vera Cruz and Puebla. Malte-Brun and some others
[622]
deem Cukulcan and Zamná the same without any
apparent reason, although the lives and deeds of both
these pontiff-rulers are recorded only in the vaguest
manner.[XIII-11]




It is probable that Cukulcan abandoned Chichen
and its people, among whom he at first attempted to
establish his peculiar reforms, because his teachings
were not so favorably received or so permanent in
their effects as he desired, and because he had reason
to expect more favorable results among the Cocomes,
whom he now adopted as his chosen people. Both
'listeners' and 'serpents' are given as the signification
of the name Cocomes; the first may be referred to
the fact that they were the first to 'listen' to Cukulcan's
teachings; the second may arise from their
relationship to the Votanic race of Chanes, or 'serpents.'
Torquemada speaks of the Cocomes as the
descendants of Cukulcan, but to regard them rather
as disciples would be more consistent with the celibate
life and chastity attributed to the great teacher.
After the Plumed Serpent's departure the lords of
Mayapan, raised to the highest power in the state
the chief of the Cocome family, as Landa says,
"either because this family was the most ancient or
the richest, or because he who was at its head was a
very valiant chief." Many of the aboriginal institutions
of this country, as described in a preceding
volume, are derived from traditions of this period of
Cocome rule, one of the most prosperous in Maya
history. The family names of rulers are often used
as personal names in the annals of these nations, and
thus we find the ruler at Mayapan spoken of as
Cocom.[XIII-12]



 MIGRATION OF TUTUL XIUS.



Respecting the ensuing period of Cocome rule, we
[623]
have no record until at a subsequent but undetermined
date a new people, the Tutul Xius, appeared
from the southern region where they had wandered
long and suffered great privations, and settled in the
vicinity of Mayapan, being kindly received by the
Cocomes. All agree that they came from the south;
Herrera brings them from the Lacandon mountains,
and speaks of them as having entered Mayapan, where
they lived in great peace together with the former
inhabitants. Landa judges from linguistic and monumental
resemblances that they came from Chiapas.
Morelet suggests that they were a band from Palenque.[XIII-13]
I have already shown that the Tutul Xius
were probably, like the Quichés and Toltecs, among
the tribes that migrated from Tulan in Chiapas at
some time between the third and fifth centuries.[XIII-14]
They were not like the Toltecs a purely Nahua nation,
that is, they did not speak the Nahua language;
but they were, like the Quichés, a branch of the ancient
Maya, or Xibalban, people, which had in
Chiapas been subjected to Nahua influences and had
adopted to some extent the Nahua institutions. In
language they were kindred to the Cocomes, Itzas,
and all the aboriginal inhabitants of Yucatan; but
like the Cocomes they were also followers of Cukulcan
and Quetzalcoatl. Their kind reception is not therefore
to be wondered at, and their subsequent prominence
in the history of the country accounts for the
Nahua analogies observed in Yucatan institutions
and monuments.
[624]



 THE PEREZ RECORD.


 CHRONOLOGY OF THE RECORD.



I now present in full the Perez document which
contains nearly all that is known of the Tutul Xiu
annals. I quote the version given in Mr. Stephens'
work, adding in parentheses the variations and a
few explanatory notes from Brasseur's translation.[XIII-15]
"This is the series of Katunes, or epochs, that
elapsed from the time of their departure from the
land and house of Nonoual, in which were the four
Tutul Xiu, lying to the west of Zuina (probably
the Tulan Zuiva of the Popol Vuh) going out of
the land of Tulapan (capital of Tulan). Four epochs
were spent in traveling before they arrived here with
Tolonchantepeuj (Holon-Chan-Tepeuh, in both the
Maya text and in Brasseur's translation) and his
followers. When they began their journey towards
this  island (peten, meaning literally 'island,' is the
word used, but Brasseur tells us that it was applied
as well to regions almost surrounded by water, and
the Mayas knew very well that their country was a
peninsula), it was the 8 Ahau, and the 6 Ahau, the
4 Ahau, and the 2 Ahau[XIII-16] were spent in traveling;
because in the first year of 13 Ahau they arrived at
this island (peninsula), making together eighty-one
years they were traveling between their departure
from their country and their arrival at this island
peninsula of Chacnouitan. In the 8 Ahau arrived
Ahmekat Tutul Xiu (an error perhaps, for 13 Ahau
as above, or this may refer to a later arrival of another
party), and ninety-nine years they remained in
Chacnouitan. Then took place the discovery (conquest)
of the province of Ziyan-caan, or Bacalar
(Bakhalal, Chectemal at the time of the conquest,
probably near the site of Bacalar). The 4 Ahau, the
2 Ahau, and the 13 Ahau, or sixty years, they
ruled in Ziyan-caan, when (since) they came here.
During these years of their government of the province
[625]
of Bacalar, occurred the discovery (conquest) of
Chichen Itza. The 11 Ahau, 9 Ahau, 7 Ahau, 5
Ahau, 3 Ahau, 1 Ahau, or one hundred and twenty
years they ruled in Chichen Itza, when it was abandoned
and they emigrated to Champoton (Chanputun)
where the Itzas, holy men, had houses (had had
dwellings). The 6 Ahau they took possession of the
territory of Champoton. The 4 Ahau [and so on for
twelve epochs to the 8 Ahau] Champoton was destroyed
or abandoned (Brasseur has it, "4 Ahau, etc.,
etc., and in the 8 Ahau Champoton was destroyed").
Two hundred and sixty years reigned (or had reigned
at the time when Champoton was destroyed) the
Itzas in Champoton, when they returned in search of
their homes ("after which they started out anew in
search of homes," according to Brasseur), and then
they lived for several epochs under the uninhabited
mountains ("for several epochs the Itzas wandered,
sleeping in the forests, among rocks and wild plants,
suffering great privations," as Brasseur has it, noting
an omission of a part of the text in Perez' translation).
The 6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, after forty years they
returned to their homes once more, and Champoton
was lost to them. (The French version is entirely
different; "6 Ahau, 4 Ahau"—they wandered as
above—"after which they—the Itzas—had again
fixed homes, after they had lost Champoton"). In
this Katun of 2 Ahau, Acuitok Tutul Xiu established
himself in Uxmal; the 2 Ahau [and so on in
regular order for ten epochs to 10 Ahau] equal to
two hundred years, they governed and reigned in
Uxmal with the governors (powerful lords) of Chichen
Itza, and Mayapan. After the lapse of the
Ahau Katunes of 11, 9, 6 Ahau, (Brasseur says 7
instead of 6 Ahau, as indeed it must be in order to
preserve the order) in the 8 Ahau the governor (the
powerful lords) of Chichen Itza was (were) deposed
(ruined) because he murmured disrespectfully against
Tunac-eel (Hunac Eel); this happened to Chacxibchac
[626]
of Chichen Itza, who had spoken against Tunac-eel,
governor of the fortress of Mayalpan (Mayapan).
Ninety years had elapsed, but the tenth of the 8
Ahau was the year in which he was overthrown by
Ajzinte-yutchan (Ah-Tzinteyut-Chan) with Tzuntecum,
Taxcal, Pantemit, Xuch-ucuet (Xuchu-Cuet),
Ytzcuat, and Kakaltecat; these are the names of the
seven Mayalpans (lords of Mayapan). In this
same period, or Katun, of the 8 Ahau, they attacked
king Ulmil (king of the Ulmil) in consequence
of his quarrel (festivities) with Ulil, king of Izamal
(Ytzmal); thirteen divisions of troops had he when
he was routed by Tunac-eel (Hunac Eel, 'he who
gives intelligence'); in the 6 Ahau the war was over,
after thirty-four years. In the 6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, 2
Ahau, 13 Ahau, 11 Ahau (Brasseur says in the 8
Ahau), the fortified territory of Mayalpan was invaded
by the men of Itza, under their king Ulmil,
because they had walls and governed in common the
people of Mayalpan. Eighty-three years elapsed
after this event and at the beginning of 11 Ahau,
Mayalpan was destroyed by strangers of the Uitzes,
(perhaps Quichés) or Highlanders, as was also Tancaj
(Tancah) of Mayalpan. In the 6 Ahau (8 Ahau
according to original text and Brasseur), Mayalpan
was destroyed (finally abandoned). The epochs of 6
Ahau, 4 Ahau, and 2 Ahau, elapsed, and at this
period the Spaniards, for the first time arrived, and
gave the name of Yucatan to this province, sixty
years after the destruction of the fortress. The 13
Ahau, 11 Ahau, pestilence and small-pox were in the
castles. In the 13 Ahau, Ajpula (Ahpulá) died; six
years were wanting to the completion of the 13
Ahau; this year was counted toward the east of the
wheel, and began on the 4 Kan (the 4 Kan began
the month Pop). Ajpula died on the eighteenth
day of the month Zip, in the 9 Ymix (in the third
month Zip, and on the ninth day Ymix); and
that it may be known in numbers, it was the year
[627]
1536, sixty years after the demolition of the fortress.
Before the termination of the 11 Ahau, the Spaniards
arrived; holy men from the east came with them
when they reached this land. The 9 Ahau was the
commencement of Christianity; and in this year was
the arrival of Toral, the first (new) bishop."




Such is our chief authority on the aboriginal history
of Yucatan. It is, as Perez remarks, "rather
a list than a circumstantial detail of the events," was
doubtless written from memory of the original records
after the Spaniards came, and may be inaccurate at
some points. Perez claims to interpret its chronology
according to his theory that the Ahau Katun was a
period of twenty-four years;[XIII-17] while Brasseur, following
most of the Spanish writers, reckons an Ahau
Katun as only twenty years. I do not propose to
enter into any further discussion on this point, but it
should be noted that while Perez adduces strong arguments
in favor of his general theory of the length
of these periods, neither his translation of the document
in question nor his comments thereon are at all
consistent with his own theory. The document states
clearly that Ahpula died in 1536, six years before the
end of 13 Ahau, which must have closed in 1541.
An accurate calculation, reckoning twenty-four years
to an epoch, would make the 8 Ahau in which the
Tutul Xius left their ancient home, begin with the
year 173, A.D.,[XIII-18] instead of 144 as Perez gives it.
If we compute the epochs at twenty years each, we
have 401 as the date when the migration began. I
have not attempted to fix the date of the migration
from Chiapas, of which this forms a part, further
than to place it before the fifth and probably after the
second century; but the date 401 agrees better than
that of 173 with the general tenor of the authorities,[628]




I therefore follow this system in forming the following
résumé, although I give in notes the dates of the
other system, together with some of Perez' dates.




The Tutul Xius left their ancient home in Chiapas
in 401, wandering for eighty-one years before their
arrival in 482 at Chacnouitan, or the southern part
of the peninsula, under the command of, or together
with, Holon Chan Tepeuh.[XIII-19] Ahmecat Tutul Xiu
arrived with them or at a later period,[XIII-20] and they
remained ninety-nine years in Chacnouitan, down to
581.[XIII-21] Then took place the conquest of Bacalar,
where they ruled for sixty years, or from 581 to 641;
but at the same time the 4 Ahau, 2 Ahau, 13 Ahau,
of this period, correspond to the years 701 to 761,
leaving the years 641 to 701 unaccounted for.[XIII-22] During
this rule at Bacalar, or at its end, they took
possession of Chichen Itza, where they remained for
six epochs, or one hundred and twenty years, from
761 to 881.[XIII-23] Then they went to Champoton where
the Itzas had been, taking that country in 941,[XIII-24]
nothing being said of them during the three epochs
from 881 to 941. The Itzas had ruled in Champoton
for two hundred and sixty years, from 4 (or better 6)
Ahau to 8 Ahau, or from 681, when they were probably
driven from Chichen,[XIII-25] to 941 when they were
driven out by the Tutul Xius.[XIII-26] The Itzas wandered
for two epochs, from 941 to 981, suffering great hardships,[629]




and then again obtained fixed homes. Where
they settled the record fails to state.[XIII-27]



 TUTUL XIU ANNALS.



Returning to the annals of the Tutul Xius, in 2
Ahau, 981, Ahcuitok Tutul Xiu settled at Uxmal,
where his people ruled conjointly with the kings of
Chichen and Mayapan for two hundred years, from
981 to 1181.[XIII-28] In the tenth year of 8 Ahau, or
1191, Chac Xib Chac, and other lords of Chichen,
were deposed for some offence against Hunac Eel,
the ruler of Mayapan. In the same epoch the Cocome
king attacked and defeated the Itza king Ulmil.
This war lasted thirty-four years, and was
ended before 1221, by the Itzas invading Mayapan.[XIII-29]




Eighty-three years passed, and then in 11 Ahau,
between 1281 and 1301, Mayapan was conquered by
the Uitzes, or mountaineers; and Mayapan was finally
abandoned in 8 Ahau, between 1441 and 1461.[XIII-30]
After three epochs more, the Spaniards came for the
first time, between 1501 and 1521, sixty years after
the destruction of Mayapan.[XIII-31] Between 1521 and
1561, the small-pox ravaged the country, and among
its victims was Ahpulá, who died in 1536.[XIII-32] Before
1561 came the Spaniards; and in the next epoch Christianity
was introduced, and Bishop Toral arrived.




The first event narrated by the preceding document
which seems to have any connection with those taken
from other authorities is the establishment of the
Tutul Xius at Uxmal, where they ruled during the
tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries with the monarchs
[630]
of Mayapan and Chichen Itza. All authorities
agree on the prosperity attending the reign
of the Cocome monarchs in conjunction with the
Tutul Xius at Uxmal. It was perhaps in this
period that were built a large proportion of the
magnificent structures which as ruins have excited
the wonder of the world, and have been fully described
in a preceding volume;[XIII-33] although there is no
reason to doubt that some of the cities date back to
the Xibalban period, to the time of Zamná and his
earliest successors. Uxmal and the many cities in
its vicinity may be attributed to the Tutul Xius.




The first king of Mayapan after the departure of
Cukulcan is generally called Cocom, or Ahcocom,
but we know nothing of his successors for some centuries,
save Brasseur's conjecture that the four Bacab
mentioned by Cogolludo as gods should be reckoned
among the number.[XIII-34] At last, probably during the
twelfth century, Landa and the other Spanish writers
agree that the monarchs at Mayapan began to neglect
the interests of their subjects, and to become
exceedingly avaricious, oppressing the people by excessive
taxation. The first to follow this course of
conduct is called by Brasseur Ahtubtun, a name selected
from Cogolludo's list of gods for no other
apparent reason than that his name signified 'spitter
of precious stones,' certainly an indication of extravagance.
To his successor this author applies the
name Aban and the title Kinehahau. This monarch
was even more oppressive than his predecessor, and
loud murmurs of discontent began to be heard, but
none were strong enough to make any opposition
save the Tutul Xius. Either this king or a successor
introduced into the country a force of foreign soldiers
from Tabasco and southern Vera Cruz, and also established
slavery, hitherto unknown in Yucatan.



 OVERTHROW OF THE COCOMES.



The Tutul Xius began their opposition to the Cocomes
by sheltering their oppressed subjects. The
[631]
third of the tyrants, probably identical with the Hunac
Eel of the Perez record, was even more oppressive
than those that preceded him, and brought in more
foreign soldiers. In 1191 the monarch of Chichen
Itza, Chac Xib Chac, was deposed by the tyrant and
the deposition enforced by the aid of his foreign
auxiliaries. Less than ten years later Hunac Eel
with his allies marched again against Chichen, now
ruled by a new monarch, Ulmil, and defeated him
after a long campaign. The end of the trouble is
briefly if not very clearly expressed by the author of
the Maya record in the statement that Ulmil before
1221 invaded Mayapan.[XIII-35]




Landa and Herrera relate that the tyranny of the
Cocome monarch at last became insupportable, and
his subjects with the aid of the Tutul Xius revolted,
captured and sacked Mayapan, and put to death the
king with all his family, except one son, who chanced
to be absent. The king of Uxmal naturally acquired
by this overthrow of the Cocome dynasty the
supreme power. Ulmil, the Itza king who led the
attack against the Cocomes, seems to have received
the second place, while the head of the family of
Cheles, before high-priest at Mayapan, was given the
third rank as king of Izamal. Nearly all the authorities
state that Mayapan was destroyed and abandoned
at this time; but the dates they give with the
fact that this city is mentioned by the Maya record
at a much later period, show that it was still inhabited,
though deprived of its ancient power.[XIII-36]




The Tutul Xius on their accession to the supreme
power, strengthened their popularity by a liberal
[632]
policy toward all classes, and by restoring those who
had been enslaved or exiled by the Cocomes to their
former positions. They also permitted the Xicalanca
troops introduced by Hunac Eel and his predecessors
to remain in the country, and gave them the province
of Canul, or Ahcanul, between Uxmal and Campeche,
where they soon became a powerful nation.[XIII-37] The
son of the Cocome tyrant, who by his absence from
Mayapan at the time of the revolt escaped the fate
of his family, on his return was permitted to settle
with his friends in the province of Zotuta, where he
is said to have built Tibulon, and several other towns.
Thus was perpetuated with the ancient Cocome family
the mortal hatred which that family continued
to feel towards their successful rivals.[XIII-38]



 FABLE OF THE DWARF.



The reign of the Tutul Xius at Uxmal was doubtless
the most glorious period of Maya history, but in
addition to what has been said we have respecting it
only a single tradition which seems to refer to the
last king and the overthrow of the dynasty.[XIII-39] An
old sorceress lived at Kabah, rarely leaving her chimney
corner. Her grandson, a dwarf, by making a
hole in her water-jar, kept her a long time at the
well one day, and by removing the hearth-stone found
the treasure she had so carefully guarded, a silver
tunkul and zoot, native instruments. The music produced
by the dwarf was heard in all the cities, and
[633]
the king at Uxmal trembled, for an old prophecy declared
that when such music should be heard the
monarch must give up his throne to the musician.
A peculiar duel was agreed upon between the two,
each to have four baskets of cocoyoles, or palm-nuts,
broken on his head. The Dwarf was victorious and
took the dead king's place, having the Casa del Adivino
built for his palace, and the Casa de la Vieja for
his grandmother.[XIII-40] The old sorceress soon died, and
the new king, freed from all restraint, plunged into
all manner of wickedness, until his gods, or idols,
abandoned him in anger. But after several attempts
the Dwarf made a new god of clay which came to life
and was worshiped by the people, who by this worship
of an evil spirit soon brought upon themselves
destruction at the hands of the outraged deities, and
Uxmal was abandoned.




For this tradition we have only Brasseur's conjectural,
but not improbable, interpretation to the
effect that the Tutul Xiu throne at Uxmal, in the
earlier part of the thirteenth century perhaps, was
usurped by a chief of another family, known in tradition
as the Dwarf, or the Sorcerer. It is not unlikely
that the usurping king was of the Cocome family and
that he succeeded in his attempt by the aid of the
priesthood. Whoever may have been at its head,
the new dynasty was in its turn overthrown apparently
by religious strife, and Uxmal ceased to be a
capital or centre of temporal power in Yucatan, although
its temples may still have been occupied by
the priesthood. From the fact that the Maya record,
or Perez document, speaks only of Mayapan after
this period, it is not unlikely that the Tutul Xiu
power was transferred to that ancient capital, after
the downfall of its representative at Uxmal. Near
the end of the thirteenth century Mayapan was conquered
by a foreign army of Uitzes, or mountaineers,
the reference being perhaps to a raid of one of the
[634]
earlier Quiché emperors from Utatlan. For a century
and a half, a period of contention between rival dynasties
and tribes, we have, besides a few reported
predictions of coming disaster, only one definite event,
the flight of a band of Itzas under Canek, and their
settlement on the islands in Lake Peten, where they
were found, a most flourishing community, by the
Spaniards. No definite date is given to their migration—or
elopement, for a lady was at the bottom of
the affair, as some say—except by Villagutierre, who
places it in 8 Ahau, or between 1441 and 1461.[XIII-41]




Also between 1441 and 1461, Mayapan was finally
ruined in the contentions of the factions, and abandoned
at the death of a monarch called by some
authors Mochan Xiu; the Tutul Xius then seem to
have retired to Mani, which was their capital down
to the Conquest.[XIII-42] For twenty years after the final
destruction of Mayapan the tribes are said to have
remained at peace and independent of each other;
but the remaining century, down to 1561, was
one of almost continual inter-tribal strife, of which
there is no detailed record, but which, with hurricanes,
famine, deadly pestilence, and constantly recurring
omens and predictions of final disaster, so
desolated and depopulated the country, that the
Spaniards found the Mayas but a mere wreck of
what they once had been, fighting bravely, but not
unitedly, against the invaders.[XIII-43]
[635]




INDEX.




The Index refers alphabetically to each of the ten or twelve thousand
subjects mentioned in the five volumes of the work, with numerous cross-references
to and from such headings as are at all confused by reason of
variations in orthography or from other causes. In describing aboriginal
manners and customs, the tribes are grouped in families, and each family,
instead of each tribe, has been described separately; consequently, after
each tribal name in the Index is a reference to the pages containing a description
of the family to which the tribe belongs; there is also an additional
reference to such pages as contain any 'special mention' of the tribe. For
example, information is sought about the Ahts. In the Index is found
'Ahts, tribe of Nootkas, i., 175-208; special mention, i., 177, 180-1,' etc.
All the matter relating to the Nootka family on pp. 175-208, is supposed to
apply to the Ahts as well as to the other tribes of the family, except such
differences as may be noted on pp. 177, 180-1, etc. If information is sought
respecting the burial rites or any particular custom of the Ahts, a more
direct reference to the exact pages will be found under 'Nootkas,' where the
matter relating to that family is subdivided. The matter in the last three
chapters of vol. v. is referred to in the earlier letters of the Index by chapters
instead of pages. No table of abbreviations used is believed to be
needed.







FOOTNOTES




[I-1] He affirms (in a work entitled Christian Topography) that, according to
the true orthodox system of geography, the earth is a quadrangular plane,
extending four hundred days' journey east and west, and exactly half as
much north and south; that it is inclosed by mountains, on which the sky
rests; that one on the north side, huger than the others, by intercepting the
rays of the sun, produces night; and that the plane of the earth is not set
exactly horizontally, but with a little inclination from the north: hence the
Euphrates, Tigris, and other rivers, running southward, are rapid; but the
Nile, having to run up-hill, has necessarily a very slow current.' Draper's
Conflict between Religion and Science, p. 65.




[I-2] In answer to the question: 'What was God doing before he made the
heaven and the earth? for, if at any particular moment he began to employ
himself, that means time, not eternity. In eternity nothing happens—the
whole is present.' St Augustine caustically remarks: 'I will not answer
this question by saying that he was preparing hell for pryers into his mysteries.'




[I-3] The teachings of the Church were beyond controversy, the decisions
of the Church were final; and not only in religion but in legislation and in
science 'the pervading principle was a blind unhesitating credulity.' See
Buckle's Civilization, vol. i., p. 307. The Bishop of Darien once quoted
Plato in the presence of Las Casas. "Plato," Las Casas replied, "was a
Gentile, and is now burning in hell, and we are only to make use of his doctrine
as far as it is consistent with our holy Faith and Christian customs."
Helps' Life of Las Casas, p. 120.




[I-4] As an example of the intolerance displayed by these early writers,
and of the bitterness with which they attacked those few thinkers who
dared to theorize without letting theological dogmas stand in their way, I
translate the following passage from García, who is one of the most comprehensive
writers upon the origin of the Americans: 'We would like not
even to remember the unworthy opinions of certain veritable blasphemers,
more barbarous than the Indians, which do not even deserve the name of
opinions, but rather of follies: namely, that, perhaps, the first Indians
might have been generated from the earth, or from its putrefaction, aided
by the sun's heat, as (Avicena allowing this production to be easy in men)
Andres Cisalpino attempted to make credible, giving them less perfection
than Empedocles, who said that men had been born like the wild amaranth,
if we believe Marcus Varron.... Of the formation of man, though of straw
and mud, the people of Yucatan, had light; which nonsense is not inferior
to the attempts of those who made men by means of chemistry, or magic
(described by Solorcano) giving it to be understood that there may be others
besides the descendants of Adam, contrary to the teachings of scripture:
for which reason Taurelo feels indignant against Cisalpino, whose attempt
would be reprehensible even as a paradox. Not less scandalous was the
error of the ignorant Paracelso, according to Reusnero and Kirchero, who
left to posterity an account of the creation of two Adams, one in Asia, and
another in the West Indies; an inexcusable folly in one who had (though
corruptly) information of the Catholic doctrine. Not less erroneous is
the opinion of Isaac de La Peyrere, who placed people on the earth before
Adam was created, from whom, he said, descended the heathen; from
Adam, the Hebrews; which folly was punished with eternal contempt by
Felipe Priorio, Juan Bautista Morino, Juan Hilperto, and others, Danhavero
giving it the finishing stroke by an epitaph, as Dicterico relates:
although some of the parties named state that La Peyrere became repentant
and acknowledged his error, and did penance, which the Orientals, from
whom he took that absurdity, have not done. These, and others of the
same nature, may not be held as opinions, but as evidences of blindness
published by men of doubtful faith, wise, in their own esteem, and deceivers
of the world, who, with lies and fraud, oppose the divine word, as St
Clemens Alexandrinus says, closing their ears to truth, and blindfolding
themselves with their vices, for whom contempt is the best reward.' Orígen
de los Ind., p. 248. García spent nine years in Peru, devoting himself to
the study of three points: the history of the natives before the arrival of
the Spaniards, the origin of the natives, and the question as to whether the
apostles preached the gospel in America. On his return to Spain, he concluded
to write only upon the second topic, leaving the others for a future
time.




[I-5] Descent of Man, vol. ii., p. 368.




[I-6] The value of proof by analogy has been questioned by many eminent
authors. Humboldt writes: 'On n'est pas en droit de supposer des communications
partout où l'on trouve, chez des peuples à demi barbares, le
culte du soleil, ou l'usage de sacrifier des victimes humaines.' Vues, tom.
i., p. 257. 'The instances of customs, merely arbitrary, common to the
inhabitants of both hemispheres, are, indeed, so few and so equivocal, that
no theory concerning the population of the New World ought to be founded
upon them.' As regards religious rites, 'the human mind, even where its
operations appear most wild and capricious, holds a course so regular, that
in every age and country the dominion of particular passions will be attended
with similar effects.' Robertson's Hist. Amer., vol. i., p. 269. Warden
remarks that nations known to be distinct, to have had no intercourse,
breed similar customs—these, therefore, grow from physical and moral
causes. Recherches, p. 205. 'In attempting to trace relations between
them and the rest of mankind, we cannot expect to discover proofs of their
derivation from any particular tribe or nation of the Old Continent.' Prichard's
Nat. Hist. Man, vol. ii., p. 494. 'To tell an inquirer who wishes to
deduce one population from another that certain distant tribes agree with
the one under discussion in certain points of resemblance, is as irrelevant
as to tell a lawyer in search of the next of kin to a client deceased, that
though you know of no relations, you can find a man who is the very picture
of him in person—a fact good enough in itself, but not to the purpose.'
Latham's Man and his Migrations, pp. 74-5.




[I-7] Certainly many of the writers must have been either fools or demented,
if we judge them by their work and arguments.




[I-8] Garcia, Origen de los Ind., pp. 7-12.




[I-9] When De Gama established the globular form of the earth by his voyage
round the Cape of Good Hope, in 1497-8, 'the political consequences
that at once ensued placed the Papal Government in a position of great
embarrassment. Its traditions and policy forbade it to admit any other
than the flat figure of the earth, as revealed in the Scriptures.' In 1520
Magellan discovered the strait which now bears his name, and 'henceforth
the theological doctrine of the flatness of the earth was irretrievably overthrown.'
Draper's Conflict, pp. 163-5. St Augustin affirmed that the
world beyond the tropic of cancer was uninhabited. 'Ea vero veterum
sententia, perspicua atque inuicta, vt ipsis videbatur, ratione nitebatur.
Nam vt quæque regio ad meridiem propius accedit, ita solis ardoribus
magis expositam animaduerterant, idque adeo verum est, vt in eadem
Italiæ prouincia Apuliam Liguria, & in nostra Hispania Bæticam Cantabria
vsque adeo feruentiorem nota re liceat, vt per gradus vixdum octo
grande frigoris & æstus discrimen sit.' Acosta, De Natura Novi Orbis,
fol. 27. 'Lactantius Firmianus, and St. Austin, who strangely jear'd
at as ridiculous, and not thinking fit for a Serious Answer the Foolish
Opinion of Antipodes, or another Habitable World beyond the Equator:
At which, Lactantius Drolling, says, what, Forsooth, here is a fine Opinion
broach'd indeed; an Antipodes! heigh-day! People whose Feet tread
with ours, and walk Foot to Foot with us; their Heads downwards, and
yet drop not into the Sky! There, yes, very likely, the Trees loaden with
Fruit grow downwards, and it Rains, Hails, and Snows upwards; the Roofs
and Spires of Cities, tops of Mountains, point at the Sky beneath them,
and the Rivers revers'd topsi-turvy, ready to flow into the Air out of their
Channels.' Ogilby's America, pp. 6-7. The ancients believed a large portion
of the globe to be uninhabitable by reason of excessive heat, which
must have greatly deterred discovery.




[I-10] Touching the question whether the Americans and the people of the
old world are of common origin, see: Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat.
Civ., tom. i., pp. 1-31; Tylor's Anahuac, p. 104; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del
Messico, tom. iv., pp. 14-24; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 1-31;
Ramirez, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da época, tom. iv., p. 54; M'Culloh's
Researches on Amer., pp. 175-8; Mayer's Mex. as it Was, p. 260;
Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 66-80; Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., p. 389;
Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 237-49, 351, 354, 420-35; Charlevoix,
quoted in Carver's Trav., pp. 197-8; Fontaine's How the World was Peopled,
p. 17, et seq.; Crowe's Cent. Amer., p. 61; Williams' Enquiry into
Tradition; Chevalier, Mexique, p. 134; Wilson's Pre-Hist. Man, pp.
611-14, 485-6; Carli, Cartas, pt i., p. 16; Chamisso, in Kotzebue's Voyage,
vol. ii., pp. 405-6; Prichard's Researches, vol. v., pp. 541-6; Humboldt,
Vues, tom. i., pp. 22, 31. Innumerable other speculations have been made
on this point, but in most cases by men who were but poorly qualified to deal
with a subject requiring not only learning, but a determination to investigate
fairly and without bias. Adair's reasoning in this connection will
serve to illustrate: 'God employed six days, in creating the heavens, this
earth, and the innumerable species of creatures, wherewith it is so amply
furnished. The works of a being, infinitely perfect, must entirely answer
the design of them: hence there could be no necessity for a second creation;
or God's creating many pairs of the human race differing from each
other, and fitted for different climates; because, that implies imperfection,
in the grand scheme, or a want of power, in the execution of it—Had there
been a prior, or later formation of any new class of creatures, they must
materially differ from those of the six days work; for it is inconsistent with
divine wisdom to make a vain, or unnecessary repetition of the same act.
But the American Indians neither vary from the rest of mankind, in their
internal construction, nor external appearance, except in colour; which, as
hath been shewn, is either entirely accidental, or artificial. As the Mosaic
account declares a completion of the manifestation of God's infinite wisdom
and power in creation, within that space of time; it follows, that the Indians
have lineally descended from Adam, the first, and the great parent of
all the human species.' Amer. Ind., pp. 11-12. To the works of those
modern scientists, such as Lyell, Darwin, and others, who have treated of
the unity of the human species at large, I need not refer the reader here.
An excellent résumé of the subject will, however, be found in Foster's
Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 353-67.




[I-11] 'We find on the earliest Egyptian monuments,' says Sir John Lubbock,
'some of which are certainly as ancient as 2400 B.C., two great distinct
types, the Arab on the east and west of Egypt, the Negro on the
south. These distinct types still predominate in Egypt and the neighbouring
countries. Thus, then, says Mr. Poole, in this immense interval we
do not find "the least change in the Negro or the Arab; and even the type
which seems to be intermediate between them is virtually as unaltered.
Those who consider that length of time can change a type of man, will do
well to consider the fact that three thousand years give no ratio on which
a calculation could be founded."' Crawfurd, also says: the millions '"of African
Negroes that have during three centuries been transported to the New
World and its islands, are the same in colour as the present inhabitants of
the parent country of their forefathers. The Creole Spaniards, who have
for at least as long a time been settled in tropical America, are as fair as
the people of Arragon and Andalusia, with the same variety of colour in
the hair and eye as their progenitors. The pure Dutch Creole colonists of
the Cape of Good Hope, after dwelling two centuries among black Caffres,
and yellow Hottentots, do not differ in colour from the people of Holland."'
Pre-Hist. Times, pp. 587-8. We find 'upon Egyptian monuments, mostly
of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries before the Christian
Era, representations of individuals of numerous nations, African, Asiatic,
and European, differing in physical characteristics as widely as any equal
number of nations of the present age that could be grouped together;
among these being negroes of the true Nigritian stamp, depicted with a
fidelity as to color and features, hardly to be surpassed by a modern
artist. That such diversities had been produced by natural means in the
interval between that remote age and the time of Noah, probably no one
versed in the science of anatomy and physiology will consider credible.'
Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, p. 357.




[I-12] Noticias Americanas, pp. 391-5, 405-7. On pages 286-304, he has an
argument, backed by geological evidences, to show that America is the
oldest continent.




[I-13] 'Were we to admit,' say some ethnologists, 'a unity of origin of such
strongly-marked varieties as the Negro and European, differing as they do in
colour and bodily constitution, each fitted for distinct climates, and exhibiting
some marked peculiarities in their osteological, and even in some details
of cranial and cerebral conformation, as well as in their average intellectual
endowments,—if, in spite of the fact that all these attributes have been faithfully
handed down unaltered for hundreds of generations, we are to believe
that, in the course of time, they have all diverged from one common stock,
how shall we resist the argument of the transmutationist, who contends
that all closely allied species of animals and plants have in like manner
sprung from a common parentage?' Lyell's Antiq. of Man, pp. 433-4.




[I-14] Lescarbot, Hist. Nouv. France, lib. i., cap. iii.




[I-15] Hist. Conq. Itza, pp. 26-8.




[I-16] Pamphleteer, 1815. Thompson calculates the spreading of Noah's
children up to the time of Peleg, when the Bible declares the earth to have
been divided. He also shows that this division happened earlier than is
generally supposed.




[I-17] Orrio, Solucion, p. 41, et seq. Torquemada also believes Ham to
have been the father of the race. Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 21-30.




[I-18] Nieuwe Weereld, p. 37.




[I-19] L'Estrange, Americans no Jewes.




[I-20] Deserts, vol. i., p. 26. 'The Peruvian language,' writes Ulloa, 'is
something like the Hebrew, and Noah's tongue was doubtless Hebrew.'
Noticias Americanas, p. 384.




[I-21] Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., p. 17.




[I-22] In Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da época, tom. iii., p. 343.




[I-23] See vol. iii. of this work, p. 450, et seq.




[I-24] Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., p. 15. Heredia y Sarmiento follows
Clavigero. Sermones, p. 84.




[I-25] Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., p. 401. Priest, Amer. Antiq., pp. 142-3, thinks
that an ivory image representing a mother and child found in Cincinnati,
may have been taken to Britain by the Greeks or Romans, who knew of the
prophecies concerning the Virgin and Child Jesus, and thence brought to
America. See, also, concerning religious belief, baptism, circumcision, and
other Christian-like rites in the New World: Tylor's Anahuac, pp. 279-80;
Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., pp. 378-85; Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i., pp. 17-18;
M'Culloh's Researches on Amer., pp. 111-40; Latrobe's Rambler, pp. 205-6.




[I-26] See vol. iii., pp. 66-9, and comments in accompanying notes.




[I-27] Id., pp. 72-5.




[I-28] Id., p. 76.




[I-29] Id., pp. 78-9.




[I-30] Id., p. 86.




[I-31] Id., p. 88.




[I-32] Id., p. 89.




[I-33] Id., p. 103.




[I-34] Mackenzie's Voyages, p. cxviii.




[I-35] 'Ou plutôt deux femmes, portant le nom d'Ara,' says Brasseur de
Bourbourg; I prefer, however, the original reading. The Ara is a kind of
parroquet, common in South America, and so called because it continually
repeats the cry ara, ara. Beings half bird, half woman, are as likely to
figure in such a legend as the above as not. Besides, shortly afterwards
the narrative speaks of 'les deux oiseaux,' referring to the aras.




[I-36] For both of these flood-myths see: Brasseur de Bourbourg, in Landa,
Relacion, pp. xxx-xxxii. Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. v., lib. iii., cap. vi.,
gives a native tradition which relates that long before the time of the
Incas there was a great deluge, from which some of the natives escaped by
fleeing to the mountain-tops. The mountain tribes assert, however, that
only six persons escaped this flood in a balsa.




[I-37] Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., p. 25.




[I-38] See vol. iii., p. 67.




[I-39] See vol. iii., pp. 77, 89.




[I-40] According to Ixtlilxochitl, the Toltec tradition relates that after the
confusion of tongues the seven families who spoke the Toltec language set
out for the New World, wandering one hundred and four years over large
extents of land and water. Finally they arrived at Huehue Tlapallan in
the year 'one flint,' five hundred and twenty years after the flood. Relaciones,
in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 322. See also another
account, p. 450; Boturini, Crón. Mex., pt ii., pp. 5-8; Id., Idea, pp. 111-27;
Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 24, 145, 212-13; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles.,
p. 145; Hist. y Antig., in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. i., p. 284; Juarros,
Hist. Guat., (Guat. 1857) tom. ii., pp. 55-6; Delafield's Antiq. Amer., p. 34;
Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 114-15; Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., pp. 380-1;
Davis' Anc. Amer., p. 31; Tylor's Anahuac, p. 277.




[I-41] They had also, as we have seen in the third volume, a great many curious
ideas as to the way in which man was created, and as in attempting
to prove their theories many writers are apt to draw analogies in this particular,
I give a brief résumé of the creation-myths here for the reader's
convenience: The grossest conceptions of the mystery of the beginning
of man are to be found among the rude savages of the north, who, however,
as they are quite content, in many instances, to believe that their
earliest progenitor was a dog or a coyote, seem entitled to some sympathy
from the latest school of modern philosophy, though it is true that their
process of development was rather abrupt, and that they did not require
very many links in their chain of evolution. But as we advance farther
south, the attempts to solve the problem grow less simple and the
direct instrumentality of the gods is required for the formation of man.
The Aleuts ascribe their origin to the intercourse of a dog and a bitch, or,
according to another version, of a bitch and a certain old man who came
from the north to visit his brute-bride. From them sprang two creatures,
male and female, each half man, half fox; and from these two the human
race is descended. Others of the Aleuts believe that their canine progenitor
fell from heaven. The Tinneh also owe their origin to a dog; though
they believe that all other living creatures were called into existence by an
immense bird. The Thlinkeet account of the creation certainly does not
admit of much caviling or dispute concerning its chronology, method, or
general probability, since it merely states that men were "placed on the
earth," though when, or how, or by whom, it does not presume to relate.
According to the Tacully cosmogony, a musk-rat formed the dry land,
which afterwards became peopled, though whether by the agency of that
industrious rodent or not, is not stated. Darwinism is reversed by many
of the Washington tribes, who hold that animals and even some vegetables
are descended from man. The human essence from which the first Ahts
were formed, was originally contained in the bodies of animals, who upon
being suddenly stampeded from their dwellings left this mysterious matter
behind them. Some of the Ahts contend, however, that they are the direct
descendants of a shadowy personage named Quawteaht and a gigantic
Thunder Bird. The Chinooks were created by a Coyote, who, however, did
his work so badly and produced such imperfect specimens of humanity,
that but for the beneficent intervention and assistance of a spirit called
Ikánam the race must have ended as soon as it began. Some of the Washington
tribes originated from the fragments of a huge beaver, which was
slain and cut in pieces by four giants at the request of their sister who was
pining away for some beaver-fat. The first Shasta was the result of a
union between the daughter of the Great Spirit and a grizzly bear. The
Cahrocs believe that Chareya, the Old Man Above, created the world, then
the fishes and lower animals, and lastly man. The Potoyantes were slowly
developed from Coyotes. The Big Man of the Mattoles created first the
earth, bleak and naked, and placed but one man upon it; then, on a sudden,
in the midst of a mighty whirlwind and thick darkness, he covered the
desolate globe with all manner of life and verdure. One of the myths of
Southern California attributes the creation of man and the world to two
divine beings. The Los Angeles tribes believe their one god Quaoar brought
forth the world from chaos, set it upon the shoulders of seven giants, peopled
it with the lower forms of animal life, and finally crowned his work
by creating a man and a woman out of earth. Still farther south, the Cochimís
believe in a sole creator; the Pericúis call the maker of all things
Niparaja, and say that the heavens are his dwelling-place; the Sinaloas pay
reverence to Viriseva the mother of Vairubi, the first man. According to
the Navajos, all mankind originally dwelt under the earth, in almost perpetual
darkness, until they were released by the Moth-worm, who bored his
way up to the surface. Through the hole thus made the people swarmed
out on to the face of the earth, the Navajos taking the lead. Their first
act was to manufacture the sun and the moon, and with the light came confusion
of tongues. The Great Father and Mother of the Moquis created
men in nine races from all manner of primeval forms. The Pima creator
made man and woman from a lump of clay, which he kneaded with the
sweat of his own body, and endowed with life by breathing upon it. The
Great Spirit of the Pápagos made first the earth and all living things, and
then men in great numbers from potter's clay. The Miztecs ascribe their
origin to the act of the two mighty gods, the male Lion Snake and the
female Tiger Snake, or of their sons, Wind of the Nine Snakes and Wind
of the Nine Caves. The Tezcucan story is that the sun cast a dart into the
earth at a certain spot in the land of Aculma. From this hole issued a
man imperfectly formed, and after him a woman, from which pair mankind
are descended. The Tlascaltecs asserted that the world was the effect of
chance, while the heavens had always existed. The most common Mexican
belief was, that the first human beings, a boy and a girl, were produced
from the blood-besprinkled fragments of the bone procured from hades by
the sixteen hundred fallen gods sprung from the flint-knife of which the
goddess Citlalicue had been delivered. According to the Chimalpopoca
manuscript the creator produced his work in successive epochs, man being
made on the seventh day from dust or ashes. In Guatemala there was a
belief that the parents of the human race were created out of the earth by
the two younger sons of the divine Father and Mother. The Quiché creation
was a very bungling affair. Three times and of three materials was
man made before his makers were satisfied with their work. First of clay,
but he lacked intelligence; next of wood, but he was shriveled and useless;
finally of yellow and white maize, and then he proved to be a noble
work. Four men were thus made, and afterwards four women.




[I-42] 'This nice agreement with the Mosaic account of the height which
the waters of the Deluge attained above the summits of the highest mountains
is certainly extraordinary; since we read in the twentieth verse of
the seventh chapter of Genesis: "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters
prevail, and the mountains were covered."' Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq.,
vol. viii., p. 25.




[I-43] Relaciones, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 321-2.




[I-44] 'Un orient lointain,' says Brasseur de Bourbourg; but he must either
mean what we call in English the Orient, the East, or contradict himself—which,
by the way, he is very prone to do—because he afterwards asserts
that Tula is the place 'on the other side of the sea,' from which the Quiché
wanderers came to the north-west coast of America.




[I-45] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 105-6.




[I-46] Id., pp. 167-8.




[I-47] Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., p. 178; Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, p. 258.




[I-48] Ross' Adven., pp. 287-8.




[I-49] Warden, Recherches, p. 190.




[I-50] Domenech's Deserts, vol. ii., p. 4; Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i., p. 19.




[I-51] Warden, Recherches, p. 213.




[I-52] The reader will recollect that the story of each of these heroes has
been told at length in vol. iii. of this work.




[I-53] The legend of Viracocha, or Ticeviracocha, as he is sometimes called,
and his successor, is, according to Herrera, as follows: 'Cuentan tambien
los Indios, segun lo tienen por tradicion de sus antepassados, y parece por
sus cantares, que en su antiguedad estuuieron mucho tiempo sin ver Sol, y
que por los grandes votos, y plegarias que hazian â sus dioses, saliô el Sol
de la laguna Titicaca, y de la Isla, que estâ en ella, que es en el Collao, y
que pareciô luego por la parte de medio dia vn hõbre blanco de gran cuerpo,
y de veneranda presencia, que era tan poderoso, que baxaua las sierras,
crecia los valles, y sacaua fuentes de las piedras, al qual por su gran poder
llamauan: Principio de todas las cosas criadas, y padre del Sol, porque
dio ser a los hombres, y animales, y por su mano les vino notable beneficio,
y que obrando estas marauillas, fue de largo hâzia el Norte, y de camino
yua dando orden de vida â las gentes, hablando con mucho amor, amonestando
que fuessen buenos, y se amassen vnos â otros, al qual hasta los
vltimos tiempos de los Ingas llamauã Ticeuiracocha, y en el Collao Tuapaca,
y en otras partes Arnauâ, y que le hizieron muchos Templos, y bultos
en ellos â su semejança, â los quales sacrificauan. Dizen tambien, que
passados algunos tiempos oyeron dezir â sus mayores, que pareciô otro
hombre semejante al referido, que sanaua los enfermos, daua vista â los
ciegos, y que en la prouincia de los Cañas, queriendo locamente apedrearle,
lo vieron hincado de rodillas, alçadas las manos al Cielo, inuocando el
diuino fauor, y que pareciô vn fuego del Cielo que los espantô tanto,
que con grandes gritos, y clamores le pedian, que los librasse de
aquel peligro, pues las venia aquel castigo por el pecado, que auian
cometido, y que luego cessô el fuego, quedando abrasadas las piedras, y
oy dia se ven quemadas, y tan liuianas, que aunque grandes se leuantan
como corcho, y dizen, que desde alli se fue â la mar, y entrando en ella
sobre su manto tendido nunca mas se vio, por lo qual le llamaron Viracocha,
que quiere dezir espuma de la mar, nõbre que despues mudô
signification, y que luego le hizieron vn Templo, en el pueblo de Cacha, y
algunos Castellanos solo por su discurso han dicho, que este deuia de ser
algun Apostol: pero los mas cuerdos lo tienen por vanidad, porque en todos
estos Templos se sacrificaua al demonio, y hasta que los Castellanos entraron
en los Reynos del Pirû, no fue oìdo, ni predicado el santo Euangelio,
ni vista la Santissima señal de la Cruz.' Hist. Gen., dec. v., lib. iii., cap.
vi.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 82.




[I-54] Sumé was a white man with a thick beard, who came across the
ocean from the direction of the rising sun. He had power over the elements,
and could command the tempest. At a word from him the trees of
the densest forest receded from their places to make a path for him; the
most ferocious animals crouched submissive at his feet; the treacherous
surface of lake and river presented a solid footing to his tread. He taught
the people agriculture, and the use of maize. The Caboclos, a Brazilian
nation, refused to listen to his divine teachings, and even sought to kill
him with their arrows, but he turned their own weapons against them.
The persecuted apostle then retired to the banks of a river, and finally left
the country entirely. The tradition adds that the prints of his feet are
still to be seen on the rocks and in the sand of the coast. Warden, Recherches,
p. 189.




[I-55] Paye-Tome was another white apostle. His history so closely resembles
that of Sumé that it is probable they are the same person. Id.




[I-56] 'In former times, as they (the Chilians) had heard their fathers say,
a wonderful man had come to that country, wearing a long beard, with
shoes, and a mantle such as the Indians carry on their shoulders, who performed
many miracles, cured the sick with water, caused it to rain, and
their crops and grain to grow, kindled fire at a breath, and wrought other
marvels, healing at once the sick, and giving sight to the blind,' and so on.
'Whence it may be inferred that this man was some apostle whose name
they do not know.' Quoted from Rosales' inedited History of Chili, in
Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., p. 419.




[I-57] Bochica, the great law-giver of the Muyscas, and son of the sun, a
white man, bearded, and wearing long robes, appeared suddenly in the
people's midst while they were disputing concerning the choice of a king.
He advised them to appoint Huncahua, which they immediately did. He
it was who invented the calendar and regulated the festivals. After living
among the Muyscas for two thousand years, he vanished on a sudden near
the town of Hunca. Warden, Recherches, p. 187; Klemm, Cultur-Geschichte,
tom. v., p. 174, quoting Stevenson's Travels in South America, vol. i., p. 397.




[I-58] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 35; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd.,
pp. 67-8; Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, p. 13.




[I-59] In a work entitled Fenix del Occidente.




[I-60] Felicidad de Mej., Mex. 1685, fol. 55.




[I-61] Boturini, Catálogo, in Idea, pp. 43, 50-2. Although the opinion that
Quetzalcoatl was St Thomas, 'appears to be rather hazardous, yet one cannot
help being astonished at the extent of the regions traversed by St.
Thomas; it is true that some writers do not allow of his having gone beyond
Calamita, a town in India, the site of which is doubtful; but others assert that
he went as far as Meliapour, on the other side of the Coromandel, and even
unto Central America.' Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., p. 50. 'Apud Iaiaobæ Indos
in Occidenti tradita per avos viget memoria S. Apostoli Thomæ, quam
retinent a transitu ejus per illas plagas, cujus non levia extant indicia: præcipuè
quædam semita in illis solitudinibus hactenus perseverat, in quâ non
oritur herba nisi valdè humilis et parvula, cum utrumque latus herbescat
ultra modum; eo itinere dicunt Apostolum incessisse, et inde profectum in
Peruana regna. Apud Brasilienses quoque traditio est, ibi prædicasse.
Apud alios barbaros, etiam in regionem Paraguay venisse, postquam descendit
per fluvium Iguazu, deinde in Paranam per Aracaium, ubi observatur
locus in quo sedit defessus Apostolus, et fertur prædixisse, ut a majoribus
acceptum est, post se illuc adventuros homines qui posteris eorum
annuntiarent fidem veri Dei, quod non leve solatium et animos facit nostræ
religionis prædicatoribus, ingentes labores inter illos barbaros pro dilatione
Ecclesiæ perpetientibus.' Nieremberg, Historiæ Naturæ, lib. xiv.,
cap. cxvii.




[I-62] Following are a few points of Lord Kingsborough's elaborate argument:
'How truly surprising it is to find that the Mexicans, who seem to
have been quite unacquainted with the doctrines of the migration of the
soul and the metempsychosis, should have believed in the incarnation of
the only son of their supreme god Tonacatecutle. For Mexican mythology
speaking of no other son of that god except Quecalcoatle, who was
born of Chimalman the Virgin of Tula, without connection with man,
and by his breath alone, (by which may be signified his word or his will,
announced to Chimalman by word of mouth of the celestial messenger,
whom he dispatched to inform her that she should conceive a son,) it must
be presumed that Quecalcoatle was his only son. Other arguments might
be adduced to show, that the Mexicans believed that Quecalcoatle was both
god and man, that he had previously to his incarnation existed from all
eternity, that he had created both the world and man, that he descended
from heaven to reform the world by penance, that he was born with the
perfect use of reason, that he preached a new law, and, being king of Tula,
was crucified for the sins of mankind, as is obscurely insinuated by the interpreter
of the Vatican Codex, plainly declared in the traditions of Yucatan,
and mysteriously represented in the Mexican paintings.' If the
promise of the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary,—The Holy Ghost shall
come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the
Son of God—be couched in the language of ancient prophecy, 'it is not
improbable that the head of the dragon which forms the crest of three of
the female figures (in one of the Mexican pieces of sculpture), as it may also
be presumed it did of the fourth when entire, (if it be not a symbol which
Chimalman borrowed from her son's name,) was intended to denote that
she had been overshadowed by the power of Huitzilopuchtli, whose device,
as we are informed by Sahagun in the first chapter of the first book of his
History of New Spain, was the head of a dragon.' Kingsborough's Mex.
Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 507-8. See, more especially, his elaborate discussion
of Quetzalcoatl's crucifixion and identity with the Messiah, vol. viii., pp.
5-51. As we have seen in a preceding volume, Quetzalcoatl is compared
with the heathen deities of the old world, as well as with the Messiah of
the Christians. See vol. iii., chap. vii.




[I-63] See vol. iii., p. 450, et seq.




[I-64] Though the presumption may be in favor of communication by Bering
Strait, yet the phenomena in the present state of our knowledge,
favors the Aleutian route. Latham's Comp. Phil., p. 384. The Aleutian
archipelago is 'probably the main route by which the old continent
must have peopled the new. Behring's Straits, though ... they were
doubtless one channel of communication, just as certainly as if their place
had been occupied by solid land, were yet, in all likelihood, only of subordinate
utility in the premises, when compared with the more accessible and
commodious bridge towards the south.' Simpson's Nar., vol. ii., p. 225.
'There is no improbability that the early Asiatics reached the western
shores of America through the islands of the Pacific.' The trace of the
progress of the red and partially civilized man from Oriental Asia was left
on these islands. Willson's Amer. Hist., pp. 92-3. The first discoveries were
made along the coast and from island to island; the American immigrants
would have come by the Aleutian Isles. Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat.
Civ., tom. i., p. 10. To come by Aleutian islands presents not nearly so
great a difficulty as the migrations among Pacific Islands. Prescott's Mex.,
vol. iii., p. 374. Immigration from Asia 'appears to have taken place
mostly by the Aleuthian islands.' Smith's Human Species, p. 238.




[I-65] Some of the early writers were of course ignorant of the existence of any
strait separating America from Asia; thus Acosta—who dares not assume,
in opposition to the Bible, that the flood did not extend to America, or that
a new creation took place there—accounts for the great variety of animals
by supposing that the new continent is in close proximity to if not actually
connected with the Old World at its northern and southern ends, and that
the people and animals saved in the ark spread gradually by these routes
over the whole land. Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 68-73, 81; West und Ost
Indischer Lustgart, pt i., pp. 8-9. See also Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld,
pp. 38-42; Gottfriedt, Newe Welt, p. 4; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza,
pp. 26-8. Clavigero produces instances to show that upheavals, engulfings,
and separations of land have been quite common, and thinks that
American traditions of destructions refer to such disasters. He also shows
that certain animals could have passed only by a tropic, others only by
an arctic road. He accordingly supposes that America was formerly connected
with Africa at the latitude of the Cape Verde islands, with Asia
in the north, and perhaps with Europe by Greenland. Storia Ant. del
Messico, tom. iv., pp. 27-44. The great objection to a migration by way
of the cold latitude of Bering Strait, says a writer in the Historical Magazine,
vol. i., p. 285, is that tropic animals never could have passed that way.
He apparently rejects or has never heard of the theory of change in zones.
See farther, concerning joining of continents, and communication by Bering
Strait: Warden, Recherches, pp. 202, 221; Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom.
ii., p. 68, et seq.; Snowden's Hist. N. and S. Amer., p. 198; Taylor, in
Cal. Farmer, Sept. 12, 1862; Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 62-3, 82-3; Valois,
Mexique, p. 197; Adair's Amer. Ind., p. 219. Bradford denies emphatically
that there ever was any connection between America and Asia. 'It
has been supposed,' he writes, 'that a vast tract of land, now submerged
beneath the waters of the Pacific Ocean, once connected Asia and America....
The arguments in favor of this opinion are predicated upon that portion
of the Scriptures, relating to the "division" of the earth in the days of
Peleg, which is thought to indicate a physical division,—upon the analogies
between the Peruvians, Mexicans and Polynesians ... and upon the
difficulty of accounting in any other manner for the presence of some kinds
of animals in America.' After demolishing these three bases of opinion,
he adds: 'this conjectured terrestrial communication never existed, a conclusion
substantiated, in some measure, by geological testimony.' Amer.
Antiq., pp. 222-8. Mr Bradford's argument, in addition to being thoughtful
and ingenious, is supported by facts, and will amply repay a perusal.




[I-66] Exam. Crit., tom. ii., p. 68.




[I-67] Mex., vol. iii., p. 418.




[I-68] Prehist. Man, p. 615.




[I-69] Human Species, p. 238.




[I-70] Rel., 2de expéd., p. 28.




[I-71] Peruvian Antiq., p. 24. America was probably first peopled from
Asia, but the memory of that ancient migration was lost. Asia was utterly
unknown to the ancient Mexicans. The original seats of the Chichimecs
were, as they thought, not far to the north-west. They placed Aztlan
not in a remote country, but near Michoacan. Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc.,
Transact., vol. i., pp. 158-9, 174. There are strong resemblances in all things
with Asiatic nations; less in language than other respects, but more with
Asia than with any other part of the world. Anatomical resemblances
point the same way. Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 196-203.
The Americans most probably came from Asia soon after the dispersion and
confusion of tongues; but there has been found no clear notice among
them of Asia, or of their passage to this continent. Nor in Asia of any
such migration. The Mexican histories do not probably go so far back.
Venegas, Noticia de la Cal., tom. i., pp. 72-3. If a congregation of twelve
representatives from Malacca, China, Japan, Mongolia, Sandwich Islands,
Chili, Peru, Brazil, Chickasaws, Comanches, &c., were dressed alike, or
undressed and unshaven, the most skillful anatomist could not from their
appearance separate them. Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, pp.
147-9, 244-5. The people of Asia seem to have been the only men who
could teach the Mexicans and Peruvians to make bronze, and could not
teach them to smelt and work iron, one thousand or one thousand five
hundred years before the Spanish Conquest. Tylor's Researches, p. 209.
It is almost proved that long before Columbus, Northern India, China,
Corea, and Tartary, had communication with America. Chateaubriand,
Lettre aux Auteurs, p. 87. See also: Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 345; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., p. 20; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat.
Civ., tom. i., pp. 23-4; Simpson's Nar., vol. i., p. 190; Gregg's Com. Prairies,
vol. ii., pp. 250-1; Macfie's Vanc. Isl., pp. 426-7; Saint-Amant, Voyages,
p. 245; Malte-Brun, Précis de la Géog., tom. vi., pp. 290, 295-6;
Warden, Recherches, pp. 118-36; Macgregor's Progress of Amer., vol. i.,
p. 24; Mühlenpfordt, Mejico, tom. i., p. 230; Dodge, in Ind. Aff. Rept.,
1869, p. 590; Whymper's Alaska, pp. 278-85; Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man,
vol. ii., p. 519; Mitchill, in Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 325-32;
Vigne's Travels, vol. ii., p. 36; Latham's Man and his Migrations,
p. 122; Sampson, in Hist. Mag., vol. v., p. 213. Robertson's Hist. Amer.,
vol. i., pp. 280-1; Snowden's Hist. N. and S. Amer., p. 200; Stratton's
Mound-Builders, MS.; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 208, 215-16, 432; Pickering's
Races of Man, in U. S. Ex. Ex., vol. ix., pp. 287-8; Carver's Trav.,
pp. 209-13; Kennedy's Probable Origin; Davis' Discovery of New Eng.;
Hellwald, in Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 334. Herrera argued that as there
were no natives in America of a color similar to those of the politer nations
of Europe, they must be of Asiatic origin; that it is unreasonable to suppose
them to have been driven thither by stress of weather; that the natives
for a long time had no king, therefore no historiographer, therefore
they are not to be believed in this statement, or in any other. The clear
conclusions drawn from these pointed arguments is, that the Indian race
descended from men who reached America by the nearness of the land.
'Y asi mas verisimilmente se concluye que la generacion, y poblacion de
los Indios, ha procedido de hombres que passaron a las Indias Ocidentales,
por la vezindad de la tierra, y se fueron estendiendo poco a poco;'
but from whence they came, or by what route the royal historiographer
offers no conjecture. Hist. Gen., dec. i., lib. i., cap. vi.




[I-72] Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 179.




[I-73] Quarterly Review, vol. xxi., pp. 334-5. The communication between
Anáhuac and the Asiatic continent was merely the contact of some few
isolated Asiatics who had lost their way, and from whom the Mexicans
drew some notions of science, astrology, and some cosmogonic traditions;
and these Asiatics did not return home. Chevalier, Mexique, pp. 59, 56-8;
Viollet-le-Duc, in Charnay, Ruines Amér., pp. 87-9; Fossey, Mexique, pp.
120-1; Democratic Review, vol. xi., p. 617; Lafond, Voyages, p. 133.




[I-74] Deguignes writes: 'Les Chinois ont pénétré dans les pays très-éloignés
du côté de l'orient; j'ai examiné leur mesures, et elles m'ont conduit vers
les côtes de la Californie; j'ai conclu de-là qu'ils avoient connu l'Amérique
l'an 458 J. C.' He also attributes Peruvian civilization to the Chinese.
Recherches sur les Navigations des Chinois du côté de l'Amérique, in Mémoires
de l'Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xvii. Paravey, in 1844, attempted
to prove that the province of Fousang was Mexico. Domenech's
Deserts, vol. i., p. 51. 'In Chinese history we find descriptions of a vast
country 20,000 le to the eastward across the great ocean, which, from the
description given, must be California and Mexico.' Taylor, in Cal. Farmer,
Sept. 12, 1862. 'L'histoire postérieure des Chinois donne à penser qu'ils
ont eu autrefois des flottes qui ont pu passer au Mexique par les Phillippines.'
Farcy, Discours p. 46, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i.




[I-75] A Chinese li is about one third of a mile.




[I-76] 'Fou sang, en chinois et selon la prononciation japonaise Fouts sôk,
est l'arbrisseau que nous nommons Hibiscus rosa chinensis,' Klaproth, Recherches
sur le pays de Fou Sang, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1831,
tom. li., p. 55, note. Others suppose the fusang to be the maguey, and,
indeed, it was used for much the same purposes. It was, however, most
probably, the mulberry; fu-soh, the Japanese equivalent for the Chinese
fusang, being compounded of fu, to aid, and soh, the mulberry, a tree
which abounds in a wild state in the province of Yesso, and which has
been cultivated by royal command in other parts of Japan, where, as the
reader will presently see, Fusang was probably situated. Mr Brooks,
Japanese Consul in San Francisco, also tells me that Fu Sang is a name
used in Chinese poetry to mean Japan. In Japan it is also thus used, and
also used in trade marks, as 'first quality of Fu Sang silk cocoons,' meaning
Japanese cocoons.




[I-77] I follow Deguignes in this sentence; Klaproth has it: 'Ceux qui peuvent
recevoir leur grace sont envoyés à la première (méridionale), ceux au
contraire auxquels on ne veut pas l'accorder sont détenus dans la prison du
nord.' Recherches, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1831, tom. li., p. 55.




[I-78] Deguignes translates: 'des habitants élèvent des biches comme en
Chine, et ils en tirent du beurre.'




[I-79] 'Il y a dans l'original To Phou thao. Deguignes ayant décomposé le
mot Phou tao, traduit: "on y trouve une grande quantité de glayeuls et de
pêches." Cependant le mot Phou seul ne signifie jamais glayeul, c'est le
nom des joncs et autres espèces de roseaux de marais, dont on se sert pour
faire des nattes. Thao est en effet le nom de la pêche, mais le mot composé
Phou tao signifie en chinois la vigne.' Klaproth, Recherches, in Nouvelles
Annales des Voy., 1831, tom. li., pp. 57-8.




[I-80] 'Les images des Esprits,' &c.; Id., p. 59.




[I-81] 'Deguignes traduit: 'Pendant leurs prières ils exposent l'image du
défunt.' Le texte parle de chin ou génies et non pas des ames des défunts.'
Id.




[I-82] 'C'est une analogie curieuse qu'offre le pays à vignes de Fousang
(l'Amérique chinoise de Deguignes) avec le Vinland des premières découvertes
scandinaves sur les côtes orientales de l'Amérique.' Exam. Crit.,
tom. ii., p. 63, note.




[I-83] Nouv. Jour. Asiatique, 1832, p. 335, quoted by Humboldt, Exam.
Crit., tom. ii., pp. 65-6.




[I-84] Warden, Recherches, p. 123.




[I-85] It is enough to look at an Aleut to recognize the Mongol. Wrangel,
in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1853, tom. cxxxvii., p. 213. 'The resemblance
between north-west coast Indians and Chinese is rather remarkable.'
Deans' Remains in B. Col., MS. 'I have repeatedly seen instances,
both men and women, who in San Francisco could readily be mistaken
for Chinese—their almond-shaped eyes, light complexion and long braided
black hair giving them a marked similarity.... An experience of nearly
nine years among the coast tribes, with a close observation and study
of their characteristics, has led me to the conclusion that these northern
tribes (B. Col. and surrounding region) are the only evidence of any
exodus from the Asiatic shore ever having reached our borders.' Taylor,
in Cal. Farmer, July 25, 1862. Grant, Ocean to Ocean, p. 304,
says that the Chinese and Indians resemble one another so much that
were it not for the queue and dress they would be difficult to distinguish.
'The Pacific Indian is Mongolian in size and complexion, in the shape
of the face, and the eyes,' and he wants many of the manly characteristics
of the Eastern Indians. Morelet, Voyage, tom. i., p. 148, says of the
Yucatan Indians, 'leur teint cuivré et quelquefois jaunâtre présente un
ensemble de caractères qui rapproche singulièrement leur race de celle
des tribus d'origine mongole.' This point of physical resemblance is,
however, denied by several writers; thus Kneeland, Wonders, p. 53, says
that though Americans have generally been accepted as Mongolians, yet
if placed side by side with Chinese, hardly any resemblance will be
found in physical character, except in the general contour of their faces
and in their straight black hair; their mental characteristics are entirely
opposite. Adair writes: 'Some have supposed the Americans to be
descended from the Chinese: but neither their religion, laws, customs, &c.,
agree in the least with those of the Chinese: which sufficiently proves that
they are not of that line.' He goes on to say that distance, lack of maritime
skill, etc., all disprove the theory. He also remarks that the prevailing
winds blow with little variation from east to west, and therefore junks
could not have been driven ashore. Amer. Ind., pp. 12-13. 'Could we
hope that the monuments of Central and South America might attract the
attention and excite the interest of more American scholars than hitherto,
the theory of the Mongol origin of the Red-men would soon be numbered
among exploded hypotheses.' Nott and Gliddon's Indig. Races, p. 188.
'MM. Spix et Martius ont remarqué la ressemblance extraordinaire qui
existe entre la physionomie des colons Chinois et celle des Indiens. La
figure des Chinois est, il est vrai, plus petite. Ils ont le front plus large,
les lèvres plus fines, et en général les traits plus délicats et plus doux que
ceux des sauvages de l'Amérique. Cependant, en considérant la conformation
de leur tête, qui n'est pas oblongue, mais angulaire, et plutôt pointue,
leur crâne large, les sinus frontaux proéminents, le front bas, les os des
joues très saillants, leurs yeux petits et obliques, le nez proportionnellement
petit et épaté, le peu de poils garnissant leur menton et les autres
parties du corps, leur chevelure moins longue et plate, la couleur jaunâtre
ou cuivrée de leur peau, on retrouve les traits physiques communs aux
deux races.' Warden, Recherches, p. 123. The Americans certainly approach
the Mongols and Malays in some respects, but not in the essential
parts of cranium, hair, and profile. If we regard them as a Mongol branch,
we must suppose that the slow action of climate has changed them thus
materially during a number of centuries. Malte-Brun, Précis de la Géog.,
tom. vi., p. 289.




[I-86] This will be best shown by referring to Warden's comparison of American,
Chinese, and Tartar words. Recherches, pp. 125-6. The Haidahs, are
said, however, to have used words known to the Chinese. Deans' Remains
in B. Col., MS. Mr Taylor writes: 'The Chinese accent can be traced
throughout the Indian (Digger) language,' and illustrates his assertion
with a comparative vocabulary of Indian and Chinese. Cal. Farmer,
Sept. 12, 1862. The Chinese in California 'are known to be able to converse
with them (the Indians) in their respective languages.'! Cronise's
California, p. 31.




[I-87] Warden, Recherches, pp. 127-9, gives a long list of these resemblances.
See also Ampère, Prom. en Amér., tom. ii., p. 301; Prescott's
Mex., vol. iii., p. 396; Faliés, Études Hist. sur les Civilisations, tom.
i., pp. 380-1. Molina found (in Chili?) inscriptions resembling Chinese.
M'Culloh's Researches on Amer., pp. 171-2. Bossu found some
similarity between the language of the Natchez of Louisiana, and the
Chinese. Nouveaux Voyages aux Indes Occidentales, tom. i., let. xviii.;
cited by Warden, Recherches, p. 121. The last mentioned author also
quotes a long list of analogies between the written language of the Chinese
and the gesture language of the northern Indians, from a letter
written by Wm Dunbar to the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, and
comments thereon. Recherches, p. 176. Of the value of these philological
proofs the reader may judge by the following fair sample: 'the Chinese
call a slave, shungo; and the Naudowessie Indians, whose language from
their little intercourse with the Europeans is the least corrupted, term a
dog, shungush. The former denominate one species of their tea, shousong;
the latter call their tobacco, shousassau.' Carver's Trav., p. 214.
The supposition of Asiatic derivation is assumed by Smith Barton on the
strength of certain similarities of words, but Vater remarks, these prove only
partial migrations. Malte-Brun, Précis de la Géog., tom. vi., p. 290. 'On the
whole, more analogies (etymol.) have been found with the idioms of Asia,
than of any other quarter. But their amount is too inconsiderable to balance
the opposite conclusion inferred by a total dissimilarity of structure.' Prescott's
Mex., vol. iii., p. 396. Barton, New Views, gives a comparative vocabulary
to show that Asiatic traces have been discovered in the languages of
South as well as North America. Latham, Man and His Migrations, p. 185,
has proofs that 'the Kamskadale, the Koriak, the Aino-Japanese, and the
Korean are the Asiatic languages most like those of America.' 'Dans
quatre-vingt-trois langues américaines examinées par MM. Barton et
Vater, on en a reconnu environ cent soixante-dix dont les racines semblent
être les mêmes; et il est facile de se convaincre que cette analogie
n'est pas accidentelle, qu'elle ne repose pas simplement sur l'harmonie imitative,
ou sur cette égalité de conformation dans les organes, qui rend presque
identiques les premiers sons articulés par les enfans. Sur cent
soixante-dix mots qui ont des rapports entre eux, il y en a trois cinquièmes
qui rappellent le mantchou, le tungouse, le mongol et le samojède, et deux
cinquièmes qui rappellent les langues celtique et tschoude, le basque, le
copte et le congo.' Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 27-8. Prichard, Nat. Hist.
Man, vol. ii., pp. 512-13, thinks that the Otomí monosyllabic language
may belong to Chinese and Indo-Chinese idioms; but Latham, Varieties of
Man, p. 408, doubts its isolation from other American tongues, and thinks
that it is either anaptotic or imperfectly agglutinate.




[I-88] Nouveaux Voyages aux Indes Occidentales, tom. i., lettre xviii. Cited
by Warden, Recherches, p. 121.




[I-89] Trav., p. 213.




[I-90] Hist. of Louisiana, London 1774.




[I-91] Speaking of the ruins of Central America, Stephens says: 'if their
(the Chinese) ancient architecture is the same with their modern, it bears
no resemblance whatever to these unknown ruins.' Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p.
438.




[I-92] Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 236. Speaking of the Popol Vuh, Viollet-le-Duc
says: 'Certains passages de ce livre ont avec les histoires héroïques
de l'Inde une singulière analogie.' In Charnay, Ruines Amér., p. 40.
See also, Brasseur de Bourbourg, Quatre Lettres, pp. 212-13, 236-42.




[I-93] Geschichte der Religion Jesu Christi, tom. i., p. 426. Quoted in
Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 256.




[I-94] Vues, tom. i., p. 257. Tschudi, again, writes: 'As among the East
Indians, an undefined being, Bramah, the divinity in general, was shadowed
forth in the Trimurti, or as a God under three forms, viz., Bramah,
Vishnu, and Sciva; so also the Supreme Being was venerated among the
Indians of Mexico, under the three forms of Ho, Huitzilopoctli, and Tlaloc,
who formed the Mexican Trimurti. The attributes and worship of the
Mexican goddess Mictanihuatl preserve the most perfect analogy with those
of the sanguinary and implacable Kali; as do equally the legends of the
Mexican divinity Teayamiqui with the formidable Bhavani; both these Indian
deities were wives of Siva-Rudra. Not less surprising is the characteristic
likeness which exists between the pagodas of India and the Teocallis
of Mexico, while the idols of both temples offer a similitude in
physiognomy and posture which cannot escape the observation of any one
who has been in both countries. The same analogy is observed between
the oriental Trimurti and that of Peru; thus Con corresponds to Bramah,
Pachacamac to Vishnu, and Huiracocha to Siva. The Peruvians never dared
to erect a temple to their ineffable God, whom they never confounded with
other divinities; a remarkable circumstance, which reminds us of similar
conduct among a part of the inhabitants of India as to Bramah, who is the
Eternal, the abstract God. Equally will the study of worship in the two
hemispheres show intimate connection between the existence and attributes
of the devadasis (female servants of the Gods) and the Peruvian virgins of
the Sun.



All these considerations, and many others, which from want of space
we must omit, evidently prove that the greater part of the Asiatic religions,
such as that of Fo, in China, of Buddha, in Japan, of Sommono-Cadom,
in India, the Lamaism of Thibet, the doctrine of Dschakdschiamuni among
the Mongols and Calmucs; as well as the worship of Quetzalcoatl, in Mexico,
and of Manco-Capac, in Peru, are but so many branches of the same
trunk; whose root the labors of archæology and modern philosophy have
not been able to determine with certainty, notwithstanding all the discussion,
perseverance, sagacity, and boldness of hypothesis, among the learned
men who have been occupied in investigating the subject.' After remarking
upon the marvelous analogy between Christianity and Buddhism as
found to exist by the first missionaries to Thibet, he goes on: 'Not less,
however, was the surprise of the first Spanish ecclesiastics, who found, on
reaching Mexico, a priesthood as regularly organized as that of the most
civilized countries. Clothed with a powerful and effective authority which
extended its arms to man in every condition and in all the stages of his
life, the Mexican priests were mediators between man and the Divinity;
they brought the newly born infants into the religious society, they directed
their training and education, they determined the entrance of the
young men into the service of the State, they consecrated marriage by
their blessing, they comforted the sick and assisted the dying.' Finally,
Tschudi finds it necessary to 'insist on this point, that Quetzalcoatl and
Mango Capac were both missionaries of the worship of Bramah or Buddha,
and probably of different sects.' Peruvian Antiq., pp. 17-20. Domenech,
Deserts, vol. i., p. 52, has this passage, nearly word for word the same as
Tschudi, but does not mention the latter author's name. There is 'a remarkable
resemblance between the religion of the Aztecs and the Buddhism
of the Chinese.' Gentleman's Magazine; quoted in Washington Standard,
Oct. 30, 1869. In Quetzalcoatl may be recognized one of the austere hermits
of the Ganges, and the custom of lacerating the body, practiced by
so many tribes, has its counterpart among the Hindoos. Priest's Amer. Antiq.,
p. 211. Quetzalcoatl, like Buddha, preached against human sacrifice.
Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 265.




[I-95] 'Il est très-remarquable aussi que parmi les hiéroglyphes mexicains
on ne découvre absolument rien qui annonce le symbole de la force génératrice,
ou le culte du lingam, qui est répandu dans l'Inde et parmi toutes
les nations qui ont eu des rapports avec les Hindoux.' Vues, tom. i., p. 275.




[I-96] Recherches Asiatiques, tom. i., p. 215.




[I-97] Vues, tom. i., p. 276.




[I-98] See vol. iii., p. 501, et seq.; see also Brasseur de Bourbourg, Quatre
Lettres, pp. 202-8.




[I-99] See vol. iv., p. 163, for cut of this ornament. 'D'abord j'ai été frappé
de la ressemblance qu'offrent ces étranges figures des édifices mayas avec
la tête de l'éléphant. Cet appendice, placé entre deux yeux, et dépassant
la bouche de presque toute sa longueur, m'a semblé ne pouvoir être autre
chose que l'image de la trompe d'un proboscidien, car le museau charnu et
saillant du tapir n'est pas de cette longueur. J'ai observé aussi que les
édifices placés à l'Est des autres ruines offrent, aux quatre coins, trois têtes
symboliques armées de trompes tournées en l'air; or, le tapir n'a nullement
la faculté d'élever ainsi son museau allongé; cette dernière considération
me semble décisive.' Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. 74. 'There is not the
slightest ground for supposing that the Mexicans or Peruvians were acquainted
with any portion of the Hindoo mythology; but since their
knowledge of even one species of animal peculiar to the Old Continent,
and not found in America, would, if distinctly proved, furnish a
convincing argument of a communication having taken place in former
ages between the people of the two hemispheres, we cannot but think
that the likeness to the head of a rhinoceros, in the thirty-sixth page of
the Mexican painting preserved in the collection of Sir Thomas Bodley;
the figure of a trunk resembling that of an elephant, in other Mexican
paintings; and the fact, recorded by Simon, that what resembled the rib of
a camel (la costilla de un camello) was kept for many ages as a relic, and
held in great reverence, in one of the provinces of Bogota,—are deserving
of attention. Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., p. 27. 'On croit reconnoître,
dans le masque du sacrificateur (in one of the groups represented
in the Codex Borgianus) la trompe d'un éléphant ou de quelque
pachyderme qui s'en rapproche par la configuration de la tête, mais dont
la mâchoire supérieure est garnie de dents incisives. Le groin du tapir se
prolonge sans doute un peu plus que le museau de nos cochons; mais il y a
bien loin de ce groin du tapir à la trompe figurée dans le Codex Borgianus.
Les peuples d'Aztlan, originaires d'Asie, avoient-ils conservé quelques notions
vagues sur les éléphans, ou, ce qui me paroît bien moins probable,
leurs traditions remontoient-elles jusqu'à l'époque où l'Amérique étoit
encore peuplée de ces animaux gigantesques, dont les squelettes pétrifiés
se trouvent enfouis dans les terrains marneux, sur le dos même des Cordillères
mexicaines? Peut-être aussi existe-t-il, dans la partie nord-ouest
du nouveau continent, dans des contrées qui n'ont été visitées ni par
Hearne, ni par Mackensie, ni par Lewis, un pachyderme inconnu, qui, par
la configuration de sa trompe, tient le milieu entre l'éléphant et le tapir.'
Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 254-5.




[I-100] Squier's Observations on Memoirs of Dr Zestermann, in Amer. Ethno.
Soc., Transact., April, 1851; Atwater, in Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact.,
vol. i., pp. 196-267.




[I-101] In this, as in all other theories, but little distinction is made between
the introduction of foreign culture, and the actual origin of the people. It
would be absurd, however, to suppose that a few ships' crews, almost, if
not quite, without women, cast accidentally ashore in Peru in the thirteenth
century, should in the fifteenth be found to have increased to a mighty nation,
possessed of a civilization quite advanced, yet resembling that of their
mother country so slightly as to afford only the most faint and far-fetched
analogies.




[I-102] Manco 'afterwards received from his subjects the title of "Capac,"
which means sole Emperor, splendid, rich in virtue.' Ranking's Hist. Researches,
p. 56. He cites for this, Garcilasso de la Vega, book i., chap.
xxvi., a work on which he relies for most of his information.




[I-103] A relation of two Russe Cossacks trauailes, out of Siberia to Catay,
&c., in Purchas his Pilgrimes, vol. iii., p. 798.




[I-104] Ranking's Hist. Researches, pp. 171-2.




[I-105] Quoted by Ranking, Hist. Researches, p. 183, from Abul Ghazi Bahadur,
History of the Turks, Moguls, and Tartars, vol. i., p. 11.




[I-106] Du Halde, Empire of China, vol. i., p. 275. Quoted by Ranking,
Hist. Researches, p. 197-8.




[I-107] Concerning the Mongolian origin of the Peruvians, see: Ranking's
Hist. Researches. Almost all other writers who have touched on this subject,
are indebted to Mr Ranking for their information and ideas. See
also Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. ii., p. 67, et seq.; Malte-Brun, Précis
de la Géog., tom. vi., pp. 293-4; Forster's Voyage Round the World.
Grotius thinks that the Peruvians must be distinct from other American
people, since they are so acute, and believes them, therefore, to be
descended from the Chinese. Wrecks of Chinese junks have been found
on the coast. Both adore the sun, and call the king the 'son of the
sun.' Both use hieroglyphics which are read from above downwards.
Manco Capac was a Chinaman who gave these settlers a government
founded on the Chinese system. Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, pp. 32-3.
De Laet, replying to these arguments, considers that the acuteness of
the Peruvians does not approach that of the Chinese. Nowhere in Peru
have the cunning and artistic works of Chinese artificers been seen.
The Chinese junks were too frail to withstand a storm that could drive
them across the Pacific. And if the voyage were intentional they would
have sought nearer land than the coasts of Mexico or Peru. The religion
of the two countries differs materially; so does their writing. Manco Capac
was a native Peruvian who ruled four hundred years before the coming
of the Spaniards. Novus Orbis, in Id., pp. 33-4. Mr Cronise, in his Natural
Wealth of California, p. 28, et seq., is more positive on this subject
than any writer I have yet encountered. I am at a loss to know why
this should be, because I have before me the works that he consulted, and
I certainly find nothing to warrant his very strong assertions. I quote a
few passages from his work. 'The investigations of ethnologists and philologists
who have studied the Hindoo, Chinese, and Japanese annals during
the present century, have brought to light such a chain of evidence as to
place beyond doubt that the inhabitants of Mexico and California, discovered
by the Spaniards, were of Mongolian origin.' Hindoo, Chinese, and
Japanese annals all agree that the fleet of Kublai Khan, son of Genghis
Khan, was wrecked on the coast of America. 'There are proofs clear and
certain, that Mango Capac, the founder of the Peruvian nation, was the son
of Kublai Khan ... and that the ancestors of Montezuma, of Mexico, who
were from Assam, arrived about the same time.... Every custom of the
Mexicans, described by their Spanish conquerors, proves their Asiatic origin....
The strange hieroglyphics found in so many places in Mexico, and
from California to Canada, are all of Mongolian origin'.... 'Humboldt,
many years ago, conjectured that these hieroglyphics were of Tartar origin.
It is now positively known that they are.... The armor belonging to Montezuma,
which was obtained by Cortez and is now in the museum at Madrid,
is known to be of Asiatic manufacture, and to have belonged to one
of Kublai Khan's generals.' It is unnecessary to multiply quotations, or
to further criticise a work so grossly misleading. The following unique
assertion is a fair specimen of Mr Cronise's vagaries when treading on unfamiliar
ground: '"Alta," the prefix which distinguishes Upper from Lower
California, is a word of Mongolian origin, signifying "gold."' The most
superficial knowledge of Spanish or of the history of California, would
have told Mr Cronise that 'alta' simply means 'high,' or 'upper,' and that
the name was applied to what was originally termed 'New' California, in
contradistinction to 'Baja' or 'Lower' California.




[I-108] This relation, says Ranking, 'has naturally enough been considered
by Robertson and others as a ridiculous fable; and any reader would be
inclined to treat it as such, were it not accounted for by the invasion of
Japan, and the very numerous and convincing proofs of the identity of the
Mongols and the Incas.' Hist. Researches, p. 55. He thinks that the
giants were the Mongolian invaders, mounted upon the elephants which
they brought with them. 'The elephants,' he says, 'would, no doubt, be
defended by their usual armor on such an extraordinary occasion, and the
space for the eyes would appear monstrous. The remark about the beards,
&c., shows that the man and the elephant were considered as one person. It
is a new and curious folio edition of the Centaurs and Lapithæ; and we cannot
wonder that, on such a novel occasion, Cape St. Helen's did not produce
an American Theseus.' Id., pp. 53-4.




[I-109] See Ranking's Hist. Researches, p. 56, et seq.; Warden, Recherches,
pp. 187-9.




[I-110] Origin of the Japanese Race, and their Relation to the American
Continent, MS.




[I-111] See report of a lecture read by Charles Wolcott Brooks before the
California Academy of Science, in Daily Alta California, May 4, 1875;
San Francisco Evening Bulletin, same date.




[I-112] See report of paper submitted by Mr Brooks to the California Academy
of Sciences, in San Francisco Evening Bulletin, March 2, 1875. In
this report the details and date of each wreck are given. The author of the
paper assures me that he has records of over one hundred such disasters.
Every one of these wrecks, when examined, proved to be Japanese, and
not one Chinese. See also Irving's Bonneville's Adven., p. 427; Smith's
Human Species, p. 239; Roquefeuil, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1823,
tom. xviii., pp. 248-9; Anderson, in Hist. Mag., vol. vii., pp. 80-1; Lassepas,
Baja Cal., pp. 45-6.




[I-113] Id. Lord's Nat., vol. ii., pp. 216-7. 'Looking only at the forms and
endings of the words, their ring and sounds when uttered, we could not
but notice the striking similarity, in these respects, between the proper
names as found on the map of Japan, and many of the names given to
places, rivers, etc., in this country.' (America.) Rockwell, in Hist. Mag.,
n. s., vol. iii., p. 141.




[I-114] There were in California at the time of the Conquest, Indians of
various races, some of the Japanese type. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., tom.
i., p. 3; Vallejo, Remin. Cal., MS., p. 6. The Aleutian Islanders resemble
the Japanese in various respects. Simpson's Nar., vol. ii., p. 228. Priest,
Amer. Antiq., p. 214, thinks that Quetzalcoatl may be regarded as a Japanese,
as comparatively white and bearded.




[I-115] Introduction to Charnay, Ruines Amér., pp. 28-31.




[I-116] Nieuwe Weereld, p. 39.




[I-117] Lord's Nat., vol. ii., p. 217.




[I-118] See: Ampère, Prom. en Amér., tom. ii., pp. 300-4; Atwater, in Amer.
Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 212-14, 338-42; Montanus, Nieuwe
Weereld, pp. 38-42; Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 58-9; Religious Cer. and
Cust., vol. iii., pp. 4-10; Robertson's Hist. Amer., vol. i., pp. 277-81; Vigne's
Travels, vol. ii., pp. 37-8; Gage's New Survey, p. 162; Domenech's Deserts,
vol. i., pp. 7-9; Farcy, Discours, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., p. 45;
Humboldt, Essai Pol., tom. i., pp. 79-80; Adair's Amer. Ind., pp. 12-13;
Norman's Rambles by Land and Water, pp. 215-16; Humboldt, Vues,
tom. i., p. 267; Vater, Ueber Amer. Bevölkerung, pp. 155-69, cited in
Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 175; Laplace, Circumnav., tom. vi., p. 156;
Warden, Recherches, pp. 201-2; Josselyn's Two Voyages; Williamson's Observations
on Climate; Hill's Antiq. of Amer.; Ixtlilxochitl, Relaciones, in
Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 392-3, 450; Foster's Pre-Hist.
Races, pp. 334-5; Volney's View; Bossu, Nouveaux Voy.; Slight's Indian
Researches; Carver's Trav., pp. 187-96, 208-19; Fontaine's How the World
was Peopled, pp. 241-5; Las Casas, Hist. Apologética, cap. ccix., quoted
in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., pp. 398-9; Delafield's Antiq.
Amer., pp. 13-104; Malte-Brun, Précis de la Géog., tom. vi., pp. 293-4;
Monglave, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., p. 60; Heylyn's Cosmog., p. 947;
Norman's Rambles in Yuc., p. 174.




[I-119] Ensayo de un Estudio comparativo.




[I-120] Delafield's Antiq. Amer., p. 57.




[I-121] Ranking's Hist. Researches, p. 356.




[I-122] See vol. iv., pp. 88, 95-6, for further description, also plan of Copan
ruins, p. 85, for location of vault. Jones, commenting on the above, remarks:
'This last sentence brings us to a specimen of Gem engraving, the
most ancient of all the antique works of Art. Not only is the death "Chamber"
identical with that of Egypt, but also the very way of reaching it—viz.,
first, by ascending the pyramidal base, and then descending, and so entering
the Sepulchre! This could not be accidental,—the builders of that
pyramidal Sepulchre must have had a knowledge of Egypt.' Hist. Anc.
Amer., pp. 116-17. Stephens, who in his first volume of travels in Central
America, p. 144, describes this vault, writes in vol. ii., pp. 439-40: 'The
pyramids of Egypt are known to have interior chambers, and, whatever
their other uses, to have been intended and used as sepulchres. These
(American pyramids), on the contrary, are of solid earth and stone. No
interior chambers have ever been discovered, and probably none exist.'
Mr Jones criticises Mr Stephens very severely for this apparent contradiction,
but it is customary with Mr Jones to tilt blindly at whatever obstructs
his theories. Stephens doubtless refers in this passage to such chambers
as would lead one to suppose that the pyramid was built as a token of
their presence. Löwenstern is very positive that the Mexican pyramid
was not intended for sepulchral purposes. Mexique, p. 274. Clavigero is
of the same opinion: 'quelli degli Egizj erano per lo più vuoti; quelli de'
Messicani massiccj; questi servivano di basi a' loro Santuarj; quelli di sepolcri
de' Re.' Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., pp. 19-20. Foster, on
the other hand, writes: 'There are those who, in the truncated pyramids,
see evidences of Egyptian origin. The pyramids, like the temple-mounds,
were used for sepulchres, but here the analogy ends.' Pre-Hist. Races,
p. 187.




[I-123] See vol. iv., p. 474.




[I-124] Stephens' Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 440.




[I-125] The reader can compare the various accounts of pyramidal structures
given in vol. iv. on this point. See heading 'pyramid,' in Index.




[I-126] Stephens' Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 439.




[I-127] Antiq. Amer., p. 56.




[I-128] Humboldt reviews the points of resemblance and comes to the conclusion
that they afford no foundation upon which to base a theory of
Egyptian origin. Vues, tom. i., pp. 120-4. 'There is much in the shape, proportions
and sculptures of this pyramid (Xochicalco) to connect its architects
with the Egyptians.' Mayer's Mex. as it Was, p. 186. Bradford finds that
some 'of the Egyptian pyramids, and those which with some reason it has
been supposed are the most ancient, are precisely similar to the Mexican
Teocalli.' But he only sees Egyptian traces in this; he shows that similar
pyramidal structures have been found in very many parts of the world; and
he believes the Americans to have originated from many sources and stocks.
See Amer. Antiq., p. 423.




[I-129] See vol. iv., chap. v.,
vii.,
and x.
Quoting from Molina, Hist. Chili,
tom. i., notes, p. 169, M'Culloh writes: 'Between the hills of Mendoza and
La Punta, upon a low range of hills, is a pillar of stone one hundred and
fifty feet high, and twelve in diameter.' 'This,' he adds, 'very much reminds
us of the pillar and obelisks of ancient Egypt.' Researches, pp. 171-2.
Jones, Hist. Anc. Amer., pp. 122-3, is very confident about the obelisk. He
asks: 'What are the Obelisks of Egypt? Are they not square columns for
the facility of Sculpture? And of what form are the isolated columns at Copan?
Are they not square, and for the same purpose of facility in Sculpture
with which they are covered, and with workmanship "as fine as that of
Egypt?"... The columns of Copan stand detached and solitary,—the
Obelisks of Egypt do the same, and both are square (or four-sided) and
covered with the art of the Sculptor. The analogy of being derived from
the Nile is perfect,—for in what other Ruins but those of Egypt, and
Ancient America, is the square sculptured Column to be found?'




[I-130] Essai Pol., tom. i., p. 265. Notwithstanding certain points of resemblance,
says Prescott, 'the Palenque architecture has little to remind us
of the Egyptian, or of the Oriental. It is, indeed, more conformable, in
the perpendicular elevation of the walls, the moderate size of the stones,
and the general arrangement of the posts, to the European. It must be
admitted, however, to have a character of originality peculiar to itself.'
Mex., vol. iii., pp. 407-8.




[I-131] There is a plate showing an Aztec priestess in Delafield's Antiq.
Amer., p. 61, which, if correctly drawn, certainly presents a head-dress
strikingly Egyptian. The same might almost be said of a cut in vol. iv.
of this work, p. 562
, and, indeed, of several other cuts in the same volume.
Mr Stephens, Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 441, gives, for the sake of comparison,
a plate representing two specimens of Egyptian sculpture; one from
the side of the great monument at Thebes known as the Vocal Memnon,
and the other from the top of the fallen obelisk at Carnac. 'I think,', he
writes, 'by comparison with the engravings before presented, it will be
found that there is no resemblance whatever. If there be any at all striking,
it is only that the figures are in profile, and this is equally true of all
good sculpture in bas-relief.' He happens, however, here, to have selected
two Egyptian subjects which almost find their counterparts in America.
In the preceding volume of this work, p. 333
, is given a cut of what is
called the 'tablet of the cross' at Palenque. In this we see a cross, and
perched upon it a bird, to which (or to the cross) two human figures in profile,
apparently priests, are making an offering. In Mr Stephens' representation
from the Vocal Memnon we find almost the same thing, the differences
being, that instead of an ornamented Latin cross, we have here a
crux commissa, or patibulata; that instead of one bird there are two, not
on the cross but immediately above it; and that the figures, though in profile
and holding the same general positions, are dressed in a different manner,
and are apparently binding the cross with the lotus instead of making
an offering to it; in Mr Stephens' representation from the obelisk of Carnac,
however, a priest is evidently making an offering to a large bird
perched upon an altar, and here, again, the human figures occupy the same
position. The hieroglyphs, though the characters are of course different,
are, it will be noticed, disposed upon the stone in much the same manner.
The frontispiece of Stephens' Cent. Amer., vol. ii., described on p. 352,
represents the tablet on the back wall of the altar, casa No. 3, at Palenque.
Once more here are two priests clad in all the elaborate insignia of their
office, standing one on either side of a table, or altar, upon which are
erected two batons, crossed in such a manner as to form a crux decussata,
and supporting a hideous mask. To this emblem they are each making an
offering.




[I-132] Delafield, it is true, discerns a distinct analogy between the hieroglyphs
of Egypt and America. And the evidence he adduces is absurd
enough. 'Hieroglyphic writings,' he says, 'are necessarily of three kinds,
viz: phonetic, figurative, and symbolical.' He then goes on to show at
great length, that both in Egypt and in America all three of these systems
were used: hence, the resemblance. Antiq. Amer., pp. 42-7. 'Les monumens
du Palenque présentent des inscriptions hiéroglyphiques qui ne paraissent
pas différer des hiéroglyphes de l'ancienne Thèbes.' Giordan, Tehuantepec,
p. 57. Jomard pronounces an inscription found at Grave Creek
to be Lybian. Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 411-12. Says M'Culloh: 'The
Game of the Flyers, we notice in this place, as M. Denon in the plates to his
Travels in Egypt, has given the copy of some figures taken from the Egyptian
hieroglyphics, which have every appearance of a similar design with
this Mexican amusement or ceremony.—The similarity of device will be
best seen, by comparing the plate given by Clavigero, with the (lxiii. plate)
of Denon's Atlas, &c.' Researches on Amer., pp. 170-1. Priest, Amer.
Antiq., p. 122, gives a comparative table of Lybian characters, and others,
which he affirms to have been found at Otolum, or Palenque: the whole
statement is, however, too apocryphal to be worthy of further notice. See,
also, a long letter from Prof. Rafinesque to Champollion, 'on the Graphic
Systems of America, and the Glyphs of Otolum, or Palenque, in Central
America,' in Id., pp. 123-9. The hieroglyphics of Palenque and Tula encourage
the idea that they were founded by an Egyptian colony. Juarros,
Hist. Guat., p. 19.




[I-133] In a letter by Jomard, quoted by Delafield, we read: 'I have also
recognized in your memoir on the division of time among the Mexican
nations, compared with those of Asia, some very striking analogies between
the Toltec characters and institutions observed on the banks of
the Nile. Among these analogies there is one which is worthy of attention.
It is the use of the vague year of three hundred and sixty-five days,
composed of equal months, and of five complementary days, equally employed
at Thebes and Mexico, a distance of three thousand leagues. It is
true that the Egyptians had no intercalation, while the Mexicans intercalated
thirteen days every fifty-two years. Still farther: intercalation was
proscribed in Egypt, to such a point that the kings swore, on their accession,
never to permit it to be employed during their reign. Notwithstanding
this difference, we find a very striking agreement in the length of the
duration of the solar year. In reality, the intercalation of the Mexicans
being thirteen days on each cycle of fifty-two years, comes to the same
thing as that of the Julian calendar, which is one day in four years; and
consequently supposes the duration of the year to be three hundred and
sixty-five days, six hours. Now such was the length of the year among
the Egyptians, since the sothic period was at once one thousand four hundred
and sixty solar years, and one thousand four hundred and sixty-one
vague years; which was, in some sort, the intercalation of a whole year of
three hundred and seventy-five days every one thousand four hundred and
sixty years. The property of the sothic period—that of bringing back the
seasons and festivals to the same point of the year, after having made them
pass successively through every point—is undoubtedly one of the reasons
which caused the intercalation to be proscribed, no less than the repugnance
of the Egyptians for foreign institutions. Now it is remarkable that
the same solar year of three hundred and sixty-five days, six hours,
adopted by nations so different, and perhaps still more remote in their state
of civilization than in their geographical distance, relates to a real astronomical
period, and belongs peculiarly to the Egyptians.... The fact of the
intercalation (by the Mexicans) of thirteen days every cycle, that is, the
use of a year of three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter, is
a proof that it was either borrowed from the Egyptians, or that they
had a common origin.' Antiq. Amer., pp. 52-3. 'On the 26th of February,
the Mexican century begins, which was celebrated from the
time of Nabonassor, seven hundred and forty-seven years before Christ,
because the Egyptian priests conformably to their astronomical observations
had fixed the beginning of their month Toth and the commencement
of their year at noon on that day; this was verified by the
Meridian of Alexandria, which was erected three centuries after that
epoch. Hence it has been contended there could exist no doubt of the
conformity of the Mexican with the Egyptian calendar, for although the
latter assigned twelve months of thirty days each to the year, and added
five days besides, in order that the circle of three hundred and sixty-five
days should recommence from the same point; yet, notwithstanding the
deviation from the Egyptian mode in the division of the months and days,
they yet maintained that the Mexican method was conformable thereto,
on account of the superadded five days; with this only difference, that
upon these the Americans attended to no business, and therefore termed
them Nemontemi or useless, whereas the Egyptians celebrated, during
that epoch, the festival of the birth of their gods, as attested by Plutarch
de Feide, and Osiride. Upon the other hand it is asserted, that though
the Mexicans differed from the Egyptians by dividing their year into eighteen
months, yet, as they called the month Mextli Moon, they must have
formerly adopted the lunar month, agreeable to the Egyptian method of
dividing the year into twelve months of thirty days; but to support this
assertion no attempt has been made to ascertain the cause why this method
was laid aside. The analogy between the Mexican and the Egyptian calendars
is thus assumed to be undeniable. Besides what has been here introduced,
the same is attempted to be proved in many other works which I
pass over to avoid prolixity, and therefore only mention that they may be
found in Boturini, in La Idea del Universo, by the abbé don Lorenza de
Hervas, published in the Italian language, in Clavigero's dissertations, and
in a letter addressed to him by Hervas, which he added to the end of his
second volume.' Cabrera, Teatro, in Rio's Description, pp. 103-5. See
also: Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 344, 348; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del
Messico, tom. iv., p. 20; Malte-Brun, Précis de la Géog., tom. vi., p. 295.




[I-134] I follow, chiefly, M. Warden's résumé of these accounts, as being
the fullest and clearest. Recherches, p. 406, et seq.




[I-135] Hist. du Commerce, cap. viii.




[I-136] Acosta compares the gold of Ophir with that of Hispaniola. He entertains
the opinion that Tarshish and Ophir are distant imaginary places
and not distinct countries, but imagines them to be somewhere in the East
Indies. 'Cur autem in Orientali potius India quam in hac Occidentali
Ophir fuisse existimem, illud caput est, quod ad nostrum Peru non nisi
infinito circuitu tota India Orientali & Sinarum regione enauigata Salomonia
clasis peruenire poterar.' De Novi Orbis, p. 36. Ophir is supposed
to be in India or Africa. Robertson's Hist. Amer., vol. i., p. 7.
Crowe, Cent. Amer., p. 65, considers the probability of Ophir and Tarshish
being on the west coast of America. The Phœnician 'Ophir, or Ofor,
which means, in their ancient language, the Western country, was Mexico
and Central America, the land of gold.' Fontaine's How the World was Peopled,
pp. 259-60. On p. 162, he says that the best authorities, Volney, Bochart,
Michaelis, and Forster, suppose Ophir to have been situated on the
Persian Gulf. The Phœnician Ophir was Hayti, for Columbus thought
that he could trace the furnaces in which the gold had been refined. Carver's
Trav., p. 192. Kingsborough, Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 184-5, considers
the position of Ophir, but is undecided as to its position. Ens,
West und Ost Indischer Lustgart, pp. 5-8, disagreeing with Vatablus and
Stephanus, can find no resemblance to Ophir in Hayti or Peru, and comes
to the conclusion that Ophir lay somewhere in the Old World, most likely
in the East Indies. This seems to be a plagiarism of Acosta. See also
Gottfriedt, Newe Welt, p. 3. Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. ii., pp. 40-5,
discusses the position of Ophir in Veragua. Piñeda, De Rebus Salomonis,
believes Ophir to have been America. Warden, Recherches, p. 196. See
also Id., pp. 106-7.




[I-137] De Origine Gentium Americanarum, lib. ii., cap. vi., vii., viii.




[I-138] 'Sur le cap Mollabat, au pied duquel on bâti ensuite le vieux Tanger.'
Gosselin, cited by Warden, Recherches, p. 107, note 8.




[I-139] 'Le cap Spartel, qui forme l'extrémité occidentale du détroit.' Id.,
note 9.




[I-140] The Greek text of the Periplus is printed in Hudson's Geographiæ
veteris Scriptores Græci Minores. It was also published by Falconer, with
an English translation and many notes—8vo., Lond. 1797. Many remarks
upon Hanno's voyage are made by Compomanes, Antigüedad Marítima
de la República de Cartago, Madrid 1756; Bougainville, Mémoires de
l'Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xxvi., xxviii.; Gosselin, Recherches sur la
Géographie des Anciens; Rennell, Geography of Herodotus, vol. ii., pp.
409-43, 8vo.; and Heeren, Researches on the Ancient Nations of Africa,
vol. i., pp. 492-501.




[I-141] Or Tiphysque.




[I-142] 'Which is expressed by repeating four times from Valum-Votan to
Valum-Chivim, from Valum-Chivim to Valum-Votan.' Cabrera, Teatro,
in Rio's Description, p. 34. 'Valum-Votan, ou Terre de Votan, serait
suivant Ordoñez l'île de Cuba. Mais dans mon dernier voyage, en contournant
les montagnes qui environnent le plateau élévé où est situé Ciudad-Real
de Chiapas, j'ai visité de grandes ruines qui portent le nom de
Valum-Votan, à deux lieues environ du village de Teopixca, situé à 7 l. de
Cuidad-Real, et où Nuñez de la Vega dit avoir encore trouvé, en 1696, les
familles du nom de Votan.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh, p. lxxxviii.




[I-143] Brasseur's account, which is, he says, taken from certain preserved
fragments of Ordoñez' Hist. del Cielo, differs at this point; it reads: 'il
alla à Valum-Chivim, d'où il passa à la grande ville, où il vit la maison de
Dieu, que l'on était occupé à bâtir.' This 'house of God,' he remarks in
a note, was, 'suivant Ordoñez et Nuñez de la Vega, le temple que Salomon
était occupé à bâtir à Jérusalem.' After this, he goes on, Votan went
'à la cité antique, où il vit, de ces propres yeux, les ruines d'un grand
édifice que les hommes avaient érigé par le commandement de leur aïeul
commun, afin de pouvoir par là arriver au ciel.' In another note he remarks,
'Ordoñez commentant ce passage y trouve tout naturellement
la tour de Babel: mais il s'indigne contre les Babyloniens, de ce qu'ils
avaient eu la mauvaise foi de dire à Votan que la tour avait été bâtie par
ordre de leur aïeul commun (Noé): "Il faut remarquer ici, dit-il, que les
Babyloniens n'ont fait que tromper Votan, en lui assurant que la tour avait
été construite par ordre de leur aïeul Noé, afin d'en faire un chemin pour
arriver au ciel: jamais certainement le saint patriarche n'eut la moindre
part dans la folie arrogante de Nemrod" (Mémoire MS. sur Palenqué.)
Nuñez de la Vega rapporte la même tradition sur Votan et ses voyages
(Constitut. Diœces, in Præamb., n. 34).' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol
Vuh, p. lxxxviii.




[I-144] Cabrera, Teatro, in Rio's Description, p. 34. I have followed Cabrera's
account because, unfortunately, Ordoñez' work is not to be had.
Brasseur gives a fuller account of Votan's adventures than Cabrera, but
he professes to draw his information from fragments of Ordoñez' writings,
and it is impossible to tell whether his extra information is the result of
his own imagination or of that of his equally enthusiastic original. The
learned Abbé relates that the men with whom Votan conversed concerning
the tower of Babel, assured him 'que cet édifice était le lieu où Dieu avait
donné à chaque famille un langage particulier. Il affirme qu'à son retour
de la ville du temple de Dieu, il retourna une première et une seconde fois
à examiner tous les souterrains par où il avait déjà passé, et les signes qui
s'y trouvaient. Il dit qu'on le fit passer par un chemin souterrain qui traversait
la terre et se terminait à la racine du ciel. A l'égard de cette circonstance,
il ajoute que ce chemin n'était autre qu'un trou de serpent où
il entra parce qu'il était un serpent.' Popol Vuh, p. lxxxix. See farther,
concerning Votan: Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., p. 165; Juarros,
Hist. Guat., p. 208; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp.
150-1; Boturini, Idea, p. 115; Levy, Nicaragua, p. 4; Tschudi's Peruvian
Antiq., pp. 11-15; Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 248-9; Brasseur de Bourbourg,
Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 43-5, 68-76; Domenech's Deserts, vol.
i., pp. 10-7. This last is merely a literal copy of Tschudi, to whom, however,
no credit is given.




[I-145] 'Ordoñez tire un argument du mot chivim, qu'il écrit aussi hivim,
pour rappeler le chivim du pays des Hévéens de la Palestine, d'où il fait
sortir les ancêtres de Votan. Dans la langue tzendale, qui était celle du
livre attribué à Votan, la racine du mot chivin pourrait être chib ou chiib,
qui signifie patrie, ou ghib qui veut dire armadille.' Brasseur de Bourbourg,
Popol Vuh, p. lxxxviii., note.




[I-146] Cabrera, Teatro, in Rio's Description, pp. 47-53. It seems that the
supposed Phœnician descent of the Americans has served as an excuse for
the tyranny their conquerors exercised over them. 'Cursed be Canaan!'
said Noah, 'A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.' Montanus
says that it is a mistake to term the Phœnicians descendants of
Canaan, for they are a Semitic people. Nieuwe Weereld, p. 25.




[I-147] 'The strong Galleys, with sails and oars, and always before the constant
East-Wind and onward wave-current, would accomplish ten miles an
hour by day, and during the night, without the Rowers, six miles an hour,
and, equally dividing the twenty-four hours, would make a run of 192
miles per day. Nautical proofs will show that in the above calculation
the power of the Trade-Winds [i. e. the East-Winds] are underrated. The
distance from Teneriffe to Florida is about 3300 miles, which by the foregone
data they would traverse in seventeen and a quarter days. The Voyage
may therefore with safety be said to have been accomplished during
an entire month, and that, consequently the first landing of a branch of
the human family in Ancient America would be in the last month of
Autumn, three hundred and thirty-two years before the Christian Æra.'




[I-148] It would be impossible to give here the entire evidence with which
Mr Jones supports his theory. Suffice it to say that the analogies he adduces
are far-fetched in the extreme, and that his premises are to a great
extent grounded upon certain vague utterances of Isaiah the prophet. His
unbounded dogmatism, were it less strongly marked, would render his
work offensive and unreadable to those who disagree with his opinions; as
it is, it is simply ludicrous. I cannot better express my opinion of the
book than by using the words of the distinguished Américaniste Dr Müller:
'Ganz ohne Werth soll die in London 1843 erschienene Schrift eines Engländers,
George Jonas, über die Urgeschichte des alten America sein.'
Amerikanische Urreligionen, p. 3.




[I-149] Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer., pp. 168-72.




[I-150] According to Mr Jones, Solomon's temple was built by Tyrian workmen.




[I-151] Gebelin affirms enthusiastically: '"que cette inscription vient d'arriver
tout exprès du nouveau monde, pour confirmer ses idées sur l'origine
des peuples, et que l'on y voit, d'une manière évidente, un monument
phénicien, un tableau qui, sur le devant, désigne une alliance entre les
peuples américains et la nation étrangère, arrivant, par des vents du nord,
d'un pays riche et industrieux."' Humboldt, however, commenting upon
this, writes: 'J'ai examiné avec soin les quatre dessins de la fameuse pierre
de Taunton River.... Loin d'y reconnoître un arrangement symétrique de
lettres simples ou de caractères syllabiques, je n'y vois qu'un dessin à
peine ébauché, et analogue à ceux que l'on a trouvés sur les rochers
de la Norwège.' Vues, tom. i., pp. 181-2. 'The history of this inscription
is scarcely surpassed, in the interest it has excited, or the novel
phases it has exhibited at successive epochs of theoretical speculation, by
any Perusinian, Eugubine, or Nilotic riddle. When the taste of American
antiquaries inclined towards Phœnician relics, the Dighton inscription conformed
to their opinions; and with changing tastes it has proved equally
compliant. In 1783 the Rev. Ezra Stiles, D.D., President of Yale College,
when preaching before the Governor and State of Connecticut, appealed
to the Dighton Rock, graven, as he believed, in the old Punic or
Phœnician character and language: in proof that the Indians were of the
accursed seed of Canaan, and were to be displaced and rooted out by the
European descendants of Japhet!... So early as 1680 Dr. Danforth executed
what he characterized as "a faithful and accurate representation of
the inscription" on Dighton Rock. In 1712 the celebrated Dr. Cotton
Mather procured drawings of the same, and transmitted them to the Secretary
of the Royal Society of London, with a description, printed in the
Philosophical Transactions for 1741, referring to it as "an inscription in
which are seven or eight lines, about seven or eight feet long, and about a
foot wide, each of them engraven with unaccountable characters, not like
any known character." In 1730, Dr. Isaac Greenwood, Hollisian Professor
at Cambridge, New England, communicated to the Society of Antiquaries
of London a drawing of the same inscription, accompanied with a
description which proves the great care with which his copy was executed.
In 1768, Mr. Stephen Sewall, Professor of Oriental Languages at Cambridge,
New England, took a careful copy, the size of the original, and
deposited it in the Museum of Harvard University; and a transcript of
this was forwarded to the Royal Society of London, six years later, by
Mr. James Winthrop, Hollisian Professor of Mathematics. In 1786 the
Rev. Michael Lort, D.D., one of the Vice-Presidents of the Society of
Antiquaries of London, again brought the subject, with all its accumulated
illustrations, before that learned society; and Colonel Vallency undertook
to prove that the inscription was neither Phœnician nor Punic,
but Siberian. Subsequently, Judge Winthrops executed a drawing in
1788; and again we have others by Judge Baylies and Mr. Joseph Gooding
in 1790, by Mr. Job Gardner in 1812; and finally, in 1830, by a Commission
appointed by the Rhode Island Historical Society, and communicated
to the Antiquaries of Copenhagen with elaborate descriptions: which
duly appear in their Antiquitates Americanæ, in proof of novel and very
remarkable deductions.' Wilson's Prehist. Man, pp. 403-5. See also
Pidgeon's Trad., p. 20.




[I-152] 'Il est assez remarquable que, sur sept caractères, aucun ne s'y
trouve répété plusieurs fois.' Vues, tom. i., pp. 183-4, with cut of part of
inscription.




[I-153] See Schoolcraft, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 386-97,
for full account of this stone, with cuts. See also Wilson's Prehist. Man,
pp. 408, et seq.




[I-154] For this statement I have only newspaper authority, however. 'Die
"Amerika," ein in Bogota, Neu Granada, erschienenes Journal, kündigt eine
Entdeckung an, die so seltsam ist, dass sie der Bestätigung bedarf, ehe man
ihr Glauben schenken kann. Don Joaquim de Costa soll danach auf einem
seiner Güter ein steinernes Monument entdeckt haben, das von einer
kleinen Colonie Phönizier aus Sidonia im Jahre 9 oder 10 der Regierung
Hiranus, eines Zeitgenossen Salomons, ungefähr zehn Jahrhunderte vor
der christlichen Aera errichtet wurde. Der Block hat eine Inschrift von
acht Linien, die in schönen Buchstaben, aber ohne Trennung der Worte
oder Punctation geschrieben sind. In der Uebersetzung soll die Inschrift
besagen, dass jene Männer des Landes Canarien sich im Hafen Apiongaber
(Bay-Akubal) einschifften und nach zwölfmonatiger Fahrt von dem
Lande Egypten (Afrika) durch Strömungen fortgeführt, in Guayaquil in
Peru landeten. Der Stein soll, wie es heisst, die Namen der Reisenden
tragen.' Hamburg Reform, Oct. 24, 1873. See farther, concerning inscriptions:
Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 29; Stratton's Mound-Builders,
MS., p. 13; Priest's Amer. Antiq., p. 121.




[I-155] See particularly Melgar, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da época,
tom. iii., p. 112, et seq.; and Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer., p. 154, et seq.;
Baldwin's Anc. Amer., pp. 185-6.




[I-156] See vol. iv. of this work, p. 118
.




[I-157] Melgar, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da época, tom. iii., pp. 110-11.




[I-158] See farther, concerning Phœnician and Carthaginian theories: Torquemada,
Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 28-9, 255; Hill's Antiq. Amer.; Melgar,
in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da época, tom. iii., p. 111; Lescarbot,
Hist. Nouv. France; Dally, Races Indig., pp. 5, 8; Religious Cer. and
Cust., vol. iii., pp. 3-4; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 9-21; Vigne's
Travels, vol. ii., pp. 41-56; Sheldon, in Am. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i.,
pp. 366-8; Lizana, Devocionario, in Landa, Relacion, p. 354; Levy, Nicaragua,
pp. 10, 208; Kennedy's Probable Origin; Baldwin's Anc. Amer.,
pp. 171-4, 200, 207; Du Pratz, Hist. Louisiane, tom. iii., pp. 75-86; Chateaubriand,
Lettre aux Auteurs, p. 87; Stratton's Mound-Builders, M.S.;
Carver's Trav., pp. 188, 191-2; Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, pp. 16-22, 27-8;
De Costa, Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. xiv.; Ritos Antiguos, in Kingsborough's
Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 10; Revue Amér., tom. i., p. 3; Farcy,
Discours, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., pp. 43-4: West und Ost Indischer
Lustgart, p. 4; Drake's Aborig. Races, pp. 20-2; García, Orígen de los
Ind., pp. 41-77, 192-239; Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 250-1, 333-4; Adair's
Amer. Ind., p. 16; Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., p. 84; Fontaine's
How the World was Peopled, pp. 254-61.




[I-159] Orígen de los Ind., pp. 79-128.




[I-160] 'Yo hice grande diligencia en averiguar esta verdad, y puedo afirmar,
que he trabajado mas en ello, que en lo que escrivo en toda la Obra; i asi
de lo que acerca de esta he hallado, pondre tales fundamentos al edificio,
i maquina de esta sentencia, i opinion, que puedan mui bien sufrir su peso.'
Id., p. 79.




[I-161] Anian was the name given to the strait which was supposed to lie
between Asia and America, and which, after its actual discovery, was
named Bering Strait. The unknown northern regions of America were
also called Anian.




[I-162] The worthy Father's geographical knowledge was somewhat vague;
thus in the next section he writes: 'Tambien pudieron ir las diez Tribus
desde la Tierra, que dice Esdras, à la China.... De la China pudieron ir
por Mar à la Tierra de Nueva-España, para donde no es mui larga la navegacion,
viniendo por el Estrecho, ò Canal, que està, entre la China, i el
Reino de Annian, i de Quivira.' Origen de los Ind., p. 81.




[I-163] Among several instances given by García to show the cowardice of
the Jews, is this: 'dice la Sagrada Escritura, por grande incarecimiento,
que no les quiso llevar Moises por la Tierra de Philistim, conociendo su
pusilanimidad, i cobardia, porque no temiesen, viendo los Enemigos, que
venian en su seguimiento, i de cobardes se bolviesen à Egipto.' With regard
to the cowardice of the Americans, he writes: 'Cuenta la Historia,
que entrò Cortès, en la Conquista de Nueva-España con 550 Españoles, i
de estos eran los 50 Marineros: i en Mexico tuvo, quando lo ganò, 900
Españoles, 200,000 Indios, 80 Caballos: murieron de los Nuestros 50, i de
los Caballos 6. Entrò Piçarro en el Perù con pocos mas de 200 Españoles,
con los quales, i con 60 Caballos tuvo Victoria contra el Rei Atanualpa.'
Not only at the time of the Conquest, he adds, did the Americans scatter
and run on the discharge of a musket, but even at the present day, when
they are familiar with firearms, they do the same. Orígen de los Ind., pp.
85-6.




[I-164] Immediately afterwards he says that the Jews and Americans were
alike, because they both bathed frequently.




[I-165] This scarcely seems to be a parallelism, and certainly would not be,
had the worthy Father written, as he well might: 'freedom and the hardships
of the desert,' instead of 'manna and the promised land'.




[I-166] To show García's style and logic, which are, indeed, but little different
from the style and reasoning of all these ancient writers, I translate
literally, and without embellishment of any kind, his attempts to prove
that whatever differences exist at the present day between the Jew and
the American, are due to the special act of God. 'It was divinely ordained
that men should be scattered throughout all countries, and be so different
from one another in disposition and temperament, in order that by their
variety men should become possessed of a different and distinct genius; of
a difference in the color of the face and in the form of the body; just as
animals are various, and various the things produced by the earth, various
the trees, various the plants and grasses, various the birds; and finally,
various the fish of the sea and of rivers: in order that men should see in
this how great is the wisdom of Him that created them. And although
the variety and specific difference existing in these irrational and senseless
beings causes in them a specific distinction, and that in men is only individual,
or accidental and common; the Most High desired that this variety
and common difference should exist in the human species, as there could
be none specific and essential, so that there should be a resemblance in
this between man and the other created beings: of which the Creator himself
wished that the natural cause should be the arrangement of the earth,
the region of the air, influence of the sky, waters, and edibles. By which
the reader will not fail to be convinced that it was possible for the Indians
to obtain and acquire a difference of mental faculties, and of color of face
and of features, such as the Jews had not.' Orígen de los Ind., p. 105.




[I-167] 'Y finalmente, si nos dixeren, que solos aquellos siete generos de
Gentes, que he nombrado, que son Colcos, Egypcios, Etiopes, Fenices,
Syros de Palestina, i Syros de los Rios Termodon, i Pantenio, i sus vecinos
los Macrones fueron los que vsaron en el Mundo la circuncision.... A Herodoto,
i à los que alegaren lo referido, se responde, que sin duda los Hebreos
fueron los primeros que la vsaron, por mandado de Dios.' Orígen de los
Ind., p. 110.




[I-168] See Orígen de los Ind., pp. 119-23, for examples of linguistic resemblances.




[I-169] Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., pp. 19-20, vol. vi., p. 536.




[I-170] Id., vol. viii., p. 21.




[I-171] Id., pp. 25-7, 30-1.




[I-172] Id., p. 39.




[I-173] Id., p. 58.




[I-174] Id., pp. 67, 218-19, 240.




[I-175] Id., p. 135.




[I-176] Id., p. 154.




[I-177] 'Y el Ynga Yupangue entraba solo, y él mismo por su mano sacrificaba
las ovejas y corderos.' Betanzos, Historia de los Ingas, lib. i., cap.
xi., quoted in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., p. 156.




[I-178] Id., pp. 157, 236, 389, vol. vi., pp. 273-5.




[I-179] Id., vol. viii., p. 160.




[I-180] Id., p. 174.




[I-181] Id., p. 176.




[I-182] Id., pp. 174-82. He presents a most elaborate discussion of this
point. See also vol. vi., pp. 512, 523.




[I-183] Id., vol. viii., p. 238.




[I-184] Id., p. 248.




[I-185] Id., p. 257.




[I-186] Id., p. 258, vol. vi., p. 236.




[I-187] Id., pp. 164-6.




[I-188] Id., p. 208. 'Representations of the lifting up of serpents frequently
occur in Mexican paintings: and the plagues which Moses called down
upon the Egyptians by lifting up his rod, which became a serpent, are evidently
referred to in the eleventh and twelfth pages of the Borgian Manuscript.
An allusion to the passage of the Red Sea ... seems also to be
contained in the seventy-first page of the Lesser Vatican MS.; and the
destruction of Pharaoh and his host, and the thanksgiving of Moses, may
perhaps be signified by the figure on the left, in the same page, of a man
falling into a pit or gulf, and by the hand on the right stretched out to
receive an offering.'




[I-189] Id., p. 222.




[I-190] Id., p. 232, et seq. Kingsborough reasons at some length on this
point.




[I-191] Id., p. 361.




[I-192] Id., p. 406.




[I-193] Id., pp. 272-3, 333-5, 392-3; vol. viii., pp. 121-2, 142-3, 391.




[I-194] Id., vol. vi., pp. 300-1; vol. viii., p. 137.




[I-195] Id., vol. vi., p. 504, vol. viii., p. 18.




[I-196] Id., vol. vi., p. 125.




[I-197] Id., p. 45.




[I-198] Id., p. 142.




[I-199] Id., p. 246. Duran sustains the theory that the Indians are the
descendants of the lost ten tribes of Israel. After giving several reasons
founded on the Scriptures, he refers to the traditions obtained by him from
the old people of the country. They related that their ancestors, whilst
suffering many hardships and persecutions, were prevailed upon by a great
man, who became their chief, to flee from that land into another, where
they might have rest; they arrived at the sea-shore, and the chief struck
the waters with a rod he had in his hands; the sea opened, and the chief
and his followers marched on, but were soon pursued by their enemies;
they crossed over in safety, and their enemies were swallowed up by the
sea; at any rate, their ancestors never had any further account of their
persecutors. Another tradition transmitted from generation to generation,
and recorded in pictures, is, that while their first ancestors were on their
journey to the promised land, they tarried in the vicinity of certain high
hills; here a terrible earthquake occurred, and some wicked people who were
with them were swallowed up by the earth opening under their feet. The
same picture that Father Duran saw, showed that the ancestors of the
Mexican people transmitted a tradition, relating that during their journey
a kind of sand (or hail) rained upon them. Father Duran further gives
an account furnished him by an old Indian of Cholula (some 100 years
old) concerning the creation of the world: The first men were giants
who, desirous of seeing the home of the sun, divided themselves into two
parties, one of which journeyed to the west, and the other to the east,
until they were stopped by the sea; they then concluded to return to the
place they started from, called Vztacculemjueminian; finding no way to
reach the sun, whose light and beauty they highly admired, they determined
to build a tower that should reach the heavens. They built a tower;
but the Lord became angry at their presumption, and the dwellers of
heaven descended like thunderbolts and destroyed the edifice; the giants
on seeing their work destroyed, were much frightened, and scattered themselves
throughout the earth. Duran, Hist. Indias, MS., tom. i., cap. i.




[I-200] Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., p. 246.




[I-201] Id., p. 248.




[I-202] Id., p. 253.




[I-203] Id., p. 254.




[I-204] Id., p. 312.




[I-205] Id., p. 361.




[I-206] Id., p. 382.




[I-207] Id., p. 401.




[I-208] To enter into details on all these subjects would require volumes
as large, and I may add, as unreadable, as those of Lord Kingsborough.
The reader who wishes to investigate more closely, will find all the points
to which I have referred in volumes vi. and viii. of the noble writer's work,
Mexican Antiquities. Mr James Adair, 'a trader with the Indians, and
resident in their country for forty years,' very warmly advocates the Hebrew
theory. As his intercourse with the Americans was confined to the
wild tribes, the genuine 'red men' inhabiting the south-eastern states of
North America, his argument and analogies differ in many points from
those of Kingsborough and García, who treated chiefly of the civilized
nations of Mexico and Central America. Here are some of his comparisons:
'The Israelites were divided into Tribes and had chiefs over them,
so the Indians divide themselves: each tribe forming a little community
within the nation—And as the nation hath its particular symbol, so hath
each tribe the badge from which it is denominated.' If we go from nation to
nation among them we shall not find one individual who doth not distinguish
himself by his family name. Every town has a state house or synedrion,
the same as the Jewish sanhedrim, where almost every night the headmen
meet to discuss public business. The Hebrew nation were ordered to
worship Jehovah the true and living God, who by the Indians is styled
Yohewah. The ancient heathens, it is well known, worshiped a plurality
of Gods: but these American Indians pay their religious devoir to Loak
Ishtohoollo Aba, The Great Beneficent Supreme Holy Spirit of Fire. They
do not pay the least perceptible adoration to images. Their ceremonies in
their religious worship accord more nearly with the Mosaic institutions,
which could not be if they were of heathen descent. The American Indians
affirm, that there is a certain fixed time and place, when and where
every one must die, without the possibility of averting it; such was the
belief also of the ancient Greeks and Romans, who were much addicted
to copying the rites and customs of the Jews. Their opinion that God
chose them out of all the rest of mankind as his peculiar and beloved people,
fills both the white Jew and the red American, with that steady hatred
against all the world, which renders them hated and despised by all. We
have abundant evidence of the Jews believing in the ministration of angels,
during the Old Testament dispensation, their frequent appearances and
their services on earth, are recorded in the oracles, which the Jews themselves
receive as given by divine inspiration, and St Paul in his epistle
addressed to the Hebrews speaks of it as their general opinion that "angels
are ministering spirits to the good and righteous on earth." The Indian
sentiments and traditions are the same. They believe the higher regions
to be inhabited by good spirits, relations to the Great Holy One, and that
these spirits attend and favor the virtuous. The Indian language and dialects
appear to have the very idiom and genius of the Hebrew. Their
words and sentences are expressive, concise, emphatical, sonorous, and
bold, and often both in letters and signification synonymous with the Hebrew
language. They count time after the manner of the Hebrews, reckoning
years by lunar months like the Israelites who counted by moons.
The religious ceremonies of the Indian Americans are in conformity with
those of the Jews, they having their Prophets, High Priests, and others of
religious order. As the Jews had a sanctum sanctorum or most holy place,
so have all the Indian nations. The dress also of their High Priests is similar
in character to that of the Hebrews. The festivals, feasts, and religious
rites of the Indian Americans have also a great resemblance to that of the
Hebrews. The Indian imitates the Israelite in his religious offerings. The
Hebrews had various ablutions and anointings according to the Mosaic
ritual—and all the Indian nations constantly observe similar customs from
religious motives. Their frequent bathing, or dipping themselves and
their children in rivers, even in the severest weather, seems to be as truly
Jewish as the other rites and ceremonies which have been mentioned.
The Indian laws of uncleanness and purification, and also the abstaining
from things deemed unclean are the same as those of the Hebrews. The
Indian marriages, divorces and punishments of adultery, still retain a
strong likeness to the Jewish laws and customs on these points. Many of
the Indian punishments resemble those of the Jews. Whoever attentively
views the features of the Indian, and his eye, and reflects on his fickle, obstinate,
and cruel disposition will naturally think of the Jews. The ceremonies
performed by the Indians before going to war, such as purification
and fasting, are similar to those of the Hebrew nation. The Israelites
were fond of wearing beads and other ornaments, even as early as the
patriarchal age, and in resemblance to these customs the Indian females
continually wear the same, believing it to be a preventive against many
evils. The Indian manner of curing the sick is very similar to that of the
Jews. Like the Hebrews, they firmly believe that diseases and wounds
are occasioned by divine anger, in proportion to some violation of the old
beloved speech. The Hebrews carefully buried their dead, so on any accident
they gathered their bones, and laid them in the tombs of their forefathers:
thus, all the numerous nations of Indians perform the like
friendly office to every deceased person of their respective tribe. The
Jewish records tell us that the women mourned for the loss of their deceased
husbands, and were reckoned vile by the civil law if they married
in the space of at least ten months after their death. In the same manner
all the Indian widows, by an established strict penal law, mourn for the
loss of their deceased husbands; and among some tribes for the space of
three or four years. The surviving brother by the Mosaic law, was to raise
seed to a deceased brother, who left a widow childless to perpetuate his
name and family. The American law enforces the same rule. When the
Israelites gave names to their children or others they chose such appellatives
as suited best their circumstances and the times. This custom is a
standing rule with the Indians. Amer. Ind.




[I-209] Amer. Antiq., pp. 68-70.




[I-210] 'See Deut., chap. vi., from 4th to 9th verse, inclusive; also, chap.
xi., verse 13 to 21, inclusive; and Exodus, chap. xiii., 11 to 16, inclusive,
to which the reader can refer, if he has the curiosity to read this most interesting
discovery.... It is said by Calmet, that the above texts are the
very passages of Scripture which the Jews used to write on the leaves of
their phylacteries. These phylacteries were little rolls of parchment,
whereon were written certain words of the law. These they wore upon
their forehead, and upon the wrist of the left arm.' Id.




[I-211] Antiquities of Licking County, Ohio, MS.



Brasseur de Bourbourg, although he rejects Kingsborough's theory,
thinks that some Jews may have reached America; he recognizes a Jewish
type on certain ruins, and calls attention to the perfectly Jewish dress of
the women at Palin and on the shores of Lake Amatitlan. Hist. Nat. Civ.,
tom. i., p. 17. Customs and relics seem to show that the Americans are
of Hebrew descent, and that they came by way of the Californias. Giordan,
Tehuantepec, p. 57. The theory of descent from the ten tribes is not
to be despised. On the north-west there are many beliefs and rites which
resemble the Jewish; circumcision obtains in Central America, and women
wear Jewish costumes. Father Ricci has seen Israelites in China living
according to Moses' laws, and Father Adam Schall knew Israelites who
had kept the Old Testament laws, and who knew nothing of the death of
the Savior. This shows that the ten tribes took this direction, and as an
emigration from Asia to America is perfectly admissible, it is likely that
the Jews were among the number who crossed, probably by the Aleutian
islands. Rossi, Souvenirs, pp. 276-7. Jones, as might be expected, 'will
not yield to any man in the firm belief that the Aborigines of North America
(but North America only) and the ancient Israelites are identical, unless
controverted by the stern authority of superior historical deductions.' Hist.
Anc. Amer., pp. 2, 11-26, 188-90. Parker does not accept the Jewish theory,
chiefly because of the great variety of distinct languages in America, but he
points out several resemblances between north-west tribes and Jews. Explor.
Tour, pp. 194-8. Meyer finds many reasons for regarding the wild tribes
of the north as Jews; such as physical peculiarities; numerous customs;
the number of languages pointing to a Babylonian confusion of tongues.
Most Indians have high-priests' temples, altars, and a sacred ark which
they carry with them on their wanderings. They count by four seasons,
celebrate new-moon and arbor festivals, and offer first fruits. In September,
when the sun enters the sign of the scales, they hold their feast of
atonement. The name Iowa he thinks is derived from Jehova. They
work with one hand and carry their weapons in the other. The pillars of
cloud and pillars of fire which guided the Israelites, may be volcanoes on the
east coast of Asia, by whose aid the ten tribes reached America. Nach dem
Sacramento, pp. 241-5. If the Toltecs were Jews, they must have visited the
Old World in the year 753 of the Roman era, to obtain the Christian dogmas
apparent in their cult. Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. 45. The Navajo tradition
that they came out of the water a long way to the north; their peaceful,
pastoral manner of life; their aversion to hogs' flesh; their belief that they
will return to the water whence they came, instead of going to hunting-grounds
like other tribes; their prophets who prophesy and receive revelation;
their strict fast-days, and keenness in trade; their comparatively
good treatment of women—are Jewish similarities, stronger than any tribes
can present. 'Scalping appears to have been a Hebrew custom.... The
most striking custom of apparently Hebraic origin, is the periodical separation
of females, and the strong and universal idea of uncleanness connected
therewith.' Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. iii., pp. 60, 62. The Tartars are probably
descended from the ten tribes; they boast of being Jews, are divided
into tribes, and practice circumcision. The separation of women at certain
times, and the expression Hallelujah Yohewah, are proofs of Jewish descent;
scalping is mentioned in Bible (68th Psalm, ver. 21). Crawford's
Essay. According to various manuscripts the Toltecs are of Jewish descent.
Having crossed the Red Sea, they abandoned themselves to idolatry,
and fearing Moses' reprimand, they separated from the rest and crossed
the ocean to the Seven Caves, and there founded Tula. Juarros, Hist.
Guat., tom. ii., pp. 7-8. Juarez, Municipalidad de Leon, p. 10, states
that Leon de Cordova is of the same opinion. Em. de Moraez, a Portuguese,
in his History of Brazil, thinks nothing but circumcision wanting
to form a perfect resemblance between the Jews and Brazilians. He thinks
that America was wholly peopled by Jews and Carthaginians. Carver's
Trav., pp. 188-9. Catlin thinks the North Americans are a mixed race,
who have Jewish blood in them. The mixture is shown by their skulls,
while many customs are decidedly Jewish. Probably part of tribes scattered
by Christians have come over and intermarried. He gives analogies
in monotheism, sanctuaries, tribeship, chosen people belief, marriage by
gifts, war, burial, ablutions, feasts, sacrifices, and other customs. Any
philological similarity is unnecessary and superfluous. The Jew element
was too feeble to influence language. Catlin's N. Amer. Ind., vol. ii., pp.
231-5. Melgar gives a list of the Chiapanec calendar names, and finds
fourteen agree with suitable Hebrew words. He concludes, therefore, that
ancient intercourse with the Old World is proven. Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin,
2da época, tom. iii., p. 108. Jarvis, Religion Ind. N. Amer., pp. 71-87,
compares words in Hebrew and American languages. Ethan Smith, Views
of the Hebrews, presents eleven arguments in favor of the Jewish theory.
Beatty, Journal of Two Months' Tour in America, gives a number of
reasons why the Hebrew theory should be correct. See further, for general
review of this theory: Crowe's Cent. Amer., pp. 64-8; Domenech's
Deserts, vol. i., pp. 46-9; Simon's Ten Tribes, which is, however, merely
a cheap abridgement of Kingsborough; Dally, Races Indig., pp. 5-6;
Thorowgood's Jewes in America; Worsley's Amer. Ind., pp. 1-185; L'Estrange,
Americans no Jewes; Spizelius, Elevatio Relationis, a criticism on
Menasse Ben Israel's Hope of Israel; Tschudi's Peruvian Antiq., pp. 8-11.




In opposition to the Hebrew theory we read that Wolff, the Jew
traveler, found no Jewish traces among the tribes of North America.
Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, p. 157. 'The strong trait in
Hebrew compound words, of inserting the syllable el or a single letter in
the names of children, derived from either the primary or secondary names
of the deity, does not prevail in any Indian tribes known to me. Neither
are circumstances attending their birth or parentage, which were so often
used in the Hebrew children's names, ever mentioned in these compounds.
Indian children are generally named from some atmospheric phenomenon.
There are no traces of the rites of circumcision, anointing, sprinkling,
or washing, considered as consecrated symbols. Circumcision was
reported as existing among the Sitkas, on the Missouri; but a strict examination
proved it to be a mistake.' Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. iii., p. 61.
The Rev. T. Thorowgood in 1650, published a work entitled Jewes in
America, or Probabilities that the Americans are of that Race. This was
answered in 1651, by Sir Hamon L'Estrange, in a book entitled, Americans
no Jewes. L'Estrange believes that America was peopled long before the
dispersion of the Jews, which took place 1500 years after the flood. A
strong mixture of Jewish blood would have produced distinct customs,
etc., which are not to be found. The native traditions as to origin are to
be regarded as dreams rather than as true stories. The analogous customs
and rites adduced by Thorowgood, L'Estrange goes on, are amply refuted
by Acosta and other writers. The occasional cannibalism of the Jews was
caused by famine, but that of the Americans was a regular institution.
The argument that the Americans are Jews because they have not the
gospel, is worthy only of ridicule, seeing that millions of other pagans are
in the same condition. Of the Hebrew theory Baldwin, who devotes
nearly two pages to it, writes: 'this wild notion, called a theory, scarcely
deserves so much attention. It is a lunatic fancy, possible only to men of
a certain class, which in our time does not multiply.' Anc. Amer., p. 167.
Tschudi regards the arguments in favor of the Jewish theory as unsound.
Peruvian Antiq., p. 11. Acosta thinks that the Jews would have preserved
their language, customs, and records, in America as well as in other
places. Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 79-80. Macgregor argues that the Americans
could not have been Jews, for the latter people were acquainted with
the use of iron as far back as the time of Tubal Cain; they also used milk
and wheaten bread, which the Americans could and would have used if
they had once known of them. Progress of Amer., vol. i., p. 24. Montanus
believes that America was peopled long before the time of the dispersion of
the Jewish tribes, and raises objections to nearly every point that has been
adduced in favor of a Hebrew origin. Nieuwe Weereld, p. 26, et seq. Torquemada
gives Las Casas' reasons for believing that the Americans are of
Jewish descent, and refutes them. Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 22-7. The
difference of physical organization is alone sufficient to set aside the question
of Jewish origin. That so conservative a people as the Jews should
have lost all the traditions, customs, etc., of their race, is absurd. Democratic
Review, vol. xi., p. 617. Rafinesque advances, as objections to
Jew theory, that the ten tribes are to be found scattered over Asia; that
the Sabbath would never have fallen into disuse if they had once introduced
it into America; that the Hebrew knew the use of iron, had plows,
and employed writing; that circumcision is practiced only in one or two
localities in America; that the sharp, striking Jewish features are not
found in Americans; that the Americans eat hogs and other animals forbidden
to the Jews; that the American war customs, such as scalping,
torturing, cannibalism, painting bodies and going naked, are not Jewish in
the least; that the American languages are not like Hebrew. Priest's
Amer. Antiq., pp. 76-9.




[I-212] I translate freely from Bertrand, Mémoires, p. 32, et seq., for this
account.




[I-213] In the State of New York.




[I-214] The discovery was in this wise: 'Près du village de Manchester,
dans le comté d'Ontario, État de New York, se trouve une éminence plus
considérable que celle des environs, et qui est devenue célèbre dans les fastes
de la nouvelle Église sous le nom de Cumorah. Sur le flanc occidental
de cette colline, non loin de son sommet, et sous une pierre d'une grande
dimension, des lames d'or se trouvaient déposées dans un coffre de pierre.
Le couvercle en était aminci vers ses bords, et relevé au milieu en forme de
boule. Après avoir dégagé la terre, Joseph (Smith) souleva le couvercle à
l'aide d'un levier, et trouva les plaques, l'Urim-Thummim, et le pectoral.
Le coffre était formé de pierres reliées entre elles aux angles par du ciment.
Au fond se trouvaient deux pierres plates placées en croix, et sur ces pierres
les lames d'or et les autres objets. Joseph voulait les enlever, mais il
en fut empêché par l'envoyé divin, qui l'informe que le temps n'était pas
encore venu, et qu'il fallait attendre quatre ans à partir de cette époque.
D'après ses instructions, Joseph se rendit tous les ans le même jour au lieu
du dépôt, pour recevoir de la bouche du messager céleste, des instructions
sur la manière dont le royaume de Dieu devait être fondé et gouverné dans
les derniers jours.... Le 22 septembre 1827, le messager des cieux lui laissa
prendre les plaques, l'Urim-Thummim et le pectoral, à condition qu'il serait
responsable, et en l'avertissant qu'il serait retranché, s'il venait à perdre
ces objets par sa négligence, mais qu'il serait protégé s'il faisait tous ses
efforts pour les conserver.' Bertrand, Mémoires, pp. 23-5.




[I-215] Though the question of the Scandinavian discoveries would seem to
merit considerable attention from one who wrote a 'colonial history' of
America, yet Mr George Bancroft disposes of the entire subject in a single
page: 'The story of the colonization of America by Northmen,' he writes,
'rests on narratives, mythological in form, and obscure in meaning; ancient,
yet not contemporary. The chief document is an interpolation in the history
of Sturleson, whose zealous curiosity could hardly have neglected the
discovery of a continent. The geographical details are too vague to sustain
a conjecture; the accounts of the mild winter and fertile soil are, on
any modern hypothesis, fictitious or exaggerated; the description of the
natives applies only to the Esquimaux, inhabitants of hyperborean regions,
the remark which should define the length of the shortest winter's day,
has received interpretations adapted to every latitude from New York to
Cape Farewell; and Vinland has been sought in all directions, from Greenland
and the St. Lawrence to Africa.' Bancroft's History, vol. i., pp. 5-6.
Irving says that as far as he 'has had experience in tracing these stories of
early discoveries of portions of the New World, he has generally found
them very confident deductions drawn from very vague and questionable
facts. Learned men are too prone to give substance to mere shadows, when
they assist some preconceived theory. Most of these accounts, when divested
of the erudite comments of their editors, have proved little better
than the traditionary fables, noticed in another part of this work, respecting
the imaginary islands of St. Borondon, and of the Seven Cities.' Columbus,
vol. iii., p. 434. All of which would certainly be true enough of
most theories, but that it was erroneous as far as the Northmen's visits are
concerned, has, I think, been conclusively shown in later years.




[I-216] 'It might also be argued, if it were at all necessary, that, if these
Sagas were post-Columbian compositions drawn up by Icelanders who were
jealous of the fame of the Genoese navigator, we should certainly be able
to point out something either in their structure, bearing, or style, by which
it would be indicated. Yet such is not the case. These writings reveal
no anxiety to show the connection of the Northmen with the great land
lying at the west. The authors do not see anything at all remarkable or
meritorious in the explorations, which were conducted simply for the purpose
of gain. Those marks which would certainly have been impressed
by a more modern writer forging a historical composition designed to show
an occupation of the country before the time of Columbus, are wholly
wanting. There is no special pleading or rivalry, and no desire to show
prior and superior knowledge of the country to which the navigators had
from time to time sailed. We only discover a straightforward, honest endeavor
to tell the story of certain men's lives. This is done in a simple,
artless way, and with every indication of a desire to mete out even handed
justice to all. And candid readers who come to the subject with minds
free from prejudice, will be powerfully impressed with the belief that they
are reading authentic histories written by honest men.' Pre-Columbian
Disc. Amer., pp. xli.-xlii.




[I-217] Vol. viii., p. 114, et seq.




[I-218] The exact dates in these relations I cannot vouch for; but the several
authors who have written on the subject differ by only a year or two.




[I-219] 'Helluland, from Hella, a flat stone, an abundance of which may be
found in Labrador and the region round about.' De Costa's Pre-Columbian
Disc. Amer., p. 28. 'From data in the Landnama and several other ancient
Icelandic geographical works, we may gather that the distance of a day's sailing
was estimated at from twenty-seven to thirty geographical miles (German
or Danish, of which fifteen are equal to a degree; each of these accordingly
equal to four English sea-miles). From the island of Helluland,
afterwards called Little Helluland, Biarne sailed to Heriulfsnes (Ikigeit) in
Greenland, with strong south-westerly gales, in four days. The distance
between that cape and Newfoundland is about 150 miles, which will correspond,
when we take into consideration the strong gales. In modern
descriptions it is stated that this land partly consists of naked, rocky flats,
where no tree, not even a shrub, can grow, and which are therefore usually
called Barrens; thus answering completely to the hellur of the ancient
Northmen, from which they named the country.' Abstract of Hist. Evid.,
in Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour., vol. viii., p. 123.




[I-220] 'Markland was situate to the south-west of Helluland, distant about
three days' sail, or about from eighty to ninety miles. It is therefore Nova
Scotia, of which the descriptions given by later writers answer to that
given by the ancient Northmen of Markland.' Id.




[I-221] 'Vinland was situate at the distance of two days' sail, consequently
about from fifty-four to sixty miles, in a south-westerly direction from
Markland. The distance from Cape Sable to Cape Cod is stated in nautical
works as being W. by S. about seventy leagues, that is, about fifty-two
miles. Biarne's description of the coasts is very accurate, and in the
island situate to the eastward (between which and the promontory that
stretches to eastward and northward Leif sailed) we recognize Nantucket.
The ancient Northmen found there many shallows (grunnsæ fui mikit);
modern navigators make mention at the same place "of numerous riffs and
other shoals," and say "that the whole presents an aspect of drowned
land."' Id., pp. 121-2. 'The leading evidences serve to attest that Vinland
was the present very marked seaboard area of New England. The
nautical facts have been carefully examined by Professors Rafn and Magnusen,
and the historical data adapted to the configuration of the coast
which has Cape Cod as its distinguishing trait. All this seems to have
been done with surprising accuracy, and is illustrated by the present high
state of the arts in Denmark and Germany.' Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i.,
p. 111.




[I-222] 'Kialarnes (from Kiölr, a keel, and nes, a cape, most likely so named
on account of its striking resemblance to the keel of a ship, particularly
of one of the long ships of the ancient Northmen) must consequently be
Cape Cod, the Nauset of the Indians, which modern geographers have
sometimes likened to a horn, and sometimes to a sickle or sythe.' Id.,
p. 122.




[I-223] 'The Straumfiördr of the ancient Northmen is supposed to be Buzzard's
Bay, and Straumey, Martha's Vineyard; although the account of
the many eggs found there would seem more precisely to correspond to the
island which lies off the entrance of Vineyard Sound, and which at this
day is for the same reason called Egg Island.' Id.




[I-224] See Abstract of Hist. Evid., in Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour., vol. viii., p.
114, et seq., and De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. 11, et seq.




[I-225] In the year 983, according to Abstract of Hist. Evid., in Lond. Geog.
Soc., Jour., vol. viii., p. 125. De Costa makes it 928. Pre-Columbian
Disc. Amer., p. 86.




[I-226] 'Professor Rafn in, what seems to the author, his needless anxiety
to fix the locality of the White-man's land in America, says that, as this
part of the manuscript is difficult to decipher, the original letters may have
got changed, and vi inserted instead of xx, or xi, which numerals would
afford time for the voyager to reach the coast of America, in the vicinity
of Florida. Smith in his Dialogues, has even gone so far as to suppress
the term six altogether, and substitutes, "by a number of days sail unknown."
This is simply trifling with the subject. In Grönland's Historiske
Mindesmœrker, chiefly the work of Finn Magnussen, no question
is raised on this point. The various versions all give the number six,
which limits the voyage to the vicinity of the Azores. Schöning, to whom
we are so largely indebted for the best edition of Heimskringla, lays the
scene of Marson's adventure at those islands, and suggests that they may
at that time have covered a larger extent of territory than the present, and
that they may have suffered from earthquakes and floods, adding, "It is
likely, and all circumstances show, that the said land has been a piece of
North America." This is a bold, though not very unreasonable hypothesis,
especially as the volcanic character of the islands is well known. In 1808,
a volcano rose to the height of 3,500 feet. Yet Schöning's suggestion is
not needed. The fact that the islands were not inhabited when discovered
by the Portuguese does not, however, settle anything against Schöning, because
in the course of five hundred years, the people might either have
migrated, or been swept away by pestilence. Grönland's Historiske Mindesmœrker,
(vol. i., p. 150), says simply, that "It is thought that he (Are
Marson) ended his days in America, or at all events in one of the larger
islands of the west. Some think that it was one of the Azore islands."'
De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. 87.




[I-227] Abstract of Hist. Evid., in Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour., vol. viii., p. 125;
De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. 89, et seq.




[I-228] See Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i., pp. 110, et seq., for plate and discussion
of Dighton Rock.




[I-229] It bore the following inscription: Elligr. Sigvaps: son: r. ok. Bjanne.
Tortarson: ok: Enripi. osson: laugardag. in: fyrir gagndag Holpu: varda
te. ok rydu: M. C. XXXV; or, Erling Sighvatssonr, ok Bjarne Pordarson,
ok Endridi oddsson laugardaginn fyrir gagndag hlodu varda pessa ok
ruddu 1135; 'c'est-à-dire: Erling Sigvatson, Bjarne Thordarson, et Endride
Oddson érigèrent ces monceaux de pierres le samedi avant le jour
nommé Gagndag (le 25 avril) et ils nettoyèrent la place en 1135.' Warden,
Recherches, p. 152.




[I-230] 'We have noticed the discovery of a place called Estotiland, supposed
to be Nova Scotia, in 1354, the inhabitants of which were Europeans,
who cultivated grain, lived in stone houses, and manufactured beer, as in
Europe at that day. Now, from the year 1354, till the time of the first
settlements made in Onondaga county, by the present inhabitants, is about
400 years. Is it not possible, therefore, that this glass bottle, with some
kind of liquor in it, may have been derived from this Estotiland, having
been originally brought from Europe; as glass had been in use there, more
or less, from the year 664, till the Scandinavians colonized Iceland, Greenland,
and Estotiland, or Newfoundland.' Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 260-1.




[I-231] 'Malgré les réclamations que mes suppositions soulevèrent de divers
côtés et les sourires incrédules qu'elles appelèrent sur les lèvres de plusieurs
de nos savants dont je respecte et honore les connaissances, je persiste plus
que jamais dans l'opinion que j'exprimais alors; plus j'avance dans mes
études américaines plus je demeure convaincu des relations qui existèrent,
antérieurement à Christophe Colomb, entre le Nouveau-Monde et les contrées
situées à l'orient de l'autre côté de l'océan Atlantique, et plus je suis
persuadé que les Scandinaves ont dû, à une période même plus reculée que
celle dont vos (Prof. Rafn's) intéressants mémoires rapportent le souvenir,
émigrer vers le continent américain.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, in Nouvelles
Annales des Voy., 1858, tom. clx., pp. 261-92.




[I-232] 'Il est impossible de ne point être frappé de l'analogie qui existe entre
les idées bramaniques sur la divinité et les passages du Popol-Vuh cités
plus haut. Mais si nous consultons les traditions beaucoup plus récentes,
conservées même après l'établissement du christianisme en Suède, nous
trouverons encore, entre les coutumes religieuses des populations de ces
contrées et celles qui nous sont retracées dans le Popol-Vuh, plus d'un
rapport.' Viollet-le-Duc, in Charnay, Ruines Amér., pp. 41-2. See farther
concerning emigration to America from north-western Europe: Mitchill, in
Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 341, et seq.; Priest's Amer. Antiq.,
scattered notices, pp. 88-9, 234-329; Robertson's Hist. Amer., vol. i., pp.
278-80; Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i., pp. 110-11, 120-4; Brasseur de Bourbourg,
in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1855, tom. cxlvii., pp. 157-8; Viollet-le-Duc,
in Charnay, Ruines Amér., pp. 11, 18-19, 23-4, 42-3; Warden,
Recherches, pp. 146-54; Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, pp. 28-30, 117; Tschudi's
Peruvian Antiq., pp. 3-7, 21-2; Malte-Brun, Précis de la Géog., tom.
i., pp. 197-8; Davis' Discovery of New England by the Northmen; Baldwin's
Anc. Amer., pp. 279-85; Davis' Anc. Amer., pp. 13-31; Tylor's Anahuac,
pp. 278-9; M'Culloh's Researches on Amer., pp. 21-2; Brinton's Abbé
Brasseur, in Lippincott's Mag., vol. i., p. 79, et seq.; Smith's Human Species,
p. 237; Deuber, Geschichte der Schiffahrt; Hermes, Entdeckung von
Amer., pp. 1-134; Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 399-400; Hill's Antiq. of
Amer.; Wilson's Prehist. Man, pp. 394-420; Kruger's Discov. Amer., pp.
1-134; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 53-64, 404, 411-12; Beaufoy's Mex.
Illustr., p. 322; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 18-22;
Id., Popol Vuh, pp. li.-liv., lxxxix.-xcii.; Hist. Mag., vol. ix., pp. 364-5;
Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 15; Humboldt's Exam.
Crit., tom. ii., pp. 83-104, 105-20; Irving's Columbus, vol. iii., pp. 432-40;
Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 239; Klemm, Cultur-Geschichte, tom. v., pp.
164-71; Rafinesque, The American Nations; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Quatre
Lettres, p. 17; Williamson's Observations on Climate; Zesterman's Colonization
of America by Northwestern Europeans; Farcy, Discours, in Antiq.
Mex., tom. i., div. i., pp. 48-9; Simpson's Nar., p. 159; Schoolcraft, in
Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 391-6.




[I-233] About 1169-70.




[I-234] 'All this is related in old Welsh annals preserved in the abbeys
of Conway and Strat Flur.... This emigration of Prince Madog is mentioned
in the preserved works of several Welsh bards who lived before the
time of Columbus. It is mentioned by Hakluyt, who had his account of
it from writings of the bard Guttun Owen. As the Northmen had been
in New England over one hundred and fifty years when Prince Madog
went forth to select a place for his settlement, he knew very well there
was a continent on the other side of the Atlantic, for he had knowledge of
their voyages to America; and knowledge of them was also prevalent in
Ireland. His emigration took place when Henry II. was king of England,
but in that age the English knew little or nothing of Welsh affairs in
such a way as to connect them with English history very closely.' Baldwin's
Anc. Amer., p. 286. See also Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. ii.,
pp. 142-9; Farcy, Discours, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., pp. 49-50.
'Before wee passed these ilands, under the lee of the bigger iland, we
anchored, the wind being at north-east, with intent to refresh ourselves
with the fowles of these ilands. They are of divers sorts, and in great
plentie, as pengwins, wilde duckes, gulles, and gannets; of the principall
we purposed to make provisions, and those were the pengwins; which in
Welsh, as I have beene enformed, signifieth a white head. From which
derivation, and many other Welsh denominations given by the Indians, or
their predecessors, some doe inferre that America was first peopled with
Welsh-men; and Montezanna, king, or rather emperour of Mexico, did recount
unto the Spaniards, at their first comming, that his auncestors came
from a farre countrie, and were white people. Which, conferred with an
auncient cronicle, that I have read many yeares since, may be conjectured
to bee a prince of Wales, who many hundreth yeares since, with certaine
shippes, sayled to the westwards, with intent to make new discoveries.
Hee was never after heard of.' Hawkins' Voy., in Hakluyt Soc., p. 111.




[I-235] Written in Welsh, translated into English by Humphrey Llwyd,
and published by Dr David Powel in 1584.




[I-236] Dedicated to Prince Charles, and published in 1613.




[I-237] See Warden, Recherches, pp. 154-7.




[I-238] They are 'made of raw-hides, the skins of buffaloes, stretched underneath
a frame made of willows or other boughs, and shaped nearly round,
like a tub; which the woman carries on her head from her wigwam to the
water's edge, and having stepped into it, stands in front, and propels it by
dripping her paddle forward, and drawing it to her, instead of paddling
by the side.' Catlin's Amer. Ind., vol. ii., p. 261.




[I-239] See comparative vocabulary. Id.




[I-240] As a good deal of importance has been attached to it, it will be as
well to give Jones' statement in full; it is as follows: 'These presents
certify all persons whatever, that in the year 1660, being an inhabitant of
Virginia, and chaplain to Major General Bennet, of Mansoman County,
the said Major General Bennet and Sir William Berkeley sent two ships to
Port Royal, now called South Carolina, which is sixty leagues southward
of Cape Fair, and I was sent therewith to be their minister. Upon the
8th of April we set out from Virginia, and arrived at the harbor's mouth of
Port Royal the 19th of the same month, where we waited for the rest of
the fleet that was to sail from Barbadoes and Bermuda with one Mr. West,
who was to be deputy governor of said place. As soon as the fleet came
in, the smallest vessels that were with us sailed up the river to a place
called the Oyster Point; there I continued about eight months, all which
time being almost starved for want of provisions: I and five more traveled
through the wilderness till we came to the Tuscarora country. There the
Tuscarora Indians took us prisoners because we told them that we were
bound to Roanock. That night they carried us to their town and shut us
up close, to our no small dread. The next day they entered into a consultation
about us, and, after it was over, their interpreter told us that we
must prepare ourselves to die next morning, whereupon, being very much
dejected, I spoke to this effect in the British [Welsh] tongue: "Have I
escaped so many dangers, and must I now be knocked on the head like a
dog!" Then presently came an Indian to me, which afterward appeared
to be a war captain belonging to the sachem of the Doegs (whose original,
I find, must needs be from the Old Britons), and took me up by the middle,
and told me in the British [Welsh] tongue I should not die, and thereupon
went to the emperor of Tuscarora, and agreed for my ransom and the men
that were with me. They (the Doegs) then welcomed us to their town,
and entertained us very civilly and cordially four months, during which
time I had the opportunity of conversing with them familiarly in the
British [Welsh] language, and did preach to them in the same language
three times a week, and they would confer with me about any thing that
was difficult therein, and at our departure they abundantly supplied us
with whatever was necessary to our support and well doing. They are
settled upon Pontigo River, not far from Cape Atros. This is a brief recital
of my travels among the Doeg Indians.



Morgan Jones,

the son of John Jones, of Basateg, near Newport, in the County

of Monmouth. I am ready to conduct any Welshman or others

to the country.




New York, March 10th, 1685-6.' Gentleman's Mag., 1740.




[I-241] Chambers' Jour., vol. vi., p. 411.




[I-242] 'These accounts are copied from manuscripts of Dr. W. O. Pughe,
who, together with Edward Williams (the bard of Glamorgan), made diligent
inquiries in America about forty years ago, when they collected upwards
of one hundred different accounts of the Welsh Indians.' Id. 'It is
reported by travellers in the west, that on the Red River ... very far to
the southwest, a tribe of Indians has been found, whose manners, in several
respects, resemble the Welch.... They call themselves the McCedus
tribe, which having the Mc or Mac attached to their name, points evidently
to a European origin, of the Celtic description.... It is well authenticated
that upwards of thirty years ago, Indians came to Kaskaskia, in
the territory, now the state of Illinois, who spoke the Welch dialect, and
were perfectly understood by two Welchmen then there, who conversed
with them.' Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 230-2.




[I-243] Recherches, p. 157. Griffiths related his adventures to a native of
Kentucky, and they were published in 1804, by Mr Henry Toulmin, one
of the Judges of the territory of Mississippi. See Stoddard's Sketches of
Louisiana, p. 475; Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal, vol. i.,
1805.




[I-244] Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 305.




[I-245] We read farther: 'But what is still more remarkable, in their war
song he discovered, not only the sentiments, but several lines, the very
same words as used in Ossian's celebrated majestic poem of the wars of
his ancestors, who flourished about thirteen hundred years ago. The Indian
names of several of the streams, brooks, mountains and rocks of
Florida, are also the same which are given to similar objects, in the highlands
of Scotland.' All this, could we believe it, would fill us with astonishment;
but the solution of the mystery lies in the next sentence: 'This
celebrated metaphysician (Monboddo) was a firm believer in the anciently
reported account of America's having been visited by a colony from Wales
long previous to the discovery of Columbus.' Priest's Amer. Antiq., p. 230.
It is this being a 'firm believer' in a given theory that makes so many
things patent to the enthusiast which are invisible to ordinary men.




[I-246] Monastikon Britannicum, pp. 131-2, 187-8, cited in De Costa's Pre-Columbian
Disc. Amer., p. xviii.




[I-247] See Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 188-90; De Costa's
Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., pp. xviii.-xx.




[I-248] Mœurs des Sauvages Amériquains Comparées aux Mœurs des Premiers
Temps. Paris, 1724.




[I-249] García, Orígen de los Ind., pp. 189-92.




[I-250] Pidgeon's Trad., p. 16.




[I-251] Landa, Relacion, pp. lxx.-lxxx.




[I-252] Hist. Anc. Amer., p. 107. In the Greeks of Homer I find the customs,
discourse, and manners of the Iroquois, Delawares, and Miamis.
The tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides paint to me almost literally the
sentiments of the red-men, respecting necessity, fatality, the miseries of
human life, and the rigour of blind destiny. Volney's View of the Climate
and Soil of the United States of America. London, 1804.




[I-253] See Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 385-90; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind.,
tom. i., p. 255; Scenes in Rocky Mts., pp. 199-202; Villagutierre, Hist.
Conq. Itza, p. 6; Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 184, 527-8.




[I-254] See Baldwin's Anc. Amer., p. 177; Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, pp.
394-5.




[I-255] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 6.




[I-256] 'Imaginez un livre entier écrit en calembours, un livre dont toutes
les phrases, dont la plupart des mots ont un double sens, l'un parfaitement
net et distinct de l'autre, et vous aurez, jusqu'à un certain point, l'idée du
travail que j'ai entre les mains. C'est en cherchant l'explication d'un passage
fort curieux, relatif à l'histoire de Quetzal-Coatl, que je suis arrivé à
ce résultat extraordinaire. Oui, Monsieur, si ce livre est en apparence
l'histoire des Toltèques et ensuite des rois de Colhuacan et de Mexico, il
présente, en réalité, le récit du cataclysme qui bouleversa le monde, il y a
quelques six ou sept mille ans, et constitua les continents dans leur état
actuel. Ce que le Codex Borgia de la Propagande, le Manuscrit de Dresde
et le Manuscrit Troano étaient en images et en hiéroglyphes, le Codex
Chimalpopoca en donne la lettre; il contient, en langue nahuatl, l'histoire
du monde, composée par le sage Hueman, c'est-à-dire par la main puissante
de Dieu dans le grand Livre de la nature, en un mot, c'est le Livre divin
lui-même, c'est le Teo-Amoxtli.' Brasseur de Bourbourg. Quatre Lettres,
p. 24.




[I-257] Id., p. 39.




[I-258] In the Codex Chimalpopoca, Brasseur reads that 'à la suite de l'éruption
des volcans, ouverts sur toute l'étendue du continent américain,
double alors de ce qu'il est aujourd'hui, l'éruption soudaine d'un immense
foyer sous-marin, fit éclater le monde et abîma, entre un lever et un autre
de l'étoile du matin, les régions les plus riches du globe.' Quatre Lettres,
p. 45.




[I-259] Id., p. 108.




[I-260] See farther, concerning Atlantis: Brasseur de Bourbourg, MS. Troano,
tom. i., pp. 29-32, 199; Irving's Columbus, vol. i., pp. 24, 38, vol. iii.,
pp. 419, 492-4, 499-512; Baril, Mexique, p. 190; Dally, Races Indig., p. 7;
Farcy, Discours, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., pp. 41-2; De Costa's Pre-Columbian
Disc. Amer., p. xiii.; Heylyn's Cosmog., pp. 943-4; Sanson d'Abbeville,
Amérique, pp. 1-3; Willson's Amer. Hist., pp. 90-1; Warden, Recherches,
pp. 97-113; Carli, Cartas, pt i., p. 1; Brasseur de Bourbourg, in
Landa, Relacion, pp. xviii.-cxii.; Davis' Anc. Amer., p. 13; Malte-Brun,
Précis de la Géog., tom. i., pp. 28-30, 213-15; Wilson's Prehist. Man,
pp. 392-3; Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 181-4; Foster's Pre-Hist.
Races, pp. 394-9; Larrainzar, Dictamen, pp. 8-25; Stratton's Mound-Builders,
MS.; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 216-22; Baldwin's Anc.
Amer., pp. 174-84; Mitchill, in Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p.
340; Faliés, Études Hist. sur les Civilisations, tom. i., pp. 185-93, 218;
M'Culloh's Researches on Amer., pp. 26-32; Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom.
i., pp. 42, 130-206, tom. ii., pp. 46, 163-214; Oviedo, Hist. Gen., tom. i.,
pp. 14-18, 22; Monglave, in Antiq. Mex., pp. 57-60; Cabrera, Teatro, in
Rio's Description, p. 126; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, pp. 5-6; Purchas
his Pilgrimes, vol. v., pp. 799-801; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i.,
p. 29; West und Ost Indischer Lustgart, pt i., pp. 4-5; Montanus, Nieuwe
Weereld, pp. 18-19; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., p. 31;
Despréaux, in Museo Mex., tom. ii., pp. 84-6; Major's Prince Henry, p.
83; Rafinesque, in Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 123-4; Domenech's Deserts,
vol. i., pp. 42-6, 413-14; Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, pp.
256-7; Herrera, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. i., cap. ii.; Smith's Human Species,
p. 83; Soc. Géog., Bulletin, tom. iv., p. 235.




[I-261] Davis, Anc. Amer., p. 12, thinks that a portion of the animals of
the original creation migrated west. 'If this idea,' he says, 'is new to
others, I hope it may be considered more reasonable than the infidel opinion,
that men and animals were distinct creations from those of Asia.'
'Think you,' he adds sagely, 'they would have transported venomous
serpents from the old to the new world?'




[I-262] Concerning unity or variety of the American races, see: Prichard's
Researches, vol. i., p. 268, vol. v., pp. 289, 374, 542; Morton's Crania
Amer., p. 62; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 197-98; Baldwin's Anc. Amer.,
pp. 66-7; Maury, in Nott and Gliddon's Indig. Races, p. 81; Humboldt,
Essai Pol., tom. i., p. 83; Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 21-36; Willson's
Amer. Hist., p. 89; Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer., p. 4; Smith's Human Species,
p. 251; Catlin's N. Amer. Ind., vol. ii., p. 234; Domenech's Deserts, vol.
i., pp. 3-4.




[I-263] 'I am compelled to believe that the Continent of America, and each
of the other Continents, have had their aboriginal stocks, peculiar in colour
and in character—and that each of these native stocks has undergone repeated
mutations, by erratic colonies from abroad.' Catlin's N. Amer. Ind.,
vol. ii., p. 232; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 224-5, thinks it consonant
with the Bible to suppose 'distinct animal creations, simultaneously, for
different portions of the earth.' A commentator on Hellwald who advocates
autochthon theory remarks that: 'the derivation of these varieties from
the original stock is philosophically explained on the principle of the
variety in the offspring of the same parents, and the better adaptation and
consequent chance of life.' Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 345. 'That theory
is probably, in every point of view, the most tenable and exact which
assumes that man, like the plant, a mundane being, made his appearance
generally upon earth when our planet had reached that stage of its development
which unites in itself the conditions of the man's existence. In conformity
with this view I regard the American as an autochthon.' The question
of immigration to America has been too much mixed with that of the
migration in America, and only recently has the opinion made progress
that America has attained a form of civilization by modes of their own.
Neither the theory of a populating immigration or a civilizing immigration
from the old world meet any countenance from the results of the latest
investigations. Hellwald, in Id., p. 330. All tribes have similarities among
them which make them distinct from old world. Brasseur de Bourbourg,
Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 23. Dr. Morton says the study of physical
conformation alone, excludes every branch of the Caucasian race from any
obvious participation in the peopling of this continent, and believes the
Indians are all of one race, and that race distinct from all others. Mayer's
Observations, p. 11. We can never know the origin of the Americans.
The theory that they are aborigines is contradicted by no fact and is
plausible enough. Morelet, Voyage, tom. i., pp. 177-8. The supposition
that the Red Man is a primitive type of a human family originally planted
in the western continent presents the most natural solution of the problem.
The researches of physiologists, antiquaries, philologists, tend this
way. The hypothesis of an immigration, when followed out, is embarrassed
with great difficulties and leads to interminable and unsatisfying speculations.
Norman's Rambles in Yuc., p. 251. God has created several couples
of human beings differing from one another internally and externally, and
these were placed in appropriate climates. The original character is preserved,
and directed only by their natural powers they acquired knowledge
and formed a distinct language. In primitive times signs and sounds suggested
by nature were used, but with advancement, dialects formed. It requires
the idea of a miracle to suppose that all men descend from one source.
Kames, in Warden, Recherches, p. 203. 'The unsuccessful search after
traces of an ante-Columbian intercourse with the New World, suffices to confirm
the belief that, for unnumbered centuries throughout that ancient era,
the Western Hemisphere was the exclusive heritage of nations native to its
soil. Its sacred and sepulchral rites, its usages and superstitions, its arts,
letters, metallurgy, sculpture, and architecture, are all peculiarly its own.'
Wilson's Prehist. Man, p. 421. Morton concludes 'that the American Race
differs essentially from all others, not excepting the Mongolian; nor do the
feeble analogies of language, and the more obvious ones in civil and religious
institutions and the arts, denote anything beyond casual or colonial
communication with the Asiatic nations; and even these analogies may
perhaps be accounted for, as Humboldt has suggested, in the mere coincidence
arising from similar wants and impulses in nations inhabiting similar
latitudes.' Crania Amer., p. 260. 'I am firmly of opinion that God created
an original man and woman in this part of the globe, of different species
from any in the other parts.' Romans' Concise Natural Hist. of E. and
W. Florida. 'Altamirano, the best Aztec scholar living, claims that the
proof is conclusive that the Aztecs did not come here from Asia, as has
been almost universally believed, but were a race originated in America,
and as old as the Chinese themselves, and that China may even have been
peopled from America.' Evans' Our Sister Rep., p. 333. Swan believes
that 'whatever was the origin of different tribes or families, the whole
race of American Indians are native and indigenous to the soil.' N.W.
Coast, p. 206.




[II-1] Vol. ii., pp. 523-52.




[II-2] pp. 544-9.




[II-3] The fact that they were Spaniards and Catholics is enough to condemn
them with critics of a certain class, of which Adair may be quoted
as an example: 'I lay little stress upon Spanish testimonies, for time and
ocular proof have convinced us of the labored falsehood of almost all their
historical narrations.... They were so divested of those principles inherent
to honest enquirers after truth, that they have recorded themselves
to be a tribe of prejudiced bigots.' Amer. Ind., p. 197.




[II-4] Historia Antigua de la Nueva España, MS. of 1588, folio, 3 volumes.
A part of this work has recently been printed in Mexico. I have a manuscript
copy made by Mr C. A. Spofford from that existing in the Congressional
Library in Washington.




[II-5] Ixtlilxochitl has been the subject of much criticism favorable and
otherwise. The verdict of the best authors seems to be that he wrote
honestly, compiling from authentic documents in his possession, but carelessly,
especially in the matter of chronology which presents contradictions
on nearly every page. Even Wilson, Conq. Mex., pp. 23, 61, who
stigmatizes as liars all the early writers on this subject, admits that Alva
lies elegantly, and has written an able though fictitious narrative. Carelessness
in dates and a disposition to unduly exalt his own race and family,
are the most glaring faults of this author, and are observable also to a
certain extent in all the native historians.




[II-6] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 91; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del
Messico, tom. i., p. 10; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii.,
p. 196.




[II-7] Historia de la Creacion del Cielo y de la Tierra, conforme al Sistema
de la gentilidad Americana.




[II-8] Recopilacion Florida de la Historia del Reyno de Guatemala, MS. in
the Guatemalan Archives.




[II-9] Memorial de Tecpan-Atitlan, a history of the Cakchiquel Kingdom,
MS. discovered by Brasseur.




[II-10] Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo Reyno de Guatemala. Guatemala,
1852.




[II-11] Constituciones Diocesanas del Obispado de Chiappas. Rome, 1702.




[II-12] Vol. iii. of a History of Chiapas and Guatemala, found by Scherzer at
the University of San Carlos. See Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. viii., xiii.




[II-13] Languages, 'the most ancient historical monuments of nations.' 'If
in the philosophical study of the structure of languages, the analogy of a
few roots acquires value only when they can be geographically connected
together, neither is the want of resemblance in roots any very strong proof
against the common origin of nations.' Humboldt's Pers. Nar., vol. v., pp.
143, 293. Language, 'which usually exhibits traces of its origin, even
when the science and literature, that are embodied in it, have widely diverged.'
Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., p. 394. 'In the absence of historical evidence,
language is the best test of consanguinity; there are reasons why
climate should alter the physical character, but it does not appear that the
language would be materially affected by such local influence.' Prichard's
Nat. Hist. Man, vol. i., p. xvi. 'Efectivamente, la historia por sí sola nada
nos descubre acerca del orígen de las naciones, muy poco nos enseña sobre
la mezcla y confusion de las razas, casi nada nos dice de las emigraciones
de los pueblos, mientras todo esto lo esplica admirablemente el análisis y la
investigacion del filólogo.' Pimentel, Discurso, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin,
tom. viii., pp. 367-8. 'The problem of the common origin of languages has no
necessary connection with the problem of the common origin of mankind.... The
science of language and the science of Ethnology have both suffered
most severely from being mixed up together. The classification of
races and languages, should be quite independent of each other. Races may
change their language and history supplies us with several instances where
one race adopted the language of another. Different languages, therefore,
may be spoken by different races; so that any attempt at squaring the
classification of races and tongues must necessarily fail.' Müller's Science of
Lang., vol. i., pp. 326-7.




[III-1] Vol. iii., p. 450, et seq.




[III-2] Ordoñez states in one part of his work that this record was not written
by Votan himself, but by his descendant in the eighth or ninth generation.
Brasseur de Bourbourg, in Popol Vuh, p. lxxxvii.




[III-3] Constituciones Diocesanas del Obispado de Chiappas. Rome, 1702.




[III-4] See vol. ii., pp. 771-4.




[III-5] Teatro Critico Americano, p. 32, et seq.




[III-6] See vol. iv., p. 289.




[III-7] 'At the top of the first leaf, the two continents are painted in different
colours, in two small squares, placed parallel to each other in the
angles: the one representing Europe, Asia, and Africa is marked with two
large SS; upon the upper arms of two bars drawn from the opposite angles
of each square, forming the point of union in the centre; that which indicates
America has two SS placed horizontally on the bars, but I am not
certain whether upon the upper or lower bars, but I believe upon the latter.
When speaking of the places he had visited on the old continent, he marks
them on the margin of each chapter, with an upright S, and those of America
with an horizontal S. Between these squares stands the title of his
history "Proof that I am Culebra" (a snake), which title he proves in the
body of his work, by saying that he is Culebra, because he is Chivim.' Cabrera,
Teatro, pp. 33-4.




[III-8] Historia del Cielo y de la Tierra, MS. See vol. iv., p. 289, for additional
notes respecting this author.




[III-9] 'Un estudio de muchos ratos (mas de treinta años) ... acompañado de la
constante aplicacion con que me dediqué á entender las frases de que usaron
los Indios en su primitive gentilismo, principalmente en la historia que de
su establecimiento en esta region que nosotros llamamos América, escribió
Votan, la cual conseguí, de les mismos Indios (quienes me la franquearon),
y sobre todo, la conveniencia que resulta de una prolixa combinacion de la
situacion de aquella ciudad (Palenque), de la disposicion y arquitectura de
sus edificios, de la antigüedad de sus geroglíficos, y finalmente de las producciones
de su terreno, con las noticias que, á costa de porfiadas diligencias,
habia adquirido; creí que me tenian en estado de despertar un sistema
nada nuevo, pero olvidado.' Ordoñez, MS., in Brasseur de Bourbourg,
Cartas, p. 7.




[III-10] Ordoñez, as represented by Cabrera—Teatro, p. 96—claims that the
name Tzequiles has precisely the same meaning as Nahuatlacas in the
Nahua dialect, and he applies the name to a Nahua rather than a Maya
people, with much reason as will appear later, although Brasseur is of a
contrary opinion. Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 70.




[III-11] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Cartas, p. 10.




[III-12] For list see vol. ii., p. 767.




[III-13] Cartas, p. 71.




[III-14] Piñeda, Descrip. Chiapas, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., pp.
343-6; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 95-7.




[III-15] Cabrera, Teatro, p. 30; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh, p. cix.;
Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., p. 165; See on Votan and his empire,
besides the works that have been mentioned in this chapter, Juarros,
Hist. Guat., p. 203; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 150-1,
tom. iv., pp. 15-16; Boturini, Idea, pp. 114-5; Brasseur de Bourbourg,
Popol Vuh, introd; Id., Esquisses; Id., Palenqué; Fontaine's How the
World was Peopled, p. 136; Tschudi's Peruvian Antiq., pp. 11-15; Domenech's
Deserts, vol. i., p. 10, et seq.; Levy, Nicaragua, p. 4; Priest's Amer.
Antiq., pp. 248-9; Beaufoy's Mex. Illust., pp. 218-21; Farcy, Discours, in
Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., p. 43.




[III-16] On the Antiquity of Copan, the ruins of Yucatan, and Palenque, see
vol. iv., pp. 104, 280-5, 359-62.




[III-17] 'The monuments of the Mississippi present stronger internal evidence
of great antiquity than any others in America, although it by no means
follows that they are older than Palenque and Copan.' Vol. iv., p. 790.




[III-18] Yucatan, vol. ii., pp. 454-5. By a careful study of Mr Stephens'
conclusions, it will appear evident to the reader that he ascribes the
Central American ruins to the Toltecs, simply as the oldest nations on
the continent of America, of which we have any knowledge, and that he
reconciles their condition at the time of his exploration with their recent
origin, chiefly by a consideration of the Yucatan ruins, most of which
doubtless do not date back to the Votanic empire, and many of which were
still occupied at the coming of the first Spaniards.




[III-19] Although in the 'general view,' vol. ii., chap. ii., I have classed the
Toltecs among the Nahua nations, it will be noticed that the preceding conclusions
of the present chapter are independent of such a classification,
and are not necessarily opposed to the theory, held by some, that the cities
of Central America were built by the Toltecs before they assumed a prominent
position among the nations of Anáhuac. The following notes bear
more or less directly on points involved in the preceding text. Mr Tylor,
Anáhuac, pp. 189-93; Researches, p. 184, believes that the civilization of
Mexico and Central America were originally independent although modified
by contact one with the other, and attributes the Central American
cities to a people who flourished long before the Toltecs, and whose descendants
are the Mayas. Yet he favors the climatic theory of the origin and
growth of civilization, according to which the culture of the south must
have been brought from the Mexican tierra templada. I have no objection
to offer to this theory. It is in the Usumacinta region that the Maya civilization
has left its first record both traditional and monumental; and that
is sufficient for my present purpose. Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp.
124-5, etc., concludes from his linguistic researches that the Palenque
civilization was much older than the Toltec and distinct from it. Hellwald,
in Smithsonian Rept., 1866, pp. 340-1, pronounces the Palenque culture
the oldest in America, with no resemblance to that of the Nahuas.
He rejects the theory that the ruins were the work of migrating Toltecs.
Palenque will probably some day decide the question of American civilization.
It only awaits a Champollion. Charnay, Ruines Amér., p. 439. The
ruins in the south have undoubted claims to the highest antiquity. Bradford's
Amer. Antiq., p. 199. The Usumacinta seems a kind of central
point for the high culture of Central America. Müller, Amerikanische Urreligionen,
p. 456.




[III-20] See vol. iii., pp. 42-4, note 1, for a bibliographical notice of the Popol
Vuh.




[III-21] Popol Vuh, pp. 1-5; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 4-5.




[III-22] Vol. iii., pp. 44-7.




[III-23] Popol Vuh, pp. 5-31; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 5-14.




[III-24] Popol Vuh, p. 195, et seq.




[III-25] Or, as Brasseur translates, 'the remnant of those that were drowned,'
etc.




[III-26] pp. 31-67; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 15-29.




[III-27] Ximenez, p. 29, conveys the idea, however, that it is only from ignorance
that so little is told, and not from a desire to be mysterious.




[III-28] Ximenez renders this word by 'infierno,' or hell. No satisfactory
meaning can be derived from its etymology.




[III-29] Carchah is the name of an Indian town in Vera Paz.




[III-30] Casa lobrega, maison ténébreuse. It will be remembered that Votan
is said to have established a House of Gloom at Huehuetan. See p. 160.




[III-31] A ballet, according to Brasseur, still performed by the natives of
Guatemala, clad in wooden masks and peculiar costumes.




[III-32] The place whence the brothers started to contend against the princes of
Xibalba, seems to have been Utatlan in Guatemala—see vol. iv., pp. 124-8—for
Gumarcaah the Quiché name of that place is said to signify 'house
of old withered canes.' Moreover, Torquemada and Las Casas have preserved
the tradition that Exbalanquen (Xbalanque) set out from Utatlan
for the conquest of hell. Monarq. Ind., tom. ii., p. 53; Hist. Apologética,
MS., cap. 125. Xibalba doubtless had the signification of the infernal
regions in the popular traditions.




[III-33] Popol Vuh, pp. 68-192; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 29-79.




[III-34] See vol. ii., pp. 716-7.




[III-35] See p. 172.




[III-36] Vol. iii., pp. 47-54.




[III-37] Popol Vuh, pp. 221-2.




[III-38] Popol Vuh, pp. 245-7; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 98-9.




[III-39] Notes to Popol Vuh, pp. lxxxv, ccliv.




[III-40] Id., pp. xci-ii.




[III-41] Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 139-45.




[III-42] Tom. i., p. xviii.




[III-43] According to Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 59,
the name should be Temoanchan to agree exactly with Sahagun's definition,
'vamos á nuestra casa.' The same author heard an Indian of Guatemala
define the name as an earthly paradise. Popol Vuh, pp. lxxviii-lxxix.




[III-44] Brasseur believes that the Oxomoco and Cipactonal of the Nahua
myth, are the same as the Xpiyacoc and Xmucane of the Popol Vuh, since
the former are two of the inventors of the calendar, while the latter are
called grandmothers of the sun and light. Popol Vuh, pp. 4, 20.




[III-45] 'Una Historia de los Reynos de Culhuàcan, y Mexico, en lengua Nahuatl,
y papel Europèo de Autor Anonymo, y tiene añadida una Breve Relacion
de los Dioses, y Ritos de la Gentilidad en lengua Castellana, etc.
Està todo copiado de letra de Don Fernando de Alba y le falta la primera
foja.' Boturini, Catálogo, pp. 17-18. 'M. Aubin, qui possède les copies
faites par Gama et Pichardo, ajoute au sujet de ce document: "Cette
histoire, composée en 1563 et en 1579, par un écrivain de Quauhtitlan
et non par Fernando de Alba (Ixtlilxochitl), comme l'a cru Pichardo,
n'est guère moins précieuse que les précédentes  (in Brasseur's list), et
remonte, année par année, au moins jusqu'à l'an 751 de J. C. A la suite
de ces annales se trouve l'histoire anonyme (l'Histoire des soleils), d'où
Gama a extrait le texte mexicain de la tradition sur les soleils."' Brasseur
de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. lxxix.; Id., Popol Vuh, p.
xi.




[III-46] Chichime or 'dogs,' a transformation which may not improbably have
something to do with the origin of the name Chichimecs, a name applied to
so many tribes in all parts of the country. The Codex Chimalpopoca, however,
speaks also of a transformation into monkeys as a result of a great
hurricane. Popol Vuh, p. lxxx.




[III-47] Or, as Brasseur suggests, adopting the customs of the people in order
to obtain the entrée of Tonacatepetl and the secret of their agriculture.




[III-48] Molina, Vocabulario, translates the name, 'red ant.'




[III-49] Codex Chimalpopoca, in Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom.
i., pp. 53-9, 70-1.




[III-50] Id., p. 117.




[III-51] The Cuicatecs, Triquis, Chinantecs, Mazatecs, Chatinos, Papabucos,
Soltecos, Chontales, and Cohuixcas, in the south-western regions, are regarded
by Orozco y Berra as fragments of pre-Toltec nations. Geografía,
pp. 121, 126. Prichard, Nat. Hist. Man, vol. ii., p. 512, adds the Coras,
Tepanecs, and Tarascos. The Codices Vaticanus and Tellerianus, give
the names of the tribes that migrated from the seven caves, as Olmecs,
Xicalancas, Chichimecs, Nonohualcas, Michinacas, Couixcas, Totonacs,
and Cuextecas. The Nonohualcas and Xicalancas, however, were probably
the same, and we shall see later that Chichimecs was probably never
a tribal name at all. Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p.
135.




[III-52] Relaciones, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 459. Papuhya,
'river of mud,' is a name also applied by the Quiché tradition to a river
apparently in this region. See p. 178; Popol Vuh, pp. 140-1. Brasseur in
the same work, pp. lxxii., lxxvii-viii., refers to Las Casas, Hist. Apol.,
tom. iii., cap. cxxiii-iv., as relating the arrival of these nations under
Quetzalcoatl and twenty chiefs at Point Xicalanco.




[III-53] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., p. 150.




[III-54] See vol. iv., p. 434.




[III-55] See vol. ii., p. 112.




[III-56] Hist. Ecles., p. 146; Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 32.




[III-57] Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., p. 264, tom. iii., lib. x., p. 136:
Camargo, Hist. Tlax., in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom. xcviii.,
pp. 135-7, is the only author who differs materially in his account of the
arrival and establishment of the Olmecs and Xicalancas. He states that in
company with the Zacatecs they came from the Seven Caves, passed through
Mexico, Tochimilco, Atlixco, Calpan, and Huexotzinco, founding their chief
settlement in Tlascala where the village of Natividad now stands. See vol.
iv., pp. 478-9, for notice of ruins. Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 299-300, also
brings these nations from the Seven Caves.




[III-58] Concerning the giants, see Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex.
Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 205-6, 392, 459; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp.
143-54; Duran, Hist. Indias, MS., tom. i., cap. ii. This author represents
the Quinames as having been killed while eating and drinking, by the
Tlascaltecs who had taken possession of their arms. He says they yielded
after a desperate resistance. Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 34-6;
Boturini, Idea, pp. 130-5; Arlegui, Chrón. Zacatecas, p. 6; Oviedo, Hist.
Gen., tom. iii., pp. 539-41; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p.
125; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 66, 153-4; Id.,
Popol Vuh, pp. lxviii., cxxvii.; Id., Esquisses, p. 12; Granados y Galvez,
Tardes Amer., pp. 15, 21; Rios, Compend. Hist. Mex., p. 5; Piñeda, in Soc.
Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., p. 346; Pimentel, in Dicc. Univ., tom. x.,
p. 610.




[III-59] On building of Cholula pyramid, see Codex Mexicano, in Kingsborough's
Mex. Antiq., vol. v., p. 172; Ixtlilxochitl, in Id., vol. ix., pp. 206,
459; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 45, 69; Veytia,
Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 15, 18, 153; Boturini, Idea, pp. 113-14; Humboldt,
Mélanges, p. 553; Id., Vues, tom. i., p. 114; Popol Vuh, p. cxxv.;
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 153, 301-3; Orozco y
Berra, Geografía, p. 132; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol.
i., p. 167.




[III-60] Cortés, Cartas, p. 86. Quetzalcoatl however is not named.




[III-61] Respecting Quetzalcoatl in his mythological aspects as a divinity, see
vol. iii., pp. 248-87. The story of his visit to the Olmecs is told in Ixtlilxochitl,
in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 206, 459; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom.
i., pp. 155-6, 161-204.




[III-62] Boturini, Idea, p. 135; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv.,
p. 52, tom. i., p. 147. Between Chiapas and Zacatecas is a vast space, of
which the only notion given us by history is the fact that the Olmecs, Xicalancas,
and Zapotecs lived in the region of Puebla and Tlascala. They
were the primitive peoples, that is, the first known. Orozco y Berra, Geografía,
pp. 124-5. The Xicalancas founded Atlixco and Itzucan, but migrated
to South America. The Olmecs who had been driven to the gulf
coasts followed them. Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., p. 242. The
Xicalancas possessed the country before the Chichimecs, by whom they
were regarded as enemies. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq.,
vol. ix., p. 461. Mexicans, Culhuas, Tepanecs, Olmecs, Xicalancas, Tarascos,
and Chichimecs were all of the same race and language. Camargo,
Hist. Tlax., in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom. xcviii., pp. 131,
135, 188. See also Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp.
67, 196, tom. iii., p. 9; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 200, 213; Hellwald,
in Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 337; Müller, Reisen, tom. iii., pp. 33-4.



The Olmecs passed from Mexico to Guatemala, which they conquered.
Alcedo, Dicc., tom. iii., p. 374. Palenque, the oldest American city,
was built by the Olmecs, a mixture of yellow aborigines and the first white
immigrants. Viollet-le-Duc, in Charnay, Ruines Amér., p. 45. The Mazahuas
and Olmecs belong to the aborigines of Guatemala. Müller, Amerikanische
Urreligionen, p. 456.




[III-63] For description see vol. iv., pp. 529-44.




[III-64] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 56, pronounces
the Totonac very like the Maya. Orozco y Berra, Geografía, p. 127,
deems the relationship doubtful. See vol. iii., pp. 776-7.




[III-65] On the Totonacs, see Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 278; Pimentel,
Cuadro, tom. i., pp. 223-7; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom.
iv., pp. 51-2; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 151-61,
tom. iii., pp. 350-1. This author says that the Totonacs came from the north
at about the same time as the Olmecs came from the south. There seems
to be no authority for this save the popular opinion that locates Chicomoztoc
in the north. Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp. 120, 140. The Aztecs attributed
Teotihuacan, Cholula, Papantla, etc., to the Toltecs because
they were the oldest people they knew; but they may have been built before
the Toltec invasion. Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 98.




[III-66] Vol. iii., p. 60, et seq.




[III-67] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 180-8; Popol
Vuh, pp. cxlii-iii.; Boturini, Idea, pp. 37-41; see also references in vol.
iii., p. 60, et seq.




[III-68] On the Otomís, see Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp.
147-8, tom. iv., p. 51; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 39; Alegre,
Hist. Comp. de Jesus, tom. i., p. 90; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex.
Antiq., vol. ix., p. 210; Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., p. 243;
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 156-9, 196, tom. ii.,
p. 235, tom. iii., p. 56; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p.
9; Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp. 120, 136-7; Pimentel, Cuadro, tom. i., pp.
117-18; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 20; Prichard's
Nat. Hist. Man, vol. ii., p. 512.




[III-69] Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., p. 136, heads a paragraph 'Olmecas,
Vixtoti and Mixtecas,' speaking of all together, and applying to them
the name Tenimes, or those who speak a barbarous tongue. Orozco y Berra,
Geografía, pp. 120, 125, 133, speaks of the 'Ulmecas or Mixtecs,' and
thinks they were driven from their former position by the first Nahua invasion,
driving out in turn the Chuchones. He pronounces the Miztec
and Zapotec kindred tongues, and states that these nations joined their
fortunes from an early period. Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., p. 150,
says the Zapotecs are reported to have come with the Olmecs and Xicalancas.
Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 150; Brasseur de
Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 154; Id., Popol Vuh, p. cclv.; García,
Orígen de los Ind., pp. 327-8; Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc., vol. i., p. 98;
Hellwald, in Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 337; Pimentel, Cuadro, tom. i.,
p. 37.




[III-70] See vol. iv., p. 425, et seq.




[III-71] Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 142-3; Squier's Cent. Amer.,
pp. 316-17. Huaxtlan means 'where the huaxi (a kind of fruit) abounds.'
Pimentel, Cuadro, tom. i., pp. 5-6; Orozco y Berra, Geografía, p. 141; Gallatin,
in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 173; Brinton, in Hist.
Mag., n. s., vol. i., p. 16; Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man, vol. ii., p. 513; Id.,
Researches, vol. v., p. 342, 345.




[III-72] The date of the arrival in Huehue Tlapallan is given by Ixtlilxochitl
in his first Toltec relation (p. 322) as 2236 years after the creation, or 520
years after the flood. That is, it occurred long before the Christian era.
In other places (pp. 206, 459) the same author represents the Toltecs as
banished from their country and migrating to Huitlapalan in California on
the South Sea in 387 A.D., whence they continued their journey to Tulancingo.
Now, although I attach very little importance to this author's
chronology, and shall enter into no discussion with a view either to reconcile
or overthrow it, yet it is plain that this last statement, notwithstanding
the use of the name Huitlapalan, refers to a migration long subsequent
to that mentioned in the text. The date 387 A.D., therefore, given by
Gallatin, (in Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. v., p. 96) and Müller, (Reisen, tom.
iii., p. 97), as that of the arrival in Huehue Tlapallan, according to Ixtlilxochitl,
is calculated to convey a false impression.




[III-73] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 322, says it was 305 years after the death of Christ,
or about 338 A.D.; but on the same page he again makes the date 439 A.
D. Veytia, tom. i., p. 208, dates the rebellion 583, the exile 596, and the
founding of Tlapallanconco 604 A.D. Clavigero, tom. iv., p. 46, gives
544 as the date of departure, but on p. 126 of tom. i., he gives 596, agreeing
with Veytia. Müller, in his tables, Reisen, tom. iii., p. 97, dates the
outbreak of war 427, the departure 439, the migration 447 A.D. Brasseur,
Popol Vuh, p. clv., gives the last of the fourth century as the date of the
Toltec migration. Cabrera, Teatro, pp. 90-1, makes the date 181 B.C.
544 A.D., one of Clavigero's dates, is that which has, perhaps, been most
commonly adopted by modern writers.




[III-74] Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 126, writes this name Tlapallantonco;
and in Popol Vuh, p. clix., he insists that it should be Tlapallantzinco.
Müller, Reisen, tom. iii., p. 98, calls it also Tlappallanzingo.




[III-75] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 324, makes this third year 543, and their arrival in
Tulancingo consequently 540 A.D.; or as is implied on p. 307, 487 A.D.;
or adding 104 years to the first date given by this author in note 71, we
have 442 A.D. Veytia, tom. i., p. 221, 697 A.D. Id., after Boturini, in
Tezcoco en los Ultimos Tiempos, 687 A.D. Müller, Reisen, tom. iii., p.
97, 558 A.D. Clavigero, tom. iv., p. 51, 648 A.D., or tom. i., p. 126, 700
A.D.




[III-76] In other parts of his work Ixtlilxochitl has a very different account
of this migration to the effect that the Toltecs were banished from their
country, sailed and coasted on the South Sea, arrived at Huitlapalan or
Huitlapatlan—the Gulf of California, or a place on the coast of California—in
387 A.D., coasted Xalisco, arrived at Guatulco, then at Tochtepec or
Turlitepeque on the North Sea, and finally at Tulancingo, pp. 206-7, 459-60.
On the Toltec migration see Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq.,
vol. ix., pp. 321-4; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 6-33, 139, 157,
205-21, 231; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 126, tom. iv., pp.
46, 51; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 36-7; Boturini, Idea, pp.136-7; Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 216-18; Brasseur de Bourbourg,
Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 100, 126; Popol Vuh, pp. clv., clix-xi.;
Id., Esquisses, pp. 11, 13-14; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact.,
vol. i., p. 203; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., p. 202; Müller, Reisen, tom. iii.,
pp. 91-7.




[III-77] Alvarado, in Ternaux-Compans, Voy., série i., tom. x., p. 147; Id.,
in Ramusio, Navigationi, tom. iii., fol. 300.




[III-78] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 446.




[III-79] Popol Vuh, pp. lxiv., cxii., cxxvi-viii.




[III-80] Id., p. clix.




[III-81] The discovery of a town of similar name by Cortés, doubtingly reported
by Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., p. 23, and others, seems to rest
on no authority whatever.




[III-82] The Nahuas state that they came from the north-west. Mendieta,
Hist. Ecles., p. 147; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 33. The tradition
of the Toltecs will not allow us to fix either date, locality, or source
of their migration, but the north is vaguely given as the source. Gallatin,
in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 203. Huehue Tlapallan situated
north-west of the Gila. Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 204. Not in the Gila
Valley. Smith's Human Species, p. 250. Tradition shows Huehue Tlapallan,
miserable like all nations abandoned to luxury and power, unable to feed its
children, casting them forth. Ramirez, in Revista Cientifica, tom. i., p. 21.
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh, p. clix., speaks of Tlaxi Coliuhcan,
mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl, as the old capital of the Quinames, or Palenque.
He perhaps has no other reason for this than the resemblance of the names
Coliuhcan and Colhuacan. He says, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 100, that
Huehue Tlapallan may be translated 'land of colors' or 'land of nobles.'
Throughout his works he places this country in the south, identifying it
with Xibalba. It is proved incontestably that the Toltecs came from
Tulhá, whose ruins are seen near Ococingo. Id., Cartas, p. 28. Cabrera,
Teatro, p. 94, thinks Tlapalla must have been in the south-east.




[III-83] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 208-9, 217,
333, 335-7, 392-4, 450; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 25, 139, 231,
301-2, tom. ii., pp. 3-7; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 38-40.
Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 125-6, thinks that Chalcatzin and
Tlacamitzin were the successors of Xhunahpa left by Xbalanque in command
of the Nahuas, and that they were defeated and exiled by the monarch
of Xibalba. For details and further references respecting the Chichimec
migration see a future chapter. The Chichimec kings were: Chichimecatl,
Mixcohuatl, Huitzilopochtli, Huemac, Nauhyotl, Quauhtepetla,
Nonohualca, Huetzin, Quauhtonal, Masatzin, Quetzal, Icoatzin, Mozeloquitzin,
Tlamacatzin—in one place Nequametl and Namocuix are named
instead of Chichimecatl. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 394; Veytia, tom. i., p. 231; Carbajal
Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 225-6; Müller, Reisen, tom. iii., pp.
43-4.




[III-84] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 126, 179-80; Id.,
Cartas, pp. 31-4; Id., Popol Vuh, pp. clix-clxi. Brasseur gives a report
of the ruins of a northern Tula in California, which of course is unfounded.
He thinks the Opatas, Yaquis, Mayos, and Tarahumares are remnants of
the old Toltec populations in this region. He does not attribute the ruins
of the New Mexican and Arizona group to the Toltecs, at least not at this
early period. Bradford also, Amer. Antiq., p. 202, speaks of the first age
as diffusing population from the centre through the north, to return in a
reflux of numerous tribes in the second age.




[III-85] Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., pp. 145-6; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom.
i., pp. 32-3; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 299-300; Prichard's Nat. Hist.
Man, vol. ii., p. 514; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh, pp. xxix.-xxx.




[III-86] Descrip. Chiapas, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., p. 344.




[III-87] Chrón. Zacatecas, pp. 6-7.




[III-88] See vol. ii., pp. 762-5.




[III-89] For details and for subsequent Yucatan history, see a future chapter.
My authorities for the preceding remarks are Landa, Relacion, pp. 28-50;
Lizana, in Id., pp. 348-56; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 178-9, 192, 196-7;
Las Casas, Hist. Apologética, MS., cap. 123; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind.,
tom. ii., p. 52; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., p. 237; Herrera, Hist.
Gen., dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii.; Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles Annales
des Voy., 1843, tom. xcvii., pp. 31-6. Perez, in Landa, Relacion, pp. 420-3;
Id., in Stephens' Yucatan, vol. ii., pp. 465-9; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist.
Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 68, 76-80, 126-7; Id., Popol Vuh, pp. lxxix, clv.-vi.;
Id., Cartas, p. 13; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp.
171-3; Orozco y Berra, Geografía, p. 128.




[III-90] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Cartas, pp. 27-8. The abbé seems to have
made but little if any use of the Codex Gondra in his subsequent works;
although it may be supposed that from it, and indeed from the very portion
above quoted, he takes his account of the closing events of the Toltec empire
in Anáhuac to be given in a future chapter.




[III-91] About 1000 B.C. by Ordoñez, and 955 B.C. by the Codex Chimalpopoca,
are the only definite dates given for this establishment.




[III-92] Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 44, speaks of cyclopean ruins in
Central America left by civilized nations preceding or contemporary with
those among whom Votan introduced his culture; but this is purely imaginary;
there are ruins which may ante-date the epoch in question, but none
to which there is any good reason for assigning so great an antiquity.




[III-93] It may be well to give here the conclusions of M. Viollet-le-Duc, the
distinguished French architect, respecting these ruins and their builders,
although they carry the matter back to the question of origin, and consequently
beyond the sphere of this chapter. This author's conclusions are
professedly based on an examination of material monuments, but were
doubtless much affected, like those of other late writers, including myself,
by the study of Brasseur's works.



The whole continent was peopled with wild tribes of yellow blood from
Asia via the north-west at a very remote period. About 1000 B.C., the
Culhuas, a mixed race of black and white blood appeared from the east and
introduced agriculture and a slight degree of civilization. Soon after the
Culhuas, the Nahuas appeared, a white race coming from the north of Europe
via the Mississippi Valley, Florida, and West Indies, in successive
migrations. Palenque was built by the yellow races under a strong influence
of the Culhuas and a very slight Nahua influence; the cities of Yucatan
were built when the Nahuas had conquered their rivals and the influence
of the white race had become predominant; Mitla owes its origin to a
still more recent period, and was built by a migrating tribe in which the
yellow blood seems to have predominated. Viollet-le-Duc, in Charnay,
Ruines Amér.




[III-94] A document, for the authenticity of which even Brasseur de Bourbourg
declines to vouch, dates the first appearance of the Nahuas at 279 B.C.
The abbé thinks that event was probably during the century before
Christ; but he, it must be remembered, accepts the coming of Quetzalcoatl
and his followers and the introduction of a new civilization literally.
Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 101.




[III-95] I find no authority for Brasseur de Bourbourg's opinion that the fall
of Xibalba preceded the final scattering of the Nahua nations by only one
century.




[III-96] Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp. 128-9, judges from the occurrence of
Nahua names in Guatemala that nations speaking Nahua were formerly
located there, and were overcome either by Maya-speaking tribes that they
found in the country, or by others that invaded the country after them.




[III-97] Amerikanische Urreligionen, p. 524. Some of these writers, however,
believe strongly in a migration of tribes from the north, although
attributing the Nahua culture to the south.




[IV-1] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 247-50. 'Era servido de unos
Sacerdotes llamados Papahua Tlemacàzque, que, à distincion de los demàs,
traìan el cabello en melenas sueltas, y al acabarse el Cyclo Indiano, sacaban,
y vendian el Fuego Nuevo à los Pueblos vecinos.' Boturini, Idea, p. 42.
'Allí tambien se enterraban los principales y señores, sobre cuyas sepulturas
se mandaban hacer túmulos de tierra, que hoy se ven todavia.' Sahagun,
Hist. Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., p. 141.




[IV-2] Brasseur cites Torquemada and Duran as authorities for the existence
at this period of some remnants of the old Quinames, and of other savage
tribes whose names have been lost; but these authors in the chapters cited
say nothing to which such a meaning can fairly be attributed.




[IV-3] See p. 192.




[IV-4] Boturini, Catálogo, p. 17, No. 12. 'Diferentes Historias Originales
en lengua Nàhuatl, y papel Europèo de los Reynos de Culhuàcan, y Mexico,
y de otras Provincias, el Autor de ellas dicho Don Domingo Chimalpàin.
Empiezan desde la Gentilidad, y llegan à los años de 1591.' See also Brasseur
de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. lxxvi.




[IV-5] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 198, et seq. This author refers occasionally
in his foot-notes to the Spanish writers Torquemada, Duran, and others,
but such citations when looked up rarely prove to have any bearing on
the matter in question, being for the most part only definitions of names
employed in the text. It is much to be regretted that there are no means
of testing Brasseur de Bourbourg's version of these important annals. See,
however, on this point, a future note of this chapter.




[IV-6] In addition to the two documents referred to, Camargo, Hist. Tlax.,
in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 145, has the following,
which may refer to the migration of this earliest branch of the Nahua
peoples; 'according to their account, it was in five Tochtli that they arrived
at the Seven Caves. Thence they went to Amaquetepec, then to
Tepenec, or Echo Mountain, where Mitmitzichi (Mimich) killed Izpapalotl
with his bow and arrows. Next they passed to the province of Tomallan,
which they conquered after a long war, to Culhuacan, to Teotla Cochoalco,
and to Teohuiznahuac where they wished to shoot Cohuatlicue, queen of
that province; but they made peace with her. She married Mixcohuatl
Amacohtle and by him had a son Colchacovatl [probably Quetzalcoatl].'




[IV-7] See note on p. 213 for dates.




[IV-8] Also written Tula, Tulan, Tulla, Tullan, and Tulha.




[IV-9] Chalcatzin, Tlacamilitzin, Checatl, Cohuatzon, Mazacohuatl, Tlapalhuitz,
and Huitz. Veytia, tom. i., p. 207. Chalcatzin, Acatl, Eccatl,
Cohuatzin, Mazacohuatl Otziuhcohuatl, Tlapalhuiz, and Huitz. Ixtlilxochitl,
p. 393. Zaca, Chalcatzin, Ecatzin, Cohuazon, Tzihuacohuatl, Tlapalmetzotzin,
and Metzoltzin. Id., p. 450. Tlacomihua or Acatl, Chalchiuhmatz,
Avecatl, Coatzon, Tziuhcoatl, Tlapalhuitz, and Huitz. Id., pp.
206-7. Tzacatl, Chalcatzin, Ehecatzin, Cohuatzon, Tzihuac-Cohuatl, Tlapalmetzotzin,
and Metzotzin. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 37. Tzacatl, Telacalzin,
Echecalzin, Cohualzon, Tezihuaccoahuatl, Tlapalmezoltzin, and
Melzolzin. Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. iv., p. 230.




[IV-10] Ixtlilxochitl. Called also Achcauhtzin, Cabrera, Teatro, p. 95. Icoatzin,
Veytia, tom. i., p. 301.




[IV-11] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 37; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 127; Brasseur de
Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 215. Chalchiuhtlanetzin, or Chalchiuhtlatonac.
Veytia, tom. i., pp. 233, 301. Chalchiuhtlahuextzin, Ixtlilxochitl,
p. 393. Tlalchiuhtlanelzin. Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., série
iii., tom. iv., p. 230. Ixtlilxochitl seems to imply, in another part of his
writings, Hist. Chich., p. 207, that the king was chosen among the Toltecs
themselves. This Sr Pimentel, in Dicc. Univ., tom. x., p. 611, deems
much more probable than the course indicated in the other accounts.




[IV-12] 503 or 510 or 509 or 556. Ixtlilxochitl. 700, et seq. Torquemada.
713-19. Veytia. Brasseur has 718. 670, et seq. Müller. All the authorities
agree on 7 Acatl as the date of the establishment of the kingdom.
Clavigero interprets the date as 667.




[IV-13] See vol. ii., p. 140.




[IV-14] 608 A.D., according to Ixtlilxochitl, p. 450. On the establishment of
the Toltecs in Tollan and the reign of the first king, see: Ixtlilxochitl, in
Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 206-7, 322-5, 336, 392-3, 450,
458, 460; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 221-39; Clavigero, Storia
Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 126-7, tom. iv., pp. 46, 51; Sahagun, Hist.
Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 106-15, 145, lib. xi., p. 312; Torquemada,
Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 37, 254; Boturini, Idea, pp. 77, 139; Id., in
Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. iv., p. 230; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 299;
Motolinia, Hist. Indios, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 5; Vetancvrt,
Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 11; Cabrera, Teatro, p. 95; Arlegui, Chrón.
Zacatecas, p. 6; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 209,
et seq.; Orozco y Berra, Geografía, p. 138; Prescott's Mex., vol. i., pp.
12-13; Müller, Amerikanische Urreligionen, p. 524; Mayer's Mex. Aztec,
etc., vol. i., p. 95; Chevalier, Mexique, p. 55; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist.
Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 20; Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. v., p. 95; Waldeck,
Voy. Pitt., p. 46; Pimentel, in Dicc. Univ., tom. x., pp. 610-11.




[IV-15] Codex Chimalpopoca, and Memorial de Culhuacan, as cited by Brasseur
de Bourbourg.




[IV-16] Respecting these titles see vol. ii., pp. 186-7, 201, vol. iii., p. 434.




[IV-17] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 225.




[IV-18] 'On regarda aussi comme des dieux Camaxtle et Tezcatlipuca qui vinrent
de l'occident; mais ces prétendus dieux étaient sans doute des enchanteurs
diaboliques et possédés du démon, qui pervertirent toutes ces nations.'
Camargo, Hist. Tlax., in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom. xcviii.,
p. 146. 'Fueron grandes capitanes esforzados y entre ellos valerosos hombres;
los quales señorearon por grado ò por fuerza aquellas Provincias de
Mexico, Tetzcuco y Tlaxcala, cuyos propios naturales a habitadores y aborigenes
eran las gentes que se llaman Othomies.' Las Casas, Hist. Apologética,
MS., cap. 122.




[IV-19] See vol. ii., pp. 335-6, 351-2, vol. iii., pp. 118, 403-6.




[IV-20] Ixtlilcuechahuac, otherwise called Tzacatecatl, Tlaltecatl, and Tlachinotzin,
in 771 A.D. Veytia, tom. i., p. 231. 608. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 450.
Ixliuechahuexe or Tzacatcatl, 614. Id., p. 325. Ixtlilcuechanac or Tlaltecatl
Huetzin. Id., p. 393. Tlilquechahuac Tlalchinoltzin, 572. Id., p. 207.
Tlilque Chaocatlahinoltzin. Id., p. 460. Aixtilcuechahuac. Vetancvrt,
Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 11. 719 A.D. Clavigero, tom. i., p. 127. Was
reigning in 660. Boturini, Idea, p. 139. The preceding hardly confirms
Brasseur's statement that 'toutes les Relations d'Ixtlilxochitl concordent
ici avec le Codex Chimalp., pour donner le nom de Huetzin au second roi
de Tollan.' This is a pretty fair sample of the abbé's references.




[IV-21] 666, or 613. Ixtlilxochitl, who also writes the name Huetzin Totepeuh
and Huitzin. 771. Clavigero.




[IV-22] Totepauh and Totepeuhque. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 326, 460; on p. 450 his
reign is ignored.




[IV-23] Nacazxoc. Torquemada, and Vetancvrt. Nacaxzoch, Nacalxur,
Nacaxoc Mitl, and Nacazxot. Ixtlilxochitl, who on pp. 450 and 393 calls
him the fourth king.




[IV-24] Veytia. 927 according to Clavigero. 822 or 768 according to Ixtlilxochitl,
who calls him Tlacomihua on pp. 207, 460, names him as fifth king
on p. 393, and ignores his reign on p. 450.




[IV-25] For the annals of Tollan during this period see Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 207,
325-6, 393, 450, 460; Veytia, tom. i., pp. 239-58; Torquemada, tom. i., p.
37. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 127-8; Sahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., p. 114; Boturini,
Idea, pp. 139-40; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., p. 11; Müller, Amerikanische
Urreligionen, p. 524.




[IV-26] Chief among which titles was that of Tecuhtli, respecting which see
vol. ii., pp. 194-200.




[IV-27] 'On célébra de grandes fêtes à la naissance de Colchacovat.' Camargo,
Hist. Tlax., in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 146. See
also note 6 of this chapter.




[IV-28] See vol. ii., pp. 269, 434, 608, vol. iii., pp. 350, 363.




[IV-29] This alliance rests altogether on the Codex Chimalpopoca and Mem.
de Culhuacan. It is to be noted that Brasseur refers clearly to Torquemada,
Monarq. Ind., lib. xi., cap. 18, as an authority, which chapter contains
not a word bearing on the subject.




[IV-30] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 37, relates the succession of
the Toltec kings at Tollan, agreeing substantially with the accounts of Ixtlilxochitl,
Veytia, and the rest. It is to be noted, however, that on page
254 the same author gives another account, inextricably confused, totally
disagreeing with the preceding, but agreeing in most of its names, with
that derived by Brasseur from the two records in his possession. This
proves that the version of the Toltec traditions followed by the Spanish
writers, referring everything to Tollan and ignoring all other nations and
kings, was not the only one extant when the Spaniards came. It confirms
to a certain extent Brasseur's account of other Toltec nations and monarchs
besides those at Tollan, and is therefore important. I translate this version
of the tradition from Torquemada, without any attempt to reconcile
its many inconsistencies with itself and the versions already presented. It
has the appearance of a successive interpretation of the records of distinct
kingdoms, or distinct periods, tacked together and referred vaguely to Toltec
history by a writer who did not suspect the existence of any other power than
that at Tollan. 'When the Mexicans arrived in this region of Tulla, it was
already settled by many people; because, according to the truth as found
in the most authentic histories of these nations, in 700 A.D., they began
to settle here. Their first captain, or leader, was named Totepeuh, who
lived a long and tranquil life, being a bold and famous chieftain. At his
death those of the province of Tulla raised to the throne another called
Topil [Topiltzin], who reigned fifty years and was succeeded by Huemac,
mentioned elsewhere in connection with the tricks of Quetzalcohuatl.
[These are among the very last rulers in Tollan by other accounts.] This
Huemac was a very powerful king, who was much feared and caused himself
to be worshiped as a god. He went out from Tulla to increase the extent
of his kingdom, occupying himself throughout his reign in gaining
new provinces, preferring the bustle of war to the quiet of peace. But
while he was engaged in wars abroad the Toltecs made Nauhyotzin king,
who was the second lord, and of Chichimec birth. He also left Tullan and
marched towards this lake with a large number of people to conquer as
much as possible of the territory thereabouts. He reigned more than sixty
years, and at his death the kingdom was given to Quauhtexpetlatl, [a name
not appearing elsewhere] who in his turn was followed by Huetzin Nonohualcatl
[according to Brasseur, Huetzin probably succeeded Nonohualcatl
at Culhuacan. All that follows probably belongs to the Chichimec period
much later, and relates to the kings of Culhuacan]. After him reigned
Achitometl, and, afterwards, Quauhtonal, and in the tenth year of his
reign the Mexicans arrived at Chapultepec; so that when the said Mexicans
were in the city or province of Tulla, this prince was neither its king or
lord (as Gomara says), but continuing the account and succession of these
Toltec kings, we say that the said Achitometl was succeeded by Mazatzin,
[and not by Quauhtonal as above. This is unintelligible. Mazatzin was,
according to Brasseur, the first king at Tollan] and he by Quetzal. After
him came Chalchiuhtona, and then Quauhtlix, then Yohuallatonac, followed
by Tziuhtecatl. It is said that in the third year of this king's reign
the Mexicans arrived where the city of Mexico now is. At Tziuhtecatl's
death, Xiuhtemoctzin succeeded to the throne, and he was followed by
Coxcotzin.' Then follows an account of the coming of Quetzalcoatl and
his companions, in which the author is evidently much confused between
the first and second of that name.



Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 301-2, gives a similar account, differing, however,
in orthography and in some of the successions. The order of succession,
according to this writer, is in substance as follows: 1st. Totepeuch,
in 721, who died over 100 years after their arrival. 2d. Topil, son of the former,
ruled about 50 years. An interregnum ensued of over 110 years; either
had no kings or their names are forgotten. 3d, 4th. Two rulers chosen,
Vemac and Nauhiocin, the latter a Chichimec. Both left Tollan with their
followers; the latter settled near the lake, and reigned over 60 years. 5th.
Quauhtexpetlatl. 6th. Vecin. 7th. Nonoualcatl. [We have seen that
Torquemada unites these two names in one king.] 8th. Achitometl. 9th.
Quauhtonal, in the 10th year of whose reign came the Mexicans to Chapultepec.
10th. Mazacin. 11th. Queza. 12th. Chalchiuhtona. 13th.
Quauhtlix. 14th. Iohuallatonac. 15th. Ciuhtetl. 16th. Xiuiltemoc. 17th.
Cuxcux, and so on with the Chichimec and Aztec kings of much later
periods. It is very evident that these writers had access to the same documents
which Brasseur uses, but did not comprehend their meaning.





[IV-31] 'En esta ciudad (Tollan) reinó muchos años un rey llamado Quetzalcoatl,
gran nigromántico, é inventor de la nigromancia,' etc. Hist. Gen.,
tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 266.




[IV-32] Brasseur, tom. i., p. 255, misinterpreting Torquemada, tom. i., p.
255, calls him blonde; in another place, tom. ii., p. 48, Torquemada distinctly
states that he has black hair.




[IV-33] The invention of the calendar attributed to him by Mendieta, Hist.
Ecles., pp. 97-8, Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. vii., p. 264, and others,
should evidently be referred to the Quetzalcoatl of other times.




[IV-34] See vol. iii., pp. 239-87; also Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp.
161-205; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., pp. 82-3, 92-3, 97-8; Torquemada, Monarq.
Ind., tom. i., pp. 255, 282, 380, tom. ii., pp. 20, 48-52, 79; Herrera,
Hist. Gen., dec. ii., lib. vii., cap. ii.; Las Casas, Hist. Apologética, MS.,
cap. 122, 173; Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., pp. 243-8, 25-9; Clavigero,
Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. ii., pp. 11-13; Gomara, Conq. Mex.,
fol. 300; Camargo, Hist. Tlax., in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom.
xcviii., p. 145; Ternaux-Compans, in Id., 1840, tom. lxxxvi., pp. 16-20;
Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 66-9; Tylor's Researches,
pp. 154-5.




[IV-35] By calling them distinct persons it is not necessarily implied that the
first Quetzalcoatl ever had a real existence.




[IV-36] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 171-2.




[IV-37] Probably, as has been said, the same as Huetzin and Texcaltepocatl.




[IV-38] 875. Clavigero. 927. Veytia. 770 or 716. Ixtlilxochitl.




[IV-39] 'Los que de esta ciudad (Tollan) huyeron, edificaron otra muy próspera
que se llama Cholulla.' Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 207.




[IV-40] See references already given on Quetzalcoatl, and also Brasseur de
Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 265, et seq.




[IV-41] This king is called Mitl and Tlacomihua by Veytia and the rest.
Dates: 927. Clavigero. Veytia, tom. i., p. 252, has 779, which may be a
misprint for 979. 822 or 768. Ixtlilxochitl. Huemac's expedition eastward,
and the crowning of Nauhyotl, or Nauhyotzin, during his absence is recorded
by Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 254, and Gomara, Conq.
Mex., fol. 301, as quoted in note 30 of this chapter.




[IV-42] Respecting Tezcatlipoca, fables respecting his life on earth, and his
worship as a god, see vol. iii., pp. 199-248.




[IV-43] See vol. ii., pp. 141-2.




[IV-44] Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 322, says that Ixtlilxochitl in
one place calls this king Nauhyotl. Although I have been unable to find
this statement in the works of the writer mentioned, yet there can be little
doubt of the two kings' identity.




[IV-45] Chalchihuitlicue, Toci, Teteionan, etc. See vol. iii., p. 350, et seq.,
p. 367, et seq.




[IV-46] For description of Xochicalco see 
vol. iv., pp. 483-94.




[IV-47] On Nauhyotl's reign, see Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq.,
vol. ix., pp. 207, 326, 393, 450, 460; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp.
255-8; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 37; Clavigero, Storia Ant.
del Messico, tom. i., p. 127; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 11; Brasseur
de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 319-31. The date 945 is from
the Codex Chimalpopoca. The Spanish writers make his reign much longer,
all except Clavigero representing him as having reigned, by the consent of
his subjects, several years over the time prescribed by law. 979-1035.
Veytia. 927-79. Clavigero. 822-80, or 768-826. Ixtlilxochitl. Torquemada
and Gomara, as quoted in note 30, state that this king also marched eastward
at the head of a large army to add to his domain by conquest.




[IV-48] Also Xiuhquentzin, Xiuliquentzin, and Xiuhzaltzin, Ixtlilxochitl, and
Xiuhzaltzin, Vetancvrt.




[IV-49] See references in note 47 and following pages of each authority.




[IV-50] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 331, 336.
Klemm, Cultur-Geschichte, tom. v., p. 181, speaks of an interregnum of
forty-eight years after the death of Queen Xiuhtlaltzin.




[IV-51] Called also Yztaccaltzin. Ixtlilxochitl. Atecpanecatl and Iztacquauhtzin.
Codex Chimalpopoca and Ixtlilxochitl, according to Brasseur.




[IV-52] 1039, 830, 884, according to the Spanish writers. See note 47.
Clavigero ignores this king, while Torquemada, followed by Boturini in
Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. iv., p. 230, and Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., p.
11, seems to identify him with his successor.




[IV-53] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 208, calls the name Quetzalxochitzin, and makes her
the wife rather than the daughter of Papantzin.




[IV-54] Bustamante, in Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., p. 246, erroneously
charges Veytia with saying that Papantzin presented to the king a
vessel of pulque invented by Xochitl. Brasseur, for reasons not very intelligible,
refers to this period Sahagun's account of the invention of pulque in
Olmec times (see pp. 207-8 of this volume), and also the efforts of the sorcerers
to make Quetzalcoatl drink pulque that he might be induced to leave
Tollan. I have attributed these tales to the times of Ceacatl. See p. 259
of this volume, also vol. iii., p. 242, 253, 261.




[IV-55] 1051. Veytia. 900. Ixtlilxochitl.




[IV-56] See respecting the first part of Huemac's reign, Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's
Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 207, 328-9, 460; Veytia, Hist. Ant.
Mej., tom. i., p. 262, et seq.; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 37;
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 337-48.




[IV-57] Tobeyo. Sahagun. Tohuéyo, 'our neighbor.' Brasseur. It does not
seem to have been originally a proper name.




[IV-58] For a fuller account of the tale of Toveyo, see vol. iii., pp. 243-4.
Also, Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., pp. 247-9.




[IV-59] Cohuanacox, Huetzin, Xiuhtenan, and Mexoyotzin.




[IV-60] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 207, 393;
Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., p. 271, et seq.; Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i.,
lib. iii., pp. 249-51. Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 356-60, represents
Cohuanacox and Meyoxotzin as lords of Quiahuiztlan-Anahuac, or Vera
Cruz, but gives no farther details of their revolt. Huetzin, he calls the
Prince of Jalisco, stating that he marched at the head of a large army
against Huemac, but was defeated at Coatepec near Tollan by the bravery
of Toveyo, who drove him with great loss back to the frontiers of Jalisco.
For these facts he refers to no other authorities than those mentioned in
this note, and these contain no such information.




[IV-61] Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., p. 251. Brasseur has no difficulty
in interpreting this tale to indicate an earthquake.




[IV-62] See vol. iii., pp. 245-8.




[IV-63] Vol. iii., p. 247. The other details, like the interview with the Tlalocs,
are from the Codex Chimalpopoca.




[IV-64] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 207-8, 329-30;
Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., p. 280, et seq. Dates, 1097, et seq.
Veytia. 984, et seq. Ixtlilxochitl. There is no agreement about the duration
of the plagues. They seem, however, to have been continuous for at
least five years.




[IV-65] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 207, 329,
393, 460. This author's dates are 937 and 882. Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej.,
tom. i., pp. 271-4. Date 1091. Date according to Clavigero, 1031. Codex
Chimalpopoca, in Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp.
370-5; Maxtlatzin is called the prince of Xochimilco. According to the
Mem. de Culhuacan, in Id., Huemac died at this time.




[IV-66] Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., p. 254.




[IV-67] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 282-7; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's
Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 329-31; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist.
Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 376-85.




[IV-68] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 385-93. Veytia
and Ixtlilxochitl are occasionally referred to on these events, but the chapters
referred to contain absolutely nothing on the subject.




[IV-69] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 37-8.




[IV-70] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 400-2.




[IV-71] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 402-5.




[IV-72] Such is the account given by Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia. Brasseur's
version, although founded on the same authorities, differs widely. According
to this version, Topiltzin Acxitl remained in Tollan; Quauhtli and
Maxtlatzin with the aged Huemac marched to meet the foe. After a fierce
conflict near Tultitlan, lasting several days, the army was driven back to
Tollan. The king resolved to burn the city and leave the country. For
the burning of Tollan, Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., p. 255, is referred
to, where he says, 'hizo quemar todas las casas que tenia hechas de
plata y de concha,' etc., referring to the departure of Quetzalcoatl for Tlapallan.
The Quetzalcoatl alluded to may be either Acxitl or Ceacatl.
Retreating to Xaltocan and then towards Teotihuacan, a final stand was
made by Huemac, Xochitl, Maxtlatzin, and Huehuemaxal (Huehuetenuxcatl?)
against the Chichimecs. The Toltecs were utterly defeated,
and of the leaders Xochitl and Quauhtli fell, Acxitl concealing himself for
several weeks in the caves of the island of Xico. Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i.,
pp. 405-9.





[IV-73] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 208, 331-3,
393, 450, 460. This author estimates the total loss of the Toltecs in the
final war at 3,200,000, and that of the enemy at 2,400,000. He states that
Topiltzin, before his departure, visited Allapan, a province on the South
Sea, and notified his few remaining subjects that after many centuries he
would return to punish his foes. He reached Tlapallan in safety and lived
to the age of 104 years greatly respected. He records a tradition among
the common people that Topiltzin remained in Xico, and many years after
was joined by Nezahualcoyotl, the Chichimec emperor, and others. This
author dates the final defeat of the Toltecs in 1011, 959, 958, and 1004.
Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 287-304. This writer gives the date
as 1116; states that Topiltzin's youngest son, Xilotzin, was captured and
killed; gives 1612 as the number of Toltecs assembled in Culhuacan before
the king's departure. Topiltzin reached Oyome, the Chichimec capital, in
safety, and was kindly received by the emperor, Acauhtzin, who succeeded
to the throne in that year, to whom Topiltzin gave all his rights to the
kingdom of Tollan, on condition that he would punish the enemies of the
Toltecs. He died in 1155. According to Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico,
tom. i., p. 131, the Toltec empire ended with Topiltzin's death in
1052. Most modern writers take the date from Clavigero. Brasseur, Hist.
Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 410, says, 'Après avoir donné à tous des conseils
remplis de sagesse sur la future restauration de la monarchie, il prit congé
d'eux. Il traversa, sans être connu, les provinces olmèques et alla prendre
la mer à Hueyapan, non loin des lieux où le grand Quetzalcohuatl avait
disparu un siècle et demi auparavant. L'histoire ajoute qu'il gagna, avec
un grand nombre de Toltèques émigrant comme lui, les contrées mystérieuses
de Tlapallan, où après avoir fondé un nouvel empire, il mourut dans
une heureuse vieillesse.'




[IV-74] On the Toltec empire, see Prescott's Mex., vol. i., pp. 11-14; Chevalier,
Mex. Ancien et Mod., pp. 48-52; Müller, Amerikanische Urreligionen, pp.
456, 522-5; Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc., vol. i., p. 95; Schoolcraft's Arch.,
vol. v., pp. 95-6; Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp. 96-7, 138-40; Rios,
Compend. Hist. Mex., pp. 5-6; Villa-Señor y Sanchez, Theatro, tom. i.,
pp. 1-3; Helps' Span. Conq., vol. i., p. 287; Müller, Reisen, tom. iii., pp.
32-41; Lacunza, in Museo Mex., tom. iv., p. 445; Granados y Galvez,
Tardes Amer., pp. 14-17; Ruxton, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1850,
tom. cxxvi., pp. 38-40; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 39-40; Foster's
Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 341-4; Mayer's Observations, p. 6; Carbajal Espinosa,
Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 216-24.




[IV-75] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 18-19; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's
Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 333-4, 393-4; Torquemada, Monarq.
Ind., tom. i., p. 37; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 131. The
number of remaining Toltecs is estimated at 16,000, who were divided into
five parties, four of them settling on the coasts and islands, and the fifth
only remaining in Anáhuac.




[IV-76] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 410-23. I suppose
that this information was taken from the Codex Gondra already
quoted—see p. 230 of this volume—and applied by the same author in another
work, and with apparently better reasons, to the overthrow of the
great original Nahua empire in the south.




[V-1] Whether this Amaquemecan was the original home of the Chichimecs
or not is uncertain. According to Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p.
355, it certainly was not, since he states that it was founded in 958 by
Xolotl Tochinteuctli. The ancestors of the Xolotl who invaded Anáhuac,
he adds, tom. ii., p. 199, 'sortis de Chicomoztoc, avaient conquis le royaume
d'Amaquemé, où ils avaient établi leur résidence.' Concerning the
location and extent of Amaquemecan the authorities differ greatly. Thus
Ixtlilxochitl gives its area as 2000 by 1000 leagues, in Kingsborough, vol.
ix., p. 335. Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 40, places its frontier
200 leagues north of Jalisco, which Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico,
tom. i., p. 132, thinks too near, since no traces of it exist, he says, within
1200 miles. Boturini, Idea, p. 141, places Amaquemecan in Michoacan.
Arlegui, Chrón. Zacatecas, p. 7, among the wild tribes north of New
Mexico. Cabrera, Teatro, p. 58, in Chiapas.




[V-2] Spelled also Achcauhtzin, and Axcauhtzin.




[V-3] 'L'étymologie du nom de Xolotl offre de grandes difficultés. Dans son
acceptation ordinaire, il signifie esclave, valet, servant, et cependant on le
voit appliqué à plusieurs princes comme un titre très-élevé. Lorenzana,
dans ses annotations aux Lettres de Fernand Cortès, le traduit par Ojo,
œil, et on le lui donna, dit-il, à cause de sa vigilance. Mais dans quelle
langue a-t-il cette signification?' Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii.,
p. 199.




[V-4] So says Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 39; but according to
Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. iv., p. 231, Ixtlilxochitl, in
Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 337, and Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p.
200, Acauhtzin reigned alone. Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i.,
p. 133, affirms that the old king divided the kingdom equally between his
two sons.




[V-5] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 40-1, gives in full Xolotl's
speech to his lords. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix.,
p. 337, relates that he appointed Oyome as the rendezvous. Brasseur de
Bourbourg, as before stated, does not suppose Xolotl to have shared the
Chichimec throne with his brother Acauhtzin; he therefore tells the story
as if Xolotl induced the great nobles to favor his project of invasion by his
eloquence and argument, but used no kingly authority in the matter.



Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 302-3, tom. ii., pp. 3-4, 13, assigns
an altogether different cause for the Chichimec invasion of Anáhuac. He
affirms that when Topiltzin (Acxitl), the Toltec monarch, fled from Tollan,
he went to Acauhtzin, the Chichimec sovereign, to whom he was distantly
related, told him his sorrows, and ceded in his favor all rights to a land
which he refused to revisit; whereupon Acauhtzin invested his brother Xolotl
with the sovereignty of Tollan.




The date of the events recorded above is very uncertain. Veytia states
that the Chichimecs left their country for Anáhuac in 1117, one year after
the fall of the Toltec dynasty. Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 7. Ixtlilxochitl
allows a period of four to six years to elapse before their arrival
at Tollan; as usual, this writer is not consistent with himself in different
parts of his work, and places the arrival in various years between 962
and 1015. Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 208, 337, 395, 451.
Torquemada, always avoiding exact dates, gives on one page an interval of
five years between the destruction of the Toltec empire and the arrival
of the Chichimecs, and on another page an interval of nine years between
the former event and the departure from Amaquemecan. Monarq. Ind.,
tom. i., pp. 45-6. Clavigero places the Chichimec arrival at Anáhuac in
1170. Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 132, tom. iv., pp. 40-51. Boturini,
in Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. iv., p. 233, allows a lapse of nine
years between the Toltec fall and the Chichimec arrival.




[V-6] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 44; Boturini, in Doc. Hist.
Mex., série iii., tom. iv., pp. 231-2; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex.
Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 337, 375; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 4, 8-9.
Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 134, expresses his disbelief
in the numbers given. 'Rien ne justifie les millions que lui assignent les
auteurs; ils ont compris évidement sous ce chiffre exagéré les diverses
émigrations qui se succédèrent depuis lors sans interruption dans la vallée
jusqu'à la fondation du royaume d'Acolhuacan.' Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ.,
tom. i., p. 202.




[V-7] Brasseur gives the names of these six chiefs, as: Acatomatl, Quautlapal,
Cozcaquauh, Mitliztac, Tecpan, and Itzaquauh, giving Ixtlilxochitl
and Torquemada as his authorities; the latter writer, however, Monarq.
Ind., tom. i., p. 44, distinctly affirms that only one chief, Acatomatl, was
sent in advance.




[V-8] Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 134, states that they
reached Tollan in eighteen months from the time of their departure from
Amaquemecan. Ixtlilxochitl gives the date as 5 Tecpatl. Kingsborough's
Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 395.




[V-9] 'Les auteurs sont généralement d'accord pour placer la date de cet
établissement de l'an 1070 à 1080. Quelques-uns le portent exactement à
l'an 1068. Xoloc, aujourd'hui Xoloque, village de fort peu d'importance,
à 12 l. environ au nord de Mexico, et à 3 l. du lac de San-Cristoval. Une
autre explication met cette localité au pied d'une colline, à une lieue environ
vers le nord de Xaltocan.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ.;
tom. ii., p. 214. See also, Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 8-10.




[V-10] Cempoala was twelve leagues north of Mexico; Tepepulco was
four leagues farther east. Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 42.




[V-11] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 43, writes Tlatzalan and Coyohuacan.




[V-12] Founded 1120, Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 12. Ixtlilxochitl, in
Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 338-9; Torquemada, Monarq.
Ind., tom. i., pp. 42-4.




[V-13] 'Le Codex Xolotl, qui fait partie de la coll. de M. Aubin, donne positivement
Amacui pour père et pour prédécesseur de Nopaltzin.' Brasseur
de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 224.




[V-14] 'Xolotl étant le titre du chef principal des Chichimèques, il convenait
à l'un aussi bien qu'à l'autre. Tout concourt, d'ailleurs, à prouver que,
dans le Xolotl des auteurs, il y a eu divers personnages; c'est le seul moyen
d'expliquer cette longue vie de près de deux cents ans qu'ils lui accordent.'
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 224.




[V-15] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 46-7; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough,
vol. ix., pp. 339-40; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 28;
Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. iv., p. 232; Vetancvrt, Teatro
Mex., pt ii., p. 14.




[V-16] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 224-6.




[V-17] 'Porque fué una de las que ménos padecieron en el estrago pasado.'
Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 18.




[V-18] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 44, spells this ruler's name
Ecitin, which, says Brasseur, 'signifie les trois lièvres, de Citli, qui est
le singulier, au pluriel Citin. S'agit-il ici d'un seul individu ou de trois du
nom de Citin, cité ailleurs comme celui d'une famille célèbre de laquelle
prétendaient descendre les Alcohuas?' Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 209.




[V-19] 'Descendants du grand Nauhyotl.' Id.




[V-20] Spelled Acxopal by Brasseur.




[V-21] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 17-19; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough,
vol. ix., pp. 333-4, 339; Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom.
i., pp. 226-8.




[V-22] 'Repartióla por las sinosidades, cuevas, y rincones de las serranias,
proporcionándola á la caza.' Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., p. 18;
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 232-3.




[V-23] For names of places peopled by the Chichimecs see Ixtlilxochitl, in
Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 460, 209. See also Id., pp. 339, 395, 451;
Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 45; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del
Messico, tom. i., p. 134; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 14-5; Vetancvrt,
Teatro Mex., pt ii., pp. 12-13.




[V-24] To which his descendants added Huactlatohuani, 'lord of the world.'
Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 451.




[V-25] The inhabitants of this province were known as Culhuas, and are
not to be confounded with the Acolhuas, notwithstanding many of the old
writers make no distinction between the two peoples.




[V-26] Veytia writes the names of those who governed at Culhuacan; Xiuhtemoc,
with his wife Ozolaxochitl, and son Nauhyotl; and Catauhtlix with
his wife Ixmixuch and son Acxocuauh. Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 18. Torquemada
writes them respectively: Xiuhthemal, Oceloxroch, Coyol; Cocauhtli,
Yhuixoch, Acxoquauh. Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 45. Boturini
writes: Xiuchtimatl, Oceloxochitl, Coyotl; Cocoahtli, Yhyozochtl, Acxoquauhtli.
Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. iv., p. 232; Ixtlilxochitl, in
Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 333.




[V-27] Brasseur states that according to the Codex Chimalpopoca, Acxoquauh
was a younger brother of Nauhyotl; we have already seen this
prince spoken of, however, as the son of Cocauhtli, Xiuhtemoc's associate;
see note 26. Nonohualcatl, says Brasseur, was, without doubt, Nauhyotl's
eldest son. 'C'est ce qui parait d'après la manière dont ce prince succéda
au trône après Huetzin, avant Achitometl ou Ameyal.' Hist. Nat. Civ.,
tom. ii., p. 222.




[V-28] Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 222, objecting to the term usurpation
in this connection, writes: 'La loi toltèque excluait du sang suprême
tout prince qui se montrait d'avance incapable de l'occuper. C'était probablement
le cas où se trouvait Pochotl. Ixtlilxochitl et Veytia, qui accusent
Nauhyotl d'usurpation, avaient oublié ou ignoraient la loi de succession
toltèque.' It is not probable, however, that Topiltzin either forgot or was
ignorant of the Toltec law of succession, when he directed that his son
should be associated with Xiuhtemoc when he came of suitable age.




[V-29] Also called Texochipantzin. Torquemada gives the name of Pochotl's
wife Huitzitzilin, though whether he refers to the same lady is not certain.
Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 56.




[V-30] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 18-23; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's
Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 340; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat.
Civ., tom. ii., pp. 220-3.




[V-31] The reader will recollect that Veytia affirms that Topiltzin Acxitl fled
to his relative Acauhtzin, brother of Xolotl I., and ceded to him his right
to Anáhuac.




[V-32] According to Brasseur, these or similar overtures occurred in the
reign of Xolotl I. Xolotl's ambassadors, he says, 'avaient plus d'une
fois pressenti Xiuhtemal à ce sujet, mais celui-ci, trop prudent et trop ami de
sa patrie, appréhendant, sans doute, de rendre les Chichimèques trop puissants,
avait constamment éludé ses propositions en faisant valoir les droits
de Pochotl, à qui seul il appartiendrait de prendre une décision dans cette
matière délicate, une fois qu'il aurait été mis en possession du trône.' Hist.
Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 221.




[V-33] Year 1141. Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 30-5. 984 to 1190.
Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 209, 342-3, 396,
452.




[V-34] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 45-6. According to Brasseur,
Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 238, this lady was the eldest daughter of Pochotl.
Tzontecoma was one of the Acolhua chiefs, as will be seen hereafter.




[V-35] The meaning of this request is not clear. It was probably Xolotl's
design to get Huetzin into Culhuacan under pretense of learning the art of
government—though it would seem he might have done this at his father's
court—and then by some strategem place him upon the throne.




[V-36] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 57-8. Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia
give a different version of this affair of Huetzin's. Itzmitl, or Ixmitl,
(known also as Tlacoxin, or Tlacoxinqui) proceeded to Tezcuco, where
Xolotl was superintending the construction of a palace and garden, and
reminded him of a promise of extra favors made to Tzontecoma, by way of
compensation for the inferior bride which he had been compelled to accept;
whereupon Xolotl gave the lordship of Tepetlaoztoc to his son Huetzin.
This occurred, says Veytia, in 1207, more than 60 years after the Culhuacan
war. Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 46-7; Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq.,
vol. ix., pp. 341-2.




[V-37] See note 34.




[V-38] Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 237-51.




[V-39] Aztlan 'était située au nord-ouest de la Californie.... C'est l'opinion
d'un grand nombre d'écrivains. M. Aubin croit qu'ils habitaient la
péninsule appelée aujourd'hui la basse Californie, et que là était Aztlan.'
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 292. Humboldt, Vues,
tom. ii., p. 179, and Essai Pol., tom. i., p. 53, followed by Gondra, in Prescott,
Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 6-7, 19, place Aztlan north of 42° N. lat.;
Foster, Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 340-1, Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 20, refer
to the account of Oñate's explorations in New Mexico, Doc. Hist. Mex.,
série iii., tom. iv., pp. 32, 47-8, 111-12, 625, and point to the golden Copalla,
with its rumored Aztec-speaking people. See also, Acosta, Hist. de las
Ynd., p. 454; Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i., p. 68; Ruxton, in Nouvelles
Annales des Voy., 1850, tom. cxxvi., pp. 40-9. Fontaine, How the World
was Peopled, pp. 149-50, reminds us that the Aztec tl sound is found in the
N.W., and considers the mounds in the N.E. to be evidences of Aztec
wanderings. Pickering's Races, in U. S. Ex. Ex., vol. ix., p. 41; Chevalier,
Mexique, pp. 54-5. Prichard, Nat. Hist. Man, vol. ii., pp. 514-16, regards
the Moquis in Arizona as the most northern Aztec remnants. Clavigero,
Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 156-9, places Aztlan north of the
Colorado River, in accordance with some maps of the 16th century, and
regards this stream as the water said to have been crossed on the migration,
whilst Boturini, Idea, pp. 126-8, holds this to be the Gulf of California.
Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 298, 301; Rios, Compend.
Hist. Mex., p. 11. Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp. 79-82, 134-5,
traces Nahuatlaca routes north of Mexico. Duran, Hist. Indias, MS.,
tom. i., cap. 1, looks to Florida for the ancient home. Mendieta, Hist.
Ecles., p. 144, identifies Aztlan with the later Chicomoztoc, like Acosta
and Duran, but locates it in the Jalisco region. Bartlett's Pers. Nar., vol.
ii., p. 283. Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 91, ventures a little
farther north, to Sonora; see also, Möllhausen, Reisen, tom. ii., pp. 143-55.
Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 128, considers Aztlan
to have been near Culiacan, but on p. 205, and in Nouvelles Annales des
Voy., 1851, tom. cxxxi., p. 281, he seems to favor the more direct north.
Cabrera, Teatro, pp. 94-6, advances some argument for its location in Chiapas.
See also, Müller, Amerikanische Urreligionen, pp. 532-3. Waldeck,
Voy. Pitt., p. 45, remarks that the palm-tree on the migration-map indicates
a southern origin, but Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom.
iii., p. 7, considers that this may be a thoughtless insertion of the painter.
See remarks on pp. 216-18 of this volume, and pp. 681-4, 788-9 of vol. iv.
For further remarks on position of Aztlan, and origin of Nahuatlacas,
see: Norman's Rambles in Yuc., pp. 266-7; Buschmann, Ortsnamen, p.
54, et seq., Brasseur de Bourbourg, Esquisses, pp. 27-8; Id., Hist. Nat.
Civ., tom. ii., pp. 191-7; Id., Popol Vuh, pp. clxxxiii.-cxcvi.; Bradford's
Amer. Antiq., pp. 203-5; Ruxton's Adven. Mex., pp. 192-4; Cremony's
Apaches, pp. 89-90; Gregg's Com. Prairies, vol. i., p. 284; Smith's Human
Species, pp. 252-3; Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc., vol. ii., p. 323.




[V-40] Gallatin, Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 205, thinks they
may have had a share in the dismemberment of the Toltec empire, or may
have seized the opportunity offered by the Toltec emigration to enter into
the deserted lands. Cabrera states that they were driven from Aztlan.
Teatro, p. 94.




[V-41] Duran gives the description of Aztlan given by Cueuhcoatl to Montezuma
the elder: 'Nuestros Padres moraron en equel felice y dichoso Lugar
que llamáron Aztlán, que quiere decir "Blancura." En este Lugar hay un
gran Cerro en medio del agua, que llamaban Culhuacan, por que tiene la
punta algo retuerta hácia abajo, y à esta causa se llama Culhuacan, que
quiere decir "Cerro tuerto." En este Cerro habia unas bocas ó cuebas ó
concavidados donde habitáron nuestros Padres y Abuelos por muchos años:
alli tubiéron mucho descanso debajo de este Nombre Mexitin y Azteca:
alli gozaban de mucho cantidad de Patos, de todo género de gazzas; de
cuerbos marinos, y Gallinas de agua, y de Gallaretas; gozaban del canto
y melodia de los Pájaros de las cabezas coloradas y amarillas; gozáron de
muchas diferencias de grandes y hermosos Pescados; gozáron de gran frescura
de arboledas, que habia por aquellas riberas, y de Fuentes cercadas
de sauces y de Sabinas y de Alisos grandes y hermosos; andaban en canoas,
y hacian camellones en que sembraban maiz, chile, tomates, huauhtli, frisoles,
y de todo genero de semillas de las que comemos,' &c. Hist. Indias,
MS., tom. i., cap. 27.




[V-42] Ramirez, in García y Cubas, Atlas; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom.,
i., p. 78; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 157-8; Vetancvrt,
Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 17; Villa-Señor y Sanchez, Theatro, tom. i., p. 3;
Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 399-300. The date of the departure
is shown by the maps to be Ce Tecpatl, which is calculated by
Chimalpain, Gallatin, Gama, and Veytia to be 1064, based on the hypothesis
that the adjustment of the calendar in the year Ce Tochtli, which took
place during the journey, corresponds to 1090. Brasseur would probably
assign a later date, since he writes: 'Les annales mexicaines nous montrent
généralement les premières tribus de cette nation à Aztlan en l'an 1 Tecpatl,
1064.' Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 292.




[V-43] Chicomoztoc is placed by Clavigero about twenty miles south of Zacatecas,
but is regarded by Duran, Acosta, and others, as identical with, or
within the region of Aztlan. According to Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii.,
p. 293, they arrived here 1116. Hellwald, in Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p.
339, agrees with this date, by making them arrive at Chicomoztoc 26 years
after their departure from Aztlan, which, he says, took place in 1090.
Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 92, states that they arrived 104 years
after their departure. On the Gemelli map Oztotlan, 'place of grottoes,'
is given as a place where they halted for a long time, from 160 to 200 years
after leaving Aztlan, and may be the same as Chicomoztoc. Camargo, in
Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 145, says that the Tlascaltecs,
who according to most authors were one of the Nahuatlaca tribes,
arrived at Chicomoztoc in the year 5 Tochtli.




[V-44] See Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 455-6; Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec.
ii., lib. ii., cap. x.; Duran, Hist. Indias, MS., tom. i., cap. 2; Carbajal
Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 228, 247; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico,
tom. i., p. 151; Hellwald, in Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 339; Torquemada,
Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 78; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 17;
Motolinia, Hist. Indios, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., pp. 7-9;
Pimentel, Cuadro, tom. i., p. 154; Purchas his Pilgrimes, vol. v., p. 864;
Gemelli Careri, in Churchill's Col. Voyages, vol. iv., p. 482; Humboldt,
Vues, tom. ii., pp. 168-71; Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., p. 145.
Brasseur de Bourbourg gives as the tribes that left Aztlan: the Huexotzincas,
Chalcas, Xochimilcas, Quitlahuacas, Malinalcas, Chichimecas, Tépanecas,
and Matlaltzincas. Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 292.




[V-45] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 78-9; Hist. de las Ynd., p. 454; Hist. Indias,
MS., tom. i., cap. 2. On Boturini's map the hieroglyphs of the eight tribes
are seen at Chicomoztoc for the last time; the priests or leaders of the Aztecs
alone pursue the remainder of the course. As the Aztec hieroglyph
does not appear to be included among these eight, it might be assumed that
the Aztecs were composed of certain families belonging to one or more of
the eight tribes, but this does not appear to be the view taken by the authorities.
Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 25-6, remarks
that the map indicates a consultation of six of the families with their god,
and the departure of two. The non-recurrence of the tribal hieroglyphs he
explains by saying that the families are henceforth designated only by the
chiefs who lead them. This map cannot, however, be expected to be more
accurate than the sources from which Torquemada, Acosta, and others,
derived their information.




[V-46] Quetzalin according to Brasseur, who adds: 'Dans le texte, il y a Huetzalin,
ce qui est probablement une faute du copiste.' Hist. Nat. Civ.,
tom. ii., p. 263. This chief may possibly be the same as Huitziton.




[V-47] Veytia names this chief Xochimilco, which Brasseur says 'ne peut
être qu'une erreur.' Id., p. 264.




[V-48] Id. Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia place the arrival of the Xochimilcas in
Tlotzin's reign. Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 458; Hist. Ant.
Mej., tom. ii., p. 88. Duran says they were the first to leave Chicomoztoc,
and the third to arrive in Anáhuac. This writer gives a number of places
founded by them besides Xochimilco. Hist. Indias, MS., tom. i., cap. 2.,
13. Acosta says they were the first to arrive. Hist. de las Ynd., p. 488.




[V-49] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 88-9; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's
Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 458; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat.
Civ., tom. ii., pp. 263-4.




[V-50] Now Cuernavaca.




[V-51] Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp. 92-3, 141-3.




[V-52] Many writers who do not directly connect the Acolhuas with the Nahuatlacas,
assert that they came from the same region, and were of the
same race. Clavigero places the ancient home in Teoacolhuacan, near Amaquemecan.
Veytia considers them to be the descendants of Toltec colonists
who were settled along the Pacific coast. Ixtlilxochitl affirms that they
were neighbors of the Huehue Tlapallan Toltecs and of Chichimec stock.




[V-53] 'Citin, pluriel de Citli, lièvre, nom apparemment d'une tribu du Nord,
comme les Pied-Noir, les Serpents, etc.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist.
Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 232. Rios, Compend. Hist. Mex., p. 7, says they
derived their origin from the family of Citin or Ulcua. Motolinia says of
the Acolhuas: 'Este nombre los quedó de un valiente capitan que tuvieron
... Acoli, que así se llama aquel hueso que vá desde el codo hasta el hombro,
y del mismo hueso llaman al hombro Acoli.' He was very brave, and
taller than other men. Hist. Indios, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i.,
p. 11. Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 301, says that they claimed descent from
a valiant chief named Chichimecatlh, who once tied a strap round the arm
of Quetzalcoatl, near the shoulder. This was regarded as a great feat, for it
was said that he that could bind a god could bind all men.




[V-54] Brasseur de Bourbourg says nothing about the Otomís coming in with
the Acolhuas and Tepanecs at this time.




[V-55] This, according to Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 51-4, who
is followed by Brasseur, was Coatetl, daughter of Chalchiuhtlatonac, or
Chalchiuhtlanetzin, lord of Chalco, who, says Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ.,
tom. ii., p. 231, 'paraît avoir été l'un des frères ou des fils de Nauhyotl
II.' According to other authors, Tzontecoma's bride was named Cihuatetzin,
and her father was a Toltec, lord of Tlalmanalco. Each of these names
is spelled in a great variety of ways. See Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's
Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 341, 395, 452; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii.,
pp. 39-43; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 136-7; Granados
y Galvez, Tardes Amer., pp. 19, 142-3; Müller, Reisen, tom. iii., p. 45;
Müller, Amerikanische Urreligionen, p. 526; Villa-Señor y Sanchez, Theatro,
tom. i., p. 3; Orozco y Berra, Geografía, p. 92.




[V-56] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 233-4.




[V-57] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 236-7.




[V-58] See note 27.




[V-59] Named also Huetzin, says Brasseur.




[V-60] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 47, writes the names Tlotzin Pocothl,
Toxtequihuatzin, and Atencatzin. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's
Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 210, Tlotzinpochotl, Huixaquentochintecuhtli,
Coxanatzin Atencatl; on p. 342 he differs in the following: Toltzin, Toxtequihuatzin,
Atencatzin Apotzoetzin; on p. 395, Tloxtequihuatzin; on p.
461, Tlotzinpochotl, Atzotgocoltzin, Totzin. Torquemada, Monarq. Ind.,
tom. i., p. 62, Tlotzin, Quauhtequihua, or Tochintecuhtli, Popozoc. Clavigero,
Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 141, Apopozoc. Nopaltzin had
also another son, named Tenancacaltzin, who in later years gave much
trouble to the emperor Quinantzin, and who, according to the Spanish
authorities, was a bastard. Brasseur, however, finds reason to believe
that this prince was Nopaltzin's legitimate son by a former marriage. Hist.
Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 254.




[V-61] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 342, 395,
452; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 47-9; Torquemada, Monarq.
Ind., tom. i., p. 63; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 141.




[V-62] Commenting upon the statement of Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., in
Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 211, that Xolotl abandoned to
Tlotzin not only the revenues of the province of Chalco, but also of several
other provinces as far as Mizteca, Brasseur writes: 'Il y a évidemment
exagération; jamais les armes de Xolotl n'allèrent aussi loin, et il est
douteux même que les provinces renfermées dans la vallée lui fussent toutes
tributaires.' Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 258.




[V-63] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 262.




[V-64] See Id., tom. ii., pp. 266-71.




[V-65] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 59-60; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's
Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 343; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico,
tom. i., pp. 138-9.




[V-66] See Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 265. This writer and Torquemada
are the only authorities who use the name Ameyal at any time.




[V-67] See note 27.




[V-68] Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 272, writes: 'C'était probablement
sur la promesse de recevoir la main de sa (Achitometl's) fille que
Huetzin avait renoncé au trône de Culhuacan.'




[V-69] Spelt also Yanex, Yacazozolotl, Yacatzotzoloc, and Ixcazozolot.




[V-70] Among these were Ocotox, or Acotoch, and Coacuech, who, according
to Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 212, were disaffected
towards the empire because agriculture had been forced upon them
and tribute exacted in field produce; Quauhtla, lord of Oztoticpac, and Tochin
Tecuhtli, lord of Coyuhuacan, who had fallen into disgrace in the following
manner: Chiconquauhtli, Xolotl's son-in-law, died suddenly, and
was buried without notice being sent to the emperor. Xolotl thereupon
dispatched Tochin Tecuhtli, to offer condolence to the widow, his daughter,
and to appoint Omicxipan, a noted noble of that province, governor.
Tochin Tecuhtli did as he was ordered, but instead of returning to Xolotl
with a report of his mission, he went to Huetzin of Coatlichan. To punish
this disrespect, or treason, as Torquemada calls it, Xolotl deprived
Tochin Tecuhtli of his lordship of Coyuhuacan and exiled him to Tepetlaoztoc.
Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 58, 65; Clavigero, Storia
Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 142; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 15;
Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 267-9.




[V-71] This is the account given by Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p.
274. Most writers do not mention this expedition to Culhuacan.




[V-72] See note 70.




[V-73] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 212, says he fled toward Pánuco, and afterwards, p.
343, states that he was pardoned and re-instated. Torquemada, Monarq.
Ind., tom. i., p. 65, affirms that the rebel chief was slain in battle, and
that his allies fled to Huexotzinco, where they died in misery. Clavigero,
Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 142-3, follows Torquemada. We must
accept the former version, however, as Yacanex subsequently re-appears
upon the scene.




[V-74] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 277.




[V-75] 'Para que en ella y su contorno mandase en calidad de soberano.'
Veytia, tom. ii., p. 56. He could scarcely have been sole lord of Tezcuco,
for Veytia himself says that Tlotzin reigned there.




[V-76] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 212, 396-7; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 50-8; Torquemada,
tom. i., p. 65; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 278; Brasseur, Hist., tom.
ii., pp. 271-7.




[V-77] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 277.




[V-78] The exact year in which Xolotl II. died is uncertain. Brasseur,
whose chronology I have followed, does not give the date, though he says
it occurred some years after the death of Huetzin, which occurred in 1154.
Xolotl, says this author, at his death, 'ne pouvait guère avoir plus de cent
ou cent dix ans, et, en calculant les années de son règne, à commencer de
son arrivée dans l'Anahuac, il aurait pu durer tout au plus de soixante à
soixante-cinq ans.' Hist., tom. ii., pp. 277-8. Veytia, tom. ii., p. 69,
writes that Xolotl died in 1232. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 60, says that he
was nearly 200 years of age when he died. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 212, 343, 397,
452, says, 117 years after his departure from Amaquemecan, in the 112th
year of his reign in Anahuac, and gives, as usual, several dates for Xolotl's
death, namely: 1075, 1127, 1074, and 1121. Rios, Compend. Hist. Mex., p.
7, says that he died at the age of 160, after a reign of 99 years.




[V-79] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 61-2, gives the speeches delivered on the
occasion.




[V-80] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 66; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 212-13; Clavigero, tom.
i., pp. 140-2; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 71-3, 78; Rios, Compend. Hist. Mex.,
p. 8; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 281-8.




[V-81] We have seen that according to the account given by Veytia, and
others, of the events which led to the first trouble between the Chichimecs
and the people of Culhuacan, Achitometl succeeded to the throne immediately
after the death of Nauhyotl, no mention being made of the reigns of
Huetzin or Nonohualcatl. See pp. 303-4.




[VI-1] 1194, Codex Chimalpopoca; 1140 or 1189, Ixtlilxochitl; 1245, Clavigero;
1331, Gondra; 1298, Veytia, Gama, and Gallatin.




[VI-2] I give here as compactly as possible the course of the Aztec migration
as given by the leading authorities:—Leave Aztlan 1 Tecpatl, 1064 A.D.,
and travel 104 years to Chicomoztoc, where they remain 9 years; thence to
Cohuatlicamac, 3 years, Matlahuacallan, 6, Apanco, 5, Chimalco, 6, Pipiolcomic,
3, Tollan, 6, Cohuactepec (Coatepec), 3, Atlitlalacayan, 2, Atotonilco,
1, Tepexic, 5, Apasco, 3, Tzonpanco, 7, Tizayocan, 1, Ecatepec, 1,
Tolpetlac, 3, Chimalpan, 4, Cohuatitlan, 2, Huexachtitlan, 3, Tecpayocan,
3, Tepeyacac (Guadalupe), 3, Pantitlan, 2 years, and thence to Chapultepec,
arriving in 1298, after a migration of 185 years, which necessitates an
addition of 49 years for their stay in Michoacan. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 91-8.
According to Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 77-82, they reached Huey Culhuacan
one year after their start; the time consumed in reaching Chicomoztoc
is not given, and no dates are mentioned. Otherwise the account agrees
exactly with Veytia's, except that an unnamed station is represented as
having occupied 3 of the 6 years' stay at Matlahuacallan; there are also a
few slight differences in orthography. Tezozomoc's account is as follows:—Aztlan,
Culhuacan, Jalisco, Mechoacan, Malinalco (Lake Patzcuaro),
Ocopipilla, Acahualcingo, Coatepec (in Tonalan), Atlitlanquian or Atitalaquia,
Tequisquiac, Atengo, Tzompan, Cuachilgo, Xaltocan and Lake
Chinamitl, Eycoac, Ecatepc, Aculhuacan, Tultepetlac, Huixachtitlan, Tecpayuca
(in 2 Calli), Atepetlac, Coatlayauhcan, Tetepanco, Acolnahuac,
Popotla (Tacuba), Chapultepec (Techcatepec and Techcatitlan) in 2 Tochtli.
Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 5-8. Following Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 156-63,
the Aztecs left Aztlan in 1160, crossed the Colorado River, stayed 3 years
at Hueicolhuacan, went east to Chicomoztoc, where they separated from
the Nahuatlaca tribes, then to Coatlicamac, and reached Tula in 1196,
remaining 9 years; then spent 11 years in different places, reached Zumpanco
in 1216, remaining 7 years, then Tizajocan, Tolpetlac, Tepejacac, and Chapultepec
in 1245 during Nopaltzin's reign. Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno.
Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 124-9, merely makes some remarks on Clavigero's
account, fixing the departure, however, in 1064, and noting the completion
of the first cycle in 1090 at Tlalixco. Gama, Dos Piedras, pt i.,
pp. 19-20, makes them leave Aztlan in 1 Tecpatl, 1064, and arrive at Tlalixco,
or Acahualtzinco, in 1087, where they completed their first cycle in
1091, and remained 9 years. Acosta, pp. 454-62, says that 6 Nahuatlaca
tribes left Aztlan in 820, and were 80 years in reaching Mexico. The Aztecs
started in 1122, passed through Michoacan, and halted at Malinalco and
Coatepec before reaching Chapultepec. Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. x-xi,
agrees with Acosta. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. i, ii, iii, says they left Aztlan
in Chicomoztoc, giving dates as by Acosta; but he also gives as stations, Patzcuaro,
Malinalco, Ocipila, Acahualcingo, Coatepec, Tulla, Atlitlalacpan, Tequixquiac,
Tzumpanco, Xaltocan, Ecatepec, Tulpetlac, Tepaneca, and Chapultepec.
Sahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 145-6, vaguely states that the Mexicans
went westward from the Seven Caves to a province called Culhuacan
Mexico, whence they were ordered by their god to return, and passed through
Tulla, Ichpuchco, Chiquiuhio near Ecatepec, to Chapultepec. According to
Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 290-308, the other Nahuatlaca tribes left Aztlan
from 1062 to 1068, but the Aztecs in 1 Tochtli, 1090. They pass through Téo-Culhuacan,
Quahuitl-Icacan, 1091, Quinehuayan-Oztotl or Quinehuayan-Chicomoztoc,
1116, stay 11 years, Acahualtzinco or Tlalixco (now S. Juan
del Rio), 1st cycle in 1143, stay 9 years, Tonalan, Lake Patzcuaro, Malinalco,
Cohuatlycamac or Coatepec, 1174, stay 9 years, Apazco, Tzompanco,
Tizayocan, Tepeyacac, Pantitlan, Popotlan, and arrive at Chapultepec in
1194, having been several times broken up into different bands on the way.
Humboldt's—Vues, tom. ii., p. 176, et seq.—interpretation of Gemelli Careri's
map—see vol. ii., pp. 543-7, of this work—gives the stations in the
following order: From Colhuacan, the Mexican Ararat, 15 chiefs or tribes
reach Aztlan, 'land of flamingoes,' north of 42°, which they leave in 1038,
passing through Tocolco, 'humiliation,' Oztotlan, 'place of grottoes,' Mizquiahuala,
Teotzapotlan, 'place of divine fruit,' Ilhuicatepec, Papantla,
'large-leaved grass,' Tzompanco, 'place of human bones,' Apazco, 'clay
vessel,' Atlicalaguian, 'crevice in which rivulet escapes,' Quauhtitlan,
'eagle grove,' Atzcapotzalco, 'ant-hill,' Chalco, 'place of precious stones,'
Pantitlan, 'spinning-place,' Tolpetlac, 'rush mat,' Quauhtepec, 'eagle
mountain,' Tetepanco, 'wall of many small stones,' Chicomoztoc, 'seven
caves,' Huitzquilocan, 'place of thistles,' Xaltepozauhcan, 'place where
the sand issues,' Cozcaquauhco, 'a vulture', Techcatitlan, 'place of obsidian
mirrors,' Azcaxochitl, 'ant flower,' Tepetlapan, 'place of tepetate,' Apan,
'place of water,' Teozomaco, 'place of divine apes,' Chapoltepec, 'grasshopper
hill.' Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 5-7,
repeats this interpretation. Ramirez, in García y Cubas, Atlas, justly
ridicules the 'Ararat' or deluge theory, and confines the wanderings of
the Aztecs to the regions about the lakes; 15 chiefs leave their home in
Chalco Lake after tying 1st cycle. The stations are mostly adopted
from Humboldt, without any opinion expressed of their accuracy, but
there are a few additions and corrections in definitions, as follows:—Aztlan,
where 2d and 3d cycle are tied, Cincotlan, 10 years, Tocolco, 4th
cycle, Oztotlan, 5 years, Mizquiahuala, 5th cycle, Xalpan, 15 years, Tetepanco,
'wall of many stones,' 5 years, Oxitlipan, 10 years, Teotzapatlan,
4 years, Ilhuicatepec, 4 years, Papantla, meaning doubtful, 2 years, Tzonpanco,
'place of skulls or bones,' 5 years, Apazco, 4 years, Atlicalaquian,
'where water collects,' 2 years, Cauhtitlan, 'near the eagle,' 3 years, Azcapotzalco,
'in the ant-hill,' 6th cycle, 7 years, 1 year to Chalco, Pantitlan,
'place of tiers,' 'place of departure,' neither quite correct; Tolpetlac, 2
years, Epcohuac, 'serpent,' Cuauhtepec, 2 years, Chicomoztoc, 8 years,
Huitzquilocal, 3 years, Xaltepozauhcan, doubtful, 4 years, Cozcacuauhco,
4 years, Techcatitlan, 5 years, Azcaxochic, 4 years, Tepetlapa, 5 years,
Apan, 'on the water,' Teozomaco, 'in the monkey of stone,' 6 years,
Chapoltepec, 4 years. The same author from the Boturini map—see vol.
ii., pp. 547-50—derives the following: Left their island home, passed
through Coloacan, stayed 5 days in a place not named, thence to Cuextecatlichocayan,
Coatlicamac, 28 years, Tollan, 19, Atlicalaquiam, 10,
Tlemaco, 5, Atotonilco, 5, Apazco, 12, Tzonpanco, 4, Xaltocan, 4, Acalhuacan,
4, Ehecatepec, 4, Tolpetlac, 8, Coatitlan, 20, Huixachtitlan, 4,
Tecpayocan, 4, ——, Amalinalpan, 8, Pantitlan, 4, Acolnahuac, 4,
Popotla, 4, ——, Atlacuihuayan or Tacubaya, 4, Chapoltepec, 20
years. Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 23-30, interprets
the Boturini map as follows:—Leave Aztlan 1168, pass through Colhuacan,
Cuatlicamaca, 1216-25, Apanco, 1226-9, Tlamaco, 1230-4, Tzompango,
1246, Azcapotzalco, 1250, Jaltocan, 1251-4, Colhuacan, 1258, Tolpetlac,
1262, Ecatepetl, 1270, Cuautitlan, Chalco, Tecpayocan, 1295,
Pantitlan, Atotonilco, 1303, Azcapotzalco, 1311, Apan, 1315, Acaxochitl,
1319, Tlacuihuallan, 1327, Chapoltepetl, 1331-51.




[VI-3] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 292-5, on the authority of the Mem. de
Culhuacan and other original documents.




[VI-4] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 135-6.




[VI-5] Id., pp. 136-8. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 79-80, followed by Clavigero
and Vetancvrt, represents this event as having occurred at a subsequent
halting-place.




[VI-6] Veytia conjectures the emerald to typify the nobility of the Tlatelulcas,
a useless attribute when compared with Aztec science and industry.




[VI-7] Hist., tom. ii., pp. 293-6; Ixtlilxochitl, vol. ix., p. 214. Veytia, tom.
ii., p. 95, makes Chalchiuh Tlatonac another name of Huitziton.




[VI-8] On Huitzilopochtli see vol. iii., pp. 288-324. Some of the authorities
imply that Huitzilopochtli died or at least appeared as an idol long before
this period, soon after their departure from Aztlan. Boturini, Idea, pp. 60-1,
states that Huitziton was taken up to heaven in sight of the people. See
also on his death and the abandonment of Malinalxochitl; Veytia, tom. ii.,
pp. 93-101; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 78, 80-1; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough,
vol. ix., pp. 6-8; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. ii.-iv.; Acosta, pp.
459-61, 468; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 160-1; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp.
299-302; Sigüenza, in Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. i., pp. 39-43; Ramirez,
in García y Cubas, Atlas; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex.,
tom. iii., p. 25.




[VI-9] See vol. ii., p. 130; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 6; Duran,
MS., tom. i., cap. iii.; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 103-5; Pimentel, Cuadro, tom.
i., p. 272; Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 131-2.




[VI-10] See vol. ii., pp. 297-9; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 106-8; Tezozomoc, in
Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 7-8.




[VI-11] See besides references in preceding notes, Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii.,
pp. 18-19; Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi.; Gallatin, in
Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 125-6; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii.,
pp. 302-5.




[VI-12] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 96-7, calls the bride of Ilhuicatl, Tiacapapantzin;
and Torquemada, tom. i., p. 82, Tiacapantzin. See also Clavigero, tom. i.,
p. 163; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. iii.; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 306-8.




[VI-13] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 213, 346, 397, gives the
dates 1107, 1158, and 1105; the first date is 5 Acatl which agrees with Brasseur's
documents, but is interpreted as 1211 or one cycle later than Ixtlilxochitl's
interpretation. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 79-80, gives the date 1263.




[VI-14] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 323, 378; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 254.
This author gives the succession of kings at Culhuacan as Achitometl,
Mazatzin, Quetzal, Chalchiuhtona, Quauhtlix, Yohuallatonac, Tziuhtecatl,
Xuihtemoctzin, and Coxcotzin. Veytia gives the succession as follows:
Achitometl, Xohualatonac, Calquiyauhtzin, and Coxcox. It is impossible
to reconcile this matter; but no events of great importance in which the
Culhuas were engaged seem to have taken place until the reign of Coxcoxtli.




[VI-15] Leon y Gama, Dos Piedras, pt i., p. 20, and Codex Chimalpopoca.
Gallatin makes the date one cycle later or 1298.




[VI-16] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 83-4. This author represents the Aztecs as
having been driven from Chapultepec at this time. There is but little
agreement respecting the order of events in Aztec history previous to the
foundation of Mexico.




[VI-17] Codex Chimalpopoca, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 319-23.




[VI-18] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 348, and Veytia, tom. ii.,
pp. 140-1, mention this application to Quinantzin, but refer it to a much
later period after the city of Mexico was founded.




[VI-19] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 81-8, 110-13, gives the date of Tlotzin's death
as 1298. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 213, 346, 3981, 461,
gives as dates, 1141, 1194, and 1140. See also on his reign; Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 68-72; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 143-4; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii.,
p. 16; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 324-33.




[VI-20] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 73-4, 85; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 114-15; Ixtlilxochitl,
in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 347-8, 399, 452-3; Clavigero, tom. i.,
pp. 144-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 16; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp.
333-8; Müller, Reisen, tom. iii., p. 48.




[VI-21] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 215, 347-8, 399, 452-3;
Veytia, tom. i., pp. 116-17, 122-25, refers these events to a considerably
later period, and states that Huitzilihuitl previously married a niece of
Acolnahuacatl. Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 338-44.




[VI-22] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 143-54, relates this rebellion and defeat of the
northern provinces, and the consequent abdication of Acolnahuacatl, attributing
these events, however, to a much later period, after the separation
of the Tlatelulcas from the Mexicans, giving the date as 1325. Most
of the authorities do not definitely fix the date, but Brasseur, Hist., tom.
ii., pp. 344-55, gives satisfactory reasons, supported by Camargo and Ixtlilxochitl,
for referring both this war and the battle at Poyauhtlan to the
time when the Mexicans were yet living under Huitzilihuitl at Chapultepec.
Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 162-73, unites the rebellion of the king's sons
and the fight against the Teo-Chichimecs, referring this latter war to 1350,
and including the provinces of Huastepec, Huehuetlan, and Cuitlahuac in
the revolt. He represents the allied forces of Anáhuac, 100,000 strong, as
serving in six divisions under the general command of Quinantzin, already
emperor. He also states that Quinantzin's queen accompanied her sons in
their exile. Of course there is great diversity among the authorities in
respect to names of leaders, and details of the battles; but the general
account given in my text is the only consistent one that can be formed,
since there is much even in Veytia's account to support it. It is probable,
in the light of later events, that Quinantzin took no part in the war against
the Teo-Chichimecs, and quite possible that Camargo's statement that the
Teo-Chichimecs were victorious, though much exhausted, in the battle at
Poyauhtlan, results to a great extent from national pride in the record of
the Tlascaltecs. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 84-6, 259-60, seems to be the
authority for the second campaign of Quinantzin in the north, which was
decided by a great battle at Tlaximalco in the region of Monte Real.
Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 215-16, 349-52, 398-400, 461-2,
as usual favors in different places nearly all the views of other authorities.
See also Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 142-3; Clavigero,
tom. i., pp. 144-5, 154.




[VI-23] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 160, 228; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix.,
pp. 216-17, 351, 399, 401, 453. The chief of the Tailotlacs was Tempantzin,
or Aztatlitexcan; and the Chimalpanecs were under Xiloquetzin and Tlacateotzin.
In this, as in other cases I have not entered minutely into the
names, marriages, and genealogies of the nobles of Anáhuac, since my
space does not permit a full treatment of the subject, and a superficial
treatment would be without value.




[VI-24] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 86. It is not quite certain that this revolt,
and that of some southern provinces, which occurred two years later, were
not connected with those that have been already narrated. Torquemada
rarely pays any attention to chronology.




[VI-25] Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 217. It seems that Quinantzin's successor
granted permission to build temples.




[VI-26] Hist., tom. ii., pp. 377-80.




[VI-27] Id., p. 382; dates 1281, or 1300. According to Veytia, tom. ii., pp.
160-1, and Ixtlilxochitl, p. 462, Xiuhtemoc, king of Culhuacan, died in
1340, and was succeeded by Acamapichtli.




[VI-28] See pp. 327-8.




[VI-29] Duran, MS. tom. i., cap. iv.; Acosta, pp. 462-4; Herrera, dec. iii.,
lib. ii., cap. xi. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 83-4, 89, says the Aztecs were
either brought as slaves from Ocolco to Tizaapan, or were invited to Culhuacan
and then enslaved. See also, Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 164-5; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., pp. 20-1; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 127-9. I make no effort
to follow Veytia's chronologic order which, in this part of the history, is
hopelessly confused and different from the other authorities.




[VI-30] Hist., tom. ii., pp. 380-98.




[VI-31] There is some confusion about the parentage of Tezozomoc and
Acamapichtli: 'Coxcoxtli épousa une fille d'Acolnahuacatl dont il eut
Tezozomoc, ou Acolnahuacatl épousa une fille de Coxcoxtli dont ce prince
serait issu. Quoique le MS. de 1528 donne Acolnahuacatl pour père à Tezozomoc,
le Mémorial de Culhuacan le donne pour le fils de Coxcoxtli et
frère d'Acamapichtli. Ixtlilxochitl dit également qu'Acamapichtli était
son frère.' Id., pp. 394-5. See Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix.,
pp. 349, 397, 401. He, however, seems to make Acamapichtli also the son
of Acolnahuacatl. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 73, 161-2, fixes the date of the
king's death at 1343. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 68; Granados y Galvez,
Tardes Amer., pp. 142-3.




[VI-32] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 119-22. This author places this event in the
lifetime of Huitzilihuitl and of Acolnahuacatl. Torquemada, tom. i., pp.
90-1; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 165-7.




[VI-33] See references in last note; also Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 260-1;
Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 80-1, 260-1.




[VI-34] Acosta, p. 464; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. iv. He calls the Culhua
king Achitometl. Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi.




[VI-35] In Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 398.




[VI-36] Quinantzin succeeded to the empire, and appointed his uncle, Tenancacaltzin,
governor in Tenayocan, who usurped the throne in 1299; Huitzilihuitl,
of Mexicans, obtained in marriage a niece of king Acolhua II. of
Azcapuzalco; Coxcox succeeded Calquiyauhtzin as king of Culhuacan; the
Xochimilcas were defeated by the aid of the Mexicans, and Acolhua II.
became emperor in 1299; next, Acamapichtli used the Mexicans to conquer
Coxcox, and made himself king of Culhuacan in 1301, but died in 1303 and
was succeeded by Xiuhtemoc; Huitzilihuitl died in 1318, and the Mexicans
chose as their king also, Xiuhtemoc of Culhuacan, where many of them
had settled, under the rule of Acamapichtli, and where all now removed
from Chapultepec, although against the wishes of the Culhua people; at
last, in 1325, for no very definite reason, they were driven from Culhuacan
and went to Acatzintitlan, or Mexicaltzinco; then they applied to the emperor
Acolhua II. and were allowed to live for a time near Azcapuzalco,
while their priests were searching for the predestined location of their
future city; then took place the separation between the Mexicans and Tlatelulcas;
the Tlatelulcas obtain a King from the emperor after having applied
to Quinantzin in vain; Quinantzin regains the imperial throne from
Acolhua II.; and finally, Tenochtitlan was founded in 1327. Veytia, tom.
ii., pp. 114-57.




[VI-37] Hist., tom. ii., pp. 402-3, 432-50.




[VI-38] On the foundation of Mexico, its date, and name, see—Duran, MS.,
tom. i., cap. iv.-vi.; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 92-3, 288-91; Veytia, tom.
ii., pp. 156-60; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 461; Tezozomoc,
in Id., pp. 5, 8-9; Oviedo, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., p. 531; Acosta, pp. 465-6;
Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 167-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 21; Codex Mendoza,
in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 40; Arlegui, Chrón. Zacatecas, pp. 8-9;
Cavo, Tres Siglos, tom. i., p. 2; Purchas his Pilgrimes, vol. iv., pp. 1066-7;
Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 144, 204-5; Soc.
Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. viii., pp. 405, 415; Müller, Amer. Urrel., p. 534;
Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 356.




[VI-39] Date 1325, according to Clavigero, Gama, Chimalpain, Brasseur, and
Prescott; 1327, Veytia, following Sigüenza y Góngora; 1318, Duran; 1324,
Codex Mendoza; 1140, 1141, or about 1200, Ixtlilxochitl; 1131, Camargo;
1326, Tezozomoc, in Veytia; 1316, Id., in Gondra; 1225, Chimalpain, in
Id.; 1317, Sigüenza, in Id.; 1341, Torquemada, in Id.; 1321, Zapata, in
Veytia; 1357, Martinez, in Veytia and Gondra.




[VI-40] On derivation of the name, see vol. ii., p. 559; also Torquemada, tom.
i., pp. 92-3; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 5; Ixtlilxochitl, in
Id., p. 461. These authors derive Tenochtitlan from the Aztec name of the
nopal. Cavo, Tres Siglos, tom. i., p. 2, Müller, Amer. Urrel., p. 534, and
Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., p. 315, derive Mexico from Metl-ico
'place amid the magueys.'




[VI-41] 1357, Veytia; 1213, 1249, or 1253, Ixtlilxochitl; 1305, Brasseur.




[VI-42] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 86-7; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 144-6; Veytia,
tom. i., pp. 171, 176, 181; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 215-16,
352, 400, 453; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 275; Brasseur, Hist., tom.
ii., pp. 422-5; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., p. 39.




[VI-43] Xaltocan is spoken of by Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia as having been at
this time subjected for the first time to the emperor. Its inhabitants were
Otomís, and the refugees are said to have built, or rebuilt, the city of
Otompan. Tezozomoc is represented as having borne the principal part in
the war, while the emperor Techotl joined in it more to watch and restrain
the allies than for anything else. Another war in Tlascala, in which
forces sent by Techotl, are said by Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 265-8, to
have participated, was, perhaps, the same already mentioned in connection
with the king of Culhuacan.




[VI-44] Azcapuzalco, Mexico, Coatlichan, Huexotla, Coatepec, and four or
five others are mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 355,
as paying no tribute; but some of these, according to other authorities,
were actually joined to the kingdom of Acolhuacan, and had not even the
honor of a tributary lord.




[VI-45] The list of those lords present at the funeral of Quinantzin and the
coronation of Techotl, is as follows: Tezozomoc, king of Azcapuzalco;
Paintzin, king of Xaltocan, lord of the Otomís; Mocomatzin, Moteuhzomatzin,
or Montezuma, king of Coatlichan; Acamapichtli, king of Culhuacan
and Mexico (this could not be, as Mexico was not yet founded; Coxcoxtli
was king of Culhuacan, but Acamapichtli was, in one sense, chief
of the Mexicans, and heir to the throne of Culhuacan); Mixcohuatl, or
Mixcohuatzin, king of Tlatelulco (the Aztec Tlatelulco was not yet
founded; Brasseur believes this to refer to an ancient city of this name);
Quetzalteuhtli, or Quetzalatecuhtli, lord of Xochimilco; Izmatletlopac,
lord of Cuitlahuac; Chiquauhtli, lord of Mizquic (Chalco Atenco, according
to Brasseur); Pochotl, lord of Chalco Atenco (Ixtlilxochitl); Omaca, or
Omeacatl, lord of Tlalmanalco; Cacamaca, lord of Chalco; Temacatzin,
lord of Huexotzinco, (or as Brasseur has it, of Quauhquechollan); Tematzin,
prince of Huexotzinco (Brasseur); Cocaztzin, lord of Quauhquelchula
(Ixtlilxochitl); Teocuitlapopocatzin, lord of Cuetlaxcohuapan, or Cuetlachcoapan;
Chichimecatlalpayatzin, high-priest of Cholula; Chichitzin, lord of
Tepeaca; Mitl, prince of Tlascala; Xihuilpopoca, lord of Zacatlan; Quauhquetzal,
lord of Tenamitec; Chichihuatzin, lord of Tulancingo; Tlaltecatzin,
lord of Quauhchinanco; Tecpatl, lord of Atotonilco; Iztaquauhtzin,
lord of the Mazahuas; Chalchiuhtlanetzin, lord of Coyuhuacan; Yohuatl
Chichimecatzin, lord of Coatepec; Quiyauhtzin, lord of Huexotla; Tecuhtlacuiloltzin,
lord of Acolman. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p.
353; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 428. Ixtlilxochitl says that these were
not all, but merely the leading vassals, all related to the emperor. A list
of 46 is given in Ixtlilxochitl, p. 355, and Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 214-15. 73
are said to have attended one assembly, 66 another, and 30 another.




[VI-46] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 182-3, and Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 427, state
that the distant provinces of Quauhtemalan (Guatemala), Tecolotlan (Vera
Paz), Centizonac, Teoquantepec (Tehuantepec), and Jalisco, were represented
in the crowd that gathered at Techotl's coronation, offering their
homage and allegiance; but Ixtlilxochitl, p. 353, says that these provinces
would not recognize the emperor. There is very little probability that the
Chichimec power ever reached so far, but not unlikely that communication
took place between Mexico and Central America at this period.




[VI-47] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 195-6, implies that the new rites and ideas came
rather from Mexican than Toltec influence.




[VI-48] The general Council of State, composed of all the highest lords, men
of learning, ability, and character, was presided over by the emperor himself.
Of the five special councils the first was that of war, under a lord
who received the title of Tetlahto, and composed, according to Brasseur,
of lords of the Acolhua nation. The second was the Council of the Exchequer,
under a superintendent of finance, with the title Tlami, or Calpixcontli,
having charge of the collection of tribute, and composed of men
well acquainted with the resources of every part of the country, chiefly as
is said Chichimecs, Otomís, and lords of Meztitlan. The third was the
Diplomatic Council, whose president had the title of Yolqui, and was a
kind of Grand Master of Ceremonies, whose duty it was to receive, present,
entertain and dispatch ambassadors. Many of this council were Culhuas.
The fourth was the council of the royal household, under the Amechichi,
or High Chamberlain. This council was composed largely of Tepanecs.
A fifth official, with the title of Cohuatl, superintended the work of the
royal gold and silver smiths and feather-workers at Ocolco, a suburb of
Tezcuco. The Spanish writers state that the president of each of the
councils must be a relation of the emperor, or at least a Tezcucan nobleman.
Torquemada, tom. i., p. 88; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 181; Veytia, tom.
ii., pp. 182-5; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 430-1.




[VI-49] There seems to have been some trouble between Ixtlilxochitl and
the Tepanec king Tezozomoc, even before Techotl's death. Ixtlilxochitl
was unmarried, although by his concubines he had many children; and, as
Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 217-18, has it, he took Tezozomoc's daughter as a
wife at his father's request, but sent her back before consummating the marriage;
or, according to Ixtlilxochitl, p. 218, he refused to take Tezozomoc's
daughter, who had already been repudiated by some one, except as a concubine.
The same author, p. 356, says this occurred after his father's
death. He finally married a Mexican princess. Tezozomoc was very
much offended.




[VI-50] The emperor is said to have learned the Nahua language from his
Culhua nurse Papaloxochitl, and to have become so convinced of its superiority
that he ordered its adoption. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 217; Veytia, tom. ii.,
pp. 194-5.




[VI-51] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 217-8, says he was over sixty years old; Ixtlilxochitl
gives 1338 as the date of his birth, which would make him less than
twenty. The method of arriving at his age seems to be by fixing the date
of his son's birth, noting that his father's wife was eight years old at her
marriage, and taking into consideration the reported Chichimec custom
which required the husband to wait until his wife was forty before consummating
the marriage. Ixtlilxochitl was endowed, at birth, with thirteen
towns or provinces; his mother is said to have been the sister of Coxcoxtli,
king of Culhuacan.




[VI-52] 1353, or 1357, Ixtlilxochitl; 1409, Veytia. On Techotl's reign see:
Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 217-18, 353-6, 400-1, 453, 462;
Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 178-231; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 87-9, 108; Clavigero,
tom. i., pp. 180-1, 184; Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. viii., p.
276; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 16-17, 24; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp.
425-32, 457-61, 472-3.




[VI-53] Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 302; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 451.
Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 127-30, agrees, except in dates, so far as the succession
of Acamapichtli is concerned, and his friendship for the Mexicans.
He, however, says nothing of Achitometl II., dates Acamapichtli's death
in 1303, and states that he was succeeded by his eldest son Xiuhtemoc.
The Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 42, implies that Acamapichtli
transferred his court in 1370 to Mexico, giving, as Motolinia, in
Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 6, says, the lordship of Culhuacan
to one of his sons. See also Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 218, 343, 349. Much of the
confusion in the Culhua succession is caused by the fact that there were
two Acamapichtlis, one, king of Culhuacan and in a certain sense the
leader of the Mexicans, and the other, king of Mexico at a later date.




[VI-54] Gomara and Brasseur as above; also Brasseur, p. 465.




[VI-55] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 93; Duran, MS. tom. i., cap. x.




[VI-56] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. vi.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix.,
pp. 9-10; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp.
471-3; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 99-101; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 176; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., pp. 22-3.




[VI-57] Hist., tom. ii., p. 454.




[VI-58] Veytia, tom. ii., p. 159, writes the name Tenuhctzin, and dates his
election 1330. In the Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 40, it is
stated that the other chiefs still continued to govern their clans. See also,
Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 173-4; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 289-91; Mendieta,
Hist. Ecles., p. 148.




[VI-59] See pp. 325-6, of this volume.




[VI-60] Veytia says they first applied to Quinantzin, placing this event in
the reign of Alconahuacatl, as emperor.




[VI-61] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 135, 138, 140-1; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 93, 99,
291. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. v., names four chiefs who were at the
head of the secessionists. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 398,
mentions two chiefs with their adherents. Others speak of eight. Acosta,
p. 468, writes Tlatelulco, 'place of terraces.' Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol.
113, defines the name 'islet.' Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 22, derives it
from tlatelli, 'booth,' because the market was located here. Brasseur,
Hist., tom. ii., pp. 467-8, says the original name was Xalliyacac, 'point of
land,' which was in the territory belonging to Tlatelulco, at the time a
small village, but in the Toltec period a flourishing city. See also, Clavigero,
tom. i., p. 170.




[VI-62] There is great diversity among the authorities respecting the parentage
of Acamapichtli II., some of which may probably be attributed to
the confounding of two of the same name. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 186-8,
161, dates his accession 1361, says a political contest of four years preceded
his election, and calls him the son of Huitzilihuitl by Atotoztli,
daughter of Acamapichtli. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 173-4, Acosta, pp.
469-71, and Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. v-vi., represent the new king as son
of Opochtli, an Aztec chief, by Atotoztli, a Culhua princess. Clavigero
makes the date 1352; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 94-97, refers to him as a
noble Aztec, son of Cohuatzontli by the daughter of a Culhua chieftain.
Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 344, 348-9, 456, gives as usual two or three versions of
the matter, saying in one place that the new king was the third son of the
king of Azcapuzalco. Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 302, brings him from Coatlichan,
whither he had escaped with his mother after the death of her
husband the Culhua king. 'Acamapichtli, king of Culhuacan, father of
the second Acamapichtli spoken of here, was a grandson of Acxoquauhtli,
son of Achitometl I., by Azcaxochitl, daughter of the Mexican Huitzilatl.
Acamapichtli I. had also married Ixxochitl, daughter of Teotlehuac, who
was a brother of Azcaxochitl and son of the same Huitzilatl, and had had
by her Acamapichtli II.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 469-70. See also:
Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 22; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc.,
tom. i., p. 6; Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; Purchas his
Pilgrimes, vol. iv., pp. 1005-6. The question of the new king's marriage is
even more deeply involved. See same authorities.




[VI-63] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 94-5; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 174-5; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. ii., p. 471. Date according to Clavigero, 1353. Ixtlilxochitl,
in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 213, 348-9, 398, 453, and Veytia,
Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 141, say that the king's name was Mixcohuatl,
or Epcoatzin, or Cohuatlecatl. See also Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 22;
Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 273; Granados y Galvez, Tardes
Amer., pp. 174-5; Müller, Reisen, tom. iii., p. 49; and Carbajal Espinosa,
Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 317-9, with portrait.




[VII-1] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 99. In the explanation
of the Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 148, vol. vi.,
p. 134, it is stated that king Acamapichtli burned the temple of Culhuacan
in 1399, probably referring to the quarrels of Acamapichtli I. with Coxcoxtli,
or Achitometl, at an earlier period.




[VII-2] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 213; Clavigero, tom. i., pp.
176-7; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 95-8; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 100;
Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 302; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; Acosta,
Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 470-3; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xiii; Mendieta,
Hist. Ecles., pp. 148-9; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 43.




[VII-3] Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 92; Mendieta, Torquemada,
Acosta, Brasseur, and Clavigero, as in preceding note.




[VII-4] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 111.




[VII-5] Date, 1404, Duran; 1402, after reigning 41 years, Veytia; 1405,
Boturini; 1389, 37 years, Clavigero; 1406, 7 years, Codex Tell. Rem.;
1396, Mendieta; reigned 21 years, Torquemada, Sahagun, Codex Mendoza;
1271, 51 years, Ixtlilxochitl; 46 years, Gomara and Motolinia; 40 years,
Acosta and Herrera; 1403, 53 or 21 years, Brasseur.




[VII-6] Acosta and Herrera write the name of Huitzilihuitl's wife Ayauchigual.
Veytia says her name was Miahuaxochitl, and that she was the
daughter of Tezozomoc. Torquemada, Clavigero, and Gomara make him
marry, first, Ayauhcihuatl, daughter of Tezozomoc, and afterwards, Miahuaxochitl,
princess of Quauhnahuac, the latter of whom bore Montezuma I.
Ixtlilxochitl says the king married his niece, Tetzihuatzin, grand-daughter
of Tezozomoc, one of whose children was Chimalpopoca. Brasseur, relying
on the Codex Chimalp. and Mem. de Culhuacan, gives the account I have
presented in the text. The Codex Tell. Rem. says Huitzilihuitl married a
daughter of the princess of Coatlichan, and a grand-daughter of Acamapichtli,
having by her no sons. Tezozomoc and Duran name Chimalpopoca
as Huitzilihuitl's first son; Veytia says it was Montezuma I., and Torquemada,
Clavigero, and Brasseur name the first son Acolnahuacatl.




[VII-7] On the death of Acamapichtli II., and the succession and marriage of
Huitzilihuitl II., see Duran, MS. tom. i., cap. vi, vii; Clavigero, tom. i.,
pp. 176-80; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 98-106; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii.,
p. 268; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 218, 353, 456-7; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 219-26; Tezozomoc,
in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 10-11; Codex Tell. Rem., in Id., vol.
v., pp. 148-9; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 302; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col.
de Doc., tom. i., p. 6; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; Acosta, Hist. de
las Ynd., pp. 473-5; Sigüenza, in Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. i., p. 50;
Boturini, in Id., p. 239; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 149; Brasseur, Hist.,
tom. iii., pp. 110-17.




[VII-8] According to Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 216-7, 246, 249-51, Mixcohuatl
reigned 75 years, was succeeded by Quaquauhpitzahuac in 1400, and he by
Tlacateotzin in 1414. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 213, 218, 353, 356, 453, 462, says
Mixcohuatl died in 1271, reigned 51 years, and was succeeded by his son
Quaquauhpitzahuac; or that he died in Techotl's reign and was followed
by Tlacateotzin; or that Quaquauhpitzahuac died in 1353; or was succeeded
by Amatzin; or again, that Tlacateotzin succeeded his father; and that he
married a daughter of Tezozomoc. Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 273, ignores
Mixcohuatl, as do Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 94-5, 99, 127-8, and
Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 175, 184. Both the latter authors make the first
king a son of Tezozomoc. Clavigero places his accession in 1353, and that
of Tlacateotzin, his successor, in 1399. Torquemada says the first king
reigned 35 years, and was followed by Tlacateotzin in the tenth year of
Huitzilihuitl's rule. Both Mexicans and Tlatelulcas seem to have claimed
the honor of having had the first king. See also Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii.,
p. 123.




[VII-9] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 120.




[VII-10] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. vii.; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 106; Veytia,
tom. ii., pp. 226-8, 246; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 127-8.




[VII-11] Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 149; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol.
v., p. 43; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268.




[VII-12] Date 1414, Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 246-7; Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex.,
série iii., tom. iv., p. 239; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 149;
1353, Ixtlilxochitl, in Id., vol. ix., pp. 218, 356, 457; 1409, Clavigero, tom.
i., p. 186; 1417, Codex Chimalp. in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 129, and
Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 43.




[VII-13] On death of Huitzilihuitl II. and succession of Chimalpopoca, see
Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 246-9; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 105-7; Clavigero,
tom. i., pp. 182-7; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 218, 355-6, 457; Acosta, Hist. de las
Ynd., pp. 475-8; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; Duran, MS., tom. i.,
cap. vii, viii; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 149; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp.
129-31; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 43; Codex Tell. Rem.,
in Id., p. 149.




[VII-14] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 231-3, 236, 245; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 108-9;
Clavigero, tom. i., p. 185; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 218-19, 356, 358-9, 401; Boturini,
Idea, p. 142; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 87-92.




[VII-15] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 234-7; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 356.




[VII-16] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 219, 356-7; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 108-9; Clavigero,
tom. i., p. 185; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 93-5.




[VII-17] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 95-6.




[VII-18] Id., pp. 97-106.




[VII-19] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 219, 357, 401-2; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 108-9;
Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 185-6; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 234-45; Brasseur, Hist.,
tom. iii., pp. 106-8.




[VII-20] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 108-9.




[VII-21] The former also called Tozquentzin and Atotoztli; and the latter,
Acolmiztli and Yoyontzin.




[VII-22] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 218, 359, 401, 405, 453; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap.
vi.; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 110; Leon y Gama, Dos Piedras, pt ii., pp.
41-2; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 109-10; Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales,
tom. xcviii., p. 146.




[VII-23] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 117-18.




[VII-24] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 219, 358-9, 402. Dates according to this author,
April 15, 1359; Dec. 30, 1363; 1415. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 255-6; date, Aug.
6, 1415. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 109; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 185-6; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 120-1.




[VII-25] Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 277-8, gives a list of the succession of
lords at Huexotla from the earliest Chichimec times.




[VII-26] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 219-20, 359, 402. He states that in this meeting,
or another held about the same time, there were many other lords present,
including those of Acolman and Tepechpan, who, although pretending to
be faithful, kept Tezozomoc posted as to the course events were taking.
See also Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 257-8; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 110; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 121-2.




[VII-27] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 359-60, 402-3; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 257-68; Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 108-9; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 186; Brasseur, Hist.,
tom. iii., pp. 122-5.




[VII-28] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 186, states that Ixtlilxochitl granted this peace,
not because he had any faith in Tezozomoc or was disposed to be lenient to
his allies, but because his army was equally exhausted with that of the
enemy, and he was unable to continue hostilities. This is hardly probable,
although he had doubtless suffered more than the records indicate.
See also Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 220, 360-2, 403, 453; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 268-76;
Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 108-10; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 122-7.




[VII-29] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 129-30.




[VII-30] Chiuhnauhtlan, as the Spanish writers say; Brasseur says it was at
Tenamatlac, a Tepanec pleasure-resort in the mountains of Chiucnauhtecatl.




[VII-31] Brasseur says Coatlichan, which is more likely.




[VII-32] 50, and 16, are Ixtlilxochitl's figures in different places; Veytia says
10, and Brasseur 40.




[VII-33] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 220-3, 362-4, 403-4, 453-4, 462-3; Veytia, tom. ii.,
pp. 278-99; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 110-13; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 187-9;
Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 129-38.




[VII-34] Oct. 29, 1418, Veytia; 1410, Clavigero; 1410, Ixtlilxochitl, p. 463;
April 22, 1415, Id., p. 454; Sept. 21, 1418, Id., p. 404; 1419, Brasseur.
Torquemada implies that Ixtlilxochitl's reign lasted only seven years.
Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 276, says he ruled 61 years, during which
time nothing worthy of mention occurred. Ixtlilxochitl in one place, p.
223, says that the last Tepanec wars lasted 3 years and 273 days; elsewhere,
p. 364, that they lasted 50 consecutive years, and that millions of
people perished.




[VII-35] Torquemada states that Tezozomoc reserved Coatlichan for himself.




[VII-36] Ixtlilxochitl tells a strange story, to the effect that Tezozomoc's
officers were directed to ask the children in each province, who was their
king; such as replied 'Tezozomoc,' were to be caressed and their parents
rewarded; but those that answered 'Ixtlilxochitl,' or 'Nezahualcoyotl,'
were put to death without mercy. Thus perished thousands of innocent
children. In Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 223, 463.




[VII-37] Veytia, tom. i., pp. 300-6, 315-17; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 224-5, 365-8, 404,
454, 463; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 113-16; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 190-3;
Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 138-48; Boturini, Idea, pp. 143-4; Motolinia,
in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 254.




[VII-38] On Nezahualcoyotl's adventures during this period, down to about
1426, see Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 224-5, 366-9, 404-5, 463-4; Veytia, tom. ii., pp.
304, 311-14, 317-19; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 190-1, 193-4; Torquemada, tom.
i., pp. 116-7; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 148-50.




[VII-39] There is much confusion respecting these sons of Tezozomoc. Ixtlilxochitl
in one place, pp. 368-9, names Maxtla, Tayauh, and Atlatota
Icpaltzin, or Tlatecaypaltzin, as the sons summoned to his death-bed. In
another place, p. 464, he calls two of them Tiatzi, or Tayatzi, and Tlacayapaltzin.
Torquemada names them Maxtla, Tayatzin, and Tecuhtzintli.
All imply that Maxtla was the eldest son. Brasseur, following the Codex
Chimalpopoca, states that Tezozomoc had eight legitimate sons, of whom
Maxtlaton was the seventh and Quetzalayatzin (Tayauh, or Tayatzin), the
sixth.




[VII-40] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 321-9, tom. iii., pp. 3-11; date, Feb. 2, 1427.
Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 217, 225-7, 368-70, 405, 454, 464; dates, March 20, 1427,
March 24, 1427, 1424. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 68, 117-21, 253; Clavigero,
tom. i., pp. 194-6; date, 1422. Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 148-54;
date, March 24, 1427.




[VII-41] See on the usurpation of Maxtla and the death of his brother, Ixtlilxochitl,
pp. 226, 371, 464-5; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 11-18; Torquemada, tom.
i., pp. 119-21; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 196-8; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp.
155-7; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 26.




[VII-42] On account of their friendship for Nezahualcoyotl and Tayauh. Another
cause of enmity between Chimalpopoca and Maxtla, is said to have
been the dishonor of the former's wife by the latter, she having been enticed
to Azcapuzalco by the aid of two Tepanec ladies.




[VII-43] Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 18-32, says that immediately after the assassination
of Tayauh, a posse of men was sent to seize Chimalpopoca, whom they
found engaged in some religious rites in the temple. Several authors state
that the king died in prison, having been previously visited by Nezahualcoyotl,
who risked his own life to save him. Veytia says Nezahualcoyotl
found him much reduced from starvation, went for food, and found him
dead on his return. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 122-8, following Sigüenza,
says he hung himself to avoid starvation. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 226-8, 371-3,
457, 464-5, in one place states that he died in Nezahualcoyotl's arms.
In another relation he says that Maxtla in his rage at Nezahualcoyotl's
escape sent to Mexico and had Chimalpopoca killed in his stead, the assassins
finding him in the temple carving an idol. Acosta, Hist. de las
Ynd., pp. 475-9; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough,
vol. ix., pp. 11-12, and Duran, MS., tom. i., pp. 129-37—state that
during Tezozomoc's reign the Tepanec nobles, fearful that Chimalpopoca,
as the grandson of Tezozomoc would succeed to the Tepanec throne, sent
to Mexico and had him assassinated while asleep; adding that the grandfather
Tezozomoc, died of grief at this act! Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp.
158-9, 164, implies that Maxtla only arrested the proposed sacrifice, and
agrees with Ixtlilxochitl's statement that the king was murdered at Mexico
while at work in the temple.



The Tlatelulcan king was killed by the same party. He at first escaped
from his palace, but was overtaken on the lake while striving to reach
Tezcuco, and his body was sunk. Such is the account given by most
authors; Ixtlilxochitl says he drowned himself; while Torquemada records
two versions—one that he was killed for treason against Nezahualcoyotl;
and the other, that he was killed by Montezuma I. of Mexico. See also
on the death of the Aztec kings—Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 200-3; Motolinia,
in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 6; Granados y Galvez, Tardes
Amer., p. 154; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 26-7; Codex Mendoza, in
Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 44; Codex Tell. Rem., in Id., vol. vi., p. 135.




[VII-44] Date, July 23, 1427, or 1424, Ixtlilxochitl; May 31, 1427, Sigüenza;
March 31, 1427, Vetancvrt; July 19, 1427, Veytia; 1423, Clavigero; 1427,
Codex Mendoza; 1426, Codex Tell. Rem.; 1428, Codex Chimalpopoca.




[VII-45] The Spanish writers state that about this time the king of Chalco
became disaffected, and a messenger, Xolotecuhtli, was sent to win him
over through the influence of his wife, who was a sister of Huitzilihuitzin,
Nezahualcoyotl's chief counselor. The Chalca king said his change of
allegiance was on account of his hatred and fear of the Mexican king, but
consented at last to leave the matter to his people, who decided unanimously
in favor of Nezahualcoyotl.




[VII-46] I have omitted in this account of Nezahualcoyotl's flight, return, and
victorious campaign, the numerous details of the prince's adventures and
escapes, the names of lords to whom he applied and the tenor of each reply,
the wonderful omens that on many occasions foretold success to his plans,
told at so great length by the authorities, but comparatively unimportant,
and altogether too bulky for my space. See on this period of history:
Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 14, 33-79, 92-107; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 228-35, 373-81,
405-6, 465-7; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 125-40; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 202-10;
Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 171-3; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 26-7.




[VII-47] This discussion is placed by different authorities before or after the
choice of a king. This is a matter of no great importance; the opposition
to war probably continued down to the commencement of hostilities, but
the election of a warlike king was of itself equivalent to a declaration of
war, in view of Maxtla's well-known designs; consequently, I have placed
it before the election.




[VII-48] An extraordinary treaty is spoken of by Tezozomoc, Duran, Acosta,
and Clavigero, by the terms of which the nobles bound themselves in case
of defeat to give up their bodies to be sacrificed to the gods; while the
people bound themselves and their descendants in case of victory to become
the servants of the nobles for all future time. Veytia states that titles of
nobility, and permission to have many wives, were among the inducements
to bravery held out to the plebeians. It is not impossible that the contract
alluded to may have been invented or exaggerated in later times by the nobles
to support their extravagant claims upon the people. Torquemada
and Ixtlilxochitl refer to no such contract, and to no claim for the Tepanec
recognition of their king; but state that the election of Itzcoatl on the
one side, and the heavy tributes with the dishonor of Itzcoatl's wife on the
other, led to the establishment of the blockade.




[VII-49] On the succession and declaration of war in Mexico, see—Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 128-34. This author says nothing of the succession of
a new king in Tlatelulco. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 206-13; Veytia, tom. iii.,
pp. 78-91, 137; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 479-83; Duran, MS., tom.
i., cap. viii., ix., Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 235-6, 381, 383, 406, 465; Tezozomoc, in
Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 11-15; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 165-8;
Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 27; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., p. 154.




[VII-50] This name is written in many ways; Moteuhzoma or Moteuczoma
being probably more correct than the familiar form of Montezuma.




[VII-51] Totzintecuhtli, king of Chalco, is said to have sent the prisoner first
to Huexotzinca and then offered him to Maxtla to be sacrificed; but the kings
sent him back and refused to do so dishonorable a deed.




[VII-52] Brasseur says the first interview was at Tenayocan.




[VII-53] See Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 91-2, 108-22; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 209-11;
Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 236, 381-2, 406-7, 464-6; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 136-40;
Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 173-9; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. ix.




[VII-54] The chief point of difference between the authorities on this campaign,
is the relative honor due to the different allies and leaders, and
especially the share which the Mexicans and Acolhuas respectively had in
the overthrow of the Tepanec tyrant. Clavigero places this war in 1425,
and thinks that causeways were already built. Veytia gives the date 1428,
notes that the Mexican troops were richly clad, while the forces of Nezahualcoyotl
wore plain, white garments, and makes the siege last 140
days. Ixtlilxochitl also gives the date 1428, and the length of the war
100 and 115 days. According to Brasseur, Nezahualcoyotl found time
during the siege of Azcapuzalco to reconquer Acolman and Coatlichan,
which had revolted. He calls the Tepanec leader Mazatzin, and gives the
date as 1430. See Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 236-7, 382-4, 407, 466; Veytia, tom.
iii., pp. 120-39; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. ix.; Clavigero, tom. i., pp.
214-20; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 140-3; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp.
180-5; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 483-5.




[VII-55] See Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 221-3; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 142-6;
Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 136-47, 155-60; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 237-8, 383-5, 407,
466-7; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 16-17; Duran, MS., tom.
i., cap. ix.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 484-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt.
ii., p. 28; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 187-9.




[VII-56] The line is said to have extended from Totoltepec in the north to a
point in the lake near Mexico, which would be in a S.W. course. Thence
it extended to mount Cuexcomatl probably towards the S.E. Subsequent
events seem often to indicate that these lines were intended to be indefinitely
prolonged, and to bound future conquests. Brasseur, Hist., tom.
iii., p. 266, takes this view of the matter, although on p. 191 he implies the
contrary.




[VII-57] Such was the basis of the alliance according to Ixtlilxochitl, Veytia,
Zurita, and Brasseur. All agree respecting the inferior position of Tlacopan
and her share of the spoils, but Ixtlilxochitl, p. 455, makes both pay a
small tribute to Tezcuco. Veytia makes Nezahualcoyotl superior in nominal
rank as above; Ixtlilxochitl in most of his relations makes him and
Itzcoatl equal in this respect; while Torquemada, Clavigero, Gomara, and
Duran make Itzcoatl supreme, and give to Mexico two thirds instead of
one half of the spoils after deducting the share of Tlacopan. The chief
support of the latter opinion is the great proportional growth of the
Mexican domains in later times; but practically Mexico received much
more even than the two thirds allotted to her by these authors. I
think it more likely that Mexico in her great military power and love of
conquest took much more than her proper share, at first with the consent
of her colleagues and later without such consent; and it is also possible
that the division agreed upon referred only to conquests accomplished under
certain conditions not recorded, or, a supposition which agrees very
nearly with the actual division in later times, that each of the three kingdoms
was to have the conquered provinces that adjoined its territory, and
that Mexico obtained the largest share, not only on account of her ambition,
but because the most desirable field for conquest proved to be in the
south-east and south-west. See preceding note.




[VII-58] Totoquihuatzin was the grandson of Tezozomoc, and his daughter
was either concubine or wife of Nezahualcoyotl. Torquemada and Clavigero
state that the people of the region about Tezcuco petitioned Itzcoatl
to allow Nezahualcoyotl to rule over them, because, as the latter suggests,
this territory had been given to Chimalpopoca by Tezozomoc. To Nezahualcoyotl,
during his stay in Mexico, are attributed a palace and hunting-park
at Chapultepec, together with several reservoirs and the idea of an
aqueduct to supply water to the city. Veytia claims to have seen traces
of the boundary line between the Aztec and Acolhua domains. It extended
from Mount Cuexcomatl in the south, between Iztapalapan and
Culhuacan, through the northern lake at Zumpango to Totoltepec. This
would, however, be far from a straight line. See respecting the establishment
of the new alliance:—Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 237-8, 383, 407, 454, 467;
Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 155-68; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 143-4, 154-6; Clavigero,
tom. i., pp. 221-5; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. ix., x., xiv.; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 187-93; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 303; Prescott's Mex.,
vol. i., p. 19; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 28.




[VIII-1] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. x.; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 222-3; Tezozomoc,
in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 18-25; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 194-5;
Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 486-7; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 145. Duran
and Clavigero place these events after Nezahualcoyotl had gone to Tezcuco.
The former states that Tezcuco was one of the cities applied to for aid
against the Mexicans, and introduces here the story of the people on the
lake shore having been made ill by the smell of fish in Tenochtitlan; and
the latter states that Huexotla aided Coyuhuacan in this war. Torquemada
places the war in the second year of Itzcoatl's reign, and implies that the
Mexicans were forced to make several expeditions before they were completely
successful.




[VIII-2] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 145-6; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 196-8.




[VIII-3] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 239-40, 407-8; the alliance with Tlascala is spoken of
on pp. 247-8. Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 168-82.




[VIII-4] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 175.




[VIII-5] Boturini, Idea, p. 26; Ortega, in Veytia, tom. iii., p. 178.




[VIII-6] See Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 239-47, 258-61, 386-8, 407-9, 454-5, 467-8; Veytia,
tom. iii., pp. 182-209, 223-9; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 146-7, 167-9; Clavigero,
tom. i., pp. 225-6, 242-7; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 197-202.
Coatlichan, Tepetlaoztoc, Tepechpan, Chiuhnauhtla, Tulancingo, Quauchinanco,
Xicotepec, and Teotihuacan are mentioned among the provinces
whose lords were restored. Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia say that the same
system of provincial government was forced on Mexico by Nezahualcoyotl.




[VIII-7] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 202-3; Veytia, tom. iii., p. 236; Torquemada,
tom. i., p. 150; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 228; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii.,
p. 28.




[VIII-8] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 384, 458, and Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 149-52, 234-5,
state that Nezahualcoyotl accomplished the conquest of Xochimilco with
the aid of a few Tlascaltecs, leaving Itzcoatl entirely out of the affair.
Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 226-7, tells us that the Xochimilcas determined to
make war on the Mexicans before they became too strong. Duran, MS.,
tom. i., cap. xii., xiii., relates an evil omen for the Xochimilcas, in the
transformation of a dish of viands, round which they were seated in deliberation,
into arms, legs, hearts, and other human parts. See also Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 203-5; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp.
25-30; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp.
488-90; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 140, 148-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 28;
Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.




[VIII-9] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 248-9, says that Quauhnahuac and eight other towns
were awarded to Nezahualcoyotl, Tepozotlan, Huastepec and others to
Itzcoatl, besides the share of Tlacopan not specified. The same author
gives here without details of chronology, a list of subsequent conquests by
the allies at this period, which we shall find scattered throughout this and
the following reigns; such are:—Chalco, Itzucan, Tepeaca, Tecalco, Teohuacan,
Cohuaixtlahuacan, Hualtepec, Quauhtochco, Atochpan, Tizauhcoac,
Tochtepec, Mazahuacan, Tlapacoia, Tlauhcocauhtitlan, and Tulancingo.
See also on conquest of Quauhnahuac, Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 227-8;
Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 149-50; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 235-6; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., p. 28; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 205-7.




[VIII-10] Hist. Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 139-41; see p. 190, of this volume,
and vol. ii., p. 528.




[VIII-11] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 208-11; Torquemada,
tom. i., p. 150.




[VIII-12] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 30-2; Duran, MS., tom. i.,
cap. xv.; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 303; Sigüenza, in Doc. Hist. Mex.,
série iii., tom. i., p. 59; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 149-50, denies the story
that Nezahualcoyotl submitted to Itzcoatl. Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp.
33-4, makes them still of equal rank. Tezozomoc makes no mention of
any events in Itzcoatl's reign after the conquest of Cuitlahuac. Duran,
cap. xiv, states that his conquests included Chalco, Quauhnahuac, Huexotzinco,
and Coatlichan. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 228-9, 232-3; Torquemada,
tom. i., p. 157, and Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 236-7, place in Itzcoatl's reign the
origin of the troubles with Tlatelulco which will be spoken of hereafter.
According to the Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 44, Itzcoatl,
or Izcoaci, conquered 24 cities.




[VIII-13] Date, 1440. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xiv-xv.; Codex Mendoza, in
Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 45; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 150; Ixtlilxochitl,
pp. 249, 457; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 28; Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex.,
série iii., tom. iv., p. 239; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 211-12. Duran
also gives 1445 and Ixtlilxochitl 1441. 1436, Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 237-8;
Clavigero, tom. i., p. 229; Bustamante, Mañadas de la Alameda, tom. ii.,
p. 174. See also on the succession; Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. iii., lib. ii.,
cap. xiii.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 490-3; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii.,
p. 268; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 150, 171; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough,
vol. ix., p. 30; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 6; Gomara,
Conq. Mex., fol. 303.




[VIII-14] Veytia, tom. iii., p. 239; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 491; Herrera,
dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 29.




[VIII-15] See pp. 241-2, 250, 255, of this volume.




[VIII-16] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 213-17; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 239-40;
Clavigero, tom. i., p. 230; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 150-1; Duran, MS.
tom. i., cap. xvi. The latter author is careful to state that Montezuma
did not request, but simply ordered aid in building his temples from Tlacopan
and Tezcuco.




[VIII-17] Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 240-2; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 150-4; Clavigero,
tom. i., pp. 230-1; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 255-7, 467-8; Brasseur, Hist.,
tom. iii., pp. 217-24; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; Vetancvrt, Teatro,
pt ii., p. 29.




[VIII-18] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 156-7; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 232-3; Veytia,
tom. iii., pp. 242-3; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 224-5; Granados y Galvez,
Tardes Amer., p. 176; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 30; Sahagun, tom. ii.,
lib. viii., pp. 273-4.




[VIII-19] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 248; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 225. The former
author says that this conquest extended to Quauhchinanco and Xilotepec,
but implies that it took place immediately after the treaty with Tlascala,
which followed Nezahualcoyotl's accession to the Tezcucan throne.




[VIII-20] The towns mentioned as included in this conquest are Cohuixco,
Oztoman, Quetzaltepec, Ixcateopan, Teoxcahualco, Poctepec, Yauhtepec,
Yacapichtla, Totolapan, Tlachmalacac, Tlachco, Chilapan, Tomazolapan,
Quauhtepec, Ohuapan, Tzompahuacan, and Cozamaloapan. See Veytia,
tom. iii., p. 243; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 233; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 157;
Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 225-7; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 30; Ixtlilxochitl,
p. 249.




[VIII-21] Several authors give the dates as 1446. Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 247-8;
Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 233-4; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 157-8; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 228-32. This author gives the width of the dike as
about 30 feet. Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 30.




[VIII-22] 1448-54, Veytia; 1451-6, Brasseur; 1447-54, Codex Tell. Rem.; 1404-7
(1444-7?) 11 years after accession of Montezuma, Duran.




[VIII-23] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xviii., xix., xxx., says the snow fell knee-deep
in the valley. He also tells us that very many sold as slaves during
the famine were ransomed and returned afterwards; this, however, does
not apply to such as went to Totonacapan, since these remained in that
province. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 250-1, 257, says that the slaves sold to the
Totonacs were all sacrificed to secure a continuance of productiveness in
the province. This author also names Xicotencatl, a Tlascaltec noble,
as the person who suggested the battles for captives. Brasseur, Hist.,
tom. iii., pp. 232-6, implies that the name Totonacapan, 'region of our
subsistence,' was given on account of the events described, although the
same author has spoken frequently of the Totonacs at a period many centuries
earlier. See also, Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix, pp. 63-6;
Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 158, 171; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 233-5; Sahagun,
tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 269; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 248-9; Codex Tell. Rem., in
Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 150. Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 493, and Herrera,
dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii, merely state that it was agreed to reserve
Tlascala as a battle-field whereon to exercise the armies, and to obtain
captives. Torquemada throws some doubt on this agreement.




[VIII-24] Date, 1458-9, according to Brasseur; 1456 according to the other
authors. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxii., xxiii., and Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough,
vol. ix., pp. 51-3, say nothing of the aid rendered by the Tlascaltecs
and Huexotzincas. See also Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 236-7; Veytia,
tom. iii., pp. 249-51; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 237-52; Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 159-61; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 30-1.




[VIII-25] According to Veytia's chronology, this conquest took place in 1457;
Brasseur puts this and the following events in 1458-9. See Veytia, tom.
iii., pp. 251-3; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 467; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 237-8; Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 161-2; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 31; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 252-7; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxi., xxiv.; Tezozomoc,
in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 48-51, 53-6.




[VIII-26] On the conquest of Chalco, see Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xvi., xvii.;
Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 33-40; Clavigero, tom. i., pp.
238-40; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 258-61; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd.,
pp. 492-3; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; Veytia, tom. iii., pp.
253-4.




[VIII-27] According to the Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., pp.
150-1, the conquest of Goazacoalco took place about this time, in 1461. Ixtlilxochitl,
pp. 249-50, implies that the Tlascaltecs fought on the side of
Nezahualcoyotl in the conquest of Cuextlan. See Veytia, tom. iii., p. 254;
Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 493; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 240; Torquemada,
tom. i., p. 164; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 261-2, 267-9; Tezozomoc, in
Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 40-6; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 32; on the
commerce of the Aztecs, see vol. ii., pp. 378-99.




[VIII-28] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 232, states that the Tepanec princess was the
emperor's second wife; and Ixtlilxochitl implies that Nezahualpilli was
her second son. There is also no agreement respecting her name or that
of her father and husband. All agree that this child was born in 1464 or
1465. See Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 253-4, 257, 467; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 244-6;
Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 271-3; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 154-6;
Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 29-30.




[VIII-29] Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 151; Brasseur, Hist.,
tom. iii., p. 277.




[VIII-30] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 277-80; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 257.




[VIII-31] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxvii.




[VIII-32] 1464, Veytia; 1468, Vetancvrt, Ixtlilxochitl, and Boturini; 1469,
Ixtlilxochitl, Brasseur, Codex Chimalp., Codex Tell. Rem., Codex Mendoza.




[VIII-33] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxviii-xxix., xxxi-ii., and Tezozomoc, in
Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 58-63, 66, attribute to Montezuma I. the conquest
of Oajaca, and the establishment there of a Mexican colony. They
may refer to the conquest of the land of the Miztecs already related, or to
that of more southern parts of Oajaca at a later period. They also state
that Axayacatl was the son of Montezuma. Duran tells us that Montezuma
before his death had his image sculptured on the cliff at Chapultepec;
and that Axayacatl was nominated king by Tlacaeleltzin, who declined the
throne. The Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., pp. 45-6, followed
by Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 150, give the number of provinces conquered
by Montezuma as thirty-three. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 257, 457, says Montezuma
left several sons. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 169, 172, says he left one,
not named, but that he disinherited him for the good of the nation. Acosta,
Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 493, 495, and Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii., make
Tizoc precede Axayacatl, both being sons of Montezuma. Camargo, in
Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 178, makes Ahuitzotl precede Axayacatl.
Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 32, says that Axayacatl, Tizoc, and Ahuitzotl
were sons of Montezuma's uncle by a daughter of Itzcoatl. Motolinia, in
Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 6, and Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 303,
represent Montezuma as having been succeeded by his daughter. See also
on the death and character of Montezuma I., and the accession of Axayacatl:—Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 280-2; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 241; Veytia,
tom. iii., pp. 254-5; Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. iv., p.
240; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., pp. 149, 151; Sahagun,
tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 268-9.




[VIII-34] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxii., says that the first five years of Axayacatl's
reign were undisturbed by war. See on the Tehuantepec raid and
the Coronation: Torquemada, tom. i., p. 172; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii.,
pp. 283-7; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 32; Clavigero, tom., i. pp. 241-2;
Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 496-7. Veytia, tom. iii., p. 256, and Clavigero
speak of wars in the first years of his reign against the revolting
provinces of Cuetlachtlan and Tochtepec.




[VIII-35] Date according to the Spanish writers, 1468. According to the Codex
Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 150, Huexotzinco had seized upon
the province of Atlixco in 1456, driving away the people of Guacachula,
the former possessors. Only Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 172-3, and Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 287-8, mention the apparition of Tezcatlipoca.
See also Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 242, 248; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 256-7; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., pp. 32-3.




[VIII-36] Date 1469 according to Spanish writers; 1470 according to Codex
Chimalpopoca. Veytia, tom. iii., p. 261; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 288;
Clavigero, tom. i., p. 242; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 173; Vetancvrt, Teatro,
pt ii., p. 32.




[VIII-37] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 288.




[VIII-38] See vol. ii., pp. 246-7, 294, 471-2, 491-7.




[VIII-39] Date 1470, Ortega and Clavigero; 1462 or 1472, Ixtlilxochitl; 1472,
Codex Chimalpopoca.




[VIII-40] On the character and death of Nezahualcoyotl, and the succession
of Nezahualpilli, see: Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 254-62, 408-9, 467-8; Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 156, 164-9, 173-4; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 232, 242-8; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 288-301; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 33-4;
Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 247, 261-7.




[VIII-41] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 176. The author says, however, that the
province was 'on the coast of Anáhuac.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp.
301-2.




[VIII-42] Authorities on the Tlatelulca war:—Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxii-xxxiv.;
Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 66-76; Torquemada, tom.
i., pp. 176-80; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 269, 274; Veytia, tom. iii., pp.
256-61; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 302-15; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 248-52;
Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 34-5; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer.,
pp. 176-8; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 150; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 498;
Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiv.; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 262-3; Gallatin, in
Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 120.




[VIII-43] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 180-1; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 263-4, 458; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., p. 35; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 316-17.




[VIII-44] According to the Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p.
151, this war and earthquake took place in 1462. Torquemada, tom. i.,
pp. 181-2, places them in the sixth year of Axayacatl's reign. Duran,
MS., tom. i., cap. xxxv.-xxxvi., and Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol.
ix., pp. 76-82, state that Tlilcuetzpalin escaped. See also, Ixtlilxochitl,
p. 264; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 252-3; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 317-22;
Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 267-8; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. iv., cap. xviii.; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., p. 35.




[VIII-45] Most of the details of this war are from Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii.,
pp. 322-5. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxvii.-viii., and Tezozomoc, in
Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 82-7, state simply that to procure victims for
the dedication of a new sacrificial stone, the Aztecs marched to the borders
of Michoacan and were defeated by superior numbers, returning to
Mexico. The victims were finally obtained at Tliliuquitepec. Other
authors represent the Aztecs as victorious, they having added to their
possessions Tochpan, Tototlan, Tlaximaloyan, Ocuillan, and Malacatepec.
See Torquemada, tom. i., p. 182; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 253; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., pp. 35-6; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 151.




[VIII-46] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 253, gives the date 1477. According to the Codex
Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 47, it was 1482. All the other authorities
agree on 1481. See on family, character, and death of Axayacatl,
and succession of Tizoc: Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 269-71; Duran, MS., tom.
i., cap. xxxviii-ix.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 88-91, 143;
Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 264-5; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 182; Vetancvrt, Teatro,
pt ii., p. 36; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 494-5; Sigüenza, in Doc. Hist.
Mex., série iii., tom. i., p. 70; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; Gallatin,
in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 164.




[IX-1] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 93-8; Duran, MS., tom. i.,
cap. xl.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 495; Brasseur, Hist., tom. i., pp.
326-31; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 265-6.




[IX-2] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 182.




[IX-3] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 263, 269-70, 410; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 183-4;
Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 254-5; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 331-4; Veytia,
tom. iii., pp. 272-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 36. Several authors attribute
the completion of the temple to Ahuitzotl.




[IX-4] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xl.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 495; Herrera,
dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 271, 276-8; Clavigero,
tom. i., pp. 253-4, 256. This author gives the date as 1482. Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 182-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 36-7; Sahagun, tom. ii.,
lib. viii., p. 269; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 334-5; Codex Tell. Rem., in
Kingsborough, vol. vi., p. 141, date 1487; Tezozomoc, in Id., vol. ix., pp.
98-100; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 265, 267; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol.
v., pp. 47-8. Ixtlilxochitl claims that Tizoc died a natural death, and that
Techotl died during his reign.




[IX-5] See vol. iv., pp. 377-84.




[IX-6] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 337-40, tells us that the Xiquipilco campaign
furnished captives for the coronation, while the products of the
other wars were reserved for the dedication. Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough,
vol. ix., pp. 99-108, speaks of the conquest of some city in Chiapas; while
Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 499, states that a place called Quaxutatlan
was taken by means of an artificial floating island. It is impossible to
form from the authorities any idea of these wars and their chronological
order. See, Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xli.-ii.; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 467; Sigüenza,
in Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. i., p. 72; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt
ii., p. 37; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 257; Veytia, tom. iii., p. 278; Torquemada,
tom. i., p. 186.




[IX-7] On the dedication, see vol. ii., p. 577; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 268; Duran,
MS., tom. i., cap. xliii-iv.; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i.,
p. 254; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 257; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 186; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., p. 37; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 152;
Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 341-5. Considering the number of the victims
sacrificed, it is probably more correct to suppose that several sacrificers
were occupied at the same time.




[IX-8] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. iii., pp. 345-6; with reference to Torquemada,
tom. i. lib. ii., cap. lxiii. which contains nothing on the subject.




[IX-9] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 109-12, 154, places the
Cuextlan war before the dedication, and calls Chimalpopoca's successor
Tlaltecatzin. See also Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 269-70; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., pp. 37-8; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 187; Veytia, tom. iii., pp.
294-5; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 345-7; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 258; Ixtlilxochitl,
p. 268.




[IX-10] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 187, 191; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 258-9; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 348-9; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 295-6; Duran, MS.,
tom. i., cap. xl.; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 152.




[IX-11] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 278-80; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp.
349-52.




[IX-12] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 120-7; Duran, MS., tom.
i., cap. xliv., tom. ii., cap. xlv.; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 352-5. This
author also refers to Torquemada and Ixtlilxochitl, who have nothing to say
of this war and colony, although the latter, p. 271, speaks of the conquest
of Zapotlan and Xaltepec, which may have been in the same campaign.




[IX-13] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 271.




[IX-14] Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. ix., pp. 337-8.




[IX-15] Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 151. The date is put
at 1494 by this document.




[IX-16] See vol. iv., pp. 368-71
.




[IX-17] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 367, et seq.




[IX-18] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 355-62.




[IX-19] Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. ix., p. 337, et seq.




[IX-20] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 367-76.




[IX-21] Burgoa, as in note 20; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 362-9. A full
account, mostly from Burgoa, is given in the Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom.
vii., pp. 167, 175-7, 183-7. Other authorities touch very vaguely upon the
events related above; most of them utterly ignoring the defeat of the
Aztecs. Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. xlvi-vii., liv-v., puts the marriage in
Montezuma's reign, and says that the Tehuantepec king was told by his
wife of the plot against his life by 10,000 soldiers who had entered the capital
in small groups as guests; he caused the whole 10,000 to be put to
death. According to the Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p.
153, the king of Tehuantepec never afterwards allowed a Mexican to set
foot in his country. This document makes Pelaxilla a daughter of Montezuma.
Clavigero, tom. i., p. 262, says that the Aztec forces penetrated
Guatemala at this time, referring to the Xuchiltepec campaign. Ixtlilxochitl,
pp. 268, 271-2, states that the allies took 17,400 captives from the
Zapotecs in 1499. According to Remesal, Hist. Chyapa, p. 2, Chiapas was
made tributary to Mexico about 1498. See also for slight references to
events that may be connected with these campaigns in the south-west. Tezozomoc,
in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 127-37; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 193;
Piñeda, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., p. 347.




[IX-22] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 270-1.




[IX-23] On the family affairs of Nezahualpilli, see Torquemada, tom. i., p.
184; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 255-6; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 372-5;
Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 265, 267, 271-2; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 36-7; Veytia,
tom. iii., pp. 275-6.




[IX-24] Vol. ii., pp. 446-50.




[IX-25] For these and other anecdotes of Nezahualpilli, see:—Ixtlilxochitl,
pp. 267, 273-7; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. 1.; Torquemada, tom. i., pp.
180-90; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 385-92; Granados y Galvez, Tardes
Amer., pp. 48-9.




[IX-26] Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 259-60; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 191; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 375-7; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 296-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro,
pt ii., p. 38.




[IX-27] Respecting this flood, see: Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 272-3; Tezozomoc, in
Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 137-41; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 192-3, 293;
Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 377-82; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xlviii.-ix.;
Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 299-302; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 260-2; Sahagun, tom.
ii., lib. viii., p. 269; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 38-9; Acosta, Hist. de
las Ynd., pp. 500-1; Bustamante, Mañanas, tom. ii., pp. 208-9; vol. ii., p.
566 of this work.




[IX-28] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 193; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 262. In the Codex
Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 48, is given a list of forty-five
towns conquered by Ahuitzotl.




[IX-29] Clavigero and Vetancvrt make the date 1502. Ixtlilxochitl in one
place, p. 457, says 1505.




[IX-30] Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. li-v., states that the first wars were directed
against Nopallan, Icpatepec, and Toltepec; and that during the
campaign Montezuma ordered the death of the tutors of his children and
the attendants of his wives. Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp.
141-53, adds Huitzpac and Tepeaca to the towns mentioned by Duran.
See also on death of Ahuitzotl and accession of Montezuma II.: Clavigero,
tom. i., pp. 262-7; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 193-5; Veytia, tom. iii.,
pp. 303-9; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 382-97; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 265, 277,
457; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 501-6; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap.
xiv.; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 29; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough,
vol. v., pp. 51-2; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 303; Sigüenza, in Doc. Hist.
Mex., série iii., tom. i., pp. 74-6.




[IX-31] See on the policy and government of Montezuma II., vol. ii. of this
work, passim; also, Duran, MS. tom., ii., cap. liii.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough,
vol. ix., pp. 145-6; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 278; Clavigero, tom. i., pp.
267-75; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 309-19; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 398-402;
Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 196, 205-6; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 505-7;
Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. vi., p. 14; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii.,
p. 39; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiv.; Villa-Señor y Sanchez, Theatro,
tom. i., pp. 4-5.




[IX-32] Camargo says the combined armies were beaten at this battle. Torquemada
places the event in the third year of Montezuma's reign. Ixtlilxochitl,
Duran, and Tezozomoc represent Tlacahuepantzin as the brother
of Montezuma, and Ixtlilxochitl implies that he was sent to this war,
placed in 1508, in the hope of his death. This brother is perhaps the
same person spoken of by Ixtlilxochitl on p. 443. Duran and Tezozomoc
seem to regard this as a war against Cholula and Huexotzinco.




[IX-33] On the war with Tlascala, see: Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 275-80; Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 197-203; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 320-7; Brasseur, Hist.,
tom. iii., pp. 402-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 40-1; Camargo, in Nouvelles
Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 178-86; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lvii-lxi.;
Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 271, 278; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp.
160-78; Oviedo, tom. iii., p. 497.




[IX-34] This famine occurred in the third year of Montezuma's reign, according
to Clavigero; in fourth year, as Torquemada says; and Ixtlilxochitl
puts it in 1505 and 1506. See Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 203-4, 235. Ixtlilxochitl,
p. 278; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 282-3; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii.,
p. 41; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 409-10; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 331-2;
Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 270; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough,
vol. v., p. 153.




[IX-35] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 283; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 332-4; Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 204, 207; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 41; Brasseur, Hist., tom.
iii., pp. 410-11; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. lv., lix.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough,
vol. ix., pp. 170-1.




[IX-36] Ixtlilxochitl says the war was afterwards carried into Guatemala and
Nicaragua. Brasseur tells us that the treacherous Cozcaquauhtli was
made king of Cohuaixtlahuacan; others say ruler of Tzotzolan. According
to Torquemada, the war was in the fifth year of the reign, and preceded
by an eclipse of the sun. Tezozomoc refers to a campaign against Xaltepec
and Cuatzonteccan in Tehuantepec. Vetancvrt gives as the date the seventh
year of the reign. Clavigero makes Cozcaquauhtli the brother of Nahuixochitl.
See Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 196-7, 207-9, 215; Clavigero, tom.
i., pp. 275, 283-4; Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 166-7;
Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 41-2; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 411-17;
Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 153-6, 162-4, 180; Ixtlilxochitl,
pp. 279-80; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 334-7, 359; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxv.




[IX-37] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 278, speaks of a conquest of Zocolan in 1506, and of
Totecpec in 1507. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. lv., speaks of the conquest,
at about this time, of Quatzoutlan and Toltepec, where Montezuma ordered
that all persons over fifty years of age should be put to death. Clavigero,
tom. i., pp. 284-6; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 337-40; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii.,
pp. 417-20; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 209-10.




[IX-38] The lighting of the new fire took place at midnight, March 21-2,
1507, at the beginning of the year 2 Acatl, between the days 7 Tochtli and
8 Acatl. Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 423. The Codex
Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., pp. 153-4, says that the tie of the
years had usually taken place in 1 Tochtli (1506), but was changed by
Montezuma to 2 Acatl (1507). Most other authors name 1506 as the year
of the fête; but perhaps they mean simply that 1 Tochtli the last of the
seventh cycle corresponds for the most part, although not exactly of course,
to 1506. See Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., série iii., tom. iv., p. 240; Veytia,
tom. iii., p. 340; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 210-11; Clavigero, tom. i.,
pp. 285-6; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 41; see also vol. ii., p. 341, and vol.
iii., pp. 393-6.




[IX-39] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 427-8, names Macuilmalinatzin, the
brother of Montezuma, among the killed, and applies, probably with some
reason, to this war the suspicions of Ixtlilxochitl, respecting foul play on
the part of the Mexican king already referred to—(see note 32). See also:
Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 343-4; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 211; Clavigero, tom.
i., p. 286; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 278-9; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix.,
pp. 171, 177; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 41-2; Codex Tell. Rem., in
Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 154; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxii.




[IX-40] Ixtlilxochitl dates the Amatlan war in 1514; Brasseur puts the war in
1510; Torquemada denies that the comet had three heads.




[IX-41] This was very likely the occasion already noted when the Tlatelulcas
rushed into the city, supposing it to be invaded.




[IX-42] See pp. 422-4, of this volume; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 213.




[IX-43] Clavigero throws discredit on Boturini's version; I find it difficult to
feel implicit faith in that of Clavigero.




[IX-44] Torquemada says in 1499.




[IX-45] On these evil omens, see Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 278-80; Veytia, tom. iii.,
pp. 344-59; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 211-14, 233-9; Clavigero, tom. i., pp.
286-92; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 42-3, 126; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough,
vol. ix., pp. 177-8, 183-9; Codex Tell. Rem., in Id., vol. v., p. 154;
Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. viii., ix.; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp.
428-41; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 510-14; Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales,
tom. xcix., pp. 139-40; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxiii., lxvi-ix.;
Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 270-1; Boturini, Catálogo, pp. 27-8.




[IX-46] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 214; Veytia, tom. iii., p. 361; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., p. 42.




[IX-47] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. iii., pp. 442-7, reference to Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan.




[IX-48] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 280-1.




[IX-49] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 168, 181-3; Clavigero, tom.
i., p. 293; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 214-15; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap.
lxvi.; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 448-50; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap.
viii.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 511; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 42-3.




[IX-50] It is impossible here to distinguish between references to Tututepec
in Oajaca, and Tototepec, or Totoltepec, north-east of Mexico. The Codex
Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 154, mentions in 1512 the conquest
of Quimichintepec and Nopala, towards Tototepec, and also that the stones
in that year threw out smoke which reached the skies. The same authority
records the conquest of Tututepec on the Pacific, and an earthquake in
1513; the conquest of Hayocingo in 1514, and that of Itzlaquetlaloca in
1515. See Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 278-80, 283-4. This writer also mentions the
wars of Mictlanzinco and Xaltaianquizco as among the last waged by the
Aztec monarchs. Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lvi. Clavigero, tom. i., pp.
293-4; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 359-60; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 214-5; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., p. 42.




[IX-51] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 218-19; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 361-3.




[IX-52] Vol. ii., pp. 93-5.




[IX-53] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 280, gives the southern boundaries as Huimolan,
Acalan, Vera Paz, and Nicaragua; the northern as the Gulf of California
and Pánuco; makes the empire cover all the ancient Toltec territory, and
incorrectly includes besides the north-western states, those of Tabasco
and Guatemala. Herrera, dec. ii., lib. vii., cap. xiii; lib. ix., cap. i.; agrees
with the limits I have given, and shows that Goazacoalco and Tabasco
never belonged to the empire. Aztecs never subdued the region about
Zacatecas. Arlegui, Chrón. Zacatecas, p. 9. Clavigero, tom. iv., pp. 267-9,
tells us that the empire stretched on the Pacific from Soconusco to Colima;
that Chiapas was only held by a few garrisons on the frontier; that the
province of Tollan was the north-western limit; Tusapan the north-eastern,
Pánuco and the Huastecs never having been subdued; Goazacoalco was the
south-eastern bound.




[IX-54] On Nezahualpilli's death see:—Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 216-17; Ixtlilxochitl,
pp. 282, 388, 410; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 452-5; Duran,
MS., tom. ii., cap. lxiv.; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 363-4; Clavigero, tom. i., pp.
294-5; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 178-9. Several authors
make the date 1516; Duran says ten years before the coming of the Spaniards,
or in 1509.




[IX-55] See p. 451 of this volume.




[IX-56] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 282-3, 410, and Torquemada, tom. i., p. 221, are the
chief authorities on the succession of Cacama. The former records a report,
which he doubts, that Nezahualpilli before his death indicated as his
successor a younger son, Yoiontzin. He implies that Cacama was an illegitimate
son and had no claim to the throne, but was forced on the Acolhua
nobles against their will by Montezuma. Torquemada, on the other hand,
makes Cacama the oldest son and legitimate heir, not mentioning the existence
of Tetlahuehuetquizitzin, and does not imply that Montezuma
had any undue influence in the choice of a new king. Duran, MS., tom.
ii., cap. lxiv., and Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 179, give an
entirely different version of the matter. They say that the Acolhua lords
were summoned to Mexico and invited by Montezuma to select their new
king. When they told him there were five competent sons—only two of
whose names, Cohuanacoch and Ixtlilxochitl, are identical with those
named by other authorities—he advised the election of Quetzalacxoyatl,
who was therefore elected and proved a faithful subject of the Mexican
king. He only lived a few days, however, and was succeeded by his
brother Tlahuitoltzin, and he, after a few years, by Cohuanacoch, during
whose reign the Spaniards arrived. See also, Brasseur, Hist., tom. iv.,
pp. 14-21; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 367-9; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 297-9; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., pp. 43-4; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. i., cap. i.




[IX-57] On the voyage of Córdova, see: Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 349-51;
Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 3-8; Peter Martyr, dec. iv., lib. i-ii.; Herrera,
dec. ii., lib. ii., cap. xvii.; Bernal Diaz, Hist. Conq., fol. 1-5; Stephens'
Yucatan, vol. i., pp. 49-52; Prescott's Mex., vol. i., pp. 222-4; Gomara,
Hist. Ind., fol. 60-1.




[IX-58] On Ixtlilxochitl's revolt and the treaty with Cacama, see: Veytia,
tom. iii., pp. 369-75; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 299-302; Torquemada, tom. i.,
pp. 223-7; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iv., pp. 21-3, 36-7; Vetancvrt, Teatro,
pt ii., p. 44; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 283-4.




[IX-59] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 189-91; Tezozomoc,
in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 172-5; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 197, 201,
228; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iv., pp. 23-7; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 280-2;
Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 325, 328-31, 375-6; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp.
45-6.




[IX-60] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 34-6.




[IX-61] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 228; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 376-7; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., p. 46.




[IX-62] On Grijalva's voyage, see:—Diaz, Itinerario, in Icazbalceta, Col. de
Doc., tom. i., pp. 281-307; Bernal Diaz, Hist. Conq., fol. 6-11; Peter
Martyr, dec. iv., lib. iii-iv.; Navarrete, Col. de Viages, tom. iii., pp.
55-64; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 811, 568; Herrera, dec. ii., lib. iii., cap.
i-ii.; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 351-8; Prescott's Mex., vol. i., pp. 224-8.




[IX-63] Torquemada, tom., i., pp. 378-80; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 515-16;
Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 377-8; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxix-lxx.; Tezozomoc,
in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 189-94; Herrera, dec. ii., lib. iii.,
cap. ix.




[X-1] Historia Tulteca, Peintures et Annales, en langue nahutl, coll. Aubin.




[X-2] See Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 361-3.




[X-3] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 150, vaguely mentions
an expedition said to have been made to Cholula under chiefs bearing similar
names to the above, but he gives no details or dates.




[X-4] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 363-70.




[X-5] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 138-9, 145-6.




[X-6] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 108-9.




[X-7] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 142-7; Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 260-1; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 154; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp.
357-60.




[X-8] Spelled Tetliyucatl by Camargo. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 262, says
that a separation took place previously at Tepapayecan. Camargo, in
Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 150, may possibly imply the same, but
he is very confused at this point.




[X-9] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 262. Camargo says that Coatepec was
founded in the province of Quauhquelchula by the three last named
chiefs; this is, however, probably a mistake of the French translator.
Brasseur says Coatepec 'se soumettait à Quetzalxiuhtli.' Hist., tom. ii.,
p. 372.




[X-10] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 373, calls this chief Quauhtliztac.




[X-11] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 151-2. These
chiefs were named Totolohuizil and Quetzaltehuyacixcotl, and are the
same as those mentioned by Camargo on p. 150, as having arrived at Cholula
in the year 1 Acatl. They are also identical with the Chichimec-Toltec
chiefs who, according to Brasseur's account, already recorded, conquered
Cholula by a stratagem soon after the Toltec fall. See ante, pp. 485-6.
Speaking of their visit to the Teo-Chichimecs at Necapahuazcan, Brasseur,
Hist., tom. ii., p. 372, calls them the "nouveaux seigneurs de Cholula."
But it is evident from the context that Camargo does not regard them as
such, notwithstanding what he has said about their arrival in 1 Acatl.




[X-12] Called 'Colhua-Teuctli-Quanez, le vainqueur de Poyauhtlan,' and
Culhua-Teuctli, by Brasseur; and Culhuatecuhtli and Aculhua Tecuhtli by
Camargo.




[X-13] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 136, 152-4, 164;
Veytia, tom. ii., p. 175; Herrera, dec. ii., lib. vi., cap. xii; Torquemada,
tom. i., p. 263.




[X-14] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 154.




[X-15] Brasseur writes Xicochimalco.




[X-16] 'Coxcoxtli, roi de Culhuacan, qui gouvernait alors, avec ses propres
états, les Mexicains établis dans le voisinage de sa capitale, et les Tépanèques
d'Azcapotzalco, est le seul prince à qui se puisse rapporter l'événement
dont il s'agit ici, Tezozomoc n'ayant régné que beaucoup plus tard.'
Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 409; see also note on p. 410 of same work.
Camargo says that Xiuhtlehui sent for aid to 'Matlatlihuitzin, qui régnait
alors à Mexico.' Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 156. Veytia, tom. ii.,
pp. 197-201, states that he sent to Acamapichtli II, Matlatlihuitzin being
probably a surname borne by that prince. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 264-5,
and Clavigero, tom. i., p. 155, agree with Camargo in the name, but speak
of the prince as being Tepanec.




[X-17] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. cxviii., pp. 154-63; Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 264-8; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 154-5; Veytia, tom. ii.,
pp. 200-12; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 405-18.




[X-18] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 418-19.




[X-19] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 349, writes Iztamatzin,
and on p. 216, Yztacima.




[X-20] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 154-5; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix.,
pp. 216, 349.




[X-21] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 419-20.




[X-22] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 164. Veytia, tom.
ii., p. 213, considers this account wrong. Culhua Tecuhtli Quanez, he
says, who is Xiuhquetzaltzin, the younger brother of Quinantzin of Tezcuco,
had no brother by that name, or, none who would have joined him in Tlascala—he
disregards the fact, as related by himself, that Xiuhquetzaltzin
must have ruled over a hundred years already. It is therefore much more
probable, as related by other writers, he continues, that Quanez left his
own district of Tepeticpac or Texcalticpac to his eldest son, as will be
seen, and Ocotelulco to his second son, Cuicuetzcatl, 'swallow;' he ruled
jointly with his brother, and left the succession to his son Papalotl, 'butterfly,'
who was followed by his brother Teyohualminqui, the above-named
personage. He thinks the above two rulers have been omitted because of
their brief rule. Others, he continues, relate that Mitl divided the rule
with his brother. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 344, says that the Tlascaltec rulers descended
from Xiuhguzaltzin. Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 143, though he
cites Camargo as his authority, states that Quanez associated his brother
with himself on the throne, and divided the town and territory of Tlascala
with him. Teyohualminqui then chose Ocotelulco as his place of residence.




[X-23] Called also Tlapitzahuacan.




[X-24] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 165-72.




[X-25] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 143-4, makes Tzompane, Xayacamachan,
and Tepolohua, one and the same person. Camargo, as we have
seen, speaks of them as father and son. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 275,
combines two of the names, Xayacamachantzompane.




[X-26] See vol. ii. of this work, p. 141.




[X-27] See pp. 387-8, of this volume.




[X-28] Id., p. 414.




[X-29] Id., p. 416.




[X-30] Id., p. 417.




[X-31] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 269.




[X-32] See this vol., p. 426.




[X-33] Id., pp. 437-8.




[X-34] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 178.




[X-35] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 341.




[X-36] See this vol., p. 443.




[X-37] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 191; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 38; Clavigero,
tom. i., pp. 259-60; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 375-7; Veytia,
tom. iii., pp. 297-9.




[X-38] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 178-80; Torquemada,
tom. i., pp. 197-9; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 275-8; Brasseur, Hist.,
tom. iii., pp. 402-5.




[X-39] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 200-1; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 40. According
to Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 182-3, and
Clavigero, tom. i., p. 278, the Tlascaltecs were beaten on this occasion.




[X-40] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 183; Clavigero, tom.
i., p. 279; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 200; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 40;
Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 406. These authorities say that the Mexican
general was Montezuma's eldest son. But Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough,
vol. ix., p. 271; and Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lvii., Tezozomoc, in Id.,
p. 160; say that he was Montezuma's brother.




[X-41] Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 278-80; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 201-2; Vetancvrt,
Teatro, pt ii., p. 40; Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii.,
p. 183; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 324-5. Tlacahuepantzin is regarded by Clavigero
as a man appointed to the generalship on account of his birth, and
not because he possessed any military ability. Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap.
lvii., who makes this a war between Huexotzinco and Mexico, states that
he performed wonders on the battlefield, killing over fifty men, but was
captured and killed on the field, in accordance with his own request; the
body was preserved as the relic of a hero. Other brothers of Montezuma
were also killed, and many captives carried to Huexotzinco. Tezozomoc,
in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 160-1, adds that the Aztecs were only one to
twenty in number, and that 40,000 warriors fell in the fight. Shortly after,
continues Tezozomoc, Ixtlilcuechahuac of Tollan, aided by Aztec troops
under three of Montezuma's cousins attacked the Huexotzincas again; the
three cousins were killed, with most of their troops, and the lord of Tollan,
who was conspicuous in his fine dress, was also slain; but the Chalcas coming
up, the victory turned and the Huexotzincas were compelled to retreat.
Id., pp. 165-6; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lviii. After this, the Cholultecs,
who had never yet had a war with the Mexicans, says Duran, challenged
that people to fight a battle, 'to give pleasure to the god of battle and to
the sun.' The Mexicans and their allies who, according to Tezozomoc,
were opposed by six times the number of Cholultecs, aided by Huexotzincas
and Atlixcas, lost 8,200 men; whereupon the fight was discontinued,
and the Aztecs went home to mourn. Tezozomoc, pp. 169-70; Duran, MS.,
tom. ii., cap. lix. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 278, seems to refer to this battle when
he says that Montezuma II. agreed with the Atlixcas to leave Macuilmalinatzin,
the true heir to the Mexican throne, in the lurch. He accordingly
perished with 2,800 of his warriors. Nezahualpilli composed a scathing
poem, denouncing this act as a base assassination.




[X-42] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 172-4; Duran, MS., tom.
ii., cap. lx.; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 280; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 325-6.




[X-43] The truth of this bombastic assertion the Tlascaltec historian, Camargo,
denies, and doubtless with reason; as it would be absurd to suppose
that the Aztecs would have permitted the existence of such a formidable
enemy at their very doors if they could have helped it. Besides, we have
seen how often they did their best to subdue Tlascala and failed.




[X-44] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 202-3; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 326-7; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 407-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 41; Duran, MS.,
tom. ii., cap. lxi; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 176-8; Clavigero,
tom. i., p. 280; Oviedo, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., p. 497; Camargo, in
Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 184-6.




[X-45] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 209-10; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 284-5; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 418-20; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 338-40.




[X-46] See this vol., p. 464.




[X-47] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 280-1, the Tezcucan historian, is the only authority
for this account, and it is probable enough that he has exaggerated Montezuma's
treachery.




[X-48] For etymology of this name, see vol. ii., p. 130.




[X-49] Several names of places in the country were, however, of Aztec
origin, and even the name Michoacan, 'place of fish,' is derived from the
Aztec words michin and can. Beaumont, Crón. Mechoacan, MS., p. 47,
says that the original name of the country was Tzintzuntzan, but he translates
this, 'town of green birds.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 52, says
Michoacan was 'le nom que les Mexicains donnaient à la région des Tarasques.'




[X-50] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 214, mentions a Toltec
party that emigrated to the Michoacan region, and dwelt there for a long
time. Sahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 145-6, refers to a Toltec migration
as an issue from the same region. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 39-40, speaks of Toltecs
who founded colonies all along the Pacific coast, and gradually changed
their language and customs.




[X-51] Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp. 120, 141.




[X-52] Gil, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. viii., pp. 500-1.




[X-53] See this vol. p. 328.




[X-54] See also Tello's version of Aztec settlement given by Gil, in Soc.
Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. viii., p. 501.




[X-55] Hist. Gen., dec. iii., lib. iii., cap. ix.




[X-56] Hist., tom. iii., pp. 55-6.




[X-57] Called Chichimecas vanáceos by Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom.
i., p. 266.




[X-58] 'Chaque tribu, chaque famille, souvent chaque personne avait son
dieu ou ses génies particuliers à peu près comme les teraphim de Laban
qu'enlevait à l'insu sa fille Rachel.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 61.




[X-59] Beaumont, Crón. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 48, 63.




[X-60] Beltrami, Mexique, tom. ii., p. 54. The first name given to the town
was Guayangareo, says Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., p. 184. Padre
Larrea translates Tzintzuntzan, 'town of green birds,' and the town was so
called, he says, from the form of the idol. Beaumont calls it also Chincila
and Huitzitzilaque. Crón. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 43, 46-7.




[X-61] Also known as Chiguangua, Chiguacua, and Tzihuanga.




[X-62] Also, Sintzicha Tangajuan, 'he of the fine teeth.'




[X-63] Beaumont, Crón. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 44-5, 68-9, 75. Herrera, dec.
iii., lib. iii., cap. viii., translates Cazonzin by 'old sandals,' saying that
the name was bestowed upon the king as a nick-name because of the
shabby dress in which he appeared before Cortés. According to Alegre,
Hist. Comp. de Jesus, tom. i., p. 91, Caltzontzin was the name given to
Zintzicha by the Spaniards. Beltrami, Mexique, tom. ii., p. 44, writes the
name Sinzincha. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 338, calls him Caczoltzin. Granados
y Galvez, Tardes Amer., pp. 184-6, writes Caltzontzin or Cinzica.
'Les relations et les histoires relatives au Michoacan donnent toutes au roi
des Tarasques le titre ou le nom de Cazontzin. Était-ce un titre? c'est incertain.
Torquemada ne sait ce qu'il doit en penser.' Brasseur, Hist., tom.
iii., p. 78. Cazonzi 'paraît être une corruption tarasque du mot nahuatl
Caltzontzin, Chef ou tête de la maison.' Id., tom. iv., p. 363.




[X-64] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 66-7, renders this passage very ambiguously.
'Ce fut en ce lieu (Patamagua Nacaraho) que les dieux, frères de
Curicaneri, se séparèrent; chacun des chefs chichimèques, prenant le sien,
alla se fixer au lieu que la victoire lui donna. Pour lui, continuant le
cours de ses conquêtes, il chassa tour à tour le gibier sur les terres voisines,
passant d'une montagne à l'autre, et jetant la terreur dans les populations
d'alentour.'




[X-65] 'Patzcuaro veut évidemment dire le lieu de temples; cu ou cua, dans la
langue tarasque, comme dans la langue yucatèque.' Brasseur, Hist., tom.
iii., p. 72.




[X-66] Pimentel, Cuadro, tom. i., p. 499; Beaumont, Crón. Mechoacan, MS.,
pp. 61-2, quoting Basalenque, Hist. Mech., lib. i., cap. xv.




[X-67] Beaumont, Crón. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 60-61. Granados, p. 185, refers
to a seven years' struggle, which may be the same as the above. The
records indicate two great battles at Tajimaroa and Zichu.




[X-68] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 150; Alcedo, Dicc., tom. iii., p. 461; Pimentel,
Cuadro, tom. i., p. 499. See also this vol., pp. 432-5. Sahagun, tom. iii.,
lib. x., p. 129.




[X-69] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 51-78; Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex.,
tom. i., pp. 264-85.




[X-70] Also spelled Tzihuanga, see note 62.




[X-71] See this vol., pp. 477-8. Beaumont says that Tlahuicol gained nothing
during his six months' campaign except some booty, and he doubts
whether that was much, as along the frontier there was little to be had.
Crón. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 59-60.




[X-72] He bore the title of Caltzontzin. See note 63. Brasseur says he was
also called Gwangwa Pagua, Hist., tom. iii., p. 78.




[X-73] Beaumont, Crón. Mechoacan, MS., p. 68.




[X-74] Crón. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 71-3.




[X-75] See vol. iii. of this work, p. 446.




[X-76] For boundaries of Miztecapan, see ante, vol. i., p. 678.




[X-77] See vol. i., p. 679, for boundaries.




[X-78] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., pp. 195-6; Murguia,
Estadist. Guajaca, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii., p. 167.




[X-79] Orozco y Berra, Geografía, p. 133; Veytia, tom. i., p. 150.




[X-80] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 32; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 299; Motolinia,
in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 8; Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca,
tom. ii., pt i., p. 175; Sahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., p. 136; Orozco y Berra,
Geografía, p. 120.




[X-81] Hist., tom. iii., p. 5.




[X-82] Brasseur, citing Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol.
128-9, says they were male and female, and from them descended the race
that subsequently governed the country. Hist., tom. iii., p. 6; García,
Orígen de los Ind., pp. 327-8.




[X-83] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., pp. 128, 175-6; Orozco
y Berra, Geografía, p. 80, says this story is merely invented to show the
great age of the Miztecs. See also ante, vol. iii., p. 73.




[X-84] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 128-9. Orozco y
Berra, Geografía, p. 126, says the Zapotecs took their region by force of
arms from the Huatiquimanes, or Guanitiquimanes.




[X-85] Hist., tom. iii., pp. 8-9.




[X-86] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 255; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi.; Veytia,
tom. i., p. 164; Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol.
297-8, 343-5.




[X-87] See vol. ii. of this work, pp. 209-11.




[X-88] 'De allà de la Costa del Sur, mas cerca de la Eclyptica vezindad del
Perù, y segun las circunstancias de su lengua, y trato de la Provincia ò
Reyno de Nicarahua.' Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol.
396; Murguia, Estadist. Guajaca, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii.,
p. 183; Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp. 173-4. See also Mühlenpfordt,
Mejico, tom. ii., pt i., p. 176. Guillemot relates that some Peruvian families
fled northward along the Cordilleras. On the banks of the Sarrabia
they resorted to the fire test to find out whether the gods wished them
to settle there. A brand was placed in a hole, but as it was extinct in
the morning, they knew they must go further. Four emissaries went in
search of another place. Beneath a coapinol-tree, where now stands Huixicovi,
the brand-proof answered the test, and so they settled there. The
coapinol is still venerated. Fossey, Mexique, pp. 50-1; see also p. 467.




[X-89] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 196.




[X-90] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 312, 367-76.




[X-91] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 197.




[X-92] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 39.




[X-93] Id.; Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 181, 188.




[X-94] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 230, 245.




[X-95] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 45.




[X-96] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 330; Murguia,
Estadist. Guajaca, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii., pp. 167, 201.




[X-97] Herrera, dec. iv., lib. ix., cap. vii.; Murguia, Estadist. Guajaca,
in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii., p. 183; Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca,
tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 280.




[X-98] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 302-3; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. iii., pp. 48-50.




[X-99] See this volume, pp. 415-17.




[X-100] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 150.




[X-101] See this volume, p. 425.




[X-102] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 284-5, 338-40.




[X-103] See this volume pp. 443-7.




[X-104] Id., pp. 461-2.




[X-105] Murguia, Estadist. Guajaca, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii.,
p. 187.




[X-106] Hist., tom. iv., p. 539.




[X-107] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 367-76.




[X-108] See p. 158.




[XI-1] See vol. ii., p. 121, et seq.




[XI-2] See map in vol. ii.




[XI-3] Popol Vuh, p. 79; this volume, p. 175.




[XI-4] Las Casas, Hist. Apologética, MS., tom. iii., cap. cxxiv., cxxv.




[XI-5] This vol., pp. 178-80; Popol Vuh, p. 141.




[XI-6] Torquemada, tom. ii., pp. 53-4; Las Casas, Hist. Apologética, MS.,
tom. iii., cap. cxxiv.




[XI-7] Brasseur, in Popol Vuh, p. cclvi. The only authority referred to on
this matter of Copan is the Isagoge Historico, a manuscript cited in García
Pelaez, Mem. para la Historia del antiguo Reino de Guatemala, tom. i.,
p. 45 et seq.




[XI-8] The other names are Lamak, Cumatz, Tuhalha, Uchabaha, Chumilaha,
Quibaha, Batenab, Acul-Vinak, Balamiha, Canchahel, and Balam-Colob,
most of which Brasseur connects more or less satisfactorily with the
scattered ruins in the Guatemala highlands, where these tribes afterwards
settled. It is stated by the tradition that only the principal names are
given.




[XI-9] The fourth god, Nicahtagah, is rarely named in the following pages;
Tohil is often used for the trinity, Tohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz; and Balam-Quitzé
for the band of the first four men or high-priests.




[XI-10] The names of the localities named as the hiding-places of the gods
are said to be still attached to places in Vera Paz.




[XI-11] See p. 182, of this volume.




[XI-12] Another document consulted by Brasseur, Popol Vuh, p. 286, places
four generations between Balam-Quitzé and Qocaib and Qocavib mentioned
above as his sons.




[XI-13] Brasseur insists that this was Acxitl Quetzalcoatl, the last Toltec
king, who had founded a great kingdom in Honduras, with the capital at
Copan. Popol Vuh, p. 294.




[XI-14] Brasseur, in Popol Vuh, p. 297, gives a list from another document
of many of these new settlements, many of which as he claims can be
identified with modern localities. The chief of the new towns was Chiquix,
'in the thorns,' possibly the name from which Quiché was derived.
This city occupied four hills, or was divided into four districts, the Chiquix,
Chichac, Humetaha, and Culba-Cavinal.




[XI-15] Popol Vuh, pp. 205-99; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 83-118.




[XI-16] Brasseur, in Popol Vuh, pp. ccliii-cclxxi. The manuscripts referred
to by this writer for this and the preceding information, are:—Título Territorial
de los Señores de Totonicapan; Título Territorial de los Señores de
Sacapulas; MS. Cakchiquel; Título Real de la Casa de Itzcuin-Nehaib;
and Título de los Señores de Quezaltenango y de Momostenango.




[XI-17] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 73-150. The authorities referred to
besides those already named are the following: Fuentes y Guzman, Recopilacion
Florida de la Hist. de Guat., MS.; Ximenez, Hist. de los Reyes
del Quiché, MS.; Chrónica de la Prov. de Goattemala, MS. The chief
authority, however, is the MS. Cakchiquel, or Mémorial de Tecpan-Atitlan.




[XI-18] The tribes named as having gathered here, are the Quichés, Rabinals,
Cakchiquels, Zutugils, Ah-Tziquinaha, Tuhalaha, Uchabaha, Chumilaha,
Tucurú, Zacaha, Quibaha, Batenab, Balaniha, Canchahel, Balam Colob,
Acul, Cumatz, Akahales, and Lamagi.




[XI-19] See p. 182, of this volume.




[XI-20] See vol. iv., pp. 128-30
, for notice of ruins.




[XI-21] See p. 555 of this volume.




[XI-22] This is evidently taken by Juarros, from the Spanish version of the
Mexican traditions.




[XI-23] The reader is already aware that no such kings ever reigned over the
Toltecs in Anáhuac. It is evident that the author has confounded the
Tulan of the Guatemalan annals with Tollan, the Toltec capital in Anáhuac,
and the Nahua migration from the Xibalban region in the fourth or
fifth century, with that of the Toltecs in the eleventh.




[XI-24] Juarros, Hist. Guat., (Guat., 1857) pp. 7-9. The extract that I have
made extends a little beyond the point at which I have left the other
records. I give here also a list of the Quiché kings, who were according
to Juarros: 1, Acxopil; 2, Jiuhtemal; 3, Hunahpu; 4, Balam Kiché (Balam-Quitzé);
5, Balam Acam (Balam-Agab); 6, Maucotah (Mahucutah);
7, Iquibalam (Iqi-Balam); 8, Kicab I.; 9, Cacubraxechein; 10, Kicab II.;
11, Iximché; 12, Kicab III.; 13, Kicab IV.; 14, Kicab Tamub; 15, Tecum
Umam; 16, Chignaviucelut; 17, Sequechul or Sequechil.



The list of the Quiché princes of the royal house of Cawek, according
to the order of the generations, is given in the Popol Vuh, pp. 339-40,
Ximenez, pp. 133-4, as follows—the list apparently includes not only the
Ahpop, or king, but the Ahpop Camha, heir apparent to the throne.
And, as is indicated by the course of the history, and as Brasseur believes,
each Ahpop Camha succeeded the Ahpop on the throne, so that the whole
number of the Quiché kings, down to the coming of the Spaniards, counting
from Qocavib, was twenty-two instead of eleven, as the list might
seem to imply and as Ximenez evidently understands it:—1, Balam-Quitzé;
2, Qocavib, (although we have seen that, by other documents several generations
are placed between the first and second of this list); 3, Balam
Conache (the first to take the title Ahpop); 4, Cotuha and Iztayub; 5, Gucumatz
and Cotuha; 6, Tepepul and Iztayul; 7, Quicab and Cavizimah; 8,
Tepepul and Xtayub; 9, Tecum and Tepepul; 10, Vahxaki-Caam and
Quicab; 11, Vukub Noh and Cavatepech; 12, Oxib-Quieh and Beleheb Tzi
(reigning when Alvarado came, and hung by the Spaniards); 13, Tecum
and Tepepul; 14, Don Juan de Rojas and Don Juan Cortés.




The princes of the house of Nihaïb given by the same authority, p. 343,
Ximenez, pp. 135, were as follows:—1, Balam-Agab; 2, Qoacul and Qoacutec;
3, Qochahuh and Qotzibaha; 4, Beleheb-Gih; 5, Cotuha; 6, Batza;
7, Ztayul; 8, Cotuha; 9, Beleheb-Gih; 10, Quema; 11, Cotuha; 12, Don
Christóval; 13, Don Pedro de Robles.




List of the princes of the Royal House of Ahau Quiché, Popol Vuh,
p. 345, Ximenez, pp. 136-7; 1, Mahucutah; 2, Qoahau; 3, Caklacan; 4,
Qocozom; 5, Comahcan; 6, Vukub-Ah; 7, Qocamel; 8, Coyabacoh, Vinak-Bam.
These lists, however, do not seem to correspond altogether with the
Quiché annals as given by the same authority, as the reader will see in the
succeeding pages.




[XI-25] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 38, tom. ii., pp. 338-40. See also Helps'
Span. Conq., vol. iii., pp. 246-9.




[XI-26] Geografía, pp. 97-9, 128, et seq.




[XI-27] Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 8.




[XI-28] Voy. Pitt., pp. 41, 646.




[XI-29] Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 155-75.




[XI-30] Pp. 299-307; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 475-99; Ximenez, Hist. Ind.
Guat., pp. 119-21.




[XI-31] In his Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 478, Brasseur seems to regard Balam
II. and Conache as two kings, one succeeding the other, but in his
notes to Popol Vuh, p. cclxxiii., he unites them in one.




[XI-32] Título de los Señores de Totonicapan.




[XI-33] Título de los Señores de Totonicapan, in the introduction to Popol
Vuh, pp. cclxxv-vi.




[XI-34] See p. 529, of this volume.




[XI-35] Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 483-9.




[XI-36] See p. 570-1, of this volume.




[XI-37] Brasseur places his reign somewhere between 1225 and 1275.




[XI-38] The Popol Vuh represents Utatlan, as we have seen, p. 573, to have
been first occupied by Cotuha and Gucumatz; meaning, as is shown by
the table of kings in the same document—see p. 566, of this volume—by
Gucumatz as king and Cotuha II. as second in rank. Brasseur states
that the name Gumarcaah was then given to the city, but it is much more
likely that this was the ancient name, and Utatlan of later origin.




[XI-39] For description of the ruins of Utatlan, see vol. iv., pp. 124-8
.




[XI-40] Juarros, Hist. Guat., pp. 9-16.




[XI-41] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 150-2, 475-7, 499. The opinion that
Hunahpu and Gucumatz were identical, however, is said to receive some
support from the Isagoge Historico, of Pelaez' work, quoted by Id., in Popol
Vuh, p. 316.




[XI-42] See vol. ii., pp. 637-44.




[XI-43] Or, as Ximenez renders it, to Hell.




[XI-44] He is named as being of the fifth generation in the tables at the end
of the document.




[XI-45] Popol Vuh, pp. 307-17; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 121-5; Id.,
Escolios, in Id., pp. 165-8. This last work is perhaps the same as that
quoted by Brasseur as Ximenez, Hist. de los Reyes del Quiché, MS., but it
is merely a list of kings with some of their deeds, adding nothing whatever,
in a historical point of view, to the translation of the Quiché record.




[XI-46] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 493-9; Id., in Popol Vuh, p. cclxxvi.




[XI-47] Título de los Señores de Totonicapan, in Popol Vuh, pp. cclxxvi-vii.




[XI-48] Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 501-3.




[XI-49] See p. 576, of this vol.




[XI-50] Cakchiquels and Pipiles almost constantly at war; Squier's Cent.
Amer., p. 323; Id., in Nouvelles Annales, tom. cliii., p. 180.




[XI-51] Juarros, Hist. Guat., pp. 16-23. Fuentes used a history written by
a son and grandson of the last king of Guatemala, Müller, Amer. Urrel.,
p. 454. Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. 46, declares the Guatemalan manuscripts
not reliable, and states that the Macario manuscript used by Fuentes was
badly translated.




[XI-52] Juarros, Hist. Guat., pp. 23-4.




[XI-53] The seventh according to the tables.




[XI-54] Popol Vuh, pp. 317-27; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 125-9. There
are some differences and omissions in the Spanish translation.




[XI-55] Escolios, in Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 168-9.




[XI-56] Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 503-45.




[XI-57] Escolios, in Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 169-71.




[XI-58] Juarros, Hist. Guat., pp. 24-6.




[XI-59] Id., pp. 9-11, 35-9.




[XI-60] Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 529-45.




[XI-61] Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 26. It is impossible to connect this account
in any way with the others.




[XI-62] Ximenez, Escolios, in Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 172-3.




[XI-63] See p. 470 of this volume; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 624.




[XI-64] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iv., pp. 619-51, with reference to MS. Cakchiquel,
and other documents.




[XII-1] See for location of these tribes, vol. i., pp. 681-2.




[XII-2] Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. xi.; Remesal, Hist. Chyapa, p. 264;
Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 16.




[XII-3] Remesal, ib.; Herrera, ib.; Murguia, Estadist. Guajaca, in Soc. Mex.
Geog., Boletin, tom. vii., p. 187.




[XII-4] Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 8.




[XII-5] Clavigero, tom. iv., p. 52, tom. i., pp. 150-1; Larrainzar, in Soc.
Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., p. 92; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., p. 202.




[XII-6] Boturini, Idea, pp. 115, 118-19.




[XII-7] Five-leaved silk-cotton tree, Bombax Ceiba.




[XII-8] Piñeda, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., pp. 344-5. The names
of these heroes were: Imox, Igh, Votan, Chanan, Abah, Tox, Moxic,
Lambat, Molo or Mulu, Elab, Batz, Evob, Been, Hix, Tziquin, Chabin,
Chic, Chinax, Cahogh, Aghual.




[XII-9] Who these 'better known tribes' are is not stated.




[XII-10] Piñeda, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., p. 346. The history,
position and civilization of the Chiapanecs shows that they preceded, or
were at least contemporaries of the first tribes or factions of the Aztec
family. They were certainly a very ancient people, and of Toltec origin,
while their civilization undoubtedly came from the north and not from the
south. Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp. 44, 60, 120.




[XII-11] Clavigero, tom. iv., pp. 267-8; Bernal Diaz, Hist. Conq., fol. 73, 178;
Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. xi.; Larrainzar, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin,
tom. iii., p. 92; Brasseur, Esquisses, p. 17.




[XII-12] Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. xi.; Remesal, Hist. Chyapa, p. 264.




[XII-13] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 333. Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 76, identifies
them with the Pipiles and Xuchiltepecs.




[XII-14] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 332.




[XII-15] Cuzcatlan was the ancient name of Salvador.




[XII-16] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 78-9. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 332, relates
that twenty days after starting, one of their high-priests died. They
then traversed Guatemala, and journeying a hundred leagues farther on,
came to a country to which the Spaniards have given the name of Choluteca,
or Choroteca. Here another priest died. After this the author goes
on to tell the story which, according to the version followed above, applies
to the Xuchiltepecs who proceeded to the Gulf of Conchagua, and
which will be referred to elsewhere.




[XII-17] Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 224. A reduplication of pilli, which has
two meanings, 'noble,' and 'child,' the latter being generally regarded as
its meaning in the tribal name. Buschmann, Ortsnamen, p. 137. See also
Molina, Vocabulario.




[XII-18] Juarros, Hist. Guat., pp. 81-4, 17-18, 20, 23, 26.




[XII-19] 'L'époque que les événements paraissent assigner à cette légende coïncide
avec la période de la grande émigration toltèque et la fondation des
divers royaumes guatémaliens qui en furent la conséquence.' Brasseur,
Hist., tom. ii., p. 81.




[XII-20] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 336; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 106-7;
Herrera, dec. iv., lib. viii., cap. iv.




[XII-21] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 101-5.




[XII-22] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 332; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 79, 107-8.
See vol. i., of this work, p. 791, for territory of Cholutecs.




[XII-23] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 332; Levy, Nicaragua, p. 6; see vol. i., of
this work, p. 792.




[XII-24] Id.




[XII-25] Id.




[XII-26] Id., p. 790.




[XII-27] Nicaragua, (Ed.
1856), vol. ii., pp. 309-12; Oviedo, Hist. Gen., tom. iv., p. 35.




[XII-28] For locality, see vol. i., p. 792.




[XII-29] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 332-3.




[XII-30] Hist., tom. ii., pp. 108-9.




[XIII-1] On the name of this country see:—Landa, Relacion, and Brasseur, in
Id., pp. 6, 8, 42-3; Lizana, in Id., p. 348; Perez MS., in Id., pp. 421, 429;
Id., in Stephens' Yucatan, vol. ii., pp. 465, 467; see also vol. i., pp. 139-40;
Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 60-1, 178-9; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, p.
28; Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., pp. 30-1; Malte-Brun,
Yucatan, pp. 14-15; Gomara, Hist. Ind., fol. 60.




[XIII-2] Landa, Relacion, p. 28; Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii.




[XIII-3] Lizana, in Landa, Relacion, p. 354; Orozco y Berra, Geografía, p.
128. Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., p. 178, quotes this from Lizana.




[XIII-4] Lizana and Cogolludo, as above. Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles
Annales, tom. xcvii., p. 32, also reverses the statement of the tradition
respecting the relative numbers of the respective colonies.




[XIII-5] Orozco y Berra, Geografía, p. 129.




[XIII-6] Veytia, tom. i., p. 237; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 269; Lizana, in Landa,
Relacion, p. 354; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., p. 178; Fancourt's Hist. Yuc., p.
115.




[XIII-7] Stephens' Yucatan, vol. ii., pp. 304-8, 342-3, 453-4; Bradford's Amer.
Antiq., pp. 201-2; Morelet, Voyage, tom. i., pp. 270-1; Waldeck, Voy. Pitt.,
pp. 44-5; Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc., vol. i., pp. 99-100; Wappäus, Geog. u. Stat.,
pp. 33, 142; Prichard's Researches, vol. v., p. 346; Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles
Annales, tom. xcvii., pp. 31-2.




[XIII-8] On Zamná, see:—vol. iii., pp. 462-5 of this work; Cogolludo, Hist.
Yuc., pp. 178, 192, 196-7; Landa, Relacion, pp. 328-30; Lizana, in Id., p. 356;
Brasseur, Hist., tom. i., pp. 78-80; Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. 23; Malte-Brun,
Yucatan, pp. 15-17.




[XIII-9] On Cukulcan and the Itzas, see:—Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii.;
Torquemada, tom. ii., p. 52, tom. iii., p. 133; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp.
190, 196-7; Landa, Relacion, pp. 34-9, 340-2; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp.
10-13; Malte-Brun, Yucatan, pp. 15-16; Stephens' Yucatan, vol. i., pp.
140-1.




[XIII-10] In a note to Landa, Relacion, pp. 35, 39; Orozco y Berra, Geografía,
pp. 155-6.




[XIII-11] Vol. iii., p. 465; Malte-Brun, Yucatan, pp. 15-16.




[XIII-12] Torquemada, tom. ii., p. 52; Landa, Relacion, pp. 38-45, 54-6; Cogolludo,
Hist. Yuc., pp. 179-80; Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii.; Ternaux-Compans,
in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., p. 34; Malte-Brun, Yucatan,
pp. 15-6.




[XIII-13] Landa, Relacion, pp. 44-8. 'Le nom des Tutul-Xiu paraît d'origine
nahuatl; il serait dérivé de totol, tototl, oiseau, et de xíuitl, ou xíhuitl,
herbe, etc. En ceci il n'y aurait rien d'extraordinaire, puisqu'ils sortaient
de Tula ou Tulapan, cité qui aurait été la capitale des Nahuas ou
Toltèques après leur victoire sur Xibalba.' Brasseur, in Id., p. 47. See
also Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii., iii.; Torquemada, tom. iii., p. 132;
Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 178, 182; Morelet, Voyage, tom. i., p. 271;
Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 171; Ternaux-Compans,
in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., pp. 34-5.




[XIII-14] This volume, pp. 227-8. Additional study of the subject has caused
me to modify considerably in this chapter some of the statements on Maya
history contained in vol. ii., pp. 118-20.




[XIII-15] Stephens' Yucatan, vol. ii., pp. 465-9; Brasseur, in Landa, Relacion,
pp. 420-9.




[XIII-16] For an account of this system of Ahau Katunes and the order of
their succession, see vol. ii., pp. 762-5.




[XIII-17] See vol. ii., pp. 762-5.




[XIII-18] In his Hist. Nat. Civ., Brasseur follows this system and repeatedly
gives 174 (171 on p. 228 of this volume is a misprint) as the date of this
migration, using it indeed to fix the date of the migration of the Toltecs
and Quichés from Tulan; but he adopts the other theory in his notes to
Landa's work.




[XIII-19] Reckoning an epoch as 24 years, the migration lasted from 173 to
270, or 97 years instead of 81, as in the text. Perez has it from 144 to 217,
or 73 years, which agrees neither with the text nor with his own theory.




[XIII-20] As late as 661 or 485, if Perez' statement of 8 Ahau be accepted,
which is inconsistent with the whole record.




[XIII-21] From 218 to 360, according to Perez; or according to his statement
that four epochs elapsed, from 270 to 366.




[XIII-22] 360 to 432, Perez; 533 to 605, on the basis of 24 years to an epoch.




[XIII-23] 432 to 576, Perez; 605 to 725 on the basis of 24 years to an epoch.




[XIII-24] Or 821 according to the other system.




[XIII-25] We have seen above that there is some confusion about the date of
the Tutul Xius taking Chichen.




[XIII-26] In his commentary, Perez applies this stay of 13 epochs to the Tutul
Xius, although the text seems to state the contrary, making them live in
Champoton from 576 to 888; or if he had added simply the 260 years of
the text, 576 to 836; or if he had correctly adapted his chronology to his
own theory, from 821 to 1133. On a basis of 24 years to a Katun the stay
of the Itzas at Champoton, as given in the text, was from 533 to 821.




[XIII-27] 888-936, Perez; 821-869, on the basis of 24 years. Perez, applying
this wandering to the Tutul Xius, makes them settle again at Chichen.




[XIII-28] 936-1176, Perez; 869-1109, on basis of 24 years, but this of course
would not agree with the two hundred years of the text.




[XIII-29] Perez makes these events, which he seems to regard as two or three
distinct wars, fill the time from 1176 to 1258. From 1119 to 1157, on a
basis of 24 years.




[XIII-30] 1258 to 1368, Perez; 1229 to 1445, on the basis of 24 years. Perez
admits in his commentary only one destruction of Mayapan in 1308.




[XIII-31] Or, on a basis of 24 years to a Katun, between 1493 and 1517. Either
of these dates agrees very well with the facts, since Córdova reached the
coast of Yucatan in 1517, and Gerónimo de Aguilar was wrecked there,
probably some years earlier. But Perez dates their arrival between 1392
and 1488, before America was discovered!




[XIII-32] Perez directly contradicts the text in placing this death in 1493.




[XIII-33] Vol. iv., pp. 140-285
.




[XIII-34] Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., p. 197.




[XIII-35] It seems to me very probable that there is an error or omission by
the copyist or translator in this part of the document.




[XIII-36] On this revolution see:—Landa, Relacion, pp. 48-52, 56. This
author calls the Chel prince Achchel, and calls him the son-in-law of a
venerable priest in Mayapan. Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii., iii.; Cogolludo,
Hist. Yuc., pp. 60, 178-9; Lizana, in Landa, Relacion, p. 350; Villagutierre,
Hist. Conq. Itza, p. 28; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 32-40, 48-9.
This author calls him Ahalin Chel, and their province Cicontun. Ternaux-Compans,
in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., pp. 31, 35; Gallatin, in Amer.
Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 172-3; Prichard's Researches, vol. v.,
p. 347; Malte-Brun, Yucatan, pp. 20-1; Stephens' Yuc., vol. i., pp. 140-1.




[XIII-37] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 41-2, tells us that their province was
called Calkini, and the people, from their ruler, took the name of Ahcanuls;
and also that they built or enlarged the cities of Sabacché, Labná,
and Pokboc. (See vol. iv., pp. 211-8
) The only authority for the latter
statement is probably the location of these ruins in a general southern direction
from Uxmal. Cogolludo says the natives of Conil and Choàca,
called Kupules, were the most warlike in Yucatan. Hist. Yuc., p. 143; see
also Landa, Relacion, p. 54; Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. iii.




[XIII-38] Landa, Relacion, pp. 54-5; Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. iii.; Brasseur,
Hist., tom. ii., p. 42; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., p. 143; Malte-Brun, Yucatan,
p. 20.




[XIII-39] Registro Yuc., tom. ii., pp. 261-72. The tradition is given in
the form of a dialogue between a visitor to the ruins and a native of extraordinary
intelligence, who claimed to be well acquainted with the historical
traditions of his race. Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 578-88, gives
what is probably an extended translation of the article referred to. Stephens,
Cent. Amer., vol. ii., pp. 423-5, obtained from a native a tradition
similar in some respects, so far as it goes, which is translated by
Charnay, Ruines Amér., pp. 369-71.




[XIII-40] See vol. iv., pp. 172
, 192-7
.




[XIII-41] Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 507-8; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, pp.
29-31, 401-2, 488-91; Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., pp. 24, 36, 41; Stephens' Yucatan,
vol. ii., p. 200; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 98;
Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., pp. 51-2; Squier's
Cent. Amer., pp. 547, 550-1.




[XIII-42] Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii., iii.; Torquemada, tom. iii., p. 132;
Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 100, 179; Landa, Relacion, pp. 50-2, 62; Villagutierre,
Hist. Conq. Itza, p. 28; Stephens' Yucatan, vol. i., pp. 140-1;
Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 172-3. Landa
makes the date 100 years before the Conquest, that is 1446. Villagutierre
and Cogolludo say 1420. Herrera says 70 years before the arrival
of the Spaniards, and 500 years after its foundation. Gallatin makes it
1517 or 1536.




[XIII-43] Landa, Relacion, pp. 58-64; Herrera, dec. ii., lib. iii., cap. i., dec.
iv., lib. x., cap. iii.; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 97-100, 185; Gomara, Hist.
Ind., fol. 63; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, pp. 35-7; Torquemada, tom.
iii., pp. 132-3; Alcedo, Dicc., tom. iii., p. 473; Remesal, Hist. Chyapa, pp.
245-6.






END OF THE FIFTH VOLUME.







Supplementary Transcriber's Note:



The following primary index entries were not located in this or previous
volumes. (Missing secondary entries were assumed to be alternate spellings
and were ignored.)