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 ***




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)







Transcriber's Note:

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

  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

  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".

  Page 788: A reversed lower case "c" has been replaced with =c=.

  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:
  Volume 1: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41070
  Volume 2: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42808
  Volume 3: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43123
  Volume 4: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44104




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 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.




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 Phoenicians -- 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 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 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 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 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




  [Illustration: NATIVE RACES of the PACIFIC STATES Map of CENTRAL MEXICO
   _TO ILLUSTRATE_ PRIMITIVE HISTORY.]

  [Illustration: NATIVE RACES of the PACIFIC STATES showing the location
   of THE CIVILIZED NATIONS]




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 Phoenicians -- 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,
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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 maxims by which any given
problem may be solved is no more satisfactory.

[Sidenote: 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]

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 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.

[Sidenote: 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
ignorant of the part of the world from which they sprang.

[Sidenote: 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 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, 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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,
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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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, 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 _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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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.

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
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.

[Sidenote: CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA.]

The most celebrated of these are Quetzalcoatl and Votan. The
speculations which have been indulged 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. 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

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 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," 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." 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: THEORY OF ORIGIN FROM CHINESE.]

[Sidenote: 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; 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 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 _Halle_lujah." 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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
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]

[Sidenote: 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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.

[Sidenote: ARCHITECTURAL ANALOGIES.]

Herodotus tells us that in his time the great pyramid 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, 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
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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

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]

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.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: THE PHOENICIAN THEORY.]

Turning now to Western Asia, we find the honor of first settling
America given to the adventurous Phoenicians. The sailors of Carthage
are also supposed 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]

[Sidenote: VOYAGES OF THE PHOENICIANS.]

The Phoenicians 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 Boetis 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. Postel and others have believed that the land
of Ophir was Peru.[I-136] Horn[I-137] claims that the Phoenicians 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.

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-Phoenician 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]

[Sidenote: VOYAGES OF THE PHOENICIANS.]

Diodorus Siculus relates that the Phoenicians 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 Phoenicians 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 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?

[Sidenote: 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
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]

[Sidenote: 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 Phoenician language signifies a snake.[I-145] Tripoli of 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 Phoenician, 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,
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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 Phoenician 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 Phoenician.
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]

[Sidenote: 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 Phoenician,
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 Phoenician, fifteen
with the Celtiberic, fourteen with the old 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
Phoenician 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 Phoenician theory; chiefly
because similar emblems have been found in Egypt, and the Phoenicians
are known to have been familiar with Egyptian arts and ideas.[I-155]
Melgar, who thinks there can be no doubt that the Phoenicians 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 Phoenicia, whither it was brought from Egypt,
where it had flourished for over seventeen thousand years.[I-157]

[Sidenote: 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: THE JEWS IN AMERICA.]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: KINGSBOROUGH'S ARGUMENTS.]

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

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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]

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_ 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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,
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]

[Sidenote: MORMON DOCTRINE OF ORIGIN.]

The account given by the Book of Mormon, of 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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; 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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.

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.

[Sidenote: 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 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. 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 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. 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, 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]
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 Phoenician 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]

[Sidenote: SCANDINAVIAN THEORY.]

Priest is strongly inclined to believe that a glass 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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,
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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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, 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 Phoenicia, 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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.


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
Phoenician '_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
Phoenician 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. Dioeces_, 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 Phoenician 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
Phoenicians 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 Phoenician 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 Phoenician 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 Phoenician 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 Phoenician 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
Mindesmoerker_, 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 Mindesmoerker_, (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] _Moeurs des Sauvages Amériquains Comparées aux Moeurs 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.




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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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, 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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 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, 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 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. 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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, 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.

[Sidenote: 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, 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]

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.

[Sidenote: 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, 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 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.


FOOTNOTES:

[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.




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.


[Sidenote: TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT.]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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
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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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,
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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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. 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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, 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. 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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
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 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.

[Sidenote: 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, 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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, 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 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.

[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF XIBALBA.]

The Quiché traditions, then, point clearly to, 1st, 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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, 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.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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).

[Sidenote: 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 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.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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, 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, "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 the home of the Nahua
nations, whence the search for maize was made, with Tamoanchan, which
Sahagun has clearly located in Tabasco.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: THE TOTONACS AND TEOTIHUACAN.]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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, 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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, 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: EXILE OF THE TOLTECS.]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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, 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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
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
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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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
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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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,
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:

[Sidenote: 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 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 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, 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 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 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.


FOOTNOTES:

[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.




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 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
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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: ANÁHUAC IN THE SIXTH CENTURY.]

During the sixth and seventh centuries we must 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.

[Sidenote: 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, 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; 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.'

[Sidenote: 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
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, 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.

[Sidenote: 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; 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, 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. 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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
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 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: TOTEPEUH KING OF TOLLAN.]

[Sidenote: 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, 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 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 conveniently termed, empire, is referred to the date 1 Tecpatl,
856.[IV-29]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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, 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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
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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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
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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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.

[Sidenote: THE KING'S MISTRESS.]

Papantzin, a Toltec noble of high rank, presented himself one day at
court, together with his daughter, 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 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,
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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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, 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 and Queen Xochitl retired ostensibly from
all connection with public affairs.[IV-65]

[Sidenote: 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 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, 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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; 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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.


FOOTNOTES:

[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.




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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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]

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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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
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 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 ruler, assumed the title
of Huey Tlatoani Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, 'great lord and king of the
Chichimecs.'[V-24]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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.
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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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
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
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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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
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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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,
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.


FOOTNOTES:

[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_, oeil, 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.




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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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
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.

[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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
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 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]

[Sidenote: 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, 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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
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 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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 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. 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]


FOOTNOTES:

[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.




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 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.

[Sidenote: REIGN OF ACAMAPICHTLI II.]

[Sidenote: 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.
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, 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 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]

[Sidenote: AZTEC ALLIANCES.]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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, 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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, 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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
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]

[Sidenote: 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
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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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. 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
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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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
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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 kind of oppression and insult towards
the inhabitants of the lake cities.[VII-44]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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
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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: TERMS OF THE ALLIANCE.]

[Sidenote: 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 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, 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]


FOOTNOTES:

[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.




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.


[Sidenote: 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 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 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.

[Sidenote: 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, 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.

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]

[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF XOCHIMILCO.]

In 1434 the Chichimec-Culhua city of Quauhtitlan was brought under
subjection to Mexico, or at 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 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]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: 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 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, 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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
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 the Chalca
captives, among whom was their chief, to the sacrificial block.[VIII-17]

[Sidenote: 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; 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, 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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. 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 forthcoming; the guilty parties were
put to death by order of the Aztec monarchs, and the tributes of the
province were doubled.[VIII-25]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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] 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: RAID IN TEHUANTEPEC.]

Before the coronation of the new monarch could be 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]

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]

[Sidenote: 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 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 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 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]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: 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 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, 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]

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]

[Sidenote: 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 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, 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,
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]

[Sidenote: 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]


FOOTNOTES:

[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. Ixtlilxochit