[Illustration:
_British Museum_
MEXICO
HUMAN SKULL, INCRUSTED WITH MOSAIC, REPRESENTING
TEZCATLIPOCA]
MEXICAN
ARCHÆOLOGY
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHÆOLOGY
OF THE MEXICAN AND MAYAN
CIVILIZATIONS OF PRE-SPANISH AMERICA.
BY THOMAS A. JOYCE, M.A. WITH MANY
ILLUSTRATIONS AND A MAP
[Illustration]
NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
LONDON: PHILIP LEE WARNER
MDCCCCXIV
_By the same Author_:
SOUTH AMERICAN
ARCHÆOLOGY
PREFACE
The object of this small book is to summarize shortly the extent of
our knowledge concerning the life and culture of the Mexican and
Maya peoples of pre-Spanish America. It has no pretence whatever
to finality; indeed, the time is not within sight when a complete
elucidation of all the problems connected with this most fascinating
area can be put forward. At the same time it is useful to pause
occasionally and summarize results, if only because attention is
thereby drawn to the more serious gaps in the data available, and
it becomes easier to direct the course of future investigations. An
ulterior motive lies in the hope that a little stimulus may be given to
American studies in this country, which have languished sadly during
the past few years. This fact is all the more to be regretted since
Englishmen, such as Dr. A. P. Maudslay, have done so much in the past
to unveil the mysteries of ancient American civilization, and the
collection at the British Museum, though small, is rich in the finest
collection in the world of Mexican mosaics. At present, as far as the
Old World is concerned, the torch has passed to Germany, the labours of
whose investigators, in particular of Dr. Seler, have done so much to
place the study of American antiquities upon a thoroughly scientific
footing. No part of the world, perhaps, has formed the subject of
so many wild theories as ancient Mexico, and few present so many
fascinating riddles to the expert. It has therefore been impossible
in the present work to keep clear of controversial ground, but I have
tried as far as possible to take a sane view of each problem, and
to indicate in some measure the evidence for each conclusion. Many
of the suggested solutions are purely tentative, and must doubtless
be modified in the light of subsequent investigations. This remark
applies especially to the scheme of dating which forms an appendix. I
am quite prepared to be accused of rashness in presenting it, and I
admit that it is purely provisional. But I think it may have its use
as a frame-work for history, and it will at least serve the purpose of
exciting criticism. Subsequent to its preparation a monograph on “Maya
Art,” by Dr. Spinden, has made its appearance under the auspices of
the Peabody Museum in America, in which the author provides a somewhat
similar scheme. His table differs somewhat from mine, but I think that
the reasons for my dating, which I give in the last chapter, render
mine the more satisfactory, and I have therefore made no alteration.
His full treatment of Maya art has however led me to curtail my remarks
on that subject, since much of what I had written appears on his pages;
and I have rather given emphasis to those points of difference which
exist between us.
My original intention was to include in the present book a sketch of
the archæology of Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, but the material
proved too great, and I have thought it better to deal thoroughly with
the related cultures of the Mexicans and Maya rather than to give an
incomplete or over-compressed picture of the archæology of a wider
area. Even as it is I fear that certain chapters may have suffered
from over-condensation, more especially that on the Mexican gods.
However Mexican religion is in itself rather an intricate subject,
and requires studying in considerable detail if a proper view of the
life and culture of the people is to be obtained. Religion amongst the
Mexicans was the mainspring of all private and public life, and few of
the archæological remains cannot be brought into direct relation with
it. Yet even Mexican religion is not as complicated as it appears at
first sight; it is in reality the language, with its fondness for long
compound names, which renders it so difficult a study to the amateur in
the initial stages. I had also intended to add a bibliographical note,
similar to that with which I concluded my volume on South America. But
in view of the existence of an admirable bibliography in Dr. Walter
Lehmann’s little monograph, “Methods and Results in Mexican Research,”
I judged it unnecessary.
I find it difficult to express to the full my thanks to the many
friends whose encouragement and assistance are really responsible for
such success as this book may achieve. Without the work of Dr. Maudslay
and Dr. Seler its production would have been impossible, and I owe
them both much gratitude for the great generosity which has led them
both to place their illustrations at my disposal. Professor Holmes,
of the Bureau of American Ethnology, has shown me similar kindness in
permitting me to reproduce five of the charming illustrations in his
admirable monograph, “Archæological Studies among the Ruined Cities
of Mexico,” published by the Field Columbian Museum (now the Field
Museum of Natural History) of Chicago. I am also deeply indebted to
Sir Hercules Read, to Colonel Ward and to Mr. Cooper Clark for much
advice and the use of valuable photographs, and also to the Trustees of
the British Museum and the Director of the Peabody Museum for the loan
of certain illustrations. To Dr. Wallis Budge I owe much for his kind
encouragement; it is in fact to him that the inception of the present
work is due. I must also express my gratitude to my wife for many hours
spent in the preparation of line-drawings, and to my colleague, Mr. H.
J. Braunholtz, of the British Museum, for assistance in the laborious
task of proof reading. Finally I should like to thank my publishers for
the consideration which they have always extended to me, as well as for
their enterprise in producing a series of archæological works which
will, I trust, do much to stimulate interest in the efforts of the
present to unveil the past.
T. A. JOYCE.
LONDON,
_January, 1914_
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
I. MEXICO: TRIBAL HISTORY 5
II. MEXICO: THE GODS 31
III. MEXICO: THE CALENDAR AND CALENDRICAL FEASTS 59
IV. MEXICO: WRITING, PRIESTHOOD, MEDICINE AND BURIAL 86
V. MEXICO: SOCIAL SYSTEM, WAR, TRADE AND JUSTICE 109
VI. MEXICO: CRAFTS, DRESS AND DAILY LIFE 134
VII. MEXICO: ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS AND POTTERY 169
VIII. THE MAYA: HISTORY 199
IX. THE MAYA: RELIGION AND MYTH 218
X. THE MAYA: THE CALENDAR, CALENDRICAL FEASTS AND MINOR
RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES 245
XI. THE MAYA: BURIAL, SOCIAL SYSTEM, TRADE AND WAR 275
XII. THE MAYA: DRESS, DAILY LIFE AND CRAFTS 294
XIII. THE MAYA: ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS 319
XIV. CONCLUSIONS 355
APPENDIX I. NAMES OF THE DAYS IN THE MEXICAN
AND MAYAN CALENDARS 372
APPENDIX II. NAMES OF THE MONTHS IN THE MEXICAN
AND MAYAN CALENDARS 373
INDEX 375
ILLUSTRATIONS
PLATE IN COLOURS
PLATE
I. Mexico: Human Skull, incrusted with mosaic,
representing Tezcatlipoca _Frontispiece_
PLATES IN HALF-TONE
FACING PAGE
II. Mexico: Colossal Stone Head of Coyolxauhqui
Stone Figure of Chalchiuhtlicue 22
III. Mexico: Colossal Stone Figure of Coatlicue 30
IV. Mexico: Stone Mask representing Xipe 38
V. Mexico: Stone Figure of Xochipilli 42
Stone with Figure of a Xiuhcoatl 42
VI. Mexico: Sculptured Stone Vase 50
Stone Figure of Quetzalcoatl 50
VII. Mexico: Stone Quauhxicalli 66
Stone Quauhxicalli in the form of an Ocelot 66
VIII. Mexico: The “Calendar Stone” 74
Stone Figure of an Octli God 74
IX. Mexico: Objects in Pottery 82
Maya: Pottery Figurines from Graves 82
X. Huaxtec: Stone Figure and Chest 108
Maya: Pottery Censer 108
XI. Mexico: Stone Rattle-snake and Jadeite Head 140
Maya: Jadeite Reliefs 140
Mixtec: Jadeite Relief 140
Zapotec: Gold Lip-pendant 140
XII. Mexico: Mounds at San Juan Teotihuacan 170
XIII. Mexico: Temple at Xochicalco, Present Condition
and Restoration 172
XIV. Zapotec: Interior of Chamber at Mitla 174
Mexico: Temple at Tepoztlan 174
XV. Zapotec: Ruins at Mitla, partly restored 178
XVI. Totonac: Temple at Papantla 182
XVII. Mexico: Spear-thrower, _atlatl_ 188
Tarascan: Pottery from Guadalajara 188
Zapotec: Funerary Vases 188
XVIII. Mexico: Stone Sacrificial Knife 194
Totonac: Pottery from the Id. of Sacrificios 194
XIX. Totonac: Pottery from the Id. of Sacrificios 198
XX. Maya: Stela 14, Piedras Negras 226
XXI. Maya: Stela H, Copan 236
XXII. Maya: Stone Lintel, Menché 294
XXIII. Maya: Stela 24, Naranjo 302
XXV. Maya: Building at Sayil 332
Temple at Tikal 332
XXVI. Maya: Sculptured Monolith P., Quirigua 338
Plan of Ruins at Copan 338
XXVII. Maya: Ruins at Palenque 342
XXVIII. Maya: Temple of the Ball-court, and “Castillo,”
Chichen Itza 348
XXIX. Maya: Restoration of Ball-court Temple 350
Building of the “Monjas” Group 350
XXX. Maya: The “House of the Governor,” Uxmal 358
PLATE IN LINE
XXIV. Maya: Design on a Pottery Vase 310
ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
FIGURE PAGE
1. Map of the Valley of Mexico 13
2. The Aztec migration (Boturini MS.) 15
3. Various Mexican deities, from MSS. 34
4. Various Mexican deities, from MSS. 35
5. Mexican methods of sacrifice (Zouche MS.) 41
6. The moon (Borgia MS.) 52
7. Mexican day-signs (Fejérváry-Mayer MS.) 60
8. Key to the Mexican Calendar Stone 74
9. Mexican priests making fire (Zouche MS.) 75
10. Tree of the West (Borgia MS.) 79
11. Stone relief from Huilocintla 83
12. Detail from the Telleriano-Remensis MS. 87
13. Plan of the palace at Tezcoco 89
14. Mexican mummies prepared for burial 104
15. Stone relief from Tlacolula 106
16. Stone relief from Guerrero 107
17. Mexican warriors (Mendoza MS.) 113
18. Articles of tribute (Mendoza MS.) 118
19. Mexican stone and obsidian implements 135
20. Mexican stone axes 137
21. Totonac stone “yoke” 139
22. Mixtec stone figurines 140
23. Mexican artisans (Mendoza MS.) 143
24. Gold finger-ring 145
25. Mexican feather-work mantle 146
26. Spindle-whorls, Id. of Sacrificios 147
27. Mexican wood-carver and weaver (Mendoza MS.) 148
28. Mexican pottery stamps 150
29. The education of Mexican children (Mendoza MS.) 161
30. _Tlaxtli_-court (Bodleian MS.) 165
31. Mexican _teponaztli_ (wooden gong) 167
32. Plans of remains at Quiengola 175
33. Slab from Xochicalco: beaker and stone head from Oaxaca 176
34. Plan of one of the courts at Mitla 177
35. Portion of fresco at Mitla 179
36. Pottery forms 185
37. Painted designs on pottery 186
38. Pottery vase from Teotihuacan 187
39. Vase in Tlaxcalan or Cholulan style 190
40. Pottery vase from Tlaxcala 191
41. Design on a vase from Cuicatlan 192
42. Pottery vase from Tanquian 196
43. Pottery vase from the Panuco River 197
44. Pottery vase from Tampico 198
45. Linguistic Map of Maya tribes 201
46. Various Maya deities (Dresden MS.) 222
47. Various Maya deities (Dresden MS.) 223
48. Carved wooden lintel from Tikal 225
49. Relief, Temple of the Foliated Cross, Palenque 230
50. The “two-headed monster,” Copan 233
51. Detail from relief, Temple of the Cross, Palenque 235
52. Maya ceremonial axes, from the monuments 237
53. Maya day-signs; monuments and MSS. 247
54. Maya month-signs; monuments and MSS. 250
55. Maya period-signs; monuments 251
56. Maya date-inscriptions; monuments 253
57. Maya world-direction and colour signs 256
58. Maya new-year ceremonies (Dresden MS.) 264
59. Maya new-year ceremonies (Troano-Cortesianus MS.) 265
60. Detail from relief at Chichen Itza 289
61. Man in ceremonial costume, Palenque 297
62. Maya methods of hunting (Troano-Cortesianus MS.) 299
63. Maya priests with musical instruments (Dresden MS.) 301
64. Objects of flaked stone, British Honduras 305
65. Stone mask; British Honduras 306
66. Maya weavers (Troano-Cortesianus MS.) 307
67. Bat-design, from a vase; Uloa Valley 311
68. Pottery vase from Chama 312
69. Pottery vase from Ococingo 312
70. Pottery vase from Coban 313
71. Pottery censer from Nebaj 314
72. Pottery head from Nebaj 316
73. Examples of Maya terraces and pyramids 321
74. Section of typical Yucatec building 323
75. Examples of Maya buildings 325
76. Ground-plans and elevations of Maya temples 327
77. Section through the Temple of the Cross, Palenque 329
78. Plans of building at Santa Rosa Xlabpak 330
79. Detail of fresco at Santa Rita 335
80. Details of frescoes at Santa Rita and Mitla 336
81. Stone altar at Copan 339
82. Relief, Temple of the Sun, Palenque 344
83. The “Monjas,” Chichen Itza 347
84. Caryatid figure, Chichen Itza 348
85. Stone gargoyle, Copan 353
86. Details from various monuments, showing the interlaced
head-ornament 357
87. Stone relief at Chichen Itza 367
MAPS
Map of the Valley of Mexico (Fig. 1) 13
Linguistic Map of Maya Tribes (Fig. 45) 201
Mexico and Central America _Folder at end_
Mexican Archæology
INTRODUCTION
Ancient Mexico, the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan, built upon an island
situated in a great highland lake, the scene of the almost incredible
exploits of Cortés, has long been familiar as a name to the western
world, chiefly owing to the wonderful account compiled by Prescott. The
story of the fall of Aztec civilization before the Spanish invaders has
deservedly won a great hold upon popular imagination, for every page is
redolent of romance, and indeed few, if any, writers of fiction have
conceived a tale so full of incident, or have brought their heroes to
victory in the face of greater odds. Moreover, the existence of Aztec
civilization, an organized empire with cities built of stone and rich
in gold and gems, burst upon the Old World as a thing almost beyond
belief.
The purpose of the present work is to afford some connected account of
this pre-Spanish culture, and to correlate the accounts of eyewitnesses
and early visitors with the material remains which the investigations
of later times have revealed. But in order to obtain a proper view
of Mexican culture it is necessary to transcend the limits of Mexico
itself. In the country to the south and east, in Guatemala and
northern Honduras, are the remains of ruined buildings which are, both
architecturally and artistically, superior to those of Mexico proper,
and which had been deserted before the coming of the Spaniards. These
were the work of the Maya, a people whose name is far less familiar
to the general public than that of the Aztec, but who, as I hope to
show, evolved a culture of their own when the Aztec were yet primitive
nomadic hunters, and who furnished the latter people with the materials
for that civilization which so astonished the followers of Cortés.
The actual area with which this book deals is, roughly, that portion of
Mexico which lies between the tropic of Cancer and the northern strip
of Honduras. It is divided naturally into two portions, a northern
and western, and a southern and eastern, by the depression which cuts
across the isthmus of Tehuantepec. The natural division corresponds
very conveniently with the archæological; to the north and west lies
the seat of Mexican culture, to the south and east, of the Mayan; but
it must be remembered that the Maya-speaking people extended at the
conquest practically throughout Vera Cruz, though they had by that time
fallen under Aztec influence. I propose therefore to divide this book
into two corresponding sections, dealing first with the “Mexican” area,
and later with the “Mayan.” Both from the chronological and cultural
points of view the Mayan area should come first, but, as will appear
later, we are dependent to so great an extent upon our knowledge of
Mexican civilization for our interpretation of Mayan archæology, that
it will be more convenient to give the Mexican priority.
The main geographical features of the Maya country are given at the
commencement of the section dealing with its archæology. The region
immediately under consideration is shaped rather like an inverted
pear, and consists in the main of a plateau bordered by two converging
chains of lofty mountains, which are skirted exteriorly by a strip of
low-lying coast. The uniformity of the plateau is broken in many places
by steep ravines, or _barrancas_, formed by the slow action of
rivers, and by occasional highland lakes, such as Chapala, Pazcuaro and
Mexico. Much of the ground is volcanic, and the names of the volcanoes
Popocatepetl and Iztacciuatl in Mexico province, and of Orizaba on the
Puebla-Vera Cruz border, are familiar to everyone. The Mexican valley
forms the apex of the triangular plateau, and the natural route thence
to the south lies _via_ Tehuacan and Teotitlan del Camino, a
fact which should be kept in mind in studying the tribal migrations.
The height of the mountain-chains and their proximity to the coast
explain the fact that there are but few important rivers in Mexico;
most of the streams on the plateau drain into land-locked basins, and
practically the only rivers which pierce the mountain barrier are the
Panuco on the east, and the Lerma and Rio de las Balsas on the west.
Climate and vegetation are dependent upon elevation; the coast is
tropical, but the elevation is so abrupt that the traveller passes with
remarkable rapidity from palms, bananas, coconuts and rubber, according
to locality, to slopes clad with fir and oak and plains of wheat and
maize. In the same way, table-lands rise in successive terraces from
Tehuantepec through Oaxaca and Puebla to Mexico which has an elevation
of nearly 7500 feet above the sea-level, and enjoys a more temperate
climate than New York or Chicago fourteen to sixteen hundred miles
further north. The country is conveniently divided into three zones,
according to its elevation; the so-called “tierra caliente” (hot
country) runs from the sea-level to 3000 feet, the “tierra templada”
(temperate country) from 3000 to 6000 feet, and the “tierra fria” (cold
country) thence to the 9000 foot level. The most important vegetable
product from the economic point of view was maize, which constituted
the chief food of the natives. The varieties and development of
the maize-plant as we know it imply centuries of settled life and
patient cultivation, and it is an interesting fact that for years
the identity of the wild plant from which it was produced remained
a mystery. Other plants of economic importance were cacao, vanilla,
tobacco and cotton, grown in the hot regions, and the agave or Mexican
aloe which flourishes also in the higher country. The fauna includes
jaguar (“tiger”), puma (“lion”), ocelot, deer, peccary, alligator,
rattle-snake, turkey, humming-bird and the quetzal, the beautiful
plumes of the latter being one of the most highly-prized articles of
adornment. The distribution of these animals is not however constant
throughout the whole area, but many of them are confined to the warmer
countries. Little more need be said, for the purposes of this book,
of the physical nature of the country, save that the rainfall is not
excessive, being heaviest upon the Atlantic slope; and that, while the
land appears to be rising gradually on the Pacific side, much has been
lost to the Atlantic on the east. With these few words of introduction
an attempt will now be made to describe the inhabitants of the country
and the culture which they built up before they came in contact with
the Old World at the beginning of the sixteenth century.[1]
CHAPTER I--MEXICO: TRIBAL HISTORY
At the time of the conquest by the Spaniards of the province of Mexico,
the dominant people was the Aztec population of Tenochtitlan (Mexico
city), inhabiting a town built on an island in the lake of Tezcoco, or
rather that portion of it known as the lake of Mexico. The Aztec were
confessedly immigrants, who had wandered south less than five hundred
years before the conquest; by their superiority as fighting-men they
had won the hegemony over the kindred tribes which they found settled
in the valley of Mexico, and had extended their power to both oceans
and as far at least as the isthmus of Tehuantepec. Both they and their
immediate predecessors spoke the same language, called Nahua (strictly,
_Nahuatl_), and they appear to be a branch of the great Shoshonean
family which reaches as far north as the state of Montana. Beyond
this, their ethnography and language would seem to connect them rather
with the coastal tribes of the far north-west than with those to the
east of the Rockies, but on this point little can be said at present.
Immediately to the north and north-west of the settled peoples of the
valley, the steppe country was inhabited by tribes who lived mainly by
hunting, called Chichimec and Otomi, the former being almost purely
nomadic, the latter to some extent settled. The Chichimec spoke for
the most part a language which was essentially Nahua, but the name
itself possessed for the Mexicans rather a cultural than a linguistic
significance, and meant little more than “nomadic hunters.” The Otomi
tongue was different, and extended down to the valley of Toluca,
through the people known as Mazaua to the Matlatzinca. South of the
last, among the Tlalhuica around Cuernavaca, Nahua again prevailed. In
the hilly volcanic country around lakes Pazcuaro and Chapala, a third
speech was found, the Tarascan, of which the exact affinities are still
doubtful. The Rio de las Balsas appears to be about the southern limit
of the Tarascan tongue, but its northern is less certain; it extends
into Jalisco, and may at one time have reached up into Zacatecas where
remains in Tarascan style have been discovered (at La Quemada). Roughly
south of the Rio de las Balsas and a line drawn thence to Teotitlan is
the Mixtec-Zapotec group of tongues; the Mixtec extending from Acatlan
to Tototepec, and the Zapotec to the east, from the Nahua-speaking
Teotitlan to Tehuantepec, the Mazatec occupying the northern portion
of this strip. The Mixtec-Zapotec language bears many structural
analogies to the Otomi group mentioned above. Along the east coast,
from the Panuco valley southward, were two peoples, speaking dialects
of yet another language, the Maya tongue. In the north were the
Huaxtec, primitive Maya, extending as far south as Tuxpan, where they
were in touch with the linguistically related Totonac. To the north
they stretched beyond the Panuco, but the remains of this region are
practically unknown. There is evidence too that they once extended far
further west than they did at the conquest, but the expansion of the
Nahua had penned them up in the narrow strip of coast, and an Aztec
fortress was established as far east as Meztitlan to keep the border.
The Totonac, inhabiting Vera Cruz to the south, had suffered similarly
from Mexican encroachment, and the river Nautla formed a strip of Aztec
territory which almost severed their country in two. At the time of the
conquest their principal centres were Papantla and Zacapoaxtla. East
of them, in Coatzacoalcos and Tabasco, were the peoples known to the
Mexicans as Olmec, Xicalanca and Nonoualca, who, according to legend,
were once settled in the neighbourhood of Tlaxcala, but were driven
thence by the historical Tlaxcalans when they immigrated into the
country.
The early history of these tribes is very difficult to elucidate from
the tangled mass of migration myths, often contradictory, which have
survived. What may be termed the historical period starts only with the
election of the first Aztec king, some years after the settlement of
the tribe at Tenochtitlan, and this takes us back only to about 1376,
or not much more than a century before the Spanish conquest. The Aztec,
when they arrived, found a number of Nahua-speaking “Chichimec” in
occupation of the valley, and these “Chichimec” had themselves found
the remains of a culture far above their own, to which they gave the
name of Toltec. Now the “Toltec question” has been hotly debated from
early times; to the Mexicans the Toltec were the people of a golden
age, and their state was the prototype of peaceful civilization.
Some writers have gone so far as to deny them actual existence at
all, regarding them as a purely mythical people to whom the Mexicans
conveniently attributed the invention of all useful arts of which
they could not readily explain the evolution otherwise. Others have
exalted their culture to a pitch far above, one might almost say, the
human, and have credited them with a knowledge transcending that of
latter-day civilization. I do not propose to plunge into the welter
of controversial theories, but to regard the matter from a strictly
practical point of view, which seems to me to be as follows. The Aztec
and their immediate fore-runners the “Chichimec” were merely nomadic
hunters when they settled in the valley, and their knowledge of arts
and crafts, which need a settled life for development, had not advanced
beyond a very primitive stage. They found the remains of a people
who had for years been living as settled agriculturists, and ruined
cities which their untutored minds regarded as something bordering on
the marvellous. The agricultural population whom they subdued, more
cultured but less warlike than they, told them stories of a powerful
empire, stories which no doubt lost nothing in the telling. To this
empire they gave the name of Toltec, from the city of Tulan (or Tollan)
which was its reputed centre. Modern research has proved conclusively
the existence, at those very localities especially associated with the
Toltec, of pre-Aztec ruins, and of a relatively high culture which
prevailed throughout the valley (and beyond) for a period considerably
longer than that which elapsed between the Aztec immigration and the
Spanish conquest. As a mere matter of evidence I cannot see that any
name can be given to this pre-Aztec culture other than that of Toltec,
and, further, that it is possible to deny at least a foundation in
fact to the myths connected with this people. However, even so, the
difficulties connected with the question are not entirely solved;
Sahagun states definitely that the Toltec spoke Nahua, and relates a
migration myth which brings them into contact with the Nahua peoples
before their settlement in Tulan. Another legend makes the founder
of their state a Chichimec, one Mixcoamazatzin, whose name bears a
strong resemblance to that of the Chichimec hunting-god, Mixcoatl,
compounded with the native word for the miraculous deer, mazatl, with
which he was associated. Further, excavation has proved that before
the “Toltec” culture, another of lower grade existed in the valley.
This culture, at present the earliest of which traces can be found,
strongly resembles that of the Tarascan, and it rather merges into that
of the Toltec, while the latter is separated from that of the later
Nahua by a definite line of demarcation. As far as the evidence goes
at present, it is fair to draw the conclusion that the first settled
agriculturists in the Mexican valley were of the same stock as the
agricultural people around lake Pazcuaro; that upon them descended a
Nahua tribe from the north, coming in sufficient strength to impose
their language, who built up a culture which surprised the subsequent
immigrants of similar race when, at a considerably later period, they
followed in their footsteps. The tendency of rude hunting tribes to
rapid development when they adopt settled life has not yet been fully
recognized. There is no finer training for the human faculties than the
pursuit of hunting; it hardens the body, sharpens the observation, and
engenders a perpetual readiness to meet sudden emergencies. Agriculture
on the other hand, while promoting the development of the useful
arts to a certain pitch, is apt to result in stagnation. Students of
African ethnography are well aware that nearly all the great kingdoms
which have bloomed from time to time in Central Africa have had their
origin in the descent of a nomadic tribe upon an agricultural, the
former becoming sedentary and developing the arts which they received
from the latter far beyond their previous limits. This point however
is rather by way of illustration, for it does not wholly suffice to
account for the Toltec civilization, though it helps to explain the
rapidity with which the Aztec assimilated and developed the remains of
it. The Toltec culture bears a definite relation to remains which occur
at many sites in Oaxaca and Yucatan, these again are closely connected
with the magnificent remains of the early Maya of Chiapas, Guatemala
and Honduras. The exact relationship existing between the Maya and the
Toltec can only be discussed after the archæology of the former has
been considered, but it may be stated in anticipation that, as far as
we can say at present, the finest Maya remains appear to antedate those
of the Toltec, and therefore that the development of Toltec culture is
in part due to Mayan inspiration filtered, I believe, through the early
inhabitants of the Zapotec country.
The consideration of what may be called the mythical period of Mexican
history is rendered all the more difficult by the fact that all the
legends have been collected among later immigrants who wished as
far as possible to trace some connection between themselves and the
earlier settlers. Toltec descent, if it could be established, raised a
family at once to a patrician status, and most of the immigrant tribes
sought their rulers among the descendants of a Toltec house. There is
therefore the danger of fictitious genealogies, such as exist among
so many Sudanese tribes desirous of proving “Arab” descent; but apart
from this we are confronted at the outset with a difficulty which is
not easy of solution. Sahagun states that the first inhabitants, the
Toltec, the other Nahua, the Olmec and the Michoacans, arrived at the
Panuco valley and worked down the east coast before turning inland.
Ixtlilxochitl represents the Toltec as coasting down lower California
and Jalisco. Of the two writers Sahagun is by far the more trustworthy,
but at the same time it is difficult to see what Ixtlilxochitl had to
gain by deliberately transferring the scene of the migration from one
coast to the other. The story of Sahagun is, in brief, as follows. The
migrants penetrated as far as Guatemala, and then settled for a time
at a place called Tamoanchan, mention of which occurs in nearly all
migration legends. Here the wise men who led them departed, taking
the god under whose guidance they travelled and the picture-writings
which contained their lore, and sailing eastward over the sea. The
rest remained behind, under the governance of certain lesser sages, of
whom the chief were Oxomoco and Cipactonal, “awaiting the dawn for the
administration of society.” The Olmec also split from the main stem
at this point. From here the others went to Xomiltepec, and then to
Teotihuacan, a site remarkable for extensive pre-Aztec ruins, where
they elected rulers, and then to Coatepec, where the Otomi branched
off. Later the tribes who still remained associated foregathered at
Chicomoztoc, another locality mentioned in nearly all the myths, where
they established cave-temples. Hence the Toltec departed to Tulanzinco,
and subsequently to Tulan; after they had separated, the Tarascans
also split off, finding their way to Michoacan. Later still the
Nahua, including the Tepanec (founders of Azcapotzalco), the Acolhua
(of Tezcoco), and the eventual populations of Chalco, Uexotzinco and
Tlaxcala respectively. The Aztec alone remained wandering in the
northern steppes until they too eventually reached the valley of
Mexico. It is hardly worth while entering into the details of Toltec
history as recorded subsequent to their settlement; the “Annals of
Quauhtitlan,” a native tradition of considerable age and value, gives
a list of five kings; Torquemada and Ixtlilxochitl furnish an entirely
different list, the latter mentioning one king in addition to those
quoted by Torquemada. All that need be said is that the Toltec were
ruled by priest-kings, representatives of their god Quetzalcoatl, who,
according to one legend, was their first ruler, and that the downfall
of their power was heralded by the separation of the temporal and
religious authority. The cause of that downfall seems to have been the
gradual incursion of later Nahua immigrants; signs of degeneration
are not wanting in the legends connected with the later reigns, in
particular the introduction of human sacrifice. At the fall of the
kingdom, a great emigration took place in the direction of the east,
to Tabasco and beyond, and, so the story tells, _via_ Tehuacan
and Teotitlan to Soconusco. Many of the Toltec however remained
behind, especially in Colhuacan, Cholula and Uexotzinco. The arrival
of the Tlaxcalans, which probably occurred about this time, drove
the Olmec further east in the path of the Toltec, with whom they
claimed to be one and the same people. No doubt however the Tlaxcalans
absorbed a large percentage of Toltec blood, a fact which intensified
their friendship for the people of Uexotzinco and their ineradicable
hostility to the Aztec. From a careful consideration of many points of
evidence, I am inclined to think that the date given by the “Annals of
Quauhtitlan” for the destruction of Tulan, viz. 1064, is not far wrong;
how long the state had lasted is more difficult to say, but that it
must have flourished for an extended period is obvious from the fact
that the remains characteristic of the Toltec culture at Azcapotzalco
form a stratum over three metres thick.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Map of the Valley of Mexico.
The black line shows the traditional route of the Aztec.]
Certain of the manuscripts give the ancient home of the Aztec as
Aztlan, and picture it as an island in the centre of a lake, with
a city called Colhuacan on the opposite shore. From here the Aztec
started in the year dated _1. tecpatl_ (“one stone knife,” i.e. 1168
A.D.), and at Colhuacan received their god, Uitzilopochtli, and joined
themselves to eight other related tribes. Five of these ultimately
formed the population of the following cities, chiefly in the Valley
of Mexico, Uexotzinco, Chalco, Xochimilco, Cuitlauac, Malinalco
(see the map of the Mexican Valley, Fig. 1); the others being the
Chichimec, Tepanec (founders of Azcapotzalco) and Matlatzinca. Later
they arrived at Tamoanchan, the “House of descent,” a word probably
meaning little more than the “place where the tribes separated,” for
here the eight tribes left them to continue their journey alone. Hence
they went to Chicomoztoc, and Cuextecatl Ichocayan, the “place where
the Huaxtec weep,” where they are represented as having made prisoners
from among this nation. After wandering in the steppes they came to
Tulan, and then to Chapultepec; and, after having been reduced for
some time to slavery in Colhuacan, settled finally in Tenochtitlan.
It is difficult to estimate the amount of authenticity which may be
attributed to this legend; the description of the ancient home seems
to reproduce the geographical position of Tenochtitlan, situated on
an island opposite a mainland town called Colhuacan, in a rather
suspicious manner. Still it seems to have been a habit of the Nahua
tribes to select such situations for their cities, in proof of which
one need only mention such towns as Zumpango, Xaltocan, Cuitlauac,
Xochimilco and Acocolco, a previous residence of the Aztec. Fig. 2
illustrates the portion of the Boturini codex which pictures the start
from Aztlan to Colhuacan, the footsteps indicating the route, and
the eight figures to the right accompanied by glyphs, representing
the eight tribes mentioned above, reading from bottom to top. The
situation of Aztlan, if the place is not entirely mythical, has given
rise to a good deal of controversy; some have identified Colhuacan
with Culiacan on the coast of Sinaloa, while Seler suggests that
it was in fact the historical city of that name, Aztlan being the
island of Acocolco whence the Mexicans were deported as slaves to
Colhuacan, a historical fact. The term Colhuan was in historical times
restricted to the inhabitants of this city, with whom the population of
Xochimilco and Malinalco were closely connected. Chicomoztoc figures
as a halting-place in practically all legends dealing with the Nahua
immigration, and in some it is regarded as the starting-point. Besides
the tribes above mentioned, the following are also represented as
having made some stay there: the Huaxtec, Olmec, Xicalanca, Totonac,
Michoacans, Tlalhuica, Acolhua (Tezcocans), Tlaxcalans, the inhabitants
of Teotitlan and Tehuacan, and the Mixtec. Beyond this we shall see
later that this place seems to be connected with the early history of
certain Maya tribes whose migration legends have been preserved. Indeed
it seems bound up with the mythical history of all the tribes of Mexico
and the greater part of Central America, with one striking exception,
the Zapotec, and as such must belong to an earlier movement of tribes
than the actual Aztec migration from Aztlan. The Nahua-speaking tribes,
including the Toltec, and the Michoacans, called themselves Chichimec,
a term which, as mentioned above, possesses rather a cultural than a
racial significance, and means wandering hunters. In fact the Aztec are
shown in manuscripts as skin-clad archers on their migration, fighting
with the inhabitants of the valley, who are represented as dressed in
textiles and armed with the macquauitl, or wooden sword edged with
obsidian. The first inroad of Chichimec after the destruction of Tulan
(though no doubt that destruction was caused, at any rate in part,
by the pressure of nomadic tribes from the north), is said to have
taken place under the leadership of a chief called Xolotl, coming
from a country named Amaquemacan _via_ Chicomoztoc and Tulan. Xolotl
established his court at Tenayocan, and proceeded to extend his power
over the other cities round the lake, incorporating such of the Toltec
as remained in his empire. Shortly after, another influx of Chichimec
took place, under three chiefs, Acolhuatzin, whose immediate followers
called themselves Tepanec, Chiconquauhtli, leading a band of Otomi,
and Tzontecomatl, chief of the Acolhua (in the narrower sense). These
chiefs allied themselves with Xolotl, and the first two were given
his two daughters in marriage, receiving at the same time the towns
of Azcapotzalco and Xaltocan respectively as residences. Tzontecomatl
married a woman from Chalco and established himself at Coatlichan.
Colhuacan at this time was ruled by Pochotl, a descendant of the last
Toltec king, and Xolotl seems to have exercised a loose suzerainty over
all. The invaders rapidly adopted the remains of civilization which
they found in the valley, and applied themselves to agriculture; the
old name of Chichimec was dropped, and that of Acolhua, in the wider
sense, was adopted. From this point historical tradition has been
so well reduced to order by Clavigero, whose work, translated into
English, is still easily accessible, that I do not propose to give more
than a mere summary of events. A list of the various “kings,” together
with approximate dates which I suggest after a careful comparison of
many sources, is given in Appendix III. The principal point to be noted
is the transfer of the political centre from Tenayocan to Tezcoco,
which took place in the reign of Xolotl’s third successor, Quinatzin,
who removed his “court” thither; from this point dates what may be
termed the “Acolhuan” domination of the Mexican valley. Meanwhile the
Aztec had arrived, but being the latest of the migrants they were
also the rudest, and were of little account. Even their prowess as
fighters was counterbalanced by the comparative smallness of their
numbers, and for years they lived under the protection of various
rulers who employed their services in the wars which had already begun
to break out between city and city. In the reign of Nopaltzin, Xolotl’s
successor, they are said to have been settled at Chapultepec, but,
being oppressed by the chief of Xaltocan, they removed to securer,
though less comfortable, quarters on the group of islands called
Acocolco at the south end of the lake. Here they remained for half a
century, until they were transferred to Colhuacan by the ruler of that
city. By this time their numbers had increased, while their fighting
qualities had not deteriorated, and after giving proof of the latter
fact by defeating the Xochimilca, with whom the Colhua were at war,
they felt their position sufficiently strong to insist on leaving
Colhuacan for Mexicaltzingo. Here however they did not reside for
long, but moved north first to Iztacalco and finally to Tenochtitlan.
Even yet they were not strong enough to stand entirely by themselves,
probably partly because they were not yet under a single chief who
could lay claim to kinship with the ruling houses of other cities, and
they were now under the protection of Azcapotzalco, to the ruler of
which they paid tribute. Not long after their settlement, dissensions
broke out among themselves, and certain clans removed to the small
island of Tlaltelolco adjoining Tenochtitlan on the north. The split
however was not final, and the two sections remained in close alliance,
though under separate administration. The question of the dates of
these various events is by no means easy to determine. Tenochtitlan,
according to the Mendoza codex, which gives a continuous chronicle from
this point, was founded in the year _2. calli_ (two house), or 1325,
and this date may, I believe, be taken as reasonably exact. We are
told that the Aztec were subject to Colhuacan for about twenty-five
years, and that they spent half a century before that on the islands
of Acocolco. If we allow about twenty years spent at Chapultepec and
in the migration from Colhuacan to Tenochtitlan, we get 1230 as the
approximate date of their arrival at the former city. At this time,
according to legend, Nopaltzin, the successor of Xolotl, was ruling at
Tenayocan, and the commencement of his reign cannot be put much earlier
than 1225, since we are told that Tlotzin, his successor (called
Huetzin by Ixtlilxochitl), died in the year in which Tenochtitlan was
founded. Xolotl, the founder of the “Chichimec” power, seems to have
reigned long, and indeed the Mexican rulers as a whole seem to have
been singularly long-lived. But in any case Xolotl cannot have led his
followers into the Mexican valley much before the second half of the
twelfth century. If the annals of Quauhtitlan are correct in assigning
the year 1064 to the destruction of Tulan, then the statement that
the Chichimec migration occurred some thirty years later must be an
error. It is true that if the statements of Sahagun as to the length of
the reigns of the Acolhuan and Chichimec kings be correct, the error
is not nearly so considerable, but in that case the association of
these kings with certain epochs of Mexican history becomes impossible.
I am inclined to believe that far more reliance is to be placed on
associations of this kind in tradition than upon mere numbers of years,
and it is possible that some mistake may have arisen between Sahagun
and his informants regarding the length of a king’s life on the one
hand and the length of his reign on the other. I have therefore given
premier importance to statements regarding associations in my scheme
of dates. Moreover it seems far more likely from several points of
view that at least a century must have intervened between the downfall
of Tulan and the immigration headed by Xolotl, though there must have
been a steady drift of “Chichimec” tribes southward during that period,
having its commencement before the former event, to which it no doubt
contributed.
[Illustration:
FIG. 2.--Detail from the Boturini MS., showing the
commencement of the Aztec migration. From left to right: Aztlan
on an island; the Aztec crossing the water; the date _1.
tecpatl_; the city Colhuacan; eight other tribes, reading
downwards, the Matlatzinca, Tepanec, Chichimec, Malinalca,
Cuitlauaca, Xochimilca, Chalca, and Uexotzinca. (_After
Seler_)]
For the first half-century after their establishment at Tenochtitlan,
the Aztec were ruled by a council, composed no doubt of the heads of
clans; but in the year 1376 they elected a king. Nothing illustrates
better the idea among the Mexicans that kingly power was inherent
in certain families, than the fact that they elected Acamapitzin,
whose mother was a daughter of the ruler of Colhuacan, Coxcoxtli,
and therefore of Toltec descent. Simultaneously the inhabitants of
Tlaltelolco elected a ruler, Quaquapitzauac, said to be connected with
the ruling family of Azcapotzalco. At this time the most powerful
cities in the valley were Tezcoco, whither Quinatzin had removed the
Acolhuan court, which was now ruled by his successor Techotlala;
Azcapotzalco, ruled by the Tepanec Tezozomoc, descended from
Acolhuatzin; Coatlichan, where a member of Tzontecomatl’s family held
sway; and Colhuacan, under the kingship of Coxcoxtli, of the race of
Pochotl the son of Topiltzin the last Toltec king.
Acamapitzin was followed in 1396 by Uitziliuitl, and he in 1417
by Chimalpopoca, Tlacateotl having succeeded to the rulership of
Tlaltelolco in 1406. Meanwhile Techotlala had died, and Ixtlilxochitl
had become ruler of Tezcoco about 1400. The Mendoza codex assigns
the conquest of certain cities to these kings, but it is probable
that in these expeditions they acted merely as allies of Tezcoco or
Azcapotzalco. During this period the power of Azcapotzalco began to
expand, and, aided by the Mexicans, Tezozomoc, the ruler of that
city, attacked Ixtlilxochitl of Tezcoco. The obstinate war which
followed was the commencement of the struggle between the Tepanec and
Acolhua for the hegemony of the valley, but for the time the latter
prevailed, and a hollow peace was made. This lasted but a short time,
and Ixtlilxochitl was eventually killed in an ambuscade by the Tepanec,
who had utilized the interval in winning over certain of his allies.
The Tepanec thus became masters of Tezcoco in 1418, and Nezahualcoyotl,
the legitimate heir, was driven into exile. Tezozomoc, the Tepanec
ruler, did not however enjoy his success long, but died about 1425 at
an advanced age. So old was he, it is related, that he was at last
kept in a basket surrounded with wool for warmth, and his final years
were embittered by dreams that Nezahualcoyotl in the form of an eagle
devoured his heart, or, as a lion, sucked his blood. His death brought
internal dissension upon Azcapotzalco; one of his younger sons, by name
Maxtla, assassinated the heir-designate and seized the power. He seems
to have been the most energetic of the members of the ruling house,
but lacked his father’s political wariness, since he began to quarrel
with Mexico. This was a fatal mistake, since it caused the Aztec,
secretly at first, to intrigue with the exiled Nezahualcoyotl, who had,
moreover, many friends among the cities where the Acolhuan element was
strong. In 1417 Itzcoatl succeeded to power in Tenochtitlan; the Aztec
had by this time increased considerably in numbers and prosperity, and
the new ruler proved himself a man of action and an excellent general.
He definitely espoused the cause of the exile, with the result that
the latter, aided by the people of Tlaxcala and Uexotzinco, succeeded
in recapturing Tezcoco and killing every Tepanec in the city. At the
same time Coatlichan was stormed by the Chalca, who had also offered
assistance to Nezahualcoyotl. These events brought matters to a head;
Maxtla, refusing peace, rashly sent an expedition against Tenochtitlan,
and the populace in terror wished to submit. But Itzcoatl succeeded in
inspiring them with courage, and, aided by Quauhtlatoa, who had just
been elected to the kingship of Tlaltelolco, they inflicted a signal
defeat upon the invading force. Nor was this all, Itzcoatl followed up
his success by attacking Azcapotzalco, which was successfully stormed
and Maxtla was killed. Meanwhile the forces of Tlaxcala and Uexotzinco
had captured Tenayocan, and the Tepanec domination was at an end. The
Aztec were now actually the paramount power in the valley, but Itzcoatl
was too wise to insist upon the fact. He recognized Nezahualcoyotl
as his equal, and contracted with him an alliance on equal terms, by
which means he won the support of the large Acolhua population. He
also conciliated the favour of the defeated Tepanec; Azcapotzalco,
it is true, was reduced to the level of a subordinate city, but over
Tlacopan, another Tepanec town, he placed Totoquiuatzin, a descendant
of Tezozomoc, as ruler and admitted him to the confederacy on the terms
that the booty which was won by the allied arms should be distributed
in the following proportions; to Tenochtitlan two-fifths, to Tezcoco
two-fifths, and to Tlacopan one-fifth. The one essential of power
Itzcoatl retained for himself; he stipulated that the military policy
of the allies should be directed from Tenochtitlan.
But if the political power was concentrated in Tenochtitlan, Tezcoco
under the wise rule of Nezahualcoyotl became the intellectual and
artistic centre of the valley. The government was reformed, and a code
of laws drawn up which was regarded as the pattern of all legislation;
schools were instituted for the study of poetry, astronomy, music
and painting, and the city was embellished by the construction of
temples and gardens. However the fall of the Tepanec did not bring
peace to the valley; many cities began to be jealous of the Aztec
and their newly-acquired hegemony, and the Mendoza codex gives a
list of cities which were conquered during the reign of Itzcoatl,
among them Quauhtitlan, Cuitlauac, Xochimilco, Chalco, and Quauhnauac
(Cuernavaca). Yet these “conquests” were not on the same scale as that
of Azcapotzalco; from this time forward the Aztec were content with
exacting merely a nominal submission from the towns which they subdued,
and imposing tribute. As long as the latter was paid punctually
no interference was made either with the local rulers or their
administration, though theoretically the heir of a “king” who died was
supposed to seek confirmation in his office at the hands of the ruler
of Tenochtitlan.
[Illustration:
_Photo. C. B. Waite_ _Mexico Museum_
1]
[Illustration:
_British Museum_
2
MEXICO
1. COLOSSAL STONE HEAD OF COYOLXAUHQUI
2. STONE FIGURE OF CHALCHIUHTLICUE
(Scale: 1, ¹⁄₂₅th; 2, ⅓rd)]
With the advent to the throne of Montecuzoma, the first of that
name, in 1440, the Aztec continued to extend their power beyond the
valley. After a short campaign against the Chalca, in order to obtain
prisoners to sacrifice at his coronation, this king proceeded to
attack the region around Cuernavaca, subduing, among other towns,
that of Tepoztlan, where a temple still remains inscribed with his
name (S.S.W. of Cuernavaca), Yauhtepec and Tlaxco (Pl. XIV, 2; p.
174). Further south, he conquered Coixtlahuaca in Mixtec territory,
but his operations to the east were more extensive. In 1458 he sent
an expedition into the Panuco valley, against the Huaxtec, and in
1461 he won Cotaxtla in the Totonac district, penetrating as far as
Cozomaloapan and overrunning also the region of Tuxpan. His foreign
conquests were not undisturbed by troubles in the valley, and the same
must be understood of the later rulers also. Revolt was frequent,
and encouraged rather than otherwise by the religious beliefs of the
Mexicans, as will be explained later. In particular those cities
which contained a large percentage of some formerly dominant people
were perpetually seceding, and among them Chalco and Xochimilco
were frequent offenders. To the east the population of Tlaxcala and
Uexotzinco were a perpetual thorn in the side of the Aztec, and were
never reduced to subjection. The Tlaxcalans in particular succeeded
in holding their own, and their hostility to Tenochtitlan, of more
than half a century’s duration, proved of inestimable value to the
Spaniards. This people, who as we have seen were of “Chichimec”
origin, had originally been settled on the east shore of the lake,
but, owing to quarrels with their neighbours, decided to move
their residence. A few went north and settled in Tulanzinco, but
the majority migrated east through Cholula to the region of Mount
Matlalcue, whence they drove the Olmec and Xicalanga. No doubt a
certain amount of intermingling took place between the peoples, and
it was partly the large infusion of Toltec blood which rendered them
so implacably hostile to Aztec rule, and usually on such good terms
with the Cholulans. With the Uexotzinca their relations were variable,
but more often friendly than not. As has been related, they assisted
in the overthrow of the Tepanec power, but the expansion of Mexico
under Montecuzoma was by no means to their liking, and friction soon
arose. With the Uexotzinca they assisted the northern Mixtec against
Montecuzoma, and succeeded at first in checking the Aztec advance in
this direction. However, in twenty-nine years Montecuzoma extended
the influence of Tenochtitlan, on the east to the Mexican gulf,
on the south-east and south to the northern portion of the Mixtec
territory and the Cuernavaca region, while on the west and north-west
he penetrated into the Toluca valley and the country of the Otomi.
At home he built the great Uitznauac temple and, on the advice of
Nezahualcoyotl, constructed the ten-mile causeway from Atzacoalco
to Iztapalapa in order to guard against inundation, besides adding
many buildings to the city and enlarging the code of laws. He died in
1469, preceded in 1464 by Quauhtlatoa the king of Tlaltelolco, who was
succeeded by Moquiuix. Axayacatl now became lord of Tenochtitlan, and
events moved fast in the valley. Totoquihuatzin, ruler of Tlacopan,
died the next year, and was succeeded by Chimalpopoca,[2] while the
long life of Nezahualcoyotl came to an end in 1472, and Nezahualpilli
assumed the power in Tezcoco. The following year Moquiuix intrigued
with the Chalca and others against Axayacatl, and the latter stormed
Tlaltelolco and killed the traitor. From this time Tlaltelolco was
definitely united to its neighbour, and placed under a governor, the
kingship being abolished. This reign was signalized, as far as external
affairs were concerned, by an expedition to the Zapotec territory,
as far as and beyond Tehuantepec, and though no doubt the province
cannot be said to have been absolutely conquered, yet it had the
effect of opening up the road to the fertile district of Soconusco,
rich in cacao, feathers and gems. Archæologically considered the
Zapotec country constitutes an extremely interesting region, if only
for the reason that they and the smaller tribes immediately in their
neighbourhood possessed no legends hinting at immigration, but claimed
that their ancestors issued from caves, rocks or trees in the locality.
Similar myths were found among the Mixtec also, but immigration
legends are not wanting. For instance, one story relates that the first
lords entered the country from the north, after the Mexican migration,
and settled between Achiutla and Tilantongo. The relationship which
exists between the Mixtec and Zapotec languages suggests a strong
common element, but it seems probable that the former people had
received an element of some immigrant nationality, possibly akin to the
Toltec or Chichimec. This element was not strong enough to influence
the local dialects, but gave the Mixtec that superiority in arms which
enabled them to encroach upon the Zapotec district. East of the Zapotec
were the uncultured Mixe and Zoque, from whom the Zapotec in their turn
had won territory, including Tehuantepec.
To return to the conquests of Axayacatl, this king completed the
reduction of the Toluca valley, and reconquered the region of Cotaxtla
which had revolted, so that his successor Tizoc, who seems also to
have sent an expedition to the Mixtec country, was able to lay claim
to an empire extending over the valleys of Toluca and the Rio de las
Balsas, and the highlands of Mixteca, Huaxteca, Orizaba, Cotaxtla and
Teotitlan. Axayacatl died in 1469, and Tizoc in 1482, and Auitzotl
became the Aztec ruler. He continued the strenuous foreign policy
of his predecessors, and proved a vigorous conqueror, though he was
passionate and often cruel in administration. His armies conquered many
cities in the Zapotec country, including Mitla (1494), Teozapotlan
(1495) and Tehuantepec, and after seizing Tonala, the key to the
country further south and east, pursued their victorious course through
Soconusco, _via_ Mapaxtepec, Escuintla and Huiztla, as far as
Huehuetlan. Other expeditions penetrated Chiapas, and even subdued
certain cities in Guatemala. Probably however there was nothing like an
effective occupation of the country beyond the city of Oaxaca, where a
Mexican colony was established. In particular Chiapas can never be said
to have been conquered. Still, in this reign the Aztec power reached
its furthest extent, and the influence of Tenochtitlan was felt from
the Panuco valley to northern Guatemala, and from Tuxpan to Acapulco.
In the city itself Auitzotl completed the great pyramid-temple to
Uitzilopochtli, the tribal god of the Aztec, which his predecessor had
commenced, and also constructed an aqueduct which supplied water from
Coyoacan. A severe inundation took place in his reign, and as he was
escaping from the lower floor of a building which had become flooded,
he struck his head against the lintel, causing an injury from which
he eventually died. Montecuzoma, the second of that name, succeeded
in the year 1502; Nezahualpilli was still ruling in Tezcoco, but
Chimalpopoca of Tlacopan had died in 1489 and Totoquiuatzin the second
was now the ruler there. Montecuzoma had been trained as a priest as
well as a soldier, and though his military abilities enabled him to
maintain the empire much in the same condition as he received it, he
was particularly superstitious and amenable to sacerdotal influence.
Abroad he quelled a rebellion among the Zapotec and Mixtec, and carried
on operations in Soconusco and Vera Cruz. Nearer home he seized the
opportunity of a quarrel between the Tlaxcalans and Uexotzinca to
espouse the cause of the latter and to carry on a vigorous campaign
against the former. For many years the Aztec had been able seriously
to obstruct Tlaxcalan trade with the coast, so much so in fact that
salt was a rarity in that province, but Montecuzoma made an energetic
attack upon their territory. Undismayed, the Tlaxcalans fortified the
approach to their dominions with a wall six miles long, and succeeded
in withstanding the invasion and even in inflicting defeats upon
their foes. Meanwhile Nezahualpilli, ruler of Tezcoco, died in 1515,
and his son Cacamatzin was elected in his place. A younger son,
Ixtlilxochitl, laid claim to the power and succeeded in attracting a
number of supporters. He was still haunting the neighbouring mountains
and carrying on a guerilla warfare with the confederate troops when the
arrival of the Spaniards in 1519 brought the development of aboriginal
American civilization to an abrupt close. Montecuzoma had emphasized
the aristocratic aspect of Mexican government, and under him the court
ceremonial had been greatly elaborated. He surrounded himself with a
state, and the rich tribute which now poured into Tenochtitlan enabled
him not only to undertake many important works for the beautifying of
the city, but to model his personal service on a scale which surpasses
even the “Arabian Nights.” The magnificent “calendar-stone,” figured
on =Pl. VIII=, 1, p. 74, was brought by him from Coyoacan to
serve probably as a sacrificial altar to the sun in the enclosure of
the great temple of Uitzilopochtli. He was a strong personality, and
though his superstitious training led him to adopt a fatally hesitating
policy when the Spaniards landed, he displayed under all circumstances
a personal courage and dignity which lend additional pathos to his
fate.
Of Zapotec and Mixtec history, apart from that of Mexico, we know
practically nothing. We hear of a mythical Mixtec king named
Dzahuindanda, who possessed a magic sack which he was wont to take
to a desolate mountain and shake, after appropriate incantations,
producing thereby as many soldiers as he required. Less legendary are
the Zapotec Zociyoeza and his son Zociyopi, the former of whom ruled
at Teozapotlan, the latter at Tehuantepec. Zociyoeza in fact opposed
the Mexican advance, and held out against the invading troops for four
years entrenched in Quiengola, until at last he was able to conclude an
honourable peace. Between the Mixtec and Zapotec, hostilities seem to
have been not uncommon, and from a story told by Burgoa it would appear
that the Zapotec did not form a very large state. The principal ruler
was the chief of Teozapotlan, but his resources could not have been
great, since he asked a Mixtec king for troops to defend his city while
he was absent upon a campaign against the Mixe in Tehuantepec. The same
author relates that after being successful in his operations the chief
rashly laid claim to certain Mixtec territory, a demand which resulted
in the seizure by the Mixtec of a large slice of the Oaxaca region, and
the founding of the Mixtec town of Xoxocotlan.
The history of the Pazcuaro plateau seems to have been very similar
to that of the Mexican valley. Originally the shores of the lake were
occupied by a population of agriculturists and fishers, probably akin
to the pre-Toltec inhabitants around the lake of Tezcoco. Upon them
descended, from the hills around Zacapu, certain tribes of wandering
hunters led by a tribal hero Ticatamé. The new-comers mingled and
intermarried with the original population and adopted their habits, but
friction arose, Ticatamé was killed and the idol of the immigrants,
Curicaveri, was captured. Sicuirancha, son of Ticatamé, called upon
the god for aid, the foe were smitten with a pestilence and the idol
recaptured. In course of time the immigrants became a ruling class,
and to the whole population the name Tarascan was given, from Taras,
another hunting-god who was identified with the Chichimec Mixcoatl.
It is possible that this ruling class was originally of Chichimec
stock, and its descent upon Pazcuaro was part of that general movement
southward which took place among the hunting tribes of the north
towards the end of the Toltec rule. If this is so they must have
abandoned their own language in favour of the tongue of the original
agricultural population with whom they intermarried. It is interesting
to find in Michoacan a definite story of a Toltec immigration. A
body of Toltec, specified as skilled workers in gold, stone and
feather-work, are said to have travelled from Vera Cruz _via_
Tehuacan, Coyoacan and Tenochtitlan to Xiuhquillan (Tzitzipu, on L.
Pazcuaro), where they settled. The Tarascan of later date bore a high
reputation as stone-cutters, mosaic-workers and feather-workers, and
this fact, together with the presence in Michoacan of a peculiar class
of pottery with polychrome _champ-levé_ ornament, which is also
characteristic of the pre-Aztec remains of the valley, suggest that
Toltec influence had in fact penetrated into Michoacan.
Totonac history is as deficient as that of the Zapotec. Tradition
related that they were immigrants into the country where they were
found by the Spaniards, and lived there for about six and a half
centuries in complete independence. Less than two centuries after
their immigration, certain “Chichimec” tribes of lower culture settled
on their north-western borders, and in course of time considerable
intercourse, and even intermarriage, sprang up between them. Eventually
civil war broke out among the Totonac, much of the country was laid
waste and sections of the population emigrated from the district. It
is quite possible that the “Toltec” who are said to have found their
way to Michoacan may have been a body of Totonac emigrants who left
their country at this period. The result of the civil strife was that
a great portion of Totonac region fell under “Chichimec” domination.
Three kings of this nationality held sway, until, in the reign of the
last, the Aztec conquered the country and reduced it to the status of a
province as related above.
Much light is shed upon the interrelation of the various tribes who
combined to form the population of Mexico by the study of their various
gods; and since religion formed the mainspring not only of all public
but also of private life, it will be as well to deal as shortly as
possible with this complicated subject before proceeding to discuss
the manners and customs of the pre-Spanish inhabitants and their
archæological remains which have been found scattered throughout the
country.
[Illustration:
_Photo Prof. Seler_ _Mexico Museum_
MEXICO
COLOSSAL STONE FIGURE OF COATLICUE]