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.