Chapter III (3)

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.