Chapter III (4)

[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.