Hubert Howe Bancroft

[I-1] He affirms (in a work entitled Christian Topography) that, according to the true orthodox system of geography, the earth is a quadrangular plane, extending four hundred days' journey east and west, and exactly half as much north and south; that it is inclosed by mountains, on which the sky rests; that one on the north side, huger than the others, by intercepting the rays of the sun, produces night; and that the plane of the earth is not set exactly horizontally, but with a little inclination from the north: hence the Euphrates, Tigris, and other rivers, running southward, are rapid; but the Nile, having to run up-hill, has necessarily a very slow current.' Draper's Conflict between Religion and Science, p. 65.

[I-2] In answer to the question: 'What was God doing before he made the heaven and the earth? for, if at any particular moment he began to employ himself, that means time, not eternity. In eternity nothing happens—the whole is present.' St Augustine caustically remarks: 'I will not answer this question by saying that he was preparing hell for pryers into his mysteries.'

[I-3] The teachings of the Church were beyond controversy, the decisions of the Church were final; and not only in religion but in legislation and in science 'the pervading principle was a blind unhesitating credulity.' See Buckle's Civilization, vol. i., p. 307. The Bishop of Darien once quoted Plato in the presence of Las Casas. "Plato," Las Casas replied, "was a Gentile, and is now burning in hell, and we are only to make use of his doctrine as far as it is consistent with our holy Faith and Christian customs." Helps' Life of Las Casas, p. 120.

[I-4] As an example of the intolerance displayed by these early writers, and of the bitterness with which they attacked those few thinkers who dared to theorize without letting theological dogmas stand in their way, I translate the following passage from GarcÍa, who is one of the most comprehensive writers upon the origin of the Americans: 'We would like not even to remember the unworthy opinions of certain veritable blasphemers, more barbarous than the Indians, which do not even deserve the name of opinions, but rather of follies: namely, that, perhaps, the first Indians might have been generated from the earth, or from its putrefaction, aided by the sun's heat, as (Avicena allowing this production to be easy in men) Andres Cisalpino attempted to make credible, giving them less perfection than Empedocles, who said that men had been born like the wild amaranth, if we believe Marcus Varron.... Of the formation of man, though of straw and mud, the people of Yucatan, had light; which nonsense is not inferior to the attempts of those who made men by means of chemistry, or magic (described by Solorcano) giving it to be understood that there may be others besides the descendants of Adam, contrary to the teachings of scripture: for which reason Taurelo feels indignant against Cisalpino, whose attempt would be reprehensible even as a paradox. Not less scandalous was the error of the ignorant Paracelso, according to Reusnero and Kirchero, who left to posterity an account of the creation of two Adams, one in Asia, and another in the West Indies; an inexcusable folly in one who had (though corruptly) information of the Catholic doctrine. Not less erroneous is the opinion of Isaac de La Peyrere, who placed people on the earth before Adam was created, from whom, he said, descended the heathen; from Adam, the Hebrews; which folly was punished with eternal contempt by Felipe Priorio, Juan Bautista Morino, Juan Hilperto, and others, Danhavero giving it the finishing stroke by an epitaph, as Dicterico relates: although some of the parties named state that La Peyrere became repentant and acknowledged his error, and did penance, which the Orientals, from whom he took that absurdity, have not done. These, and others of the same nature, may not be held as opinions, but as evidences of blindness published by men of doubtful faith, wise, in their own esteem, and deceivers of the world, who, with lies and fraud, oppose the divine word, as St Clemens Alexandrinus says, closing their ears to truth, and blindfolding themselves with their vices, for whom contempt is the best reward.' OrÍgen de los Ind., p. 248. GarcÍa spent nine years in Peru, devoting himself to the study of three points: the history of the natives before the arrival of the Spaniards, the origin of the natives, and the question as to whether the apostles preached the gospel in America. On his return to Spain, he concluded to write only upon the second topic, leaving the others for a future time.

[I-5] Descent of Man, vol. ii., p. 368.

[I-6] The value of proof by analogy has been questioned by many eminent authors. Humboldt writes: 'On n'est pas en droit de supposer des communications partout oÙ l'on trouve, chez des peuples À demi barbares, le culte du soleil, ou l'usage de sacrifier des victimes humaines.' Vues, tom. i., p. 257. 'The instances of customs, merely arbitrary, common to the inhabitants of both hemispheres, are, indeed, so few and so equivocal, that no theory concerning the population of the New World ought to be founded upon them.' As regards religious rites, 'the human mind, even where its operations appear most wild and capricious, holds a course so regular, that in every age and country the dominion of particular passions will be attended with similar effects.' Robertson's Hist. Amer., vol. i., p. 269. Warden remarks that nations known to be distinct, to have had no intercourse, breed similar customs—these, therefore, grow from physical and moral causes. Recherches, p. 205. 'In attempting to trace relations between them and the rest of mankind, we cannot expect to discover proofs of their derivation from any particular tribe or nation of the Old Continent.' Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man, vol. ii., p. 494. 'To tell an inquirer who wishes to deduce one population from another that certain distant tribes agree with the one under discussion in certain points of resemblance, is as irrelevant as to tell a lawyer in search of the next of kin to a client deceased, that though you know of no relations, you can find a man who is the very picture of him in person—a fact good enough in itself, but not to the purpose.' Latham's Man and his Migrations, pp. 74-5.

[I-7] Certainly many of the writers must have been either fools or demented, if we judge them by their work and arguments.

[I-8] Garcia, Origen de los Ind., pp. 7-12.

[I-9] When De Gama established the globular form of the earth by his voyage round the Cape of Good Hope, in 1497-8, 'the political consequences that at once ensued placed the Papal Government in a position of great embarrassment. Its traditions and policy forbade it to admit any other than the flat figure of the earth, as revealed in the Scriptures.' In 1520 Magellan discovered the strait which now bears his name, and 'henceforth the theological doctrine of the flatness of the earth was irretrievably overthrown.' Draper's Conflict, pp. 163-5. St Augustin affirmed that the world beyond the tropic of cancer was uninhabited. 'Ea vero veterum sententia, perspicua atque inuicta, vt ipsis videbatur, ratione nitebatur. Nam vt quÆque regio ad meridiem propius accedit, ita solis ardoribus magis expositam animaduerterant, idque adeo verum est, vt in eadem ItaliÆ prouincia Apuliam Liguria, & in nostra Hispania BÆticam Cantabria vsque adeo feruentiorem nota re liceat, vt per gradus vixdum octo grande frigoris & Æstus discrimen sit.' Acosta, De Natura Novi Orbis, fol. 27. 'Lactantius Firmianus, and St. Austin, who strangely jear'd at as ridiculous, and not thinking fit for a Serious Answer the Foolish Opinion of Antipodes, or another Habitable World beyond the Equator: At which, Lactantius Drolling, says, what, Forsooth, here is a fine Opinion broach'd indeed; an Antipodes! heigh-day! People whose Feet tread with ours, and walk Foot to Foot with us; their Heads downwards, and yet drop not into the Sky! There, yes, very likely, the Trees loaden with Fruit grow downwards, and it Rains, Hails, and Snows upwards; the Roofs and Spires of Cities, tops of Mountains, point at the Sky beneath them, and the Rivers revers'd topsi-turvy, ready to flow into the Air out of their Channels.' Ogilby's America, pp. 6-7. The ancients believed a large portion of the globe to be uninhabitable by reason of excessive heat, which must have greatly deterred discovery.

[I-10] Touching the question whether the Americans and the people of the old world are of common origin, see: Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 1-31; Tylor's Anahuac, p. 104; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., pp. 14-24; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 1-31; Ramirez, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da Época, tom. iv., p. 54; M'Culloh's Researches on Amer., pp. 175-8; Mayer's Mex. as it Was, p. 260; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 66-80; Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., p. 389; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 237-49, 351, 354, 420-35; Charlevoix, quoted in Carver's Trav., pp. 197-8; Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, p. 17, et seq.; Crowe's Cent. Amer., p. 61; Williams' Enquiry into Tradition; Chevalier, Mexique, p. 134; Wilson's Pre-Hist. Man, pp. 611-14, 485-6; Carli, Cartas, pt i., p. 16; Chamisso, in Kotzebue's Voyage, vol. ii., pp. 405-6; Prichard's Researches, vol. v., pp. 541-6; Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 22, 31. Innumerable other speculations have been made on this point, but in most cases by men who were but poorly qualified to deal with a subject requiring not only learning, but a determination to investigate fairly and without bias. Adair's reasoning in this connection will serve to illustrate: 'God employed six days, in creating the heavens, this earth, and the innumerable species of creatures, wherewith it is so amply furnished. The works of a being, infinitely perfect, must entirely answer the design of them: hence there could be no necessity for a second creation; or God's creating many pairs of the human race differing from each other, and fitted for different climates; because, that implies imperfection, in the grand scheme, or a want of power, in the execution of it—Had there been a prior, or later formation of any new class of creatures, they must materially differ from those of the six days work; for it is inconsistent with divine wisdom to make a vain, or unnecessary repetition of the same act. But the American Indians neither vary from the rest of mankind, in their internal construction, nor external appearance, except in colour; which, as hath been shewn, is either entirely accidental, or artificial. As the Mosaic account declares a completion of the manifestation of God's infinite wisdom and power in creation, within that space of time; it follows, that the Indians have lineally descended from Adam, the first, and the great parent of all the human species.' Amer. Ind., pp. 11-12. To the works of those modern scientists, such as Lyell, Darwin, and others, who have treated of the unity of the human species at large, I need not refer the reader here. An excellent rÉsumÉ of the subject will, however, be found in Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 353-67.

[I-11] 'We find on the earliest Egyptian monuments,' says Sir John Lubbock, 'some of which are certainly as ancient as 2400 B.C., two great distinct types, the Arab on the east and west of Egypt, the Negro on the south. These distinct types still predominate in Egypt and the neighbouring countries. Thus, then, says Mr. Poole, in this immense interval we do not find "the least change in the Negro or the Arab; and even the type which seems to be intermediate between them is virtually as unaltered. Those who consider that length of time can change a type of man, will do well to consider the fact that three thousand years give no ratio on which a calculation could be founded."' Crawfurd, also says: the millions '"of African Negroes that have during three centuries been transported to the New World and its islands, are the same in colour as the present inhabitants of the parent country of their forefathers. The Creole Spaniards, who have for at least as long a time been settled in tropical America, are as fair as the people of Arragon and Andalusia, with the same variety of colour in the hair and eye as their progenitors. The pure Dutch Creole colonists of the Cape of Good Hope, after dwelling two centuries among black Caffres, and yellow Hottentots, do not differ in colour from the people of Holland."' Pre-Hist. Times, pp. 587-8. We find 'upon Egyptian monuments, mostly of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries before the Christian Era, representations of individuals of numerous nations, African, Asiatic, and European, differing in physical characteristics as widely as any equal number of nations of the present age that could be grouped together; among these being negroes of the true Nigritian stamp, depicted with a fidelity as to color and features, hardly to be surpassed by a modern artist. That such diversities had been produced by natural means in the interval between that remote age and the time of Noah, probably no one versed in the science of anatomy and physiology will consider credible.' Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, p. 357.

[I-12] Noticias Americanas, pp. 391-5, 405-7. On pages 286-304, he has an argument, backed by geological evidences, to show that America is the oldest continent.

[I-13] 'Were we to admit,' say some ethnologists, 'a unity of origin of such strongly-marked varieties as the Negro and European, differing as they do in colour and bodily constitution, each fitted for distinct climates, and exhibiting some marked peculiarities in their osteological, and even in some details of cranial and cerebral conformation, as well as in their average intellectual endowments,—if, in spite of the fact that all these attributes have been faithfully handed down unaltered for hundreds of generations, we are to believe that, in the course of time, they have all diverged from one common stock, how shall we resist the argument of the transmutationist, who contends that all closely allied species of animals and plants have in like manner sprung from a common parentage?' Lyell's Antiq. of Man, pp. 433-4.

[I-14] Lescarbot, Hist. Nouv. France, lib. i., cap. iii.

[I-15] Hist. Conq. Itza, pp. 26-8.

[I-16] Pamphleteer, 1815. Thompson calculates the spreading of Noah's children up to the time of Peleg, when the Bible declares the earth to have been divided. He also shows that this division happened earlier than is generally supposed.

[I-17] Orrio, Solucion, p. 41, et seq. Torquemada also believes Ham to have been the father of the race. Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 21-30.

[I-18] Nieuwe Weereld, p. 37.

[I-19] L'Estrange, Americans no Jewes.

[I-20] Deserts, vol. i., p. 26. 'The Peruvian language,' writes Ulloa, 'is something like the Hebrew, and Noah's tongue was doubtless Hebrew.' Noticias Americanas, p. 384.

[I-21] Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., p. 17.

[I-22] In Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da Época, tom. iii., p. 343.

[I-23] See vol. iii. of this work, p. 450, et seq.

[I-24] Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., p. 15. Heredia y Sarmiento follows Clavigero. Sermones, p. 84.

[I-25] Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., p. 401. Priest, Amer. Antiq., pp. 142-3, thinks that an ivory image representing a mother and child found in Cincinnati, may have been taken to Britain by the Greeks or Romans, who knew of the prophecies concerning the Virgin and Child Jesus, and thence brought to America. See, also, concerning religious belief, baptism, circumcision, and other Christian-like rites in the New World: Tylor's Anahuac, pp. 279-80; Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., pp. 378-85; Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i., pp. 17-18; M'Culloh's Researches on Amer., pp. 111-40; Latrobe's Rambler, pp. 205-6.

[I-26] See vol. iii., pp. 66-9, and comments in accompanying notes.

[I-27] Id., pp. 72-5.

[I-28] Id., p. 76.

[I-29] Id., pp. 78-9.

[I-30] Id., p. 86.

[I-31] Id., p. 88.

[I-32] Id., p. 89.

[I-33] Id., p. 103.

[I-34] Mackenzie's Voyages, p. cxviii.

[I-35] 'Ou plutÔt deux femmes, portant le nom d'Ara,' says Brasseur de Bourbourg; I prefer, however, the original reading. The Ara is a kind of parroquet, common in South America, and so called because it continually repeats the cry ara, ara. Beings half bird, half woman, are as likely to figure in such a legend as the above as not. Besides, shortly afterwards the narrative speaks of 'les deux oiseaux,' referring to the aras.

[I-36] For both of these flood-myths see: Brasseur de Bourbourg, in Landa, Relacion, pp. xxx-xxxii. Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. v., lib. iii., cap. vi., gives a native tradition which relates that long before the time of the Incas there was a great deluge, from which some of the natives escaped by fleeing to the mountain-tops. The mountain tribes assert, however, that only six persons escaped this flood in a balsa.

[I-37] Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., p. 25.

[I-38] See vol. iii., p. 67.

[I-39] See vol. iii., pp. 77, 89.

[I-40] According to Ixtlilxochitl, the Toltec tradition relates that after the confusion of tongues the seven families who spoke the Toltec language set out for the New World, wandering one hundred and four years over large extents of land and water. Finally they arrived at Huehue Tlapallan in the year 'one flint,' five hundred and twenty years after the flood. Relaciones, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 322. See also another account, p. 450; Boturini, CrÓn. Mex., pt ii., pp. 5-8; Id., Idea, pp. 111-27; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 24, 145, 212-13; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 145; Hist. y Antig., in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. i., p. 284; Juarros, Hist. Guat., (Guat. 1857) tom. ii., pp. 55-6; Delafield's Antiq. Amer., p. 34; Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 114-15; Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., pp. 380-1; Davis' Anc. Amer., p. 31; Tylor's Anahuac, p. 277.

[I-41] They had also, as we have seen in the third volume, a great many curious ideas as to the way in which man was created, and as in attempting to prove their theories many writers are apt to draw analogies in this particular, I give a brief rÉsumÉ of the creation-myths here for the reader's convenience: The grossest conceptions of the mystery of the beginning of man are to be found among the rude savages of the north, who, however, as they are quite content, in many instances, to believe that their earliest progenitor was a dog or a coyote, seem entitled to some sympathy from the latest school of modern philosophy, though it is true that their process of development was rather abrupt, and that they did not require very many links in their chain of evolution. But as we advance farther south, the attempts to solve the problem grow less simple and the direct instrumentality of the gods is required for the formation of man. The Aleuts ascribe their origin to the intercourse of a dog and a bitch, or, according to another version, of a bitch and a certain old man who came from the north to visit his brute-bride. From them sprang two creatures, male and female, each half man, half fox; and from these two the human race is descended. Others of the Aleuts believe that their canine progenitor fell from heaven. The Tinneh also owe their origin to a dog; though they believe that all other living creatures were called into existence by an immense bird. The Thlinkeet account of the creation certainly does not admit of much caviling or dispute concerning its chronology, method, or general probability, since it merely states that men were "placed on the earth," though when, or how, or by whom, it does not presume to relate. According to the Tacully cosmogony, a musk-rat formed the dry land, which afterwards became peopled, though whether by the agency of that industrious rodent or not, is not stated. Darwinism is reversed by many of the Washington tribes, who hold that animals and even some vegetables are descended from man. The human essence from which the first Ahts were formed, was originally contained in the bodies of animals, who upon being suddenly stampeded from their dwellings left this mysterious matter behind them. Some of the Ahts contend, however, that they are the direct descendants of a shadowy personage named Quawteaht and a gigantic Thunder Bird. The Chinooks were created by a Coyote, who, however, did his work so badly and produced such imperfect specimens of humanity, that but for the beneficent intervention and assistance of a spirit called IkÁnam the race must have ended as soon as it began. Some of the Washington tribes originated from the fragments of a huge beaver, which was slain and cut in pieces by four giants at the request of their sister who was pining away for some beaver-fat. The first Shasta was the result of a union between the daughter of the Great Spirit and a grizzly bear. The Cahrocs believe that Chareya, the Old Man Above, created the world, then the fishes and lower animals, and lastly man. The Potoyantes were slowly developed from Coyotes. The Big Man of the Mattoles created first the earth, bleak and naked, and placed but one man upon it; then, on a sudden, in the midst of a mighty whirlwind and thick darkness, he covered the desolate globe with all manner of life and verdure. One of the myths of Southern California attributes the creation of man and the world to two divine beings. The Los Angeles tribes believe their one god Quaoar brought forth the world from chaos, set it upon the shoulders of seven giants, peopled it with the lower forms of animal life, and finally crowned his work by creating a man and a woman out of earth. Still farther south, the CochimÍs believe in a sole creator; the PericÚis call the maker of all things Niparaja, and say that the heavens are his dwelling-place; the Sinaloas pay reverence to Viriseva the mother of Vairubi, the first man. According to the Navajos, all mankind originally dwelt under the earth, in almost perpetual darkness, until they were released by the Moth-worm, who bored his way up to the surface. Through the hole thus made the people swarmed out on to the face of the earth, the Navajos taking the lead. Their first act was to manufacture the sun and the moon, and with the light came confusion of tongues. The Great Father and Mother of the Moquis created men in nine races from all manner of primeval forms. The Pima creator made man and woman from a lump of clay, which he kneaded with the sweat of his own body, and endowed with life by breathing upon it. The Great Spirit of the PÁpagos made first the earth and all living things, and then men in great numbers from potter's clay. The Miztecs ascribe their origin to the act of the two mighty gods, the male Lion Snake and the female Tiger Snake, or of their sons, Wind of the Nine Snakes and Wind of the Nine Caves. The Tezcucan story is that the sun cast a dart into the earth at a certain spot in the land of Aculma. From this hole issued a man imperfectly formed, and after him a woman, from which pair mankind are descended. The Tlascaltecs asserted that the world was the effect of chance, while the heavens had always existed. The most common Mexican belief was, that the first human beings, a boy and a girl, were produced from the blood-besprinkled fragments of the bone procured from hades by the sixteen hundred fallen gods sprung from the flint-knife of which the goddess Citlalicue had been delivered. According to the Chimalpopoca manuscript the creator produced his work in successive epochs, man being made on the seventh day from dust or ashes. In Guatemala there was a belief that the parents of the human race were created out of the earth by the two younger sons of the divine Father and Mother. The QuichÉ creation was a very bungling affair. Three times and of three materials was man made before his makers were satisfied with their work. First of clay, but he lacked intelligence; next of wood, but he was shriveled and useless; finally of yellow and white maize, and then he proved to be a noble work. Four men were thus made, and afterwards four women.

[I-42] 'This nice agreement with the Mosaic account of the height which the waters of the Deluge attained above the summits of the highest mountains is certainly extraordinary; since we read in the twentieth verse of the seventh chapter of Genesis: "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered."' Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., p. 25.

[I-43] Relaciones, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 321-2.

[I-44] 'Un orient lointain,' says Brasseur de Bourbourg; but he must either mean what we call in English the Orient, the East, or contradict himself—which, by the way, he is very prone to do—because he afterwards asserts that Tula is the place 'on the other side of the sea,' from which the QuichÉ wanderers came to the north-west coast of America.

[I-45] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 105-6.

[I-46] Id., pp. 167-8.

[I-47] Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., p. 178; Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, p. 258.

[I-48] Ross' Adven., pp. 287-8.

[I-49] Warden, Recherches, p. 190.

[I-50] Domenech's Deserts, vol. ii., p. 4; Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i., p. 19.

[I-51] Warden, Recherches, p. 213.

[I-52] The reader will recollect that the story of each of these heroes has been told at length in vol. iii. of this work.

[I-53] The legend of Viracocha, or Ticeviracocha, as he is sometimes called, and his successor, is, according to Herrera, as follows: 'Cuentan tambien los Indios, segun lo tienen por tradicion de sus antepassados, y parece por sus cantares, que en su antiguedad estuuieron mucho tiempo sin ver Sol, y que por los grandes votos, y plegarias que hazian  sus dioses, saliÔ el Sol de la laguna Titicaca, y de la Isla, que est en ella, que es en el Collao, y que pareciÔ luego por la parte de medio dia vn hÕbre blanco de gran cuerpo, y de veneranda presencia, que era tan poderoso, que baxaua las sierras, crecia los valles, y sacaua fuentes de las piedras, al qual por su gran poder llamauan: Principio de todas las cosas criadas, y padre del Sol, porque dio ser a los hombres, y animales, y por su mano les vino notable beneficio, y que obrando estas marauillas, fue de largo hÂzia el Norte, y de camino yua dando orden de vida  las gentes, hablando con mucho amor, amonestando que fuessen buenos, y se amassen vnos  otros, al qual hasta los vltimos tiempos de los Ingas llamauà Ticeuiracocha, y en el Collao Tuapaca, y en otras partes ArnauÂ, y que le hizieron muchos Templos, y bultos en ellos  su semejanÇa,  los quales sacrificauan. Dizen tambien, que passados algunos tiempos oyeron dezir  sus mayores, que pareciÔ otro hombre semejante al referido, que sanaua los enfermos, daua vista  los ciegos, y que en la prouincia de los CaÑas, queriendo locamente apedrearle, lo vieron hincado de rodillas, alÇadas las manos al Cielo, inuocando el diuino fauor, y que pareciÔ vn fuego del Cielo que los espantÔ tanto, que con grandes gritos, y clamores le pedian, que los librasse de aquel peligro, pues las venia aquel castigo por el pecado, que auian cometido, y que luego cessÔ el fuego, quedando abrasadas las piedras, y oy dia se ven quemadas, y tan liuianas, que aunque grandes se leuantan como corcho, y dizen, que desde alli se fue  la mar, y entrando en ella sobre su manto tendido nunca mas se vio, por lo qual le llamaron Viracocha, que quiere dezir espuma de la mar, nÕbre que despues mudÔ signification, y que luego le hizieron vn Templo, en el pueblo de Cacha, y algunos Castellanos solo por su discurso han dicho, que este deuia de ser algun Apostol: pero los mas cuerdos lo tienen por vanidad, porque en todos estos Templos se sacrificaua al demonio, y hasta que los Castellanos entraron en los Reynos del PirÛ, no fue oÌdo, ni predicado el santo Euangelio, ni vista la Santissima seÑal de la Cruz.' Hist. Gen., dec. v., lib. iii., cap. vi.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 82.

[I-54] SumÉ was a white man with a thick beard, who came across the ocean from the direction of the rising sun. He had power over the elements, and could command the tempest. At a word from him the trees of the densest forest receded from their places to make a path for him; the most ferocious animals crouched submissive at his feet; the treacherous surface of lake and river presented a solid footing to his tread. He taught the people agriculture, and the use of maize. The Caboclos, a Brazilian nation, refused to listen to his divine teachings, and even sought to kill him with their arrows, but he turned their own weapons against them. The persecuted apostle then retired to the banks of a river, and finally left the country entirely. The tradition adds that the prints of his feet are still to be seen on the rocks and in the sand of the coast. Warden, Recherches, p. 189.

[I-55] Paye-Tome was another white apostle. His history so closely resembles that of SumÉ that it is probable they are the same person. Id.

[I-56] 'In former times, as they (the Chilians) had heard their fathers say, a wonderful man had come to that country, wearing a long beard, with shoes, and a mantle such as the Indians carry on their shoulders, who performed many miracles, cured the sick with water, caused it to rain, and their crops and grain to grow, kindled fire at a breath, and wrought other marvels, healing at once the sick, and giving sight to the blind,' and so on. 'Whence it may be inferred that this man was some apostle whose name they do not know.' Quoted from Rosales' inedited History of Chili, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., p. 419.

[I-57] Bochica, the great law-giver of the Muyscas, and son of the sun, a white man, bearded, and wearing long robes, appeared suddenly in the people's midst while they were disputing concerning the choice of a king. He advised them to appoint Huncahua, which they immediately did. He it was who invented the calendar and regulated the festivals. After living among the Muyscas for two thousand years, he vanished on a sudden near the town of Hunca. Warden, Recherches, p. 187; Klemm, Cultur-Geschichte, tom. v., p. 174, quoting Stevenson's Travels in South America, vol. i., p. 397.

[I-58] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 35; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 67-8; Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, p. 13.

[I-59] In a work entitled Fenix del Occidente.

[I-60] Felicidad de Mej., Mex. 1685, fol. 55.

[I-61] Boturini, CatÁlogo, in Idea, pp. 43, 50-2. Although the opinion that Quetzalcoatl was St Thomas, 'appears to be rather hazardous, yet one cannot help being astonished at the extent of the regions traversed by St. Thomas; it is true that some writers do not allow of his having gone beyond Calamita, a town in India, the site of which is doubtful; but others assert that he went as far as Meliapour, on the other side of the Coromandel, and even unto Central America.' Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., p. 50. 'Apud IaiaobÆ Indos in Occidenti tradita per avos viget memoria S. Apostoli ThomÆ, quam retinent a transitu ejus per illas plagas, cujus non levia extant indicia: prÆcipuÈ quÆdam semita in illis solitudinibus hactenus perseverat, in qu non oritur herba nisi valdÈ humilis et parvula, cum utrumque latus herbescat ultra modum; eo itinere dicunt Apostolum incessisse, et inde profectum in Peruana regna. Apud Brasilienses quoque traditio est, ibi prÆdicasse. Apud alios barbaros, etiam in regionem Paraguay venisse, postquam descendit per fluvium Iguazu, deinde in Paranam per Aracaium, ubi observatur locus in quo sedit defessus Apostolus, et fertur prÆdixisse, ut a majoribus acceptum est, post se illuc adventuros homines qui posteris eorum annuntiarent fidem veri Dei, quod non leve solatium et animos facit nostrÆ religionis prÆdicatoribus, ingentes labores inter illos barbaros pro dilatione EcclesiÆ perpetientibus.' Nieremberg, HistoriÆ NaturÆ, lib. xiv., cap. cxvii.

[I-62] Following are a few points of Lord Kingsborough's elaborate argument: 'How truly surprising it is to find that the Mexicans, who seem to have been quite unacquainted with the doctrines of the migration of the soul and the metempsychosis, should have believed in the incarnation of the only son of their supreme god Tonacatecutle. For Mexican mythology speaking of no other son of that god except Quecalcoatle, who was born of Chimalman the Virgin of Tula, without connection with man, and by his breath alone, (by which may be signified his word or his will, announced to Chimalman by word of mouth of the celestial messenger, whom he dispatched to inform her that she should conceive a son,) it must be presumed that Quecalcoatle was his only son. Other arguments might be adduced to show, that the Mexicans believed that Quecalcoatle was both god and man, that he had previously to his incarnation existed from all eternity, that he had created both the world and man, that he descended from heaven to reform the world by penance, that he was born with the perfect use of reason, that he preached a new law, and, being king of Tula, was crucified for the sins of mankind, as is obscurely insinuated by the interpreter of the Vatican Codex, plainly declared in the traditions of Yucatan, and mysteriously represented in the Mexican paintings.' If the promise of the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary,—The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God—be couched in the language of ancient prophecy, 'it is not improbable that the head of the dragon which forms the crest of three of the female figures (in one of the Mexican pieces of sculpture), as it may also be presumed it did of the fourth when entire, (if it be not a symbol which Chimalman borrowed from her son's name,) was intended to denote that she had been overshadowed by the power of Huitzilopuchtli, whose device, as we are informed by Sahagun in the first chapter of the first book of his History of New Spain, was the head of a dragon.' Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 507-8. See, more especially, his elaborate discussion of Quetzalcoatl's crucifixion and identity with the Messiah, vol. viii., pp. 5-51. As we have seen in a preceding volume, Quetzalcoatl is compared with the heathen deities of the old world, as well as with the Messiah of the Christians. See vol. iii., chap. vii.

[I-63] See vol. iii., p. 450, et seq.

[I-64] Though the presumption may be in favor of communication by Bering Strait, yet the phenomena in the present state of our knowledge, favors the Aleutian route. Latham's Comp. Phil., p. 384. The Aleutian archipelago is 'probably the main route by which the old continent must have peopled the new. Behring's Straits, though ... they were doubtless one channel of communication, just as certainly as if their place had been occupied by solid land, were yet, in all likelihood, only of subordinate utility in the premises, when compared with the more accessible and commodious bridge towards the south.' Simpson's Nar., vol. ii., p. 225. 'There is no improbability that the early Asiatics reached the western shores of America through the islands of the Pacific.' The trace of the progress of the red and partially civilized man from Oriental Asia was left on these islands. Willson's Amer. Hist., pp. 92-3. The first discoveries were made along the coast and from island to island; the American immigrants would have come by the Aleutian Isles. Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 10. To come by Aleutian islands presents not nearly so great a difficulty as the migrations among Pacific Islands. Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., p. 374. Immigration from Asia 'appears to have taken place mostly by the Aleuthian islands.' Smith's Human Species, p. 238.

[I-65] Some of the early writers were of course ignorant of the existence of any strait separating America from Asia; thus Acosta—who dares not assume, in opposition to the Bible, that the flood did not extend to America, or that a new creation took place there—accounts for the great variety of animals by supposing that the new continent is in close proximity to if not actually connected with the Old World at its northern and southern ends, and that the people and animals saved in the ark spread gradually by these routes over the whole land. Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 68-73, 81; West und Ost Indischer Lustgart, pt i., pp. 8-9. See also Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, pp. 38-42; Gottfriedt, Newe Welt, p. 4; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, pp. 26-8. Clavigero produces instances to show that upheavals, engulfings, and separations of land have been quite common, and thinks that American traditions of destructions refer to such disasters. He also shows that certain animals could have passed only by a tropic, others only by an arctic road. He accordingly supposes that America was formerly connected with Africa at the latitude of the Cape Verde islands, with Asia in the north, and perhaps with Europe by Greenland. Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., pp. 27-44. The great objection to a migration by way of the cold latitude of Bering Strait, says a writer in the Historical Magazine, vol. i., p. 285, is that tropic animals never could have passed that way. He apparently rejects or has never heard of the theory of change in zones. See farther, concerning joining of continents, and communication by Bering Strait: Warden, Recherches, pp. 202, 221; Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. ii., p. 68, et seq.; Snowden's Hist. N. and S. Amer., p. 198; Taylor, in Cal. Farmer, Sept. 12, 1862; Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 62-3, 82-3; Valois, Mexique, p. 197; Adair's Amer. Ind., p. 219. Bradford denies emphatically that there ever was any connection between America and Asia. 'It has been supposed,' he writes, 'that a vast tract of land, now submerged beneath the waters of the Pacific Ocean, once connected Asia and America.... The arguments in favor of this opinion are predicated upon that portion of the Scriptures, relating to the "division" of the earth in the days of Peleg, which is thought to indicate a physical division,—upon the analogies between the Peruvians, Mexicans and Polynesians ... and upon the difficulty of accounting in any other manner for the presence of some kinds of animals in America.' After demolishing these three bases of opinion, he adds: 'this conjectured terrestrial communication never existed, a conclusion substantiated, in some measure, by geological testimony.' Amer. Antiq., pp. 222-8. Mr Bradford's argument, in addition to being thoughtful and ingenious, is supported by facts, and will amply repay a perusal.

[I-66] Exam. Crit., tom. ii., p. 68.

[I-67] Mex., vol. iii., p. 418.

[I-68] Prehist. Man, p. 615.

[I-69] Human Species, p. 238.

[I-70] Rel., 2de expÉd., p. 28.

[I-71] Peruvian Antiq., p. 24. America was probably first peopled from Asia, but the memory of that ancient migration was lost. Asia was utterly unknown to the ancient Mexicans. The original seats of the Chichimecs were, as they thought, not far to the north-west. They placed Aztlan not in a remote country, but near Michoacan. Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 158-9, 174. There are strong resemblances in all things with Asiatic nations; less in language than other respects, but more with Asia than with any other part of the world. Anatomical resemblances point the same way. Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 196-203. The Americans most probably came from Asia soon after the dispersion and confusion of tongues; but there has been found no clear notice among them of Asia, or of their passage to this continent. Nor in Asia of any such migration. The Mexican histories do not probably go so far back. Venegas, Noticia de la Cal., tom. i., pp. 72-3. If a congregation of twelve representatives from Malacca, China, Japan, Mongolia, Sandwich Islands, Chili, Peru, Brazil, Chickasaws, Comanches, &c., were dressed alike, or undressed and unshaven, the most skillful anatomist could not from their appearance separate them. Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, pp. 147-9, 244-5. The people of Asia seem to have been the only men who could teach the Mexicans and Peruvians to make bronze, and could not teach them to smelt and work iron, one thousand or one thousand five hundred years before the Spanish Conquest. Tylor's Researches, p. 209. It is almost proved that long before Columbus, Northern India, China, Corea, and Tartary, had communication with America. Chateaubriand, Lettre aux Auteurs, p. 87. See also: Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 345; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., p. 20; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 23-4; Simpson's Nar., vol. i., p. 190; Gregg's Com. Prairies, vol. ii., pp. 250-1; Macfie's Vanc. Isl., pp. 426-7; Saint-Amant, Voyages, p. 245; Malte-Brun, PrÉcis de la GÉog., tom. vi., pp. 290, 295-6; Warden, Recherches, pp. 118-36; Macgregor's Progress of Amer., vol. i., p. 24; MÜhlenpfordt, Mejico, tom. i., p. 230; Dodge, in Ind. Aff. Rept., 1869, p. 590; Whymper's Alaska, pp. 278-85; Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man, vol. ii., p. 519; Mitchill, in Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 325-32; Vigne's Travels, vol. ii., p. 36; Latham's Man and his Migrations, p. 122; Sampson, in Hist. Mag., vol. v., p. 213. Robertson's Hist. Amer., vol. i., pp. 280-1; Snowden's Hist. N. and S. Amer., p. 200; Stratton's Mound-Builders, MS.; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 208, 215-16, 432; Pickering's Races of Man, in U. S. Ex. Ex., vol. ix., pp. 287-8; Carver's Trav., pp. 209-13; Kennedy's Probable Origin; Davis' Discovery of New Eng.; Hellwald, in Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 334. Herrera argued that as there were no natives in America of a color similar to those of the politer nations of Europe, they must be of Asiatic origin; that it is unreasonable to suppose them to have been driven thither by stress of weather; that the natives for a long time had no king, therefore no historiographer, therefore they are not to be believed in this statement, or in any other. The clear conclusions drawn from these pointed arguments is, that the Indian race descended from men who reached America by the nearness of the land. 'Y asi mas verisimilmente se concluye que la generacion, y poblacion de los Indios, ha procedido de hombres que passaron a las Indias Ocidentales, por la vezindad de la tierra, y se fueron estendiendo poco a poco;' but from whence they came, or by what route the royal historiographer offers no conjecture. Hist. Gen., dec. i., lib. i., cap. vi.

[I-72] Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 179.

[I-73] Quarterly Review, vol. xxi., pp. 334-5. The communication between AnÁhuac and the Asiatic continent was merely the contact of some few isolated Asiatics who had lost their way, and from whom the Mexicans drew some notions of science, astrology, and some cosmogonic traditions; and these Asiatics did not return home. Chevalier, Mexique, pp. 59, 56-8; Viollet-le-Duc, in Charnay, Ruines AmÉr., pp. 87-9; Fossey, Mexique, pp. 120-1; Democratic Review, vol. xi., p. 617; Lafond, Voyages, p. 133.

[I-74] Deguignes writes: 'Les Chinois ont pÉnÉtrÉ dans les pays trÈs-ÉloignÉs du cÔtÉ de l'orient; j'ai examinÉ leur mesures, et elles m'ont conduit vers les cÔtes de la Californie; j'ai conclu de-lÀ qu'ils avoient connu l'AmÉrique l'an 458 J. C.' He also attributes Peruvian civilization to the Chinese. Recherches sur les Navigations des Chinois du cÔtÉ de l'AmÉrique, in MÉmoires de l'AcadÉmie des Inscriptions, tom. xvii. Paravey, in 1844, attempted to prove that the province of Fousang was Mexico. Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., p. 51. 'In Chinese history we find descriptions of a vast country 20,000 le to the eastward across the great ocean, which, from the description given, must be California and Mexico.' Taylor, in Cal. Farmer, Sept. 12, 1862. 'L'histoire postÉrieure des Chinois donne À penser qu'ils ont eu autrefois des flottes qui ont pu passer au Mexique par les Phillippines.' Farcy, Discours p. 46, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i.

[I-75] A Chinese li is about one third of a mile.

[I-76] 'Fou sang, en chinois et selon la prononciation japonaise Fouts sÔk, est l'arbrisseau que nous nommons Hibiscus rosa chinensis,' Klaproth, Recherches sur le pays de Fou Sang, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1831, tom. li., p. 55, note. Others suppose the fusang to be the maguey, and, indeed, it was used for much the same purposes. It was, however, most probably, the mulberry; fu-soh, the Japanese equivalent for the Chinese fusang, being compounded of fu, to aid, and soh, the mulberry, a tree which abounds in a wild state in the province of Yesso, and which has been cultivated by royal command in other parts of Japan, where, as the reader will presently see, Fusang was probably situated. Mr Brooks, Japanese Consul in San Francisco, also tells me that Fu Sang is a name used in Chinese poetry to mean Japan. In Japan it is also thus used, and also used in trade marks, as 'first quality of Fu Sang silk cocoons,' meaning Japanese cocoons.

[I-77] I follow Deguignes in this sentence; Klaproth has it: 'Ceux qui peuvent recevoir leur grace sont envoyÉs À la premiÈre (mÉridionale), ceux au contraire auxquels on ne veut pas l'accorder sont dÉtenus dans la prison du nord.' Recherches, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1831, tom. li., p. 55.

[I-78] Deguignes translates: 'des habitants ÉlÈvent des biches comme en Chine, et ils en tirent du beurre.'

[I-79] 'Il y a dans l'original To Phou thao. Deguignes ayant dÉcomposÉ le mot Phou tao, traduit: "on y trouve une grande quantitÉ de glayeuls et de pÊches." Cependant le mot Phou seul ne signifie jamais glayeul, c'est le nom des joncs et autres espÈces de roseaux de marais, dont on se sert pour faire des nattes. Thao est en effet le nom de la pÊche, mais le mot composÉ Phou tao signifie en chinois la vigne.' Klaproth, Recherches, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1831, tom. li., pp. 57-8.

[I-80] 'Les images des Esprits,' &c.; Id., p. 59.

[I-81] 'Deguignes traduit: 'Pendant leurs priÈres ils exposent l'image du dÉfunt.' Le texte parle de chin ou gÉnies et non pas des ames des dÉfunts.' Id.

[I-82] 'C'est une analogie curieuse qu'offre le pays À vignes de Fousang (l'AmÉrique chinoise de Deguignes) avec le Vinland des premiÈres dÉcouvertes scandinaves sur les cÔtes orientales de l'AmÉrique.' Exam. Crit., tom. ii., p. 63, note.

[I-83] Nouv. Jour. Asiatique, 1832, p. 335, quoted by Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. ii., pp. 65-6.

[I-84] Warden, Recherches, p. 123.

[I-85] It is enough to look at an Aleut to recognize the Mongol. Wrangel, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1853, tom. cxxxvii., p. 213. 'The resemblance between north-west coast Indians and Chinese is rather remarkable.' Deans' Remains in B. Col., MS. 'I have repeatedly seen instances, both men and women, who in San Francisco could readily be mistaken for Chinese—their almond-shaped eyes, light complexion and long braided black hair giving them a marked similarity.... An experience of nearly nine years among the coast tribes, with a close observation and study of their characteristics, has led me to the conclusion that these northern tribes (B. Col. and surrounding region) are the only evidence of any exodus from the Asiatic shore ever having reached our borders.' Taylor, in Cal. Farmer, July 25, 1862. Grant, Ocean to Ocean, p. 304, says that the Chinese and Indians resemble one another so much that were it not for the queue and dress they would be difficult to distinguish. 'The Pacific Indian is Mongolian in size and complexion, in the shape of the face, and the eyes,' and he wants many of the manly characteristics of the Eastern Indians. Morelet, Voyage, tom. i., p. 148, says of the Yucatan Indians, 'leur teint cuivrÉ et quelquefois jaunÂtre prÉsente un ensemble de caractÈres qui rapproche singuliÈrement leur race de celle des tribus d'origine mongole.' This point of physical resemblance is, however, denied by several writers; thus Kneeland, Wonders, p. 53, says that though Americans have generally been accepted as Mongolians, yet if placed side by side with Chinese, hardly any resemblance will be found in physical character, except in the general contour of their faces and in their straight black hair; their mental characteristics are entirely opposite. Adair writes: 'Some have supposed the Americans to be descended from the Chinese: but neither their religion, laws, customs, &c., agree in the least with those of the Chinese: which sufficiently proves that they are not of that line.' He goes on to say that distance, lack of maritime skill, etc., all disprove the theory. He also remarks that the prevailing winds blow with little variation from east to west, and therefore junks could not have been driven ashore. Amer. Ind., pp. 12-13. 'Could we hope that the monuments of Central and South America might attract the attention and excite the interest of more American scholars than hitherto, the theory of the Mongol origin of the Red-men would soon be numbered among exploded hypotheses.' Nott and Gliddon's Indig. Races, p. 188. 'MM. Spix et Martius ont remarquÉ la ressemblance extraordinaire qui existe entre la physionomie des colons Chinois et celle des Indiens. La figure des Chinois est, il est vrai, plus petite. Ils ont le front plus large, les lÈvres plus fines, et en gÉnÉral les traits plus dÉlicats et plus doux que ceux des sauvages de l'AmÉrique. Cependant, en considÉrant la conformation de leur tÊte, qui n'est pas oblongue, mais angulaire, et plutÔt pointue, leur crÂne large, les sinus frontaux proÉminents, le front bas, les os des joues trÈs saillants, leurs yeux petits et obliques, le nez proportionnellement petit et ÉpatÉ, le peu de poils garnissant leur menton et les autres parties du corps, leur chevelure moins longue et plate, la couleur jaunÂtre ou cuivrÉe de leur peau, on retrouve les traits physiques communs aux deux races.' Warden, Recherches, p. 123. The Americans certainly approach the Mongols and Malays in some respects, but not in the essential parts of cranium, hair, and profile. If we regard them as a Mongol branch, we must suppose that the slow action of climate has changed them thus materially during a number of centuries. Malte-Brun, PrÉcis de la GÉog., tom. vi., p. 289.

[I-86] This will be best shown by referring to Warden's comparison of American, Chinese, and Tartar words. Recherches, pp. 125-6. The Haidahs, are said, however, to have used words known to the Chinese. Deans' Remains in B. Col., MS. Mr Taylor writes: 'The Chinese accent can be traced throughout the Indian (Digger) language,' and illustrates his assertion with a comparative vocabulary of Indian and Chinese. Cal. Farmer, Sept. 12, 1862. The Chinese in California 'are known to be able to converse with them (the Indians) in their respective languages.'! Cronise's California, p. 31.

[I-87] Warden, Recherches, pp. 127-9, gives a long list of these resemblances. See also AmpÈre, Prom. en AmÉr., tom. ii., p. 301; Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., p. 396; FaliÉs, Études Hist. sur les Civilisations, tom. i., pp. 380-1. Molina found (in Chili?) inscriptions resembling Chinese. M'Culloh's Researches on Amer., pp. 171-2. Bossu found some similarity between the language of the Natchez of Louisiana, and the Chinese. Nouveaux Voyages aux Indes Occidentales, tom. i., let. xviii.; cited by Warden, Recherches, p. 121. The last mentioned author also quotes a long list of analogies between the written language of the Chinese and the gesture language of the northern Indians, from a letter written by Wm Dunbar to the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, and comments thereon. Recherches, p. 176. Of the value of these philological proofs the reader may judge by the following fair sample: 'the Chinese call a slave, shungo; and the Naudowessie Indians, whose language from their little intercourse with the Europeans is the least corrupted, term a dog, shungush. The former denominate one species of their tea, shousong; the latter call their tobacco, shousassau.' Carver's Trav., p. 214. The supposition of Asiatic derivation is assumed by Smith Barton on the strength of certain similarities of words, but Vater remarks, these prove only partial migrations. Malte-Brun, PrÉcis de la GÉog., tom. vi., p. 290. 'On the whole, more analogies (etymol.) have been found with the idioms of Asia, than of any other quarter. But their amount is too inconsiderable to balance the opposite conclusion inferred by a total dissimilarity of structure.' Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., p. 396. Barton, New Views, gives a comparative vocabulary to show that Asiatic traces have been discovered in the languages of South as well as North America. Latham, Man and His Migrations, p. 185, has proofs that 'the Kamskadale, the Koriak, the Aino-Japanese, and the Korean are the Asiatic languages most like those of America.' 'Dans quatre-vingt-trois langues amÉricaines examinÉes par MM. Barton et Vater, on en a reconnu environ cent soixante-dix dont les racines semblent Être les mÊmes; et il est facile de se convaincre que cette analogie n'est pas accidentelle, qu'elle ne repose pas simplement sur l'harmonie imitative, ou sur cette ÉgalitÉ de conformation dans les organes, qui rend presque identiques les premiers sons articulÉs par les enfans. Sur cent soixante-dix mots qui ont des rapports entre eux, il y en a trois cinquiÈmes qui rappellent le mantchou, le tungouse, le mongol et le samojÈde, et deux cinquiÈmes qui rappellent les langues celtique et tschoude, le basque, le copte et le congo.' Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 27-8. Prichard, Nat. Hist. Man, vol. ii., pp. 512-13, thinks that the OtomÍ monosyllabic language may belong to Chinese and Indo-Chinese idioms; but Latham, Varieties of Man, p. 408, doubts its isolation from other American tongues, and thinks that it is either anaptotic or imperfectly agglutinate.

[I-88] Nouveaux Voyages aux Indes Occidentales, tom. i., lettre xviii. Cited by Warden, Recherches, p. 121.

[I-89] Trav., p. 213.

[I-90] Hist. of Louisiana, London 1774.

[I-91] Speaking of the ruins of Central America, Stephens says: 'if their (the Chinese) ancient architecture is the same with their modern, it bears no resemblance whatever to these unknown ruins.' Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 438.

[I-92] Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 236. Speaking of the Popol Vuh, Viollet-le-Duc says: 'Certains passages de ce livre ont avec les histoires hÉroÏques de l'Inde une singuliÈre analogie.' In Charnay, Ruines AmÉr., p. 40. See also, Brasseur de Bourbourg, Quatre Lettres, pp. 212-13, 236-42.

[I-93] Geschichte der Religion Jesu Christi, tom. i., p. 426. Quoted in Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 256.

[I-94] Vues, tom. i., p. 257. Tschudi, again, writes: 'As among the East Indians, an undefined being, Bramah, the divinity in general, was shadowed forth in the Trimurti, or as a God under three forms, viz., Bramah, Vishnu, and Sciva; so also the Supreme Being was venerated among the Indians of Mexico, under the three forms of Ho, Huitzilopoctli, and Tlaloc, who formed the Mexican Trimurti. The attributes and worship of the Mexican goddess Mictanihuatl preserve the most perfect analogy with those of the sanguinary and implacable Kali; as do equally the legends of the Mexican divinity Teayamiqui with the formidable Bhavani; both these Indian deities were wives of Siva-Rudra. Not less surprising is the characteristic likeness which exists between the pagodas of India and the Teocallis of Mexico, while the idols of both temples offer a similitude in physiognomy and posture which cannot escape the observation of any one who has been in both countries. The same analogy is observed between the oriental Trimurti and that of Peru; thus Con corresponds to Bramah, Pachacamac to Vishnu, and Huiracocha to Siva. The Peruvians never dared to erect a temple to their ineffable God, whom they never confounded with other divinities; a remarkable circumstance, which reminds us of similar conduct among a part of the inhabitants of India as to Bramah, who is the Eternal, the abstract God. Equally will the study of worship in the two hemispheres show intimate connection between the existence and attributes of the devadasis (female servants of the Gods) and the Peruvian virgins of the Sun.

All these considerations, and many others, which from want of space we must omit, evidently prove that the greater part of the Asiatic religions, such as that of Fo, in China, of Buddha, in Japan, of Sommono-Cadom, in India, the Lamaism of Thibet, the doctrine of Dschakdschiamuni among the Mongols and Calmucs; as well as the worship of Quetzalcoatl, in Mexico, and of Manco-Capac, in Peru, are but so many branches of the same trunk; whose root the labors of archÆology and modern philosophy have not been able to determine with certainty, notwithstanding all the discussion, perseverance, sagacity, and boldness of hypothesis, among the learned men who have been occupied in investigating the subject.' After remarking upon the marvelous analogy between Christianity and Buddhism as found to exist by the first missionaries to Thibet, he goes on: 'Not less, however, was the surprise of the first Spanish ecclesiastics, who found, on reaching Mexico, a priesthood as regularly organized as that of the most civilized countries. Clothed with a powerful and effective authority which extended its arms to man in every condition and in all the stages of his life, the Mexican priests were mediators between man and the Divinity; they brought the newly born infants into the religious society, they directed their training and education, they determined the entrance of the young men into the service of the State, they consecrated marriage by their blessing, they comforted the sick and assisted the dying.' Finally, Tschudi finds it necessary to 'insist on this point, that Quetzalcoatl and Mango Capac were both missionaries of the worship of Bramah or Buddha, and probably of different sects.' Peruvian Antiq., pp. 17-20. Domenech, Deserts, vol. i., p. 52, has this passage, nearly word for word the same as Tschudi, but does not mention the latter author's name. There is 'a remarkable resemblance between the religion of the Aztecs and the Buddhism of the Chinese.' Gentleman's Magazine; quoted in Washington Standard, Oct. 30, 1869. In Quetzalcoatl may be recognized one of the austere hermits of the Ganges, and the custom of lacerating the body, practiced by so many tribes, has its counterpart among the Hindoos. Priest's Amer. Antiq., p. 211. Quetzalcoatl, like Buddha, preached against human sacrifice. Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 265.

[I-95] 'Il est trÈs-remarquable aussi que parmi les hiÉroglyphes mexicains on ne dÉcouvre absolument rien qui annonce le symbole de la force gÉnÉratrice, ou le culte du lingam, qui est rÉpandu dans l'Inde et parmi toutes les nations qui ont eu des rapports avec les Hindoux.' Vues, tom. i., p. 275.

[I-96] Recherches Asiatiques, tom. i., p. 215.

[I-97] Vues, tom. i., p. 276.

[I-98] See vol. iii., p. 501, et seq.; see also Brasseur de Bourbourg, Quatre Lettres, pp. 202-8.

[I-99] See vol. iv., p. 163, for cut of this ornament. 'D'abord j'ai ÉtÉ frappÉ de la ressemblance qu'offrent ces Étranges figures des Édifices mayas avec la tÊte de l'ÉlÉphant. Cet appendice, placÉ entre deux yeux, et dÉpassant la bouche de presque toute sa longueur, m'a semblÉ ne pouvoir Être autre chose que l'image de la trompe d'un proboscidien, car le museau charnu et saillant du tapir n'est pas de cette longueur. J'ai observÉ aussi que les Édifices placÉs À l'Est des autres ruines offrent, aux quatre coins, trois tÊtes symboliques armÉes de trompes tournÉes en l'air; or, le tapir n'a nullement la facultÉ d'Élever ainsi son museau allongÉ; cette derniÈre considÉration me semble dÉcisive.' Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. 74. 'There is not the slightest ground for supposing that the Mexicans or Peruvians were acquainted with any portion of the Hindoo mythology; but since their knowledge of even one species of animal peculiar to the Old Continent, and not found in America, would, if distinctly proved, furnish a convincing argument of a communication having taken place in former ages between the people of the two hemispheres, we cannot but think that the likeness to the head of a rhinoceros, in the thirty-sixth page of the Mexican painting preserved in the collection of Sir Thomas Bodley; the figure of a trunk resembling that of an elephant, in other Mexican paintings; and the fact, recorded by Simon, that what resembled the rib of a camel (la costilla de un camello) was kept for many ages as a relic, and held in great reverence, in one of the provinces of Bogota,—are deserving of attention. Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., p. 27. 'On croit reconnoÎtre, dans le masque du sacrificateur (in one of the groups represented in the Codex Borgianus) la trompe d'un ÉlÉphant ou de quelque pachyderme qui s'en rapproche par la configuration de la tÊte, mais dont la mÂchoire supÉrieure est garnie de dents incisives. Le groin du tapir se prolonge sans doute un peu plus que le museau de nos cochons; mais il y a bien loin de ce groin du tapir À la trompe figurÉe dans le Codex Borgianus. Les peuples d'Aztlan, originaires d'Asie, avoient-ils conservÉ quelques notions vagues sur les ÉlÉphans, ou, ce qui me paroÎt bien moins probable, leurs traditions remontoient-elles jusqu'À l'Époque oÙ l'AmÉrique Étoit encore peuplÉe de ces animaux gigantesques, dont les squelettes pÉtrifiÉs se trouvent enfouis dans les terrains marneux, sur le dos mÊme des CordillÈres mexicaines? Peut-Être aussi existe-t-il, dans la partie nord-ouest du nouveau continent, dans des contrÉes qui n'ont ÉtÉ visitÉes ni par Hearne, ni par Mackensie, ni par Lewis, un pachyderme inconnu, qui, par la configuration de sa trompe, tient le milieu entre l'ÉlÉphant et le tapir.' Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 254-5.

[I-100] Squier's Observations on Memoirs of Dr Zestermann, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., April, 1851; Atwater, in Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 196-267.

[I-101] In this, as in all other theories, but little distinction is made between the introduction of foreign culture, and the actual origin of the people. It would be absurd, however, to suppose that a few ships' crews, almost, if not quite, without women, cast accidentally ashore in Peru in the thirteenth century, should in the fifteenth be found to have increased to a mighty nation, possessed of a civilization quite advanced, yet resembling that of their mother country so slightly as to afford only the most faint and far-fetched analogies.

[I-102] Manco 'afterwards received from his subjects the title of "Capac," which means sole Emperor, splendid, rich in virtue.' Ranking's Hist. Researches, p. 56. He cites for this, Garcilasso de la Vega, book i., chap. xxvi., a work on which he relies for most of his information.

[I-103] A relation of two Russe Cossacks trauailes, out of Siberia to Catay, &c., in Purchas his Pilgrimes, vol. iii., p. 798.

[I-104] Ranking's Hist. Researches, pp. 171-2.

[I-105] Quoted by Ranking, Hist. Researches, p. 183, from Abul Ghazi Bahadur, History of the Turks, Moguls, and Tartars, vol. i., p. 11.

[I-106] Du Halde, Empire of China, vol. i., p. 275. Quoted by Ranking, Hist. Researches, p. 197-8.

[I-107] Concerning the Mongolian origin of the Peruvians, see: Ranking's Hist. Researches. Almost all other writers who have touched on this subject, are indebted to Mr Ranking for their information and ideas. See also Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. ii., p. 67, et seq.; Malte-Brun, PrÉcis de la GÉog., tom. vi., pp. 293-4; Forster's Voyage Round the World. Grotius thinks that the Peruvians must be distinct from other American people, since they are so acute, and believes them, therefore, to be descended from the Chinese. Wrecks of Chinese junks have been found on the coast. Both adore the sun, and call the king the 'son of the sun.' Both use hieroglyphics which are read from above downwards. Manco Capac was a Chinaman who gave these settlers a government founded on the Chinese system. Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, pp. 32-3. De Laet, replying to these arguments, considers that the acuteness of the Peruvians does not approach that of the Chinese. Nowhere in Peru have the cunning and artistic works of Chinese artificers been seen. The Chinese junks were too frail to withstand a storm that could drive them across the Pacific. And if the voyage were intentional they would have sought nearer land than the coasts of Mexico or Peru. The religion of the two countries differs materially; so does their writing. Manco Capac was a native Peruvian who ruled four hundred years before the coming of the Spaniards. Novus Orbis, in Id., pp. 33-4. Mr Cronise, in his Natural Wealth of California, p. 28, et seq., is more positive on this subject than any writer I have yet encountered. I am at a loss to know why this should be, because I have before me the works that he consulted, and I certainly find nothing to warrant his very strong assertions. I quote a few passages from his work. 'The investigations of ethnologists and philologists who have studied the Hindoo, Chinese, and Japanese annals during the present century, have brought to light such a chain of evidence as to place beyond doubt that the inhabitants of Mexico and California, discovered by the Spaniards, were of Mongolian origin.' Hindoo, Chinese, and Japanese annals all agree that the fleet of Kublai Khan, son of Genghis Khan, was wrecked on the coast of America. 'There are proofs clear and certain, that Mango Capac, the founder of the Peruvian nation, was the son of Kublai Khan ... and that the ancestors of Montezuma, of Mexico, who were from Assam, arrived about the same time.... Every custom of the Mexicans, described by their Spanish conquerors, proves their Asiatic origin.... The strange hieroglyphics found in so many places in Mexico, and from California to Canada, are all of Mongolian origin'.... 'Humboldt, many years ago, conjectured that these hieroglyphics were of Tartar origin. It is now positively known that they are.... The armor belonging to Montezuma, which was obtained by Cortez and is now in the museum at Madrid, is known to be of Asiatic manufacture, and to have belonged to one of Kublai Khan's generals.' It is unnecessary to multiply quotations, or to further criticise a work so grossly misleading. The following unique assertion is a fair specimen of Mr Cronise's vagaries when treading on unfamiliar ground: '"Alta," the prefix which distinguishes Upper from Lower California, is a word of Mongolian origin, signifying "gold."' The most superficial knowledge of Spanish or of the history of California, would have told Mr Cronise that 'alta' simply means 'high,' or 'upper,' and that the name was applied to what was originally termed 'New' California, in contradistinction to 'Baja' or 'Lower' California.

[I-108] This relation, says Ranking, 'has naturally enough been considered by Robertson and others as a ridiculous fable; and any reader would be inclined to treat it as such, were it not accounted for by the invasion of Japan, and the very numerous and convincing proofs of the identity of the Mongols and the Incas.' Hist. Researches, p. 55. He thinks that the giants were the Mongolian invaders, mounted upon the elephants which they brought with them. 'The elephants,' he says, 'would, no doubt, be defended by their usual armor on such an extraordinary occasion, and the space for the eyes would appear monstrous. The remark about the beards, &c., shows that the man and the elephant were considered as one person. It is a new and curious folio edition of the Centaurs and LapithÆ; and we cannot wonder that, on such a novel occasion, Cape St. Helen's did not produce an American Theseus.' Id., pp. 53-4.

[I-109] See Ranking's Hist. Researches, p. 56, et seq.; Warden, Recherches, pp. 187-9.

[I-110] Origin of the Japanese Race, and their Relation to the American Continent, MS.

[I-111] See report of a lecture read by Charles Wolcott Brooks before the California Academy of Science, in Daily Alta California, May 4, 1875; San Francisco Evening Bulletin, same date.

[I-112] See report of paper submitted by Mr Brooks to the California Academy of Sciences, in San Francisco Evening Bulletin, March 2, 1875. In this report the details and date of each wreck are given. The author of the paper assures me that he has records of over one hundred such disasters. Every one of these wrecks, when examined, proved to be Japanese, and not one Chinese. See also Irving's Bonneville's Adven., p. 427; Smith's Human Species, p. 239; Roquefeuil, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1823, tom. xviii., pp. 248-9; Anderson, in Hist. Mag., vol. vii., pp. 80-1; Lassepas, Baja Cal., pp. 45-6.

[I-113] Id. Lord's Nat., vol. ii., pp. 216-7. 'Looking only at the forms and endings of the words, their ring and sounds when uttered, we could not but notice the striking similarity, in these respects, between the proper names as found on the map of Japan, and many of the names given to places, rivers, etc., in this country.' (America.) Rockwell, in Hist. Mag., n. s., vol. iii., p. 141.

[I-114] There were in California at the time of the Conquest, Indians of various races, some of the Japanese type. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., tom. i., p. 3; Vallejo, Remin. Cal., MS., p. 6. The Aleutian Islanders resemble the Japanese in various respects. Simpson's Nar., vol. ii., p. 228. Priest, Amer. Antiq., p. 214, thinks that Quetzalcoatl may be regarded as a Japanese, as comparatively white and bearded.

[I-115] Introduction to Charnay, Ruines AmÉr., pp. 28-31.

[I-116] Nieuwe Weereld, p. 39.

[I-117] Lord's Nat., vol. ii., p. 217.

[I-118] See: AmpÈre, Prom. en AmÉr., tom. ii., pp. 300-4; Atwater, in Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 212-14, 338-42; Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, pp. 38-42; Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 58-9; Religious Cer. and Cust., vol. iii., pp. 4-10; Robertson's Hist. Amer., vol. i., pp. 277-81; Vigne's Travels, vol. ii., pp. 37-8; Gage's New Survey, p. 162; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 7-9; Farcy, Discours, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., p. 45; Humboldt, Essai Pol., tom. i., pp. 79-80; Adair's Amer. Ind., pp. 12-13; Norman's Rambles by Land and Water, pp. 215-16; Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 267; Vater, Ueber Amer. BevÖlkerung, pp. 155-69, cited in Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 175; Laplace, Circumnav., tom. vi., p. 156; Warden, Recherches, pp. 201-2; Josselyn's Two Voyages; Williamson's Observations on Climate; Hill's Antiq. of Amer.; Ixtlilxochitl, Relaciones, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 392-3, 450; Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 334-5; Volney's View; Bossu, Nouveaux Voy.; Slight's Indian Researches; Carver's Trav., pp. 187-96, 208-19; Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, pp. 241-5; Las Casas, Hist. ApologÉtica, cap. ccix., quoted in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., pp. 398-9; Delafield's Antiq. Amer., pp. 13-104; Malte-Brun, PrÉcis de la GÉog., tom. vi., pp. 293-4; Monglave, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., p. 60; Heylyn's Cosmog., p. 947; Norman's Rambles in Yuc., p. 174.

[I-119] Ensayo de un Estudio comparativo.

[I-120] Delafield's Antiq. Amer., p. 57.

[I-121] Ranking's Hist. Researches, p. 356.

[I-122] See vol. iv., pp. 88, 95-6, for further description, also plan of Copan ruins, p. 85, for location of vault. Jones, commenting on the above, remarks: 'This last sentence brings us to a specimen of Gem engraving, the most ancient of all the antique works of Art. Not only is the death "Chamber" identical with that of Egypt, but also the very way of reaching it—viz., first, by ascending the pyramidal base, and then descending, and so entering the Sepulchre! This could not be accidental,—the builders of that pyramidal Sepulchre must have had a knowledge of Egypt.' Hist. Anc. Amer., pp. 116-17. Stephens, who in his first volume of travels in Central America, p. 144, describes this vault, writes in vol. ii., pp. 439-40: 'The pyramids of Egypt are known to have interior chambers, and, whatever their other uses, to have been intended and used as sepulchres. These (American pyramids), on the contrary, are of solid earth and stone. No interior chambers have ever been discovered, and probably none exist.' Mr Jones criticises Mr Stephens very severely for this apparent contradiction, but it is customary with Mr Jones to tilt blindly at whatever obstructs his theories. Stephens doubtless refers in this passage to such chambers as would lead one to suppose that the pyramid was built as a token of their presence. LÖwenstern is very positive that the Mexican pyramid was not intended for sepulchral purposes. Mexique, p. 274. Clavigero is of the same opinion: 'quelli degli Egizj erano per lo piÙ vuoti; quelli de' Messicani massiccj; questi servivano di basi a' loro Santuarj; quelli di sepolcri de' Re.' Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., pp. 19-20. Foster, on the other hand, writes: 'There are those who, in the truncated pyramids, see evidences of Egyptian origin. The pyramids, like the temple-mounds, were used for sepulchres, but here the analogy ends.' Pre-Hist. Races, p. 187.

[I-123] See vol. iv., p. 474.

[I-124] Stephens' Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 440.

[I-125] The reader can compare the various accounts of pyramidal structures given in vol. iv. on this point. See heading 'pyramid,' in Index.

[I-126] Stephens' Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 439.

[I-127] Antiq. Amer., p. 56.

[I-128] Humboldt reviews the points of resemblance and comes to the conclusion that they afford no foundation upon which to base a theory of Egyptian origin. Vues, tom. i., pp. 120-4. 'There is much in the shape, proportions and sculptures of this pyramid (Xochicalco) to connect its architects with the Egyptians.' Mayer's Mex. as it Was, p. 186. Bradford finds that some 'of the Egyptian pyramids, and those which with some reason it has been supposed are the most ancient, are precisely similar to the Mexican Teocalli.' But he only sees Egyptian traces in this; he shows that similar pyramidal structures have been found in very many parts of the world; and he believes the Americans to have originated from many sources and stocks. See Amer. Antiq., p. 423.

[I-129] See vol. iv., chap. v., vii., and x. Quoting from Molina, Hist. Chili, tom. i., notes, p. 169, M'Culloh writes: 'Between the hills of Mendoza and La Punta, upon a low range of hills, is a pillar of stone one hundred and fifty feet high, and twelve in diameter.' 'This,' he adds, 'very much reminds us of the pillar and obelisks of ancient Egypt.' Researches, pp. 171-2. Jones, Hist. Anc. Amer., pp. 122-3, is very confident about the obelisk. He asks: 'What are the Obelisks of Egypt? Are they not square columns for the facility of Sculpture? And of what form are the isolated columns at Copan? Are they not square, and for the same purpose of facility in Sculpture with which they are covered, and with workmanship "as fine as that of Egypt?"... The columns of Copan stand detached and solitary,—the Obelisks of Egypt do the same, and both are square (or four-sided) and covered with the art of the Sculptor. The analogy of being derived from the Nile is perfect,—for in what other Ruins but those of Egypt, and Ancient America, is the square sculptured Column to be found?'

[I-130] Essai Pol., tom. i., p. 265. Notwithstanding certain points of resemblance, says Prescott, 'the Palenque architecture has little to remind us of the Egyptian, or of the Oriental. It is, indeed, more conformable, in the perpendicular elevation of the walls, the moderate size of the stones, and the general arrangement of the posts, to the European. It must be admitted, however, to have a character of originality peculiar to itself.' Mex., vol. iii., pp. 407-8.

[I-131] There is a plate showing an Aztec priestess in Delafield's Antiq. Amer., p. 61, which, if correctly drawn, certainly presents a head-dress strikingly Egyptian. The same might almost be said of a cut in vol. iv. of this work, p. 562 , and, indeed, of several other cuts in the same volume. Mr Stephens, Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 441, gives, for the sake of comparison, a plate representing two specimens of Egyptian sculpture; one from the side of the great monument at Thebes known as the Vocal Memnon, and the other from the top of the fallen obelisk at Carnac. 'I think,', he writes, 'by comparison with the engravings before presented, it will be found that there is no resemblance whatever. If there be any at all striking, it is only that the figures are in profile, and this is equally true of all good sculpture in bas-relief.' He happens, however, here, to have selected two Egyptian subjects which almost find their counterparts in America. In the preceding volume of this work, p. 333 , is given a cut of what is called the 'tablet of the cross' at Palenque. In this we see a cross, and perched upon it a bird, to which (or to the cross) two human figures in profile, apparently priests, are making an offering. In Mr Stephens' representation from the Vocal Memnon we find almost the same thing, the differences being, that instead of an ornamented Latin cross, we have here a crux commissa, or patibulata; that instead of one bird there are two, not on the cross but immediately above it; and that the figures, though in profile and holding the same general positions, are dressed in a different manner, and are apparently binding the cross with the lotus instead of making an offering to it; in Mr Stephens' representation from the obelisk of Carnac, however, a priest is evidently making an offering to a large bird perched upon an altar, and here, again, the human figures occupy the same position. The hieroglyphs, though the characters are of course different, are, it will be noticed, disposed upon the stone in much the same manner. The frontispiece of Stephens' Cent. Amer., vol. ii., described on p. 352, represents the tablet on the back wall of the altar, casa No. 3, at Palenque. Once more here are two priests clad in all the elaborate insignia of their office, standing one on either side of a table, or altar, upon which are erected two batons, crossed in such a manner as to form a crux decussata, and supporting a hideous mask. To this emblem they are each making an offering.

[I-132] Delafield, it is true, discerns a distinct analogy between the hieroglyphs of Egypt and America. And the evidence he adduces is absurd enough. 'Hieroglyphic writings,' he says, 'are necessarily of three kinds, viz: phonetic, figurative, and symbolical.' He then goes on to show at great length, that both in Egypt and in America all three of these systems were used: hence, the resemblance. Antiq. Amer., pp. 42-7. 'Les monumens du Palenque prÉsentent des inscriptions hiÉroglyphiques qui ne paraissent pas diffÉrer des hiÉroglyphes de l'ancienne ThÈbes.' Giordan, Tehuantepec, p. 57. Jomard pronounces an inscription found at Grave Creek to be Lybian. Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 411-12. Says M'Culloh: 'The Game of the Flyers, we notice in this place, as M. Denon in the plates to his Travels in Egypt, has given the copy of some figures taken from the Egyptian hieroglyphics, which have every appearance of a similar design with this Mexican amusement or ceremony.—The similarity of device will be best seen, by comparing the plate given by Clavigero, with the (lxiii. plate) of Denon's Atlas, &c.' Researches on Amer., pp. 170-1. Priest, Amer. Antiq., p. 122, gives a comparative table of Lybian characters, and others, which he affirms to have been found at Otolum, or Palenque: the whole statement is, however, too apocryphal to be worthy of further notice. See, also, a long letter from Prof. Rafinesque to Champollion, 'on the Graphic Systems of America, and the Glyphs of Otolum, or Palenque, in Central America,' in Id., pp. 123-9. The hieroglyphics of Palenque and Tula encourage the idea that they were founded by an Egyptian colony. Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 19.

[I-133] In a letter by Jomard, quoted by Delafield, we read: 'I have also recognized in your memoir on the division of time among the Mexican nations, compared with those of Asia, some very striking analogies between the Toltec characters and institutions observed on the banks of the Nile. Among these analogies there is one which is worthy of attention. It is the use of the vague year of three hundred and sixty-five days, composed of equal months, and of five complementary days, equally employed at Thebes and Mexico, a distance of three thousand leagues. It is true that the Egyptians had no intercalation, while the Mexicans intercalated thirteen days every fifty-two years. Still farther: intercalation was proscribed in Egypt, to such a point that the kings swore, on their accession, never to permit it to be employed during their reign. Notwithstanding this difference, we find a very striking agreement in the length of the duration of the solar year. In reality, the intercalation of the Mexicans being thirteen days on each cycle of fifty-two years, comes to the same thing as that of the Julian calendar, which is one day in four years; and consequently supposes the duration of the year to be three hundred and sixty-five days, six hours. Now such was the length of the year among the Egyptians, since the sothic period was at once one thousand four hundred and sixty solar years, and one thousand four hundred and sixty-one vague years; which was, in some sort, the intercalation of a whole year of three hundred and seventy-five days every one thousand four hundred and sixty years. The property of the sothic period—that of bringing back the seasons and festivals to the same point of the year, after having made them pass successively through every point—is undoubtedly one of the reasons which caused the intercalation to be proscribed, no less than the repugnance of the Egyptians for foreign institutions. Now it is remarkable that the same solar year of three hundred and sixty-five days, six hours, adopted by nations so different, and perhaps still more remote in their state of civilization than in their geographical distance, relates to a real astronomical period, and belongs peculiarly to the Egyptians.... The fact of the intercalation (by the Mexicans) of thirteen days every cycle, that is, the use of a year of three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter, is a proof that it was either borrowed from the Egyptians, or that they had a common origin.' Antiq. Amer., pp. 52-3. 'On the 26th of February, the Mexican century begins, which was celebrated from the time of Nabonassor, seven hundred and forty-seven years before Christ, because the Egyptian priests conformably to their astronomical observations had fixed the beginning of their month Toth and the commencement of their year at noon on that day; this was verified by the Meridian of Alexandria, which was erected three centuries after that epoch. Hence it has been contended there could exist no doubt of the conformity of the Mexican with the Egyptian calendar, for although the latter assigned twelve months of thirty days each to the year, and added five days besides, in order that the circle of three hundred and sixty-five days should recommence from the same point; yet, notwithstanding the deviation from the Egyptian mode in the division of the months and days, they yet maintained that the Mexican method was conformable thereto, on account of the superadded five days; with this only difference, that upon these the Americans attended to no business, and therefore termed them Nemontemi or useless, whereas the Egyptians celebrated, during that epoch, the festival of the birth of their gods, as attested by Plutarch de Feide, and Osiride. Upon the other hand it is asserted, that though the Mexicans differed from the Egyptians by dividing their year into eighteen months, yet, as they called the month Mextli Moon, they must have formerly adopted the lunar month, agreeable to the Egyptian method of dividing the year into twelve months of thirty days; but to support this assertion no attempt has been made to ascertain the cause why this method was laid aside. The analogy between the Mexican and the Egyptian calendars is thus assumed to be undeniable. Besides what has been here introduced, the same is attempted to be proved in many other works which I pass over to avoid prolixity, and therefore only mention that they may be found in Boturini, in La Idea del Universo, by the abbÉ don Lorenza de Hervas, published in the Italian language, in Clavigero's dissertations, and in a letter addressed to him by Hervas, which he added to the end of his second volume.' Cabrera, Teatro, in Rio's Description, pp. 103-5. See also: Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 344, 348; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., p. 20; Malte-Brun, PrÉcis de la GÉog., tom. vi., p. 295.

[I-134] I follow, chiefly, M. Warden's rÉsumÉ of these accounts, as being the fullest and clearest. Recherches, p. 406, et seq.

[I-135] Hist. du Commerce, cap. viii.

[I-136] Acosta compares the gold of Ophir with that of Hispaniola. He entertains the opinion that Tarshish and Ophir are distant imaginary places and not distinct countries, but imagines them to be somewhere in the East Indies. 'Cur autem in Orientali potius India quam in hac Occidentali Ophir fuisse existimem, illud caput est, quod ad nostrum Peru non nisi infinito circuitu tota India Orientali & Sinarum regione enauigata Salomonia clasis peruenire poterar.' De Novi Orbis, p. 36. Ophir is supposed to be in India or Africa. Robertson's Hist. Amer., vol. i., p. 7. Crowe, Cent. Amer., p. 65, considers the probability of Ophir and Tarshish being on the west coast of America. The Phoenician 'Ophir, or Ofor, which means, in their ancient language, the Western country, was Mexico and Central America, the land of gold.' Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, pp. 259-60. On p. 162, he says that the best authorities, Volney, Bochart, Michaelis, and Forster, suppose Ophir to have been situated on the Persian Gulf. The Phoenician Ophir was Hayti, for Columbus thought that he could trace the furnaces in which the gold had been refined. Carver's Trav., p. 192. Kingsborough, Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 184-5, considers the position of Ophir, but is undecided as to its position. Ens, West und Ost Indischer Lustgart, pp. 5-8, disagreeing with Vatablus and Stephanus, can find no resemblance to Ophir in Hayti or Peru, and comes to the conclusion that Ophir lay somewhere in the Old World, most likely in the East Indies. This seems to be a plagiarism of Acosta. See also Gottfriedt, Newe Welt, p. 3. Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. ii., pp. 40-5, discusses the position of Ophir in Veragua. PiÑeda, De Rebus Salomonis, believes Ophir to have been America. Warden, Recherches, p. 196. See also Id., pp. 106-7.

[I-137] De Origine Gentium Americanarum, lib. ii., cap. vi., vii., viii.

[I-138] 'Sur le cap Mollabat, au pied duquel on bÂti ensuite le vieux Tanger.' Gosselin, cited by Warden, Recherches, p. 107, note 8.

[I-139] 'Le cap Spartel, qui forme l'extrÉmitÉ occidentale du dÉtroit.' Id., note 9.

[I-140] The Greek text of the Periplus is printed in Hudson's GeographiÆ veteris Scriptores GrÆci Minores. It was also published by Falconer, with an English translation and many notes—8vo., Lond. 1797. Many remarks upon Hanno's voyage are made by Compomanes, AntigÜedad MarÍtima de la RepÚblica de Cartago, Madrid 1756; Bougainville, MÉmoires de l'AcadÉmie des Inscriptions, tom. xxvi., xxviii.; Gosselin, Recherches sur la GÉographie des Anciens; Rennell, Geography of Herodotus, vol. ii., pp. 409-43, 8vo.; and Heeren, Researches on the Ancient Nations of Africa, vol. i., pp. 492-501.

[I-141] Or Tiphysque.

[I-142] 'Which is expressed by repeating four times from Valum-Votan to Valum-Chivim, from Valum-Chivim to Valum-Votan.' Cabrera, Teatro, in Rio's Description, p. 34. 'Valum-Votan, ou Terre de Votan, serait suivant OrdoÑez l'Île de Cuba. Mais dans mon dernier voyage, en contournant les montagnes qui environnent le plateau ÉlÉvÉ oÙ est situÉ Ciudad-Real de Chiapas, j'ai visitÉ de grandes ruines qui portent le nom de Valum-Votan, À deux lieues environ du village de Teopixca, situÉ À 7 l. de Cuidad-Real, et oÙ NuÑez de la Vega dit avoir encore trouvÉ, en 1696, les familles du nom de Votan.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh, p. lxxxviii.

[I-143] Brasseur's account, which is, he says, taken from certain preserved fragments of OrdoÑez' Hist. del Cielo, differs at this point; it reads: 'il alla À Valum-Chivim, d'oÙ il passa À la grande ville, oÙ il vit la maison de Dieu, que l'on Était occupÉ À bÂtir.' This 'house of God,' he remarks in a note, was, 'suivant OrdoÑez et NuÑez de la Vega, le temple que Salomon Était occupÉ À bÂtir À JÉrusalem.' After this, he goes on, Votan went 'À la citÉ antique, oÙ il vit, de ces propres yeux, les ruines d'un grand Édifice que les hommes avaient ÉrigÉ par le commandement de leur aÏeul commun, afin de pouvoir par lÀ arriver au ciel.' In another note he remarks, 'OrdoÑez commentant ce passage y trouve tout naturellement la tour de Babel: mais il s'indigne contre les Babyloniens, de ce qu'ils avaient eu la mauvaise foi de dire À Votan que la tour avait ÉtÉ bÂtie par ordre de leur aÏeul commun (NoÉ): "Il faut remarquer ici, dit-il, que les Babyloniens n'ont fait que tromper Votan, en lui assurant que la tour avait ÉtÉ construite par ordre de leur aÏeul NoÉ, afin d'en faire un chemin pour arriver au ciel: jamais certainement le saint patriarche n'eut la moindre part dans la folie arrogante de Nemrod" (MÉmoire MS. sur PalenquÉ.) NuÑez de la Vega rapporte la mÊme tradition sur Votan et ses voyages (Constitut. Dioeces, in PrÆamb., n. 34).' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh, p. lxxxviii.

[I-144] Cabrera, Teatro, in Rio's Description, p. 34. I have followed Cabrera's account because, unfortunately, OrdoÑez' work is not to be had. Brasseur gives a fuller account of Votan's adventures than Cabrera, but he professes to draw his information from fragments of OrdoÑez' writings, and it is impossible to tell whether his extra information is the result of his own imagination or of that of his equally enthusiastic original. The learned AbbÉ relates that the men with whom Votan conversed concerning the tower of Babel, assured him 'que cet Édifice Était le lieu oÙ Dieu avait donnÉ À chaque famille un langage particulier. Il affirme qu'À son retour de la ville du temple de Dieu, il retourna une premiÈre et une seconde fois À examiner tous les souterrains par oÙ il avait dÉjÀ passÉ, et les signes qui s'y trouvaient. Il dit qu'on le fit passer par un chemin souterrain qui traversait la terre et se terminait À la racine du ciel. A l'Égard de cette circonstance, il ajoute que ce chemin n'Était autre qu'un trou de serpent oÙ il entra parce qu'il Était un serpent.' Popol Vuh, p. lxxxix. See farther, concerning Votan: Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., p. 165; Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 208; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 150-1; Boturini, Idea, p. 115; Levy, Nicaragua, p. 4; Tschudi's Peruvian Antiq., pp. 11-15; Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 248-9; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 43-5, 68-76; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 10-7. This last is merely a literal copy of Tschudi, to whom, however, no credit is given.

[I-145] 'OrdoÑez tire un argument du mot chivim, qu'il Écrit aussi hivim, pour rappeler le chivim du pays des HÉvÉens de la Palestine, d'oÙ il fait sortir les ancÊtres de Votan. Dans la langue tzendale, qui Était celle du livre attribuÉ À Votan, la racine du mot chivin pourrait Être chib ou chiib, qui signifie patrie, ou ghib qui veut dire armadille.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh, p. lxxxviii., note.

[I-146] Cabrera, Teatro, in Rio's Description, pp. 47-53. It seems that the supposed Phoenician descent of the Americans has served as an excuse for the tyranny their conquerors exercised over them. 'Cursed be Canaan!' said Noah, 'A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.' Montanus says that it is a mistake to term the Phoenicians descendants of Canaan, for they are a Semitic people. Nieuwe Weereld, p. 25.

[I-147] 'The strong Galleys, with sails and oars, and always before the constant East-Wind and onward wave-current, would accomplish ten miles an hour by day, and during the night, without the Rowers, six miles an hour, and, equally dividing the twenty-four hours, would make a run of 192 miles per day. Nautical proofs will show that in the above calculation the power of the Trade-Winds [i. e. the East-Winds] are underrated. The distance from Teneriffe to Florida is about 3300 miles, which by the foregone data they would traverse in seventeen and a quarter days. The Voyage may therefore with safety be said to have been accomplished during an entire month, and that, consequently the first landing of a branch of the human family in Ancient America would be in the last month of Autumn, three hundred and thirty-two years before the Christian Æra.'

[I-148] It would be impossible to give here the entire evidence with which Mr Jones supports his theory. Suffice it to say that the analogies he adduces are far-fetched in the extreme, and that his premises are to a great extent grounded upon certain vague utterances of Isaiah the prophet. His unbounded dogmatism, were it less strongly marked, would render his work offensive and unreadable to those who disagree with his opinions; as it is, it is simply ludicrous. I cannot better express my opinion of the book than by using the words of the distinguished AmÉricaniste Dr MÜller: 'Ganz ohne Werth soll die in London 1843 erschienene Schrift eines EnglÄnders, George Jonas, Über die Urgeschichte des alten America sein.' Amerikanische Urreligionen, p. 3.

[I-149] Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer., pp. 168-72.

[I-150] According to Mr Jones, Solomon's temple was built by Tyrian workmen.

[I-151] Gebelin affirms enthusiastically: '"que cette inscription vient d'arriver tout exprÈs du nouveau monde, pour confirmer ses idÉes sur l'origine des peuples, et que l'on y voit, d'une maniÈre Évidente, un monument phÉnicien, un tableau qui, sur le devant, dÉsigne une alliance entre les peuples amÉricains et la nation ÉtrangÈre, arrivant, par des vents du nord, d'un pays riche et industrieux."' Humboldt, however, commenting upon this, writes: 'J'ai examinÉ avec soin les quatre dessins de la fameuse pierre de Taunton River.... Loin d'y reconnoÎtre un arrangement symÉtrique de lettres simples ou de caractÈres syllabiques, je n'y vois qu'un dessin À peine ÉbauchÉ, et analogue À ceux que l'on a trouvÉs sur les rochers de la NorwÈge.' Vues, tom. i., pp. 181-2. 'The history of this inscription is scarcely surpassed, in the interest it has excited, or the novel phases it has exhibited at successive epochs of theoretical speculation, by any Perusinian, Eugubine, or Nilotic riddle. When the taste of American antiquaries inclined towards Phoenician relics, the Dighton inscription conformed to their opinions; and with changing tastes it has proved equally compliant. In 1783 the Rev. Ezra Stiles, D.D., President of Yale College, when preaching before the Governor and State of Connecticut, appealed to the Dighton Rock, graven, as he believed, in the old Punic or Phoenician character and language: in proof that the Indians were of the accursed seed of Canaan, and were to be displaced and rooted out by the European descendants of Japhet!... So early as 1680 Dr. Danforth executed what he characterized as "a faithful and accurate representation of the inscription" on Dighton Rock. In 1712 the celebrated Dr. Cotton Mather procured drawings of the same, and transmitted them to the Secretary of the Royal Society of London, with a description, printed in the Philosophical Transactions for 1741, referring to it as "an inscription in which are seven or eight lines, about seven or eight feet long, and about a foot wide, each of them engraven with unaccountable characters, not like any known character." In 1730, Dr. Isaac Greenwood, Hollisian Professor at Cambridge, New England, communicated to the Society of Antiquaries of London a drawing of the same inscription, accompanied with a description which proves the great care with which his copy was executed. In 1768, Mr. Stephen Sewall, Professor of Oriental Languages at Cambridge, New England, took a careful copy, the size of the original, and deposited it in the Museum of Harvard University; and a transcript of this was forwarded to the Royal Society of London, six years later, by Mr. James Winthrop, Hollisian Professor of Mathematics. In 1786 the Rev. Michael Lort, D.D., one of the Vice-Presidents of the Society of Antiquaries of London, again brought the subject, with all its accumulated illustrations, before that learned society; and Colonel Vallency undertook to prove that the inscription was neither Phoenician nor Punic, but Siberian. Subsequently, Judge Winthrops executed a drawing in 1788; and again we have others by Judge Baylies and Mr. Joseph Gooding in 1790, by Mr. Job Gardner in 1812; and finally, in 1830, by a Commission appointed by the Rhode Island Historical Society, and communicated to the Antiquaries of Copenhagen with elaborate descriptions: which duly appear in their Antiquitates AmericanÆ, in proof of novel and very remarkable deductions.' Wilson's Prehist. Man, pp. 403-5. See also Pidgeon's Trad., p. 20.

[I-152] 'Il est assez remarquable que, sur sept caractÈres, aucun ne s'y trouve rÉpÉtÉ plusieurs fois.' Vues, tom. i., pp. 183-4, with cut of part of inscription.

[I-153] See Schoolcraft, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 386-97, for full account of this stone, with cuts. See also Wilson's Prehist. Man, pp. 408, et seq.

[I-154] For this statement I have only newspaper authority, however. 'Die "Amerika," ein in Bogota, Neu Granada, erschienenes Journal, kÜndigt eine Entdeckung an, die so seltsam ist, dass sie der BestÄtigung bedarf, ehe man ihr Glauben schenken kann. Don Joaquim de Costa soll danach auf einem seiner GÜter ein steinernes Monument entdeckt haben, das von einer kleinen Colonie PhÖnizier aus Sidonia im Jahre 9 oder 10 der Regierung Hiranus, eines Zeitgenossen Salomons, ungefÄhr zehn Jahrhunderte vor der christlichen Aera errichtet wurde. Der Block hat eine Inschrift von acht Linien, die in schÖnen Buchstaben, aber ohne Trennung der Worte oder Punctation geschrieben sind. In der Uebersetzung soll die Inschrift besagen, dass jene MÄnner des Landes Canarien sich im Hafen Apiongaber (Bay-Akubal) einschifften und nach zwÖlfmonatiger Fahrt von dem Lande Egypten (Afrika) durch StrÖmungen fortgefÜhrt, in Guayaquil in Peru landeten. Der Stein soll, wie es heisst, die Namen der Reisenden tragen.' Hamburg Reform, Oct. 24, 1873. See farther, concerning inscriptions: Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 29; Stratton's Mound-Builders, MS., p. 13; Priest's Amer. Antiq., p. 121.

[I-155] See particularly Melgar, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da Época, tom. iii., p. 112, et seq.; and Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer., p. 154, et seq.; Baldwin's Anc. Amer., pp. 185-6.

[I-156] See vol. iv. of this work, p. 118 .

[I-157] Melgar, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da Época, tom. iii., pp. 110-11.

[I-158] See farther, concerning Phoenician and Carthaginian theories: Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 28-9, 255; Hill's Antiq. Amer.; Melgar, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da Época, tom. iii., p. 111; Lescarbot, Hist. Nouv. France; Dally, Races Indig., pp. 5, 8; Religious Cer. and Cust., vol. iii., pp. 3-4; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 9-21; Vigne's Travels, vol. ii., pp. 41-56; Sheldon, in Am. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 366-8; Lizana, Devocionario, in Landa, Relacion, p. 354; Levy, Nicaragua, pp. 10, 208; Kennedy's Probable Origin; Baldwin's Anc. Amer., pp. 171-4, 200, 207; Du Pratz, Hist. Louisiane, tom. iii., pp. 75-86; Chateaubriand, Lettre aux Auteurs, p. 87; Stratton's Mound-Builders, M.S.; Carver's Trav., pp. 188, 191-2; Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, pp. 16-22, 27-8; De Costa, Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. xiv.; Ritos Antiguos, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 10; Revue AmÉr., tom. i., p. 3; Farcy, Discours, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., pp. 43-4: West und Ost Indischer Lustgart, p. 4; Drake's Aborig. Races, pp. 20-2; GarcÍa, OrÍgen de los Ind., pp. 41-77, 192-239; Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 250-1, 333-4; Adair's Amer. Ind., p. 16; Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., p. 84; Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, pp. 254-61.

[I-159] OrÍgen de los Ind., pp. 79-128.

[I-160] 'Yo hice grande diligencia en averiguar esta verdad, y puedo afirmar, que he trabajado mas en ello, que en lo que escrivo en toda la Obra; i asi de lo que acerca de esta he hallado, pondre tales fundamentos al edificio, i maquina de esta sentencia, i opinion, que puedan mui bien sufrir su peso.' Id., p. 79.

[I-161] Anian was the name given to the strait which was supposed to lie between Asia and America, and which, after its actual discovery, was named Bering Strait. The unknown northern regions of America were also called Anian.

[I-162] The worthy Father's geographical knowledge was somewhat vague; thus in the next section he writes: 'Tambien pudieron ir las diez Tribus desde la Tierra, que dice Esdras, À la China.... De la China pudieron ir por Mar À la Tierra de Nueva-EspaÑa, para donde no es mui larga la navegacion, viniendo por el Estrecho, Ò Canal, que estÀ, entre la China, i el Reino de Annian, i de Quivira.' Origen de los Ind., p. 81.

[I-163] Among several instances given by GarcÍa to show the cowardice of the Jews, is this: 'dice la Sagrada Escritura, por grande incarecimiento, que no les quiso llevar Moises por la Tierra de Philistim, conociendo su pusilanimidad, i cobardia, porque no temiesen, viendo los Enemigos, que venian en su seguimiento, i de cobardes se bolviesen À Egipto.' With regard to the cowardice of the Americans, he writes: 'Cuenta la Historia, que entrÒ CortÈs, en la Conquista de Nueva-EspaÑa con 550 EspaÑoles, i de estos eran los 50 Marineros: i en Mexico tuvo, quando lo ganÒ, 900 EspaÑoles, 200,000 Indios, 80 Caballos: murieron de los Nuestros 50, i de los Caballos 6. EntrÒ PiÇarro en el PerÙ con pocos mas de 200 EspaÑoles, con los quales, i con 60 Caballos tuvo Victoria contra el Rei Atanualpa.' Not only at the time of the Conquest, he adds, did the Americans scatter and run on the discharge of a musket, but even at the present day, when they are familiar with firearms, they do the same. OrÍgen de los Ind., pp. 85-6.

[I-164] Immediately afterwards he says that the Jews and Americans were alike, because they both bathed frequently.

[I-165] This scarcely seems to be a parallelism, and certainly would not be, had the worthy Father written, as he well might: 'freedom and the hardships of the desert,' instead of 'manna and the promised land'.

[I-166] To show GarcÍa's style and logic, which are, indeed, but little different from the style and reasoning of all these ancient writers, I translate literally, and without embellishment of any kind, his attempts to prove that whatever differences exist at the present day between the Jew and the American, are due to the special act of God. 'It was divinely ordained that men should be scattered throughout all countries, and be so different from one another in disposition and temperament, in order that by their variety men should become possessed of a different and distinct genius; of a difference in the color of the face and in the form of the body; just as animals are various, and various the things produced by the earth, various the trees, various the plants and grasses, various the birds; and finally, various the fish of the sea and of rivers: in order that men should see in this how great is the wisdom of Him that created them. And although the variety and specific difference existing in these irrational and senseless beings causes in them a specific distinction, and that in men is only individual, or accidental and common; the Most High desired that this variety and common difference should exist in the human species, as there could be none specific and essential, so that there should be a resemblance in this between man and the other created beings: of which the Creator himself wished that the natural cause should be the arrangement of the earth, the region of the air, influence of the sky, waters, and edibles. By which the reader will not fail to be convinced that it was possible for the Indians to obtain and acquire a difference of mental faculties, and of color of face and of features, such as the Jews had not.' OrÍgen de los Ind., p. 105.

[I-167] 'Y finalmente, si nos dixeren, que solos aquellos siete generos de Gentes, que he nombrado, que son Colcos, Egypcios, Etiopes, Fenices, Syros de Palestina, i Syros de los Rios Termodon, i Pantenio, i sus vecinos los Macrones fueron los que vsaron en el Mundo la circuncision.... A Herodoto, i À los que alegaren lo referido, se responde, que sin duda los Hebreos fueron los primeros que la vsaron, por mandado de Dios.' OrÍgen de los Ind., p. 110.

[I-168] See OrÍgen de los Ind., pp. 119-23, for examples of linguistic resemblances.

[I-169] Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., pp. 19-20, vol. vi., p. 536.

[I-170] Id., vol. viii., p. 21.

[I-171] Id., pp. 25-7, 30-1.

[I-172] Id., p. 39.

[I-173] Id., p. 58.

[I-174] Id., pp. 67, 218-19, 240.

[I-175] Id., p. 135.

[I-176] Id., p. 154.

[I-177] 'Y el Ynga Yupangue entraba solo, y Él mismo por su mano sacrificaba las ovejas y corderos.' Betanzos, Historia de los Ingas, lib. i., cap. xi., quoted in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., p. 156.

[I-178] Id., pp. 157, 236, 389, vol. vi., pp. 273-5.

[I-179] Id., vol. viii., p. 160.

[I-180] Id., p. 174.

[I-181] Id., p. 176.

[I-182] Id., pp. 174-82. He presents a most elaborate discussion of this point. See also vol. vi., pp. 512, 523.

[I-183] Id., vol. viii., p. 238.

[I-184] Id., p. 248.

[I-185] Id., p. 257.

[I-186] Id., p. 258, vol. vi., p. 236.

[I-187] Id., pp. 164-6.

[I-188] Id., p. 208. 'Representations of the lifting up of serpents frequently occur in Mexican paintings: and the plagues which Moses called down upon the Egyptians by lifting up his rod, which became a serpent, are evidently referred to in the eleventh and twelfth pages of the Borgian Manuscript. An allusion to the passage of the Red Sea ... seems also to be contained in the seventy-first page of the Lesser Vatican MS.; and the destruction of Pharaoh and his host, and the thanksgiving of Moses, may perhaps be signified by the figure on the left, in the same page, of a man falling into a pit or gulf, and by the hand on the right stretched out to receive an offering.'

[I-189] Id., p. 222.

[I-190] Id., p. 232, et seq. Kingsborough reasons at some length on this point.

[I-191] Id., p. 361.

[I-192] Id., p. 406.

[I-193] Id., pp. 272-3, 333-5, 392-3; vol. viii., pp. 121-2, 142-3, 391.

[I-194] Id., vol. vi., pp. 300-1; vol. viii., p. 137.

[I-195] Id., vol. vi., p. 504, vol. viii., p. 18.

[I-196] Id., vol. vi., p. 125.

[I-197] Id., p. 45.

[I-198] Id., p. 142.

[I-199] Id., p. 246. Duran sustains the theory that the Indians are the descendants of the lost ten tribes of Israel. After giving several reasons founded on the Scriptures, he refers to the traditions obtained by him from the old people of the country. They related that their ancestors, whilst suffering many hardships and persecutions, were prevailed upon by a great man, who became their chief, to flee from that land into another, where they might have rest; they arrived at the sea-shore, and the chief struck the waters with a rod he had in his hands; the sea opened, and the chief and his followers marched on, but were soon pursued by their enemies; they crossed over in safety, and their enemies were swallowed up by the sea; at any rate, their ancestors never had any further account of their persecutors. Another tradition transmitted from generation to generation, and recorded in pictures, is, that while their first ancestors were on their journey to the promised land, they tarried in the vicinity of certain high hills; here a terrible earthquake occurred, and some wicked people who were with them were swallowed up by the earth opening under their feet. The same picture that Father Duran saw, showed that the ancestors of the Mexican people transmitted a tradition, relating that during their journey a kind of sand (or hail) rained upon them. Father Duran further gives an account furnished him by an old Indian of Cholula (some 100 years old) concerning the creation of the world: The first men were giants who, desirous of seeing the home of the sun, divided themselves into two parties, one of which journeyed to the west, and the other to the east, until they were stopped by the sea; they then concluded to return to the place they started from, called Vztacculemjueminian; finding no way to reach the sun, whose light and beauty they highly admired, they determined to build a tower that should reach the heavens. They built a tower; but the Lord became angry at their presumption, and the dwellers of heaven descended like thunderbolts and destroyed the edifice; the giants on seeing their work destroyed, were much frightened, and scattered themselves throughout the earth. Duran, Hist. Indias, MS., tom. i., cap. i.

[I-200] Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., p. 246.

[I-201] Id., p. 248.

[I-202] Id., p. 253.

[I-203] Id., p. 254.

[I-204] Id., p. 312.

[I-205] Id., p. 361.

[I-206] Id., p. 382.

[I-207] Id., p. 401.

[I-208] To enter into details on all these subjects would require volumes as large, and I may add, as unreadable, as those of Lord Kingsborough. The reader who wishes to investigate more closely, will find all the points to which I have referred in volumes vi. and viii. of the noble writer's work, Mexican Antiquities. Mr James Adair, 'a trader with the Indians, and resident in their country for forty years,' very warmly advocates the Hebrew theory. As his intercourse with the Americans was confined to the wild tribes, the genuine 'red men' inhabiting the south-eastern states of North America, his argument and analogies differ in many points from those of Kingsborough and GarcÍa, who treated chiefly of the civilized nations of Mexico and Central America. Here are some of his comparisons: 'The Israelites were divided into Tribes and had chiefs over them, so the Indians divide themselves: each tribe forming a little community within the nation—And as the nation hath its particular symbol, so hath each tribe the badge from which it is denominated.' If we go from nation to nation among them we shall not find one individual who doth not distinguish himself by his family name. Every town has a state house or synedrion, the same as the Jewish sanhedrim, where almost every night the headmen meet to discuss public business. The Hebrew nation were ordered to worship Jehovah the true and living God, who by the Indians is styled Yohewah. The ancient heathens, it is well known, worshiped a plurality of Gods: but these American Indians pay their religious devoir to Loak Ishtohoollo Aba, The Great Beneficent Supreme Holy Spirit of Fire. They do not pay the least perceptible adoration to images. Their ceremonies in their religious worship accord more nearly with the Mosaic institutions, which could not be if they were of heathen descent. The American Indians affirm, that there is a certain fixed time and place, when and where every one must die, without the possibility of averting it; such was the belief also of the ancient Greeks and Romans, who were much addicted to copying the rites and customs of the Jews. Their opinion that God chose them out of all the rest of mankind as his peculiar and beloved people, fills both the white Jew and the red American, with that steady hatred against all the world, which renders them hated and despised by all. We have abundant evidence of the Jews believing in the ministration of angels, during the Old Testament dispensation, their frequent appearances and their services on earth, are recorded in the oracles, which the Jews themselves receive as given by divine inspiration, and St Paul in his epistle addressed to the Hebrews speaks of it as their general opinion that "angels are ministering spirits to the good and righteous on earth." The Indian sentiments and traditions are the same. They believe the higher regions to be inhabited by good spirits, relations to the Great Holy One, and that these spirits attend and favor the virtuous. The Indian language and dialects appear to have the very idiom and genius of the Hebrew. Their words and sentences are expressive, concise, emphatical, sonorous, and bold, and often both in letters and signification synonymous with the Hebrew language. They count time after the manner of the Hebrews, reckoning years by lunar months like the Israelites who counted by moons. The religious ceremonies of the Indian Americans are in conformity with those of the Jews, they having their Prophets, High Priests, and others of religious order. As the Jews had a sanctum sanctorum or most holy place, so have all the Indian nations. The dress also of their High Priests is similar in character to that of the Hebrews. The festivals, feasts, and religious rites of the Indian Americans have also a great resemblance to that of the Hebrews. The Indian imitates the Israelite in his religious offerings. The Hebrews had various ablutions and anointings according to the Mosaic ritual—and all the Indian nations constantly observe similar customs from religious motives. Their frequent bathing, or dipping themselves and their children in rivers, even in the severest weather, seems to be as truly Jewish as the other rites and ceremonies which have been mentioned. The Indian laws of uncleanness and purification, and also the abstaining from things deemed unclean are the same as those of the Hebrews. The Indian marriages, divorces and punishments of adultery, still retain a strong likeness to the Jewish laws and customs on these points. Many of the Indian punishments resemble those of the Jews. Whoever attentively views the features of the Indian, and his eye, and reflects on his fickle, obstinate, and cruel disposition will naturally think of the Jews. The ceremonies performed by the Indians before going to war, such as purification and fasting, are similar to those of the Hebrew nation. The Israelites were fond of wearing beads and other ornaments, even as early as the patriarchal age, and in resemblance to these customs the Indian females continually wear the same, believing it to be a preventive against many evils. The Indian manner of curing the sick is very similar to that of the Jews. Like the Hebrews, they firmly believe that diseases and wounds are occasioned by divine anger, in proportion to some violation of the old beloved speech. The Hebrews carefully buried their dead, so on any accident they gathered their bones, and laid them in the tombs of their forefathers: thus, all the numerous nations of Indians perform the like friendly office to every deceased person of their respective tribe. The Jewish records tell us that the women mourned for the loss of their deceased husbands, and were reckoned vile by the civil law if they married in the space of at least ten months after their death. In the same manner all the Indian widows, by an established strict penal law, mourn for the loss of their deceased husbands; and among some tribes for the space of three or four years. The surviving brother by the Mosaic law, was to raise seed to a deceased brother, who left a widow childless to perpetuate his name and family. The American law enforces the same rule. When the Israelites gave names to their children or others they chose such appellatives as suited best their circumstances and the times. This custom is a standing rule with the Indians. Amer. Ind.

[I-209] Amer. Antiq., pp. 68-70.

[I-210] 'See Deut., chap. vi., from 4th to 9th verse, inclusive; also, chap. xi., verse 13 to 21, inclusive; and Exodus, chap. xiii., 11 to 16, inclusive, to which the reader can refer, if he has the curiosity to read this most interesting discovery.... It is said by Calmet, that the above texts are the very passages of Scripture which the Jews used to write on the leaves of their phylacteries. These phylacteries were little rolls of parchment, whereon were written certain words of the law. These they wore upon their forehead, and upon the wrist of the left arm.' Id.

[I-211] Antiquities of Licking County, Ohio, MS.

Brasseur de Bourbourg, although he rejects Kingsborough's theory, thinks that some Jews may have reached America; he recognizes a Jewish type on certain ruins, and calls attention to the perfectly Jewish dress of the women at Palin and on the shores of Lake Amatitlan. Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 17. Customs and relics seem to show that the Americans are of Hebrew descent, and that they came by way of the Californias. Giordan, Tehuantepec, p. 57. The theory of descent from the ten tribes is not to be despised. On the north-west there are many beliefs and rites which resemble the Jewish; circumcision obtains in Central America, and women wear Jewish costumes. Father Ricci has seen Israelites in China living according to Moses' laws, and Father Adam Schall knew Israelites who had kept the Old Testament laws, and who knew nothing of the death of the Savior. This shows that the ten tribes took this direction, and as an emigration from Asia to America is perfectly admissible, it is likely that the Jews were among the number who crossed, probably by the Aleutian islands. Rossi, Souvenirs, pp. 276-7. Jones, as might be expected, 'will not yield to any man in the firm belief that the Aborigines of North America (but North America only) and the ancient Israelites are identical, unless controverted by the stern authority of superior historical deductions.' Hist. Anc. Amer., pp. 2, 11-26, 188-90. Parker does not accept the Jewish theory, chiefly because of the great variety of distinct languages in America, but he points out several resemblances between north-west tribes and Jews. Explor. Tour, pp. 194-8. Meyer finds many reasons for regarding the wild tribes of the north as Jews; such as physical peculiarities; numerous customs; the number of languages pointing to a Babylonian confusion of tongues. Most Indians have high-priests' temples, altars, and a sacred ark which they carry with them on their wanderings. They count by four seasons, celebrate new-moon and arbor festivals, and offer first fruits. In September, when the sun enters the sign of the scales, they hold their feast of atonement. The name Iowa he thinks is derived from Jehova. They work with one hand and carry their weapons in the other. The pillars of cloud and pillars of fire which guided the Israelites, may be volcanoes on the east coast of Asia, by whose aid the ten tribes reached America. Nach dem Sacramento, pp. 241-5. If the Toltecs were Jews, they must have visited the Old World in the year 753 of the Roman era, to obtain the Christian dogmas apparent in their cult. Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. 45. The Navajo tradition that they came out of the water a long way to the north; their peaceful, pastoral manner of life; their aversion to hogs' flesh; their belief that they will return to the water whence they came, instead of going to hunting-grounds like other tribes; their prophets who prophesy and receive revelation; their strict fast-days, and keenness in trade; their comparatively good treatment of women—are Jewish similarities, stronger than any tribes can present. 'Scalping appears to have been a Hebrew custom.... The most striking custom of apparently Hebraic origin, is the periodical separation of females, and the strong and universal idea of uncleanness connected therewith.' Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. iii., pp. 60, 62. The Tartars are probably descended from the ten tribes; they boast of being Jews, are divided into tribes, and practice circumcision. The separation of women at certain times, and the expression Hallelujah Yohewah, are proofs of Jewish descent; scalping is mentioned in Bible (68th Psalm, ver. 21). Crawford's Essay. According to various manuscripts the Toltecs are of Jewish descent. Having crossed the Red Sea, they abandoned themselves to idolatry, and fearing Moses' reprimand, they separated from the rest and crossed the ocean to the Seven Caves, and there founded Tula. Juarros, Hist. Guat., tom. ii., pp. 7-8. Juarez, Municipalidad de Leon, p. 10, states that Leon de Cordova is of the same opinion. Em. de Moraez, a Portuguese, in his History of Brazil, thinks nothing but circumcision wanting to form a perfect resemblance between the Jews and Brazilians. He thinks that America was wholly peopled by Jews and Carthaginians. Carver's Trav., pp. 188-9. Catlin thinks the North Americans are a mixed race, who have Jewish blood in them. The mixture is shown by their skulls, while many customs are decidedly Jewish. Probably part of tribes scattered by Christians have come over and intermarried. He gives analogies in monotheism, sanctuaries, tribeship, chosen people belief, marriage by gifts, war, burial, ablutions, feasts, sacrifices, and other customs. Any philological similarity is unnecessary and superfluous. The Jew element was too feeble to influence language. Catlin's N. Amer. Ind., vol. ii., pp. 231-5. Melgar gives a list of the Chiapanec calendar names, and finds fourteen agree with suitable Hebrew words. He concludes, therefore, that ancient intercourse with the Old World is proven. Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, 2da Época, tom. iii., p. 108. Jarvis, Religion Ind. N. Amer., pp. 71-87, compares words in Hebrew and American languages. Ethan Smith, Views of the Hebrews, presents eleven arguments in favor of the Jewish theory. Beatty, Journal of Two Months' Tour in America, gives a number of reasons why the Hebrew theory should be correct. See further, for general review of this theory: Crowe's Cent. Amer., pp. 64-8; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 46-9; Simon's Ten Tribes, which is, however, merely a cheap abridgement of Kingsborough; Dally, Races Indig., pp. 5-6; Thorowgood's Jewes in America; Worsley's Amer. Ind., pp. 1-185; L'Estrange, Americans no Jewes; Spizelius, Elevatio Relationis, a criticism on Menasse Ben Israel's Hope of Israel; Tschudi's Peruvian Antiq., pp. 8-11.

In opposition to the Hebrew theory we read that Wolff, the Jew traveler, found no Jewish traces among the tribes of North America. Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, p. 157. 'The strong trait in Hebrew compound words, of inserting the syllable el or a single letter in the names of children, derived from either the primary or secondary names of the deity, does not prevail in any Indian tribes known to me. Neither are circumstances attending their birth or parentage, which were so often used in the Hebrew children's names, ever mentioned in these compounds. Indian children are generally named from some atmospheric phenomenon. There are no traces of the rites of circumcision, anointing, sprinkling, or washing, considered as consecrated symbols. Circumcision was reported as existing among the Sitkas, on the Missouri; but a strict examination proved it to be a mistake.' Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. iii., p. 61. The Rev. T. Thorowgood in 1650, published a work entitled Jewes in America, or Probabilities that the Americans are of that Race. This was answered in 1651, by Sir Hamon L'Estrange, in a book entitled, Americans no Jewes. L'Estrange believes that America was peopled long before the dispersion of the Jews, which took place 1500 years after the flood. A strong mixture of Jewish blood would have produced distinct customs, etc., which are not to be found. The native traditions as to origin are to be regarded as dreams rather than as true stories. The analogous customs and rites adduced by Thorowgood, L'Estrange goes on, are amply refuted by Acosta and other writers. The occasional cannibalism of the Jews was caused by famine, but that of the Americans was a regular institution. The argument that the Americans are Jews because they have not the gospel, is worthy only of ridicule, seeing that millions of other pagans are in the same condition. Of the Hebrew theory Baldwin, who devotes nearly two pages to it, writes: 'this wild notion, called a theory, scarcely deserves so much attention. It is a lunatic fancy, possible only to men of a certain class, which in our time does not multiply.' Anc. Amer., p. 167. Tschudi regards the arguments in favor of the Jewish theory as unsound. Peruvian Antiq., p. 11. Acosta thinks that the Jews would have preserved their language, customs, and records, in America as well as in other places. Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 79-80. Macgregor argues that the Americans could not have been Jews, for the latter people were acquainted with the use of iron as far back as the time of Tubal Cain; they also used milk and wheaten bread, which the Americans could and would have used if they had once known of them. Progress of Amer., vol. i., p. 24. Montanus believes that America was peopled long before the time of the dispersion of the Jewish tribes, and raises objections to nearly every point that has been adduced in favor of a Hebrew origin. Nieuwe Weereld, p. 26, et seq. Torquemada gives Las Casas' reasons for believing that the Americans are of Jewish descent, and refutes them. Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 22-7. The difference of physical organization is alone sufficient to set aside the question of Jewish origin. That so conservative a people as the Jews should have lost all the traditions, customs, etc., of their race, is absurd. Democratic Review, vol. xi., p. 617. Rafinesque advances, as objections to Jew theory, that the ten tribes are to be found scattered over Asia; that the Sabbath would never have fallen into disuse if they had once introduced it into America; that the Hebrew knew the use of iron, had plows, and employed writing; that circumcision is practiced only in one or two localities in America; that the sharp, striking Jewish features are not found in Americans; that the Americans eat hogs and other animals forbidden to the Jews; that the American war customs, such as scalping, torturing, cannibalism, painting bodies and going naked, are not Jewish in the least; that the American languages are not like Hebrew. Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 76-9.

[I-212] I translate freely from Bertrand, MÉmoires, p. 32, et seq., for this account.

[I-213] In the State of New York.

[I-214] The discovery was in this wise: 'PrÈs du village de Manchester, dans le comtÉ d'Ontario, État de New York, se trouve une Éminence plus considÉrable que celle des environs, et qui est devenue cÉlÈbre dans les fastes de la nouvelle Église sous le nom de Cumorah. Sur le flanc occidental de cette colline, non loin de son sommet, et sous une pierre d'une grande dimension, des lames d'or se trouvaient dÉposÉes dans un coffre de pierre. Le couvercle en Était aminci vers ses bords, et relevÉ au milieu en forme de boule. AprÈs avoir dÉgagÉ la terre, Joseph (Smith) souleva le couvercle À l'aide d'un levier, et trouva les plaques, l'Urim-Thummim, et le pectoral. Le coffre Était formÉ de pierres reliÉes entre elles aux angles par du ciment. Au fond se trouvaient deux pierres plates placÉes en croix, et sur ces pierres les lames d'or et les autres objets. Joseph voulait les enlever, mais il en fut empÊchÉ par l'envoyÉ divin, qui l'informe que le temps n'Était pas encore venu, et qu'il fallait attendre quatre ans À partir de cette Époque. D'aprÈs ses instructions, Joseph se rendit tous les ans le mÊme jour au lieu du dÉpÔt, pour recevoir de la bouche du messager cÉleste, des instructions sur la maniÈre dont le royaume de Dieu devait Être fondÉ et gouvernÉ dans les derniers jours.... Le 22 septembre 1827, le messager des cieux lui laissa prendre les plaques, l'Urim-Thummim et le pectoral, À condition qu'il serait responsable, et en l'avertissant qu'il serait retranchÉ, s'il venait À perdre ces objets par sa nÉgligence, mais qu'il serait protÉgÉ s'il faisait tous ses efforts pour les conserver.' Bertrand, MÉmoires, pp. 23-5.

[I-215] Though the question of the Scandinavian discoveries would seem to merit considerable attention from one who wrote a 'colonial history' of America, yet Mr George Bancroft disposes of the entire subject in a single page: 'The story of the colonization of America by Northmen,' he writes, 'rests on narratives, mythological in form, and obscure in meaning; ancient, yet not contemporary. The chief document is an interpolation in the history of Sturleson, whose zealous curiosity could hardly have neglected the discovery of a continent. The geographical details are too vague to sustain a conjecture; the accounts of the mild winter and fertile soil are, on any modern hypothesis, fictitious or exaggerated; the description of the natives applies only to the Esquimaux, inhabitants of hyperborean regions, the remark which should define the length of the shortest winter's day, has received interpretations adapted to every latitude from New York to Cape Farewell; and Vinland has been sought in all directions, from Greenland and the St. Lawrence to Africa.' Bancroft's History, vol. i., pp. 5-6. Irving says that as far as he 'has had experience in tracing these stories of early discoveries of portions of the New World, he has generally found them very confident deductions drawn from very vague and questionable facts. Learned men are too prone to give substance to mere shadows, when they assist some preconceived theory. Most of these accounts, when divested of the erudite comments of their editors, have proved little better than the traditionary fables, noticed in another part of this work, respecting the imaginary islands of St. Borondon, and of the Seven Cities.' Columbus, vol. iii., p. 434. All of which would certainly be true enough of most theories, but that it was erroneous as far as the Northmen's visits are concerned, has, I think, been conclusively shown in later years.

[I-216] 'It might also be argued, if it were at all necessary, that, if these Sagas were post-Columbian compositions drawn up by Icelanders who were jealous of the fame of the Genoese navigator, we should certainly be able to point out something either in their structure, bearing, or style, by which it would be indicated. Yet such is not the case. These writings reveal no anxiety to show the connection of the Northmen with the great land lying at the west. The authors do not see anything at all remarkable or meritorious in the explorations, which were conducted simply for the purpose of gain. Those marks which would certainly have been impressed by a more modern writer forging a historical composition designed to show an occupation of the country before the time of Columbus, are wholly wanting. There is no special pleading or rivalry, and no desire to show prior and superior knowledge of the country to which the navigators had from time to time sailed. We only discover a straightforward, honest endeavor to tell the story of certain men's lives. This is done in a simple, artless way, and with every indication of a desire to mete out even handed justice to all. And candid readers who come to the subject with minds free from prejudice, will be powerfully impressed with the belief that they are reading authentic histories written by honest men.' Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., pp. xli.-xlii.

[I-217] Vol. viii., p. 114, et seq.

[I-218] The exact dates in these relations I cannot vouch for; but the several authors who have written on the subject differ by only a year or two.

[I-219] 'Helluland, from Hella, a flat stone, an abundance of which may be found in Labrador and the region round about.' De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. 28. 'From data in the Landnama and several other ancient Icelandic geographical works, we may gather that the distance of a day's sailing was estimated at from twenty-seven to thirty geographical miles (German or Danish, of which fifteen are equal to a degree; each of these accordingly equal to four English sea-miles). From the island of Helluland, afterwards called Little Helluland, Biarne sailed to Heriulfsnes (Ikigeit) in Greenland, with strong south-westerly gales, in four days. The distance between that cape and Newfoundland is about 150 miles, which will correspond, when we take into consideration the strong gales. In modern descriptions it is stated that this land partly consists of naked, rocky flats, where no tree, not even a shrub, can grow, and which are therefore usually called Barrens; thus answering completely to the hellur of the ancient Northmen, from which they named the country.' Abstract of Hist. Evid., in Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour., vol. viii., p. 123.

[I-220] 'Markland was situate to the south-west of Helluland, distant about three days' sail, or about from eighty to ninety miles. It is therefore Nova Scotia, of which the descriptions given by later writers answer to that given by the ancient Northmen of Markland.' Id.

[I-221] 'Vinland was situate at the distance of two days' sail, consequently about from fifty-four to sixty miles, in a south-westerly direction from Markland. The distance from Cape Sable to Cape Cod is stated in nautical works as being W. by S. about seventy leagues, that is, about fifty-two miles. Biarne's description of the coasts is very accurate, and in the island situate to the eastward (between which and the promontory that stretches to eastward and northward Leif sailed) we recognize Nantucket. The ancient Northmen found there many shallows (grunnsÆ fui mikit); modern navigators make mention at the same place "of numerous riffs and other shoals," and say "that the whole presents an aspect of drowned land."' Id., pp. 121-2. 'The leading evidences serve to attest that Vinland was the present very marked seaboard area of New England. The nautical facts have been carefully examined by Professors Rafn and Magnusen, and the historical data adapted to the configuration of the coast which has Cape Cod as its distinguishing trait. All this seems to have been done with surprising accuracy, and is illustrated by the present high state of the arts in Denmark and Germany.' Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i., p. 111.

[I-222] 'Kialarnes (from KiÖlr, a keel, and nes, a cape, most likely so named on account of its striking resemblance to the keel of a ship, particularly of one of the long ships of the ancient Northmen) must consequently be Cape Cod, the Nauset of the Indians, which modern geographers have sometimes likened to a horn, and sometimes to a sickle or sythe.' Id., p. 122.

[I-223] 'The StraumfiÖrdr of the ancient Northmen is supposed to be Buzzard's Bay, and Straumey, Martha's Vineyard; although the account of the many eggs found there would seem more precisely to correspond to the island which lies off the entrance of Vineyard Sound, and which at this day is for the same reason called Egg Island.' Id.

[I-224] See Abstract of Hist. Evid., in Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour., vol. viii., p. 114, et seq., and De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. 11, et seq.

[I-225] In the year 983, according to Abstract of Hist. Evid., in Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour., vol. viii., p. 125. De Costa makes it 928. Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. 86.

[I-226] 'Professor Rafn in, what seems to the author, his needless anxiety to fix the locality of the White-man's land in America, says that, as this part of the manuscript is difficult to decipher, the original letters may have got changed, and vi inserted instead of xx, or xi, which numerals would afford time for the voyager to reach the coast of America, in the vicinity of Florida. Smith in his Dialogues, has even gone so far as to suppress the term six altogether, and substitutes, "by a number of days sail unknown." This is simply trifling with the subject. In GrÖnland's Historiske Mindesmoerker, chiefly the work of Finn Magnussen, no question is raised on this point. The various versions all give the number six, which limits the voyage to the vicinity of the Azores. SchÖning, to whom we are so largely indebted for the best edition of Heimskringla, lays the scene of Marson's adventure at those islands, and suggests that they may at that time have covered a larger extent of territory than the present, and that they may have suffered from earthquakes and floods, adding, "It is likely, and all circumstances show, that the said land has been a piece of North America." This is a bold, though not very unreasonable hypothesis, especially as the volcanic character of the islands is well known. In 1808, a volcano rose to the height of 3,500 feet. Yet SchÖning's suggestion is not needed. The fact that the islands were not inhabited when discovered by the Portuguese does not, however, settle anything against SchÖning, because in the course of five hundred years, the people might either have migrated, or been swept away by pestilence. GrÖnland's Historiske Mindesmoerker, (vol. i., p. 150), says simply, that "It is thought that he (Are Marson) ended his days in America, or at all events in one of the larger islands of the west. Some think that it was one of the Azore islands."' De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. 87.

[I-227] Abstract of Hist. Evid., in Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour., vol. viii., p. 125; De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. 89, et seq.

[I-228] See Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i., pp. 110, et seq., for plate and discussion of Dighton Rock.

[I-229] It bore the following inscription: Elligr. Sigvaps: son: r. ok. Bjanne. Tortarson: ok: Enripi. osson: laugardag. in: fyrir gagndag Holpu: varda te. ok rydu: M. C. XXXV; or, Erling Sighvatssonr, ok Bjarne Pordarson, ok Endridi oddsson laugardaginn fyrir gagndag hlodu varda pessa ok ruddu 1135; 'c'est-À-dire: Erling Sigvatson, Bjarne Thordarson, et Endride Oddson ÉrigÈrent ces monceaux de pierres le samedi avant le jour nommÉ Gagndag (le 25 avril) et ils nettoyÈrent la place en 1135.' Warden, Recherches, p. 152.

[I-230] 'We have noticed the discovery of a place called Estotiland, supposed to be Nova Scotia, in 1354, the inhabitants of which were Europeans, who cultivated grain, lived in stone houses, and manufactured beer, as in Europe at that day. Now, from the year 1354, till the time of the first settlements made in Onondaga county, by the present inhabitants, is about 400 years. Is it not possible, therefore, that this glass bottle, with some kind of liquor in it, may have been derived from this Estotiland, having been originally brought from Europe; as glass had been in use there, more or less, from the year 664, till the Scandinavians colonized Iceland, Greenland, and Estotiland, or Newfoundland.' Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 260-1.

[I-231] 'MalgrÉ les rÉclamations que mes suppositions soulevÈrent de divers cÔtÉs et les sourires incrÉdules qu'elles appelÈrent sur les lÈvres de plusieurs de nos savants dont je respecte et honore les connaissances, je persiste plus que jamais dans l'opinion que j'exprimais alors; plus j'avance dans mes Études amÉricaines plus je demeure convaincu des relations qui existÈrent, antÉrieurement À Christophe Colomb, entre le Nouveau-Monde et les contrÉes situÉes À l'orient de l'autre cÔtÉ de l'ocÉan Atlantique, et plus je suis persuadÉ que les Scandinaves ont dÛ, À une pÉriode mÊme plus reculÉe que celle dont vos (Prof. Rafn's) intÉressants mÉmoires rapportent le souvenir, Émigrer vers le continent amÉricain.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1858, tom. clx., pp. 261-92.

[I-232] 'Il est impossible de ne point Être frappÉ de l'analogie qui existe entre les idÉes bramaniques sur la divinitÉ et les passages du Popol-Vuh citÉs plus haut. Mais si nous consultons les traditions beaucoup plus rÉcentes, conservÉes mÊme aprÈs l'Établissement du christianisme en SuÈde, nous trouverons encore, entre les coutumes religieuses des populations de ces contrÉes et celles qui nous sont retracÉes dans le Popol-Vuh, plus d'un rapport.' Viollet-le-Duc, in Charnay, Ruines AmÉr., pp. 41-2. See farther concerning emigration to America from north-western Europe: Mitchill, in Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 341, et seq.; Priest's Amer. Antiq., scattered notices, pp. 88-9, 234-329; Robertson's Hist. Amer., vol. i., pp. 278-80; Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i., pp. 110-11, 120-4; Brasseur de Bourbourg, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1855, tom. cxlvii., pp. 157-8; Viollet-le-Duc, in Charnay, Ruines AmÉr., pp. 11, 18-19, 23-4, 42-3; Warden, Recherches, pp. 146-54; Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, pp. 28-30, 117; Tschudi's Peruvian Antiq., pp. 3-7, 21-2; Malte-Brun, PrÉcis de la GÉog., tom. i., pp. 197-8; Davis' Discovery of New England by the Northmen; Baldwin's Anc. Amer., pp. 279-85; Davis' Anc. Amer., pp. 13-31; Tylor's Anahuac, pp. 278-9; M'Culloh's Researches on Amer., pp. 21-2; Brinton's AbbÉ Brasseur, in Lippincott's Mag., vol. i., p. 79, et seq.; Smith's Human Species, p. 237; Deuber, Geschichte der Schiffahrt; Hermes, Entdeckung von Amer., pp. 1-134; Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 399-400; Hill's Antiq. of Amer.; Wilson's Prehist. Man, pp. 394-420; Kruger's Discov. Amer., pp. 1-134; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 53-64, 404, 411-12; Beaufoy's Mex. Illustr., p. 322; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 18-22; Id., Popol Vuh, pp. li.-liv., lxxxix.-xcii.; Hist. Mag., vol. ix., pp. 364-5; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 15; Humboldt's Exam. Crit., tom. ii., pp. 83-104, 105-20; Irving's Columbus, vol. iii., pp. 432-40; Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., p. 239; Klemm, Cultur-Geschichte, tom. v., pp. 164-71; Rafinesque, The American Nations; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Quatre Lettres, p. 17; Williamson's Observations on Climate; Zesterman's Colonization of America by Northwestern Europeans; Farcy, Discours, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., pp. 48-9; Simpson's Nar., p. 159; Schoolcraft, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 391-6.

[I-233] About 1169-70.

[I-234] 'All this is related in old Welsh annals preserved in the abbeys of Conway and Strat Flur.... This emigration of Prince Madog is mentioned in the preserved works of several Welsh bards who lived before the time of Columbus. It is mentioned by Hakluyt, who had his account of it from writings of the bard Guttun Owen. As the Northmen had been in New England over one hundred and fifty years when Prince Madog went forth to select a place for his settlement, he knew very well there was a continent on the other side of the Atlantic, for he had knowledge of their voyages to America; and knowledge of them was also prevalent in Ireland. His emigration took place when Henry II. was king of England, but in that age the English knew little or nothing of Welsh affairs in such a way as to connect them with English history very closely.' Baldwin's Anc. Amer., p. 286. See also Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. ii., pp. 142-9; Farcy, Discours, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., pp. 49-50. 'Before wee passed these ilands, under the lee of the bigger iland, we anchored, the wind being at north-east, with intent to refresh ourselves with the fowles of these ilands. They are of divers sorts, and in great plentie, as pengwins, wilde duckes, gulles, and gannets; of the principall we purposed to make provisions, and those were the pengwins; which in Welsh, as I have beene enformed, signifieth a white head. From which derivation, and many other Welsh denominations given by the Indians, or their predecessors, some doe inferre that America was first peopled with Welsh-men; and Montezanna, king, or rather emperour of Mexico, did recount unto the Spaniards, at their first comming, that his auncestors came from a farre countrie, and were white people. Which, conferred with an auncient cronicle, that I have read many yeares since, may be conjectured to bee a prince of Wales, who many hundreth yeares since, with certaine shippes, sayled to the westwards, with intent to make new discoveries. Hee was never after heard of.' Hawkins' Voy., in Hakluyt Soc., p. 111.

[I-235] Written in Welsh, translated into English by Humphrey Llwyd, and published by Dr David Powel in 1584.

[I-236] Dedicated to Prince Charles, and published in 1613.

[I-237] See Warden, Recherches, pp. 154-7.

[I-238] They are 'made of raw-hides, the skins of buffaloes, stretched underneath a frame made of willows or other boughs, and shaped nearly round, like a tub; which the woman carries on her head from her wigwam to the water's edge, and having stepped into it, stands in front, and propels it by dripping her paddle forward, and drawing it to her, instead of paddling by the side.' Catlin's Amer. Ind., vol. ii., p. 261.

[I-239] See comparative vocabulary. Id.

[I-240] As a good deal of importance has been attached to it, it will be as well to give Jones' statement in full; it is as follows: 'These presents certify all persons whatever, that in the year 1660, being an inhabitant of Virginia, and chaplain to Major General Bennet, of Mansoman County, the said Major General Bennet and Sir William Berkeley sent two ships to Port Royal, now called South Carolina, which is sixty leagues southward of Cape Fair, and I was sent therewith to be their minister. Upon the 8th of April we set out from Virginia, and arrived at the harbor's mouth of Port Royal the 19th of the same month, where we waited for the rest of the fleet that was to sail from Barbadoes and Bermuda with one Mr. West, who was to be deputy governor of said place. As soon as the fleet came in, the smallest vessels that were with us sailed up the river to a place called the Oyster Point; there I continued about eight months, all which time being almost starved for want of provisions: I and five more traveled through the wilderness till we came to the Tuscarora country. There the Tuscarora Indians took us prisoners because we told them that we were bound to Roanock. That night they carried us to their town and shut us up close, to our no small dread. The next day they entered into a consultation about us, and, after it was over, their interpreter told us that we must prepare ourselves to die next morning, whereupon, being very much dejected, I spoke to this effect in the British [Welsh] tongue: "Have I escaped so many dangers, and must I now be knocked on the head like a dog!" Then presently came an Indian to me, which afterward appeared to be a war captain belonging to the sachem of the Doegs (whose original, I find, must needs be from the Old Britons), and took me up by the middle, and told me in the British [Welsh] tongue I should not die, and thereupon went to the emperor of Tuscarora, and agreed for my ransom and the men that were with me. They (the Doegs) then welcomed us to their town, and entertained us very civilly and cordially four months, during which time I had the opportunity of conversing with them familiarly in the British [Welsh] language, and did preach to them in the same language three times a week, and they would confer with me about any thing that was difficult therein, and at our departure they abundantly supplied us with whatever was necessary to our support and well doing. They are settled upon Pontigo River, not far from Cape Atros. This is a brief recital of my travels among the Doeg Indians.

Morgan Jones,
the son of John Jones, of Basateg, near Newport, in the County
of Monmouth. I am ready to conduct any Welshman or others
to the country.

New York, March 10th, 1685-6.' Gentleman's Mag., 1740.

[I-241] Chambers' Jour., vol. vi., p. 411.

[I-242] 'These accounts are copied from manuscripts of Dr. W. O. Pughe, who, together with Edward Williams (the bard of Glamorgan), made diligent inquiries in America about forty years ago, when they collected upwards of one hundred different accounts of the Welsh Indians.' Id. 'It is reported by travellers in the west, that on the Red River ... very far to the southwest, a tribe of Indians has been found, whose manners, in several respects, resemble the Welch.... They call themselves the McCedus tribe, which having the Mc or Mac attached to their name, points evidently to a European origin, of the Celtic description.... It is well authenticated that upwards of thirty years ago, Indians came to Kaskaskia, in the territory, now the state of Illinois, who spoke the Welch dialect, and were perfectly understood by two Welchmen then there, who conversed with them.' Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 230-2.

[I-243] Recherches, p. 157. Griffiths related his adventures to a native of Kentucky, and they were published in 1804, by Mr Henry Toulmin, one of the Judges of the territory of Mississippi. See Stoddard's Sketches of Louisiana, p. 475; Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal, vol. i., 1805.

[I-244] Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 305.

[I-245] We read farther: 'But what is still more remarkable, in their war song he discovered, not only the sentiments, but several lines, the very same words as used in Ossian's celebrated majestic poem of the wars of his ancestors, who flourished about thirteen hundred years ago. The Indian names of several of the streams, brooks, mountains and rocks of Florida, are also the same which are given to similar objects, in the highlands of Scotland.' All this, could we believe it, would fill us with astonishment; but the solution of the mystery lies in the next sentence: 'This celebrated metaphysician (Monboddo) was a firm believer in the anciently reported account of America's having been visited by a colony from Wales long previous to the discovery of Columbus.' Priest's Amer. Antiq., p. 230. It is this being a 'firm believer' in a given theory that makes so many things patent to the enthusiast which are invisible to ordinary men.

[I-246] Monastikon Britannicum, pp. 131-2, 187-8, cited in De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. xviii.

[I-247] See Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 188-90; De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., pp. xviii.-xx.

[I-248] Moeurs des Sauvages AmÉriquains ComparÉes aux Moeurs des Premiers Temps. Paris, 1724.

[I-249] GarcÍa, OrÍgen de los Ind., pp. 189-92.

[I-250] Pidgeon's Trad., p. 16.

[I-251] Landa, Relacion, pp. lxx.-lxxx.

[I-252] Hist. Anc. Amer., p. 107. In the Greeks of Homer I find the customs, discourse, and manners of the Iroquois, Delawares, and Miamis. The tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides paint to me almost literally the sentiments of the red-men, respecting necessity, fatality, the miseries of human life, and the rigour of blind destiny. Volney's View of the Climate and Soil of the United States of America. London, 1804.

[I-253] See Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 385-90; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 255; Scenes in Rocky Mts., pp. 199-202; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, p. 6; Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 184, 527-8.

[I-254] See Baldwin's Anc. Amer., p. 177; Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 394-5.

[I-255] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 6.

[I-256] 'Imaginez un livre entier Écrit en calembours, un livre dont toutes les phrases, dont la plupart des mots ont un double sens, l'un parfaitement net et distinct de l'autre, et vous aurez, jusqu'À un certain point, l'idÉe du travail que j'ai entre les mains. C'est en cherchant l'explication d'un passage fort curieux, relatif À l'histoire de Quetzal-Coatl, que je suis arrivÉ À ce rÉsultat extraordinaire. Oui, Monsieur, si ce livre est en apparence l'histoire des ToltÈques et ensuite des rois de Colhuacan et de Mexico, il prÉsente, en rÉalitÉ, le rÉcit du cataclysme qui bouleversa le monde, il y a quelques six ou sept mille ans, et constitua les continents dans leur État actuel. Ce que le Codex Borgia de la Propagande, le Manuscrit de Dresde et le Manuscrit Troano Étaient en images et en hiÉroglyphes, le Codex Chimalpopoca en donne la lettre; il contient, en langue nahuatl, l'histoire du monde, composÉe par le sage Hueman, c'est-À-dire par la main puissante de Dieu dans le grand Livre de la nature, en un mot, c'est le Livre divin lui-mÊme, c'est le Teo-Amoxtli.' Brasseur de Bourbourg. Quatre Lettres, p. 24.

[I-257] Id., p. 39.

[I-258] In the Codex Chimalpopoca, Brasseur reads that 'À la suite de l'Éruption des volcans, ouverts sur toute l'Étendue du continent amÉricain, double alors de ce qu'il est aujourd'hui, l'Éruption soudaine d'un immense foyer sous-marin, fit Éclater le monde et abÎma, entre un lever et un autre de l'Étoile du matin, les rÉgions les plus riches du globe.' Quatre Lettres, p. 45.

[I-259] Id., p. 108.

[I-260] See farther, concerning Atlantis: Brasseur de Bourbourg, MS. Troano, tom. i., pp. 29-32, 199; Irving's Columbus, vol. i., pp. 24, 38, vol. iii., pp. 419, 492-4, 499-512; Baril, Mexique, p. 190; Dally, Races Indig., p. 7; Farcy, Discours, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., pp. 41-2; De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. xiii.; Heylyn's Cosmog., pp. 943-4; Sanson d'Abbeville, AmÉrique, pp. 1-3; Willson's Amer. Hist., pp. 90-1; Warden, Recherches, pp. 97-113; Carli, Cartas, pt i., p. 1; Brasseur de Bourbourg, in Landa, Relacion, pp. xviii.-cxii.; Davis' Anc. Amer., p. 13; Malte-Brun, PrÉcis de la GÉog., tom. i., pp. 28-30, 213-15; Wilson's Prehist. Man, pp. 392-3; Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 181-4; Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 394-9; Larrainzar, Dictamen, pp. 8-25; Stratton's Mound-Builders, MS.; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 216-22; Baldwin's Anc. Amer., pp. 174-84; Mitchill, in Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 340; FaliÉs, Études Hist. sur les Civilisations, tom. i., pp. 185-93, 218; M'Culloh's Researches on Amer., pp. 26-32; Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. i., pp. 42, 130-206, tom. ii., pp. 46, 163-214; Oviedo, Hist. Gen., tom. i., pp. 14-18, 22; Monglave, in Antiq. Mex., pp. 57-60; Cabrera, Teatro, in Rio's Description, p. 126; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, pp. 5-6; Purchas his Pilgrimes, vol. v., pp. 799-801; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 29; West und Ost Indischer Lustgart, pt i., pp. 4-5; Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, pp. 18-19; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., p. 31; DesprÉaux, in Museo Mex., tom. ii., pp. 84-6; Major's Prince Henry, p. 83; Rafinesque, in Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 123-4; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 42-6, 413-14; Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, pp. 256-7; Herrera, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. i., cap. ii.; Smith's Human Species, p. 83; Soc. GÉog., Bulletin, tom. iv., p. 235.

[I-261] Davis, Anc. Amer., p. 12, thinks that a portion of the animals of the original creation migrated west. 'If this idea,' he says, 'is new to others, I hope it may be considered more reasonable than the infidel opinion, that men and animals were distinct creations from those of Asia.' 'Think you,' he adds sagely, 'they would have transported venomous serpents from the old to the new world?'

[I-262] Concerning unity or variety of the American races, see: Prichard's Researches, vol. i., p. 268, vol. v., pp. 289, 374, 542; Morton's Crania Amer., p. 62; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 197-98; Baldwin's Anc. Amer., pp. 66-7; Maury, in Nott and Gliddon's Indig. Races, p. 81; Humboldt, Essai Pol., tom. i., p. 83; Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 21-36; Willson's Amer. Hist., p. 89; Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer., p. 4; Smith's Human Species, p. 251; Catlin's N. Amer. Ind., vol. ii., p. 234; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 3-4.

[I-263] 'I am compelled to believe that the Continent of America, and each of the other Continents, have had their aboriginal stocks, peculiar in colour and in character—and that each of these native stocks has undergone repeated mutations, by erratic colonies from abroad.' Catlin's N. Amer. Ind., vol. ii., p. 232; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 224-5, thinks it consonant with the Bible to suppose 'distinct animal creations, simultaneously, for different portions of the earth.' A commentator on Hellwald who advocates autochthon theory remarks that: 'the derivation of these varieties from the original stock is philosophically explained on the principle of the variety in the offspring of the same parents, and the better adaptation and consequent chance of life.' Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 345. 'That theory is probably, in every point of view, the most tenable and exact which assumes that man, like the plant, a mundane being, made his appearance generally upon earth when our planet had reached that stage of its development which unites in itself the conditions of the man's existence. In conformity with this view I regard the American as an autochthon.' The question of immigration to America has been too much mixed with that of the migration in America, and only recently has the opinion made progress that America has attained a form of civilization by modes of their own. Neither the theory of a populating immigration or a civilizing immigration from the old world meet any countenance from the results of the latest investigations. Hellwald, in Id., p. 330. All tribes have similarities among them which make them distinct from old world. Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 23. Dr. Morton says the study of physical conformation alone, excludes every branch of the Caucasian race from any obvious participation in the peopling of this continent, and believes the Indians are all of one race, and that race distinct from all others. Mayer's Observations, p. 11. We can never know the origin of the Americans. The theory that they are aborigines is contradicted by no fact and is plausible enough. Morelet, Voyage, tom. i., pp. 177-8. The supposition that the Red Man is a primitive type of a human family originally planted in the western continent presents the most natural solution of the problem. The researches of physiologists, antiquaries, philologists, tend this way. The hypothesis of an immigration, when followed out, is embarrassed with great difficulties and leads to interminable and unsatisfying speculations. Norman's Rambles in Yuc., p. 251. God has created several couples of human beings differing from one another internally and externally, and these were placed in appropriate climates. The original character is preserved, and directed only by their natural powers they acquired knowledge and formed a distinct language. In primitive times signs and sounds suggested by nature were used, but with advancement, dialects formed. It requires the idea of a miracle to suppose that all men descend from one source. Kames, in Warden, Recherches, p. 203. 'The unsuccessful search after traces of an ante-Columbian intercourse with the New World, suffices to confirm the belief that, for unnumbered centuries throughout that ancient era, the Western Hemisphere was the exclusive heritage of nations native to its soil. Its sacred and sepulchral rites, its usages and superstitions, its arts, letters, metallurgy, sculpture, and architecture, are all peculiarly its own.' Wilson's Prehist. Man, p. 421. Morton concludes 'that the American Race differs essentially from all others, not excepting the Mongolian; nor do the feeble analogies of language, and the more obvious ones in civil and religious institutions and the arts, denote anything beyond casual or colonial communication with the Asiatic nations; and even these analogies may perhaps be accounted for, as Humboldt has suggested, in the mere coincidence arising from similar wants and impulses in nations inhabiting similar latitudes.' Crania Amer., p. 260. 'I am firmly of opinion that God created an original man and woman in this part of the globe, of different species from any in the other parts.' Romans' Concise Natural Hist. of E. and W. Florida. 'Altamirano, the best Aztec scholar living, claims that the proof is conclusive that the Aztecs did not come here from Asia, as has been almost universally believed, but were a race originated in America, and as old as the Chinese themselves, and that China may even have been peopled from America.' Evans' Our Sister Rep., p. 333. Swan believes that 'whatever was the origin of different tribes or families, the whole race of American Indians are native and indigenous to the soil.' N.W. Coast, p. 206.

[II-1] Vol. ii., pp. 523-52.

[II-2] pp. 544-9.

[II-3] The fact that they were Spaniards and Catholics is enough to condemn them with critics of a certain class, of which Adair may be quoted as an example: 'I lay little stress upon Spanish testimonies, for time and ocular proof have convinced us of the labored falsehood of almost all their historical narrations.... They were so divested of those principles inherent to honest enquirers after truth, that they have recorded themselves to be a tribe of prejudiced bigots.' Amer. Ind., p. 197.

[II-4] Historia Antigua de la Nueva EspaÑa, MS. of 1588, folio, 3 volumes. A part of this work has recently been printed in Mexico. I have a manuscript copy made by Mr C. A. Spofford from that existing in the Congressional Library in Washington.

[II-5] Ixtlilxochitl has been the subject of much criticism favorable and otherwise. The verdict of the best authors seems to be that he wrote honestly, compiling from authentic documents in his possession, but carelessly, especially in the matter of chronology which presents contradictions on nearly every page. Even Wilson, Conq. Mex., pp. 23, 61, who stigmatizes as liars all the early writers on this subject, admits that Alva lies elegantly, and has written an able though fictitious narrative. Carelessness in dates and a disposition to unduly exalt his own race and family, are the most glaring faults of this author, and are observable also to a certain extent in all the native historians.

[II-6] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 91; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 10; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 196.

[II-7] Historia de la Creacion del Cielo y de la Tierra, conforme al Sistema de la gentilidad Americana.

[II-8] Recopilacion Florida de la Historia del Reyno de Guatemala, MS. in the Guatemalan Archives.

[II-9] Memorial de Tecpan-Atitlan, a history of the Cakchiquel Kingdom, MS. discovered by Brasseur.

[II-10] Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo Reyno de Guatemala. Guatemala, 1852.

[II-11] Constituciones Diocesanas del Obispado de Chiappas. Rome, 1702.

[II-12] Vol. iii. of a History of Chiapas and Guatemala, found by Scherzer at the University of San Carlos. See Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. viii., xiii.

[II-13] Languages, 'the most ancient historical monuments of nations.' 'If in the philosophical study of the structure of languages, the analogy of a few roots acquires value only when they can be geographically connected together, neither is the want of resemblance in roots any very strong proof against the common origin of nations.' Humboldt's Pers. Nar., vol. v., pp. 143, 293. Language, 'which usually exhibits traces of its origin, even when the science and literature, that are embodied in it, have widely diverged.' Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., p. 394. 'In the absence of historical evidence, language is the best test of consanguinity; there are reasons why climate should alter the physical character, but it does not appear that the language would be materially affected by such local influence.' Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man, vol. i., p. xvi. 'Efectivamente, la historia por sÍ sola nada nos descubre acerca del orÍgen de las naciones, muy poco nos enseÑa sobre la mezcla y confusion de las razas, casi nada nos dice de las emigraciones de los pueblos, mientras todo esto lo esplica admirablemente el anÁlisis y la investigacion del filÓlogo.' Pimentel, Discurso, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. viii., pp. 367-8. 'The problem of the common origin of languages has no necessary connection with the problem of the common origin of mankind.... The science of language and the science of Ethnology have both suffered most severely from being mixed up together. The classification of races and languages, should be quite independent of each other. Races may change their language and history supplies us with several instances where one race adopted the language of another. Different languages, therefore, may be spoken by different races; so that any attempt at squaring the classification of races and tongues must necessarily fail.' MÜller's Science of Lang., vol. i., pp. 326-7.

[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.

[IV-1] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 247-50. 'Era servido de unos Sacerdotes llamados Papahua TlemacÀzque, que, À distincion de los demÀs, traÌan el cabello en melenas sueltas, y al acabarse el Cyclo Indiano, sacaban, y vendian el Fuego Nuevo À los Pueblos vecinos.' Boturini, Idea, p. 42. 'AllÍ tambien se enterraban los principales y seÑores, sobre cuyas sepulturas se mandaban hacer tÚmulos de tierra, que hoy se ven todavia.' Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., p. 141.

[IV-2] Brasseur cites Torquemada and Duran as authorities for the existence at this period of some remnants of the old Quinames, and of other savage tribes whose names have been lost; but these authors in the chapters cited say nothing to which such a meaning can fairly be attributed.

[IV-3] See p. 192.

[IV-4] Boturini, CatÁlogo, p. 17, No. 12. 'Diferentes Historias Originales en lengua NÀhuatl, y papel EuropÈo de los Reynos de CulhuÀcan, y Mexico, y de otras Provincias, el Autor de ellas dicho Don Domingo ChimalpÀin. Empiezan desde la Gentilidad, y llegan À los aÑos de 1591.' See also Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. lxxvi.

[IV-5] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 198, et seq. This author refers occasionally in his foot-notes to the Spanish writers Torquemada, Duran, and others, but such citations when looked up rarely prove to have any bearing on the matter in question, being for the most part only definitions of names employed in the text. It is much to be regretted that there are no means of testing Brasseur de Bourbourg's version of these important annals. See, however, on this point, a future note of this chapter.

[IV-6] In addition to the two documents referred to, Camargo, Hist. Tlax., in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 145, has the following, which may refer to the migration of this earliest branch of the Nahua peoples; 'according to their account, it was in five Tochtli that they arrived at the Seven Caves. Thence they went to Amaquetepec, then to Tepenec, or Echo Mountain, where Mitmitzichi (Mimich) killed Izpapalotl with his bow and arrows. Next they passed to the province of Tomallan, which they conquered after a long war, to Culhuacan, to Teotla Cochoalco, and to Teohuiznahuac where they wished to shoot Cohuatlicue, queen of that province; but they made peace with her. She married Mixcohuatl Amacohtle and by him had a son Colchacovatl [probably Quetzalcoatl].'

[IV-7] See note on p. 213 for dates.

[IV-8] Also written Tula, Tulan, Tulla, Tullan, and Tulha.

[IV-9] Chalcatzin, Tlacamilitzin, Checatl, Cohuatzon, Mazacohuatl, Tlapalhuitz, and Huitz. Veytia, tom. i., p. 207. Chalcatzin, Acatl, Eccatl, Cohuatzin, Mazacohuatl Otziuhcohuatl, Tlapalhuiz, and Huitz. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 393. Zaca, Chalcatzin, Ecatzin, Cohuazon, Tzihuacohuatl, Tlapalmetzotzin, and Metzoltzin. Id., p. 450. Tlacomihua or Acatl, Chalchiuhmatz, Avecatl, Coatzon, Tziuhcoatl, Tlapalhuitz, and Huitz. Id., pp. 206-7. Tzacatl, Chalcatzin, Ehecatzin, Cohuatzon, Tzihuac-Cohuatl, Tlapalmetzotzin, and Metzotzin. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 37. Tzacatl, Telacalzin, Echecalzin, Cohualzon, Tezihuaccoahuatl, Tlapalmezoltzin, and Melzolzin. Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 230.

[IV-10] Ixtlilxochitl. Called also Achcauhtzin, Cabrera, Teatro, p. 95. Icoatzin, Veytia, tom. i., p. 301.

[IV-11] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 37; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 127; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 215. Chalchiuhtlanetzin, or Chalchiuhtlatonac. Veytia, tom. i., pp. 233, 301. Chalchiuhtlahuextzin, Ixtlilxochitl, p. 393. Tlalchiuhtlanelzin. Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 230. Ixtlilxochitl seems to imply, in another part of his writings, Hist. Chich., p. 207, that the king was chosen among the Toltecs themselves. This Sr Pimentel, in Dicc. Univ., tom. x., p. 611, deems much more probable than the course indicated in the other accounts.

[IV-12] 503 or 510 or 509 or 556. Ixtlilxochitl. 700, et seq. Torquemada. 713-19. Veytia. Brasseur has 718. 670, et seq. MÜller. All the authorities agree on 7 Acatl as the date of the establishment of the kingdom. Clavigero interprets the date as 667.

[IV-13] See vol. ii., p. 140.

[IV-14] 608 A.D., according to Ixtlilxochitl, p. 450. On the establishment of the Toltecs in Tollan and the reign of the first king, see: Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 206-7, 322-5, 336, 392-3, 450, 458, 460; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 221-39; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 126-7, tom. iv., pp. 46, 51; Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 106-15, 145, lib. xi., p. 312; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 37, 254; Boturini, Idea, pp. 77, 139; Id., in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 230; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 299; Motolinia, Hist. Indios, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 5; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 11; Cabrera, Teatro, p. 95; Arlegui, ChrÓn. Zacatecas, p. 6; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 209, et seq.; Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, p. 138; Prescott's Mex., vol. i., pp. 12-13; MÜller, Amerikanische Urreligionen, p. 524; Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc., vol. i., p. 95; Chevalier, Mexique, p. 55; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 20; Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. v., p. 95; Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. 46; Pimentel, in Dicc. Univ., tom. x., pp. 610-11.

[IV-15] Codex Chimalpopoca, and Memorial de Culhuacan, as cited by Brasseur de Bourbourg.

[IV-16] Respecting these titles see vol. ii., pp. 186-7, 201, vol. iii., p. 434.

[IV-17] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 225.

[IV-18] 'On regarda aussi comme des dieux Camaxtle et Tezcatlipuca qui vinrent de l'occident; mais ces prÉtendus dieux Étaient sans doute des enchanteurs diaboliques et possÉdÉs du dÉmon, qui pervertirent toutes ces nations.' Camargo, Hist. Tlax., in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 146. 'Fueron grandes capitanes esforzados y entre ellos valerosos hombres; los quales seÑorearon por grado Ò por fuerza aquellas Provincias de Mexico, Tetzcuco y Tlaxcala, cuyos propios naturales a habitadores y aborigenes eran las gentes que se llaman Othomies.' Las Casas, Hist. ApologÉtica, MS., cap. 122.

[IV-19] See vol. ii., pp. 335-6, 351-2, vol. iii., pp. 118, 403-6.

[IV-20] Ixtlilcuechahuac, otherwise called Tzacatecatl, Tlaltecatl, and Tlachinotzin, in 771 A.D. Veytia, tom. i., p. 231. 608. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 450. Ixliuechahuexe or Tzacatcatl, 614. Id., p. 325. Ixtlilcuechanac or Tlaltecatl Huetzin. Id., p. 393. Tlilquechahuac Tlalchinoltzin, 572. Id., p. 207. Tlilque Chaocatlahinoltzin. Id., p. 460. Aixtilcuechahuac. Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 11. 719 A.D. Clavigero, tom. i., p. 127. Was reigning in 660. Boturini, Idea, p. 139. The preceding hardly confirms Brasseur's statement that 'toutes les Relations d'Ixtlilxochitl concordent ici avec le Codex Chimalp., pour donner le nom de Huetzin au second roi de Tollan.' This is a pretty fair sample of the abbÉ's references.

[IV-21] 666, or 613. Ixtlilxochitl, who also writes the name Huetzin Totepeuh and Huitzin. 771. Clavigero.

[IV-22] Totepauh and Totepeuhque. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 326, 460; on p. 450 his reign is ignored.

[IV-23] Nacazxoc. Torquemada, and Vetancvrt. Nacaxzoch, Nacalxur, Nacaxoc Mitl, and Nacazxot. Ixtlilxochitl, who on pp. 450 and 393 calls him the fourth king.

[IV-24] Veytia. 927 according to Clavigero. 822 or 768 according to Ixtlilxochitl, who calls him Tlacomihua on pp. 207, 460, names him as fifth king on p. 393, and ignores his reign on p. 450.

[IV-25] For the annals of Tollan during this period see Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 207, 325-6, 393, 450, 460; Veytia, tom. i., pp. 239-58; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 37. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 127-8; Sahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., p. 114; Boturini, Idea, pp. 139-40; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., p. 11; MÜller, Amerikanische Urreligionen, p. 524.

[IV-26] Chief among which titles was that of Tecuhtli, respecting which see vol. ii., pp. 194-200.

[IV-27] 'On cÉlÉbra de grandes fÊtes À la naissance de Colchacovat.' Camargo, Hist. Tlax., in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 146. See also note 6 of this chapter.

[IV-28] See vol. ii., pp. 269, 434, 608, vol. iii., pp. 350, 363.

[IV-29] This alliance rests altogether on the Codex Chimalpopoca and Mem. de Culhuacan. It is to be noted that Brasseur refers clearly to Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., lib. xi., cap. 18, as an authority, which chapter contains not a word bearing on the subject.

[IV-30] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 37, relates the succession of the Toltec kings at Tollan, agreeing substantially with the accounts of Ixtlilxochitl, Veytia, and the rest. It is to be noted, however, that on page 254 the same author gives another account, inextricably confused, totally disagreeing with the preceding, but agreeing in most of its names, with that derived by Brasseur from the two records in his possession. This proves that the version of the Toltec traditions followed by the Spanish writers, referring everything to Tollan and ignoring all other nations and kings, was not the only one extant when the Spaniards came. It confirms to a certain extent Brasseur's account of other Toltec nations and monarchs besides those at Tollan, and is therefore important. I translate this version of the tradition from Torquemada, without any attempt to reconcile its many inconsistencies with itself and the versions already presented. It has the appearance of a successive interpretation of the records of distinct kingdoms, or distinct periods, tacked together and referred vaguely to Toltec history by a writer who did not suspect the existence of any other power than that at Tollan. 'When the Mexicans arrived in this region of Tulla, it was already settled by many people; because, according to the truth as found in the most authentic histories of these nations, in 700 A.D., they began to settle here. Their first captain, or leader, was named Totepeuh, who lived a long and tranquil life, being a bold and famous chieftain. At his death those of the province of Tulla raised to the throne another called Topil [Topiltzin], who reigned fifty years and was succeeded by Huemac, mentioned elsewhere in connection with the tricks of Quetzalcohuatl. [These are among the very last rulers in Tollan by other accounts.] This Huemac was a very powerful king, who was much feared and caused himself to be worshiped as a god. He went out from Tulla to increase the extent of his kingdom, occupying himself throughout his reign in gaining new provinces, preferring the bustle of war to the quiet of peace. But while he was engaged in wars abroad the Toltecs made Nauhyotzin king, who was the second lord, and of Chichimec birth. He also left Tullan and marched towards this lake with a large number of people to conquer as much as possible of the territory thereabouts. He reigned more than sixty years, and at his death the kingdom was given to Quauhtexpetlatl, [a name not appearing elsewhere] who in his turn was followed by Huetzin Nonohualcatl [according to Brasseur, Huetzin probably succeeded Nonohualcatl at Culhuacan. All that follows probably belongs to the Chichimec period much later, and relates to the kings of Culhuacan]. After him reigned Achitometl, and, afterwards, Quauhtonal, and in the tenth year of his reign the Mexicans arrived at Chapultepec; so that when the said Mexicans were in the city or province of Tulla, this prince was neither its king or lord (as Gomara says), but continuing the account and succession of these Toltec kings, we say that the said Achitometl was succeeded by Mazatzin, [and not by Quauhtonal as above. This is unintelligible. Mazatzin was, according to Brasseur, the first king at Tollan] and he by Quetzal. After him came Chalchiuhtona, and then Quauhtlix, then Yohuallatonac, followed by Tziuhtecatl. It is said that in the third year of this king's reign the Mexicans arrived where the city of Mexico now is. At Tziuhtecatl's death, Xiuhtemoctzin succeeded to the throne, and he was followed by Coxcotzin.' Then follows an account of the coming of Quetzalcoatl and his companions, in which the author is evidently much confused between the first and second of that name.

Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 301-2, gives a similar account, differing, however, in orthography and in some of the successions. The order of succession, according to this writer, is in substance as follows: 1st. Totepeuch, in 721, who died over 100 years after their arrival. 2d. Topil, son of the former, ruled about 50 years. An interregnum ensued of over 110 years; either had no kings or their names are forgotten. 3d, 4th. Two rulers chosen, Vemac and Nauhiocin, the latter a Chichimec. Both left Tollan with their followers; the latter settled near the lake, and reigned over 60 years. 5th. Quauhtexpetlatl. 6th. Vecin. 7th. Nonoualcatl. [We have seen that Torquemada unites these two names in one king.] 8th. Achitometl. 9th. Quauhtonal, in the 10th year of whose reign came the Mexicans to Chapultepec. 10th. Mazacin. 11th. Queza. 12th. Chalchiuhtona. 13th. Quauhtlix. 14th. Iohuallatonac. 15th. Ciuhtetl. 16th. Xiuiltemoc. 17th. Cuxcux, and so on with the Chichimec and Aztec kings of much later periods. It is very evident that these writers had access to the same documents which Brasseur uses, but did not comprehend their meaning.

[IV-31] 'En esta ciudad (Tollan) reinÓ muchos aÑos un rey llamado Quetzalcoatl, gran nigromÁntico, É inventor de la nigromancia,' etc. Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 266.

[IV-32] Brasseur, tom. i., p. 255, misinterpreting Torquemada, tom. i., p. 255, calls him blonde; in another place, tom. ii., p. 48, Torquemada distinctly states that he has black hair.

[IV-33] The invention of the calendar attributed to him by Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., pp. 97-8, Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. vii., p. 264, and others, should evidently be referred to the Quetzalcoatl of other times.

[IV-34] See vol. iii., pp. 239-87; also Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 161-205; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., pp. 82-3, 92-3, 97-8; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 255, 282, 380, tom. ii., pp. 20, 48-52, 79; Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. ii., lib. vii., cap. ii.; Las Casas, Hist. ApologÉtica, MS., cap. 122, 173; Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., pp. 243-8, 25-9; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. ii., pp. 11-13; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 300; Camargo, Hist. Tlax., in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 145; Ternaux-Compans, in Id., 1840, tom. lxxxvi., pp. 16-20; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 66-9; Tylor's Researches, pp. 154-5.

[IV-35] By calling them distinct persons it is not necessarily implied that the first Quetzalcoatl ever had a real existence.

[IV-36] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 171-2.

[IV-37] Probably, as has been said, the same as Huetzin and Texcaltepocatl.

[IV-38] 875. Clavigero. 927. Veytia. 770 or 716. Ixtlilxochitl.

[IV-39] 'Los que de esta ciudad (Tollan) huyeron, edificaron otra muy prÓspera que se llama Cholulla.' Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 207.

[IV-40] See references already given on Quetzalcoatl, and also Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 265, et seq.

[IV-41] This king is called Mitl and Tlacomihua by Veytia and the rest. Dates: 927. Clavigero. Veytia, tom. i., p. 252, has 779, which may be a misprint for 979. 822 or 768. Ixtlilxochitl. Huemac's expedition eastward, and the crowning of Nauhyotl, or Nauhyotzin, during his absence is recorded by Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 254, and Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 301, as quoted in note 30 of this chapter.

[IV-42] Respecting Tezcatlipoca, fables respecting his life on earth, and his worship as a god, see vol. iii., pp. 199-248.

[IV-43] See vol. ii., pp. 141-2.

[IV-44] Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 322, says that Ixtlilxochitl in one place calls this king Nauhyotl. Although I have been unable to find this statement in the works of the writer mentioned, yet there can be little doubt of the two kings' identity.

[IV-45] Chalchihuitlicue, Toci, Teteionan, etc. See vol. iii., p. 350, et seq., p. 367, et seq.

[IV-46] For description of Xochicalco see vol. iv., pp. 483-94.

[IV-47] On Nauhyotl's reign, see Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 207, 326, 393, 450, 460; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 255-8; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 37; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 127; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 11; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 319-31. The date 945 is from the Codex Chimalpopoca. The Spanish writers make his reign much longer, all except Clavigero representing him as having reigned, by the consent of his subjects, several years over the time prescribed by law. 979-1035. Veytia. 927-79. Clavigero. 822-80, or 768-826. Ixtlilxochitl. Torquemada and Gomara, as quoted in note 30, state that this king also marched eastward at the head of a large army to add to his domain by conquest.

[IV-48] Also Xiuhquentzin, Xiuliquentzin, and Xiuhzaltzin, Ixtlilxochitl, and Xiuhzaltzin, Vetancvrt.

[IV-49] See references in note 47 and following pages of each authority.

[IV-50] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 331, 336. Klemm, Cultur-Geschichte, tom. v., p. 181, speaks of an interregnum of forty-eight years after the death of Queen Xiuhtlaltzin.

[IV-51] Called also Yztaccaltzin. Ixtlilxochitl. Atecpanecatl and Iztacquauhtzin. Codex Chimalpopoca and Ixtlilxochitl, according to Brasseur.

[IV-52] 1039, 830, 884, according to the Spanish writers. See note 47. Clavigero ignores this king, while Torquemada, followed by Boturini in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 230, and Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., p. 11, seems to identify him with his successor.

[IV-53] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 208, calls the name Quetzalxochitzin, and makes her the wife rather than the daughter of Papantzin.

[IV-54] Bustamante, in Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., p. 246, erroneously charges Veytia with saying that Papantzin presented to the king a vessel of pulque invented by Xochitl. Brasseur, for reasons not very intelligible, refers to this period Sahagun's account of the invention of pulque in Olmec times (see pp. 207-8 of this volume), and also the efforts of the sorcerers to make Quetzalcoatl drink pulque that he might be induced to leave Tollan. I have attributed these tales to the times of Ceacatl. See p. 259 of this volume, also vol. iii., p. 242, 253, 261.

[IV-55] 1051. Veytia. 900. Ixtlilxochitl.

[IV-56] See respecting the first part of Huemac's reign, Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 207, 328-9, 460; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., p. 262, et seq.; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 37; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 337-48.

[IV-57] Tobeyo. Sahagun. TohuÉyo, 'our neighbor.' Brasseur. It does not seem to have been originally a proper name.

[IV-58] For a fuller account of the tale of Toveyo, see vol. iii., pp. 243-4. Also, Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., pp. 247-9.

[IV-59] Cohuanacox, Huetzin, Xiuhtenan, and Mexoyotzin.

[IV-60] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 207, 393; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., p. 271, et seq.; Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., pp. 249-51. Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 356-60, represents Cohuanacox and Meyoxotzin as lords of Quiahuiztlan-Anahuac, or Vera Cruz, but gives no farther details of their revolt. Huetzin, he calls the Prince of Jalisco, stating that he marched at the head of a large army against Huemac, but was defeated at Coatepec near Tollan by the bravery of Toveyo, who drove him with great loss back to the frontiers of Jalisco. For these facts he refers to no other authorities than those mentioned in this note, and these contain no such information.

[IV-61] Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., p. 251. Brasseur has no difficulty in interpreting this tale to indicate an earthquake.

[IV-62] See vol. iii., pp. 245-8.

[IV-63] Vol. iii., p. 247. The other details, like the interview with the Tlalocs, are from the Codex Chimalpopoca.

[IV-64] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 207-8, 329-30; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., p. 280, et seq. Dates, 1097, et seq. Veytia. 984, et seq. Ixtlilxochitl. There is no agreement about the duration of the plagues. They seem, however, to have been continuous for at least five years.

[IV-65] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 207, 329, 393, 460. This author's dates are 937 and 882. Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 271-4. Date 1091. Date according to Clavigero, 1031. Codex Chimalpopoca, in Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 370-5; Maxtlatzin is called the prince of Xochimilco. According to the Mem. de Culhuacan, in Id., Huemac died at this time.

[IV-66] Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., p. 254.

[IV-67] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 282-7; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 329-31; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 376-85.

[IV-68] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 385-93. Veytia and Ixtlilxochitl are occasionally referred to on these events, but the chapters referred to contain absolutely nothing on the subject.

[IV-69] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 37-8.

[IV-70] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 400-2.

[IV-71] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 402-5.

[IV-72] Such is the account given by Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia. Brasseur's version, although founded on the same authorities, differs widely. According to this version, Topiltzin Acxitl remained in Tollan; Quauhtli and Maxtlatzin with the aged Huemac marched to meet the foe. After a fierce conflict near Tultitlan, lasting several days, the army was driven back to Tollan. The king resolved to burn the city and leave the country. For the burning of Tollan, Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. iii., p. 255, is referred to, where he says, 'hizo quemar todas las casas que tenia hechas de plata y de concha,' etc., referring to the departure of Quetzalcoatl for Tlapallan. The Quetzalcoatl alluded to may be either Acxitl or Ceacatl. Retreating to Xaltocan and then towards Teotihuacan, a final stand was made by Huemac, Xochitl, Maxtlatzin, and Huehuemaxal (Huehuetenuxcatl?) against the Chichimecs. The Toltecs were utterly defeated, and of the leaders Xochitl and Quauhtli fell, Acxitl concealing himself for several weeks in the caves of the island of Xico. Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 405-9.

[IV-73] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 208, 331-3, 393, 450, 460. This author estimates the total loss of the Toltecs in the final war at 3,200,000, and that of the enemy at 2,400,000. He states that Topiltzin, before his departure, visited Allapan, a province on the South Sea, and notified his few remaining subjects that after many centuries he would return to punish his foes. He reached Tlapallan in safety and lived to the age of 104 years greatly respected. He records a tradition among the common people that Topiltzin remained in Xico, and many years after was joined by Nezahualcoyotl, the Chichimec emperor, and others. This author dates the final defeat of the Toltecs in 1011, 959, 958, and 1004. Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 287-304. This writer gives the date as 1116; states that Topiltzin's youngest son, Xilotzin, was captured and killed; gives 1612 as the number of Toltecs assembled in Culhuacan before the king's departure. Topiltzin reached Oyome, the Chichimec capital, in safety, and was kindly received by the emperor, Acauhtzin, who succeeded to the throne in that year, to whom Topiltzin gave all his rights to the kingdom of Tollan, on condition that he would punish the enemies of the Toltecs. He died in 1155. According to Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 131, the Toltec empire ended with Topiltzin's death in 1052. Most modern writers take the date from Clavigero. Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 410, says, 'AprÈs avoir donnÉ À tous des conseils remplis de sagesse sur la future restauration de la monarchie, il prit congÉ d'eux. Il traversa, sans Être connu, les provinces olmÈques et alla prendre la mer À Hueyapan, non loin des lieux oÙ le grand Quetzalcohuatl avait disparu un siÈcle et demi auparavant. L'histoire ajoute qu'il gagna, avec un grand nombre de ToltÈques Émigrant comme lui, les contrÉes mystÉrieuses de Tlapallan, oÙ aprÈs avoir fondÉ un nouvel empire, il mourut dans une heureuse vieillesse.'

[IV-74] On the Toltec empire, see Prescott's Mex., vol. i., pp. 11-14; Chevalier, Mex. Ancien et Mod., pp. 48-52; MÜller, Amerikanische Urreligionen, pp. 456, 522-5; Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc., vol. i., p. 95; Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. v., pp. 95-6; Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, pp. 96-7, 138-40; Rios, Compend. Hist. Mex., pp. 5-6; Villa-SeÑor y Sanchez, Theatro, tom. i., pp. 1-3; Helps' Span. Conq., vol. i., p. 287; MÜller, Reisen, tom. iii., pp. 32-41; Lacunza, in Museo Mex., tom. iv., p. 445; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., pp. 14-17; Ruxton, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1850, tom. cxxvi., pp. 38-40; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 39-40; Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 341-4; Mayer's Observations, p. 6; Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 216-24.

[IV-75] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 18-19; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 333-4, 393-4; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 37; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 131. The number of remaining Toltecs is estimated at 16,000, who were divided into five parties, four of them settling on the coasts and islands, and the fifth only remaining in AnÁhuac.

[IV-76] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 410-23. I suppose that this information was taken from the Codex Gondra already quoted—see p. 230 of this volume—and applied by the same author in another work, and with apparently better reasons, to the overthrow of the great original Nahua empire in the south.

[V-1] Whether this Amaquemecan was the original home of the Chichimecs or not is uncertain. According to Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 355, it certainly was not, since he states that it was founded in 958 by Xolotl Tochinteuctli. The ancestors of the Xolotl who invaded AnÁhuac, he adds, tom. ii., p. 199, 'sortis de Chicomoztoc, avaient conquis le royaume d'AmaquemÉ, oÙ ils avaient Établi leur rÉsidence.' Concerning the location and extent of Amaquemecan the authorities differ greatly. Thus Ixtlilxochitl gives its area as 2000 by 1000 leagues, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 335. Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 40, places its frontier 200 leagues north of Jalisco, which Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 132, thinks too near, since no traces of it exist, he says, within 1200 miles. Boturini, Idea, p. 141, places Amaquemecan in Michoacan. Arlegui, ChrÓn. Zacatecas, p. 7, among the wild tribes north of New Mexico. Cabrera, Teatro, p. 58, in Chiapas.

[V-2] Spelled also Achcauhtzin, and Axcauhtzin.

[V-3] 'L'Étymologie du nom de Xolotl offre de grandes difficultÉs. Dans son acceptation ordinaire, il signifie esclave, valet, servant, et cependant on le voit appliquÉ À plusieurs princes comme un titre trÈs-ÉlevÉ. Lorenzana, dans ses annotations aux Lettres de Fernand CortÈs, le traduit par Ojo, oeil, et on le lui donna, dit-il, À cause de sa vigilance. Mais dans quelle langue a-t-il cette signification?' Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 199.

[V-4] So says Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 39; but according to Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 231, Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 337, and Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 200, Acauhtzin reigned alone. Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 133, affirms that the old king divided the kingdom equally between his two sons.

[V-5] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 40-1, gives in full Xolotl's speech to his lords. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 337, relates that he appointed Oyome as the rendezvous. Brasseur de Bourbourg, as before stated, does not suppose Xolotl to have shared the Chichimec throne with his brother Acauhtzin; he therefore tells the story as if Xolotl induced the great nobles to favor his project of invasion by his eloquence and argument, but used no kingly authority in the matter.

Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i., pp. 302-3, tom. ii., pp. 3-4, 13, assigns an altogether different cause for the Chichimec invasion of AnÁhuac. He affirms that when Topiltzin (Acxitl), the Toltec monarch, fled from Tollan, he went to Acauhtzin, the Chichimec sovereign, to whom he was distantly related, told him his sorrows, and ceded in his favor all rights to a land which he refused to revisit; whereupon Acauhtzin invested his brother Xolotl with the sovereignty of Tollan.

The date of the events recorded above is very uncertain. Veytia states that the Chichimecs left their country for AnÁhuac in 1117, one year after the fall of the Toltec dynasty. Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 7. Ixtlilxochitl allows a period of four to six years to elapse before their arrival at Tollan; as usual, this writer is not consistent with himself in different parts of his work, and places the arrival in various years between 962 and 1015. Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 208, 337, 395, 451. Torquemada, always avoiding exact dates, gives on one page an interval of five years between the destruction of the Toltec empire and the arrival of the Chichimecs, and on another page an interval of nine years between the former event and the departure from Amaquemecan. Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 45-6. Clavigero places the Chichimec arrival at AnÁhuac in 1170. Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 132, tom. iv., pp. 40-51. Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 233, allows a lapse of nine years between the Toltec fall and the Chichimec arrival.

[V-6] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 44; Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., pp. 231-2; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 337, 375; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 4, 8-9. Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 134, expresses his disbelief in the numbers given. 'Rien ne justifie les millions que lui assignent les auteurs; ils ont compris Évidement sous ce chiffre exagÉrÉ les diverses Émigrations qui se succÉdÈrent depuis lors sans interruption dans la vallÉe jusqu'À la fondation du royaume d'Acolhuacan.' Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 202.

[V-7] Brasseur gives the names of these six chiefs, as: Acatomatl, Quautlapal, Cozcaquauh, Mitliztac, Tecpan, and Itzaquauh, giving Ixtlilxochitl and Torquemada as his authorities; the latter writer, however, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 44, distinctly affirms that only one chief, Acatomatl, was sent in advance.

[V-8] Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 134, states that they reached Tollan in eighteen months from the time of their departure from Amaquemecan. Ixtlilxochitl gives the date as 5 Tecpatl. Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 395.

[V-9] 'Les auteurs sont gÉnÉralement d'accord pour placer la date de cet Établissement de l'an 1070 À 1080. Quelques-uns le portent exactement À l'an 1068. Xoloc, aujourd'hui Xoloque, village de fort peu d'importance, À 12 l. environ au nord de Mexico, et À 3 l. du lac de San-Cristoval. Une autre explication met cette localitÉ au pied d'une colline, À une lieue environ vers le nord de Xaltocan.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ.; tom. ii., p. 214. See also, Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 8-10.

[V-10] Cempoala was twelve leagues north of Mexico; Tepepulco was four leagues farther east. Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 42.

[V-11] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 43, writes Tlatzalan and Coyohuacan.

[V-12] Founded 1120, Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 12. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 338-9; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 42-4.

[V-13] 'Le Codex Xolotl, qui fait partie de la coll. de M. Aubin, donne positivement Amacui pour pÈre et pour prÉdÉcesseur de Nopaltzin.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 224.

[V-14] 'Xolotl Étant le titre du chef principal des ChichimÈques, il convenait À l'un aussi bien qu'À l'autre. Tout concourt, d'ailleurs, À prouver que, dans le Xolotl des auteurs, il y a eu divers personnages; c'est le seul moyen d'expliquer cette longue vie de prÈs de deux cents ans qu'ils lui accordent.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 224.

[V-15] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 46-7; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 339-40; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 28; Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 232; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 14.

[V-16] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 224-6.

[V-17] 'Porque fuÉ una de las que mÉnos padecieron en el estrago pasado.' Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 18.

[V-18] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 44, spells this ruler's name Ecitin, which, says Brasseur, 'signifie les trois liÈvres, de Citli, qui est le singulier, au pluriel Citin. S'agit-il ici d'un seul individu ou de trois du nom de Citin, citÉ ailleurs comme celui d'une famille cÉlÈbre de laquelle prÉtendaient descendre les Alcohuas?' Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 209.

[V-19] 'Descendants du grand Nauhyotl.' Id.

[V-20] Spelled Acxopal by Brasseur.

[V-21] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 17-19; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 333-4, 339; Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 226-8.

[V-22] 'RepartiÓla por las sinosidades, cuevas, y rincones de las serranias, proporcionÁndola Á la caza.' Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., p. 18; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 232-3.

[V-23] For names of places peopled by the Chichimecs see Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 460, 209. See also Id., pp. 339, 395, 451; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 45; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 134; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 14-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., pp. 12-13.

[V-24] To which his descendants added Huactlatohuani, 'lord of the world.' Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 451.

[V-25] The inhabitants of this province were known as Culhuas, and are not to be confounded with the Acolhuas, notwithstanding many of the old writers make no distinction between the two peoples.

[V-26] Veytia writes the names of those who governed at Culhuacan; Xiuhtemoc, with his wife Ozolaxochitl, and son Nauhyotl; and Catauhtlix with his wife Ixmixuch and son Acxocuauh. Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 18. Torquemada writes them respectively: Xiuhthemal, Oceloxroch, Coyol; Cocauhtli, Yhuixoch, Acxoquauh. Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 45. Boturini writes: Xiuchtimatl, Oceloxochitl, Coyotl; Cocoahtli, Yhyozochtl, Acxoquauhtli. Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 232; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 333.

[V-27] Brasseur states that according to the Codex Chimalpopoca, Acxoquauh was a younger brother of Nauhyotl; we have already seen this prince spoken of, however, as the son of Cocauhtli, Xiuhtemoc's associate; see note 26. Nonohualcatl, says Brasseur, was, without doubt, Nauhyotl's eldest son. 'C'est ce qui parait d'aprÈs la maniÈre dont ce prince succÉda au trÔne aprÈs Huetzin, avant Achitometl ou Ameyal.' Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 222.

[V-28] Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 222, objecting to the term usurpation in this connection, writes: 'La loi toltÈque excluait du sang suprÊme tout prince qui se montrait d'avance incapable de l'occuper. C'Était probablement le cas oÙ se trouvait Pochotl. Ixtlilxochitl et Veytia, qui accusent Nauhyotl d'usurpation, avaient oubliÉ ou ignoraient la loi de succession toltÈque.' It is not probable, however, that Topiltzin either forgot or was ignorant of the Toltec law of succession, when he directed that his son should be associated with Xiuhtemoc when he came of suitable age.

[V-29] Also called Texochipantzin. Torquemada gives the name of Pochotl's wife Huitzitzilin, though whether he refers to the same lady is not certain. Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 56.

[V-30] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 18-23; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 340; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 220-3.

[V-31] The reader will recollect that Veytia affirms that Topiltzin Acxitl fled to his relative Acauhtzin, brother of Xolotl I., and ceded to him his right to AnÁhuac.

[V-32] According to Brasseur, these or similar overtures occurred in the reign of Xolotl I. Xolotl's ambassadors, he says, 'avaient plus d'une fois pressenti Xiuhtemal À ce sujet, mais celui-ci, trop prudent et trop ami de sa patrie, apprÉhendant, sans doute, de rendre les ChichimÈques trop puissants, avait constamment ÉludÉ ses propositions en faisant valoir les droits de Pochotl, À qui seul il appartiendrait de prendre une dÉcision dans cette matiÈre dÉlicate, une fois qu'il aurait ÉtÉ mis en possession du trÔne.' Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 221.

[V-33] Year 1141. Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 30-5. 984 to 1190. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 209, 342-3, 396, 452.

[V-34] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 45-6. According to Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 238, this lady was the eldest daughter of Pochotl. Tzontecoma was one of the Acolhua chiefs, as will be seen hereafter.

[V-35] The meaning of this request is not clear. It was probably Xolotl's design to get Huetzin into Culhuacan under pretense of learning the art of government—though it would seem he might have done this at his father's court—and then by some strategem place him upon the throne.

[V-36] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 57-8. Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia give a different version of this affair of Huetzin's. Itzmitl, or Ixmitl, (known also as Tlacoxin, or Tlacoxinqui) proceeded to Tezcuco, where Xolotl was superintending the construction of a palace and garden, and reminded him of a promise of extra favors made to Tzontecoma, by way of compensation for the inferior bride which he had been compelled to accept; whereupon Xolotl gave the lordship of Tepetlaoztoc to his son Huetzin. This occurred, says Veytia, in 1207, more than 60 years after the Culhuacan war. Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 46-7; Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 341-2.

[V-37] See note 34.

[V-38] Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 237-51.

[V-39] Aztlan 'Était situÉe au nord-ouest de la Californie.... C'est l'opinion d'un grand nombre d'Écrivains. M. Aubin croit qu'ils habitaient la pÉninsule appelÉe aujourd'hui la basse Californie, et que lÀ Était Aztlan.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 292. Humboldt, Vues, tom. ii., p. 179, and Essai Pol., tom. i., p. 53, followed by Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 6-7, 19, place Aztlan north of 42° N. lat.; Foster, Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 340-1, Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 20, refer to the account of OÑate's explorations in New Mexico, Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., pp. 32, 47-8, 111-12, 625, and point to the golden Copalla, with its rumored Aztec-speaking people. See also, Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 454; Schoolcraft's Arch., vol. i., p. 68; Ruxton, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1850, tom. cxxvi., pp. 40-9. Fontaine, How the World was Peopled, pp. 149-50, reminds us that the Aztec tl sound is found in the N.W., and considers the mounds in the N.E. to be evidences of Aztec wanderings. Pickering's Races, in U. S. Ex. Ex., vol. ix., p. 41; Chevalier, Mexique, pp. 54-5. Prichard, Nat. Hist. Man, vol. ii., pp. 514-16, regards the Moquis in Arizona as the most northern Aztec remnants. Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 156-9, places Aztlan north of the Colorado River, in accordance with some maps of the 16th century, and regards this stream as the water said to have been crossed on the migration, whilst Boturini, Idea, pp. 126-8, holds this to be the Gulf of California. Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 298, 301; Rios, Compend. Hist. Mex., p. 11. Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, pp. 79-82, 134-5, traces Nahuatlaca routes north of Mexico. Duran, Hist. Indias, MS., tom. i., cap. 1, looks to Florida for the ancient home. Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 144, identifies Aztlan with the later Chicomoztoc, like Acosta and Duran, but locates it in the Jalisco region. Bartlett's Pers. Nar., vol. ii., p. 283. Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 91, ventures a little farther north, to Sonora; see also, MÖllhausen, Reisen, tom. ii., pp. 143-55. Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 128, considers Aztlan to have been near Culiacan, but on p. 205, and in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1851, tom. cxxxi., p. 281, he seems to favor the more direct north. Cabrera, Teatro, pp. 94-6, advances some argument for its location in Chiapas. See also, MÜller, Amerikanische Urreligionen, pp. 532-3. Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. 45, remarks that the palm-tree on the migration-map indicates a southern origin, but Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 7, considers that this may be a thoughtless insertion of the painter. See remarks on pp. 216-18 of this volume, and pp. 681-4, 788-9 of vol. iv. For further remarks on position of Aztlan, and origin of Nahuatlacas, see: Norman's Rambles in Yuc., pp. 266-7; Buschmann, Ortsnamen, p. 54, et seq., Brasseur de Bourbourg, Esquisses, pp. 27-8; Id., Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 191-7; Id., Popol Vuh, pp. clxxxiii.-cxcvi.; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 203-5; Ruxton's Adven. Mex., pp. 192-4; Cremony's Apaches, pp. 89-90; Gregg's Com. Prairies, vol. i., p. 284; Smith's Human Species, pp. 252-3; Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc., vol. ii., p. 323.

[V-40] Gallatin, Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 205, thinks they may have had a share in the dismemberment of the Toltec empire, or may have seized the opportunity offered by the Toltec emigration to enter into the deserted lands. Cabrera states that they were driven from Aztlan. Teatro, p. 94.

[V-41] Duran gives the description of Aztlan given by Cueuhcoatl to Montezuma the elder: 'Nuestros Padres moraron en equel felice y dichoso Lugar que llamÁron AztlÁn, que quiere decir "Blancura." En este Lugar hay un gran Cerro en medio del agua, que llamaban Culhuacan, por que tiene la punta algo retuerta hÁcia abajo, y À esta causa se llama Culhuacan, que quiere decir "Cerro tuerto." En este Cerro habia unas bocas Ó cuebas Ó concavidados donde habitÁron nuestros Padres y Abuelos por muchos aÑos: alli tubiÉron mucho descanso debajo de este Nombre Mexitin y Azteca: alli gozaban de mucho cantidad de Patos, de todo gÉnero de gazzas; de cuerbos marinos, y Gallinas de agua, y de Gallaretas; gozaban del canto y melodia de los PÁjaros de las cabezas coloradas y amarillas; gozÁron de muchas diferencias de grandes y hermosos Pescados; gozÁron de gran frescura de arboledas, que habia por aquellas riberas, y de Fuentes cercadas de sauces y de Sabinas y de Alisos grandes y hermosos; andaban en canoas, y hacian camellones en que sembraban maiz, chile, tomates, huauhtli, frisoles, y de todo genero de semillas de las que comemos,' &c. Hist. Indias, MS., tom. i., cap. 27.

[V-42] Ramirez, in GarcÍa y Cubas, Atlas; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom., i., p. 78; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 157-8; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 17; Villa-SeÑor y Sanchez, Theatro, tom. i., p. 3; Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 399-300. The date of the departure is shown by the maps to be Ce Tecpatl, which is calculated by Chimalpain, Gallatin, Gama, and Veytia to be 1064, based on the hypothesis that the adjustment of the calendar in the year Ce Tochtli, which took place during the journey, corresponds to 1090. Brasseur would probably assign a later date, since he writes: 'Les annales mexicaines nous montrent gÉnÉralement les premiÈres tribus de cette nation À Aztlan en l'an 1 Tecpatl, 1064.' Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 292.

[V-43] Chicomoztoc is placed by Clavigero about twenty miles south of Zacatecas, but is regarded by Duran, Acosta, and others, as identical with, or within the region of Aztlan. According to Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 293, they arrived here 1116. Hellwald, in Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 339, agrees with this date, by making them arrive at Chicomoztoc 26 years after their departure from Aztlan, which, he says, took place in 1090. Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 92, states that they arrived 104 years after their departure. On the Gemelli map Oztotlan, 'place of grottoes,' is given as a place where they halted for a long time, from 160 to 200 years after leaving Aztlan, and may be the same as Chicomoztoc. Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 145, says that the Tlascaltecs, who according to most authors were one of the Nahuatlaca tribes, arrived at Chicomoztoc in the year 5 Tochtli.

[V-44] See Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 455-6; Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. ii., lib. ii., cap. x.; Duran, Hist. Indias, MS., tom. i., cap. 2; Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 228, 247; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 151; Hellwald, in Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 339; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 78; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 17; Motolinia, Hist. Indios, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., pp. 7-9; Pimentel, Cuadro, tom. i., p. 154; Purchas his Pilgrimes, vol. v., p. 864; Gemelli Careri, in Churchill's Col. Voyages, vol. iv., p. 482; Humboldt, Vues, tom. ii., pp. 168-71; Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., p. 145. Brasseur de Bourbourg gives as the tribes that left Aztlan: the Huexotzincas, Chalcas, Xochimilcas, Quitlahuacas, Malinalcas, Chichimecas, TÉpanecas, and Matlaltzincas. Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 292.

[V-45] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 78-9; Hist. de las Ynd., p. 454; Hist. Indias, MS., tom. i., cap. 2. On Boturini's map the hieroglyphs of the eight tribes are seen at Chicomoztoc for the last time; the priests or leaders of the Aztecs alone pursue the remainder of the course. As the Aztec hieroglyph does not appear to be included among these eight, it might be assumed that the Aztecs were composed of certain families belonging to one or more of the eight tribes, but this does not appear to be the view taken by the authorities. Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 25-6, remarks that the map indicates a consultation of six of the families with their god, and the departure of two. The non-recurrence of the tribal hieroglyphs he explains by saying that the families are henceforth designated only by the chiefs who lead them. This map cannot, however, be expected to be more accurate than the sources from which Torquemada, Acosta, and others, derived their information.

[V-46] Quetzalin according to Brasseur, who adds: 'Dans le texte, il y a Huetzalin, ce qui est probablement une faute du copiste.' Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 263. This chief may possibly be the same as Huitziton.

[V-47] Veytia names this chief Xochimilco, which Brasseur says 'ne peut Être qu'une erreur.' Id., p. 264.

[V-48] Id. Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia place the arrival of the Xochimilcas in Tlotzin's reign. Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 458; Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 88. Duran says they were the first to leave Chicomoztoc, and the third to arrive in AnÁhuac. This writer gives a number of places founded by them besides Xochimilco. Hist. Indias, MS., tom. i., cap. 2., 13. Acosta says they were the first to arrive. Hist. de las Ynd., p. 488.

[V-49] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 88-9; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 458; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 263-4.

[V-50] Now Cuernavaca.

[V-51] Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, pp. 92-3, 141-3.

[V-52] Many writers who do not directly connect the Acolhuas with the Nahuatlacas, assert that they came from the same region, and were of the same race. Clavigero places the ancient home in Teoacolhuacan, near Amaquemecan. Veytia considers them to be the descendants of Toltec colonists who were settled along the Pacific coast. Ixtlilxochitl affirms that they were neighbors of the Huehue Tlapallan Toltecs and of Chichimec stock.

[V-53] 'Citin, pluriel de Citli, liÈvre, nom apparemment d'une tribu du Nord, comme les Pied-Noir, les Serpents, etc.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 232. Rios, Compend. Hist. Mex., p. 7, says they derived their origin from the family of Citin or Ulcua. Motolinia says of the Acolhuas: 'Este nombre los quedÓ de un valiente capitan que tuvieron ... Acoli, que asÍ se llama aquel hueso que vÁ desde el codo hasta el hombro, y del mismo hueso llaman al hombro Acoli.' He was very brave, and taller than other men. Hist. Indios, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 11. Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 301, says that they claimed descent from a valiant chief named Chichimecatlh, who once tied a strap round the arm of Quetzalcoatl, near the shoulder. This was regarded as a great feat, for it was said that he that could bind a god could bind all men.

[V-54] Brasseur de Bourbourg says nothing about the OtomÍs coming in with the Acolhuas and Tepanecs at this time.

[V-55] This, according to Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 51-4, who is followed by Brasseur, was Coatetl, daughter of Chalchiuhtlatonac, or Chalchiuhtlanetzin, lord of Chalco, who, says Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 231, 'paraÎt avoir ÉtÉ l'un des frÈres ou des fils de Nauhyotl II.' According to other authors, Tzontecoma's bride was named Cihuatetzin, and her father was a Toltec, lord of Tlalmanalco. Each of these names is spelled in a great variety of ways. See Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 341, 395, 452; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 39-43; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 136-7; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., pp. 19, 142-3; MÜller, Reisen, tom. iii., p. 45; MÜller, Amerikanische Urreligionen, p. 526; Villa-SeÑor y Sanchez, Theatro, tom. i., p. 3; Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, p. 92.

[V-56] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 233-4.

[V-57] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 236-7.

[V-58] See note 27.

[V-59] Named also Huetzin, says Brasseur.

[V-60] Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 47, writes the names Tlotzin Pocothl, Toxtequihuatzin, and Atencatzin. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 210, Tlotzinpochotl, Huixaquentochintecuhtli, Coxanatzin Atencatl; on p. 342 he differs in the following: Toltzin, Toxtequihuatzin, Atencatzin Apotzoetzin; on p. 395, Tloxtequihuatzin; on p. 461, Tlotzinpochotl, Atzotgocoltzin, Totzin. Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 62, Tlotzin, Quauhtequihua, or Tochintecuhtli, Popozoc. Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 141, Apopozoc. Nopaltzin had also another son, named Tenancacaltzin, who in later years gave much trouble to the emperor Quinantzin, and who, according to the Spanish authorities, was a bastard. Brasseur, however, finds reason to believe that this prince was Nopaltzin's legitimate son by a former marriage. Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 254.

[V-61] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 342, 395, 452; Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., pp. 47-9; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 63; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 141.

[V-62] Commenting upon the statement of Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 211, that Xolotl abandoned to Tlotzin not only the revenues of the province of Chalco, but also of several other provinces as far as Mizteca, Brasseur writes: 'Il y a Évidemment exagÉration; jamais les armes de Xolotl n'allÈrent aussi loin, et il est douteux mÊme que les provinces renfermÉes dans la vallÉe lui fussent toutes tributaires.' Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 258.

[V-63] Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 262.

[V-64] See Id., tom. ii., pp. 266-71.

[V-65] Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 59-60; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 343; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 138-9.

[V-66] See Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 265. This writer and Torquemada are the only authorities who use the name Ameyal at any time.

[V-67] See note 27.

[V-68] Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 272, writes: 'C'Était probablement sur la promesse de recevoir la main de sa (Achitometl's) fille que Huetzin avait renoncÉ au trÔne de Culhuacan.'

[V-69] Spelt also Yanex, Yacazozolotl, Yacatzotzoloc, and Ixcazozolot.

[V-70] Among these were Ocotox, or Acotoch, and Coacuech, who, according to Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., p. 212, were disaffected towards the empire because agriculture had been forced upon them and tribute exacted in field produce; Quauhtla, lord of Oztoticpac, and Tochin Tecuhtli, lord of Coyuhuacan, who had fallen into disgrace in the following manner: Chiconquauhtli, Xolotl's son-in-law, died suddenly, and was buried without notice being sent to the emperor. Xolotl thereupon dispatched Tochin Tecuhtli, to offer condolence to the widow, his daughter, and to appoint Omicxipan, a noted noble of that province, governor. Tochin Tecuhtli did as he was ordered, but instead of returning to Xolotl with a report of his mission, he went to Huetzin of Coatlichan. To punish this disrespect, or treason, as Torquemada calls it, Xolotl deprived Tochin Tecuhtli of his lordship of Coyuhuacan and exiled him to Tepetlaoztoc. Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 58, 65; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 142; Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt ii., p. 15; Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 267-9.

[V-71] This is the account given by Brasseur, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 274. Most writers do not mention this expedition to Culhuacan.

[V-72] See note 70.

[V-73] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 212, says he fled toward PÁnuco, and afterwards, p. 343, states that he was pardoned and re-instated. Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 65, affirms that the rebel chief was slain in battle, and that his allies fled to Huexotzinco, where they died in misery. Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 142-3, follows Torquemada. We must accept the former version, however, as Yacanex subsequently re-appears upon the scene.

[V-74] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 277.

[V-75] 'Para que en ella y su contorno mandase en calidad de soberano.' Veytia, tom. ii., p. 56. He could scarcely have been sole lord of Tezcuco, for Veytia himself says that Tlotzin reigned there.

[V-76] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 212, 396-7; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 50-8; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 65; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 278; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 271-7.

[V-77] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 277.

[V-78] The exact year in which Xolotl II. died is uncertain. Brasseur, whose chronology I have followed, does not give the date, though he says it occurred some years after the death of Huetzin, which occurred in 1154. Xolotl, says this author, at his death, 'ne pouvait guÈre avoir plus de cent ou cent dix ans, et, en calculant les annÉes de son rÈgne, À commencer de son arrivÉe dans l'Anahuac, il aurait pu durer tout au plus de soixante À soixante-cinq ans.' Hist., tom. ii., pp. 277-8. Veytia, tom. ii., p. 69, writes that Xolotl died in 1232. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 60, says that he was nearly 200 years of age when he died. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 212, 343, 397, 452, says, 117 years after his departure from Amaquemecan, in the 112th year of his reign in Anahuac, and gives, as usual, several dates for Xolotl's death, namely: 1075, 1127, 1074, and 1121. Rios, Compend. Hist. Mex., p. 7, says that he died at the age of 160, after a reign of 99 years.

[V-79] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 61-2, gives the speeches delivered on the occasion.

[V-80] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 66; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 212-13; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 140-2; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 71-3, 78; Rios, Compend. Hist. Mex., p. 8; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 281-8.

[V-81] We have seen that according to the account given by Veytia, and others, of the events which led to the first trouble between the Chichimecs and the people of Culhuacan, Achitometl succeeded to the throne immediately after the death of Nauhyotl, no mention being made of the reigns of Huetzin or Nonohualcatl. See pp. 303-4.

[VI-1] 1194, Codex Chimalpopoca; 1140 or 1189, Ixtlilxochitl; 1245, Clavigero; 1331, Gondra; 1298, Veytia, Gama, and Gallatin.

[VI-2] I give here as compactly as possible the course of the Aztec migration as given by the leading authorities:—Leave Aztlan 1 Tecpatl, 1064 A.D., and travel 104 years to Chicomoztoc, where they remain 9 years; thence to Cohuatlicamac, 3 years, Matlahuacallan, 6, Apanco, 5, Chimalco, 6, Pipiolcomic, 3, Tollan, 6, Cohuactepec (Coatepec), 3, Atlitlalacayan, 2, Atotonilco, 1, Tepexic, 5, Apasco, 3, Tzonpanco, 7, Tizayocan, 1, Ecatepec, 1, Tolpetlac, 3, Chimalpan, 4, Cohuatitlan, 2, Huexachtitlan, 3, Tecpayocan, 3, Tepeyacac (Guadalupe), 3, Pantitlan, 2 years, and thence to Chapultepec, arriving in 1298, after a migration of 185 years, which necessitates an addition of 49 years for their stay in Michoacan. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 91-8. According to Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 77-82, they reached Huey Culhuacan one year after their start; the time consumed in reaching Chicomoztoc is not given, and no dates are mentioned. Otherwise the account agrees exactly with Veytia's, except that an unnamed station is represented as having occupied 3 of the 6 years' stay at Matlahuacallan; there are also a few slight differences in orthography. Tezozomoc's account is as follows:—Aztlan, Culhuacan, Jalisco, Mechoacan, Malinalco (Lake Patzcuaro), Ocopipilla, Acahualcingo, Coatepec (in Tonalan), Atlitlanquian or Atitalaquia, Tequisquiac, Atengo, Tzompan, Cuachilgo, Xaltocan and Lake Chinamitl, Eycoac, Ecatepc, Aculhuacan, Tultepetlac, Huixachtitlan, Tecpayuca (in 2 Calli), Atepetlac, Coatlayauhcan, Tetepanco, Acolnahuac, Popotla (Tacuba), Chapultepec (Techcatepec and Techcatitlan) in 2 Tochtli. Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 5-8. Following Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 156-63, the Aztecs left Aztlan in 1160, crossed the Colorado River, stayed 3 years at Hueicolhuacan, went east to Chicomoztoc, where they separated from the Nahuatlaca tribes, then to Coatlicamac, and reached Tula in 1196, remaining 9 years; then spent 11 years in different places, reached Zumpanco in 1216, remaining 7 years, then Tizajocan, Tolpetlac, Tepejacac, and Chapultepec in 1245 during Nopaltzin's reign. Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 124-9, merely makes some remarks on Clavigero's account, fixing the departure, however, in 1064, and noting the completion of the first cycle in 1090 at Tlalixco. Gama, Dos Piedras, pt i., pp. 19-20, makes them leave Aztlan in 1 Tecpatl, 1064, and arrive at Tlalixco, or Acahualtzinco, in 1087, where they completed their first cycle in 1091, and remained 9 years. Acosta, pp. 454-62, says that 6 Nahuatlaca tribes left Aztlan in 820, and were 80 years in reaching Mexico. The Aztecs started in 1122, passed through Michoacan, and halted at Malinalco and Coatepec before reaching Chapultepec. Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. x-xi, agrees with Acosta. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. i, ii, iii, says they left Aztlan in Chicomoztoc, giving dates as by Acosta; but he also gives as stations, Patzcuaro, Malinalco, Ocipila, Acahualcingo, Coatepec, Tulla, Atlitlalacpan, Tequixquiac, Tzumpanco, Xaltocan, Ecatepec, Tulpetlac, Tepaneca, and Chapultepec. Sahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 145-6, vaguely states that the Mexicans went westward from the Seven Caves to a province called Culhuacan Mexico, whence they were ordered by their god to return, and passed through Tulla, Ichpuchco, Chiquiuhio near Ecatepec, to Chapultepec. According to Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 290-308, the other Nahuatlaca tribes left Aztlan from 1062 to 1068, but the Aztecs in 1 Tochtli, 1090. They pass through TÉo-Culhuacan, Quahuitl-Icacan, 1091, Quinehuayan-Oztotl or Quinehuayan-Chicomoztoc, 1116, stay 11 years, Acahualtzinco or Tlalixco (now S. Juan del Rio), 1st cycle in 1143, stay 9 years, Tonalan, Lake Patzcuaro, Malinalco, Cohuatlycamac or Coatepec, 1174, stay 9 years, Apazco, Tzompanco, Tizayocan, Tepeyacac, Pantitlan, Popotlan, and arrive at Chapultepec in 1194, having been several times broken up into different bands on the way. Humboldt's—Vues, tom. ii., p. 176, et seq.—interpretation of Gemelli Careri's map—see vol. ii., pp. 543-7, of this work—gives the stations in the following order: From Colhuacan, the Mexican Ararat, 15 chiefs or tribes reach Aztlan, 'land of flamingoes,' north of 42°, which they leave in 1038, passing through Tocolco, 'humiliation,' Oztotlan, 'place of grottoes,' Mizquiahuala, Teotzapotlan, 'place of divine fruit,' Ilhuicatepec, Papantla, 'large-leaved grass,' Tzompanco, 'place of human bones,' Apazco, 'clay vessel,' Atlicalaguian, 'crevice in which rivulet escapes,' Quauhtitlan, 'eagle grove,' Atzcapotzalco, 'ant-hill,' Chalco, 'place of precious stones,' Pantitlan, 'spinning-place,' Tolpetlac, 'rush mat,' Quauhtepec, 'eagle mountain,' Tetepanco, 'wall of many small stones,' Chicomoztoc, 'seven caves,' Huitzquilocan, 'place of thistles,' Xaltepozauhcan, 'place where the sand issues,' Cozcaquauhco, 'a vulture', Techcatitlan, 'place of obsidian mirrors,' Azcaxochitl, 'ant flower,' Tepetlapan, 'place of tepetate,' Apan, 'place of water,' Teozomaco, 'place of divine apes,' Chapoltepec, 'grasshopper hill.' Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 5-7, repeats this interpretation. Ramirez, in GarcÍa y Cubas, Atlas, justly ridicules the 'Ararat' or deluge theory, and confines the wanderings of the Aztecs to the regions about the lakes; 15 chiefs leave their home in Chalco Lake after tying 1st cycle. The stations are mostly adopted from Humboldt, without any opinion expressed of their accuracy, but there are a few additions and corrections in definitions, as follows:—Aztlan, where 2d and 3d cycle are tied, Cincotlan, 10 years, Tocolco, 4th cycle, Oztotlan, 5 years, Mizquiahuala, 5th cycle, Xalpan, 15 years, Tetepanco, 'wall of many stones,' 5 years, Oxitlipan, 10 years, Teotzapatlan, 4 years, Ilhuicatepec, 4 years, Papantla, meaning doubtful, 2 years, Tzonpanco, 'place of skulls or bones,' 5 years, Apazco, 4 years, Atlicalaquian, 'where water collects,' 2 years, Cauhtitlan, 'near the eagle,' 3 years, Azcapotzalco, 'in the ant-hill,' 6th cycle, 7 years, 1 year to Chalco, Pantitlan, 'place of tiers,' 'place of departure,' neither quite correct; Tolpetlac, 2 years, Epcohuac, 'serpent,' Cuauhtepec, 2 years, Chicomoztoc, 8 years, Huitzquilocal, 3 years, Xaltepozauhcan, doubtful, 4 years, Cozcacuauhco, 4 years, Techcatitlan, 5 years, Azcaxochic, 4 years, Tepetlapa, 5 years, Apan, 'on the water,' Teozomaco, 'in the monkey of stone,' 6 years, Chapoltepec, 4 years. The same author from the Boturini map—see vol. ii., pp. 547-50—derives the following: Left their island home, passed through Coloacan, stayed 5 days in a place not named, thence to Cuextecatlichocayan, Coatlicamac, 28 years, Tollan, 19, Atlicalaquiam, 10, Tlemaco, 5, Atotonilco, 5, Apazco, 12, Tzonpanco, 4, Xaltocan, 4, Acalhuacan, 4, Ehecatepec, 4, Tolpetlac, 8, Coatitlan, 20, Huixachtitlan, 4, Tecpayocan, 4, ——, Amalinalpan, 8, Pantitlan, 4, Acolnahuac, 4, Popotla, 4, ——, Atlacuihuayan or Tacubaya, 4, Chapoltepec, 20 years. Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 23-30, interprets the Boturini map as follows:—Leave Aztlan 1168, pass through Colhuacan, Cuatlicamaca, 1216-25, Apanco, 1226-9, Tlamaco, 1230-4, Tzompango, 1246, Azcapotzalco, 1250, Jaltocan, 1251-4, Colhuacan, 1258, Tolpetlac, 1262, Ecatepetl, 1270, Cuautitlan, Chalco, Tecpayocan, 1295, Pantitlan, Atotonilco, 1303, Azcapotzalco, 1311, Apan, 1315, Acaxochitl, 1319, Tlacuihuallan, 1327, Chapoltepetl, 1331-51.

[VI-3] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 292-5, on the authority of the Mem. de Culhuacan and other original documents.

[VI-4] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 135-6.

[VI-5] Id., pp. 136-8. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 79-80, followed by Clavigero and Vetancvrt, represents this event as having occurred at a subsequent halting-place.

[VI-6] Veytia conjectures the emerald to typify the nobility of the Tlatelulcas, a useless attribute when compared with Aztec science and industry.

[VI-7] Hist., tom. ii., pp. 293-6; Ixtlilxochitl, vol. ix., p. 214. Veytia, tom. ii., p. 95, makes Chalchiuh Tlatonac another name of Huitziton.

[VI-8] On Huitzilopochtli see vol. iii., pp. 288-324. Some of the authorities imply that Huitzilopochtli died or at least appeared as an idol long before this period, soon after their departure from Aztlan. Boturini, Idea, pp. 60-1, states that Huitziton was taken up to heaven in sight of the people. See also on his death and the abandonment of Malinalxochitl; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 93-101; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 78, 80-1; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 6-8; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. ii.-iv.; Acosta, pp. 459-61, 468; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 160-1; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 299-302; SigÜenza, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. i., pp. 39-43; Ramirez, in GarcÍa y Cubas, Atlas; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 25.

[VI-9] See vol. ii., p. 130; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 6; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. iii.; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 103-5; Pimentel, Cuadro, tom. i., p. 272; Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 131-2.

[VI-10] See vol. ii., pp. 297-9; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 106-8; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 7-8.

[VI-11] See besides references in preceding notes, Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 18-19; Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi.; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 125-6; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 302-5.

[VI-12] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 96-7, calls the bride of Ilhuicatl, Tiacapapantzin; and Torquemada, tom. i., p. 82, Tiacapantzin. See also Clavigero, tom. i., p. 163; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. iii.; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 306-8.

[VI-13] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 213, 346, 397, gives the dates 1107, 1158, and 1105; the first date is 5 Acatl which agrees with Brasseur's documents, but is interpreted as 1211 or one cycle later than Ixtlilxochitl's interpretation. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 79-80, gives the date 1263.

[VI-14] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 323, 378; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 254. This author gives the succession of kings at Culhuacan as Achitometl, Mazatzin, Quetzal, Chalchiuhtona, Quauhtlix, Yohuallatonac, Tziuhtecatl, Xuihtemoctzin, and Coxcotzin. Veytia gives the succession as follows: Achitometl, Xohualatonac, Calquiyauhtzin, and Coxcox. It is impossible to reconcile this matter; but no events of great importance in which the Culhuas were engaged seem to have taken place until the reign of Coxcoxtli.

[VI-15] Leon y Gama, Dos Piedras, pt i., p. 20, and Codex Chimalpopoca. Gallatin makes the date one cycle later or 1298.

[VI-16] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 83-4. This author represents the Aztecs as having been driven from Chapultepec at this time. There is but little agreement respecting the order of events in Aztec history previous to the foundation of Mexico.

[VI-17] Codex Chimalpopoca, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 319-23.

[VI-18] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 348, and Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 140-1, mention this application to Quinantzin, but refer it to a much later period after the city of Mexico was founded.

[VI-19] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 81-8, 110-13, gives the date of Tlotzin's death as 1298. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 213, 346, 3981, 461, gives as dates, 1141, 1194, and 1140. See also on his reign; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 68-72; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 143-4; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 16; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 324-33.

[VI-20] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 73-4, 85; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 114-15; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 347-8, 399, 452-3; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 144-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 16; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 333-8; MÜller, Reisen, tom. iii., p. 48.

[VI-21] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 215, 347-8, 399, 452-3; Veytia, tom. i., pp. 116-17, 122-25, refers these events to a considerably later period, and states that Huitzilihuitl previously married a niece of Acolnahuacatl. Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 338-44.

[VI-22] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 143-54, relates this rebellion and defeat of the northern provinces, and the consequent abdication of Acolnahuacatl, attributing these events, however, to a much later period, after the separation of the Tlatelulcas from the Mexicans, giving the date as 1325. Most of the authorities do not definitely fix the date, but Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 344-55, gives satisfactory reasons, supported by Camargo and Ixtlilxochitl, for referring both this war and the battle at Poyauhtlan to the time when the Mexicans were yet living under Huitzilihuitl at Chapultepec. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 162-73, unites the rebellion of the king's sons and the fight against the Teo-Chichimecs, referring this latter war to 1350, and including the provinces of Huastepec, Huehuetlan, and Cuitlahuac in the revolt. He represents the allied forces of AnÁhuac, 100,000 strong, as serving in six divisions under the general command of Quinantzin, already emperor. He also states that Quinantzin's queen accompanied her sons in their exile. Of course there is great diversity among the authorities in respect to names of leaders, and details of the battles; but the general account given in my text is the only consistent one that can be formed, since there is much even in Veytia's account to support it. It is probable, in the light of later events, that Quinantzin took no part in the war against the Teo-Chichimecs, and quite possible that Camargo's statement that the Teo-Chichimecs were victorious, though much exhausted, in the battle at Poyauhtlan, results to a great extent from national pride in the record of the Tlascaltecs. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 84-6, 259-60, seems to be the authority for the second campaign of Quinantzin in the north, which was decided by a great battle at Tlaximalco in the region of Monte Real. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 215-16, 349-52, 398-400, 461-2, as usual favors in different places nearly all the views of other authorities. See also Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 142-3; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 144-5, 154.

[VI-23] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 160, 228; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 216-17, 351, 399, 401, 453. The chief of the Tailotlacs was Tempantzin, or Aztatlitexcan; and the Chimalpanecs were under Xiloquetzin and Tlacateotzin. In this, as in other cases I have not entered minutely into the names, marriages, and genealogies of the nobles of AnÁhuac, since my space does not permit a full treatment of the subject, and a superficial treatment would be without value.

[VI-24] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 86. It is not quite certain that this revolt, and that of some southern provinces, which occurred two years later, were not connected with those that have been already narrated. Torquemada rarely pays any attention to chronology.

[VI-25] Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 217. It seems that Quinantzin's successor granted permission to build temples.

[VI-26] Hist., tom. ii., pp. 377-80.

[VI-27] Id., p. 382; dates 1281, or 1300. According to Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 160-1, and Ixtlilxochitl, p. 462, Xiuhtemoc, king of Culhuacan, died in 1340, and was succeeded by Acamapichtli.

[VI-28] See pp. 327-8.

[VI-29] Duran, MS. tom. i., cap. iv.; Acosta, pp. 462-4; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 83-4, 89, says the Aztecs were either brought as slaves from Ocolco to Tizaapan, or were invited to Culhuacan and then enslaved. See also, Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 164-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 20-1; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 127-9. I make no effort to follow Veytia's chronologic order which, in this part of the history, is hopelessly confused and different from the other authorities.

[VI-30] Hist., tom. ii., pp. 380-98.

[VI-31] There is some confusion about the parentage of Tezozomoc and Acamapichtli: 'Coxcoxtli Épousa une fille d'Acolnahuacatl dont il eut Tezozomoc, ou Acolnahuacatl Épousa une fille de Coxcoxtli dont ce prince serait issu. Quoique le MS. de 1528 donne Acolnahuacatl pour pÈre À Tezozomoc, le MÉmorial de Culhuacan le donne pour le fils de Coxcoxtli et frÈre d'Acamapichtli. Ixtlilxochitl dit Également qu'Acamapichtli Était son frÈre.' Id., pp. 394-5. See Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 349, 397, 401. He, however, seems to make Acamapichtli also the son of Acolnahuacatl. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 73, 161-2, fixes the date of the king's death at 1343. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 68; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., pp. 142-3.

[VI-32] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 119-22. This author places this event in the lifetime of Huitzilihuitl and of Acolnahuacatl. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 90-1; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 165-7.

[VI-33] See references in last note; also Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 260-1; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 80-1, 260-1.

[VI-34] Acosta, p. 464; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. iv. He calls the Culhua king Achitometl. Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi.

[VI-35] In Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 398.

[VI-36] Quinantzin succeeded to the empire, and appointed his uncle, Tenancacaltzin, governor in Tenayocan, who usurped the throne in 1299; Huitzilihuitl, of Mexicans, obtained in marriage a niece of king Acolhua II. of Azcapuzalco; Coxcox succeeded Calquiyauhtzin as king of Culhuacan; the Xochimilcas were defeated by the aid of the Mexicans, and Acolhua II. became emperor in 1299; next, Acamapichtli used the Mexicans to conquer Coxcox, and made himself king of Culhuacan in 1301, but died in 1303 and was succeeded by Xiuhtemoc; Huitzilihuitl died in 1318, and the Mexicans chose as their king also, Xiuhtemoc of Culhuacan, where many of them had settled, under the rule of Acamapichtli, and where all now removed from Chapultepec, although against the wishes of the Culhua people; at last, in 1325, for no very definite reason, they were driven from Culhuacan and went to Acatzintitlan, or Mexicaltzinco; then they applied to the emperor Acolhua II. and were allowed to live for a time near Azcapuzalco, while their priests were searching for the predestined location of their future city; then took place the separation between the Mexicans and Tlatelulcas; the Tlatelulcas obtain a King from the emperor after having applied to Quinantzin in vain; Quinantzin regains the imperial throne from Acolhua II.; and finally, Tenochtitlan was founded in 1327. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 114-57.

[VI-37] Hist., tom. ii., pp. 402-3, 432-50.

[VI-38] On the foundation of Mexico, its date, and name, see—Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. iv.-vi.; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 92-3, 288-91; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 156-60; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 461; Tezozomoc, in Id., pp. 5, 8-9; Oviedo, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., p. 531; Acosta, pp. 465-6; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 167-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 21; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 40; Arlegui, ChrÓn. Zacatecas, pp. 8-9; Cavo, Tres Siglos, tom. i., p. 2; Purchas his Pilgrimes, vol. iv., pp. 1066-7; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 144, 204-5; Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. viii., pp. 405, 415; MÜller, Amer. Urrel., p. 534; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 356.

[VI-39] Date 1325, according to Clavigero, Gama, Chimalpain, Brasseur, and Prescott; 1327, Veytia, following SigÜenza y GÓngora; 1318, Duran; 1324, Codex Mendoza; 1140, 1141, or about 1200, Ixtlilxochitl; 1131, Camargo; 1326, Tezozomoc, in Veytia; 1316, Id., in Gondra; 1225, Chimalpain, in Id.; 1317, SigÜenza, in Id.; 1341, Torquemada, in Id.; 1321, Zapata, in Veytia; 1357, Martinez, in Veytia and Gondra.

[VI-40] On derivation of the name, see vol. ii., p. 559; also Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 92-3; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 5; Ixtlilxochitl, in Id., p. 461. These authors derive Tenochtitlan from the Aztec name of the nopal. Cavo, Tres Siglos, tom. i., p. 2, MÜller, Amer. Urrel., p. 534, and Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., p. 315, derive Mexico from Metl-ico 'place amid the magueys.'

[VI-41] 1357, Veytia; 1213, 1249, or 1253, Ixtlilxochitl; 1305, Brasseur.

[VI-42] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 86-7; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 144-6; Veytia, tom. i., pp. 171, 176, 181; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 215-16, 352, 400, 453; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 275; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 422-5; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., p. 39.

[VI-43] Xaltocan is spoken of by Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia as having been at this time subjected for the first time to the emperor. Its inhabitants were OtomÍs, and the refugees are said to have built, or rebuilt, the city of Otompan. Tezozomoc is represented as having borne the principal part in the war, while the emperor Techotl joined in it more to watch and restrain the allies than for anything else. Another war in Tlascala, in which forces sent by Techotl, are said by Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 265-8, to have participated, was, perhaps, the same already mentioned in connection with the king of Culhuacan.

[VI-44] Azcapuzalco, Mexico, Coatlichan, Huexotla, Coatepec, and four or five others are mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 355, as paying no tribute; but some of these, according to other authorities, were actually joined to the kingdom of Acolhuacan, and had not even the honor of a tributary lord.

[VI-45] The list of those lords present at the funeral of Quinantzin and the coronation of Techotl, is as follows: Tezozomoc, king of Azcapuzalco; Paintzin, king of Xaltocan, lord of the OtomÍs; Mocomatzin, Moteuhzomatzin, or Montezuma, king of Coatlichan; Acamapichtli, king of Culhuacan and Mexico (this could not be, as Mexico was not yet founded; Coxcoxtli was king of Culhuacan, but Acamapichtli was, in one sense, chief of the Mexicans, and heir to the throne of Culhuacan); Mixcohuatl, or Mixcohuatzin, king of Tlatelulco (the Aztec Tlatelulco was not yet founded; Brasseur believes this to refer to an ancient city of this name); Quetzalteuhtli, or Quetzalatecuhtli, lord of Xochimilco; Izmatletlopac, lord of Cuitlahuac; Chiquauhtli, lord of Mizquic (Chalco Atenco, according to Brasseur); Pochotl, lord of Chalco Atenco (Ixtlilxochitl); Omaca, or Omeacatl, lord of Tlalmanalco; Cacamaca, lord of Chalco; Temacatzin, lord of Huexotzinco, (or as Brasseur has it, of Quauhquechollan); Tematzin, prince of Huexotzinco (Brasseur); Cocaztzin, lord of Quauhquelchula (Ixtlilxochitl); Teocuitlapopocatzin, lord of Cuetlaxcohuapan, or Cuetlachcoapan; Chichimecatlalpayatzin, high-priest of Cholula; Chichitzin, lord of Tepeaca; Mitl, prince of Tlascala; Xihuilpopoca, lord of Zacatlan; Quauhquetzal, lord of Tenamitec; Chichihuatzin, lord of Tulancingo; Tlaltecatzin, lord of Quauhchinanco; Tecpatl, lord of Atotonilco; Iztaquauhtzin, lord of the Mazahuas; Chalchiuhtlanetzin, lord of Coyuhuacan; Yohuatl Chichimecatzin, lord of Coatepec; Quiyauhtzin, lord of Huexotla; Tecuhtlacuiloltzin, lord of Acolman. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 353; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 428. Ixtlilxochitl says that these were not all, but merely the leading vassals, all related to the emperor. A list of 46 is given in Ixtlilxochitl, p. 355, and Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 214-15. 73 are said to have attended one assembly, 66 another, and 30 another.

[VI-46] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 182-3, and Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 427, state that the distant provinces of Quauhtemalan (Guatemala), Tecolotlan (Vera Paz), Centizonac, Teoquantepec (Tehuantepec), and Jalisco, were represented in the crowd that gathered at Techotl's coronation, offering their homage and allegiance; but Ixtlilxochitl, p. 353, says that these provinces would not recognize the emperor. There is very little probability that the Chichimec power ever reached so far, but not unlikely that communication took place between Mexico and Central America at this period.

[VI-47] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 195-6, implies that the new rites and ideas came rather from Mexican than Toltec influence.

[VI-48] The general Council of State, composed of all the highest lords, men of learning, ability, and character, was presided over by the emperor himself. Of the five special councils the first was that of war, under a lord who received the title of Tetlahto, and composed, according to Brasseur, of lords of the Acolhua nation. The second was the Council of the Exchequer, under a superintendent of finance, with the title Tlami, or Calpixcontli, having charge of the collection of tribute, and composed of men well acquainted with the resources of every part of the country, chiefly as is said Chichimecs, OtomÍs, and lords of Meztitlan. The third was the Diplomatic Council, whose president had the title of Yolqui, and was a kind of Grand Master of Ceremonies, whose duty it was to receive, present, entertain and dispatch ambassadors. Many of this council were Culhuas. The fourth was the council of the royal household, under the Amechichi, or High Chamberlain. This council was composed largely of Tepanecs. A fifth official, with the title of Cohuatl, superintended the work of the royal gold and silver smiths and feather-workers at Ocolco, a suburb of Tezcuco. The Spanish writers state that the president of each of the councils must be a relation of the emperor, or at least a Tezcucan nobleman. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 88; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 181; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 182-5; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 430-1.

[VI-49] There seems to have been some trouble between Ixtlilxochitl and the Tepanec king Tezozomoc, even before Techotl's death. Ixtlilxochitl was unmarried, although by his concubines he had many children; and, as Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 217-18, has it, he took Tezozomoc's daughter as a wife at his father's request, but sent her back before consummating the marriage; or, according to Ixtlilxochitl, p. 218, he refused to take Tezozomoc's daughter, who had already been repudiated by some one, except as a concubine. The same author, p. 356, says this occurred after his father's death. He finally married a Mexican princess. Tezozomoc was very much offended.

[VI-50] The emperor is said to have learned the Nahua language from his Culhua nurse Papaloxochitl, and to have become so convinced of its superiority that he ordered its adoption. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 217; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 194-5.

[VI-51] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 217-8, says he was over sixty years old; Ixtlilxochitl gives 1338 as the date of his birth, which would make him less than twenty. The method of arriving at his age seems to be by fixing the date of his son's birth, noting that his father's wife was eight years old at her marriage, and taking into consideration the reported Chichimec custom which required the husband to wait until his wife was forty before consummating the marriage. Ixtlilxochitl was endowed, at birth, with thirteen towns or provinces; his mother is said to have been the sister of Coxcoxtli, king of Culhuacan.

[VI-52] 1353, or 1357, Ixtlilxochitl; 1409, Veytia. On Techotl's reign see: Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 217-18, 353-6, 400-1, 453, 462; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 178-231; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 87-9, 108; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 180-1, 184; Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 276; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 16-17, 24; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 425-32, 457-61, 472-3.

[VI-53] Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 302; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 451. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 127-30, agrees, except in dates, so far as the succession of Acamapichtli is concerned, and his friendship for the Mexicans. He, however, says nothing of Achitometl II., dates Acamapichtli's death in 1303, and states that he was succeeded by his eldest son Xiuhtemoc. The Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 42, implies that Acamapichtli transferred his court in 1370 to Mexico, giving, as Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 6, says, the lordship of Culhuacan to one of his sons. See also Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 218, 343, 349. Much of the confusion in the Culhua succession is caused by the fact that there were two Acamapichtlis, one, king of Culhuacan and in a certain sense the leader of the Mexicans, and the other, king of Mexico at a later date.

[VI-54] Gomara and Brasseur as above; also Brasseur, p. 465.

[VI-55] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 93; Duran, MS. tom. i., cap. x.

[VI-56] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. vi.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 9-10; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 471-3; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 99-101; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 176; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 22-3.

[VI-57] Hist., tom. ii., p. 454.

[VI-58] Veytia, tom. ii., p. 159, writes the name Tenuhctzin, and dates his election 1330. In the Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 40, it is stated that the other chiefs still continued to govern their clans. See also, Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 173-4; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 289-91; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 148.

[VI-59] See pp. 325-6, of this volume.

[VI-60] Veytia says they first applied to Quinantzin, placing this event in the reign of Alconahuacatl, as emperor.

[VI-61] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 135, 138, 140-1; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 93, 99, 291. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. v., names four chiefs who were at the head of the secessionists. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 398, mentions two chiefs with their adherents. Others speak of eight. Acosta, p. 468, writes Tlatelulco, 'place of terraces.' Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 113, defines the name 'islet.' Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 22, derives it from tlatelli, 'booth,' because the market was located here. Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 467-8, says the original name was Xalliyacac, 'point of land,' which was in the territory belonging to Tlatelulco, at the time a small village, but in the Toltec period a flourishing city. See also, Clavigero, tom. i., p. 170.

[VI-62] There is great diversity among the authorities respecting the parentage of Acamapichtli II., some of which may probably be attributed to the confounding of two of the same name. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 186-8, 161, dates his accession 1361, says a political contest of four years preceded his election, and calls him the son of Huitzilihuitl by Atotoztli, daughter of Acamapichtli. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 173-4, Acosta, pp. 469-71, and Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. v-vi., represent the new king as son of Opochtli, an Aztec chief, by Atotoztli, a Culhua princess. Clavigero makes the date 1352; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 94-97, refers to him as a noble Aztec, son of Cohuatzontli by the daughter of a Culhua chieftain. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 344, 348-9, 456, gives as usual two or three versions of the matter, saying in one place that the new king was the third son of the king of Azcapuzalco. Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 302, brings him from Coatlichan, whither he had escaped with his mother after the death of her husband the Culhua king. 'Acamapichtli, king of Culhuacan, father of the second Acamapichtli spoken of here, was a grandson of Acxoquauhtli, son of Achitometl I., by Azcaxochitl, daughter of the Mexican Huitzilatl. Acamapichtli I. had also married Ixxochitl, daughter of Teotlehuac, who was a brother of Azcaxochitl and son of the same Huitzilatl, and had had by her Acamapichtli II.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 469-70. See also: Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 22; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 6; Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; Purchas his Pilgrimes, vol. iv., pp. 1005-6. The question of the new king's marriage is even more deeply involved. See same authorities.

[VI-63] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 94-5; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 174-5; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 471. Date according to Clavigero, 1353. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 213, 348-9, 398, 453, and Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 141, say that the king's name was Mixcohuatl, or Epcoatzin, or Cohuatlecatl. See also Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 22; Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 273; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., pp. 174-5; MÜller, Reisen, tom. iii., p. 49; and Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 317-9, with portrait.

[VII-1] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 99. In the explanation of the Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 148, vol. vi., p. 134, it is stated that king Acamapichtli burned the temple of Culhuacan in 1399, probably referring to the quarrels of Acamapichtli I. with Coxcoxtli, or Achitometl, at an earlier period.

[VII-2] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 213; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 176-7; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 95-8; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 100; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 302; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 470-3; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xiii; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., pp. 148-9; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 43.

[VII-3] Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 92; Mendieta, Torquemada, Acosta, Brasseur, and Clavigero, as in preceding note.

[VII-4] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 111.

[VII-5] Date, 1404, Duran; 1402, after reigning 41 years, Veytia; 1405, Boturini; 1389, 37 years, Clavigero; 1406, 7 years, Codex Tell. Rem.; 1396, Mendieta; reigned 21 years, Torquemada, Sahagun, Codex Mendoza; 1271, 51 years, Ixtlilxochitl; 46 years, Gomara and Motolinia; 40 years, Acosta and Herrera; 1403, 53 or 21 years, Brasseur.

[VII-6] Acosta and Herrera write the name of Huitzilihuitl's wife Ayauchigual. Veytia says her name was Miahuaxochitl, and that she was the daughter of Tezozomoc. Torquemada, Clavigero, and Gomara make him marry, first, Ayauhcihuatl, daughter of Tezozomoc, and afterwards, Miahuaxochitl, princess of Quauhnahuac, the latter of whom bore Montezuma I. Ixtlilxochitl says the king married his niece, Tetzihuatzin, grand-daughter of Tezozomoc, one of whose children was Chimalpopoca. Brasseur, relying on the Codex Chimalp. and Mem. de Culhuacan, gives the account I have presented in the text. The Codex Tell. Rem. says Huitzilihuitl married a daughter of the princess of Coatlichan, and a grand-daughter of Acamapichtli, having by her no sons. Tezozomoc and Duran name Chimalpopoca as Huitzilihuitl's first son; Veytia says it was Montezuma I., and Torquemada, Clavigero, and Brasseur name the first son Acolnahuacatl.

[VII-7] On the death of Acamapichtli II., and the succession and marriage of Huitzilihuitl II., see Duran, MS. tom. i., cap. vi, vii; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 176-80; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 98-106; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 218, 353, 456-7; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 219-26; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 10-11; Codex Tell. Rem., in Id., vol. v., pp. 148-9; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 302; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 6; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 473-5; SigÜenza, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. i., p. 50; Boturini, in Id., p. 239; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 149; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 110-17.

[VII-8] According to Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 216-7, 246, 249-51, Mixcohuatl reigned 75 years, was succeeded by Quaquauhpitzahuac in 1400, and he by Tlacateotzin in 1414. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 213, 218, 353, 356, 453, 462, says Mixcohuatl died in 1271, reigned 51 years, and was succeeded by his son Quaquauhpitzahuac; or that he died in Techotl's reign and was followed by Tlacateotzin; or that Quaquauhpitzahuac died in 1353; or was succeeded by Amatzin; or again, that Tlacateotzin succeeded his father; and that he married a daughter of Tezozomoc. Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 273, ignores Mixcohuatl, as do Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 94-5, 99, 127-8, and Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 175, 184. Both the latter authors make the first king a son of Tezozomoc. Clavigero places his accession in 1353, and that of Tlacateotzin, his successor, in 1399. Torquemada says the first king reigned 35 years, and was followed by Tlacateotzin in the tenth year of Huitzilihuitl's rule. Both Mexicans and Tlatelulcas seem to have claimed the honor of having had the first king. See also Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 123.

[VII-9] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 120.

[VII-10] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. vii.; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 106; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 226-8, 246; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 127-8.

[VII-11] Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 149; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 43; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268.

[VII-12] Date 1414, Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 246-7; Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 239; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 149; 1353, Ixtlilxochitl, in Id., vol. ix., pp. 218, 356, 457; 1409, Clavigero, tom. i., p. 186; 1417, Codex Chimalp. in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 129, and Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 43.

[VII-13] On death of Huitzilihuitl II. and succession of Chimalpopoca, see Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 246-9; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 105-7; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 182-7; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 218, 355-6, 457; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 475-8; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. vii, viii; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 149; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 129-31; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 43; Codex Tell. Rem., in Id., p. 149.

[VII-14] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 231-3, 236, 245; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 108-9; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 185; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 218-19, 356, 358-9, 401; Boturini, Idea, p. 142; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 87-92.

[VII-15] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 234-7; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 356.

[VII-16] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 219, 356-7; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 108-9; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 185; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 93-5.

[VII-17] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 95-6.

[VII-18] Id., pp. 97-106.

[VII-19] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 219, 357, 401-2; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 108-9; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 185-6; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 234-45; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 106-8.

[VII-20] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., pp. 108-9.

[VII-21] The former also called Tozquentzin and Atotoztli; and the latter, Acolmiztli and Yoyontzin.

[VII-22] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 218, 359, 401, 405, 453; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. vi.; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 110; Leon y Gama, Dos Piedras, pt ii., pp. 41-2; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 109-10; Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 146.

[VII-23] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 117-18.

[VII-24] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 219, 358-9, 402. Dates according to this author, April 15, 1359; Dec. 30, 1363; 1415. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 255-6; date, Aug. 6, 1415. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 109; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 185-6; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 120-1.

[VII-25] Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 277-8, gives a list of the succession of lords at Huexotla from the earliest Chichimec times.

[VII-26] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 219-20, 359, 402. He states that in this meeting, or another held about the same time, there were many other lords present, including those of Acolman and Tepechpan, who, although pretending to be faithful, kept Tezozomoc posted as to the course events were taking. See also Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 257-8; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 110; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 121-2.

[VII-27] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 359-60, 402-3; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 257-68; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 108-9; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 186; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 122-5.

[VII-28] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 186, states that Ixtlilxochitl granted this peace, not because he had any faith in Tezozomoc or was disposed to be lenient to his allies, but because his army was equally exhausted with that of the enemy, and he was unable to continue hostilities. This is hardly probable, although he had doubtless suffered more than the records indicate. See also Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 220, 360-2, 403, 453; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 268-76; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 108-10; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 122-7.

[VII-29] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 129-30.

[VII-30] Chiuhnauhtlan, as the Spanish writers say; Brasseur says it was at Tenamatlac, a Tepanec pleasure-resort in the mountains of Chiucnauhtecatl.

[VII-31] Brasseur says Coatlichan, which is more likely.

[VII-32] 50, and 16, are Ixtlilxochitl's figures in different places; Veytia says 10, and Brasseur 40.

[VII-33] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 220-3, 362-4, 403-4, 453-4, 462-3; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 278-99; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 110-13; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 187-9; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 129-38.

[VII-34] Oct. 29, 1418, Veytia; 1410, Clavigero; 1410, Ixtlilxochitl, p. 463; April 22, 1415, Id., p. 454; Sept. 21, 1418, Id., p. 404; 1419, Brasseur. Torquemada implies that Ixtlilxochitl's reign lasted only seven years. Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 276, says he ruled 61 years, during which time nothing worthy of mention occurred. Ixtlilxochitl in one place, p. 223, says that the last Tepanec wars lasted 3 years and 273 days; elsewhere, p. 364, that they lasted 50 consecutive years, and that millions of people perished.

[VII-35] Torquemada states that Tezozomoc reserved Coatlichan for himself.

[VII-36] Ixtlilxochitl tells a strange story, to the effect that Tezozomoc's officers were directed to ask the children in each province, who was their king; such as replied 'Tezozomoc,' were to be caressed and their parents rewarded; but those that answered 'Ixtlilxochitl,' or 'Nezahualcoyotl,' were put to death without mercy. Thus perished thousands of innocent children. In Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 223, 463.

[VII-37] Veytia, tom. i., pp. 300-6, 315-17; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 224-5, 365-8, 404, 454, 463; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 113-16; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 190-3; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 138-48; Boturini, Idea, pp. 143-4; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 254.

[VII-38] On Nezahualcoyotl's adventures during this period, down to about 1426, see Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 224-5, 366-9, 404-5, 463-4; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 304, 311-14, 317-19; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 190-1, 193-4; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 116-7; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 148-50.

[VII-39] There is much confusion respecting these sons of Tezozomoc. Ixtlilxochitl in one place, pp. 368-9, names Maxtla, Tayauh, and Atlatota Icpaltzin, or Tlatecaypaltzin, as the sons summoned to his death-bed. In another place, p. 464, he calls two of them Tiatzi, or Tayatzi, and Tlacayapaltzin. Torquemada names them Maxtla, Tayatzin, and Tecuhtzintli. All imply that Maxtla was the eldest son. Brasseur, following the Codex Chimalpopoca, states that Tezozomoc had eight legitimate sons, of whom Maxtlaton was the seventh and Quetzalayatzin (Tayauh, or Tayatzin), the sixth.

[VII-40] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 321-9, tom. iii., pp. 3-11; date, Feb. 2, 1427. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 217, 225-7, 368-70, 405, 454, 464; dates, March 20, 1427, March 24, 1427, 1424. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 68, 117-21, 253; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 194-6; date, 1422. Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 148-54; date, March 24, 1427.

[VII-41] See on the usurpation of Maxtla and the death of his brother, Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 226, 371, 464-5; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 11-18; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 119-21; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 196-8; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 155-7; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 26.

[VII-42] On account of their friendship for Nezahualcoyotl and Tayauh. Another cause of enmity between Chimalpopoca and Maxtla, is said to have been the dishonor of the former's wife by the latter, she having been enticed to Azcapuzalco by the aid of two Tepanec ladies.

[VII-43] Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 18-32, says that immediately after the assassination of Tayauh, a posse of men was sent to seize Chimalpopoca, whom they found engaged in some religious rites in the temple. Several authors state that the king died in prison, having been previously visited by Nezahualcoyotl, who risked his own life to save him. Veytia says Nezahualcoyotl found him much reduced from starvation, went for food, and found him dead on his return. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 122-8, following SigÜenza, says he hung himself to avoid starvation. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 226-8, 371-3, 457, 464-5, in one place states that he died in Nezahualcoyotl's arms. In another relation he says that Maxtla in his rage at Nezahualcoyotl's escape sent to Mexico and had Chimalpopoca killed in his stead, the assassins finding him in the temple carving an idol. Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 475-9; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 11-12, and Duran, MS., tom. i., pp. 129-37—state that during Tezozomoc's reign the Tepanec nobles, fearful that Chimalpopoca, as the grandson of Tezozomoc would succeed to the Tepanec throne, sent to Mexico and had him assassinated while asleep; adding that the grandfather Tezozomoc, died of grief at this act! Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 158-9, 164, implies that Maxtla only arrested the proposed sacrifice, and agrees with Ixtlilxochitl's statement that the king was murdered at Mexico while at work in the temple.

The Tlatelulcan king was killed by the same party. He at first escaped from his palace, but was overtaken on the lake while striving to reach Tezcuco, and his body was sunk. Such is the account given by most authors; Ixtlilxochitl says he drowned himself; while Torquemada records two versions—one that he was killed for treason against Nezahualcoyotl; and the other, that he was killed by Montezuma I. of Mexico. See also on the death of the Aztec kings—Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 200-3; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 6; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., p. 154; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 26-7; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 44; Codex Tell. Rem., in Id., vol. vi., p. 135.

[VII-44] Date, July 23, 1427, or 1424, Ixtlilxochitl; May 31, 1427, SigÜenza; March 31, 1427, Vetancvrt; July 19, 1427, Veytia; 1423, Clavigero; 1427, Codex Mendoza; 1426, Codex Tell. Rem.; 1428, Codex Chimalpopoca.

[VII-45] The Spanish writers state that about this time the king of Chalco became disaffected, and a messenger, Xolotecuhtli, was sent to win him over through the influence of his wife, who was a sister of Huitzilihuitzin, Nezahualcoyotl's chief counselor. The Chalca king said his change of allegiance was on account of his hatred and fear of the Mexican king, but consented at last to leave the matter to his people, who decided unanimously in favor of Nezahualcoyotl.

[VII-46] I have omitted in this account of Nezahualcoyotl's flight, return, and victorious campaign, the numerous details of the prince's adventures and escapes, the names of lords to whom he applied and the tenor of each reply, the wonderful omens that on many occasions foretold success to his plans, told at so great length by the authorities, but comparatively unimportant, and altogether too bulky for my space. See on this period of history: Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 14, 33-79, 92-107; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 228-35, 373-81, 405-6, 465-7; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 125-40; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 202-10; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 171-3; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 26-7.

[VII-47] This discussion is placed by different authorities before or after the choice of a king. This is a matter of no great importance; the opposition to war probably continued down to the commencement of hostilities, but the election of a warlike king was of itself equivalent to a declaration of war, in view of Maxtla's well-known designs; consequently, I have placed it before the election.

[VII-48] An extraordinary treaty is spoken of by Tezozomoc, Duran, Acosta, and Clavigero, by the terms of which the nobles bound themselves in case of defeat to give up their bodies to be sacrificed to the gods; while the people bound themselves and their descendants in case of victory to become the servants of the nobles for all future time. Veytia states that titles of nobility, and permission to have many wives, were among the inducements to bravery held out to the plebeians. It is not impossible that the contract alluded to may have been invented or exaggerated in later times by the nobles to support their extravagant claims upon the people. Torquemada and Ixtlilxochitl refer to no such contract, and to no claim for the Tepanec recognition of their king; but state that the election of Itzcoatl on the one side, and the heavy tributes with the dishonor of Itzcoatl's wife on the other, led to the establishment of the blockade.

[VII-49] On the succession and declaration of war in Mexico, see—Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 128-34. This author says nothing of the succession of a new king in Tlatelulco. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 206-13; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 78-91, 137; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 479-83; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. viii., ix., Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 235-6, 381, 383, 406, 465; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 11-15; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 165-8; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 27; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., p. 154.

[VII-50] This name is written in many ways; Moteuhzoma or Moteuczoma being probably more correct than the familiar form of Montezuma.

[VII-51] Totzintecuhtli, king of Chalco, is said to have sent the prisoner first to Huexotzinca and then offered him to Maxtla to be sacrificed; but the kings sent him back and refused to do so dishonorable a deed.

[VII-52] Brasseur says the first interview was at Tenayocan.

[VII-53] See Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 91-2, 108-22; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 209-11; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 236, 381-2, 406-7, 464-6; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 136-40; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 173-9; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. ix.

[VII-54] The chief point of difference between the authorities on this campaign, is the relative honor due to the different allies and leaders, and especially the share which the Mexicans and Acolhuas respectively had in the overthrow of the Tepanec tyrant. Clavigero places this war in 1425, and thinks that causeways were already built. Veytia gives the date 1428, notes that the Mexican troops were richly clad, while the forces of Nezahualcoyotl wore plain, white garments, and makes the siege last 140 days. Ixtlilxochitl also gives the date 1428, and the length of the war 100 and 115 days. According to Brasseur, Nezahualcoyotl found time during the siege of Azcapuzalco to reconquer Acolman and Coatlichan, which had revolted. He calls the Tepanec leader Mazatzin, and gives the date as 1430. See Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 236-7, 382-4, 407, 466; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 120-39; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. ix.; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 214-20; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 140-3; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 180-5; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 483-5.

[VII-55] See Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 221-3; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 142-6; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 136-47, 155-60; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 237-8, 383-5, 407, 466-7; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 16-17; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. ix.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 484-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt. ii., p. 28; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 187-9.

[VII-56] The line is said to have extended from Totoltepec in the north to a point in the lake near Mexico, which would be in a S.W. course. Thence it extended to mount Cuexcomatl probably towards the S.E. Subsequent events seem often to indicate that these lines were intended to be indefinitely prolonged, and to bound future conquests. Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 266, takes this view of the matter, although on p. 191 he implies the contrary.

[VII-57] Such was the basis of the alliance according to Ixtlilxochitl, Veytia, Zurita, and Brasseur. All agree respecting the inferior position of Tlacopan and her share of the spoils, but Ixtlilxochitl, p. 455, makes both pay a small tribute to Tezcuco. Veytia makes Nezahualcoyotl superior in nominal rank as above; Ixtlilxochitl in most of his relations makes him and Itzcoatl equal in this respect; while Torquemada, Clavigero, Gomara, and Duran make Itzcoatl supreme, and give to Mexico two thirds instead of one half of the spoils after deducting the share of Tlacopan. The chief support of the latter opinion is the great proportional growth of the Mexican domains in later times; but practically Mexico received much more even than the two thirds allotted to her by these authors. I think it more likely that Mexico in her great military power and love of conquest took much more than her proper share, at first with the consent of her colleagues and later without such consent; and it is also possible that the division agreed upon referred only to conquests accomplished under certain conditions not recorded, or, a supposition which agrees very nearly with the actual division in later times, that each of the three kingdoms was to have the conquered provinces that adjoined its territory, and that Mexico obtained the largest share, not only on account of her ambition, but because the most desirable field for conquest proved to be in the south-east and south-west. See preceding note.

[VII-58] Totoquihuatzin was the grandson of Tezozomoc, and his daughter was either concubine or wife of Nezahualcoyotl. Torquemada and Clavigero state that the people of the region about Tezcuco petitioned Itzcoatl to allow Nezahualcoyotl to rule over them, because, as the latter suggests, this territory had been given to Chimalpopoca by Tezozomoc. To Nezahualcoyotl, during his stay in Mexico, are attributed a palace and hunting-park at Chapultepec, together with several reservoirs and the idea of an aqueduct to supply water to the city. Veytia claims to have seen traces of the boundary line between the Aztec and Acolhua domains. It extended from Mount Cuexcomatl in the south, between Iztapalapan and Culhuacan, through the northern lake at Zumpango to Totoltepec. This would, however, be far from a straight line. See respecting the establishment of the new alliance:—Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 237-8, 383, 407, 454, 467; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 155-68; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 143-4, 154-6; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 221-5; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. ix., x., xiv.; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 187-93; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 303; Prescott's Mex., vol. i., p. 19; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 28.

[VIII-1] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. x.; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 222-3; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 18-25; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 194-5; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 486-7; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 145. Duran and Clavigero place these events after Nezahualcoyotl had gone to Tezcuco. The former states that Tezcuco was one of the cities applied to for aid against the Mexicans, and introduces here the story of the people on the lake shore having been made ill by the smell of fish in Tenochtitlan; and the latter states that Huexotla aided Coyuhuacan in this war. Torquemada places the war in the second year of Itzcoatl's reign, and implies that the Mexicans were forced to make several expeditions before they were completely successful.

[VIII-2] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 145-6; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 196-8.

[VIII-3] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 239-40, 407-8; the alliance with Tlascala is spoken of on pp. 247-8. Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 168-82.

[VIII-4] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 175.

[VIII-5] Boturini, Idea, p. 26; Ortega, in Veytia, tom. iii., p. 178.

[VIII-6] See Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 239-47, 258-61, 386-8, 407-9, 454-5, 467-8; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 182-209, 223-9; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 146-7, 167-9; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 225-6, 242-7; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 197-202. Coatlichan, Tepetlaoztoc, Tepechpan, Chiuhnauhtla, Tulancingo, Quauchinanco, Xicotepec, and Teotihuacan are mentioned among the provinces whose lords were restored. Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia say that the same system of provincial government was forced on Mexico by Nezahualcoyotl.

[VIII-7] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 202-3; Veytia, tom. iii., p. 236; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 150; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 228; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 28.

[VIII-8] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 384, 458, and Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 149-52, 234-5, state that Nezahualcoyotl accomplished the conquest of Xochimilco with the aid of a few Tlascaltecs, leaving Itzcoatl entirely out of the affair. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 226-7, tells us that the Xochimilcas determined to make war on the Mexicans before they became too strong. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xii., xiii., relates an evil omen for the Xochimilcas, in the transformation of a dish of viands, round which they were seated in deliberation, into arms, legs, hearts, and other human parts. See also Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 203-5; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 25-30; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 488-90; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 140, 148-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 28; Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.

[VIII-9] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 248-9, says that Quauhnahuac and eight other towns were awarded to Nezahualcoyotl, Tepozotlan, Huastepec and others to Itzcoatl, besides the share of Tlacopan not specified. The same author gives here without details of chronology, a list of subsequent conquests by the allies at this period, which we shall find scattered throughout this and the following reigns; such are:—Chalco, Itzucan, Tepeaca, Tecalco, Teohuacan, Cohuaixtlahuacan, Hualtepec, Quauhtochco, Atochpan, Tizauhcoac, Tochtepec, Mazahuacan, Tlapacoia, Tlauhcocauhtitlan, and Tulancingo. See also on conquest of Quauhnahuac, Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 227-8; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 149-50; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 235-6; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 28; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 205-7.

[VIII-10] Hist. Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 139-41; see p. 190, of this volume, and vol. ii., p. 528.

[VIII-11] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 208-11; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 150.

[VIII-12] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 30-2; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xv.; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 303; SigÜenza, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. i., p. 59; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 149-50, denies the story that Nezahualcoyotl submitted to Itzcoatl. Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 33-4, makes them still of equal rank. Tezozomoc makes no mention of any events in Itzcoatl's reign after the conquest of Cuitlahuac. Duran, cap. xiv, states that his conquests included Chalco, Quauhnahuac, Huexotzinco, and Coatlichan. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 228-9, 232-3; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 157, and Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 236-7, place in Itzcoatl's reign the origin of the troubles with Tlatelulco which will be spoken of hereafter. According to the Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 44, Itzcoatl, or Izcoaci, conquered 24 cities.

[VIII-13] Date, 1440. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xiv-xv.; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 45; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 150; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 249, 457; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 28; Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 239; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 211-12. Duran also gives 1445 and Ixtlilxochitl 1441. 1436, Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 237-8; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 229; Bustamante, MaÑadas de la Alameda, tom. ii., p. 174. See also on the succession; Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 490-3; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 150, 171; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 30; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 6; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 303.

[VIII-14] Veytia, tom. iii., p. 239; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 491; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 29.

[VIII-15] See pp. 241-2, 250, 255, of this volume.

[VIII-16] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 213-17; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 239-40; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 230; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 150-1; Duran, MS. tom. i., cap. xvi. The latter author is careful to state that Montezuma did not request, but simply ordered aid in building his temples from Tlacopan and Tezcuco.

[VIII-17] Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 240-2; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 150-4; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 230-1; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 255-7, 467-8; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 217-24; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 29.

[VIII-18] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 156-7; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 232-3; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 242-3; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 224-5; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., p. 176; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 30; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 273-4.

[VIII-19] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 248; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 225. The former author says that this conquest extended to Quauhchinanco and Xilotepec, but implies that it took place immediately after the treaty with Tlascala, which followed Nezahualcoyotl's accession to the Tezcucan throne.

[VIII-20] The towns mentioned as included in this conquest are Cohuixco, Oztoman, Quetzaltepec, Ixcateopan, Teoxcahualco, Poctepec, Yauhtepec, Yacapichtla, Totolapan, Tlachmalacac, Tlachco, Chilapan, Tomazolapan, Quauhtepec, Ohuapan, Tzompahuacan, and Cozamaloapan. See Veytia, tom. iii., p. 243; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 233; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 157; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 225-7; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 30; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 249.

[VIII-21] Several authors give the dates as 1446. Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 247-8; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 233-4; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 157-8; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 228-32. This author gives the width of the dike as about 30 feet. Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 30.

[VIII-22] 1448-54, Veytia; 1451-6, Brasseur; 1447-54, Codex Tell. Rem.; 1404-7 (1444-7?) 11 years after accession of Montezuma, Duran.

[VIII-23] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xviii., xix., xxx., says the snow fell knee-deep in the valley. He also tells us that very many sold as slaves during the famine were ransomed and returned afterwards; this, however, does not apply to such as went to Totonacapan, since these remained in that province. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 250-1, 257, says that the slaves sold to the Totonacs were all sacrificed to secure a continuance of productiveness in the province. This author also names Xicotencatl, a Tlascaltec noble, as the person who suggested the battles for captives. Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 232-6, implies that the name Totonacapan, 'region of our subsistence,' was given on account of the events described, although the same author has spoken frequently of the Totonacs at a period many centuries earlier. See also, Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix, pp. 63-6; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 158, 171; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 233-5; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 269; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 248-9; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 150. Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 493, and Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii, merely state that it was agreed to reserve Tlascala as a battle-field whereon to exercise the armies, and to obtain captives. Torquemada throws some doubt on this agreement.

[VIII-24] Date, 1458-9, according to Brasseur; 1456 according to the other authors. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxii., xxiii., and Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 51-3, say nothing of the aid rendered by the Tlascaltecs and Huexotzincas. See also Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 236-7; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 249-51; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 237-52; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 159-61; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 30-1.

[VIII-25] According to Veytia's chronology, this conquest took place in 1457; Brasseur puts this and the following events in 1458-9. See Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 251-3; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 467; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 237-8; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 161-2; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 31; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 252-7; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxi., xxiv.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 48-51, 53-6.

[VIII-26] On the conquest of Chalco, see Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xvi., xvii.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 33-40; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 238-40; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 258-61; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 492-3; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 253-4.

[VIII-27] According to the Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., pp. 150-1, the conquest of Goazacoalco took place about this time, in 1461. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 249-50, implies that the Tlascaltecs fought on the side of Nezahualcoyotl in the conquest of Cuextlan. See Veytia, tom. iii., p. 254; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 493; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 240; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 164; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 261-2, 267-9; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 40-6; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 32; on the commerce of the Aztecs, see vol. ii., pp. 378-99.

[VIII-28] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 232, states that the Tepanec princess was the emperor's second wife; and Ixtlilxochitl implies that Nezahualpilli was her second son. There is also no agreement respecting her name or that of her father and husband. All agree that this child was born in 1464 or 1465. See Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 253-4, 257, 467; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 244-6; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 271-3; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 154-6; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 29-30.

[VIII-29] Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 151; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 277.

[VIII-30] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 277-80; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 257.

[VIII-31] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxvii.

[VIII-32] 1464, Veytia; 1468, Vetancvrt, Ixtlilxochitl, and Boturini; 1469, Ixtlilxochitl, Brasseur, Codex Chimalp., Codex Tell. Rem., Codex Mendoza.

[VIII-33] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxviii-xxix., xxxi-ii., and Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 58-63, 66, attribute to Montezuma I. the conquest of Oajaca, and the establishment there of a Mexican colony. They may refer to the conquest of the land of the Miztecs already related, or to that of more southern parts of Oajaca at a later period. They also state that Axayacatl was the son of Montezuma. Duran tells us that Montezuma before his death had his image sculptured on the cliff at Chapultepec; and that Axayacatl was nominated king by Tlacaeleltzin, who declined the throne. The Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., pp. 45-6, followed by Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 150, give the number of provinces conquered by Montezuma as thirty-three. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 257, 457, says Montezuma left several sons. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 169, 172, says he left one, not named, but that he disinherited him for the good of the nation. Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 493, 495, and Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii., make Tizoc precede Axayacatl, both being sons of Montezuma. Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 178, makes Ahuitzotl precede Axayacatl. Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 32, says that Axayacatl, Tizoc, and Ahuitzotl were sons of Montezuma's uncle by a daughter of Itzcoatl. Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 6, and Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 303, represent Montezuma as having been succeeded by his daughter. See also on the death and character of Montezuma I., and the accession of Axayacatl:—Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 280-2; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 241; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 254-5; Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 240; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., pp. 149, 151; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 268-9.

[VIII-34] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxii., says that the first five years of Axayacatl's reign were undisturbed by war. See on the Tehuantepec raid and the Coronation: Torquemada, tom. i., p. 172; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 283-7; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 32; Clavigero, tom., i. pp. 241-2; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 496-7. Veytia, tom. iii., p. 256, and Clavigero speak of wars in the first years of his reign against the revolting provinces of Cuetlachtlan and Tochtepec.

[VIII-35] Date according to the Spanish writers, 1468. According to the Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 150, Huexotzinco had seized upon the province of Atlixco in 1456, driving away the people of Guacachula, the former possessors. Only Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 172-3, and Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 287-8, mention the apparition of Tezcatlipoca. See also Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 242, 248; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 256-7; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 32-3.

[VIII-36] Date 1469 according to Spanish writers; 1470 according to Codex Chimalpopoca. Veytia, tom. iii., p. 261; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 288; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 242; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 173; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 32.

[VIII-37] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 288.

[VIII-38] See vol. ii., pp. 246-7, 294, 471-2, 491-7.

[VIII-39] Date 1470, Ortega and Clavigero; 1462 or 1472, Ixtlilxochitl; 1472, Codex Chimalpopoca.

[VIII-40] On the character and death of Nezahualcoyotl, and the succession of Nezahualpilli, see: Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 254-62, 408-9, 467-8; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 156, 164-9, 173-4; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 232, 242-8; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 288-301; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 33-4; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 247, 261-7.

[VIII-41] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 176. The author says, however, that the province was 'on the coast of AnÁhuac.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 301-2.

[VIII-42] Authorities on the Tlatelulca war:—Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxii-xxxiv.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 66-76; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 176-80; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 269, 274; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 256-61; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 302-15; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 248-52; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 34-5; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., pp. 176-8; Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., p. 150; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 498; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiv.; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 262-3; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 120.

[VIII-43] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 180-1; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 263-4, 458; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 35; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 316-17.

[VIII-44] According to the Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 151, this war and earthquake took place in 1462. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 181-2, places them in the sixth year of Axayacatl's reign. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxv.-xxxvi., and Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 76-82, state that Tlilcuetzpalin escaped. See also, Ixtlilxochitl, p. 264; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 252-3; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 317-22; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 267-8; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. iv., cap. xviii.; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 35.

[VIII-45] Most of the details of this war are from Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 322-5. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxvii.-viii., and Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 82-7, state simply that to procure victims for the dedication of a new sacrificial stone, the Aztecs marched to the borders of Michoacan and were defeated by superior numbers, returning to Mexico. The victims were finally obtained at Tliliuquitepec. Other authors represent the Aztecs as victorious, they having added to their possessions Tochpan, Tototlan, Tlaximaloyan, Ocuillan, and Malacatepec. See Torquemada, tom. i., p. 182; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 253; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 35-6; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 151.

[VIII-46] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 253, gives the date 1477. According to the Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 47, it was 1482. All the other authorities agree on 1481. See on family, character, and death of Axayacatl, and succession of Tizoc: Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 269-71; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxviii-ix.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 88-91, 143; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 264-5; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 182; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 36; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 494-5; SigÜenza, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. i., p. 70; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 164.

[IX-1] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 93-8; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xl.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 495; Brasseur, Hist., tom. i., pp. 326-31; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 265-6.

[IX-2] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 182.

[IX-3] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 263, 269-70, 410; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 183-4; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 254-5; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 331-4; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 272-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 36. Several authors attribute the completion of the temple to Ahuitzotl.

[IX-4] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xl.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 495; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 271, 276-8; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 253-4, 256. This author gives the date as 1482. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 182-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 36-7; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 269; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 334-5; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. vi., p. 141, date 1487; Tezozomoc, in Id., vol. ix., pp. 98-100; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 265, 267; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., pp. 47-8. Ixtlilxochitl claims that Tizoc died a natural death, and that Techotl died during his reign.

[IX-5] See vol. iv., pp. 377-84.

[IX-6] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 337-40, tells us that the Xiquipilco campaign furnished captives for the coronation, while the products of the other wars were reserved for the dedication. Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 99-108, speaks of the conquest of some city in Chiapas; while Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 499, states that a place called Quaxutatlan was taken by means of an artificial floating island. It is impossible to form from the authorities any idea of these wars and their chronological order. See, Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xli.-ii.; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 467; SigÜenza, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. i., p. 72; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 37; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 257; Veytia, tom. iii., p. 278; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 186.

[IX-7] On the dedication, see vol. ii., p. 577; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 268; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xliii-iv.; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 254; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 257; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 186; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 37; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 152; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 341-5. Considering the number of the victims sacrificed, it is probably more correct to suppose that several sacrificers were occupied at the same time.

[IX-8] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. iii., pp. 345-6; with reference to Torquemada, tom. i. lib. ii., cap. lxiii. which contains nothing on the subject.

[IX-9] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 109-12, 154, places the Cuextlan war before the dedication, and calls Chimalpopoca's successor Tlaltecatzin. See also Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 269-70; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 37-8; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 187; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 294-5; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 345-7; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 258; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 268.

[IX-10] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 187, 191; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 258-9; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 348-9; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 295-6; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xl.; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 152.

[IX-11] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 278-80; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 349-52.

[IX-12] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 120-7; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xliv., tom. ii., cap. xlv.; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 352-5. This author also refers to Torquemada and Ixtlilxochitl, who have nothing to say of this war and colony, although the latter, p. 271, speaks of the conquest of Zapotlan and Xaltepec, which may have been in the same campaign.

[IX-13] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 271.

[IX-14] Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. ix., pp. 337-8.

[IX-15] Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 151. The date is put at 1494 by this document.

[IX-16] See vol. iv., pp. 368-71 .

[IX-17] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 367, et seq.

[IX-18] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 355-62.

[IX-19] Hist. Gen., tom. ii., lib. ix., p. 337, et seq.

[IX-20] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 367-76.

[IX-21] Burgoa, as in note 20; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 362-9. A full account, mostly from Burgoa, is given in the Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii., pp. 167, 175-7, 183-7. Other authorities touch very vaguely upon the events related above; most of them utterly ignoring the defeat of the Aztecs. Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. xlvi-vii., liv-v., puts the marriage in Montezuma's reign, and says that the Tehuantepec king was told by his wife of the plot against his life by 10,000 soldiers who had entered the capital in small groups as guests; he caused the whole 10,000 to be put to death. According to the Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 153, the king of Tehuantepec never afterwards allowed a Mexican to set foot in his country. This document makes Pelaxilla a daughter of Montezuma. Clavigero, tom. i., p. 262, says that the Aztec forces penetrated Guatemala at this time, referring to the Xuchiltepec campaign. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 268, 271-2, states that the allies took 17,400 captives from the Zapotecs in 1499. According to Remesal, Hist. Chyapa, p. 2, Chiapas was made tributary to Mexico about 1498. See also for slight references to events that may be connected with these campaigns in the south-west. Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 127-37; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 193; PiÑeda, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., p. 347.

[IX-22] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 270-1.

[IX-23] On the family affairs of Nezahualpilli, see Torquemada, tom. i., p. 184; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 255-6; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 372-5; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 265, 267, 271-2; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 36-7; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 275-6.

[IX-24] Vol. ii., pp. 446-50.

[IX-25] For these and other anecdotes of Nezahualpilli, see:—Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 267, 273-7; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. 1.; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 180-90; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 385-92; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., pp. 48-9.

[IX-26] Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 259-60; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 191; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 375-7; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 296-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 38.

[IX-27] Respecting this flood, see: Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 272-3; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 137-41; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 192-3, 293; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 377-82; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xlviii.-ix.; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 299-302; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 260-2; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 269; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 38-9; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 500-1; Bustamante, MaÑanas, tom. ii., pp. 208-9; vol. ii., p. 566 of this work.

[IX-28] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 193; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 262. In the Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 48, is given a list of forty-five towns conquered by Ahuitzotl.

[IX-29] Clavigero and Vetancvrt make the date 1502. Ixtlilxochitl in one place, p. 457, says 1505.

[IX-30] Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. li-v., states that the first wars were directed against Nopallan, Icpatepec, and Toltepec; and that during the campaign Montezuma ordered the death of the tutors of his children and the attendants of his wives. Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 141-53, adds Huitzpac and Tepeaca to the towns mentioned by Duran. See also on death of Ahuitzotl and accession of Montezuma II.: Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 262-7; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 193-5; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 303-9; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 382-97; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 265, 277, 457; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 501-6; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiv.; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 29; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., pp. 51-2; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 303; SigÜenza, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. i., pp. 74-6.

[IX-31] See on the policy and government of Montezuma II., vol. ii. of this work, passim; also, Duran, MS. tom., ii., cap. liii.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 145-6; Ixtlilxochitl, p. 278; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 267-75; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 309-19; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 398-402; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 196, 205-6; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 505-7; Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. vi., p. 14; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 39; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiv.; Villa-SeÑor y Sanchez, Theatro, tom. i., pp. 4-5.

[IX-32] Camargo says the combined armies were beaten at this battle. Torquemada places the event in the third year of Montezuma's reign. Ixtlilxochitl, Duran, and Tezozomoc represent Tlacahuepantzin as the brother of Montezuma, and Ixtlilxochitl implies that he was sent to this war, placed in 1508, in the hope of his death. This brother is perhaps the same person spoken of by Ixtlilxochitl on p. 443. Duran and Tezozomoc seem to regard this as a war against Cholula and Huexotzinco.

[IX-33] On the war with Tlascala, see: Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 275-80; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 197-203; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 320-7; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 402-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 40-1; Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 178-86; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lvii-lxi.; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 271, 278; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 160-78; Oviedo, tom. iii., p. 497.

[IX-34] This famine occurred in the third year of Montezuma's reign, according to Clavigero; in fourth year, as Torquemada says; and Ixtlilxochitl puts it in 1505 and 1506. See Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 203-4, 235. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 278; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 282-3; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 41; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 409-10; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 331-2; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 270; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 153.

[IX-35] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 283; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 332-4; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 204, 207; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 41; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 410-11; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. lv., lix.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 170-1.

[IX-36] Ixtlilxochitl says the war was afterwards carried into Guatemala and Nicaragua. Brasseur tells us that the treacherous Cozcaquauhtli was made king of Cohuaixtlahuacan; others say ruler of Tzotzolan. According to Torquemada, the war was in the fifth year of the reign, and preceded by an eclipse of the sun. Tezozomoc refers to a campaign against Xaltepec and Cuatzonteccan in Tehuantepec. Vetancvrt gives as the date the seventh year of the reign. Clavigero makes Cozcaquauhtli the brother of Nahuixochitl. See Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 196-7, 207-9, 215; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 275, 283-4; Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 166-7; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 41-2; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 411-17; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 153-6, 162-4, 180; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 279-80; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 334-7, 359; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxv.

[IX-37] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 278, speaks of a conquest of Zocolan in 1506, and of Totecpec in 1507. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. lv., speaks of the conquest, at about this time, of Quatzoutlan and Toltepec, where Montezuma ordered that all persons over fifty years of age should be put to death. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 284-6; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 337-40; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 417-20; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 209-10.

[IX-38] The lighting of the new fire took place at midnight, March 21-2, 1507, at the beginning of the year 2 Acatl, between the days 7 Tochtli and 8 Acatl. Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 423. The Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., pp. 153-4, says that the tie of the years had usually taken place in 1 Tochtli (1506), but was changed by Montezuma to 2 Acatl (1507). Most other authors name 1506 as the year of the fÊte; but perhaps they mean simply that 1 Tochtli the last of the seventh cycle corresponds for the most part, although not exactly of course, to 1506. See Boturini, in Doc. Hist. Mex., sÉrie iii., tom. iv., p. 240; Veytia, tom. iii., p. 340; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 210-11; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 285-6; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 41; see also vol. ii., p. 341, and vol. iii., pp. 393-6.

[IX-39] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 427-8, names Macuilmalinatzin, the brother of Montezuma, among the killed, and applies, probably with some reason, to this war the suspicions of Ixtlilxochitl, respecting foul play on the part of the Mexican king already referred to—(see note 32). See also: Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 343-4; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 211; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 286; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 278-9; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 171, 177; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 41-2; Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 154; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxii.

[IX-40] Ixtlilxochitl dates the Amatlan war in 1514; Brasseur puts the war in 1510; Torquemada denies that the comet had three heads.

[IX-41] This was very likely the occasion already noted when the Tlatelulcas rushed into the city, supposing it to be invaded.

[IX-42] See pp. 422-4, of this volume; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 213.

[IX-43] Clavigero throws discredit on Boturini's version; I find it difficult to feel implicit faith in that of Clavigero.

[IX-44] Torquemada says in 1499.

[IX-45] On these evil omens, see Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 278-80; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 344-59; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 211-14, 233-9; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 286-92; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 42-3, 126; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 177-8, 183-9; Codex Tell. Rem., in Id., vol. v., p. 154; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. viii., ix.; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 428-41; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 510-14; Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcix., pp. 139-40; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxiii., lxvi-ix.; Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 270-1; Boturini, CatÁlogo, pp. 27-8.

[IX-46] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 214; Veytia, tom. iii., p. 361; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 42.

[IX-47] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. iii., pp. 442-7, reference to Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan.

[IX-48] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 280-1.

[IX-49] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 168, 181-3; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 293; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 214-15; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxvi.; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 448-50; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. viii.; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., p. 511; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 42-3.

[IX-50] It is impossible here to distinguish between references to Tututepec in Oajaca, and Tototepec, or Totoltepec, north-east of Mexico. The Codex Tell. Rem., in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 154, mentions in 1512 the conquest of Quimichintepec and Nopala, towards Tototepec, and also that the stones in that year threw out smoke which reached the skies. The same authority records the conquest of Tututepec on the Pacific, and an earthquake in 1513; the conquest of Hayocingo in 1514, and that of Itzlaquetlaloca in 1515. See Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 278-80, 283-4. This writer also mentions the wars of Mictlanzinco and Xaltaianquizco as among the last waged by the Aztec monarchs. Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lvi. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 293-4; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 359-60; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 214-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 42.

[IX-51] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 218-19; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 361-3.

[IX-52] Vol. ii., pp. 93-5.

[IX-53] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 280, gives the southern boundaries as Huimolan, Acalan, Vera Paz, and Nicaragua; the northern as the Gulf of California and PÁnuco; makes the empire cover all the ancient Toltec territory, and incorrectly includes besides the north-western states, those of Tabasco and Guatemala. Herrera, dec. ii., lib. vii., cap. xiii; lib. ix., cap. i.; agrees with the limits I have given, and shows that Goazacoalco and Tabasco never belonged to the empire. Aztecs never subdued the region about Zacatecas. Arlegui, ChrÓn. Zacatecas, p. 9. Clavigero, tom. iv., pp. 267-9, tells us that the empire stretched on the Pacific from Soconusco to Colima; that Chiapas was only held by a few garrisons on the frontier; that the province of Tollan was the north-western limit; Tusapan the north-eastern, PÁnuco and the Huastecs never having been subdued; Goazacoalco was the south-eastern bound.

[IX-54] On Nezahualpilli's death see:—Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 216-17; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 282, 388, 410; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 452-5; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxiv.; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 363-4; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 294-5; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 178-9. Several authors make the date 1516; Duran says ten years before the coming of the Spaniards, or in 1509.

[IX-55] See p. 451 of this volume.

[IX-56] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 282-3, 410, and Torquemada, tom. i., p. 221, are the chief authorities on the succession of Cacama. The former records a report, which he doubts, that Nezahualpilli before his death indicated as his successor a younger son, Yoiontzin. He implies that Cacama was an illegitimate son and had no claim to the throne, but was forced on the Acolhua nobles against their will by Montezuma. Torquemada, on the other hand, makes Cacama the oldest son and legitimate heir, not mentioning the existence of Tetlahuehuetquizitzin, and does not imply that Montezuma had any undue influence in the choice of a new king. Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxiv., and Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 179, give an entirely different version of the matter. They say that the Acolhua lords were summoned to Mexico and invited by Montezuma to select their new king. When they told him there were five competent sons—only two of whose names, Cohuanacoch and Ixtlilxochitl, are identical with those named by other authorities—he advised the election of Quetzalacxoyatl, who was therefore elected and proved a faithful subject of the Mexican king. He only lived a few days, however, and was succeeded by his brother Tlahuitoltzin, and he, after a few years, by Cohuanacoch, during whose reign the Spaniards arrived. See also, Brasseur, Hist., tom. iv., pp. 14-21; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 367-9; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 297-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 43-4; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. i., cap. i.

[IX-57] On the voyage of CÓrdova, see: Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 349-51; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 3-8; Peter Martyr, dec. iv., lib. i-ii.; Herrera, dec. ii., lib. ii., cap. xvii.; Bernal Diaz, Hist. Conq., fol. 1-5; Stephens' Yucatan, vol. i., pp. 49-52; Prescott's Mex., vol. i., pp. 222-4; Gomara, Hist. Ind., fol. 60-1.

[IX-58] On Ixtlilxochitl's revolt and the treaty with Cacama, see: Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 369-75; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 299-302; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 223-7; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iv., pp. 21-3, 36-7; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 44; Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 283-4.

[IX-59] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 189-91; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 172-5; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 197, 201, 228; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iv., pp. 23-7; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 280-2; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 325, 328-31, 375-6; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 45-6.

[IX-60] Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 34-6.

[IX-61] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 228; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 376-7; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 46.

[IX-62] On Grijalva's voyage, see:—Diaz, Itinerario, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., pp. 281-307; Bernal Diaz, Hist. Conq., fol. 6-11; Peter Martyr, dec. iv., lib. iii-iv.; Navarrete, Col. de Viages, tom. iii., pp. 55-64; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 811, 568; Herrera, dec. ii., lib. iii., cap. i-ii.; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 351-8; Prescott's Mex., vol. i., pp. 224-8.

[IX-63] Torquemada, tom., i., pp. 378-80; Acosta, Hist. de las Ynd., pp. 515-16; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 377-8; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxix-lxx.; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 189-94; Herrera, dec. ii., lib. iii., cap. ix.

[X-1] Historia Tulteca, Peintures et Annales, en langue nahutl, coll. Aubin.

[X-2] See Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 361-3.

[X-3] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 150, vaguely mentions an expedition said to have been made to Cholula under chiefs bearing similar names to the above, but he gives no details or dates.

[X-4] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 363-70.

[X-5] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 138-9, 145-6.

[X-6] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 108-9.

[X-7] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 142-7; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 260-1; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 154; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 357-60.

[X-8] Spelled Tetliyucatl by Camargo. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 262, says that a separation took place previously at Tepapayecan. Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 150, may possibly imply the same, but he is very confused at this point.

[X-9] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 262. Camargo says that Coatepec was founded in the province of Quauhquelchula by the three last named chiefs; this is, however, probably a mistake of the French translator. Brasseur says Coatepec 'se soumettait À Quetzalxiuhtli.' Hist., tom. ii., p. 372.

[X-10] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 373, calls this chief Quauhtliztac.

[X-11] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 151-2. These chiefs were named Totolohuizil and Quetzaltehuyacixcotl, and are the same as those mentioned by Camargo on p. 150, as having arrived at Cholula in the year 1 Acatl. They are also identical with the Chichimec-Toltec chiefs who, according to Brasseur's account, already recorded, conquered Cholula by a stratagem soon after the Toltec fall. See ante, pp. 485-6. Speaking of their visit to the Teo-Chichimecs at Necapahuazcan, Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 372, calls them the "nouveaux seigneurs de Cholula." But it is evident from the context that Camargo does not regard them as such, notwithstanding what he has said about their arrival in 1 Acatl.

[X-12] Called 'Colhua-Teuctli-Quanez, le vainqueur de Poyauhtlan,' and Culhua-Teuctli, by Brasseur; and Culhuatecuhtli and Aculhua Tecuhtli by Camargo.

[X-13] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 136, 152-4, 164; Veytia, tom. ii., p. 175; Herrera, dec. ii., lib. vi., cap. xii; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 263.

[X-14] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 154.

[X-15] Brasseur writes Xicochimalco.

[X-16] 'Coxcoxtli, roi de Culhuacan, qui gouvernait alors, avec ses propres États, les Mexicains Établis dans le voisinage de sa capitale, et les TÉpanÈques d'Azcapotzalco, est le seul prince À qui se puisse rapporter l'ÉvÉnement dont il s'agit ici, Tezozomoc n'ayant rÉgnÉ que beaucoup plus tard.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 409; see also note on p. 410 of same work. Camargo says that Xiuhtlehui sent for aid to 'Matlatlihuitzin, qui rÉgnait alors À Mexico.' Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 156. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 197-201, states that he sent to Acamapichtli II, Matlatlihuitzin being probably a surname borne by that prince. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 264-5, and Clavigero, tom. i., p. 155, agree with Camargo in the name, but speak of the prince as being Tepanec.

[X-17] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. cxviii., pp. 154-63; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 264-8; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 154-5; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 200-12; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 405-18.

[X-18] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 418-19.

[X-19] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 349, writes Iztamatzin, and on p. 216, Yztacima.

[X-20] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 154-5; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 216, 349.

[X-21] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 419-20.

[X-22] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 164. Veytia, tom. ii., p. 213, considers this account wrong. Culhua Tecuhtli Quanez, he says, who is Xiuhquetzaltzin, the younger brother of Quinantzin of Tezcuco, had no brother by that name, or, none who would have joined him in Tlascala—he disregards the fact, as related by himself, that Xiuhquetzaltzin must have ruled over a hundred years already. It is therefore much more probable, as related by other writers, he continues, that Quanez left his own district of Tepeticpac or Texcalticpac to his eldest son, as will be seen, and Ocotelulco to his second son, Cuicuetzcatl, 'swallow;' he ruled jointly with his brother, and left the succession to his son Papalotl, 'butterfly,' who was followed by his brother Teyohualminqui, the above-named personage. He thinks the above two rulers have been omitted because of their brief rule. Others, he continues, relate that Mitl divided the rule with his brother. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 344, says that the Tlascaltec rulers descended from Xiuhguzaltzin. Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 143, though he cites Camargo as his authority, states that Quanez associated his brother with himself on the throne, and divided the town and territory of Tlascala with him. Teyohualminqui then chose Ocotelulco as his place of residence.

[X-23] Called also Tlapitzahuacan.

[X-24] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 165-72.

[X-25] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 143-4, makes Tzompane, Xayacamachan, and Tepolohua, one and the same person. Camargo, as we have seen, speaks of them as father and son. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 275, combines two of the names, Xayacamachantzompane.

[X-26] See vol. ii. of this work, p. 141.

[X-27] See pp. 387-8, of this volume.

[X-28] Id., p. 414.

[X-29] Id., p. 416.

[X-30] Id., p. 417.

[X-31] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 269.

[X-32] See this vol., p. 426.

[X-33] Id., pp. 437-8.

[X-34] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 178.

[X-35] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 341.

[X-36] See this vol., p. 443.

[X-37] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 191; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 38; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 259-60; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 375-7; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 297-9.

[X-38] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 178-80; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 197-9; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 275-8; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 402-5.

[X-39] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 200-1; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 40. According to Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 182-3, and Clavigero, tom. i., p. 278, the Tlascaltecs were beaten on this occasion.

[X-40] Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 183; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 279; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 200; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 40; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 406. These authorities say that the Mexican general was Montezuma's eldest son. But Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 271; and Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lvii., Tezozomoc, in Id., p. 160; say that he was Montezuma's brother.

[X-41] Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 278-80; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 201-2; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 40; Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., p. 183; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 324-5. Tlacahuepantzin is regarded by Clavigero as a man appointed to the generalship on account of his birth, and not because he possessed any military ability. Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lvii., who makes this a war between Huexotzinco and Mexico, states that he performed wonders on the battlefield, killing over fifty men, but was captured and killed on the field, in accordance with his own request; the body was preserved as the relic of a hero. Other brothers of Montezuma were also killed, and many captives carried to Huexotzinco. Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 160-1, adds that the Aztecs were only one to twenty in number, and that 40,000 warriors fell in the fight. Shortly after, continues Tezozomoc, Ixtlilcuechahuac of Tollan, aided by Aztec troops under three of Montezuma's cousins attacked the Huexotzincas again; the three cousins were killed, with most of their troops, and the lord of Tollan, who was conspicuous in his fine dress, was also slain; but the Chalcas coming up, the victory turned and the Huexotzincas were compelled to retreat. Id., pp. 165-6; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lviii. After this, the Cholultecs, who had never yet had a war with the Mexicans, says Duran, challenged that people to fight a battle, 'to give pleasure to the god of battle and to the sun.' The Mexicans and their allies who, according to Tezozomoc, were opposed by six times the number of Cholultecs, aided by Huexotzincas and Atlixcas, lost 8,200 men; whereupon the fight was discontinued, and the Aztecs went home to mourn. Tezozomoc, pp. 169-70; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lix. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 278, seems to refer to this battle when he says that Montezuma II. agreed with the Atlixcas to leave Macuilmalinatzin, the true heir to the Mexican throne, in the lurch. He accordingly perished with 2,800 of his warriors. Nezahualpilli composed a scathing poem, denouncing this act as a base assassination.

[X-42] Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 172-4; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lx.; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 280; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 325-6.

[X-43] The truth of this bombastic assertion the Tlascaltec historian, Camargo, denies, and doubtless with reason; as it would be absurd to suppose that the Aztecs would have permitted the existence of such a formidable enemy at their very doors if they could have helped it. Besides, we have seen how often they did their best to subdue Tlascala and failed.

[X-44] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 202-3; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 326-7; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 407-9; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 41; Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxi; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 176-8; Clavigero, tom. i., p. 280; Oviedo, Hist. Gen., tom. iii., p. 497; Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 184-6.

[X-45] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 209-10; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 284-5; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 418-20; Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 338-40.

[X-46] See this vol., p. 464.

[X-47] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 280-1, the Tezcucan historian, is the only authority for this account, and it is probable enough that he has exaggerated Montezuma's treachery.

[X-48] For etymology of this name, see vol. ii., p. 130.

[X-49] Several names of places in the country were, however, of Aztec origin, and even the name Michoacan, 'place of fish,' is derived from the Aztec words michin and can. Beaumont, CrÓn. Mechoacan, MS., p. 47, says that the original name of the country was Tzintzuntzan, but he translates this, 'town of green birds.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 52, says Michoacan was 'le nom que les Mexicains donnaient À la rÉgion des Tarasques.'

[X-50] Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 214, mentions a Toltec party that emigrated to the Michoacan region, and dwelt there for a long time. Sahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 145-6, refers to a Toltec migration as an issue from the same region. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 39-40, speaks of Toltecs who founded colonies all along the Pacific coast, and gradually changed their language and customs.

[X-51] Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, pp. 120, 141.

[X-52] Gil, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. viii., pp. 500-1.

[X-53] See this vol. p. 328.

[X-54] See also Tello's version of Aztec settlement given by Gil, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. viii., p. 501.

[X-55] Hist. Gen., dec. iii., lib. iii., cap. ix.

[X-56] Hist., tom. iii., pp. 55-6.

[X-57] Called Chichimecas vanÁceos by Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., p. 266.

[X-58] 'Chaque tribu, chaque famille, souvent chaque personne avait son dieu ou ses gÉnies particuliers À peu prÈs comme les teraphim de Laban qu'enlevait À l'insu sa fille Rachel.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 61.

[X-59] Beaumont, CrÓn. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 48, 63.

[X-60] Beltrami, Mexique, tom. ii., p. 54. The first name given to the town was Guayangareo, says Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., p. 184. Padre Larrea translates Tzintzuntzan, 'town of green birds,' and the town was so called, he says, from the form of the idol. Beaumont calls it also Chincila and Huitzitzilaque. CrÓn. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 43, 46-7.

[X-61] Also known as Chiguangua, Chiguacua, and Tzihuanga.

[X-62] Also, Sintzicha Tangajuan, 'he of the fine teeth.'

[X-63] Beaumont, CrÓn. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 44-5, 68-9, 75. Herrera, dec. iii., lib. iii., cap. viii., translates Cazonzin by 'old sandals,' saying that the name was bestowed upon the king as a nick-name because of the shabby dress in which he appeared before CortÉs. According to Alegre, Hist. Comp. de Jesus, tom. i., p. 91, Caltzontzin was the name given to Zintzicha by the Spaniards. Beltrami, Mexique, tom. ii., p. 44, writes the name Sinzincha. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 338, calls him Caczoltzin. Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., pp. 184-6, writes Caltzontzin or Cinzica. 'Les relations et les histoires relatives au Michoacan donnent toutes au roi des Tarasques le titre ou le nom de Cazontzin. Était-ce un titre? c'est incertain. Torquemada ne sait ce qu'il doit en penser.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 78. Cazonzi 'paraÎt Être une corruption tarasque du mot nahuatl Caltzontzin, Chef ou tÊte de la maison.' Id., tom. iv., p. 363.

[X-64] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 66-7, renders this passage very ambiguously. 'Ce fut en ce lieu (Patamagua Nacaraho) que les dieux, frÈres de Curicaneri, se sÉparÈrent; chacun des chefs chichimÈques, prenant le sien, alla se fixer au lieu que la victoire lui donna. Pour lui, continuant le cours de ses conquÊtes, il chassa tour À tour le gibier sur les terres voisines, passant d'une montagne À l'autre, et jetant la terreur dans les populations d'alentour.'

[X-65] 'Patzcuaro veut Évidemment dire le lieu de temples; cu ou cua, dans la langue tarasque, comme dans la langue yucatÈque.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 72.

[X-66] Pimentel, Cuadro, tom. i., p. 499; Beaumont, CrÓn. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 61-2, quoting Basalenque, Hist. Mech., lib. i., cap. xv.

[X-67] Beaumont, CrÓn. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 60-61. Granados, p. 185, refers to a seven years' struggle, which may be the same as the above. The records indicate two great battles at Tajimaroa and Zichu.

[X-68] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 150; Alcedo, Dicc., tom. iii., p. 461; Pimentel, Cuadro, tom. i., p. 499. See also this vol., pp. 432-5. Sahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., p. 129.

[X-69] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 51-78; Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., pp. 264-85.

[X-70] Also spelled Tzihuanga, see note 62.

[X-71] See this vol., pp. 477-8. Beaumont says that Tlahuicol gained nothing during his six months' campaign except some booty, and he doubts whether that was much, as along the frontier there was little to be had. CrÓn. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 59-60.

[X-72] He bore the title of Caltzontzin. See note 63. Brasseur says he was also called Gwangwa Pagua, Hist., tom. iii., p. 78.

[X-73] Beaumont, CrÓn. Mechoacan, MS., p. 68.

[X-74] CrÓn. Mechoacan, MS., pp. 71-3.

[X-75] See vol. iii. of this work, p. 446.

[X-76] For boundaries of Miztecapan, see ante, vol. i., p. 678.

[X-77] See vol. i., p. 679, for boundaries.

[X-78] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., pp. 195-6; Murguia, Estadist. Guajaca, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii., p. 167.

[X-79] Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, p. 133; Veytia, tom. i., p. 150.

[X-80] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 32; Gomara, Conq. Mex., fol. 299; Motolinia, in Icazbalceta, Col. de Doc., tom. i., p. 8; Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., p. 175; Sahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., p. 136; Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, p. 120.

[X-81] Hist., tom. iii., p. 5.

[X-82] Brasseur, citing Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 128-9, says they were male and female, and from them descended the race that subsequently governed the country. Hist., tom. iii., p. 6; GarcÍa, OrÍgen de los Ind., pp. 327-8.

[X-83] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., pp. 128, 175-6; Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, p. 80, says this story is merely invented to show the great age of the Miztecs. See also ante, vol. iii., p. 73.

[X-84] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 128-9. Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, p. 126, says the Zapotecs took their region by force of arms from the Huatiquimanes, or Guanitiquimanes.

[X-85] Hist., tom. iii., pp. 8-9.

[X-86] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 255; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi.; Veytia, tom. i., p. 164; Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 297-8, 343-5.

[X-87] See vol. ii. of this work, pp. 209-11.

[X-88] 'De allÀ de la Costa del Sur, mas cerca de la Eclyptica vezindad del PerÙ, y segun las circunstancias de su lengua, y trato de la Provincia Ò Reyno de Nicarahua.' Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 396; Murguia, Estadist. Guajaca, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii., p. 183; Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, pp. 173-4. See also MÜhlenpfordt, Mejico, tom. ii., pt i., p. 176. Guillemot relates that some Peruvian families fled northward along the Cordilleras. On the banks of the Sarrabia they resorted to the fire test to find out whether the gods wished them to settle there. A brand was placed in a hole, but as it was extinct in the morning, they knew they must go further. Four emissaries went in search of another place. Beneath a coapinol-tree, where now stands Huixicovi, the brand-proof answered the test, and so they settled there. The coapinol is still venerated. Fossey, Mexique, pp. 50-1; see also p. 467.

[X-89] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 196.

[X-90] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 312, 367-76.

[X-91] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 197.

[X-92] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 39.

[X-93] Id.; Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 181, 188.

[X-94] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 230, 245.

[X-95] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 45.

[X-96] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 330; Murguia, Estadist. Guajaca, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii., pp. 167, 201.

[X-97] Herrera, dec. iv., lib. ix., cap. vii.; Murguia, Estadist. Guajaca, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii., p. 183; Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 280.

[X-98] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 302-3; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 48-50.

[X-99] See this volume, pp. 415-17.

[X-100] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 150.

[X-101] See this volume, p. 425.

[X-102] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 284-5, 338-40.

[X-103] See this volume pp. 443-7.

[X-104] Id., pp. 461-2.

[X-105] Murguia, Estadist. Guajaca, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii., p. 187.

[X-106] Hist., tom. iv., p. 539.

[X-107] Burgoa, Geog. Descrip. Oajaca, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 367-76.

[X-108] See p. 158.

[XI-1] See vol. ii., p. 121, et seq.

[XI-2] See map in vol. ii.

[XI-3] Popol Vuh, p. 79; this volume, p. 175.

[XI-4] Las Casas, Hist. ApologÉtica, MS., tom. iii., cap. cxxiv., cxxv.

[XI-5] This vol., pp. 178-80; Popol Vuh, p. 141.

[XI-6] Torquemada, tom. ii., pp. 53-4; Las Casas, Hist. ApologÉtica, MS., tom. iii., cap. cxxiv.

[XI-7] Brasseur, in Popol Vuh, p. cclvi. The only authority referred to on this matter of Copan is the Isagoge Historico, a manuscript cited in GarcÍa Pelaez, Mem. para la Historia del antiguo Reino de Guatemala, tom. i., p. 45 et seq.

[XI-8] The other names are Lamak, Cumatz, Tuhalha, Uchabaha, Chumilaha, Quibaha, Batenab, Acul-Vinak, Balamiha, Canchahel, and Balam-Colob, most of which Brasseur connects more or less satisfactorily with the scattered ruins in the Guatemala highlands, where these tribes afterwards settled. It is stated by the tradition that only the principal names are given.

[XI-9] The fourth god, Nicahtagah, is rarely named in the following pages; Tohil is often used for the trinity, Tohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz; and Balam-QuitzÉ for the band of the first four men or high-priests.

[XI-10] The names of the localities named as the hiding-places of the gods are said to be still attached to places in Vera Paz.

[XI-11] See p. 182, of this volume.

[XI-12] Another document consulted by Brasseur, Popol Vuh, p. 286, places four generations between Balam-QuitzÉ and Qocaib and Qocavib mentioned above as his sons.

[XI-13] Brasseur insists that this was Acxitl Quetzalcoatl, the last Toltec king, who had founded a great kingdom in Honduras, with the capital at Copan. Popol Vuh, p. 294.

[XI-14] Brasseur, in Popol Vuh, p. 297, gives a list from another document of many of these new settlements, many of which as he claims can be identified with modern localities. The chief of the new towns was Chiquix, 'in the thorns,' possibly the name from which QuichÉ was derived. This city occupied four hills, or was divided into four districts, the Chiquix, Chichac, Humetaha, and Culba-Cavinal.

[XI-15] Popol Vuh, pp. 205-99; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 83-118.

[XI-16] Brasseur, in Popol Vuh, pp. ccliii-cclxxi. The manuscripts referred to by this writer for this and the preceding information, are:—TÍtulo Territorial de los SeÑores de Totonicapan; TÍtulo Territorial de los SeÑores de Sacapulas; MS. Cakchiquel; TÍtulo Real de la Casa de Itzcuin-Nehaib; and TÍtulo de los SeÑores de Quezaltenango y de Momostenango.

[XI-17] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 73-150. The authorities referred to besides those already named are the following: Fuentes y Guzman, Recopilacion Florida de la Hist. de Guat., MS.; Ximenez, Hist. de los Reyes del QuichÉ, MS.; ChrÓnica de la Prov. de Goattemala, MS. The chief authority, however, is the MS. Cakchiquel, or MÉmorial de Tecpan-Atitlan.

[XI-18] The tribes named as having gathered here, are the QuichÉs, Rabinals, Cakchiquels, Zutugils, Ah-Tziquinaha, Tuhalaha, Uchabaha, Chumilaha, TucurÚ, Zacaha, Quibaha, Batenab, Balaniha, Canchahel, Balam Colob, Acul, Cumatz, Akahales, and Lamagi.

[XI-19] See p. 182, of this volume.

[XI-20] See vol. iv., pp. 128-30 , for notice of ruins.

[XI-21] See p. 555 of this volume.

[XI-22] This is evidently taken by Juarros, from the Spanish version of the Mexican traditions.

[XI-23] The reader is already aware that no such kings ever reigned over the Toltecs in AnÁhuac. It is evident that the author has confounded the Tulan of the Guatemalan annals with Tollan, the Toltec capital in AnÁhuac, and the Nahua migration from the Xibalban region in the fourth or fifth century, with that of the Toltecs in the eleventh.

[XI-24] Juarros, Hist. Guat., (Guat., 1857) pp. 7-9. The extract that I have made extends a little beyond the point at which I have left the other records. I give here also a list of the QuichÉ kings, who were according to Juarros: 1, Acxopil; 2, Jiuhtemal; 3, Hunahpu; 4, Balam KichÉ (Balam-QuitzÉ); 5, Balam Acam (Balam-Agab); 6, Maucotah (Mahucutah); 7, Iquibalam (Iqi-Balam); 8, Kicab I.; 9, Cacubraxechein; 10, Kicab II.; 11, IximchÉ; 12, Kicab III.; 13, Kicab IV.; 14, Kicab Tamub; 15, Tecum Umam; 16, Chignaviucelut; 17, Sequechul or Sequechil.

The list of the QuichÉ princes of the royal house of Cawek, according to the order of the generations, is given in the Popol Vuh, pp. 339-40, Ximenez, pp. 133-4, as follows—the list apparently includes not only the Ahpop, or king, but the Ahpop Camha, heir apparent to the throne. And, as is indicated by the course of the history, and as Brasseur believes, each Ahpop Camha succeeded the Ahpop on the throne, so that the whole number of the QuichÉ kings, down to the coming of the Spaniards, counting from Qocavib, was twenty-two instead of eleven, as the list might seem to imply and as Ximenez evidently understands it:—1, Balam-QuitzÉ; 2, Qocavib, (although we have seen that, by other documents several generations are placed between the first and second of this list); 3, Balam Conache (the first to take the title Ahpop); 4, Cotuha and Iztayub; 5, Gucumatz and Cotuha; 6, Tepepul and Iztayul; 7, Quicab and Cavizimah; 8, Tepepul and Xtayub; 9, Tecum and Tepepul; 10, Vahxaki-Caam and Quicab; 11, Vukub Noh and Cavatepech; 12, Oxib-Quieh and Beleheb Tzi (reigning when Alvarado came, and hung by the Spaniards); 13, Tecum and Tepepul; 14, Don Juan de Rojas and Don Juan CortÉs.

The princes of the house of NihaÏb given by the same authority, p. 343, Ximenez, pp. 135, were as follows:—1, Balam-Agab; 2, Qoacul and Qoacutec; 3, Qochahuh and Qotzibaha; 4, Beleheb-Gih; 5, Cotuha; 6, Batza; 7, Ztayul; 8, Cotuha; 9, Beleheb-Gih; 10, Quema; 11, Cotuha; 12, Don ChristÓval; 13, Don Pedro de Robles.

List of the princes of the Royal House of Ahau QuichÉ, Popol Vuh, p. 345, Ximenez, pp. 136-7; 1, Mahucutah; 2, Qoahau; 3, Caklacan; 4, Qocozom; 5, Comahcan; 6, Vukub-Ah; 7, Qocamel; 8, Coyabacoh, Vinak-Bam. These lists, however, do not seem to correspond altogether with the QuichÉ annals as given by the same authority, as the reader will see in the succeeding pages.

[XI-25] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 38, tom. ii., pp. 338-40. See also Helps' Span. Conq., vol. iii., pp. 246-9.

[XI-26] GeografÍa, pp. 97-9, 128, et seq.

[XI-27] Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 8.

[XI-28] Voy. Pitt., pp. 41, 646.

[XI-29] Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 155-75.

[XI-30] Pp. 299-307; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 475-99; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 119-21.

[XI-31] In his Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 478, Brasseur seems to regard Balam II. and Conache as two kings, one succeeding the other, but in his notes to Popol Vuh, p. cclxxiii., he unites them in one.

[XI-32] TÍtulo de los SeÑores de Totonicapan.

[XI-33] TÍtulo de los SeÑores de Totonicapan, in the introduction to Popol Vuh, pp. cclxxv-vi.

[XI-34] See p. 529, of this volume.

[XI-35] Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 483-9.

[XI-36] See p. 570-1, of this volume.

[XI-37] Brasseur places his reign somewhere between 1225 and 1275.

[XI-38] The Popol Vuh represents Utatlan, as we have seen, p. 573, to have been first occupied by Cotuha and Gucumatz; meaning, as is shown by the table of kings in the same document—see p. 566, of this volume—by Gucumatz as king and Cotuha II. as second in rank. Brasseur states that the name Gumarcaah was then given to the city, but it is much more likely that this was the ancient name, and Utatlan of later origin.

[XI-39] For description of the ruins of Utatlan, see vol. iv., pp. 124-8 .

[XI-40] Juarros, Hist. Guat., pp. 9-16.

[XI-41] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 150-2, 475-7, 499. The opinion that Hunahpu and Gucumatz were identical, however, is said to receive some support from the Isagoge Historico, of Pelaez' work, quoted by Id., in Popol Vuh, p. 316.

[XI-42] See vol. ii., pp. 637-44.

[XI-43] Or, as Ximenez renders it, to Hell.

[XI-44] He is named as being of the fifth generation in the tables at the end of the document.

[XI-45] Popol Vuh, pp. 307-17; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 121-5; Id., Escolios, in Id., pp. 165-8. This last work is perhaps the same as that quoted by Brasseur as Ximenez, Hist. de los Reyes del QuichÉ, MS., but it is merely a list of kings with some of their deeds, adding nothing whatever, in a historical point of view, to the translation of the QuichÉ record.

[XI-46] Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., pp. 493-9; Id., in Popol Vuh, p. cclxxvi.

[XI-47] TÍtulo de los SeÑores de Totonicapan, in Popol Vuh, pp. cclxxvi-vii.

[XI-48] Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 501-3.

[XI-49] See p. 576, of this vol.

[XI-50] Cakchiquels and Pipiles almost constantly at war; Squier's Cent. Amer., p. 323; Id., in Nouvelles Annales, tom. cliii., p. 180.

[XI-51] Juarros, Hist. Guat., pp. 16-23. Fuentes used a history written by a son and grandson of the last king of Guatemala, MÜller, Amer. Urrel., p. 454. Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. 46, declares the Guatemalan manuscripts not reliable, and states that the Macario manuscript used by Fuentes was badly translated.

[XI-52] Juarros, Hist. Guat., pp. 23-4.

[XI-53] The seventh according to the tables.

[XI-54] Popol Vuh, pp. 317-27; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 125-9. There are some differences and omissions in the Spanish translation.

[XI-55] Escolios, in Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 168-9.

[XI-56] Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 503-45.

[XI-57] Escolios, in Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 169-71.

[XI-58] Juarros, Hist. Guat., pp. 24-6.

[XI-59] Id., pp. 9-11, 35-9.

[XI-60] Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 529-45.

[XI-61] Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 26. It is impossible to connect this account in any way with the others.

[XI-62] Ximenez, Escolios, in Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 172-3.

[XI-63] See p. 470 of this volume; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 624.

[XI-64] Brasseur, Hist., tom. iv., pp. 619-51, with reference to MS. Cakchiquel, and other documents.

[XII-1] See for location of these tribes, vol. i., pp. 681-2.

[XII-2] Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. xi.; Remesal, Hist. Chyapa, p. 264; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., p. 16.

[XII-3] Remesal, ib.; Herrera, ib.; Murguia, Estadist. Guajaca, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. vii., p. 187.

[XII-4] Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 8.

[XII-5] Clavigero, tom. iv., p. 52, tom. i., pp. 150-1; Larrainzar, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., p. 92; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., p. 202.

[XII-6] Boturini, Idea, pp. 115, 118-19.

[XII-7] Five-leaved silk-cotton tree, Bombax Ceiba.

[XII-8] PiÑeda, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., pp. 344-5. The names of these heroes were: Imox, Igh, Votan, Chanan, Abah, Tox, Moxic, Lambat, Molo or Mulu, Elab, Batz, Evob, Been, Hix, Tziquin, Chabin, Chic, Chinax, Cahogh, Aghual.

[XII-9] Who these 'better known tribes' are is not stated.

[XII-10] PiÑeda, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., p. 346. The history, position and civilization of the Chiapanecs shows that they preceded, or were at least contemporaries of the first tribes or factions of the Aztec family. They were certainly a very ancient people, and of Toltec origin, while their civilization undoubtedly came from the north and not from the south. Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, pp. 44, 60, 120.

[XII-11] Clavigero, tom. iv., pp. 267-8; Bernal Diaz, Hist. Conq., fol. 73, 178; Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. xi.; Larrainzar, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. iii., p. 92; Brasseur, Esquisses, p. 17.

[XII-12] Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. xi.; Remesal, Hist. Chyapa, p. 264.

[XII-13] Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 333. Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 76, identifies them with the Pipiles and Xuchiltepecs.

[XII-14] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 332.

[XII-15] Cuzcatlan was the ancient name of Salvador.

[XII-16] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 78-9. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 332, relates that twenty days after starting, one of their high-priests died. They then traversed Guatemala, and journeying a hundred leagues farther on, came to a country to which the Spaniards have given the name of Choluteca, or Choroteca. Here another priest died. After this the author goes on to tell the story which, according to the version followed above, applies to the Xuchiltepecs who proceeded to the Gulf of Conchagua, and which will be referred to elsewhere.

[XII-17] Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 224. A reduplication of pilli, which has two meanings, 'noble,' and 'child,' the latter being generally regarded as its meaning in the tribal name. Buschmann, Ortsnamen, p. 137. See also Molina, Vocabulario.

[XII-18] Juarros, Hist. Guat., pp. 81-4, 17-18, 20, 23, 26.

[XII-19] 'L'Époque que les ÉvÉnements paraissent assigner À cette lÉgende coÏncide avec la pÉriode de la grande Émigration toltÈque et la fondation des divers royaumes guatÉmaliens qui en furent la consÉquence.' Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 81.

[XII-20] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 336; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 106-7; Herrera, dec. iv., lib. viii., cap. iv.

[XII-21] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 101-5.

[XII-22] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 332; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 79, 107-8. See vol. i., of this work, p. 791, for territory of Cholutecs.

[XII-23] Torquemada, tom. i., p. 332; Levy, Nicaragua, p. 6; see vol. i., of this work, p. 792.

[XII-24] Id.

[XII-25] Id.

[XII-26] Id., p. 790.

[XII-27] Nicaragua, (Ed. 1856), vol. ii., pp. 309-12; Oviedo, Hist. Gen., tom. iv., p. 35.

[XII-28] For locality, see vol. i., p. 792.

[XII-29] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 332-3.

[XII-30] Hist., tom. ii., pp. 108-9.

[XIII-1] On the name of this country see:—Landa, Relacion, and Brasseur, in Id., pp. 6, 8, 42-3; Lizana, in Id., p. 348; Perez MS., in Id., pp. 421, 429; Id., in Stephens' Yucatan, vol. ii., pp. 465, 467; see also vol. i., pp. 139-40; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 60-1, 178-9; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, p. 28; Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., pp. 30-1; Malte-Brun, Yucatan, pp. 14-15; Gomara, Hist. Ind., fol. 60.

[XIII-2] Landa, Relacion, p. 28; Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii.

[XIII-3] Lizana, in Landa, Relacion, p. 354; Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, p. 128. Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., p. 178, quotes this from Lizana.

[XIII-4] Lizana and Cogolludo, as above. Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., p. 32, also reverses the statement of the tradition respecting the relative numbers of the respective colonies.

[XIII-5] Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, p. 129.

[XIII-6] Veytia, tom. i., p. 237; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 269; Lizana, in Landa, Relacion, p. 354; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., p. 178; Fancourt's Hist. Yuc., p. 115.

[XIII-7] Stephens' Yucatan, vol. ii., pp. 304-8, 342-3, 453-4; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 201-2; Morelet, Voyage, tom. i., pp. 270-1; Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., pp. 44-5; Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc., vol. i., pp. 99-100; WappÄus, Geog. u. Stat., pp. 33, 142; Prichard's Researches, vol. v., p. 346; Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., pp. 31-2.

[XIII-8] On ZamnÁ, see:—vol. iii., pp. 462-5 of this work; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 178, 192, 196-7; Landa, Relacion, pp. 328-30; Lizana, in Id., p. 356; Brasseur, Hist., tom. i., pp. 78-80; Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. 23; Malte-Brun, Yucatan, pp. 15-17.

[XIII-9] On Cukulcan and the Itzas, see:—Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii.; Torquemada, tom. ii., p. 52, tom. iii., p. 133; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 190, 196-7; Landa, Relacion, pp. 34-9, 340-2; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 10-13; Malte-Brun, Yucatan, pp. 15-16; Stephens' Yucatan, vol. i., pp. 140-1.

[XIII-10] In a note to Landa, Relacion, pp. 35, 39; Orozco y Berra, GeografÍa, pp. 155-6.

[XIII-11] Vol. iii., p. 465; Malte-Brun, Yucatan, pp. 15-16.

[XIII-12] Torquemada, tom. ii., p. 52; Landa, Relacion, pp. 38-45, 54-6; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 179-80; Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii.; Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., p. 34; Malte-Brun, Yucatan, pp. 15-6.

[XIII-13] Landa, Relacion, pp. 44-8. 'Le nom des Tutul-Xiu paraÎt d'origine nahuatl; il serait dÉrivÉ de totol, tototl, oiseau, et de xÍuitl, ou xÍhuitl, herbe, etc. En ceci il n'y aurait rien d'extraordinaire, puisqu'ils sortaient de Tula ou Tulapan, citÉ qui aurait ÉtÉ la capitale des Nahuas ou ToltÈques aprÈs leur victoire sur Xibalba.' Brasseur, in Id., p. 47. See also Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii., iii.; Torquemada, tom. iii., p. 132; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 178, 182; Morelet, Voyage, tom. i., p. 271; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 171; Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., pp. 34-5.

[XIII-14] This volume, pp. 227-8. Additional study of the subject has caused me to modify considerably in this chapter some of the statements on Maya history contained in vol. ii., pp. 118-20.

[XIII-15] Stephens' Yucatan, vol. ii., pp. 465-9; Brasseur, in Landa, Relacion, pp. 420-9.

[XIII-16] For an account of this system of Ahau Katunes and the order of their succession, see vol. ii., pp. 762-5.

[XIII-17] See vol. ii., pp. 762-5.

[XIII-18] In his Hist. Nat. Civ., Brasseur follows this system and repeatedly gives 174 (171 on p. 228 of this volume is a misprint) as the date of this migration, using it indeed to fix the date of the migration of the Toltecs and QuichÉs from Tulan; but he adopts the other theory in his notes to Landa's work.

[XIII-19] Reckoning an epoch as 24 years, the migration lasted from 173 to 270, or 97 years instead of 81, as in the text. Perez has it from 144 to 217, or 73 years, which agrees neither with the text nor with his own theory.

[XIII-20] As late as 661 or 485, if Perez' statement of 8 Ahau be accepted, which is inconsistent with the whole record.

[XIII-21] From 218 to 360, according to Perez; or according to his statement that four epochs elapsed, from 270 to 366.

[XIII-22] 360 to 432, Perez; 533 to 605, on the basis of 24 years to an epoch.

[XIII-23] 432 to 576, Perez; 605 to 725 on the basis of 24 years to an epoch.

[XIII-24] Or 821 according to the other system.

[XIII-25] We have seen above that there is some confusion about the date of the Tutul Xius taking Chichen.

[XIII-26] In his commentary, Perez applies this stay of 13 epochs to the Tutul Xius, although the text seems to state the contrary, making them live in Champoton from 576 to 888; or if he had added simply the 260 years of the text, 576 to 836; or if he had correctly adapted his chronology to his own theory, from 821 to 1133. On a basis of 24 years to a Katun the stay of the Itzas at Champoton, as given in the text, was from 533 to 821.

[XIII-27] 888-936, Perez; 821-869, on the basis of 24 years. Perez, applying this wandering to the Tutul Xius, makes them settle again at Chichen.

[XIII-28] 936-1176, Perez; 869-1109, on basis of 24 years, but this of course would not agree with the two hundred years of the text.

[XIII-29] Perez makes these events, which he seems to regard as two or three distinct wars, fill the time from 1176 to 1258. From 1119 to 1157, on a basis of 24 years.

[XIII-30] 1258 to 1368, Perez; 1229 to 1445, on the basis of 24 years. Perez admits in his commentary only one destruction of Mayapan in 1308.

[XIII-31] Or, on a basis of 24 years to a Katun, between 1493 and 1517. Either of these dates agrees very well with the facts, since CÓrdova reached the coast of Yucatan in 1517, and GerÓnimo de Aguilar was wrecked there, probably some years earlier. But Perez dates their arrival between 1392 and 1488, before America was discovered!

[XIII-32] Perez directly contradicts the text in placing this death in 1493.

[XIII-33] Vol. iv., pp. 140-285 .

[XIII-34] Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., p. 197.

[XIII-35] It seems to me very probable that there is an error or omission by the copyist or translator in this part of the document.

[XIII-36] On this revolution see:—Landa, Relacion, pp. 48-52, 56. This author calls the Chel prince Achchel, and calls him the son-in-law of a venerable priest in Mayapan. Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii., iii.; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 60, 178-9; Lizana, in Landa, Relacion, p. 350; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, p. 28; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 32-40, 48-9. This author calls him Ahalin Chel, and their province Cicontun. Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., pp. 31, 35; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 172-3; Prichard's Researches, vol. v., p. 347; Malte-Brun, Yucatan, pp. 20-1; Stephens' Yuc., vol. i., pp. 140-1.

[XIII-37] Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 41-2, tells us that their province was called Calkini, and the people, from their ruler, took the name of Ahcanuls; and also that they built or enlarged the cities of SabacchÉ, LabnÁ, and Pokboc. (See vol. iv., pp. 211-8 ) The only authority for the latter statement is probably the location of these ruins in a general southern direction from Uxmal. Cogolludo says the natives of Conil and ChoÀca, called Kupules, were the most warlike in Yucatan. Hist. Yuc., p. 143; see also Landa, Relacion, p. 54; Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. iii.

[XIII-38] Landa, Relacion, pp. 54-5; Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. iii.; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., p. 42; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., p. 143; Malte-Brun, Yucatan, p. 20.

[XIII-39] Registro Yuc., tom. ii., pp. 261-72. The tradition is given in the form of a dialogue between a visitor to the ruins and a native of extraordinary intelligence, who claimed to be well acquainted with the historical traditions of his race. Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 578-88, gives what is probably an extended translation of the article referred to. Stephens, Cent. Amer., vol. ii., pp. 423-5, obtained from a native a tradition similar in some respects, so far as it goes, which is translated by Charnay, Ruines AmÉr., pp. 369-71.

[XIII-40] See vol. iv., pp. 172 , 192-7 .

[XIII-41] Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 507-8; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, pp. 29-31, 401-2, 488-91; Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., pp. 24, 36, 41; Stephens' Yucatan, vol. ii., p. 200; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., p. 98; Ternaux-Compans, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcvii., pp. 51-2; Squier's Cent. Amer., pp. 547, 550-1.

[XIII-42] Herrera, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii., iii.; Torquemada, tom. iii., p. 132; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 100, 179; Landa, Relacion, pp. 50-2, 62; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, p. 28; Stephens' Yucatan, vol. i., pp. 140-1; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 172-3. Landa makes the date 100 years before the Conquest, that is 1446. Villagutierre and Cogolludo say 1420. Herrera says 70 years before the arrival of the Spaniards, and 500 years after its foundation. Gallatin makes it 1517 or 1536.

[XIII-43] Landa, Relacion, pp. 58-64; Herrera, dec. ii., lib. iii., cap. i., dec. iv., lib. x., cap. iii.; Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., pp. 97-100, 185; Gomara, Hist. Ind., fol. 63; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, pp. 35-7; Torquemada, tom. iii., pp. 132-3; Alcedo, Dicc., tom. iii., p. 473; Remesal, Hist. Chyapa, pp. 245-6.

END OF THE FIFTH VOLUME.