Granted that is so, what inference do you draw from it? That the Mexicans had chariots? Hardly, since all authorities are silent on the subject, and when we know that the only means of transportation was afforded by carriers. But if such chariots were not available in distant expeditions across rivers, over mountain paths, through immense forests, it was not so within the radius of a city having good roads; and what is there against the possibility of a hand-cart corresponding with ours having been in use?
I am far from affirming that it was so, although certain expressions and quotations might be adduced which would show the supposition to be not so far-fetched as it looks on the face of it. We read in the Ramirez manuscript, for instance, that Montezuma II. set out for his Huaxateca expedition with a numerous army and carruages.[79] Why should the Indian writer have used an ambiguous word meaning both chariot and transport, when the former must already have been extant when he wrote—that is, after the Conquest? Farther, Padre Duran relates how this same Montezuma, wishing to erect a temalacatl, had a huge block quarried at Aculco, near Amecameca; and Plate XXV. shows this block raised by means of a rude chariot having clog-wheels, drawn by a multitude of Indians.[80] The text,
CARTS, CHILDREN’S TOYS. it is true, does not specify a chariot; but if they were unknown, how do they come in his drawing? It is unaccountable, too, that no mention is made of the stone having been brought on rollers or wheels, seeing that it could not have come so great a distance by any other means. It is altogether a mystery.
Lastly, Juarros, in describing the battle at Pinar, fought against Alvarado, mentions war-engines, or what would now be called ammunition carts, moving on rodadillos, which were drawn by armed men wherever they were required. These carts were loaded with arrows, spears, shields, stones, slings, etc., and men, chosen for the service, distributed them as they were wanted.[81] Does “rodadillo” mean here a clog-wheel or a roller? If these carts carried arms to combatants in different parts of the field of battle, does it not follow that they moved on wheels, since rollers would have made the diminutive “forts” immovable, contrary to the end proposed?
Should, however, both quotations and arguments seem valueless, it might be added that the toy chariots were perhaps of primeval Toltec invention, the use of which had been lost after their expulsion from the plateaux.
But to return to the cemetery. Whether it be considered Toltec or otherwise, whether ancient or comparatively modern, we hold to its antiquity, to its being essentially Nahua, dedicated to Tlaloc, the god of rain and plenty, the fertiliser of the earth, the Lord of Paradise, the protector of green harvests. We are in his dominions, for he was believed to reside where the clouds gather, on the highest mountain-tops.
The first plate shows the vases unearthed at Tenenepanco, five of which portray this god, with his prominent eyes, the drops of water streaming down his face, making up his teeth, his beard or moustachios; he holds in his right hand a writhing serpent, thereby representing the flash and the thunderbolt—his voice as heard in storms. In the Nahualac Plate four vases also figure the same god.
The nations who succeeded the Toltecs on the plateaux adopted this eminently Toltec deity, who was one of the most popular gods down to the Conquest. The later tribes, however, discarding the mild practices of the Toltecs, stained his cult with human sacrifices. We will add a few quotations showing how great was the analogy between the places consecrated to Tlaloc and the Tenenepanco cemetery.