[23] Doubtless it should be stated at the outset that there is serious and reasonable question on the part of not a few students of aboriginal Mexico as to whether Aztec institutions merit the name "empire" in any sense analogous to those of the imperial states of the Old World. "A loose confederacy of democratic Indians" is the phrase employed by Waterman [a], p. 250, in describing the form of the Mexican state as it is pictured by Morgan, Bandelier, Fiske, and others (see Waterman, loc. cit., for sources); and it is altogether reasonable to expect that Americanist studies will eventually show that the great Middle American nations were developed from, and retained characteristics of, communities resembling the Pueblos of our own Southwest rather than the European states which the Spaniards had in the eye when they made their first observations. It is to be expected, too, that a changed complexion put upon the interpretation of Mexican society will eventually modify the interpretation of Mexican ritual and mythology, giving it, for example, something less of the uranian significance upon which scholars of the school of Förstemann and Seler put so great weight, and something more, if not of the Euhemerism of Brasseur de Bourbourg, at least of reliance upon social motives and historical traditions.
[24] Of all regions of primitive America, ancient Mexico is represented by the most extensive literature; and here, too, more has been transmitted directly from native sources than is the case elsewhere. The hieroglyphic codices, the anonymous Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas and Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacan y de Mexico (better known and commonly cited as The Annals of Quauhtitlan), and the writings of men of native blood in the Spanish period, notably Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, and Chimalpahin, are the most important of these sources; unless, as is doubtless proper, the works of Sahagun, originally written in Nahuatl from native sources, be here included—undoubtedly the single source of greatest importance. Among Spanish writers of the early period, after Sahagun, the most important are Cristobal del Castillo, Diego Durán, Gómara, Herrera, Mendieta, Motolinia, Tobar, and Torquemada. Boturini, Clavigero, Veytia, Kingsborough, Prescott, and Brasseur de Bourbourg are important names of the intermediate period; while recent scholarship is represented by Brinton, Bancroft, Hamy, García Icazbalceta, Orozco y Berra, Peñafiel, Ramirez, Rosny, and most conspicuously by Seler. The most convenient recent introductions to the subject are afforded by Beuchat, Manuel; Joyce, Mexican Archaeology; Spinden, Ancient Civilizations of Mexico; while the best guide to the whole literature is Lehmann's "Ergebnisse und Aufgaben der mexikanistischen Forschung," in Archiv für Anthropologie, new series, vi, 1907 (translated as Methods and Results in Mexican Research, Paris, 1909). But while the material is relatively abundant, it is so only for the dominant race represented by the Aztec. For the non-Nahuatlan civilizations of Mexico the literature is sparse, especially upon the side of mythology. Sahagun gives certain details, mainly incidental, except in X. xxix, which is devoted to a brief description of the peoples of Mexico. Gómara, Herrera, and Torquemada afford added materials, touching several regions. For the Totonac-Huastec region the sources are particularly scanty, except for such descriptions of externals as naturally appear in the chronicles of Cortez, Bernal Diaz, and other conquistadores who here made their first intimate acquaintance with the mainland natives. Fewkes [g] deals with the monuments of the Totonac region, and expresses the opinion (p. 241, note) that the Codex Tro-Cortesianus, commonly said to be Maya, was obtained in this region, near Cempoalan; Holmes , and Seler, in numerous places, are also material sources for interpretation of the monuments. For the Tarascans of Michoacan the most important source is an anonymous Relacion de las ceremonias, rictos, población y gobernacion de los Indios de Michuacan hecha al illmo. Sr. D. Ant. de Mendoza (Madrid, 1875; Morelia, 1903), while of recent studies Nicolás León's Los Tarascos (see León [c]) is the most comprehensive. The Mixtec-Zapotec area fares better, both as to number of sources and later studies. Burgoa, Juan de Córdoba, Gregorio García, Balsalobre, Herrera, Las Casas, and Torquemada are the primary authorities; while the most significant later studies are doubtless those of Seler, "The Mexican Chronology with Special Reference to the Zapotec Calendar," and "Wall Paintings of Mitla," both in 28 BBE. Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], bk. ix, deals with the Mixtec-Zapotec and Tarascan peoples, and is still a good introduction to the literature. Cf. also Alvarez; Castellanos (himself a Zapotec); Génin; León [d]; Mechling; Portillo; Radin.
[25] The works of Clavigero, Helps, Prescott, Orozco y Berra , and Veytia are the best-known histories narrating the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Of the earlier writers Bernal Diaz, who took part in the expeditions of Cordova and Grijalva, as well as in that of Cortez, is the most important (of his work there are several English translations besides that of Maudsley in HS—by Maurice Keatinge, London, 1800, by John G. Lockhart, London, 1844, and a condensed version by Kate Stephens, The Mastering of Mexico, New York, 1915).
[26] Bernal Diaz, ch. xcii (quoted), describes the ascent of the temple overlooking Tlatelolco. Seler [a], ii. 769-70, says that on the upper platform were two shrines, one to Tlaloc, the other to the three idols described by Bernal Diaz, of which the principal was not "Huichilobos" (Huitzilopochtli), but Coatlicue, the earth goddess. The "page" Seler regards as the tutelary of Tlatelolco, called Tlacauepan. The great temple of Huitzilopochtli was in the centre of the city, on the site of the present Cathedral. See León y Gama; Seler [a], loc. cit.; and cf. Zelia Nuttall, "L'Évèque Zumárraga et les principales idoles du Templo Mayor de Mexico," in SocAA xxx (1911).
[27] General descriptions of the Aztec pantheon are given by Beuchat, livre ii, Ie partie, chh. v, vi, and by Joyce , ch. ii. The most important early source is Sahagun, bk. i; other primary sources are Mendieta, bk. ii (derived from de Olmos), León y Gama (in part from Cristobal del Castillo), Ruiz de Alarcón, Jacinto de la Serna, the Tratado de los ritos y ceremonias y dioses of the Códice Ramirez (see Tobar, in Bibliography), and the explanations of the Codices Vaticanus A and Telleriano-Remensis (Kingsborough, v, vi). Of recent works the most significant are Seler [a] (collected essays), and , [c], [d], [e] (analyses of divinatory or astrological codices).
[28] For data concerning the use of these numbers by American peoples north of Mexico, see Mythology of All Races, Boston, 1916, x, Ch. IX, iv, and Notes 11, 31, 42, 50, with references there given. Further allusions to the nine and thirteen of Mexican cosmology will be found infra, Ch. III,[ i], [iii]. The origin of the peculiar uses of the number thirteen is a puzzle without satisfactory solution. In the explanation of Vaticanus A (Kingsborough, vi. 198, note), it is said—referring to the statement that "Tonacatecotle" presides over the "thirteen causes"—that "the causes are really only nine, corresponding in number with the heavens. But since four of them are reckoned twice in every series of thirteen days, in order that each day might be placed under some peculiar influence, they are said to be thirteen." This, however, is probably assuming effect for cause (cf. Ch. III, [iii]).
[29] Sahagun, VI. xxxii. Other references to Sahagun are, III, Appendix i; X. xxi.
[30] Seler , p. 31; [c], pp. 5, 10, 14.
[31] Seler [c], pp. 5-31, where he discusses the whole problem of cruciform and caryatid figures; as also in [e], ii., 107, 126-34; [d], pp. 76-93.
[32] Seler [a], index, s. w., is a guide to the manifold attributes of the Aztec gods. The most important myths concerning them are related by Sahagun, bk. iii, and by the authorities cited with respect to cosmogonies, infra, Ch. III, [i], [ii].