[53] The fullest versions of the Mexican cosmic ages, or "Suns," are: (a) Ixtlilxochitl (Historia Chichimeca, I. i; Relaciones, ed. Kingsborough, ix. 321 ff., 459); (b) Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas, i-viii—the narrative which most resembles a primitive myth; (c) Anales de Cuauhtitlan (ed. Ramirez, pp. 9-11), partly translated into French by Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], i. Appendice, pp. 425-27, where the version of the deluge myth is given; (d) Spiegazione dette tavole del Codice Mexicano (i.e. Codex Vaticanus A), where Plates VII-X are described as symbols of the Suns; though a discordant explanation is given in connexion with Plate V. Other authorities are Gómara , p. 431; Muñoz Camargo, p. 132; Humboldt [a], ii, Plate XXVI; and especially Charency [a], who makes a comparative study of the myth. Monumental evidences are discussed by Seler [a], ii, "Die Ausgrabungen am Orte des Haupttempels in Mexico," and by MacCurdy [a]. Maya forms of the myth are sketched infra, pp. [153-55]; cf. pp. [159] ff.
[54] The Spiegazione contains the description of the deluge (Kingsborough, vi. 195-96), chiefly in connexion with Plate XVI. Similar material, briefly treated, is in the Explicación del Codex Telleriano-Remensis.
[55] The literature dealing with the Mexican calendar is voluminous. Summary treatments of the subject, based on recent studies, are to be found in Beuchat, II. i. 5; Joyce , iii.; Preuss, art. "Calendar (Mexican and Mayan)," in ERE. The primary sources for knowledge of the calendar are three: (1) writings of the early chroniclers, among whom the most noteworthy are Sahagun, books ii, iv, vii, and León y Gama, who derives in part from Cristobal del Castillo; (2) calendric codices, the more important being Codex Borgia, studied by Fábrega, in AnMM v, and by Seler [a], i, and [e]; Codex Borbonicus, studied by Hamy [a], and de Jonghe; Codex Vaticanus B (3773), studied by Seler [d]; Codex Ferjérváry-Mayer, studied by Seler [c]; Codex Bologna (or Cospianus), studied by Seler [a], i; Codex Nuttall, studied by Nuttall; and the Tonalamatl of the Aubin Collection, studied by Seler ; (3) monuments, especially calendar stones: León y Gama, Dos Piedras; Chavero [a]; MacCurdy [a]; and Róbelo are studies of such monuments. Recent investigations of importance, in addition to papers by Seler ([a] and elsewhere), are Z. Nuttall, "The Periodical Adjustments of the Ancient Mexican Calendar," in AA, new series, vi (1904), and Preuss, "Kosmische Hieroglyphen der Mexikaner," in ZE xxxiii (1901). Studies of the Maya calendar (especially the important contributions of Förstemann, in 28 BBE) and of that of the Zapotec (Seler, "The Mexican Chronology, with Special Reference to the Zapotec Calendar," ib.) are, of course, intimately related to the Aztec system. For statement of current problems, see Lehmann [a], pp. 164-66.
[56] For Mexican astronomy, in addition to the studies of the codices, see Sahagun, bk. vii; Tezozomoc, lxxxii; Seler, 28 BBE, "The Venus Period in the Picture Writings of the Borgian Codex Group" (tr. from art. in Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, 1898); Hagar [a], ; Chavero ; and Nuttall [a], especially pp. 245-59. On the question of the zodiac, advocated by Hagar, see H. J. Spinden, "The Question of the Zodiac in America," in AA, new series, xviii (1916), and the bibliography there given.
[57] Accounts of the archaeology of Tollan, or Tula, are to be found in Charnay [a], iv-vi, and in Joyce , especially in the Appendix. Sahagun's description of the Toltec is in X. xxix. 1. The Spiegazione of Codex Vaticanus A, Plate X, gives interesting additions (here quoted from Kingsborough, vi. 178). The chief authority, however, is Ixtlilxochitl, whose accounts of the Toltec, Chichimec, and especially Tezcucan powers have frequently been regarded with suspicion, as coloured by too free a fancy. Nevertheless, as Lehmann points out ([a], p. 121), it is certain that Ixtlilxochitl had at his command sources now lost. Much of his material is clearly in a native vein, and there is no impossibility that it is a version of history which is only slightly exalted.
[58] Spanish and French versions of the elegy of Nezahualcoyotl (here rather freely adapted) are in TC xiv. 368-73.
[59] The Aztec migration is a conspicuous feature of native tradition, and is, therefore, prominent in the histories, being figured by several of the codices, as well as in Durán's Album. An early narration of the Aztec myth forms chh. ix ff. of the Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas, while the Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacan y de México, the narrative of the "Anónimo Mexicano," and Tezozomoc, i-iii, give other native versions. Mendieta, Sahagun, and Durán, are other sources for the myth. Seler [a], ii, "Wo lag Aztlan, die Heimat der Azteken?" gives a careful study of the mythical elements in the migration-story as displayed in the Codex Boturini and elsewhere. Orozco y Berra [a], iv, presents a comparative study of the Aztec rulers, drawn from the various accounts. Buelna's Peregrinación is generally regarded as the completest study of the migration from both legendary and archaeological evidence. Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], VI. iv, contains an account of the Aztlan myth, while VII sketches the development of Nahuatlan power in Tezcuco and Mexico; in ii. 598-602, the Abbé gives his chronological restoration of the history of Anahuac. Motezuma's Corona Mexicana should be mentioned as a partly native source for the records of the Aztec monarchs; while Chimalpahin represents not only a native record, but one composed in the native tongue.
[60] Mendieta, II. xxxiii-xxxiv.
[61] Sahagun, X. xxix. 12.