[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.