The Aztec migration and the itinerary as generally accepted demands consideration before forming any judgment on the location of Aztlan. In this primitive abode we are told that each year the Aztecs crossed a great river or channel to Teo-Culhuacan for the purpose of offering sacrifices in honor of their god Tetzauch. But it happened that a bird appeared to Huitziton, one of the greatest of their chiefs (whom Bancroft thinks was identical with Mecitl or Mexi—hence the name Mexicans), and constantly reiterated the word tihui, tihui, meaning “let us go, let us go.” This singular occurrence was interpreted by Huitziton as a command from the gods for them to seek a new country, and after persuading the chief Tecpatzin to his view, the divine oracle was announced to the people. Accordingly, in the year 1064, according to some authors,[410] or in 1090 according to others,[411] or a century later than the first-named date according to some of the interpreters of the Aztec migration maps, the Nahuatlaca tribes left their ancient home and entered upon one of those strange and aimless journeys so characteristic of semi-civilized and superstitious peoples. The Aztec migration as given by several authorities is scarcely more satisfactory than that of the Toltecs, nor can any additional light be thrown on the route pursued until Sr. Orozco y Berra publishes the results of his critical examination of the subject.[412] The unimportance of the itinerary in the solution of any question is apparent, since it contributes but little to our knowledge of the location of Aztlan.
Mr. Bancroft has greatly facilitated the comparison of the lists of stations as given by different authors, in a note of great length on pp. 322–4, thus presenting to the eye at a glance the diversity of opinion which meets the reader of this subject. As an example, we select two or three of the itineraries, simply to show the wide range that opinion has taken on the subject. According to Veytia, the tribes left Aztlan in I Tecpatl, 1064 A.D., and one hundred and four years afterwards reached Chicomoztoc, where they dwelt nine years; the subsequent stations and the duration of their sojourn in each as follows: Cohuatlicamac three years, Matlahuacallan six, Apanco five, Chimalco six, Pipiolcomic three, Tollan six, Cohuactepec (Coatepec) three, Atlitlalacayan two, Atotonilco one, Tepexic five, Apasco three, Tozonpanco seven, Tizayocan one, Ecatepec one, Tolpetlac three, Chimalpan four, Cohuatitlan two, Huexachtitlan three, Tecpayocan three, Tepeyacac (Guadalupe) three, Pantitlan two, and thence to Chapultepec, arriving in 1298, after a journey of one hundred and eighty-five years, reckoning an additional forty-nine years for their stay at Michoachan.[413] According to Tezozomoc, the stations are as follows: Aztlan, Culhuacan, Jalisco, Mechoacan, Malinalco (Lake Patzcuaro), Ocopipilla, Acahualcingo, Coatepec (in Tonalan), Atlitlanquin, or Atitalaquia, Tequisquiac, Atengo, Tzompan, Cuachilgo, Xaltocan, and Lake Chnamitl, Eycoac, Ecatepc, Aculhuacan, Tultepetlac, Huixachtitlan, Tecpayuca (in two Calli), Atepetlac, Coatlayauhcan, Tetepanco, Acolnahuac, Popotla (Tacuba), Chapultepec in two Tochtli.[414] Clavigero states that they left Aztlan in 1160, crossed the Colorado River, stayed three years in Hucicolhuacan, went east to Chicomoztoc, reached Tula in 1196, and finally Chapultepec in 1245.[415] Acosta, Herrera and Duran state that Nahuatlaca tribes left Aztlan in 820 A.D., and eighty years later reached Mexico; that the Aztecs, however, did not start until 1122 A.D.[416] Duran identifies Aztlan with Teo-Culhuacan, and locates it towards our Mississippi Valley. He in common with other writers identifies Chicomostoc with the seven caves.[417]
The Tarascos, though speaking a different language, are said to have separated from the Nahuatlacas at Michoacan. They describe the route to the seven caves as across a sea, which they passed in balsas and the trunks of trees.[418] This statement may be of some value in locating that disputed rendezvous of so many tribes; and certainly is more important than a mass of groundless speculation. The next source of interest in this connection is the much perverted and sadly misunderstood migration map first published by Gemelli Carreri, in Churchill’s collection of voyages (vol. iv). Humboldt has given an interpretation which, with the exception of that part which connects it with a deluge and Colhuacan, “the Ararat of the Mexicans,” is generally received.[419]
Gemelli Carreri, Humboldt and many others were quite certain that they could read in this map the account of the Mosaic deluge.[420] Don José Fernando Ramirez, of the Mexican Museum, however, pointed out the fact that the Gemelli Carreri map, copied from one owned by Sigüenza, and published by Humboldt, Clavigero and Kingsborough, was in each case incorrectly represented, and states that the copy contained in the Atlas of Garcia y Cubas is the first correct reproduction of the original presented to the public.[421] Sr. Ramirez explains away the illusion of the Mexican Ararat and deluge in a manner both simple and conclusive.[422] The dove with commas proceeding from its beak, is not talking, nor giving tongues, but is repeating the word tihui, “let us go,” referring to the legend already cited, of the bird in Aztlan incessantly uttering this word in the hearing of Huitziton the chief. A little bird called tihuitochan is still heard in Mexico, having a note which is interpreted by the common people to mean the same as their ancestors interpreted it in Aztlan. Sr. Ramirez is convinced that the map referred to is only a record of the wanderings of the Aztecs among the lakes of the Mexican Valley, and that it has no reference whatever to any deluge, not even to one of the former traditional destructions of the world found in the Nahua cosmogony. Mr. Bancroft has added the valuable argument that the story of Cox-cox and the deluge is only the product of false interpretation, or else some of the earlier writers would have been acquainted with the legend. On the contrary, Olmos, Sahagun, Motolinia, Mendieta, Ixtlilxochitl, and Camergo are all silent with regard to it. The mountain and boat and their several adjuncts are found to be nothing but hieroglyphics for proper names.
Chalco Lake is, in the opinion of Señor Ramirez, the point of departure for the fifteen chiefs at the end of their first cycle. His interpretation of the Boturini map of the migration results in the same conclusion. The fifteen chiefs left their island home, passing through Coloacan (Colhuacan, according to Gondra’s interpretation) as their second station. It appears that the first move and point of departure are both unknown, and no satisfactory solution of the question has yet been offered. The prevailing tradition that it is in the north has been perplexing, since no material remains undoubtedly attributable to the Aztecs are found north of the central plateau of Mexico, nor indeed in the territories of the United States. If we adopt the general theory that the Aztecs came from the Mississippi Valley, possibly the original home of the Nahuas, occupied by the Olmecs prior to their arrival at Panuco and their descent into the Chiapan region, and by the Toltecs before their migration to Anahuac, we have a theory which agrees with the testimony of Duran and Sahagun, and seems to find support in the pyramidal mounds of the Lower Mississippi, which we have already seen are almost as perfect in their plan and construction as those found in Mexico, which do not furnish evidence of as great antiquity as those of the Ohio and Missouri Valleys. According to most accounts, a considerable period elapses between their departure and their arrival at Chicomoztoc—the seven caves. According to Veytia it was 104 years, but Brasseur adopts twenty-six years, which is also the opinion of the majority of writers. Chicomoztoc has some features which remind us of the Tulan Zuiva of the Quichés—their seven caves, from which so many tribes derived their origin. Chicomoztoc is the point at which the six Nahuatlaca tribes separated from the Aztecs, and thence proceeded to the Mexican lake region. It is quite probable that a considerable distance may have been traversed in this interval of twenty-six years, a distance which could have brought the Aztecs from a comparatively northern latitude to the Chiapan region. Opposed to this, however, is the fact that the Tulan Zuiva of the Quichés was in a cold, inhospitable region, no doubt at the North. Mr. Bancroft suggests that the first part of the migration tradition may refer vaguely back to the events which followed the Toltecs’ destruction.[423] We have already referred to the tendency to confusion in histories that are chiefly traditional. In opposition to the view that Aztlan and Chicomoztoc were remote from each of these, we have the statement of Duran[424] that these caves are in Teo-Culhuacan, otherwise called Aztlan, which implies that both Teo-Culhuacan and Chicomoztoc were points in the region of Aztlan. Every year it was the custom of the Aztecs, while in Aztlan, to cross a river or channel to Teo-Culhuacan in order to sacrifice to their god Tetzauh, and after their arrival at Chicomoztoc they continued the occupation of boatmen, which they had followed while in Aztlan.[425] By way of summary, then, we may venture the following: 1. Viewed from the standpoint of Sr. Ramirez, Aztlan may be located somewhere not far distant from Chalco Lake. The islands which it encircles may correspond to the description of the ancient home of the Aztecs, given by Duran as quoted on [page 257] and described as Culhuacan. Teo-Culhuacan, where the Aztecs sacrificed yearly, may be the city of Culhuacan situated in that neighborhood. As additional testimony we have the fact that most of the stations named in the migrations can be located in the Central Mexican region. The report that they came from the north may refer only to the scattering of the Nahua or Toltec people from Tollan, just north of the valley. 2. The statements of all the writers that the Aztecs came from the north, the fact that Duran and Sahagun assign the primitive Nahua home to the region of Florida, and the prevalence of mounds and shell-heaps in great numbers in the Gulf States, together with the extension of those mounds through Texas into Mexico, may warrant the opinion that Aztlan was in the Mississippi Valley, or, looking in another direction, the rock or cave dwellings recently discovered in Southern Utah and the Rocky Mountain region (of which we shall give a description in the next chapter) may indicate the locality of the ancient and much-sought-for land. The identity in meaning of Chicomoztoc (seven caves) and Tulan Zuiva (seven caves) together with the fact that both places in Quiché and Nahua history were the point of separation for many tribes, is a singular coincidence, if they are not one and the same. In the preceding chapter we have seen that Tulan Zuiva of the Quichés was in a northern or at least a colder climate, where they suffered greatly for want of fire, a fact of no little significance. On the other hand Teo-Culhuacan, the place of yearly sacrifice, may have been a city of the Chiapan region, since Sahagun located Tamoanchan the first city of the Nahuas (Olmec) after their arrival from Florida in Mexico, somewhere in the Usumacinta Valley. It is possible that a large number of the immigrants remained behind the company which migrated northward to Teotihuacan and thence to the seven caves, subsequently uniting with the Toltecs at Tollan. This view has had quite a number of advocates.[426] We will not undertake, in the present state of knowledge on the subject, to decide which of these three claims is the true one, if either one of them is correct. Our only wish is to furnish the reader a margin for his choice. It seems to us that it would be unscientific to attempt to decide a question based upon such slender and contradictory data.
It is unnecessary for us to follow the Aztecs farther in their history. The magnificent empire of the Montezumas, with its advanced civilization, but at the same time cursed with its horrid worship, in which thousands of human victims bathed the altars of Mexico yearly with their life-blood, has been described and its glory handed down to history by that most graceful and romantic of American writers, William H. Prescott. We cannot, however, dismiss this the most primitive period of the growth of the Nahua nations without a reference to the reputed author of the higher phases of their civilization. We refer to that semi-mythical and semi-divine personage, Quetzalcoatl. The numerous legends concerning this culture-hero, scattered chronologically over hundreds of years of Nahua history, may have originated in the life and character of some noted personage—the leader and civilizer of the most ancient branches of the Nahua family, or in the personification of an ideal deity, a nature-god whose chief attribute, whose distinguishing office, was the fertilization of the earth, the revivification of the slumbering forces in nature and consequently the author of prosperity, agriculture, and the arts of peace. In either case the name of the original Quetzalcoatl, were he either man or deity, was eventually inherited by a line of individuals who became the priests of his worship, or the representatives of his teachings, and the inculcators of the most humane and noble principles which entered into the ancient civilization. Without entering into a lengthy discussion of the probabilities in the case, we give the substance of the traditions, arranged in what appears to us not only the most consistent, but also the proper order. We have already acquainted the reader with the meaning of Quetzalcoatl, namely, “plumed serpent.”
From the distant East, from the fabulous Hue hue Tlapalan, this mysterious personage came to Tulla, and became the patron god and high-priest of the ancestors of the Toltecs.[427] He is described as having been a white man, with a strong formation of body, broad forehead, large eyes, and flowing beard. He wore a mitre on his head, and was dressed in a long, white robe, reaching to his feet, and covered with red crosses. In his hand he held a sickle. His habits were ascetic; he never married, was most chaste and pure in his life, and is said to have endured penance in a neighboring mountain, not for its effects upon himself, but as an example to others. Some have here found a parallel for Christ’s temptation. He condemned sacrifices, except of fruits and flowers, and was known as the god of peace; for when addressed on the subject of war, he is reported to have stopped his ears with his fingers.[428]
Quetzalcoatl was skilled in many arts, having invented gem-cutting and metal-casting. He furthermore originated letters and invented the Mexican calendar. The legend which describes the latter states that the gods, having made men, thought it advisable that their creatures should have some means of reckoning time, and of regulating the order of religious ceremonies. Therefore two of these celestial personages, one of them a goddess, called Quetzalcoatl to counsel with them, and the three contrived a system which they recorded on tables, each bearing a single sign. That sign, however, was accompanied with all necessary explanations of its meaning. It is noticeable that the goddess was assigned the privilege of writing the first sign, and that she chose a serpent as her favorite symbol.
Some accounts represent that Huemac was the temporal king, or at least associated with Quetzalcoatl in the government; the latter occupying the priestly as well as the kingly office. Sahagun calls the associate ruler Vemac. At all events, Quetzalcoatl had an enemy, the deity Tezcatlipoca, whose worship was quite opposite in its character to that of Quetzalcoatl, being sanguine and celebrated with horrid human sacrifices. A struggle ensued in Tulla (Tollan) between the opposing systems which resulted favorably to the bloody deity and the faction who sought to establish his worship in preference to the peaceful and ascetic service of Quetzalcoatl.
Tezcatlipoca, envious of the magnificence enjoyed by Quetzalcoatl, determined upon his destruction. His first appearance at Tulla was in the rôle of a great ball-player, and Quetzalcoatl, being very fond of the game, engaged in play with him, when suddenly he transformed himself into a tiger, occasioning a panic among the spectators, in which great numbers were crowded over a precipice into a river, where they perished. Again the vicious god appeared at Tulla. This time he presented himself at the door of Quetzalcoatl’s palace in the guise of an old man, and asked permission of the servants to see their master. They attempted to drive him away, saying that their god was ill. At last, because of his importunities, they obtained leave to admit him.