Fig. 1.—Map of the Valley of Mexico. The black line shows the traditional route of the Aztec.
Certain of the manuscripts give the ancient home of the Aztec as Aztlan, and picture it as an island in the centre of a lake, with a city called Colhuacan on the opposite shore. From here the Aztec started in the year dated 1. tecpatl (“one stone knife,” i.e. 1168 A.D.), and at Colhuacan received their god, Uitzilopochtli, and joined themselves to eight other related tribes. Five of these ultimately formed the population of the following cities, chiefly in the Valley of Mexico, Uexotzinco, Chalco, Xochimilco, Cuitlauac, Malinalco (see the map of the Mexican Valley, Fig. [1]); the others being the Chichimec, Tepanec (founders of Azcapotzalco) and Matlatzinca. Later they arrived at Tamoanchan, the “House of descent,” a word probably meaning little more than the “place where the tribes separated,” for here the eight tribes left them to continue their journey alone. Hence they went to Chicomoztoc, and Cuextecatl Ichocayan, the “place where the Huaxtec weep,” where they are represented as having made prisoners from among this nation. After wandering in the steppes they came to Tulan, and then to Chapultepec; and, after having been reduced for some time to slavery in Colhuacan, settled finally in Tenochtitlan. It is difficult to estimate the amount of authenticity which may be attributed to this legend; the description of the ancient home seems to reproduce the geographical position of Tenochtitlan, situated on an island opposite a mainland town called Colhuacan, in a rather suspicious manner. Still it seems to have been a habit of the Nahua tribes to select such situations for their cities, in proof of which one need only mention such towns as Zumpango, Xaltocan, Cuitlauac, Xochimilco and Acocolco, a previous residence of the Aztec. Fig. [2] illustrates the portion of the Boturini codex which pictures the start from Aztlan to Colhuacan, the footsteps indicating the route, and the eight figures to the right accompanied by glyphs, representing the eight tribes mentioned above, reading from bottom to top. The situation of Aztlan, if the place is not entirely mythical, has given rise to a good deal of controversy; some have identified Colhuacan with Culiacan on the coast of Sinaloa, while Seler suggests that it was in fact the historical city of that name, Aztlan being the island of Acocolco whence the Mexicans were deported as slaves to Colhuacan, a historical fact. The term Colhuan was in historical times restricted to the inhabitants of this city, with whom the population of Xochimilco and Malinalco were closely connected. Chicomoztoc figures as a halting-place in practically all legends dealing with the Nahua immigration, and in some it is regarded as the starting-point. Besides the tribes above mentioned, the following are also represented as having made some stay there: the Huaxtec, Olmec, Xicalanca, Totonac, Michoacans, Tlalhuica, Acolhua (Tezcocans), Tlaxcalans, the inhabitants of Teotitlan and Tehuacan, and the Mixtec. Beyond this we shall see later that this place seems to be connected with the early history of certain Maya tribes whose migration legends have been preserved. Indeed it seems bound up with the mythical history of all the tribes of Mexico and the greater part of Central America, with one striking exception, the Zapotec, and as such must belong to an earlier movement of tribes than the actual Aztec migration from Aztlan. The Nahua-speaking tribes, including the Toltec, and the Michoacans, called themselves Chichimec, a term which, as mentioned above, possesses rather a cultural than a racial significance, and means wandering hunters. In fact the Aztec are shown in manuscripts as skin-clad archers on their migration, fighting with the inhabitants of the valley, who are represented as dressed in textiles and armed with the macquauitl, or wooden sword edged with obsidian. The first inroad of Chichimec after the destruction of Tulan (though no doubt that destruction was caused, at any rate in part, by the pressure of nomadic tribes from the north), is said to have taken place under the leadership of a chief called Xolotl, coming from a country named Amaquemacan via Chicomoztoc and Tulan. Xolotl established his court at Tenayocan, and proceeded to extend his power over the other cities round the lake, incorporating such of the Toltec as remained in his empire. Shortly after, another influx of Chichimec took place, under three chiefs, Acolhuatzin, whose immediate followers called themselves Tepanec, Chiconquauhtli, leading a band of Otomi, and Tzontecomatl, chief of the Acolhua (in the narrower sense). These chiefs allied themselves with Xolotl, and the first two were given his two daughters in marriage, receiving at the same time the towns of Azcapotzalco and Xaltocan respectively as residences. Tzontecomatl married a woman from Chalco and established himself at Coatlichan. Colhuacan at this time was ruled by Pochotl, a descendant of the last Toltec king, and Xolotl seems to have exercised a loose suzerainty over all. The invaders rapidly adopted the remains of civilization which they found in the valley, and applied themselves to agriculture; the old name of Chichimec was dropped, and that of Acolhua, in the wider sense, was adopted. From this point historical tradition has been so well reduced to order by Clavigero, whose work, translated into English, is still easily accessible, that I do not propose to give more than a mere summary of events. A list of the various “kings,” together with approximate dates which I suggest after a careful comparison of many sources, is given in Appendix III. The principal point to be noted is the transfer of the political centre from Tenayocan to Tezcoco, which took place in the reign of Xolotl’s third successor, Quinatzin, who removed his “court” thither; from this point dates what may be termed the “Acolhuan” domination of the Mexican valley. Meanwhile the Aztec had arrived, but being the latest of the migrants they were also the rudest, and were of little account. Even their prowess as fighters was counterbalanced by the comparative smallness of their numbers, and for years they lived under the protection of various rulers who employed their services in the wars which had already begun to break out between city and city. In the reign of Nopaltzin, Xolotl’s successor, they are said to have been settled at Chapultepec, but, being oppressed by the chief of Xaltocan, they removed to securer, though less comfortable, quarters on the group of islands called Acocolco at the south end of the lake. Here they remained for half a century, until they were transferred to Colhuacan by the ruler of that city. By this time their numbers had increased, while their fighting qualities had not deteriorated, and after giving proof of the latter fact by defeating the Xochimilca, with whom the Colhua were at war, they felt their position sufficiently strong to insist on leaving Colhuacan for Mexicaltzingo. Here however they did not reside for long, but moved north first to Iztacalco and finally to Tenochtitlan. Even yet they were not strong enough to stand entirely by themselves, probably partly because they were not yet under a single chief who could lay claim to kinship with the ruling houses of other cities, and they were now under the protection of Azcapotzalco, to the ruler of which they paid tribute. Not long after their settlement, dissensions broke out among themselves, and certain clans removed to the small island of Tlaltelolco adjoining Tenochtitlan on the north. The split however was not final, and the two sections remained in close alliance, though under separate administration. The question of the dates of these various events is by no means easy to determine. Tenochtitlan, according to the Mendoza codex, which gives a continuous chronicle from this point, was founded in the year 2. calli (two house), or 1325, and this date may, I believe, be taken as reasonably exact. We are told that the Aztec were subject to Colhuacan for about twenty-five years, and that they spent half a century before that on the islands of Acocolco. If we allow about twenty years spent at Chapultepec and in the migration from Colhuacan to Tenochtitlan, we get 1230 as the approximate date of their arrival at the former city. At this time, according to legend, Nopaltzin, the successor of Xolotl, was ruling at Tenayocan, and the commencement of his reign cannot be put much earlier than 1225, since we are told that Tlotzin, his successor (called Huetzin by Ixtlilxochitl), died in the year in which Tenochtitlan was founded. Xolotl, the founder of the “Chichimec” power, seems to have reigned long, and indeed the Mexican rulers as a whole seem to have been singularly long-lived. But in any case Xolotl cannot have led his followers into the Mexican valley much before the second half of the twelfth century. If the annals of Quauhtitlan are correct in assigning the year 1064 to the destruction of Tulan, then the statement that the Chichimec migration occurred some thirty years later must be an error. It is true that if the statements of Sahagun as to the length of the reigns of the Acolhuan and Chichimec kings be correct, the error is not nearly so considerable, but in that case the association of these kings with certain epochs of Mexican history becomes impossible. I am inclined to believe that far more reliance is to be placed on associations of this kind in tradition than upon mere numbers of years, and it is possible that some mistake may have arisen between Sahagun and his informants regarding the length of a king’s life on the one hand and the length of his reign on the other. I have therefore given premier importance to statements regarding associations in my scheme of dates. Moreover it seems far more likely from several points of view that at least a century must have intervened between the downfall of Tulan and the immigration headed by Xolotl, though there must have been a steady drift of “Chichimec” tribes southward during that period, having its commencement before the former event, to which it no doubt contributed.
Fig. 2.—Detail from the Boturini MS., showing the commencement of the Aztec migration. From left to right: Aztlan on an island; the Aztec crossing the water; the date 1. tecpatl; the city Colhuacan; eight other tribes, reading downwards, the Matlatzinca, Tepanec, Chichimec, Malinalca, Cuitlauaca, Xochimilca, Chalca, and Uexotzinca. (After Seler)
For the first half-century after their establishment at Tenochtitlan, the Aztec were ruled by a council, composed no doubt of the heads of clans; but in the year 1376 they elected a king. Nothing illustrates better the idea among the Mexicans that kingly power was inherent in certain families, than the fact that they elected Acamapitzin, whose mother was a daughter of the ruler of Colhuacan, Coxcoxtli, and therefore of Toltec descent. Simultaneously the inhabitants of Tlaltelolco elected a ruler, Quaquapitzauac, said to be connected with the ruling family of Azcapotzalco. At this time the most powerful cities in the valley were Tezcoco, whither Quinatzin had removed the Acolhuan court, which was now ruled by his successor Techotlala; Azcapotzalco, ruled by the Tepanec Tezozomoc, descended from Acolhuatzin; Coatlichan, where a member of Tzontecomatl’s family held sway; and Colhuacan, under the kingship of Coxcoxtli, of the race of Pochotl the son of Topiltzin the last Toltec king.
Acamapitzin was followed in 1396 by Uitziliuitl, and he in 1417 by Chimalpopoca, Tlacateotl having succeeded to the rulership of Tlaltelolco in 1406. Meanwhile Techotlala had died, and Ixtlilxochitl had become ruler of Tezcoco about 1400. The Mendoza codex assigns the conquest of certain cities to these kings, but it is probable that in these expeditions they acted merely as allies of Tezcoco or Azcapotzalco. During this period the power of Azcapotzalco began to expand, and, aided by the Mexicans, Tezozomoc, the ruler of that city, attacked Ixtlilxochitl of Tezcoco. The obstinate war which followed was the commencement of the struggle between the Tepanec and Acolhua for the hegemony of the valley, but for the time the latter prevailed, and a hollow peace was made. This lasted but a short time, and Ixtlilxochitl was eventually killed in an ambuscade by the Tepanec, who had utilized the interval in winning over certain of his allies. The Tepanec thus became masters of Tezcoco in 1418, and Nezahualcoyotl, the legitimate heir, was driven into exile. Tezozomoc, the Tepanec ruler, did not however enjoy his success long, but died about 1425 at an advanced age. So old was he, it is related, that he was at last kept in a basket surrounded with wool for warmth, and his final years were embittered by dreams that Nezahualcoyotl in the form of an eagle devoured his heart, or, as a lion, sucked his blood. His death brought internal dissension upon Azcapotzalco; one of his younger sons, by name Maxtla, assassinated the heir-designate and seized the power. He seems to have been the most energetic of the members of the ruling house, but lacked his father’s political wariness, since he began to quarrel with Mexico. This was a fatal mistake, since it caused the Aztec, secretly at first, to intrigue with the exiled Nezahualcoyotl, who had, moreover, many friends among the cities where the Acolhuan element was strong. In 1417 Itzcoatl succeeded to power in Tenochtitlan; the Aztec had by this time increased considerably in numbers and prosperity, and the new ruler proved himself a man of action and an excellent general. He definitely espoused the cause of the exile, with the result that the latter, aided by the people of Tlaxcala and Uexotzinco, succeeded in recapturing Tezcoco and killing every Tepanec in the city. At the same time Coatlichan was stormed by the Chalca, who had also offered assistance to Nezahualcoyotl. These events brought matters to a head; Maxtla, refusing peace, rashly sent an expedition against Tenochtitlan, and the populace in terror wished to submit. But Itzcoatl succeeded in inspiring them with courage, and, aided by Quauhtlatoa, who had just been elected to the kingship of Tlaltelolco, they inflicted a signal defeat upon the invading force. Nor was this all, Itzcoatl followed up his success by attacking Azcapotzalco, which was successfully stormed and Maxtla was killed. Meanwhile the forces of Tlaxcala and Uexotzinco had captured Tenayocan, and the Tepanec domination was at an end. The Aztec were now actually the paramount power in the valley, but Itzcoatl was too wise to insist upon the fact. He recognized Nezahualcoyotl as his equal, and contracted with him an alliance on equal terms, by which means he won the support of the large Acolhua population. He also conciliated the favour of the defeated Tepanec; Azcapotzalco, it is true, was reduced to the level of a subordinate city, but over Tlacopan, another Tepanec town, he placed Totoquiuatzin, a descendant of Tezozomoc, as ruler and admitted him to the confederacy on the terms that the booty which was won by the allied arms should be distributed in the following proportions; to Tenochtitlan two-fifths, to Tezcoco two-fifths, and to Tlacopan one-fifth. The one essential of power Itzcoatl retained for himself; he stipulated that the military policy of the allies should be directed from Tenochtitlan.
But if the political power was concentrated in Tenochtitlan, Tezcoco under the wise rule of Nezahualcoyotl became the intellectual and artistic centre of the valley. The government was reformed, and a code of laws drawn up which was regarded as the pattern of all legislation; schools were instituted for the study of poetry, astronomy, music and painting, and the city was embellished by the construction of temples and gardens. However the fall of the Tepanec did not bring peace to the valley; many cities began to be jealous of the Aztec and their newly-acquired hegemony, and the Mendoza codex gives a list of cities which were conquered during the reign of Itzcoatl, among them Quauhtitlan, Cuitlauac, Xochimilco, Chalco, and Quauhnauac (Cuernavaca). Yet these “conquests” were not on the same scale as that of Azcapotzalco; from this time forward the Aztec were content with exacting merely a nominal submission from the towns which they subdued, and imposing tribute. As long as the latter was paid punctually no interference was made either with the local rulers or their administration, though theoretically the heir of a “king” who died was supposed to seek confirmation in his office at the hands of the ruler of Tenochtitlan.
Photo. C. B. Waite