{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45268/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45268","id":"gutenberg_45268","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45268","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Other","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Indians -- Bibliography","Indians of Central America","Indians of Mexico","Indians of North America -- Pacific Coast of North America"],"text":"Transcriber's Note:\n\n  Inconsistent hyphenation and spelling in the original document have\n  been preserved. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.\n\n  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n\n  Italics in the footnote citations were inconsistently applied by\n  the typesetter.\n\n  Footnote 1-1 has an un-opened quote ending \"a very slow current.\"\n\n  Footnote I-219: Landnama should possibly be Landn\u00e1ma.\n\n  Page 357: Words are possibly missing in the sentence starting, \"We\n  have no further details\".\n\n  Page 788: A reversed lower case \"c\" has been replaced with =c=.\n\n  Many index entries could not be found in the text.  Many index\n  cross-references could not be found. A complete list of the latter\n  can be found at the end of this volume.\n\n  Alphabetization errors in the index were not corrected.\n\n  This volume contains extensive references to the previous four volumes\n  of this work. They can be found at:\n  Volume 1: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41070\n  Volume 2: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42808\n  Volume 3: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43123\n  Volume 4: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44104\n\n\n\n\nTHE WORKS OF HUBERT HOWE BANCROFT.\n\nVOLUME V.\n\nTHE NATIVE RACES.\n\nVOL. V. PRIMITIVE HISTORY.\n\n\n     SAN FRANCISCO:\n     A. L. BANCROFT & COMPANY, PUBLISHERS.\n     1883.\n\n\n\n\n     Entered according to Act of Congress in the Year 1882, by\n     HUBERT H. BANCROFT.\n\n     In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.\n\n\n     _All Rights Reserved._\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO VOLUME V.\n\n\nThis volume concludes the Native Races of the Pacific States. During\nthe year in which it has been going through the press, I have received\nletters of encouragement from the most eminent scholars of Europe\nand America, and flattering commendations from learned societies.\nNone but an author can know the value of such cheering words. This,\nmy first attempt, was made in a new field; the scope of the work was\nvery extensive; the system and machinery by which alone it could be\naccomplished were untried; and the subject was not one of great popular\ninterest. It was not, therefore, without misgivings that I sent it\nforth.\n\nThat the work had been so planned as to embody practically all\ninformation extant on what I had come to regard as an important\nsubject, and that the plan had been faithfully executed, I thoroughly\nbelieved. But that others would, to any great extent, share my opinion;\nthat the subject would interest so many classes of readers; that mine\nwould be so quickly and cordially recognized by men of science and\nletters throughout the world as a work worth doing and well done;\nand that it would be at once accorded a place in literature, I had\nnot dared to hope. The leading journals of England, France, Germany,\nand the United States, have deemed the volumes as issued worthy of\nextended reviews; and criticism for the most part has been liberal,\nand just--save a tendency to what might seem, to a mind less prejudiced\nthan mine, extravagant praise. Minor defects have been fairly pointed\nout; and in the few instances where fault has been found, either with\nthe plan or its execution, one critic condemns what another approves,\nso that I am led to believe no serious error of judgment has been\ncommitted.\n\nI cannot here make proper acknowledgments to all to whom they are due;\nbut let those who have manifested their kind good-will, and those who\nhave not, so long as they feel it, accept my grateful thanks.\n\nSan Francisco, November, 1875.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF THIS VOLUME.\n\n\n   CHAPTER I.\n\n   ON THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICANS.\n\n                                                               PAGE.\n\n   Spirit of Inquiry in the Middle Ages -- Unity of Origin --\n     Flood Myths -- Aboriginal Traditions of Origin -- Culture\n     Heroes -- China -- Japan -- Hindustan -- Tartary -- The\n     Egyptian Theory -- The Ph\u0153nicians -- Votan's Travels -- The\n     Carthaginians -- The Hebrew Theory -- The Mormon Story --\n     The Visits of the Scandinavians -- Celtic Origin -- The Welsh\n     -- Scotch -- Irish -- The Greeks and Romans -- The Story of\n     Atlantis -- The Autochthonic Theory                           1\n\n\n   CHAPTER II.\n\n   INTRODUCTORY TO ABORIGINAL HISTORY.\n\n   Origin and Earliest History of the Americans Unrecorded --\n     The Dark Sea of Antiquity -- Boundary between Myth and\n     History -- Primitive Annals of America compared with those\n     of the Old World -- Authorities and Historical Material --\n     Traditional Annals and their Value -- Hieroglyphic Records\n     of the Mayas and Nahuas -- Spanish Writers -- The Conquerors\n     -- The Missionaries -- The Historians -- Converted Native\n     Chroniclers -- Secondary Authorities -- Ethnology -- Arts,\n     Institutions, and Beliefs -- Languages -- Material Monuments\n     of Antiquity -- Use of Authorities and Method of treating the\n     Subject                                                       133\n\n\n   CHAPTER III.\n\n   THE PRE-TOLTEC PERIOD OF ABORIGINAL HISTORY.\n\n   Subdivision of the Subject -- Tzendal Tradition of the Votanic\n     Empire -- Votan's Book and its Contents as reported by Nu\u00f1ez\n     de la Vega, Cabrera, and Ordo\u00f1ez -- Testimony of Manners and\n     Customs, Religion, Languages, and Monuments of the Civilized\n     Nations respecting the Primitive Maya Peoples -- The Quich\u00e9\n     Record, or Popol Vuh -- Civilizing Efforts of Gucumatz\n     and his Followers -- Exploits of Hunahpu and Xbalanque --\n     Conquest of Xibalba -- Migration from Tulan Zuiva, the Seven\n     Caves -- Meaning of the Quich\u00e9 Tradition -- Nahua Traditions\n     -- The Toltecs in Tamoanchan according to Sahagun -- The\n     Codex Chimalpopoca -- Pre-Toltec Nations in Mexico -- Olmecs\n     and Xicalancas -- The Quinames -- Cholula and Quetzalcoatl --\n     The Totonacs -- Teotihuacan -- Otom\u00eds, Miztecs, Zapotecs, and\n     Huastecs -- The Toltecs in Huehue Tlapallan -- Migration to\n     An\u00e1huac -- The Chichimecs in Amaquemecan -- Ancient Home of\n     the Nahuatlacas and Aztecs -- Primitive Annals of Yucatan --\n     Conclusions                                                   156\n\n\n   CHAPTER IV.\n\n   THE TOLTEC PERIOD.\n\n   The Nahua Occupation of Mexico in the Sixth and Seventh\n     Centuries -- Condition of An\u00e1huac -- The Mixcohuas and\n     Chichimec Culhuas -- The Toltecs at Tulancingo and Tollan\n     -- Establishment of a Monarchy and Choice of a King,\n     710-720 A.D. -- Kingdoms of Culhuacan and Quauhtitlan --\n     The Teoamoxtli -- Prophecies and Death of Hueman -- Birth\n     of Quetzalcoatl -- Foundation of the Empire, 856 A.D. --\n     Alliance between Culhuacan, Otompan, and Tollan -- Reign\n     of Topiltzin Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl at Tollan -- Excesses of\n     Huemac II., or Tecpancaltzin -- Xochitl, the King's Mistress\n     -- Fulfillment of the Prophet's Predictions -- Toveyo's\n     Adventures -- Plagues sent upon the Toltecs -- Famine and\n     Pestilence -- Reign of Acxitl, or Topiltzin -- Debauchery\n     of King, Nobles, and Priests -- Tokens of Divine Wrath --\n     Foreign Invaders -- Final Overthrow of the Toltec Empire      237\n\n\n   CHAPTER V.\n\n   THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.\n\n   The Chichimecs in Amaquemecan -- Migration to An\u00e1huac under\n     Xolotl -- The Invaders at Chocoyan and Tollan -- Foundation\n     of Xoloc and Tenayocan -- Xolotl II., Emperor of the\n     Chichimecs -- Division of Territory -- The Toltecs at\n     Culhuacan -- Rule of Xiuhtemoc and Nauhyotl III. -- Pochotl,\n     Son of Acxitl -- Conquest of Culhuacan -- Death of Nauhyotl\n     -- Huetzin, King of Culhuacan -- Migration and Reception of\n     the Nahuatlaca Tribes -- The Acolhuas at Coatlichan and the\n     Tepanecs at Azcapuzalco -- Nonohualcatl, King of Culhuacan\n     -- Revolt of Yacanex -- Death of Xolotl II. -- Nopaltzin,\n     King of Tenayocan, and Emperor of the Chichimecs -- Reigns\n     of Achitometl and Icxochitlanex at Culhuacan -- Tendencies\n     toward Toltec Culture                                         289\n\n\n   CHAPTER VI.\n\n   THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD. -- CONTINUED.\n\n   Migration of the Aztecs -- Nations of An\u00e1huac at Beginning of\n     the Thirteenth Century -- The Aztecs submit to the Tepanecs\n     -- Reign of the Emperor Tlotzin -- Quinantzin, King of\n     Tezcuco and Chichimec Emperor -- Transfer of the Capital --\n     Tenancacaltzin usurps the Imperial Throne at Tenayocan -- The\n     Usurper defeated by Tepanecs and Mexicans -- Acolnahuacatl\n     proclaimed Emperor -- Quinantzin's Victories -- Battle at\n     Poyauhtlan -- Quinantzin again Emperor -- Toltec Institutions\n     at Tezcuco -- Events at Culhuacan -- Mexicans driven from\n     Chapultepec -- Alliance between Mexicans and Culhuas --\n     Religious Strife -- Foundation of Mexico -- Reign of the\n     Emperor Techotl -- Political Changes -- Ruin of the Culhua\n     Power -- Tezozomoc, King of Azcapuzalco -- Separation of\n     Mexicans and Tlatelulcas -- Acamapichtli II., King of Mexico\n     -- Quaquauhpitzahuac, King of Tlatelulco                      321\n\n\n   CHAPTER VII.\n\n   THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD -- CONCLUDED.\n\n   Aztec History -- Reigns of Acamapichtli II. and\n     Quaquauhpitzahuac -- Rebuilding of Culhuacan -- Huitzilihuitl\n     II., King of Mexico -- Tlacateotzin, King of Tlatelulco\n     -- Chimalpopoca Succeeds in Mexico -- Funeral of Techotl\n     -- Ixtlilxochitl, Emperor of the Chichimecs -- Symptoms\n     of Discontent -- Plans of Tezozomoc, the Tepanec King\n     -- Secret Council of Rebels -- Religious Toleration in\n     Tezcuco -- Conquest of Xaltocan and Cuitlahuac -- Birth of\n     Nezahualcoyotl -- War between Tezcuco and Azcapuzalco --\n     Victories of Ixtlilxochitl -- Siege and Fall of Azcapuzalco\n     -- Treachery of Tezozomoc -- Fall of Tezcuco -- Flight and\n     Death of Ixtlilxochitl -- Tezozomoc proclaimed Emperor --\n     Re-organization of the Empire -- Adventures of Nezahualcoyotl\n     -- Death of Tezozomoc -- Maxtla usurps the Imperial Throne\n     -- Murder of the Mexican Kings -- Nezahualcoyotl's Victory\n     -- Itzcoatl, King of Mexico -- Acolhua and Aztec Alliance --\n     Fall of Azcapuzalco -- The Tri-partite Alliance, or the New\n     Empire                                                        359\n\n\n   CHAPTER VIII.\n\n   THE AZTEC PERIOD.\n\n   Outline of the Period -- Revolt of Coyuhuacan -- Nezahualcoyotl\n     on the Throne of Tezcuco -- Conquest of Quauhtitlan,\n     Tultitlan, Xochimilco, and Cuitlahuac -- Conquest of\n     Quauhtitlan -- Destruction of the Records -- Death of\n     Itzcoatl and Accession of Montezuma I. New Temples at Mexico\n     -- Defeat of the Chalcas -- Troubles with Tlatelulco --\n     Conquest of Cohuixco and Mazatlan -- Flood and Six Years'\n     Famine -- Conquest of Miztecapan -- The Aztecs conquer the\n     Province of Cuetlachtlan and reach the Gulf Coast -- Final\n     Defeat of the Chalcas -- Campaign in Cuextlan -- Birth of\n     Nezahualpilli -- Improvements in Tenochtitlan -- Embassy\n     to Chicomoztoc -- Death of Montezuma I. and Accession of\n     Axayacatl -- Raid in Tehuantepec -- Chimalpopoca succeeds\n     Totoquihuatzin on the Throne of Tlacopan -- Nezahualpilli\n     succeeds Nezahualcoyotl at Tezcuco -- Revolt of Tlatelulco --\n     Conquest of Matlaltzinco -- Defeat by the Tarascos -- Death\n     of Axayacatl                                                  400\n\n\n   CHAPTER IX.\n\n   THE AZTEC PERIOD -- CONCLUDED.\n\n   Reign of Tizoc -- Nezahualpilli defeats the Huexotzincas\n     -- Ahuitzotl, King of Mexico -- Campaigns for Captives --\n     Dedication of Huitzilopochtli's Temple -- Seventy Thousand\n     Victims -- Totoquihuatzin II., King of Tlacopan -- Mexican\n     Conquests -- Conquest of Totonacapan -- Aztec Reverses\n     -- Successful Revolt of Tehuantepec and Zapotecapan --\n     Conquest of Zacatollan -- Anecdotes of Nezahualpilli--New\n     Aqueduct, and Inundation of Mexico -- Montezuma II. on the\n     Throne -- Condition of the Empire -- Montezuma's Policy --\n     Unsuccessful Invasion of Tlascala -- Famine -- Conquest of\n     Miztecapan -- Tying-up of the Cycle in 1507 -- Omens of\n     coming Disaster -- The Spaniards on the Coast of Central\n     America -- Trouble between Mexico and Tezcuco -- Retirement\n     and Death of Nezahualpilli -- Cacama, King of Acolhuacan --\n     Revolt of Ixtlilxochitl -- Final Campaigns of the Aztecs --\n     The Spaniards on the Gulf Coast -- Arrival of Hernan Cort\u00e9s   436\n\n\n   CHAPTER X.\n\n   HISTORY OF THE EASTERN PLATEAU, MICHOACAN, AND OAJACA.\n\n   Early History of the Eastern Plateau -- The Chichimec-Toltecs\n     -- Arrival of the Teo-Chichimecs in An\u00e1huac -- They Conquer\n     and Settle the Eastern Plateau -- Civil Wars -- Miscellaneous\n     Events -- Wars between Tlascala and the Nations of An\u00e1huac\n     -- Early History of Michoacan -- Wars between Wanacaces and\n     Tarascos -- Founding of Tzintzuntzan -- Metamorphosis of the\n     Tarasco Princes -- Encroachments of the Wanacaces -- The King\n     of the Isles -- Murder of Pawacume and Wapeani -- Reigns of\n     Curatame, Tariacuri, Tangaxoan I., Ziziz Pandacuare, Zwanga,\n     and Tangaxoan II. -- Origin of the Miztecs and Zapotecs --\n     Wixipecocha -- Rulers of Oajaca -- The Huaves and Mijes --\n     Later Kings and History of Oajaca -- Wars with Mexico         483\n\n\n   CHAPTER XI.\n\n   THE QUICH\u00c9-CAKCHIQUEL EMPIRE IN GUATEMALA.\n\n   No Chronology in the South -- Outline View -- Authorities\n     -- Xbalanque at Utatlan -- The Migration from Tulan --\n     Balam-Quitz\u00e9 and his Companions -- Sacrifices to Tohil -- The\n     Quich\u00e9s on Mount Hacavitz -- The Tamub and Ilocab -- First\n     Victories -- Qocavib Founds the Monarchy at Izmachi -- The\n     Toltec Theory -- Imaginary Empire of the East -- Different\n     Versions of Primitive History -- The Cakchiquel Migration --\n     Juarros and Fuentes -- Lists of Kings -- Cakchiquels under\n     Hacavitz -- Reigns of Balam-Conache, Cotuha, and Iztayul,\n     at Izmachi -- War against the Ilocab -- The Stolen Tribute\n     -- Gucumatz, Quich\u00e9 Emperor at Utatlan -- Changes in the\n     Government -- Reigns of Cotuha II., Tepepul, and Iztayul\n     II. -- Cakchiquel History -- Conquests of Quicab I. --\n     Revolt of the Achihab -- Dismemberment of the Empire --\n     Cakchiquel Conquests -- Reigns of the last Guatemalan Kings\n     -- Appearance of the Spaniards under Alvarado in 1524         540\n\n\n   CHAPTER XII.\n\n   MISCELLANEOUS TRIBES OF CENTRAL AMERICA.\n\n   Scarcity of Historical Data -- The Tribes of Chiapas -- The\n     Founders and Heroes of the Chiapanec Nation -- Wars with\n     the Aztecs -- The People of the Southern Coast -- They are\n     vanquished by the Olmecs -- Their Exodus and Journey --\n     They settle and separate -- Juarros' Account of the Origin\n     and later History of the Pipiles -- Pipile Tradition -- The\n     Founding of Mictlan -- Queen Comizahual -- Acxitl's Empire of\n     the East -- The Cholutecs -- Various Tribes of Nicaragua --\n     Settlements of the Isthmus                                    603\n\n\n   CHAPTER XIII.\n\n   HISTORY OF THE MAYAS IN YUCATAN.\n\n   Aboriginal Names of Yucatan -- The Primitive Inhabitants from\n     the East and West -- Zamn\u00e1 the Pontiff-King -- The Itzas\n     at Chichen -- Rules of Cukulcan at Chichen and Mayapan --\n     His Disappearance on the Gulf Coast -- The Cocome Rule at\n     Mayapan -- Appearance of the Tutul Xius -- Translation of\n     the Maya Record by Perez and Brasseur -- Migration from\n     Tulan -- Conquest of Bacalar and Chichen -- Itza Annals --\n     Tutul Xius at Uxmal -- Overthrow of the Cocome Dynasty -- The\n     Confederacy, or Empire, of Tutul Xius, Itzas, and Cheles --\n     Fable of the Dwarf -- Overthrow of the Tutul Xius -- Final\n     Period of Civil Wars                                          614\n\n\n\n\n  [Illustration: NATIVE RACES of the PACIFIC STATES Map of CENTRAL MEXICO\n   _TO ILLUSTRATE_ PRIMITIVE HISTORY.]\n\n  [Illustration: NATIVE RACES of the PACIFIC STATES showing the location\n   of THE CIVILIZED NATIONS]\n\n\n\n\nTHE NATIVE RACES OF THE PACIFIC STATES.\n\nPRIMITIVE HISTORY.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nON THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICANS.\n\n     Spirit of Inquiry in the Middle Ages -- Unity of Origin\n     -- Flood Myths -- Aboriginal Traditions of Origin --\n     Culture-Heroes -- China -- Japan -- Hindostan -- Tartary --\n     The Egyptian Theory -- The Ph\u0153nicians -- Votan's Travels --\n     The Carthaginians -- The Hebrew Theory -- The Mormon Story --\n     The Visits of the Scandinavians -- Celtic Origin -- The Welsh\n     -- Scotch -- Irish -- The Greeks and Romans -- The Story of\n     Atlantis -- The Autochthonic Theory.\n\n\nWhen it first became known to Europe that a new continent had been\ndiscovered, the wise men, philosophers, and especially the learned\necclesiastics, were sorely perplexed to account for such a discovery.\nA problem was placed before them, the solution of which was not to be\nfound in the records of the ancients. On the contrary, it looked as\nif old-time traditions must give way, the infallibility of revealed\nknowledge must be called in question, even the holy scriptures must be\ninterpreted anew. Another world, upheaved, as it were, from the depths\nof the Sea of Darkness, was suddenly placed before them. Strange races,\nspeaking strange tongues, peopled the new land; curious plants covered\nits surface; animals unknown to science roamed through its immense\nforests; vast seas separated it from the known world; its boundaries\nwere undefined; its whole character veiled in obscurity. Such was the\nmystery that, without rule or precedent, they were now required to\nfathom.\n\nAnd what were their qualifications to grapple with such a subject?\nLearning had been almost exclusively the property of the Church, and\nalthough from its fold many able writers and profound thinkers had\nbeen evolved, yet the teachings of science and the speculations of\nphilosophy were ever held subordinate to the holy scriptures. Now\nand then it is true some gleams of important truth would flash up\nin the writings of some philosopher disconnected with the religious\norders illuminating the path of intellectual progress, but such\nwritings seldom made any permanent impress upon the literature of\nthe age. It is to the priesthood almost exclusively we have to look\nfor any advancement for many centuries in literature, science, and\nart. The universally adopted view of the structure of the universe\nwas geocentric, of the world, anthropocentric. To explain such\nordinary phenomena as that of day and night, preposterous schemes\nwere invented, like that of Cosmas Indicopleustes, who asserted that\nin the northern parts of the flat earth there is an immense mountain,\nbehind which the sun passes and thus produces night.[I-1] Any assertion\nthat seemed to clash with preconceived notions of the teachings of\nholy writ or the writings of the fathers was looked upon with doubt\nand disfavor. Indeed the bible was regarded as the all-sufficient\nmanual of science, containing all that was necessary to be known, and\nto inquire further was thought to be prying into the secret things\nof the most high.[I-2] The learning of the masses consisted not in the\nacquisition of knowledge, but in the blind and meaningless repetition\nof prescribed maxims, in forms of rhetoric, in anything except that\nwhich would enlighten the mind and impart true wisdom; it was, in\nshort, a systematic course of leading men as far as possible away\nfrom the known, and leaving them lost and bewildered in a labyrinth of\nuncertainty and doubt.[I-3]\n\n[Sidenote: SCIENCE IN THE MIDDLE AGES.]\n\nWhen, therefore, the questions arose, whence were these new lands\npeopled? how came these strange animals and plants to exist on a\ncontinent cut off by vast oceans from the rest of the world? the wise\nmen of the time unhesitatingly turned to the sacred scriptures for an\nanswer. These left them no course but to believe that all mankind were\ndescended from one pair. This was a premise that must by no means be\ndisputed. The original home of the first pair was generally supposed\nto have been situated in Asia Minor; the ancestors of the people found\nin the New World must consequently have originally come from the Old\nWorld, though at what time and by what route was an open question, an\nanswer to which was diligently sought for both in the sacred prophecies\nand in the historical writings of antiquity.[I-4]\n\nBut if the more modern writers on this subject have been less hampered\nby unanswerable and impassable dogmas; if they have been able to\nbelieve that there may be some difficult questions upon which the Bible\nthrows no light; if they have felt themselves free to discuss, without\nimpiety, the possibility of all mankind not having sprung from one\npair, their theories are scarcely less wild, their reasoning is but\nlittle sounder, their tendency to establish maxims by which any given\nproblem may be solved is no more satisfactory.\n\n[Sidenote: SPIRIT OF INQUIRY.]\n\nTheories in themselves are good things, for they lead us to facts; it\nis often through the doubtful or the false that we attain the truth;\nas Darwin says: \"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of\nscience, for they often long endure; but false views, if supported by\nsome evidence, do little harm, as every one takes a salutary pleasure\nin proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path towards\nerror is closed, and the truth is often at the same time opened.\"[I-5]\nBut the value of inquiry depends much upon the spirit in which it is\nmade, and therefore it is that the manner in which most of the writers\nwho have speculated on the origin of the Americans have conducted their\nresearches, is greatly to be deplored. Their work does not impress\none as being a steadfast striving to develop unstable postulates into\nproven facts, but rather as a reckless rushing, regardless of all\nobstacles, to a preconceived conclusion. They do not offer a theory as\na suggestion of what might possibly be, but as a demonstration founded\nupon an unassailable basis. Each imagines that he has hit upon the\ntruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; he asserts that\nthe Aztecs were of Hebrew descent--that is settled; to prove this he\nclutches at the lightest straws in the way of analogies, and if the\nfacts obstinately refuse to fit his theory, then--_tant pis pour les\nfaits_--he warps them till they do fit.\n\nBut analogies, even when fairly drawn, are by no means conclusive\nevidence. So much depends upon the environment of a people, that\na similarity in that particular is of itself sufficient to account\nfor most of the resemblances which have been discovered between the\ncustoms, religion, and traditions of the Americans, and those of Old\nWorld nations.[I-6]\n\nFor my own part I have no theory upon the subject--would have no\ntheory. The problem of the origin of the American aborigines is, in my\nopinion, enveloped in as much obscurity now as it ever was; and when\nI consider the close proximity of the north-western and north-eastern\nextremities of America to Asia and Europe; the unthought of and\nfortuitous circumstances that may at any time have cast any people upon\nthe American coasts; the mighty convulsions that may have changed the\nwhole face of the earth during the uncounted years that man may have\ndwelt upon its surface; and lastly, the uncertainty, perhaps I might\nsay improbability, of the descent of mankind from one pair;--when I\nthink of all these things it seems to me that the peopling of America\nmay have been accomplished in so many ways that no more hopeless task\ncould be conceived than the endeavor to discover the one particular\nmanner of it.\n\nIn the following r\u00e9sum\u00e9 I wish neither to tear down nor to build up,\nbut simply to give an account of what has been thought and written\nupon the subject, and to show, with as little criticism as possible,\nthe foundation upon which each theory stands. Of the comparative value\nof the opinions the reader must be his own judge. Of the value of this\ndiscussion of the subject there is this to be said; as a curiosity,\nshowing the color given to mind by its environment, showing the blind\nand almost frenzied[I-7] efforts of different men of different epochs,\ncreeds, and culture, to fathom a hitherto unfathomable mystery,--this,\ntogether with the collateral light thrown upon the subject of\naboriginal America, if there be no other advantage in it, will amply\nrepay the investigation.\n\n[Sidenote: DESCENDANTS OF NOAH.]\n\nThe earliest writers required three propositions to be taken for\ngranted:[I-8] First, that the entire human race are descended from\none original pair, and from Noah through Shem, Ham, and Japheth;\nsecond, that America was peopled from one of three sources--Asia,\nAfrica, or Europe; third, that all knowledge arises from one of four\nsources--knowledge pure and absolute, from a knowledge of causes;\nopinion more or less uncertain; divine faith, sure and infallible,\nbased upon the holy scriptures as interpreted by the Church; human\nfaith, dependent upon the statements of men. The first of these four\nsources of knowledge throws no light upon the subject; the third is\nequally useless here, since the scriptures are silent after the time\nof Noah, though, as we shall presently see, huge endeavors have been\nmade to make them speak; as for the fourth, Europeans, even if they\nconjectured the possible existence of an undiscovered continent, were\ncertain that it was not inhabited,[I-9] while the Americans were entirely\nignorant of the part of the world from which they sprang.\n\n[Sidenote: UNITY OR DIVERSITY OF ORIGIN.]\n\nThe first of the three propositions mentioned above, namely, that all\nmankind are descended from one original pair, seems to have been taken\nfor granted by almost all the writers, ancient and modern, who have had\nsome theory to sustain respecting the origin of the Americans.[I-10] The\nquestion of the unity of the human race, as considered without bias by\nmodern scientific men, remains, however, undetermined; though it may\nbe fairly said that the best of the argument is on the side of those\nwho maintain the primitive diversity of man. It happens that those who\nare most earnest in upholding the biblical account of the creation, and\nconsequently the unity of man, must, to be consistent, also uphold the\nbiblical system of chronology, which teaches that man has not existed\non the earth for more than six thousand years. This is unfortunate,\nsince it is evident that the higher we believe the antiquity of man\nto be, the easier it is for us to admit the unity of origin of the\nstrongly marked varieties that now exist.[I-11]\n\nThe honor of peopling America has frequently been given to Noah and\nhis immediate descendants. But even were we sure that the tradition\nrecorded in the Bible of Noah's strange doings is accurate in every\nrespect, the narrative does not throw any definite light upon his\nsubsequent proceedings, and we must invent wonders to add to wonders\nif we make anything more out of it. The subject cannot be discussed\nintelligently, but I will give some of the opinions that have been held\non the subject.\n\nNoah's ark, says Ulloa, gave rise to a number of such constructions;\nand the experience gained during the patriarch's aimless voyage\nemboldened his descendants to seek strange lands in the same manner.\nDriven to America and the neighboring islands by winds and currents,\nthey found it difficult to return, and so remained and peopled the\nland. He thinks the custom of eating raw fish at the present day among\nsome American tribes, was acquired during these long sea voyages. That\nthey came by sea is evident, for the north, if, indeed, the continent\nbe connected with the old world, must be impassable by reason of\nintense cold.[I-12] Ulloa, although he would not for a moment allow that\nthere could have been more than one general creation, does not attempt\nto account for the presence of strange animals and plants in America;\nand I may observe here that this difficulty is similarly avoided by all\nwriters of his class.[I-13] Lescarbot cannot see why \"Noah should have\nexperienced any difficulty in reaching America by sea, when Solomon's\nships made voyages lasting three years.\"[I-14]\n\n[Sidenote: NOAH'S DESCENDANTS.]\n\nVillagutierre,[I-15] on the contrary, thinks it more probable that Noah's\nsons came to America by land; an opinion also held by Thompson, who\nbelieves, however, that the continents were not disconnected until\nsome time after the flood, by which time America was peopled from the\nOld World.[I-16] Orrio remarks that many have supposed that Noah, in\norder to be able to people the New World as well as the Old, must,\nduring his three hundred and fifty years of post-diluvian life, have\nhad more children than are mentioned in the bible; but in his opinion\nthere was no necessity for more progenitors, since one woman can\nin two hundred and ten years become the ancestor of one million six\nhundred and forty-seven thousand and eighty-six persons. He thinks that\nHam was the father of the American race.[I-17] Montanus considers it\nquite in accordance with Noah's character and mission that he should\nhave attended to the peopling of the world during his long life.[I-18]\nL'Estrange is of opinion that Shem and his children, who were not\namong the builders of Babel, moved gradually eastward, and were,\nfurther, forced in that direction even to America, by the progeny of\nJapheth.[I-19] We read in one of the Abb\u00e9 Domenech's works,[I-20] that\nOphir, one of Noah's descendants, went to Peru and settled there,\nruling those who went with him. Sig\u00fcenza and Sister Agnes de la Cruz,\nconjectured that the Americans were descended from Naphtuhim, the\nson of Mizraim and grandson of Ham, whose descendants left Egypt for\nAmerica shortly after the confusion of tongues.[I-21] Pi\u00f1eda thinks the\nsame.[I-22] Clavigero considers it proven by the native flood-myths and\ntraditions of foreign origin that the Americans are descendants of\nNoah. He quotes the tradition of Votan,[I-23] who is declared to have\nbeen closely connected with the Babel-builders, the originator of that\nenterprise being his uncle.[I-24]\n\n[Sidenote: ABORIGINAL FLOOD-MYTHS.]\n\nLet us see, now, what these flood-myths are. This I may say first,\nhowever; some of them are doubtless spurious, and few have escaped the\nrenovating touch of the Spanish priests and chroniclers, who throughout\ntheir writings seem to think it their bounden duty to make the ideas\nand history of the New World correspond to those of the Old. And what\nthe old writers have added or invented, the modern writers are, in\nmost cases, ready and glad to accept as genuine, without doubt or\nquestion. \"It is impossible,\" says Viscount Kingsborough, \"when reading\nwhat Mexican Mythology records of the war in heaven, and of the fall\nof Zontemonque and the other rebellious spirits; of the creation of\nlight by the word of Tonacatecutli, and of the division of the waters;\nof the sin of Yztlacoliuhqui, and his blindness and nakedness; of the\ntemptation of Suchiquecal, and her disobedience in gathering roses\nfrom a tree, and the consequent misery and disgrace of herself and all\nher posterity,--not to recognise Scriptural analogies. But the Mexican\ntradition of the Deluge is that which bears the most unequivocal marks\nof having been derived from a Hebrew source.\"[I-25]\n\nWe have seen in a preceding volume how, according to the common version\nof the Mexican flood-myth, Coxcox and his wife Xochiquetzal were the\nonly human beings who escaped from the great deluge which covered the\nface of the earth in the Age of Water. How, when the waters went down,\nthe ark in which they had saved themselves--the hollow trunk of a bald\ncypress--rested upon the Peak of Culhuacan; and how the dumb children\nthat were born to the rescued pair were taught many languages by a\ndove. We have also read the reputed Tarasco legend of Tezpi, which so\nclosely resembles the biblical legend of the deluge that it cannot be\ndiscussed as a native tradition at all, but must be regarded simply\nas the invention of some Spanish writer who thought it his mission to\nshow that the Hebrew traditions were familiar to the Americans.[I-26]\nIn Guatemala, among the Miztecs, and in Nicaragua there were also\ntraditions of great and destructive deluges.[I-27] The P\u00e1pagos tell of a\nmighty flood that destroyed all life on the earth, except the hero-god\nMontezuma and his friend the Coyote who had foretold the deluge. Each\nof these made for himself an ark, and when the waters subsided and\nthey met on the small patch of dry land that first appeared, Montezuma\ndispatched the Coyote four times to find out exactly how the sea\nlay.[I-28] Very similar is the Pima legend which relates how the prophet\nwho would not heed the thrice repeated warnings of the Eagle was\ndestroyed by a flood, and how Szeukha, the son of the Creator, saved\nhimself by floating on a ball of gum or resin.[I-29] The Mattoles of\nCalifornia regard Taylor Peak as the point at which their forefathers\ntook refuge from a destructive flood.[I-30] Other Californian tribes\nhave a tradition of a deluge from which the Coyote, with his usual\ngood-fortune, was the only living thing that escaped, if we except an\neagle who was miraculously formed from a single feather that floated\non the face of the waters.[I-31] Lake Tahoe was formed by a flood which\ndestroyed all mankind but a very small remnant.[I-32] The Thlinkeets\nrelate that many persons escaped the great deluge by taking refuge in\na great floating building, which, when the waters fell, grounded upon\na rock and was split in twain. From this moment men spake in various\ntongues, for there remained in one fragment of the divided ark those\nwhose descendants speak the Thlinkeet language, and in the other those\nwhose descendants employ a different idiom.[I-33] The Chipewyan deluge\ncovered all the earth except the high mountain-tops, upon which many\nof the people saved themselves.[I-34] The Isthmians believed that the\nworld was peopled by a man who with his wife and children escaped\nthe great flood. The Peruvians had several flood-myths. One of them\nrelates that the whole face of the earth was changed by a great deluge,\nattended by an extraordinary eclipse of the sun which lasted five\ndays. All living things were destroyed except one man, a shepherd,\nwith his family and flocks. It happened in this wise. Some time before\nthe flood this shepherd, while tending his flock of llamas, remarked\nthat the animals appeared to be oppressed with sadness, and that they\npassed the whole night in attentively watching the course of the stars.\nFilled with amazement, he interrogated the llamas as to the cause of\ntheir concern. Directing his attention to a group of six stars, massed\nclosely together, they answered that that was a sign that the world\nwould shortly be destroyed by a deluge, and counseled him, if he wished\nto escape the universal destruction, to take refuge with his family and\nflocks on the top of a neighboring mountain. Acting upon this advice,\nthe shepherd hastily collected his llamas and children and proceeded\nwith them to the summit of mount Ancasmarca, where a crowd of other\nanimals had already sought safety. The warning had not come a moment\ntoo soon, for scarcely had they reached the mountain-top, when the sea\nburst its bounds and with a terrible roaring rushed over the land. But\nas the waters rose higher and higher, filling the valleys and covering\nthe plains, behold, the mountain of refuge rose with it, floating\nupon its surface like a ship upon the waves. This lasted five days,\nduring which time the sun hid himself and the earth was wrapped in\ndarkness. On the fifth day the waters began to subside, and the stars\nshone out on the desolate world, which was eventually re-peopled by the\ndescendants of the shepherd of Ancasmarca.\n\n[Sidenote: PERUVIAN FLOOD-MYTHS.]\n\nAccording to another Peruvian legend, two brothers escaped from a\ngreat deluge which overwhelmed the world in much the same manner, by\nascending a mountain which floated upon the flood. When the waters had\nretired, they found themselves alone in the world; and having consumed\nall their provisions, they went down into the valleys to seek for more\nfood. Whether they were successful in their search, the tradition does\nnot say; but if not, their surprise must indeed have been agreeable\nwhen on returning to the hut which they had built on the mountain, they\nfound food ready prepared for them by unknown hands. Curious to know\nwho their benefactor could be, they took counsel together and finally\nagreed that one should hide himself in the hut, while the other went\ninto the valley. The brother who remained concealed himself carefully,\nand his patience was soon rewarded by seeing two aras with the faces\nof women,[I-35] who immediately set about preparing a meal of bread and\nmeats. But it was not long before the aras became aware of the presence\nof the concealed brother, and they instantly essayed flight; but the\nman seized one of them, and she afterwards became his wife. By her\nhe had six children, three sons and three daughters, from whose union\nsprang the tribe of the Ca\u00f1aris, whose descendants to this day hold the\nara in great veneration.[I-36]\n\n\"The Peruvians were acquainted with the Deluge, and believed that\nthe rainbow was the sign that the earth would not again be destroyed\nby water.\" This somewhat startling announcement is made by Lord\nKingsborough, and he shows that there can be no reasonable doubt on\nthe subject in an eminently characteristic manner. \"This is plain,\"\nhe says, \"from the speech which Mango Capac, the reputed founder of\nthe Peruvian empire, addressed to his companions on beholding the\nrainbow rising from a hill; which is thus recorded by Balboa in the\nninth chapter of the third part of his Miscellanea Antarctica: 'They\ntraveled on until a mountain, at present named Guanacauri, presented\nitself to their view, when on a certain morning, they beheld the\nrainbow rising above the mountain, with one extremity resting upon it,\nwhen Manco Capac exclaimed to his companions, This is a propitious\nsign that the earth will not be again destroyed by water.' ... Proof\nhaving been afforded in the passage quoted from the History of Balboa,\nthat the Peruvians were acquainted with the history of the rainbow, as\ngiven in the ninth chapter of Genesis, it may be interesting to add,\nthat according to the account of an anonymous writer, they believed\nthe rainbow was not only a passive sign that the earth would not be\ndestroyed by a second deluge, but an active instrument to prevent the\nrecurrence of such a catastrophe: the latter curious notion proceeded\nupon the assumption that as the water of the sea (which, like the Jews,\nthey believed to encircle the whole earth) would have a tendency to\nrise after excessive falls of rain, so the pressure of the extremities\nof the rainbow upon its surface would prevent its exceeding its proper\nlevel.\"[I-37]\n\n[Sidenote: THE TOWER OF BABEL.]\n\nMany of these flood-myths are supplemented with an account of an\nattempt to provide against a second deluge, by building a tower of\nrefuge, resembling more or less closely the biblical legend of the\ntower of Babel. Thus a Cholultec legend relates that all the giants who\ninhabited the country, save seven, were destroyed by a great flood, and\nadds that when the waters were assuaged, one of these seven began to\nbuild an artificial mountain. But the anger of the gods was aroused,\nand they slew many of the builders, so the work was stopped.[I-38] In\nlike manner, in the P\u00e1pago legend to which I have referred, Montezuma,\nafter he and the Coyote had been saved from the flood, so incensed the\nGreat Spirit by his ingratitude and presumption, that an insect was\nsent flying to the east to bring the Spaniards, who, when they came,\nutterly destroyed Montezuma. After the deluge spoken of in the Lake\nTahoe myth, the few who escaped built up a great tower, the strong\nmaking the weak do the work. This, it is distinctly stated, they did\nthat they might have a place of refuge in case of another flood. But\nthe Great Spirit was filled with anger at their presumption, and amidst\nthunderings and lightnings, and showers of molten metal, he seized the\noppressors and cast them into a cavern.[I-39]\n\nThese myths have led many writers to believe that the Americans had\na knowledge of the tower of Babel, while some think that they are the\ndirect descendants of certain of the builders of that tower, who, after\nthe confusion of tongues, wandered over the earth until they reached\nAmerica.[I-40]\n\nMany of the tribes had traditions through which they claim to\nhave originally come from various directions to their ultimate\nsettling-place in America. It will be readily seen that such\ntraditions, even when genuine, are far too vague and uncertain to be\nof any value as evidence in any theory of origin. To each tribe its\nown little territory was the one important point in the universe; they\nhad no conception of the real size of the world; most of them supposed\nthat after a few days' journey the traveler could if he chose jump off\nthe edge of the earth into nothingness. What their traditions referred\nto as a 'country in the far east,' would probably mean a prairie two\nhundred miles away in that direction. Nevertheless, as these traditions\nhave been thought to support this or that theory, it will be well to\nbriefly review them here.[I-41]\n\n[Sidenote: ORIGIN OF THE TOLTECS.]\n\nThe tradition of the Toltecs regarding their travels before they\nreached Huehue Tlapallan has been the theme of much speculation,\nespecially as connected with their descent from the Babel builders.\nIxtlilxochitl writes of this tradition as follows: They say that the\nworld was created in the year Ce Tecpatl, and this time until the\ndeluge they call Atonatiuh, which means the age of the sun of water,\nbecause the world was destroyed by the deluge. It is found in the\nhistories of the Toltecs that this age and first world, as they term\nit, lasted seven hundred and sixteen years; that man and all the earth\nwere destroyed by great showers and by lightnings from heaven, so that\nnothing remained, and the most lofty mountains were covered up and\nsubmerged to the depth of _caxtolmoletltli_, or fifteen cubits;[I-42]\nand here they add other fables of how men came to multiply again from\nthe few who escaped the destruction in a _toptlipetlacali_; which word\nvery nearly signifies a closed chest; and how, after multiplying, the\nmen built a _zacuali_ of great height, and by this is meant a very\nhigh tower, in which to take refuge when the world should be a second\ntime destroyed. After this their tongue became confused, and, not\nunderstanding each other, they went to different parts of the world.\nThe Toltecs, seven in number, with their wives, who understood each\nother's speech, after crossing great lands and seas, and undergoing\nmany hardships, finally arrived in America, which they found to be\na good land, and fit for habitation; and they say that they wandered\none hundred and four years in different parts of the earth before they\narrived at Huehue Tlapallan, which they did in the year Ce Tecpatl,\nfive hundred and twenty years--or five ages--after the flood.[I-43]\n\n[Sidenote: TRADITIONS OF QUICH\u00c9 ORIGIN.]\n\nThe Quich\u00e9 traditions speak of a country in the far east,[I-44] to reach\nwhich immense tracts of land and water must be crossed. There, they\nsay, they lived a quiet but uncivilized life, paying no tribute, and\nspeaking a common language. There they worshiped no graven images, but\nobserved with respect the rising sun and poured forth their invocations\nto the morning star. The principal names of the families and tribes\nat that time were, Tepeu, Oloman, Cohah, Quenech, and Ahau.[I-45]\nAfterwards, continue the traditions, they left their primitive country\nunder the leadership of certain chiefs, and finally after a long\njourney reached a place called Tula. Where this Tula was is uncertain,\nbut Brasseur de Bourbourg places it on the 'other side of the sea,' and\nasserts that it was the region from which the wanderers came, from time\nto time, to the north-western coasts of America, and thence southwards\nto An\u00e1huac and Central America.[I-46]\n\nThe Yucatecs are said to have had a tradition that they came originally\nfrom the far east, passing through the sea, which God made dry for\nthem.[I-47] An Okanagan myth relates that they were descended from a\nwhite couple who had been sent adrift from an island in the eastern\nocean, and who floated ashore on this land, which has grown larger\nsince then. Their long exposure on the ocean bronzed them to the color\nof which their descendants now are.[I-48] The Chilians assert that their\nancestors came from the west. The Chepewyans have a tradition that they\ncame from a distant land, where a bad people lived, and had to cross a\nlarge narrow lake, filled with islands, where ice and snow continually\nexisted.[I-49] The Algonquins preserve a tradition of a foreign origin\nand a sea voyage. For a long time they offered an annual thank-offering\nin honor of their happy arrival in America.[I-50] According to Careri,\nthe Olmec traditions relate that they came by sea from the east.[I-51]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: AMERICAN CULTURE-HEROES.]\n\nThe native traditions concerning the several culture-heroes of\nAmerica have also been brought forward by a few writers to show that\nAmerican civilization was exotic and not indigenous; but, though these\ntraditions are far more worthy of serious consideration, and present a\nfar more fascinating field for study than those which relate merely to\nthe origin or travels of the people themselves, yet, strangely enough,\nthey seem to have excited less comment and speculation than any of\nthose far-fetched and trivial analogies with which all origin-theories\nabound.\n\nAlthough bearing various names and appearing in different countries,\nthe American culture-heroes all present the same general\ncharacteristics. They are all described as white, bearded men,\ngenerally clad in long robes; appearing suddenly and mysteriously upon\nthe scene of their labors, they at once set about improving the people\nby instructing them in useful and ornamental arts, giving them laws,\nexhorting them to practice brotherly love and other Christian virtues,\nand introducing a milder and better form of religion; having\naccomplished their mission, they disappear as mysteriously and\nunexpectedly as they came; and finally, they are apotheosized and held\nin great reverence by a grateful posterity. In such guise or on such\nmission did Quetzalcoatl appear in Cholula, Votan in Chiapas,\nWixepecocha in Oajaca, Zamn\u00e1, and Cukulcan with his nineteen\ndisciples, in Yucatan, Gucumatz in Guatemala,[I-52] Viracocha in\nPeru,[I-53] Sum\u00e9[I-54] and Paye-Tome[I-55] in Brazil, the mysterious\napostle mentioned by Rosales, in Chili,[I-56] and Bochica in\nColumbia.[I-57] Peruvian legends speak of a nation of giants who came\nby sea, waged war with the natives, and erected splendid edifices, the\nruins of many of which still remain.[I-58] Besides these, there are\nnumerous vague traditions of settlements or nations of white men, who\nlived apart from the other people of the country, and were possessed\nof an advanced civilization.\n\n[Sidenote: CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA.]\n\nThe most celebrated of these are Quetzalcoatl and Votan. The\nspeculations which have been indulged in regarding the identity of\nthese mysterious personages, are wild in the extreme. Thus Quetzalcoatl\nhas been identified by some with St Thomas, by others with the\nMessiah. Carlos de Sig\u00fcenza y G\u00f3ngora[I-59] and Luis Becerra Tanco,[I-60]\nin support of their opinion that he was no other than the apostle,\nallege that the hero-god's proper name Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl closely\nresembles in sound and signification that of Thomas, surnamed Didymus;\nfor _to_ in the Mexican name, is an abbreviation of Thomas, to which\n_pilcin_, meaning 'son' or 'disciple,' is added; while the meaning of\nQuetzalcoatl is exactly the same as that of the Greek name Didymus,\n'a twin,' being compounded of _quetzalli_ a plume of green feathers,\nmetaphorically signifying anything precious, and _coatl_, a serpent,\nmetaphorically meaning one of two twins. Boturini tells us that he\npossessed certain historical memoranda concerning the preaching of the\ngospel in America by the 'glorious apostle' St Thomas. Another proof\nin his possession was a painting of a cross which he discovered near\nthe hill of Tianguiztepetl, which cross was about a cubit in size and\npainted by the hands of angels a beautiful blue color, with various\ndevices, among which were five white balls on an azure shield, 'without\ndoubt emblems of the five precious wounds of our Savior;' and, what is\nmore marvelous, although this relic had stood in an exposed position\nfrom the days of heathenism up to the time when it was discovered,\nyet the inclemencies of the weather had not been able to affect\nits gorgeous hues in the least. But this is not all. Boturini also\npossessed a painting of another cross, which was drawn, by means of\na machine made expressly for the purpose, out of an inaccessible cave\nin Lower Mizteca, where it had been deposited in the pagan times. Its\nhiding-place was discovered by angelic music which issued from the\nmouth of the cave on every vigil of the holy apostle. Besides this,\nthe saint has left the tracks of his holy feet in many parts of New\nSpain. There is also a tradition that at the time of his departure he\nleft a prophecy that in a certain year his sons would come from the\neast to preach among the natives; which prophecy, Boturini, following\nthe track of the native calendars, discovered to have been 'verified to\nthe letter.'[I-61] After this who can doubt that St Thomas preached the\ngospel in America?\n\nForemost--as being most modern--among those who have thought it\npossible to identify Quetzalcoatl with the Messiah, stands Lord\nKingsborough, a writer and enthusiast of whom I shall speak further\nwhen I come to the supposed Hebraic origin of the Americans. To this\npoint he has devoted an incredible amount of labor and research, to\ngive any adequate idea of which would require at least more space\nthan I think, as a question of fact, it deserves. In the first place\nit is founded mainly upon obscure passages in the Prophet and other\nparts of Holy Writ, as compared with the equally obscure meanings of\nAmerican names, religious rites, ancient prophecies, conceptions of\ndivinity, etc. Now, the day is past when the earnest seeker after facts\nneed be either afraid or ashamed to assert that he cannot accept the\nscriptures as an infallible authority upon the many burning questions\nwhich continually thrust themselves, as it were, upon the present\ngeneration for immediate and fair consideration; nor need his respect\nfor traditions and opinions long held sacred be lessened one iota by\nsuch an assertion. It is needless to state that the analogies which\nLord Kingsborough finds in America in support of his theory are based\nupon no sounder foundation.[I-62]\n\n[Sidenote: VOTAN THE CULTURE-HERO.]\n\nVotan, another mysterious personage, closely resembling Quetzalcoatl\nin many points, was the supposed founder of the Maya civilization. He\nis said to have been a descendant of Noah and to have assisted at the\nbuilding of the Tower of Babel. After the confusion of tongues he led\na portion of the dispersed people to America. There he established the\nkingdom of Xibalba and built the city of Palenque.[I-63]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet us turn now from these wild speculations, with which volumes\nmight be filled, but which are practically worthless, to the special\ntheories of origin, which are, however, for the most part, scarcely\nmore satisfactory.\n\nBeginning with eastern Asia, we find that the Americans, or in some\ninstances their civilization only, are supposed to have come\noriginally from China, Japan, India, Tartary, Polynesia. Three\nprincipal routes are proposed by which they may have come, namely:\nBering Strait, the Aleutian Islands, and Polynesia. The route taken by\nno means depends upon the original habitat of the emigrants; thus the\npeople of India may have emigrated to the north of Asia, and crossed\nBering Strait, or the Chinese may have passed from one to the other of\nthe Aleutian Islands until they reached the western continent. Bering\nStrait is, however, the most widely advocated, and perhaps most\nprobable, line of communication. The narrow strait would scarcely\nhinder any migration either east or west, especially as it is\nfrequently frozen over in winter. At all events it is certain that\nfrom time immemorial constant intercourse has been kept up between the\nnatives on either side of the strait; indeed, there can be no doubt\nthat they are one and the same people. Several writers, however, favor\nthe Aleutian route.[I-64]\n\n[Sidenote: DIFFUSION OF ANIMALS.]\n\nBut there is a problem which the possibility of neither of these routes\nwill help to solve: How did the animals reach America? It is not to be\nsupposed that ferocious beasts and venomous reptiles were brought over\nby the immigrants, nor is it more probable that they swam across the\nocean. Of course such a question is raised only by those who believe\nthat all living creatures are direct descendants of the animals saved\nfrom the flood in Noah's ark; but such is the belief of the great\nmajority of our authors. The easiest way to account for this diffusion\nof animals is to believe that the continents were at one time united,\nthough this is also asserted, with great show of probability, by\nauthors who do not think it necessary to find a solid roadway in order\nto account for the presence of animals in America, or even to believe\nthat the fauna of the New World need ever in any way have come from the\nOld World. Again, some writers are inclined to wonder how the tropical\nanimals found in America could have reached the continent via the polar\nregions, and find it necessary to connect America and Africa to account\nfor this.[I-65]\n\nThe theory that America was peopled, or, at least partly peopled, from\neastern Asia, is certainly more widely advocated than any other, and,\nin my opinion, is moreover based upon a more reasonable and logical\nfoundation than any other. It is true, the Old World may have been\noriginally peopled from the New, and it is also true that the Americans\nmay have had an autochthonic origin, but, if we must suppose that\nthey have originated on another continent, then it is to Asia that\nwe must first look for proofs of such an origin, at least as far as\nthe people of north-western America are concerned. \"It appears most\nevident to me,\" says the learned Humboldt, \"that the monuments, methods\nof computing time, systems of cosmogony, and many myths of America,\noffer striking analogies with the ideas of eastern Asia--analogies\nwhich indicate an ancient communication, and are not simply the result\nof that uniform condition in which all nations are found in the dawn\nof civilization.\"[I-66] Prescott's conclusions are, first: \"That the\ncoincidences are sufficiently strong to authorize a belief, that the\ncivilization of Anahuac was, in some degree, influenced by that of\nEastern Asia. And, secondly, that the discrepancies are such as to\ncarry back the communication to a very remote period; so remote, that\nthis foreign influence has been too feeble to interfere materially with\nthe growth of what may be regarded, in its essential features, as a\npeculiar and indigenous civilization.\"[I-67] \"If, as I believe,\" writes\nDr Wilson, \"the continent was peopled from Asia, it was necessarily\nby younger nations. But its civilization was of native growth, and\nso was far younger than that of Egypt.\"[I-68] That \"immigration was\ncontinuous for ages from the east of Asia,\" is thought by Col. Smith\nto be \"sufficiently indicated by the pressure of nations, so far as it\nis known in America, being always from the north-west coasts, eastward\nand southward, to the beginning of the thirteenth century.\"[I-69] \"That\nAmerica was peopled from Asia, the cradle of the human race, can no\nlonger be doubted,\" says Dupaix; \"but how and when they came is a\nproblem that cannot be solved.\"[I-70] Emigration from eastern Asia,\nof which there can be no doubt, only \"took place,\" says Tschudi,\n\"in the latter part of the fifth century of the Christian era; and\nwhile it explains many facts in America which long perplexed our\narch\u00e6ologists, it by no means aids us in determining the origin of our\nearliest population.\"[I-71] \"After making every proper allowance,\" says\nGallatin, \"I cannot see any possible reason that should have prevented\nthose, who after the dispersion of mankind moved towards the east and\nnortheast, from having reached the extremities of Asia, and passed over\nto America, within five hundred years after the flood. However small\nmay have been the number of those first emigrants, an equal number of\nyears would have been more than sufficient to occupy, in their own way,\nevery part of America.\"[I-72] There are, however, writers who find grave\nobjections to an Asiatic origin, the principal of which are the absence\nof the horse, the \"paucity and the poverty of the lactiferous animals,\nand the consequent absence of pastoral nations in the New World.\" For,\nadds a writer in the _Quarterly Review_, \"we can hardly suppose that\nany of the pastoral hordes of Tartars would emigrate across the strait\nof Behring or the Aleutian Islands without carrying with them a supply\nof those cattle on which their whole subsistence depended.\"[I-73]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THEORY OF ORIGIN FROM CHINESE.]\n\n[Sidenote: THE COUNTRY OF FUSANG.]\n\nThe theory that western America was originally peopled by the Chinese,\nor at least that the greater part of the New World civilization may be\nattributed to this people, is founded mainly on a passage in the work\nof the Chinese historian Li yan tcheou, who lived at the commencement\nof the seventh century of our era. In this passage it is stated that\na Chinese expedition discovered a country lying twenty thousand _li_\nto the east of Tahan, which was called Fusang.[I-74] Tahan is generally\nsupposed to be Kamchatka, and Fusang the north-west coast of America,\nCalifornia, or Mexico. As so much depends upon what Li yan tcheou has\nsaid about the mysterious country, it will be well to give his account\nin full; as translated by Klaproth, it is as follows: In the first\nof the years _young yuan_, in the reign of Fi ti of the dynasty of\nThsi, a _cha men_ (buddhist priest), named Hoe\u00ef chin, arrived at King\ntcheou from the country of Fusang; of this land he says: Fusang is\nsituated twenty thousand _li_[I-75] to the east of the country of Tahan,\nand an equal distance to the east of China. In this place are many\ntrees called _fusang_,[I-76] whose leaves resemble those of the _Thoung_\n(Bignonia tomentosa), and the first sprouts those of the bamboo. These\nserve the people of the country for food. The fruit is red and shaped\nlike a pear. The bark is prepared in the same manner as hemp, and\nmanufactured into cloth and flowered stuffs. The wood serves for the\nconstruction of houses, for in this country there are neither towns nor\nwalled habitations. The inhabitants have a system of writing and make\npaper from the bark of the fusang. They possess neither arms nor troops\nand they never wage war. According to the laws of the kingdom, there\nare two prisons, one in the north, the other in the south; those who\nhave committed trifling faults are sent to the latter, those guilty of\ngraver crimes to the former, and detained there until by mitigation of\ntheir sentence they are removed to the south.[I-77] The male and female\nprisoners are allowed to marry with each other and their children are\nsold as slaves, the boys when they are eight years of age, the girls\nwhen they are nine. The prisoners never go forth from their jail alive.\nWhen a man of superior mark commits a crime, the people assemble in\ngreat numbers, seat themselves opposite the criminal, who is placed\nin a ditch, partake of a banquet, and take leave of the condemned\nperson as of one who is about to die. Cinders are then heaped about\nthe doomed man. For slight faults, the criminal alone is punished, but\nfor a great crime his children and grandchildren suffer with him; in\nsome extraordinary cases his sin is visited upon his descendants to the\nseventh generation.\n\nThe name of the king of this country is Yit khi; the nobles of the\nfirst rank are called Toui lou; those of the second, 'little' Toui\nlou; and those of the third, Na tu cha. When the king goes out, he is\naccompanied by tambours and horns. He changes the color of his dress at\ncertain times; in the years of the cycle _kia_ and _y_, it is blue; in\nthe years _ping_ and _ting_, it is red; in the years _ou_ and _ki_, it\nis yellow; in the years _keng_ and _sin_, it is white; and lastly, in\nthose years which have the characters _jin_ and _kouei_, it is black.\n\nThe cattle have long horns, and carry burdens, some as much as one\nhundred and twenty Chinese pounds. Vehicles, in this country, are drawn\nby oxen, horses, or deer. The deer are raised in the same manner that\ncattle are raised in China, and cheese is made from the milk of the\nfemales.[I-78] A kind of red pear is found there which is good at all\nseasons of the year. Grape-vines are also plentiful.[I-79] There is no\niron, but copper is met with. Gold and silver are not valued. Commerce\nis free, and the people are not given to haggling about prices.\n\nThis is the manner of their marriages: When a man wishes to wed a girl,\nhe erects his cabin just before the door of hers. Every morning and\nevening he waters and weeds the ground, and this he continues to do\nfor a whole year. If by the end of that time the girl has not given\nher consent to their union, his suit is lost and he moves away; but\nif she is willing, he marries her. The marriage ceremony is almost the\nsame as that observed in China. On the death of their father or mother,\nchildren fast for seven days; grandparents are mourned for by a fast\nof five days, and other relations by a fast of three days' duration.\nImages of the spirits of the dead[I-80] are placed on a kind of pedestal,\nand prayed to morning and evening.[I-81] Mourning garments are not worn.\n\nThe king does not meddle with affairs of government until he has been\nthree years upon the throne.\n\nIn former times the religion of Buddha was unknown in this country, but\nin the fourth of the years _ta ming_, in the reign of Hiao wou ti of\nthe Soung dynasty (A.D. 458), five _pi khieou_ or missionaries, from\nthe country Ki pin, went to Fusang and there diffused the Buddhist\nfaith. They carried with them sacred books and images, they introduced\nthe ritual, and inculcated monastic habits of life. By these means they\nchanged the manners of the people.\n\nSuch is the account given by the historian Li yan tcheou of the\nmysterious land. Klaproth, in his critique on Deguignes' theory that\nAmerica was known to the Chinese, uses the distances given by the\nmonk Hoe\u00ef chin to show that Fusang, where the laws and institutions\nof Buddha were introduced, was Japan, and that Tahan, situated to the\nwest of the Vinland of Asia, as Humboldt aptly calls Fusang,[I-82] was\nnot Kamchatka but the island of Tarakai, wrongly named on our maps,\nSaghalien. The circumstance that there were grape-vines and horses\nin the discovered country is alone sufficient, he says, to show\nthat it was not situated on the American continent, since both these\nobjects were given to the New World by the Spaniards. M. Gaubil also\ncontradicts Deguignes' theory. \"Deguignes' paper,\" he writes to one\nof his confr\u00e8res in Paris, \"proves nothing; by a similar course of\nreasoning it might be shown that the Chinese reached France, Italy, or\nPoland.\"[I-83]\n\n[Sidenote: CHINESE EXPEDITION TO AMERICA.]\n\nCertain allusions to a Chinese colony, made by Marco Polo and Gonzalo\nMendoza, led Horn, Forster, and other writers to suppose that the\nChinese, driven from their country by the Tartars about the year\n1270, embarked to the number of one hundred thousand in a fleet of one\nthousand vessels, and having arrived on the coast of America, there\nfounded the Mexican empire. As Warden justly remarks, however, it is\nnot probable that an event of such importance would be passed over\nin silence by the Chinese historians, who rendered a circumstantial\naccount of the destruction of their fleet by the Tartars about the year\n1278 of our era, as well as of the reduction of their country by the\nsame people.[I-84]\n\nThe strongest proof upon which the Chinese theory rests, is that of\nphysical resemblance, which, on the extreme north-western coast of\nAmerica, is certainly very strong.[I-85] I think there can be no doubt of\nthe presence of Mongol blood in the veins of the inhabitants of that\nregion, though it is probably Tartar or Japanese rather than Chinese.\nIndeed, when we consider that the distance across Bering Strait is\nall that intervenes between the two continents, that this is at times\ncompletely frozen over, thus practically connecting America and Asia,\nand that, both by sea and by ice, the inhabitants on both sides of\nthe strait are known to have had communication with each other from\ntime immemorial, a lack of resemblance, physical and otherwise, would\nbe far more strange than its presence. In spite of what may be said\nto the contrary, there can be no doubt that the Mongolian type grows\nless and less distinct as we go south from Alaska, though, once grant\nthe Mongols a footing on the continent, and the influence of their\nreligion, languages, or customs may, for all we know, have extended\neven to Cape Horn.\n\n[Sidenote: MONGOLIAN ANALOGIES.]\n\nAnalogies have been found, or thought to exist, between the languages\nof several of the American tribes, and that of the Chinese. But it is\nto Mexico, Central America, and, as we shall hereafter see, to Peru,\nthat we must look for these linguistic affinities, and not to the\nnorth-western coasts, where we should naturally expect to find them\nmost evident.[I-86] The similarity between the Otom\u00ed and Chinese has\nbeen remarked by several writers.[I-87] A few customs are mentioned as\nbeing common to both Chinese and Americans, but they show absolutely\nnothing, and are scarcely worth recounting. For instance, Bossu,\nspeaking of the Natchez, says, \"they never pare their finger nails,\nand it is well known that in China long nails on the right hand are\na mark of nobility.\"[I-88] \"It appears plainly\" to Mr Carver \"that a\ngreat similarity between the Indian and Chinese is conspicuous in that\nparticular custom of shaving or plucking off the hair, and leaving\nonly a small tuft on the crown of the head.\"[I-89] M. du Pratz has \"good\ngrounds to believe\" that the Mexicans came originally from China or\nJapan, especially when he considers \"their reserved and uncommunicative\ndisposition, which to this day prevails among the people of the eastern\nparts of Asia.\"[I-90] Architectural analogy there is none.[I-91]\n\n[Sidenote: BUDDHISM IN THE NEW WORLD.]\n\nThe mythological evidence upon which this and other east-Asiatic\ntheories of origin rest, is the similarity between the more advanced\nreligions of America and Buddhism. Humboldt thinks he sees in the\nsnake cut in pieces the famous serpent Kaliya or Kalinaga, conquered\nby Vishnu, when he took the form of Krishna, and in the Mexican\nTonatiuh, the Hindu Krishna, sung of in the Bhagavata-Purana.[I-92]\nCount Stolberg,[I-93] is of opinion that the two great religious sects\nof India, the worshipers of Vishnu and those of Siva, have spread over\nAmerica, and that the Peruvian cult is that of Vishnu when he appears\nin the form of Krishna, or the sun, while the sanguinary religion of\nthe Mexicans is analogous to that of Siva, in the character of the\nStygian Jupiter. The wife of Siva, the black goddess Kali or Bhavani,\nsymbol of death and destruction, wears, according to Hindu statues and\npictures, a necklace of human skulls. The Vedas ordain human sacrifices\nin her honor. The ancient cult of Kali, continues Humboldt, presents,\nwithout doubt, a marked resemblance to that of Mictlancihuatl, the\nMexican goddess of hell; \"but in studying the history of the peoples\nof An\u00e1huac, one is tempted to regard these coincidences as purely\naccidental. One is not justified in supposing that there must have been\ncommunication between all semi-barbarous nations who worship the sun,\nor offer up human beings in sacrifice.\"[I-94]\n\n[Sidenote: PHALLIC RELICS.]\n\nHumboldt, who inclines strongly toward the belief that there has\nbeen communication between America and southern Asia, is at a loss to\naccount for the total absence on the former continent of the phallic\nsymbols which play such an important part in the worship of India.[I-95]\nBut he remarks that M. Langl\u00e8s[I-96] observes that in India the\n_Vaichnava_, or votaries of Vishnu, have a horror of the emblem of the\nproductive force, adored in the temples of Siva and his wife Bhavani,\ngoddess of abundance. \"May not we suppose,\" he adds, \"that among the\nBuddhists exiled to the north-east of Asia, there was also a sect that\nrejected the phallic cult, and that it is this purified Buddhism of\nwhich we find some slight traces among the American peoples.\"[I-97] I\nthink I have succeeded in showing, however, in a previous volume that\nvery distinct traces of phallic worship have been found in America.[I-98]\nAn ornament bearing some resemblance to an elephant's trunk, found\non some of the ruined buildings and images in America, chiefly at\nUxmal, has been thought by some writers to support the theory of a\nsouth-Asiatic origin. Others have thought that this hook represents\nthe elongated snout of the tapir, an animal common in Central America,\nand held sacred in some parts. The resemblance to either trunk or snout\ncan be traced, however, only with the aid of a very lively imagination,\nand the point seems to me unworthy of serious discussion.[I-99] The same\nmust be said of attempts to trace the mound-builders to Hindustan,[I-100]\nnot because communication between America and southern Asia is\nimpossible, but because something more is needed to base a theory of\nsuch communication upon than the bare fact that there were mounds in\none country and mounds in the other.\n\nIt is very positively asserted by several authors that the civilization\nof Peru was of Mongolian origin.[I-101] It is not, however, supposed\nto have been brought from the north-western coasts of America, or\nto have come to this continent by any of the more practicable routes\nof communication, such as Bering Strait or the Aleutian Islands. In\nthis instance the introduction of foreign culture was the result of\ndisastrous accident.\n\n[Sidenote: MONGOL CIVILIZATION IN PERU.]\n\nIn the thirteenth century, the Mongol emperor, Kublai Khan, sent a\nformidable armament against Japan. The expedition failed, and the\nfleet was scattered by a violent tempest. Some of the ships, it is\nsaid, were cast upon the coast of Peru, and their crews are supposed to\nhave founded the mighty empire of the Incas, conquered three centuries\nlater by Pizarro. Mr John Ranking, who leads the van of theorists\nin this direction, has written a goodly volume upon this subject,\nwhich certainly, if read by itself, ought to convince the reader as\nsatisfactorily that America was settled by Mongols, as Kingsborough's\nwork that it was reached by the Jews, or Jones' argument that the\nTyrians had a hand in its civilization.\n\nThat a Mongol fleet was sent against Japan, and that it was dispersed\nby a storm, is matter of history, though historians differ as to\nthe manner of occurrence and date of the event; but that any of the\ndistressed ships were driven upon the coast of Peru can be but mere\nconjecture, since no news of such an arrival ever reached Asia, and,\nwhat is more important, no record of the deliverance of their fathers,\nno memories of the old mother-country from which they had been cut off\nso suddenly, seemingly no knowledge, even, of Asia, were preserved by\nthe Peruvians. Granted that the crews of the wrecked ships were but a\nhandful compared with the aboriginal population they came among, that\nthey only taught what they knew and did not people the country, still,\nthe sole foundation of the theory is formed of analogous customs and\nphysical appearance, showing that their influence and infusion of blood\nmust have been very widely extended. If, when they arrived, they found\nthe natives in a savage condition, as has been stated, this influence\nmust, indeed, have been all-pervading; and it is ridiculous to suppose\nthat the Mongol father imparted to his children a knowledge of the arts\nand customs of Asia, without impressing upon their minds the story of\nhis shipwreck and the history of his native country, about which all\nMongols are so precise.\n\nBut our theorists scorn to assign the parts of teachers to the wrecked\nMongolians. Immediately after their arrival they gave kings to the\ncountry, and established laws. Ranking narrates the personal history\nand exploits of all these kings, or Incas, and even goes so far as\nto give a steel-engraved portrait of each; but then he also gives a\n\"description of two living unicorns in Africa.\" The name of the first\nInca was Mango, or Manco, which, says Ranking, was also the name\nof the brother and predecessor of Kublai Khan, he who sent out the\nexpedition against Japan. The first Inca of Peru, he believes was the\nson of Kublai Khan, and refers the reader to his \"portrait of Manco\nCapac,[I-102] that he may compare it with the description of Kublai,\"\ngiven by Marco Polo. The wife of Manco Capac was named Coya Mama Oella\nHuaco; she was also called Mamamchic, \"as the mother of her relations\nand subjects.\" Purchas mentions a queen in the country of Sheromogula\nwhose name was Manchika.[I-103] Thus, putting two and two together,\nRanking arrives at the conclusion that \"the names of Mango and his wife\nare so like those in Mongolia, that we may fairly presume them to be\nthe same.\"[I-104]\n\n[Sidenote: PERUVIAN AND ASIATIC ANALOGIES.]\n\nLet us now briefly review some other analogies discovered by this\nwriter. The natives of South America had little or no beard, the\nMongols had also little hair on the face. The _Llatu_, or head-dress\nof the Incas had the appearance of a garland, the front being decorated\nwith a flesh-colored tuft or tassel, and that of the hereditary prince\nbeing yellow; it was surmounted by two feathers taken from a sacred\nbird. Here again we are referred to the portraits of the Incas and to\nthose of Tamerlane and Tehanghir, two Asiatic princes, \"both descended\nfrom Genghis Khan.\" The similarity between the head-dresses, is, we\nare told, \"striking, if allowance be made for the difficulty the Incas\nwould experience in procuring suitable muslin for the turban.\" The\nplumes are supposed to be in some way connected with the sacred owl of\nthe Mongols, and yellow is the color of the imperial family in China.\nThe sun was held an especial object of adoration, as it \"has been the\npeculiar god of the Moguls, from the earliest times.\" The Peruvians\nregarded Pachacamac as the Sovereign Creator; Camac-Hya was the name\nof a Hindu goddess; _haylli_ was the burden of every verse of the\nsongs composed in praise of the Sun and the Incas. \"Ogus, Ghengis'\nancestor, at one year of age, miraculously pronounced the word Allah!\nAllah! which was the immediate work of God, who was pleased that his\nname should be glorified by the mouth of this tender infant.\"[I-105]\nThus Mr Ranking thinks \"it is highly probable that this (_haylli_) is\nthe same as the well-known _Halle_lujah.\" Resemblances are found to\nexist between the Peruvian feast of the sun, and other similar Asiatic\nfestivals. In Peru, hunters formed a circle round the quarry, in the\ncountry of Genghis they did the same. The organization of the army was\nmuch the same in Peru as in the country of the Khans; the weapons and\nmusical instruments were also very similar. In the city of Cuzco, not\nfar from the hill where the citadel stood, was a portion of land called\n_colcampata_, which none were permitted to cultivate except those of\nroyal blood. At certain seasons the Incas turned up the sod here, amid\nmuch rejoicing and many ceremonies. \"A great festival is solemnized\nevery year, in all the cities of China, on the day that the sun\nenters the fifteenth degree of Aquarius. The emperor, according to the\ncustom of the ancient founders of the Chinese monarchy, goes himself\nin a solemn manner to plough a few ridges of land. Twelve illustrious\npersons attend and plough after him.\"[I-106] In Peruvian as in Chinese\narchitecture, it is noticeable that great care is taken to render\nthe joints between the stones as nearly imperceptible as possible. A\nsimilarity is also said to exist between the decorations on the palaces\nof the Incas and those of the Khans. The cycle of sixty years was in\nuse among most of the nations of eastern Asia, and among the Muyscas of\nthe elevated plains of Bogota. The _quipu_, or knotted reckoning cord\nwas in use in Peru, as in China. Some other analogies might be cited,\nbut these are sufficient to show upon what foundation this theory\nrests. I may mention here that the Incas possessed a cross of fine\nmarble, or jasper, highly polished, and all of one piece. It was three\nfourths of an ell in length and three fingers in thickness, and was\nkept in a sacred chamber of the palace and held in great veneration.\nThe Spaniards enriched this cross with gold and jewels and placed it in\nthe cathedral at Cuzco; had it been of plain wood they would probably\nhave burnt it with curses on the emblem of 'devil-worship.' To account\nfor this discovery, Mr Ranking says: There were many Nestorians in\nthe thirteenth century in the service of the Mongols. The conqueror of\nthe king of eastern Bengal, A.D. 1272, was a Christian. The Mongols,\nwho were deists, treated all religions with respect, till they became\nMohammedans. It is very probable that a part of the military sent to\nconquer Japan, were commanded by Nestorian officers. The mother of\nthe Grand Khan Mangu, who was brother to Kublai, and possibly uncle to\nManco Capac, the first Inca, was a Christian, and had in her service\nWilliam Bouchier, a goldsmith, and Basilicus, the son of an Englishman\nborn in Hungary. It is therefore highly probable that this cross\naccompanied Manco Capac.[I-107]\n\n[Sidenote: PERUVIAN GIANTS.]\n\nI have stated above that the Peruvians preserved no record of having\ncome originally from China. They had a tradition, however, concerning\ncertain foreigners who came by sea to their country, which may be worth\nrepeating; Garcilasso de la Vega gives this tradition as he himself\nheard it in Peru. They affirm, he says, in all Peru, that certain\ngiants came by sea to the cape now called St Helen's, in large barks\nmade of rushes. These giants were so enormously tall that ordinary men\nreached no higher than their knees; their long, disheveled hair covered\ntheir shoulders; their eyes were as big as saucers, and the other parts\nof their bodies were of correspondingly colossal proportions. They were\nbeardless; some of them were naked, others were clothed in the skins of\nwild beasts; there were no women with them. Having landed at the cape,\nthey established themselves at a spot in the desert, and dug deep wells\nin the rock, which at this day continue to afford excellent water. They\nlived by rapine, and soon desolated the whole country. Their appetites\nand gluttony were such that it is said one of them would eat as much\nas fifty ordinary persons. They massacred the men of the neighboring\nparts without mercy, and killed the women by their brutal violations.\nAt last, after having for a long time tyrannized over the country\nand committed all manner of enormities, they were suddenly destroyed\nby fire from heaven, and an angel armed with a flaming sword. As an\neternal monument of divine vengeance, their bones remained unconsumed,\nand may be seen at the present day. As for the rest, it is not known\nfrom what place they came, nor by what route they arrived.[I-108]\n\nThere is also a native account of the arrival of Manco Capac, in which\nhe figures simply a culture-hero. The story closely resembles those\ntold of the appearance and acts of the apostles Cukulcan, Wixepecocha,\nand others, and need not be repeated here.[I-109]\n\n[Sidenote: THE CHINESE FROM PERU.]\n\nMr Charles Wolcott Brooks, Japanese consul in San Francisco, a most\nlearned gentleman, and especially well versed in Oriental lore, has\nkindly presented me with a MS. prepared by himself, in which are\ncondensed the results of twenty-five years' study of the history\nof the eastern Asiatic nations, and their possible communication\nwith American continent.[I-110] He recognizes many striking analogies\nbetween the Chinese and the Peruvians, but arrives at a conclusion\nrespecting the relation between the two nations, the exact reverse\nof that discussed in the preceding paragraphs. His theory is that the\nChinese came originally from Peru, and not the Peruvians from China.\nHe uses, to support his argument, many of the resemblances in customs,\netc., of which Ranking and others have availed themselves to prove\nan exactly opposite theory, and adds that, as in those early times\nthe passage of the Pacific could only have been made under the most\nfavorable circumstances and with the assistance of fair winds, it would\nbe impossible, owing to the action of the SE. and NE. trade-winds for\nsuch a passage to have been made, either intentionally or accidentally,\nfrom China to Peru, while on the other hand, if a large craft were\nplaced before the wind and set adrift from the Peruvian coast, there\nis a strong probability that it would drive straight on to the southern\ncoast of China.[I-111]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: JAPANESE WRECKS ON THE AMERICAN COAST.]\n\nA Japanese origin or at least a strong infusion of Japanese blood,\nhas been attributed to the tribes of the north-west coasts. There is\nnothing improbable in this; indeed, there is every reason to believe\nthat on various occasions small parties of Japanese have reached\nthe American continent, have married the women of the country, and\nnecessarily left the impress of their ideas and physical peculiarities\nupon their descendants. Probably these visits were all, without\nexception, accidental; but that they have occurred in great numbers\nis certain. There have been a great many instances of Japanese\njunks drifting upon the American coast, many of them after having\nfloated helplessly about for many months. Mr Brooks gives forty-one\nparticular instances of such wrecks, beginning in 1782, twenty-eight\nof which date since 1850.[I-112] Only twelve of the whole number were\ndeserted. In a majority of cases the survivors remained permanently\nat the place where the waves had brought them. There is no record in\nexistence of a Japanese woman having been saved from a wreck. A great\nmany Japanese words are to be found in the Chinook jargon, but in\nall cases abbreviated, as if coming from a foreign source, while the\nconstruction of the two languages is dissimilar.[I-113] The reasons for\nthe presence of Japanese and the absence of Chinese junks are simple.\nThere is a current of cold water setting from the Arctic ocean south\nalong the east coast of Asia, which drives all the Chinese wrecks\nsouth. The Kuro Siwo, or 'black stream,' commonly known as the Japan\ncurrent, runs northwards past the eastern coast of the Japan islands,\nthen curves round to the east and south, sweeping the whole west\ncoast of North America, a branch, or eddy, moving towards the Sandwich\nIslands. A drifting wreck would be carried towards the American coast\nat an average rate of ten miles a day by this current. To explain\nthe frequent occurrence of these wrecks Mr Brooks refers to an old\nJapanese law. About the year 1630, the Japanese government adopted its\ndeliberate policy of exclusion of foreigners and seclusion of its own\npeople. To keep the latter from visiting foreign countries, and to\nconfine their voyages to smooth water and the coasting trade, a law\nwas passed ordering all junks to be built with open sterns and large\nsquare rudders unfit to stand any heavy sea. The January monsoons from\nthe north-east are apt to blow any unlucky coaster which happens to be\nout straight into the Kuro Siwo, the huge rudders are soon washed away,\nand the vessels, falling into the trough of the sea, roll their masts\noverboard. Every January there are numbers of these disasters of which\nno record is kept. About one third of these vessels, it seems, drift\nto the Sandwich Islands, the remainder to North America, where they\nscatter along the coast from Alaska to California. How many years this\nhas been going on can only be left to conjecture. The information given\nby Mr Brooks is of great value, owing to his thorough acquaintance with\nthe subject, the intelligent study of which has been a labor of love\nwith him for so many years. And his theory with regard to the Japanese\ncarries all the more weight, in my opinion, in that he does not attempt\nto account for the similarities that exist between that people and the\nAmericans by an immigration en masse, but by a constant infusion of\nJapanese blood and customs through a series of years, sufficient to\nmodify the original stock, wherever that came from.\n\nI have already stated that traces of the Japanese language have\nbeen found among the coast tribes. There is also some physical\nresemblance.[I-114] Viollet-le-Duc points out some striking resemblances\nbetween the temples of Japan and Central America.[I-115] It is asserted\nthat the people of Japan had a knowledge of the American continent and\nthat it was marked down on their maps. Montanus tells us that three\nship-captains named Henrik Corneliszoon, Schaep, and Wilhelm Byleveld,\nwere taken prisoners by the Japanese and carried to Jeddo, where they\nwere shown a sea chart, on which America was drawn as a mountainous\ncountry adjoining Tartary on the north.[I-116] Of course the natives\nhave the usual tradition that strangers came among them long before the\nadvent of the Europeans.[I-117]\n\nThe theory that America, or at least the north-western part of it, was\npeopled by the 'Tartars' or tribes of north-western Asia, is supported\nby many authors. There certainly is no reason why they should not have\ncrossed Bering Strait from Asia, the passage is easy enough; nor is\nthere any reason why they should not have crossed by the same route\nto Asia, and peopled the north-western part of that continent. The\ncustoms, manner of life, and physical appearance of the natives on both\nsides of the straits are almost identical, as a multitude of witnesses\ntestify, and it seems absurd to argue the question from any point. Of\ncourse, Bering Strait may have served to admit other nations besides\nthe people inhabiting its shores into America, and in such cases there\nis more room for discussion.[I-118]\n\n[Sidenote: THE EGYPTIAN THEORY.]\n\nWe may now consider that theory which supposes the civilized peoples\nof America to be of Egyptian origin, or, at least, to have derived\ntheir arts and culture from Egypt. This supposition is based mainly\non certain analogies which have been thought to exist between the\narchitecture, hieroglyphics, methods of computing time, and, to a less\nextent, customs, of the two countries. Few of these analogies will,\nhowever, bear close investigation, and even where they will, they can\nhardly be said to prove anything. I find no writer who goes so far as\nto affirm that the New World was actually peopled from Egypt; we shall,\ntherefore, have to regard this merely as a culture-theory, the original\nintroduction of human life into the continent in no way depending upon\nits truth or fallacy.\n\nThe architectural feature which has attracted most attention is the\npyramid, which to some writers is of itself conclusive proof of an\nEgyptian origin. The points of resemblance, as given by those in favor\nof this theory, are worth studying. Garc\u00eda y Cubas claims the following\nanalogies between Teotihuacan and the Egyptian pyramids: the site\nchosen is the same; the structures are oriented with slight variation;\nthe line through the centre of the pyramids is in the 'astronomical\nmeridian;' the construction in grades and steps is the same; in both\ncases the larger pyramids are dedicated to the sun; the Nile has a\n'valley of the dead,' as at Teotihuacan there is a 'street of the\ndead;' some monuments of each class have the nature of fortifications;\nthe smaller mounds are of the same nature and for the same purpose;\nboth pyramids have a small mound joined to one of their faces; the\nopenings discovered in the Pyramid of the Moon are also found in\nsome Egyptian pyramids; the interior arrangement of the pyramids is\nanalogous.[I-119]\n\n[Sidenote: EGYPTIAN AND AMERICAN PYRAMIDS.]\n\nThe two great pyramids of Teotihuacan, dedicated to the sun and moon,\nare surrounded by several hundreds of small pyramids. Delafield remarks\nthat the pyramids of Gizeh, in Egypt, are also surrounded by smaller\nedifices in regular order, and closely correspond in arrangement to\nthose of Teotihuacan.[I-120] The construction of these two pyramids\nrecalls to Mr Ranking's mind that of \"one of the Egyptian pyramids of\nSakhara, which has six stories; and which, according to Pocock, is a\nmass of pebbles and yellow mortar, covered on the outside with rough\nstones.\"[I-121] In some few instances human remains have been found in\nAmerican pyramids, though never in such a position as to convey the\nidea that the structure had been built expressly for their reception,\nas was the case in Egypt. It is but fair to add, however, that no\npyramid has yet been opened to its centre, or, indeed, in any way\nproperly explored as to its interior, and that a great many of them are\nknown to have interior galleries and passages, though these were not\nused as sepulchres. In one instance, at Copan, a vault was discovered\nin the side of a pyramidal structure; on the floor, and in two small\nniches, were a number of red earthen-ware vessels, containing human\nbones packed in lime; scattered about were shells, cave stalactites,\nand stone knives; three heads were also found, one of them \"apparently\nrepresenting death, its eyes being nearly shut, and the lower features\ndistorted; the back of the head symmetrically perforated by holes;\nthe whole of most exquisite workmanship, and cut or cast from a fine\nstone covered with green enamel.\"[I-122] In the great pyramid of Cholula,\nalso, an excavation made in building the Puebla road, which cut off a\ncorner of the lower terrace, not only disclosed to view the interior\nconstruction of the pyramid, but also laid bare a tomb containing\ntwo skeletons and two idols of basalt, a collection of pottery, and\nother relics. The sepulchre was square, with stone walls, supported\nwith cypress beams. The dimensions are not given, but no traces of\nany outlet were found.[I-123] There are, besides, traditions among the\nnatives of the existence of interior galleries and apartments of great\nextent within this mound. Thus we see that in some instances the dead\nwere deposited in pyramids, though there is not sufficient evidence to\nshow that these structures were originally built for this purpose.\n\n[Sidenote: ARCHITECTURAL ANALOGIES.]\n\nHerodotus tells us that in his time the great pyramid of Cheops was\ncoated with polished stone, in such a manner as to present a smooth\nsurface on all its sides from the base to the top; in the upper part of\nthe pyramid of Cephren the casing-stones have remained in their places\nto the present day. No American pyramid with smooth sides has as yet\nbeen discovered, and of this fact those who reject the Egyptian theory\nhave not failed to avail themselves.[I-124] It is nevertheless probable\nthat many of the American pyramids had originally smooth sides,\nthough, at the present day, time and the growth of dense tropical\nvegetation have rendered the very shape of the structures scarcely\nrecognizable.[I-125] It is further objected that while the American\npyramids exhibit various forms, all are truncated, and were erected\nmerely to serve as foundations for other buildings, those of Egypt\nare of uniform shape, \"rising and diminishing until they come to a\npoint,\"[I-126] and are not known to have ever served as a base for temple\nor palace. It is, however, not certain, judging from facts visible at\nthe present day, that all the Egyptian pyramids did rise to a point.\nAgain, it is almost certain that the American pyramid was not always\nused as a foundation for a superimposed building, but that it was\nfrequently complete in itself. In many of the ruined cities of Yucatan\none or more pyramids have been found upon the summit of which no traces\nof any building could be discovered, although upon the pyramids by\nwhich these were surrounded portions of superimposed edifices still\nremained. There is, also, some reason to believe that perfect pyramids\nwere constructed in America. As has been seen in the preceding volume,\nWaldeck found near Palenque two pyramids, which he describes as having\nbeen at the time in a state of perfect preservation, square at the\nbase, pointed at the top, and thirty-one feet high, their sides forming\nequilateral triangles. Delafield[I-127] remarks that a simple mound would\nfirst suggest the pyramid, and that from this the more finished and\npermanent structure would grow; which is true enough. But if we are\nto believe, as is stated, that the American pyramids grew from such\nbeginnings as the Mississippi mounds, then what reason can there be in\ncomparing the pyramids of Teotihuacan with those of Gizeh in Egypt.\nFor if the Egyptian colonists, at the time of their emigration to\nAmerica, had advanced no further toward the perfect pyramid than the\nmound-building stage, would it not be the merest coincidence if the\nfinished pyramidal structures in one country, the result of centuries\nof improvement, should resemble those of the other country in any but\nthe most general features? Finally, pyramidal edifices were common\nin Asia as well as in Northern Africa, and it may be said that the\nAmerican pyramids are as much like the former as they are like the\nlatter.[I-128]\n\nIn its general features, American architecture does not offer any\nstrong resemblances to the Egyptian. The upholders of the theory find\ntraces of the latter people in certain round columns found at Uxmal,\nMitla, Quemada, and other places; in the general massiveness of the\nstructures; and in the fact that the vermilion dye on many of the ruins\nwas a favorite color in Egypt.[I-129] Humboldt, speaking of a ruined\nstructure at Mitla, says: \"the distribution of the apartments of this\nsingular edifice, bears a striking analogy to what has been remarked\nin the monuments of Upper Egypt, drawn by M. Denon, and the savans who\ncompose the institute of Cairo.\"[I-130]\n\n[Sidenote: SCULPTURE AND HIEROGLYPHICS.]\n\nBetween American and Egyptian sculpture, there is, at first sight,\na very striking general resemblance. This, however, almost entirely\ndisappears upon close examination and comparison. Both peoples\nrepresented the human figure in profile, the Egyptians invariably, the\nAmericans generally; in the sculpture of both, much the same attitudes\nof the body predominate, and these are but awkwardly designed; there\nis a general resemblance between the lofty head-dresses worn by the\nvarious figures, though in detail there is little agreement.[I-131]\nThese are the points of analogy and they are sufficiently prominent\nto account for the idea of resemblance which has been so often and so\nstrongly expressed. But while sculpture in Egypt is for the most part\nin intaglio, in America it is usually in relief. In the former country,\nthe faces are expressionless, always of the same type, and, though\nexecuted in profile, the full eye is placed on the side of the head; in\nthe New World, on the contrary, we meet with many types of countenance,\nsome of which are by no means lacking in expression.\n\nIf there were any hope of evidence that the civilized peoples of\nAmerica were descendants, or derived any of their culture from the\nancient Egyptians, we might surely look for such proof in their\nhieroglyphics. Yet we look in vain. To the most expert decipherer of\nEgyptian hieroglyphics, the inscriptions at Palenque are a blank and\nunreadable mystery, and they will perhaps ever remain so.[I-132]\n\nResemblances have been found between the calendar systems of Egypt and\nAmerica, based chiefly upon the length and division of the year, and\nthe number of intercalary and complementary days. This, however, is\ntoo lengthy a subject to be fully discussed here. In a previous volume\nI have given a full account of the American systems, and must perforce\nleave it to the reader to compare them with the Egyptian system.[I-133]\n\nOf course a similarity of customs has to be found to support this\ntheory, as in the case of others. Consequently our attention is drawn\nto embalmment, circumcision, and the division of the people into\ncastes, which is not quite true of the Americans; some resemblance\nis found, moreover, between the religions of Egypt and America, for\ninstance, certain animals were held sacred in both countries; but all\nsuch analogies are far too slender to be worth anything as evidence;\nthere is scarcely one of them that would not apply to several other\nnations equally as well as to the Egyptians.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THE PH\u0152NICIAN THEORY.]\n\nTurning now to Western Asia, we find the honor of first settling\nAmerica given to the adventurous Ph\u0153nicians. The sailors of Carthage\nare also supposed by some writers to have first reached the New World,\nbut as the exploits of colony and mother-country are spoken of by most\nwriters in the same breath, it will be the simplest plan to combine\nthe two theories here. They are based upon the fame of these people\nas colonizing navigators more than upon any actual resemblances that\nhave been found to exist between them and the Americans. It is argued\nthat their ships sailed beyond the Pillars of Hercules to the Canary\nIslands, and that such adventurous explorers having reached that\npoint would be sure to seek farther. The records of their voyages and\ncertain passages in the works of several of the writers of antiquity\nare supposed to show that the ancients knew of a land lying in the far\nwest.[I-134]\n\n[Sidenote: VOYAGES OF THE PH\u0152NICIANS.]\n\nThe Ph\u0153nicians were employed about a thousand years before the\nChristian era, by Solomon, king of the Jews, and Hiram, king of Tyre,\nto navigate their fleets to Ophir and Tarshish. They returned, by way\nof the Mediterranean, to the port of Joppa, after a three-years'\nvoyage, laden with gold, silver, precious stones, ivory, cedar, apes,\nand peacocks. Several authors have believed that they had two distinct\nfleets, one of which went to the land since known as America, and the\nother to India. Huet, bishop of Avranches,[I-135] and other authors,\nare persuaded that Ophir was the modern Sofala, situated about 21\u00b0 S.\nlat., and that Tarshish comprised all the western coast of Africa and\nSpain, but particularly the part lying about the mouth of the B\u0153tis or\nGuadalquivir. According to Arius Montanus, Genebrardus, Vatable, and\nother writers, Ophir is the island of Hispaniola. It is said that\nChristopher Columbus was induced to adopt this idea by the immense\ncaverns which he found there, from which he supposed that Solomon must\nhave obtained his gold. Postel and others have believed that the land\nof Ophir was Peru.[I-136] Horn[I-137] claims that the Ph\u0153nicians made\nthree remarkable voyages to America; the first, under the direction of\nAtlas, son of Neptune; the second, when they were driven by a tempest\nfrom the coast of Africa to the most remote parts of the Atlantic\nocean, and arrived at a large island to the west of Libya; and the\nthird, in the time of Solomon, when the Tyrians went to Ophir to seek\nfor gold. According to those who believe that there were two distinct\nfleets, that of Solomon and that of Hiram, the first set out from\nEziongeber, sailed down the Red Sea, doubled Cape Comorin, and went to\nTaproban (Ceylon), or some other part of India; this voyage occupied\none year. The other fleet passed through the Mediterranean, stopping\nat the various ports along the coasts of Europe and Africa, and\nfinally, passing out through the straits of Gades, continued its\nvoyage as far as America, and returned after three years to its\nstarting-place, laden with gold.\n\nThe _Periplus_ of Hanno, a Carthaginian navigator of uncertain date,\ncontains an account of a voyage which he made beyond the Pillars of\nHercules, with a fleet of sixty ships and thirty thousand men, for\nthe purpose of founding the Liby-Ph\u0153nician towns. He relates that\nsetting out from Gades, he sailed southwards. The first city he\nfounded was Thumiaterion,[I-138] near the Pillars of Hercules, probably\nin the neighborhood of Marmora. He then doubled the promontory of\nSoloeis,[I-139] which Rennel considers to be the same as Cape Cantin, but\nother commentators to be the same as Cape Blanco, in 33\u00b0 N. latitude. A\nlittle to the south of this promontory five more cities were founded.\nAfter passing the mouth of the river Lixus, supposed by Rennel to be\nthe modern St Cyprian, he sailed for two days along a desolate coast,\nand on the third day entered a gulf in which was situated a small\nisland, which he named Kerne, and colonized. After continuing his\nvoyage for some days, and meeting with various adventures, he returned\nto Kerne, whence he once more directed his course southward, and sailed\nalong the coast for twelve days. Two days more he spent in doubling a\ncape, and five more in sailing about a large gulf. He then continued\nhis voyage for a few days, and was finally obliged to return from want\nof provisions. The authenticity of the _Periplus_ has been doubted by\nmany critics, but it appears probable from the testimony of several\nancient authors that the voyage was actually performed. But be the\naccount true or false, I certainly can discover in it no ground for\nbelieving that Hanno did more than coast along the western shore of\nAfrica, sailing perhaps as far south as Sierra Leone.[I-140]\n\n[Sidenote: VOYAGES OF THE PH\u0152NICIANS.]\n\nDiodorus Siculus relates that the Ph\u0153nicians discovered a large island\nin the Atlantic Ocean, beyond the Pillars of Hercules, several days'\njourney from the coast of Africa. This island abounded in all manner of\nriches. The soil was exceedingly fertile; the scenery was diversified\nby rivers, mountains, and forests. It was the custom of the inhabitants\nto retire during the summer to magnificent country houses, which stood\nin the midst of beautiful gardens. Fish and game were found in great\nabundance. The climate was delicious, and the trees bore fruit at all\nseasons of the year. The Ph\u0153nicians discovered this fortunate island\nby accident, being driven on its coast by contrary winds. On their\nreturn they gave glowing accounts of its beauty and fertility, and the\nTyrians, who were also noted sailors, desired to colonize it. But the\nsenate of Carthage opposed their plan, either through jealousy, and a\nwish to keep any commercial benefit that might be derived from it for\nthemselves, or, as Diodorus relates, because they wished to use it as\na place of refuge in case of necessity.\n\nSeveral authors, says Warden, have believed that this island was\nAmerica, among others, Huet, bishop of Avranches. \"The statement of\nDiodorus,\" he writes, \"that those who discovered this island were cast\nupon its shores by a tempest, is worthy of attention; as the east wind\nblows almost continually in the torrid zone, it might well happen that\nCarthaginian vessels, surprised by this wind, should be carried against\ntheir will to the western islands.\" Aristotle tells the same story.\nHomer, Plutarch, and other ancient writers, mention islands situated\nin the Atlantic, several thousand stadia from the Pillars of Hercules,\nbut such accounts are too vague and mythical to prove that they knew of\nany land west of the Canary Islands. Of course they surmised that there\nwas land beyond the farthest limits of their discovery; they saw that\nthe sea stretched smoothly away to the horizon, uncut by their clumsy\nprows, no matter how far they went; they peopled the Sea of Darkness\nwith terrors, but they hazarded all manner of guesses at the nature of\nthe treasure which those terrors guarded. Is it not foolish to invent\na meaning and a fulfillment to fit the vague surmises of these ancient\nminds? Are we to believe that Seneca was inspired by a spirit of\nprophecy because we read these lines in the second act of his _Medea_:\n\n                   \"Venient annis\n     S\u00e6cula seris, quibus Oceanus\n     Vincula rerum laxet, et ingens\n     Pateat tellus, Thetysque[I-141] novos\n     Detegat orbes; nec sit terris\n     Ultima Thule.\"\n\nOr that Silenus knew of the continent of America because \u00c6lianus makes\nhim tell Midas, the Phrygian, that there was another continent besides\nEurope, Asia, and Africa? A continent whose inhabitants are larger\nand live longer than ordinary people, and have different laws and\ncustoms. A country where gold and silver are so plentiful that they are\nesteemed no more than we esteem iron. Are we to suppose that St Clement\nhad visited America when he wrote, in his celebrated epistle to the\nCorinthians that there were other worlds beyond the ocean? Might we not\nas well argue that America was certainly _not_ known to the ancients,\nor Tacitus would never have written: \"Trans Sueones aliud mare, pigrum\nac prop\u00e8 immotum ejus cingi cludique terrarum orbem hinc fides.\" Would\nthe theological view of the flat structure of the earth have gained\ncredence for a moment, had antipodes been discovered and believed in?\n\n[Sidenote: VOTAN'S TRAVELS.]\n\nThe mysterious traveler, Votan, is once more made to do service for the\ntheorist here. In his somewhat doubtful manuscript, entitled \"Proof\nthat I am a Serpent,\" Votan asserts that he is a descendant of Imox,\nof the race of Chan, and derives his origin from Chivim. \"He states\nthat he conducted seven families from Valum Votan to this continent\nand assigned lands to them; that he is the third of the Votans; that,\nhaving determined to travel until he arrived at the root of heaven,\nin order to discover his relations the Culebras (Serpents), and make\nhimself known to them, he made four voyages to Chivim;[I-142] that he\narrived in Spain, and that he went to Rome; that he saw the great house\nof God building;[I-143] that he went by the road which his brethren the\nCulebras had bored; that he marked it, and that he passed by the houses\nof the thirteen Culebras. He relates that in returning from one of his\nvoyages, he found seven other families of the Tzequil nation, who had\njoined the first inhabitants, and recognized in them the same origin\nas his own, that is, of the Culebras. He speaks of the place where they\nbuilt their first town, which, from its founders, received the name of\nTzequil; he affirms the having taught them refinement of manners in the\nuse of the table, table-cloth, dishes, basins, cups, and napkins; that,\nin return for these, they taught him the knowledge of God and of his\nworship; his first ideas of a king and obedience to him; and that he\nwas chosen captain of all these united families.\"[I-144]\n\n[Sidenote: THE TZENDAL TRADITIONS.]\n\nCabrera supposes Chivim to be the same as Hivim or Givim, which was\nthe name of the country from which the Hivites, descendants of Heth,\nson of Canaan, were expelled by the Philistines some years before\nthe departure of the Hebrews from Egypt. Some of these settled about\nthe base of Mount Hermon, and to them belonged Cadmus and his wife\nHarmonia. It is probably owing to the fable of their transformation\ninto snakes, related by Ovid in his Metamorphoses, that the word Givim\nin the Ph\u0153nician language signifies a snake.[I-145] Tripoli of Syria, a\ntown in the kingdom of Tyre, was anciently called Chivim. \"Under this\nsupposition, when Votan says he is Culebra, because he is Chivim, he\nclearly shows, that he is a Hivite originally of Tripoli in Syria,\nwhich he calls Valum Chivim, where he landed, in his voyages to the\nold continent. Here then, we have his assertion, I am Culebra, because\nI am Chivim, proved true, by a demonstration as evident, as if he had\nsaid, I am a Hivite, native of Tripoli in Syria, which is Valum Chivim,\nthe port of my voyages to the old continent, and belonging to a nation\nfamous for having produced such a hero as Cadmus, who, by his valour\nand exploits, was worthy of being changed into a Culebra (snake) and\nplaced among the gods; whose worship, for the glory of my nation and\nrace, I teach, to the seven families of the Tzequiles, that I found,\non returning from one of my voyages, united to the seven families,\ninhabitants of the American continent, whom I conducted from Valum\nVotan, and distributed lands among them.\"[I-146]\n\nThe most enthusiastic supporter of the Ph\u0153nician, or Tyrian, theory,\nis Mr George Jones. This gentleman has devoted the whole of a goodly\nvolume to the subject, in which he not only sustains, but conclusively\nproves, to his own satisfaction, whatever proposition he pleases. It\nis of no use to question, he demolishes by anticipation all possible\nobjections; he \"will yield to none,\" he says, \"in the conscientious\nbelief in the truth of the startling propositions, and the consequent\nhistoric conclusions.\" The sum of these propositions and conclusions\nis this: that after the taking of the Tyrian capital by Alexander,\nB.C. 332, a remnant of the inhabitants escaped by sea to the Fortunate\nIslands, and thence to America. The author does not pretend that they\nhad any positive foreknowledge of the existence of a western continent;\nthough he believes \"that from their knowledge of astronomy, they may\nhave had the supposition that such might be the case, from the then\nknown globular character of the earth.\" But they were mainly indebted\nfor the success of their voyage to the favoring east winds which bore\nthem, in the space of a month straight to the coast of Florida.[I-147]\n\"There arrived in joyous gladness, and welcomed by all the gifts\nof nature,--like an heir to a sudden fortune, uncertain where to\nrest,--the Tyrians left the shore of Florida and coasted the gulf of\nMexico, and so around the peninsula of Yucatan and into the Bay of\nHonduras; they thence ascended a river of shelter and safety, and above\nthe rapids of which they selected the site of their first city,--now\noccupied by the ruins, altars, idols, and walls of Copan!\"\n\nThe more effectually to preserve the secret of their discovery and\nplace of refuge, they subsequently destroyed their galleys and passed\na law that no others should be built. At least, this is Mr. Jones'\nbelief--a belief which, to him, makes the cause \"instantly apparent\"\nwhy the new-found continent was for so many centuries unknown to\nAsiatics or Europeans. It is possible, however, the same ingenious\nauthor thinks, that, upon a final landing, they burned their ships\nas a sacrifice to Apollo, \"and having made that sacrifice to Apollo,\nfanatical zeal may have led them to abhor the future use of means,\nwhich, as a grateful offering, had been given to their deity. Thence\nmay be traced the gradual loss of nautical practice, on an enlarged\nscale; and the great continent now possessed by them, would also\ndiminish by degrees the uses of navigation.\"[I-148]\n\n[Sidenote: MR JONES' REASONING.]\n\nJones ingeniously makes use of the similarities which have been thought\nto exist between the American and Egyptian pyramids, and architecture\ngenerally, to prove his Tyrian theory. The general character of\nthe American architecture is undoubtedly Egyptian, he argues; but\nthe resemblance is not close enough in detail to allow of its being\nactually the work of Egyptian hands; the ancient cities of America\nwere therefore built by a people who had a _knowledge_ of Egyptian\narchitecture, and enjoyed constant intercourse with that nation. But\nsome of the ruins are Greek in style; the mysterious people must also\nhave been familiar with Greek architecture. Where shall we find such a\npeople? The cap exactly fits the Tyrians, says Mr Jones, let them wear\nit. Unfortunately, however, Mr Jones manufactures the cap himself and\nknows the exact size of the head he wishes to place it on. He next goes\non to prove \"almost to demonstration that Grecian artists were authors\nof the sculpture, Tyrians the architects of the entire edifices,--while\nthose of Egypt were authors of the architectural bases.\" The tortoise\nis found sculptured on some of the ruins at Uxmal; it was also stamped\nupon the coins of Grecian Thebes and \u00c6gina. From this fact it is\nbrought home at once to the Tyrians, because the Ph\u0153nician chief\nCadmus, who founded Thebes, and introduced letters into Greece, without\ndoubt selected the symbols of his native land to represent the coin of\nhis new city. The tortoise is, therefore, a Tyrian emblem.[I-149]\n\nThe American ruins in some places bear inscriptions written in\nvermilion paint; the Tyrians were celebrated for a purple dye.\nCarved gems have been found in American tombs; the Tyrians were also\nacquainted with gem-carving. The door-posts and pillars of Solomon's\ntemple were square;[I-150] square obelisks and columns may also be found\nat Palenque. But it is useless to multiply quotations; the absurdity of\nsuch reasoning is blazoned upon the face of it.\n\nAt Dighton, on the bay of Narraganset, is, or was, an inscription\ncut in the rock, which has been confidently asserted to be Ph\u0153nician.\nCopies of this inscription have been frequently made, but they differ\nso materially that no two of them would appear to be intended for the\nsame design.[I-151]\n\n[Sidenote: INSCRIBED TABLETS.]\n\nIn the mountains which extend from the village of Uruana in South\nAmerica to the west bank of the Caura, in 7\u00b0 lat., Father Ramon\nBueno found a block of granite on which were cut several groups of\ncharacters, in which Humboldt sees some resemblance to the Ph\u0153nician,\nthough he doubts that the worthy priest whose copy he saw performed his\nwork very carefully.[I-152]\n\nThe inscribed stone discovered at Grave Creek Mound has excited much\ncomment, and has done excellent service, if we judge by the number of\ntheories it has been held to elucidate. Of the twenty-two characters\nwhich are confessedly alphabetic, inscribed upon this stone, ten are\nsaid to correspond, with general exactness, with the Ph\u0153nician, fifteen\nwith the Celtiberic, fourteen with the old British, Anglo Saxon or\nBardic, five with the old northern, or Runic proper, four with the\nEtruscan, six with the ancient Gallic, four with the ancient Greek,\nand seven with the old Erse.[I-153] An inscribed monument supposed to be\nPh\u0153nician was discovered by one Joaquin de Costa, on his estate in New\nGranada, some time since.[I-154] The cross, the serpent, and the various\nother symbols found among the American ruins, have all been regarded by\ndifferent authors as tending to confirm the Ph\u0153nician theory; chiefly\nbecause similar emblems have been found in Egypt, and the Ph\u0153nicians\nare known to have been familiar with Egyptian arts and ideas.[I-155]\nMelgar, who thinks there can be no doubt that the Ph\u0153nicians built\nPalenque, supposes the so-called Palenque medal[I-156] to represent\nHercules in the Garden of the Hesperides, attacked by the dragon. Two\nthousand three hundred years before the worship of Hercules was known\nin Greece, it obtained in Ph\u0153nicia, whither it was brought from Egypt,\nwhere it had flourished for over seventeen thousand years.[I-157]\n\n[Sidenote: THE CARTHAGINIAN THEORY.]\n\nGarc\u00eda quotes a number of analogies, giving, after his fashion, the\nobjections to each by the Spaniards. The builders of the Central\nAmerican cities, he says, are reported by tradition to have been of\nfair complexion and bearded. The Carthaginians, in common with the\nIndians, practiced human sacrifices to a great extent; they worshiped\nfire and water, adopted the names of the animals whose skins they wore,\ndrank to excess, telegraphed by means of fires, decked themselves\nin all their finery on going to war, poisoned their arrows, offered\npeace before beginning battle, used drums, shouted in battle, were\nsimilar in stratagems and exercised great cruelty to the vanquished.\nThe objections are that the language of the Indians is not corrupt\nCarthaginian; that they have many languages, and could not have sprung\nfrom any one nation; Satan prompted the Indians to learn various\nlanguages in order to prevent the extension of the true faith. But why\nare the Indians beardless if they descended from the Carthaginians?\nTheir beards have been lost by the action of the climate as the\nAfricans were changed in color. Then why do they not lose their hair as\nwell, and why do not the Spaniards lose their beard? They may in time.\nAnd so he goes on through page after page.[I-158]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe theory that the Americans are of Jewish descent has been discussed\nmore minutely and at greater length than any other. Its advocates,\nor at least those of them who have made original researches, are\ncomparatively few; but the extent of their investigations and the\nmultitude of parallelisms they adduce in support of their hypothesis,\nexceed by far anything we have yet encountered.\n\nOf the earlier writers on this subject, Garc\u00eda is the most voluminous.\nOf modern theorists Lord Kingsborough stands pre\u00ebminently first, as\nfar as bulky volumes are concerned, though Adair, who devotes half\nof a thick quarto to the subject, is by no means second to him in\nenthusiasm--or rather fanaticism--and wild speculation. Mrs Simon's\nvolume, though pretentious enough to be original, is neither more nor\nless than a re-hash of Kingsborough's labors.\n\nGarc\u00eda,[I-159] who affirms that he devoted more attention to this\nsubject than to all the rest of his work,[I-160] deals with the Hebrew\ntheory by the same systematic arrangement of 'opinions,' 'solutions,'\n'objections,' 'replies,' etc., that is found all through his book. A\ncondensed r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of his argument will be necessary.\n\n[Sidenote: TEN LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL.]\n\nThe opinion that the Americans are descended from the ten lost tribes\nof Israel, he says, is commonly received by the unlettered multitude,\nbut not by the learned; there are, however, some exceptions to this\nrule. The main support of the opinion is found in the fourth book of\nEsdras, according to which these tribes, having been carried into\ncaptivity by Salmanassar, separated from the other tribes and went\ninto a new region, where man had never yet lived, through which they\njourneyed for a year and a half, until they came to a land which they\ncalled Arsareth, where they settled and have dwelt ever since.\n\nThe most difficult question is: how did they get to America? to which\nthe most reasonable answer seems to be, that they gradually crossed\nnorthern Asia until they came to the straits of Anian,[I-161] over which\nthey passed into the land of Anian, whence they journeyed southward by\nland through New Mexico into Mexico and Peru.[I-162] That they were able\nto make such a long journey is amply attested by parallel undertakings,\nof which we have historical proof. It is argued that they would not\ntravel so far and through so many inhabited countries without finding\na resting-place; but we read in the Scriptures that when they left the\ncountry of the Medes, whither they had been carried by Salmanassar,\nthey determined to journey beyond all the gentile nations until they\ncame to an uninhabited land. It is true some learned men assert that\nthey are still to be found in the cities of the Medes, but a statement\nthat disagrees with the book of Esdras is unworthy of belief; though\nof course some of them may have remained; besides, must not Mexico be\nincluded in the direct declaration of God that he would scatter the\nJews over all the earth? The opinion that the Americans are of Hebrew\norigin is further supported by similarities in character, dress,\nreligion, physical peculiarities, condition, and customs. The Americans\nare at heart cowardly, and so are the Jews; the history of both nations\nproves this.[I-163] The Jews did not believe in the miracles of Christ,\nand for their unbelief were scattered over the face of the earth, and\ndespised of all men; in like manner the people of the New World did\nnot readily receive the true faith as preached by Christ's catholic\ndisciples, and are therefore persecuted and being rapidly exterminated.\nAnother analogy presents itself in the ingratitude of the Jews for the\nmany blessings and special favors bestowed on them by God, and the\ningratitude shown by the Americans in return for the great kindness\nof the Spaniards. Both Jews and Americans are noted for their want\nof charity and kindness to the poor, sick, and unfortunate; both are\nnaturally given to idolatry; many customs are common to both, such as\nraising the hands to heaven when making a solemn affirmation, calling\nall near relatives brothers, showing great respect and humility before\nsuperiors, burying their dead on hills and high places without the\ncity, tearing their clothing on the reception of bad tidings, giving a\nkiss on the cheek as a token of peace, celebrating a victory with songs\nand dances, casting out of the place of worship women who are barren,\ndrowning dogs in a well, practicing crucifixion. Both were liars,\ndespicable, cruel, boastful, idle, sorcerers, dirty,[I-164] swindlers,\nturbulent, incorrigible, and vicious. The dress of the Hebrews was\nin many points like that of the Americans. Both are fit only for the\nlowest kind of labor. The Jews preferred the flesh-pots of Egypt and a\nlife of bondage to heavenly manna and the promised land; the Americans\nliked a life of freedom and a diet of roots and herbs, better than the\nservice of the Spaniards with good food.[I-165] The Jews were famous for\nfine work in stone, as is shown by the buildings of Jerusalem, and\na similar excellence in this art is seen in the American ruins. The\nMexicans have a tradition of a journey undertaken at the command of\na god, and continued for a long time under the direction of certain\nhigh-priests, who miraculously obtained supplies for their support;\nthis bears a striking resemblance to the Hebrew story of the wandering\nin the desert.\n\n[Sidenote: THE JEWS IN AMERICA.]\n\n[Sidenote: JEWISH ANALOGIES.]\n\nIt has been argued, in opposition to the Hebrew theory, that the Jews\nwere physically and intellectually the finest race in the world, while\nthe Americans are probably the lowest. But in answer to this it may be\nstated that the finest among the Jews belonged to the tribes of Judah\nand Benjamin, which were not among the so-called lost tribes; though,\neven if we admit that the ten tribes were physically and intellectually\nequal to these two, may we not fairly suppose that their temperament\nand physique would be changed by dwelling for a length of time in\nthe different environment of America. True, Dr San Juan attempts to\nprove that the good effect of the manna on which the Israelites lived\nfor forty years, was such that it would take four thousand years to\nobliterate it; but though this might hold true in the case of those\nJews who went to Spain and other temperate climes, it would probably\nbe different with those who came to America; it is, besides, likely\nthat the change in the race was a special act of God.[I-166] In answer to\nthe assertion that the Americans are an inferior race, it may be said\nthat there are many exceptions to this rule; for instance, the people\nof Mexico and Michoacan were very ingenious, and excelled in painting,\nfeather-work, and other arts.\n\nAgain, it is objected that while the Jews were skilled in letters,\nand indeed are said by some to have discovered the art of writing,\nthe Americans had no such knowledge of letters as they would have\npossessed had they been of Hebrew origin. But the same objection would\napply to their descent from any race of Europe, Asia, or Africa. It is\nurged that the Americans, if of Jewish descent, would have preserved\nthe Hebrew ceremonies and laws. It is, however, well known that the\nten tribes from whom they are supposed to be descended were naturally\nprone to unbelief and backsliding; it is not strange, therefore, that\nwhen freed from all restraint, they should cease to abide by their\npeculiarly strict code. Moreover, many traces of their old laws and\nceremonies are to be found among them at the present day. For instance,\nboth Jews and Americans gave their temples into the charge of priests,\nburned incense, anointed the body, practiced circumcision,[I-167] kept\nperpetual fires on their altars, forbade women to enter the temples\nimmediately after giving birth, and husbands to sleep with their wives\nfor seven days during the period of menstruation, prohibited marriage\nor sexual intercourse between relatives within the second degree,\nmade fornication with a slave punishable, slew the adulterer, made it\nunlawful for a man to dress like a woman, or a woman like a man, put\naway their brides if they proved to have lost their virginity, and kept\nthe ten commandments.\n\nAnother objection is, that the Americans do not speak Hebrew. But the\nreason for this is that the language has gradually changed, as has\nbeen the case with all tongues. Witness the Hebrew spoken by the Jews\nat the present time, which is much corrupted, and very different from\nwhat it originally was. There do actually exist, besides, many Hebraic\ntraces in the American languages.[I-168] And even if this were not so,\nmay we not suppose that the Devil prompted the Americans to learn new\nand various languages, that they might be prevented in after years from\nhearing the Catholic faith? though fortunately the missionaries learned\nall these strange tongues, and thus cheated the Evil One.\n\nAcosta questions the authority of Esdras, but, answers Garc\u00eda, although\nthe book of Esdras is certainly apocryphal, it is nevertheless regarded\nby the Church as a higher authority than the Doctors. Acosta urges,\nmoreover, that Esdras, even if reliable, states distinctly that the\nten tribes fled from the Gentiles for the express purpose of keeping\ntheir law and religion, while Americans are given to idolatry; which\nis all very true, but might not the Jews have set out with these good\nresolutions, and have afterwards changed their minds?\n\nSuch is the manner of Garc\u00eda's argument; and turning now to\nLord Kingsborough's magnificent folios, do we find anything more\nsatisfactory? Scarcely. The Spanish father's impartiality and profound\nresearch does not appear in Kingsborough; and moreover, we find that\nthe work of the former is much more satisfactorily arranged than that\nof the latter. Garc\u00eda does not pretend to give his own opinions,\nbut merely aims to present fairly, with all their pros and cons,\nthe theories of others. Kingsborough has a theory to prove, and to\naccomplish his object he drafts every shadow of an analogy into his\nservice. But though his theory is as wild as the wildest, and his\nproofs are as vague as the vaguest, yet Lord Kingsborough cannot be\nclassed with such writers as Jones, Ranking, Cabrera, Adair, and the\nhost of other dogmatists who have fought tooth and nail, each for his\nparticular hobby. Kingsborough was an enthusiast--a fanatic, if you\nchoose--but his enthusiasm is never offensive. There is a scholarly\ndignity about his work which has never been attained by those who have\njeered and railed at him; and though we may smile at his credulity, and\nregret that such strong zeal was so strangely misplaced, yet we should\nspeak and think with respect of one who spent his lifetime and his\nfortune, if not his reason, in an honest endeavor to cast light upon\none of the most obscure spots in the history of man.\n\n[Sidenote: KINGSBOROUGH'S ARGUMENTS.]\n\nThe more prominent of the analogies adduced by Lord Kingsborough may be\nbriefly enumerated as follows:\n\n[Sidenote: HEBREW AND AMERICAN ANALOGIES.]\n\nThe religion of the Mexicans strongly resembled that of the Jews,\nin many minor details, as will be presently seen, and the two were\npractically alike, to a certain extent, in their very foundation;\nfor, as the Jews acknowledged a multitude of angels, archangels,\nprincipalities, thrones, dominions, and powers, as the subordinate\npersonages of their hierarchy, so did the Mexicans acknowledge the\nunity of the Deity in the person of Tezcatlipoca, and at the same\ntime worship a great number of other imaginary beings. Both believed\nin a plurality of devils subordinate to one head, who was called\nby the Mexicans Mictlantecutli, and by the Jews Satan. Indeed, it\nseems that the Jews actually worshiped and made offerings to Satan\nas the Mexicans did to their 'god of hell.' It is probable that the\nToltecs were acquainted with the sin of the first man, committed at\nthe suggestion of the woman, herself deceived by the serpent, who\ntempted her with the fruit of the forbidden tree, who was the origin\nof all our calamities, and by whom death came into the world.[I-169]\nWe have seen in this chapter that Kingsborough supposes the Messiah\nand his story to have been familiar to the Mexicans. There is reason\nto believe that the Mexicans, like the Jews, offered meat and drink\nofferings to stones.[I-170] There are striking similarities between the\nBabel, flood, and creation myths of the Hebrews and the Americans.[I-171]\nBoth Jews and Mexicans were fond of appealing in their adjurations\nto the heaven and the earth.[I-172] Both were extremely superstitious,\nand firm believers in prodigies.[I-173] The character and history of\nChrist and Huitzilopochtli present certain analogies.[I-174] It is very\nprobable that the Sabbath of the seventh day was known in some parts\nof America.[I-175] The Mexicans applied the blood of sacrifices to the\nsame uses as the Jews; they poured it upon the earth, they sprinkled\nit, they marked persons with it, and they smeared it upon walls and\nother inanimate things.[I-176] No one but the Jewish high-priest might\nenter the Holy of Holies. A similar custom obtained in Peru.[I-177] Both\nMexicans and Jews regarded certain animals as unclean and unfit for\nfood.[I-178] Some of the Americans believed with some of the Talmudists\nin a plurality of souls.[I-179] That man was created in the image of\nGod was a part of the Mexican belief.[I-180] It was customary among\nthe Mexicans to eat the flesh of sacrifices of atonement.[I-181] There\nare many points of resemblance between Tezcatlipoca and Jehovah.[I-182]\nAblutions formed an essential part of the ceremonial law of the Jews\nand Mexicans.[I-183] The opinions of the Mexicans with regard to the\nresurrection of the body, accorded with those of the Jews.[I-184] The\nMexican temple, like the Jewish, faced the east.[I-185] \"As amongst\nthe Jews the ark was a sort of portable temple in which the Deity was\nsupposed to be continually present, and which was accordingly borne on\nthe shoulders of the priests as a sure refuge and defence from their\nenemies, so amongst the Mexicans and the Indians of Michoacan and\nHonduras an ark was held in the highest veneration, and was considered\nan object too sacred to be touched by any but the priests. The same\nreligious reverence for the ark is stated by Adair to have existed\namong the Cherokee and other Indian tribes inhabiting the banks of\nthe Mississippi, and his testimony is corroborated by the accounts of\nSpanish authors of the greatest veracity. The nature and use of the\nark having been explained, it is needless to observe that its form\nmight have been various, although Scripture declares that the Hebrew\nark was of the simplest construction.\" And again: \"it would appear\nfrom many passages of the Old Testament, that the Jews believed in the\nreal presence of God in the ark, as the Roman Catholics believe in the\nreal presence of Christ in the sacrament, from whom it is probable the\nMexicans borrowed the notion that He, whom the heaven of heavens cannot\ncontain, and whose glory fills all space, could be confined within\nthe precincts of a narrow ark and be borne by a set of weak and frail\npriests. If the belief of the Mexicans had not been analogous to that\nof the ancient Jews, the early Spanish missionaries would certainly\nhave expressed their indignation of the absurd credulity of those who\nbelieved that their _omnipresent_ god Huitzilopochtli was carried in an\nark on priests' shoulders; but of the ark of the Mexicans they say but\nlittle, fearing, as it would appear, to tread too boldly on the burning\nashes of Mount Sinai.\"[I-186]\n\nThe Yucatec conception of a Trinity resembles the Hebrew.[I-187] It is\nprobable that Quetzalcoatl, whose proper name signifies 'feathered\nserpent,' was so called after the brazen serpent which Moses lifted\nup in the wilderness, the feathers perhaps alluding to the rabbinical\ntradition that the fiery serpents which god sent against the Israelites\nwere of a winged species.[I-188]\n\nThe Mexicans, like the Jews, saluted the four cardinal points, in their\nworship.[I-189] There was much in connection with sacrifices that was\ncommon to Mexicans and Jews.[I-190] It is possible that the myth relating\nto Quetzalcoatl's disappearance in the sea, indicates a knowledge of\nthe book of the prophet Jonah.[I-191]\n\nThe Mexicans say that they wrestled at times with Quetzalcoatl,\neven as Jacob wrestled with God.[I-192] In various religious rites\nand observances, such as circumcision,[I-193] confession,[I-194] and\ncommunion,[I-195] there was much similarity. Salt was an article highly\nesteemed by the Mexicans, and the Jews always offered it in their\noblations.[I-196] Among the Jews, the firstling of an ass had to be\nredeemed with a lamb, or if unredeemed, its neck was broken. This\ncommand of Moses should be considered in reference to the custom\nof sacrificing children which existed in Mexico and Peru.[I-197] The\nspectacle of a king performing a dance as an act of religion was\nwitnessed by the Jews as well as by Mexicans.[I-198] As the Israelites\nwere conducted from Egypt by Moses and Aaron who were accompanied by\ntheir sister Miriam, so the Aztecs departed from Aztlan under the\nguidance of Huitziton and Tecpatzin, the former of whom is named\nby Acosta and Herrera, Mexi, attended likewise by their sister\nQuilaztli, or, as she is otherwise named Chimalman or Malinalli,\nboth of which latter names have some resemblance to Miriam, as Mexi\nhas to Moses.[I-199] In the Mexican language _amoxtli_ signifies flags\nor bulrushes, the derivation of which name, from _atl_, water,\nand _moxtli_, might allude to the flags in which Moses had been\npreserved.[I-200] The painting of Boturini seems actually to represent\nHuitzilopochtli appearing in a burning bush in the mountain of\nTeoculhuacan to the Aztecs.[I-201] The same writer also relates that when\nthe Mexicans in the course of their migration had arrived at Apanco,\nthe people of that province were inclined to oppose their further\nprogress, but that Huitzilopochtli aided the Mexicans by causing a\nbrook that ran in the neighborhood to overflow its banks. This reminds\nus of what is said in the third chapter of Joshua of the Jordan\noverflowing its banks and dividing to let the priests who bore the ark\npass through.[I-202] As Moses and Aaron died in the wilderness without\nreaching the land of Canaan, so Huitziton and Tecpatzin died before the\nMexicans arrived in the land of An\u00e1huac.[I-203] The Mexicans hung up the\nheads of their sacrificed enemies; and this also appears to have been\na Jewish practice, as the following quotation from the twenty-fifth\nchapter of Numbers will show: \"And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all\nthe heads of the people, _and hang them up before the Lord against\nthe sun_, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from\nIsrael.\"[I-204] In a Mexican painting in the Bodleian library at Oxford\nis a symbol very strongly resembling the jaw-bone of an ass from the\nside of which water seems to flow forth, which might allude to the\nstory of Samson slaying a thousand of the Philistines with such a bone,\nwhich remained miraculously unbroken in his hands, and from which he\nafterwards quenched his thirst.[I-205] They were fond of wearing dresses\nof scarlet and of showy colors, as were also the Jews. The exclamation\nof the prophet, \"Who is this that cometh from Bozrah?\" and many other\npassages of the Old Testament might be cited to show that the Jews\nentertained a great predilection for scarlet.[I-206] It is impossible, on\nreading what Mexican mythology records of the war in heaven and of the\nfall of Tzontemoc and the other rebellious spirits; of the creation of\nlight by the word of Tonacatecutli, and of the division of the waters;\nof the sin of Ytztlacoliuhqui, and his blindness and nakedness; of the\ntemptation of Suchiquecal, and her disobedience in gathering roses from\na tree, and the consequent misery and disgrace of herself and all her\nposterity,--not to recognize Scriptural analogies.[I-207] Other Hebrew\nanalogies Lord Kingsborough finds in America, in the dress, insignia,\nand duties of priests; in innumerable superstitions concerning\ndreams, apparitions, eclipses, and other more common-place events; in\ncertain festivals for rain; in burial and mourning ceremonies; in the\ndiseases most common among the people; in certain regularly observed\nfestivals; in the dress of certain nations; in established laws; in\nphysical features; in architecture; in various minor observances, such\nas offering water to a stranger that he might wash his feet, eating\ndust in token of humility, anointing with oil, and so forth; in the\nsacrifice of prisoners; in manner and style of oratory; in the stories\nof giants; in the respect paid to God's name; in games of chance; in\nmarriage relations; in childbirth ceremonies; in religious ideas of\nall sorts; in respect paid to kings; in uses of metals; in treatment of\ncriminals, and punishment of crimes; in charitable practices; in social\ncustoms; and in a vast number of other particulars.[I-208]\n\n[Sidenote: HEBREW RELICS.]\n\nRelics unmistakeably Hebrew have been very rarely found in America. I\nknow of only two instances of such a discovery, and in neither of these\ncases is it certain or even probable that the relic existed in America\nbefore the Conquest. The first and best known instance is related by\nEthan Smith, according to Priest,[I-209] as follows:\n\n\"Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at\nPittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was levelling\nsome ground under and near an old wood-shed, standing on a place of\nhis, situated on _Indian Hill_. He ploughed and conveyed away old chips\nand earth, to some depth. After the work was done, walking over the\nplace, he discovered, near where the earth had been dug the deepest,\na black strap, as it appeared, about six inches in length, and one\nand a half in breadth, and about the thickness of a leather trace\nto a harness. He perceived it had, at each end, a loop, of some hard\nsubstance, probably for the purpose of carrying it. He conveyed it to\nhis house, and threw it into an old tool box. He afterwards found it\nthrown out at the door, and again conveyed it to the box.\n\n\"After some time, he thought he would examine it; but in attempting to\ncut it, found it as hard as bone; he succeeded, however, in getting\nit open, and found it was formed of two pieces of thick raw-hide,\nsewed and made water tight with the sinews of some animal, and gummed\nover; and in the fold was contained _four_ folded pieces of parchment.\nThey were of a dark yellow hue, and contained some kind of writing.\nThe neighbors coming in to see the strange discovery, tore one of the\npieces to atoms, in the true Hun and Vandal style. The other three\npieces Mr. Merrick saved, and sent them to Cambridge, where they were\nexamined, and discovered to have been written with a pen, in _Hebrew_,\nplain and legible. The writing on the three remaining pieces of\nparchment, was quotations from the Old Testament.\"[I-210]\n\n[Sidenote: HEBREW TABLETS.]\n\nThe other discovery was made in Ohio, and was seen by my father, Mr\nA. A. Bancroft, who thus describes it: \"About eight miles south-east\nof Newark there was formerly a large mound composed of masses of\nfree-stone, which had been brought from some distance and thrown into\na heap without much placing or care. In early days, stone being scarce\nin that region, the settlers carried away the mound piece by piece to\nuse for building-purposes, so that in a few years there was little\nmore than a large flattened heap of rubbish remaining. Some fifteen\nyears ago, the county surveyor (I have forgotten his name), who had for\nsome time been searching ancient works, turned his attention to this\nparticular pile. He employed a number of men and proceeded at once to\nopen it. Before long he was rewarded by finding in the centre and near\nthe surface a bed of the tough clay generally known as pipe-clay, which\nmust have been brought from a distance of some twelve miles. Imbedded\nin the clay was a coffin, dug out of a burr-oak log, and in a pretty\ngood state of preservation. In the coffin was a skeleton, with quite\na number of stone ornaments and emblems, and some open brass rings,\nsuitable for bracelets or anklets. These being removed, they dug down\ndeeper, and soon discovered a stone dressed to an oblong shape, about\neighteen inches long and twelve wide, which proved to be a casket,\nneatly fitted and completely water-tight, containing a slab of stone\nof hard and fine quality, an inch and a half thick, eight inches long,\nfour inches and a half wide at one end, and tapering to three inches\nat the other. Upon the face of the slab was the figure of a man,\napparently a priest, with a long flowing beard, and a robe reaching to\nhis feet. Over his head was a curved line of characters, and upon the\nedges and back of the stone were closely and neatly carved letters.\nThe slab, which I saw myself, was shown to the episcopalian clergyman\nof Newark, and he pronounced the writing to be the ten Commandments in\nancient Hebrew.\"[I-211]\n\n[Sidenote: MORMON DOCTRINE OF ORIGIN.]\n\nThe account given by the Book of Mormon, of the settlement of America\nby the Jews, is as follows:[I-212]\n\nAfter the confusion of tongues, when men were scattered over the whole\nface of the earth, the Jaredites, a just people, having found favor\nin the sight of the Eternal, miraculously crossed the ocean in eight\nvessels, and landed in North America, where, they built large cities\nand developed into flourishing and highly civilized nations. But their\ndescendants did evil before the Lord, in spite of repeated prophetic\nwarnings, and were finally destroyed for their wickedness, about\nfifteen hundred years after their arrival, and six hundred before the\nbirth of Christ.\n\nThese first inhabitants of America were replaced by an emigration\nof Israelites, who were miraculously brought from Jerusalem in the\nfirst year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah. For some time\nthey traveled in a south-easterly direction, following the coast of\nthe Red Sea; afterwards they took a more easterly course, and finally\narrived at the borders of the Great Ocean. Here, at the command of God,\nthey constructed a vessel, which bore them safely across the Pacific\nOcean to the western coast of South America, where they landed. In\nthe eleventh year of the reign of this same Zedekiah, when the Jews\nwere carried captive to Babylon, some descendants of Judah came from\nJerusalem to North America, whence they emigrated to the northern\nparts of South America. Their descendants were discovered by the first\nemigrants about four hundred years afterwards.\n\nThe first emigrants, almost immediately after their arrival, separated\nthemselves into two distinct nations. The people of one of these\ndivisions called themselves Nephites, from the prophet Nephi, who had\nconducted them to America. These were persecuted, on account of their\nrighteousness, by the others, who called themselves Lamanites, from\nLaman, their chief, a wicked and corrupt man. The Nephites retreated to\nthe northern parts of South America, while the Lamanites occupied the\ncentral and southern regions. The Nephites possessed a copy of the five\nbooks of Moses, and of the prophets as far as Jeremiah, or until the\ntime when they left Jerusalem. These writings were engraved on plates\nof brass. After their arrival in America they manufactured similar\nplates, on which they engraved their history and prophetic visions. All\nthese records, kept by men inspired of the Holy Ghost, were carefully\npreserved, and transmitted from generation to generation.\n\nGod gave them the whole continent of America as the promised land,\ndeclaring that it should be a heritage for them and for their children,\nprovided they kept his commandments. The Nephites, blessed by God,\nprospered and spread east, west, and north. They dwelt in immense\ncities, with temples and fortresses; they cultivated the earth, bred\ndomestic animals, and worked mines of gold, silver, lead, and iron.\nThe arts and sciences flourished among them, and as long as they kept\nGod's commandments, they enjoyed all the benefits of civilization and\nnational prosperity.\n\n[Sidenote: NEPHITES AND LAMANITES.]\n\nThe Lamanites, on the contrary, by reason of the hardness of their\nhearts, were from the first deserted of God. Before their backsliding\nthey were white and comely as the Nephites; but in consequence of the\ndivine curse, they sank into the lowest barbarism. Implacable enemies\nof the Nephites, they waged war against that people, and strove by\nevery means in their power to destroy them. But they were gradually\nrepulsed with great loss, and the innumerable tumuli which are still\nto be seen in all parts of the two Americas, cover the remains of the\nwarriors slain in these bloody conflicts.\n\nThe second colony of Hebrews, mentioned above, bore the name of\nZarahemla. They also had many civil wars, and as they had not brought\nany historical records with them from Jerusalem, they soon fell into a\nstate of atheism. At the time when they were discovered by the Nephites\nthey were very numerous, but lived in a condition of semi-barbarism.\nThe Nephites, however, united themselves with them, and taught them\nthe sacred Scriptures, so that before long the two nations became as\none. Shortly afterwards the Nephites built several vessels, by means\nof which they sent expeditions towards the north, and founded numerous\ncolonies. Others emigrated by land, and in a short time the whole of\nthe northern continent was peopled. At this time North America was\nentirely destitute of wood, the forests having been destroyed by the\nJaredites, the first colonists, who came from the tower of Babel; but\nthe Nephites constructed houses of cement and brought wood by sea from\nthe south; taking care, besides, to cultivate immense plantations.\nLarge cities sprang up in various parts of the continent, both among\nthe Lamanites and the Nephites. The latter continued to observe the\nlaw of Moses; numerous prophets arose among them; they inscribed their\nprophecies and historical annals on plates of gold or other metal, and\nupon various other materials. They discovered also the sacred records\nof the Jaredites, engraved on plates of gold; these they translated\ninto their own language, by the help of God and the Urim Thummim. The\nJaredite archives contained the history of man from the creation of the\nworld to the building of the tower of Babel, and from that time to the\ntotal destruction of the Jaredites, embracing a period of thirty-four\nor thirty-five centuries. They also contained the marvelous prophecies\nwhich foretold what would happen in the world until the end of all\nthings, and the creation of a new heaven and a new earth.\n\n[Sidenote: THE BOOK OF MORMON.]\n\nThe Nephites were informed of the birth and death of Christ by certain\ncelestial and terrestrial phenomena, which had long before been\npredicted by their prophets. But in spite of the numerous blessings\nwhich they had received, they fell at length from grace, and were\nterribly punished for their ingratitude and wickedness. A thick\ndarkness covered the whole continent; earthquakes cast mountains into\nvalleys; many towns were swallowed up, and others were destroyed by\nfire from heaven. Thus perished the most perverse among the Nephites\nand Lamanites, to the end that the blood of the saints and prophets\nmight no longer cry out from the earth against them. Those who survived\nthese judgments received a visit from Christ, who, after his ascension,\nappeared in the midst of the Nephites, in the northern part of South\nAmerica. His instructions, the foundation of a new law, were engraved\non plates of gold, and some of them are to be found in the Book of\nMormon; but by far the greater part of them will be revealed only to\nthe saints, at a future time.\n\nWhen Christ had ended his mission to the Nephites, he ascended to\nheaven, and the apostles designated by him went to preach his gospel\nthroughout the continent of America. In all parts the Nephites and\nLamanites were converted to the Lord, and for three centuries they\nlived a godly life. But toward the end of the fourth century of\nthe Christian era, they returned to their evil ways, and once more\nthey were smitten by the arm of the Almighty. A terrible war broke\nout between the two nations, which ended in the destruction of the\nungrateful Nephites. Driven by their enemies towards the north and\nnorth-west, they were defeated in a final battle near the hill of\nCumorah,[I-213] where their historical tablets have been since found.\nHundreds of thousands of warriors fell on both sides. The Nephites were\nutterly destroyed, with the exception of some few who either passed\nover to the enemy, escaped by flight, or were left for dead on the\nfield of battle. Among these last were Mormon and his son Moroni, both\nupright men.\n\nMormon had written on tablets an epitome of the annals of his\nancestors, which epitome he entitled the Book of Mormon. At the command\nof God he buried in the hill of Cumorah all the original records in his\npossession, and at his death he left his own book to his son Moroni,\nwho survived him by some years, that he might continue it. Moroni\ntells us in his writings that the Lamanites eventually exterminated\nthe few Nephites who had escaped the general slaughter at the battle\nof Cumorah, sparing those only who had gone over to their side. He\nhimself escaped by concealment. The conquerors slew without mercy all\nwho would not renounce Christ. He tells, further, that the Lamanites\nhad many dreadful wars among themselves, and that the whole land was a\nscene of incessant murder and violence. Finally, he adds that his work\nis a complete record of all events that happened down to the year 420\nof the Christian era, at which time, by divine command, he buried the\nBook of Mormon in the hill of Cumorah, where it remained until removed\nby Joseph Smith, September 22, 1827.[I-214]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: SCANDINAVIAN THEORY.]\n\nMuch has been written to prove that the north-western part of America\nwas discovered and peopled by Scandinavians long before the time\nof Columbus. Although a great part of the evidence upon which this\nbelief rests, is unsatisfactory and mixed up with much that is vague\nand undoubtedly fabulous, yet it seems to be not entirely destitute\nof historical proof. Nor is there any improbability that such daring\nnavigators as the Northmen may have visited and colonized the coasts\nof Greenland, Labrador, and Newfoundland. I find in this opinion an\nalmost exact parallel to the so-called 'Tartar theory.' It is true the\ndistance between Europe and north-eastern America is much greater than\nthat between Asia and north-western America, but would not the great\ndisparity between the maritime enterprise and skill of the Northmen\nand Asiatics, make the North Atlantic as navigable for the former as\nBering Strait for the latter? It is certain that Iceland was settled\nby the Northmen from Norway at a very early date; there is little\nreason to doubt that Greenland was in turn colonized from Iceland\nin the tenth century; if this be conceded, then the question whether\nthe Northmen did actually discover the country now known as America,\ncertainly ceases to wear any appearance of improbability, for it would\nbe unreasonable to suppose that such renowned sailors could live for\na great number of years within a short voyage of a vast continent and\nnever become aware of its existence. It would be absurd, however, to\nbelieve that the entire continent of America was peopled by Northmen,\nbecause its north-eastern borders were visited or even colonized by\ncertain adventurous sea-rovers.\n\nAll that is known of the early voyages of the Northmen, is contained\nin the old Icelandic Sagas. The genuineness of the accounts relating\nto the discovery of America has been the subject of much discussion.\nMr B. F. De Costa, in a carefully studied monograph on the subject,\nassures us that there can be no doubt as to their authenticity, and\nI am strongly inclined to agree with him. It is true that no less\neminent authors than George Bancroft and Washington Irving have\nexpressed opinions in opposition to De Costa's views, but it must be\nremembered that neither of these distinguished gentlemen made a very\nprofound study of the Icelandic Sagas, indeed Irving directly states\nthat he \"has not had the means of tracing this story to its original\nsources;\" nor must we forget that neither the author of the 'Life of\nColumbus,' nor he of the 'History of the Colonization of the United\nStates,' could be expected to willingly strip the laurels from the brow\nof his familiar hero, Christopher Columbus, and concede the honor of\nthe 'first discovery' to the northern sea-kings, whose exploits are so\nvaguely recorded.[I-215]\n\n[Sidenote: THE ICELANDIC SAGAS.]\n\nDe Costa's defence of the genuineness of the accounts referred to is\nsimple and to the point. \"Those who imagine,\" he writes, \"that these\nmanuscripts, while of pre-Columbian origin, have been tampered with and\ninterpolated, show that they have not the faintest conception of the\nstate of the question. The accounts of the voyages of the Northmen to\nAmerica form the _framework_ of Sagas which would actually be destroyed\nby the elimination of the narratives. There is only one question\nto be decided, and that is the _date_ of these compositions.\" \"That\nthese manuscripts,\" he adds, \"belong to the pre-Columbian age, is as\ncapable of demonstration as the fact that the writings of Homer existed\nprior to the age of Christ. Before intelligent persons deny either of\nthese points they must first succeed in blotting out numberless pages\nof well-known history. The manuscripts in which we have versions of\nall the Sagas relating to America is found in the celebrated _Codex\nFlat\u00f6iensis_, a work that was finished in the year 1387, or 1395 at\nthe latest. This collection, made with great care, and executed in\nthe highest style of art, is now preserved in its integrity in the\narchives of Copenhagen. These manuscripts were for a time supposed to\nbe lost, but were ultimately found safely lodged in their repository\nin the monastery library of the island of Flat\u00f6, from whence they\nwere transferred to Copenhagen with a large quantity of other literary\nmaterial collected from various localities. If these Sagas which refer\nto America were interpolations, it would have early become apparent,\nas abundant means exist for detecting frauds; yet those who have\nexamined the whole question do not find any evidence that invalidates\ntheir historical statements. In the absence, therefore, of respectable\ntestimony to the contrary, we accept it as a fact that the Sagas\nrelating to America are the productions of men who gave them in their\npresent form nearly, if not quite, an entire century before the age of\nColumbus.\"[I-216]\n\nThe accounts of the voyages as given in the original manuscripts are\ntoo numerous and prolix to be reproduced in their entirety here; but I\nwill endeavor to give a r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of them, following, to a great extent,\nan 'abstract of the historical evidence for the discovery of America\nby the Scandinavians in the tenth century,' given in the Journal of the\nRoyal Geographical Society.[I-217]\n\nEric the Red, in the spring of 986,[I-218] emigrated from Iceland to\nGreenland, and founded a settlement there. One of his companions\nwas Heriulf Bardson, whose son, Biarne, was at that time absent on a\ntrading voyage to Norway. Biarne, on his return to Iceland, resolved\n\"still to spend the following winter, like all the preceding ones,\nwith his father,\" and to that end set sail for Greenland. But, owing\nto the northerly winds and fogs, and to the fact that neither he nor\nany of his followers had ever navigated these seas before, Biarne lost\nhis way. When the weather cleared up they found themselves in sight\nof a strange land, which they left to larboard. After two days' sail\nthey again sighted land; and once more standing out to sea, they, after\nthree days, saw land a third time, which proved to be an island. Again\nthey bore away, and after four days' sailing reached Greenland.\n\n[Sidenote: VOYAGES OF THE NORTHMEN.]\n\nSome time after this, Leif, a son of Eric the Red, having heard of\nBiarne's discoveries, bought his ship, manned it with a crew of thirty\nmen, and set out from Greenland, about the year 1000. The first land\nthey sighted was that which Biarne had seen last; this they named\nHelluland.[I-219] They put out to sea and soon came to another land,\nwhich they named Markland.[I-220] Again they stood out to sea, and after\ntwo days came to an island. They then sailed westward, and afterwards\nwent on shore at a place where a river, issuing from a lake, fell into\nthe sea. Bringing their ship up the river, they anchored in the lake.\nHere they settled for a time, and finding vines in the country, they\nnamed it Vinland.[I-221] In the spring they returned to Greenland.\n\nThis expedition to Vinland was much talked of, and Thorwald, Leif's\nbrother, thought that the new country had not been thoroughly enough\nexplored. Then Leif lent his ship to Thorwald, who set out for Vinland\nabout the year 1002. There he and his crew wintered, and about the\nyear 1004 they set sail to the eastward. On this voyage Thorwald was\nkilled by the natives. At his request his followers returned to Vinland\nand buried his remains there. In 1005 they sailed again to Greenland,\nbearing the sad news of his brother's death to Leif.\n\nThorstein, Eric's third son, soon afterwards set out in the same ship\nfor Vinland, to fetch his brother's body. He was accompanied by his\nwife Gudrida, and twenty-five strong men, but after tossing about on\nthe ocean during the whole summer, they finally landed again on the\nGreenland coast, where Thorstein died during the winter.\n\nThe next voyage to Vinland was made by one Thorfinn Karlsefne, a\nman of noble lineage, who occupied his time in merchant voyages and\nwas thought a good trader. In the summer of 1006 he fitted out his\nship in Iceland for a voyage to Greenland, attended by one Snorre\nThorbrandson and a crew of forty men. At the same time another ship was\nfitted out for the same destination by Biarne Grimolfson and Thorhall\nGamlason, and manned with a crew of forty men also. All being ready,\nthe two ships put out to sea, and both arrived safely at Ericsfiord in\nGreenland, where Leif and Gudrida, the widow of Leif's late brother,\nThorstein, dwelt. Here Thorfinn fell in love with the fair Gudrida, and\nwith Leif's consent, married her that winter.\n\nThe discovery of Vinland was much talked of among the settlers,\nfor they all believed that it was a good country, and that a voyage\nthere would be very profitable; and Thorfinn was urged and at length\npersuaded to undertake the adventure. Accordingly, in the spring\nof 1007 he fitted out his ship, and Biarne Grimolfson and Thorhall\nGamlason did the same with theirs. A third ship, commanded by one\nThorward, also joined the expedition. And on Thorward's ship a man\nnamed Thorhall, 'commonly called the hunter,' who had been the huntsman\nof Eric in the summer, and his steward in the winter, also went.\n\n[Sidenote: THE NORTHMEN AND SKRELLINGS.]\n\nAs this is probably the most important of all the Northmen's voyages to\nAmerica, I will give it in full: \"They sailed first to the Westerbygd,\nand afterwards to Biarney. From thence they sailed in a southerly\ndirection to Helluland, where they found many foxes. From thence\nthey sailed again two days in a southerly direction to Markland, a\ncountry overgrown with wood, and plentifully stocked with animals.\nLeaving this, they continued sailing in a S.W. direction for a long\ntime, having the land to starboard, until they at length came to\nKialarnes,[I-222] where there were trackless deserts and long beaches\nand sands, called by them Furdustrandir. When they had past these, the\nland began to be indented by inlets. They had two Scots with them, Hake\nand Hekia, whom Leif had formerly received from the Norwegian King\nOlaf Tryggvason, and who were very swift of foot. They put them on\nshore, recommending them to proceed in a S.W. direction, and explore\nthe country. After the lapse of three days they returned bringing\nwith them some grapes and some ears of wheat, which grew wild in that\nregion. They continued their course until they came to a place where\na firth penetrated far into the country. Off the mouth of it was an\nisland past which there ran strong currents, which was also the case\nfarther up the firth. On the island there were an immense number of\neyderducks, so that it was scarcely possible to walk without treading\non their eggs. They called the island Straumey (Stream-Isle), and\nthe firth Straumfi\u00f6rdr (Stream-Firth).[I-223] They landed on the shore\nof this firth, and made preparations for their winter residence. The\ncountry was extremely beautiful. They confined their operations to\nexploring the country. Thorhall afterwards wished to proceed in a N.\ndirection in quest of Vineland. Karlsefne chose rather to go to the\nS.W. Thorhall, and along with him eight men, quitted them, and sailed\npast Furdustrandir and Kialarnes, but they were driven by westerly\ngales to the coast of Ireland, where, according to the accounts of\nsome traders, they were beaten and made slaves. Karlsefne, together\nwith Snorre and Biarne, and the rest of the ships' companies, in all\n151 (CXXXI.) men, sailed southwards, and arrived at the place, where\na river falls into the sea from a lake. Opposite to the mouth of the\nriver were large islands. They steered into the lake, and called the\nplace H\u00f3p (_\u00ed H\u00f3pe_). On the low grounds they found fields of wheat\ngrowing wild, and on the rising grounds vines. While looking about\none morning they observed a great number of canoes. On exhibiting\nfriendly signals the canoes approached nearer to them, and the natives\nin them looked with astonishment at those they met there. These people\nwere sallow-coloured or ill-looking, had ugly heads of hair, large\neyes, and broad cheeks. After they had gazed at them for a while,\nthey rowed away again to the S.W. past the cape. Karlsefne and his\ncompany had erected their dwelling-houses a little above the bay; and\nthere they spent the winter. No snow fell, and the cattle found their\nfood in the open field. One morning early, in the beginning of 1008,\nthey descried a number of canoes coming from the S.W. past the cape.\nKarlsefne having held up a white shield as a friendly signal, they\ndrew nigh and immediately commenced bartering. These people chose in\npreference red cloth, and gave furs and squirrel skins in exchange.\nThey would fain also have bought swords and spears, but these Karlsefne\nand Snorre prohibited their people from selling them. In exchange for\na skin entirely gray the Skrellings took a piece of cloth of a span in\nbreadth, and bound it round their heads. Their barter was carried on\nthis way for some time. The Northmen then found that their cloth was\nbeginning to grow scarce, whereupon they cut it up in smaller pieces,\nnot broader than a finger's breadth; yet the Skrellings gave as much\nfor these smaller pieces as they had formerly given for the larger\nones, or even more. Karlsefne also caused the women to bear out milk\nsoup, and the Skrellings relishing the taste of it, they desired to\nbuy it in preference to everything else, so they wound up their traffic\nby carrying away their bargains in their bellies. Whilst this traffic\nwas going on, it happened that a bull, which Karlsefne had brought\nalong with him, came out of the wood and bellowed loudly. At this the\nSkrellings got terrified and rushed to their canoes, and rowed away\nsouthwards. About this time Gudrida, Karlsefne's wife, gave birth to a\nson, who received the name of Snorre. In the beginning of the following\nwinter the Skrellings came again in much greater numbers; they showed\nsymptoms of hostility, setting up loud yells. Karlsefne caused the\nred shield to be borne against them, whereupon they advanced against\neach other, and a battle commenced. There was a galling discharge of\nmissiles. The Skrellings had a sort of war slings. They elevated on a\npole a tremendously large ball, almost the size of a sheep's stomach,\nand of a bluish colour; this they swung from the pole upon land over\nKarlsefne's people, and it descended with a fearful crash. This struck\nterror into the Northmen, and they fled along the river. Freydisa came\nout and saw them flying; she thereupon exclaimed, 'How can stout men\nlike you fly from these miserable caitifs, whom I thought you could\nknock down like cattle? If I had only a weapon, I ween I could fight\nbetter than any of you.' They heeded not her words. She tried to keep\npace with them, but the advanced state of her pregnancy retarded her.\nShe however followed them into the wood. There she encountered a dead\nbody. It was Thorbrand Snorrason; a flat stone was sticking fast in his\nhead. His naked sword lay by his side. This she took up, and prepared\nto defend herself. She uncovered her breasts, and dashed them against\nthe naked sword. At this sight the Skrellings became terrified, and\nran off to their canoes. Karlsefne and the rest now came up to her and\npraised her courage. Karlsefne and his people were now become aware\nthat, although the country held out many advantages, still the life\nthat they would have to lead here would be one of constant alarm from\nthe hostile attacks of the natives. They therefore made preparations\nfor departure, with the resolution of returning to their own country.\nThey sailed eastward, and came to Streamfirth. Karlsefne then took one\nof the ships, and sailed in quest of Thorhall, while the rest remained\nbehind. They proceeded northwards round Kialarnes, and after that were\ncarried to the north-west. The land lay to larboard of them. There\nwere thick forests in all directions, as far as they could see, with\nscarcely any open space. They considered the hills at Hope and those\nwhich they now saw as forming part of one continuous range. They spent\nthe third winter at Streamfirth. Karlsefne's son Snorre was now three\nyears of age. When they sailed from Vineland they had a southerly\nwind, and came to Markland, where they met with five Skrellings. They\ncaught two of them (two boys), whom they carried away along with them,\nand taught them the Norse language, and baptised them; these children\nsaid that their mother was called Vethilldi and their father Uv\u00e6ge;\nthey said that the Skrellings were ruled by chieftains (kings), one of\nwhom was called Avalldamon, and the other Valdidida; that there were\nno houses in the country, but that the people dwelled in holes and\ncaverns. Biarne Grimolfson was driven into the Irish Ocean, and came\ninto waters that were so infested by worms, that their ship was in\nconsequence reduced to a sinking state. Some of the crew, however, were\nsaved in the boat, as it had been smeared with seal-oil tar, which is a\npreventive against the attack of worms. Karlsefne continued his voyage\nto Greenland, and arrived at Ericsfiord.\"\n\nDuring the same summer that Karlsefne returned from Vinland, a ship\narrived at Greenland from Norway, commanded by two brothers, Helge and\nFinnboge. And Freydisa, she who had frightened the Skrellings, went to\nthem and proposed they should make a voyage to Vinland, and she offered\nto go with them on condition that an equal share of what they obtained\nthere should be hers; and they agreed to this. It was arranged between\nthe brothers and Freydisa that each should have thirty fighting men,\nbesides women. But Freydisa secretly brought away five men more than\nthe allotted number. They reached Vinland and spent the winter there.\nDuring their stay Freydisa prevailed on her husband to slay the two\nbrothers and their followers; the women that were with them she killed\nwith her own hand. In the spring of the next year they returned to\nGreenland.[I-224]\n\nIn the latter part of the tenth century,[I-225] one Are Marson, of\nIceland, was driven by storms to Hvitramannaland, or Land of the\nWhitemen. This country, which was also called Great Ireland, has been\nthought to be \"probably that part of the Coast of North America which\nextends southwards from Chesapeak Bay, including North and South\nCarolina, Georgia, and Florida.\"[I-226] Here, also, one Bi\u00f6rn Asbrandson\nis said to have ended his days.[I-227]\nI do not propose to give here all that has been said about these\nvoyages, as it would not be pertinent to the question which we are\nreviewing, namely, the origin of the Americans. Indeed, the entire\nsubject of the Northmen's voyages and colonization, might almost be\nsaid to be without our province, as it is not asserted that they were\nactually the first inhabitants of the New World.\n\nThe relics that have been thought to prove their former presence in\nthe continent, are neither numerous nor important. One of these is\nthe Dighton Rock, of which I have had occasion to speak before, in\nconnection with the Ph\u0153nician theory.[I-228] In 1824, a stone engraved\nwith Runic characters was found on the island of Kingiktorsoak, on the\nwestern coast of Greenland.[I-229]\n\n[Sidenote: SCANDINAVIAN THEORY.]\n\nPriest is strongly inclined to believe that a glass bottle about the\nsize of a common junk bottle, \"having a stopple in its nuzzle,\" an\niron hatchet edged with steel, the remains of a blacksmith's forge, and\nsome ploughed-up crucibles, all found in the town of Pompey, Onondaga\nCounty, New York, are of Scandinavian origin.[I-230]\n\nBrasseur de Bourbourg has found many words in the languages of Central\nAmerica which bear, he thinks, marked Scandinavian traces; little\ncan be proven by this, however, since he finds as many other words\nthat as strongly resemble Latin, Greek, English, French, and many\nother languages. The learned Abb\u00e9 believes, moreover, that some of\nthe ancient traditions of the Central American nations point to a\nnorth-east origin.[I-231] Viollet-le-Duc is struck with the similarity\nthat existed between the religious customs and ideas of the ancient\nNorthmen and of the Quich\u00e9s as expressed in the Popol Vuh.[I-232]\n\n[Sidenote: A WELSH COLONY IN AMERICA.]\n\nWe come now to the theory that the Americans, or at least part of them,\nare of Celtic origin. In the old Welsh annals there is an account of\na voyage made in the latter half of the twelfth century,[I-233] by one\nMadoc, a son of Owen Gwynedd, prince of North Wales. The story goes,\nthat after the death of Gwynedd, his sons contended violently for\nthe sovereignty. Madoc, who was the only peaceable one among them,\ndetermined to leave his disturbed country and sail in search of some\nunknown land where he might dwell in peace. He accordingly procured an\nabundance of provisions and a few ships and embarked with his friends\nand followers. For many months they sailed westward without finding a\nresting-place; but at length they came to a large and fertile country,\nwhere, after sailing for some distance along the coast in search of a\nconvenient landing-place, they disembarked, and permanently settled.\nAfter a time Madoc, with part of his company, returned to Wales, where\nhe fitted out ten ships with all manner of supplies, prevailed on a\nlarge number of his countrymen to join him, and once more set sail\nfor the new colony, which, though we hear no more about him or his\nsettlement, he is supposed to have reached safely.[I-234]\n\n[Sidenote: THE AMERICANS OF WELSH ORIGIN.]\n\nThe exact location of Madoc's colony has only been guessed at. Baldwin\nsays it is supposed that he settled 'somewhere in the Carolinas.'\nCaradoc, in his history of Wales,[I-235] has no doubt that the country\nwhere Madoc established his colony was Mexico; this he thinks is shown\nby three facts: first, the Mexicans believed that their ancestors\ncame from a beautiful country afar off, inhabited by white people;\nsecondly, they adored the cross; and thirdly, several Welsh names\nare found in Mexico. Peter Martyr affirms that the aborigines of\nVirginia, as well as those of Guatemala, celebrate the memory of an\nancient and illustrious hero, named Madoc. Harcourt, in the preface\nto the account of his voyage to Guiana,[I-236] says that that part\nof America was discovered and possessed by the Welsh prince, Madoc.\nHerbert, according to Martyr, says that the land discovered by the\nprince was Florida or Virginia.[I-237] Catlin is inclined to believe\nthat Madoc entered the Mississippi at Balize and made his way up the\nriver, or that he landed somewhere on the Florida coast. He thinks\nthe colonists pushed into the interior and finally settled on the Ohio\nriver; afterwards, being driven from that position by the aboriginal\ntribes, they advanced up the Missouri river to the place where they\nhave been known for many years by the name of Mandans, \"a corruption or\nabbreviation, perhaps, of Madawgwys, the name applied by the Welsh to\nthe followers of Madawc.\" The canoes of the Mandans, Mr Catlin tells\nus, which are altogether different from those of all other tribes,\ncorrespond exactly to the Welsh _coracle_,[I-238] the peculiarity of\ntheir physical appearance was such that when he first saw them he \"was\nunder the instant conviction that they were an amalgam of a native,\nwith some civilized race,\" and the resemblance that exists between\ntheir language and Welsh, is, in his opinion, very striking.[I-239] There\nhave been several reports that traces of the Welsh colony and of their\nlanguage have been discovered among the native tribes, but none of\nthem seem entitled to full credit. The best known report of this kind,\nand the one that claims, perhaps, the most respectful consideration,\nis that of the Rev. Morgan Jones, written in 1686, and published in\nthe _Gentleman's Magazine_ for the year 1740. In 1660 the reverend\ngentleman, with five companions, was taken prisoner by the Tuscarora\ntribe, who were about to put him to death when he soliloquized aloud in\nWelsh; whereupon they spared him and his companions, and treated them\nvery civilly. After this Mr Jones stayed among them for four months,\nduring which time he conversed with them familiarly in the Welsh\nlanguage, \"and did preach to them in the same language three times a\nweek.\"[I-240]\n\nA certain Lieutenant Roberts states that in 1801 he met an Indian chief\nat Washington, who spoke Welsh \"as fluently as if he had been born and\nbrought up in the vicinity of Snowdon.\" He said it was the language\nof his nation, the Asguaws, who lived eight hundred miles north-west\nof Philadelphia. He knew nothing of Wales, but stated that his people\nhad a tradition that their ancestors came to America from a distant\ncountry, which lay far to the east, over the great waters. Amongst\nother questions, Lieutenant Roberts asked him how it was that his\nnation had preserved their original language so perfect; he answered\nthat they had a law which forbade any to teach their children another\ntongue, until they were twelve years old.[I-241]\n\nAnother officer, one Captain Davies, relates that while stationed at a\ntrading-post, among the Illinois Indians, he was surprised to find that\nseveral Welshmen who belonged to his company, could converse readily\nwith the aborigines in Welsh.[I-242] Warden tells a story of a Welshman\nnamed Griffith, who was taken prisoner by the Shawnee tribe about the\nyear 1764. Two years afterwards, he and five Shawnees, with whom he\nwas traveling about the sources of the Missouri, fell into the hands\nof a white tribe, who were about to massacre them when Griffith spoke\nto them in Welsh, explaining the object of their journey; upon this\nthey consented to spare him and his companions. He could learn nothing\nof the history of these white natives, except that their ancestors had\ncome to the Missouri from a far distant country. Griffith returned to\nthe Shawnee nation, but subsequently escaped and succeeded in reaching\nVirginia.[I-243] There are many other reports of a similar kind, but\nthese will be sufficient to show on what manner of foundation the Welsh\ntheory rests, and to justify in a measure the outspoken opinion of Mr\nFiske, that \"Welch Indians are creatures of the imagination.\"[I-244]\n\n[Sidenote: SCOTCH AND IRISH THEORIES.]\n\nLord Monboddo, a Scotchman, who wrote in the seventeenth century,\nquotes several instances to show that the language of the native\nHighlanders was spoken in America. In one of the English expeditions\nto discover the North Pole, he relates, there were an Eskimo and\na Scotchman, who, after a few days practice, were able to converse\ntogether readily. He also states \"that the Celtic language was spoken\nby many of the tribes of Florida, which is situated at the north end of\nthe gulf of Mexico; and that he was well acquainted with a gentleman\nfrom the Highlands of Scotland, who was several years in Florida, in\na public character, and who stated that many of the tribes with whom\nhe had become acquainted, had the greatest affinity with the Celtic in\ntheir language.\"[I-245]\n\nClaims have also been put in for an Irish discovery of the New\nWorld; St Patrick is said to have sent missionaries to the 'Isles\nof America,'[I-246] and early writers have gravely discussed the\nprobability of Quetzalcoatl having been an Irishman. There is no great\nimprobability that the natives of Ireland may have reached, by accident\nor otherwise, the north-eastern coasts of the new continent, in very\nearly times, but there is certainly no evidence to prove that they\ndid.[I-247]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe nations of southern Europe have not been entirely forgotten by\nthe theorists on the question of origin. Those who have claimed for\nthem the honor of first settling or civilizing America, are not many,\nhowever; nor is the evidence they adduce of a very imposing nature.\n\nLafitau supposes the Americans to be descended from the ancient\ninhabitants of the Grecian archipelago, who were driven from their\ncountry by the subjects of Og, King of Bashan. In every particular, he\nsays, the people of the New World resemble the Hellenes and Pelagians.\nBoth were idolators; used sacred fire; indulged in Bacchanalian revels;\nheld formal councils; strong resemblances are to be found in their\nmarriage customs, system of education, manner of hunting, fishing, and\nmaking war, in their games and sports, in their mourning and burial\ncustoms, and in their manner of treating the sick.[I-248] Garc\u00eda knew a\nman in Peru who knew of a rock on which was what looked very much like\na Greek inscription. The same writer says that the Athenians waged\nwar with the inhabitants of Atlantis, and might therefore have heard\nof America. That the Greeks were navigators in very early times is\nshown by Jason's voyage in search of the Golden Fleece. Both Greeks\nand Americans bored their ears and sang the deeds of their ancestors;\nbesides which, many words are common to both peoples.[I-249] Like Garc\u00eda,\nMr Pidgeon also knew a man--a farmer of Montevideo, in Brazil--who\nin 1827 discovered in one of his fields a flat stone, upon which was\nengraven a Greek inscription, which, as far as it was legible, read as\nfollows: \"During the dominion of Alexander, the son of Philip, King of\nMacedon, in the sixty-third Olympiad, Ptolemaios.\" Deposited beneath\nthe stone were found two ancient swords, a helmet, and a shield. On\nthe handle of one of the swords was a portrait of Alexander; on the\nhelmet was a beautiful design representing Achilles dragging the\ncorpse of Hector round the walls of Troy. \"From this discovery, it is\nevident\"--to Mr Pidgeon--\"that the soil of Brazil was formerly broken\nby Ptolemaios, more than a thousand years before the discovery by\nColumbus.\"[I-250] Brasseur de Bourbourg seeks to identify certain of the\nAmerican gods with Greek deities.[I-251] Jones finds that the sculpture\nat Uxmal very closely resembles the Greek style.[I-252]\n\nThe vastness of some of the cities built by the civilized Americans,\nthe fine roads they constructed, their fondness for gladiatorial\ncombats, and a few unreliable accounts that Roman coins have been found\non the continent, constitute about all the evidence that is offered to\nshow that the Romans ever visited America.[I-253]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THE ANCIENT ATLANTIS.]\n\nThe story of Atlantis, that is, of a submerged, lost land that once\nlay to the west of Europe, is very old. It was communicated to Solon,\naccording to Plutarch, by the Egyptian priests of Psenophis, Sonchis,\nHeliopolis, and Sa\u00efs; and if we may believe Plato, Solon did not\nhear of the events until nine thousand Egyptian years after their\noccurrence. Plato's version is as follows:\n\n\"Among the great deeds of Athens, of which recollection is preserved\nin our books, there is one which should be placed above all others.\nOur books tell that the Athenians destroyed an army which came across\nthe Atlantic Sea, and insolently invaded Europe and Asia; for this sea\nwas then navigable, and beyond the strait where you place the Pillars\nof Hercules there was an island larger than Asia (Minor) and Libya\ncombined. From this island one could pass easily to the other islands,\nand from these to the continent which lies around the interior sea. The\nsea on this side of the strait (the Mediterranean) of which we speak,\nresembles a harbor with a narrow entrance; but there is a genuine sea,\nand the land which surrounds it is a veritable continent. In the island\nof Atlantis reigned three kings with great and marvelous power. They\nhad under their dominion the whole of Atlantis, several other islands,\nand some parts of the continent. At one time their power extended\ninto Libya, and into Europe as far as Tyrrhenia, and, uniting their\nwhole force, they sought to destroy our countries at a blow; but their\ndefeat stopped the invasion and gave entire independence to all the\ncountries this side of the Pillars of Hercules. Afterward, in one day\nand one fatal night, there came mighty earthquakes and inundations,\nwhich ingulfed that warlike people; Atlantis disappeared beneath the\nsea, and then that sea became inaccessible, so that navigation ceased\non account of the quantity of mud which the ingulfed island left in its\nplace.\"[I-254]\n\nIt is only recently that any important signification has been attached\nto this passage. It was previously regarded rather as one of those\nfabulous accounts in which the works of the writers of antiquity\nabound, than as an actual statement of facts. True, it had been\nfrequently quoted to show that the ancients had a knowledge more or\nless vague of the continent of America, but no particular value was\nset upon the assertion that the mysterious land was ages ago submerged\nand lost in the ocean. But of late years it has been discovered that\ntraditions and records of cataclysms similar to that referred to by\nthe Egyptian priests, have been preserved among the American nations;\nwhich discovery has led several learned and diligent students of New\nWorld lore to believe that after all the story of Atlantis, as recorded\nby Plato, may be founded upon fact, and that in bygone ages there\ndid actually exist in the Atlantic Ocean a great tract of inhabited\ncountry, forming perhaps part of the American continent, which by some\nmighty convulsion of nature was suddenly submerged and lost in the sea.\n\n[Sidenote: BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG'S THEORIES.]\n\nForemost among those who have held and advocated this opinion stands\nthe Abb\u00e9 Brasseur de Bourbourg. This distinguished Am\u00e9ricaniste goes\nfarther than his fellows, however, in that he attempts to prove that\nall civilization originated in America, or the Occident, instead of in\nthe Orient, as has always been supposed. This theory he endeavors to\nsubstantiate not so much by the Old World traditions and records as by\nthose of the New World, using as his principal authority an anonymous\nmanuscript written in the Nahua language, which he entitles the _Codex\nChimalpopoca_. This work purports to be on the face of it a 'History of\nthe Kingdoms of Culhuacan and Mexico,' and as such it served Brasseur\nas almost his sole authority for the Toltec period of his _Histoire\ndes Nations Civilis\u00e9es_. At that time the learned Abb\u00e9 regarded\nthe Atlantis theory, at least so far as it referred to any part of\nAmerica, as an absurd conjecture resting upon no authentic basis.[I-255]\nIn a later work, however, he more than retracts this assertion;\nfrom a sceptic he is suddenly transformed into a most devout and\nenthusiastic believer, and attempts to prove by a most elaborate course\nof reasoning that that which he before doubted is indubitably true.\nThe cause of this sudden change was a strange one. As, by constant\nstudy, he became more profoundly learned in the literature of ancient\nAmerica, the Abb\u00e9 discovered that he had entirely misinterpreted the\n_Codex Chimalpopoca_. The annals recorded so plainly upon the face\nof the mystic pages were intended only for the understanding of the\nvulgar; the stories of the kings, the history of the kingdoms, were\nallegorical and not to be construed literally; deep below the surface\nlay the true historic record--hidden from all save the priests and\nthe wise men of the West--of the mighty cataclysm which submerged\nthe cradle of all civilization.[I-256] Excepting a dozen, perhaps, of\nthe kings who preceded Montezuma, it is not a history of men, but of\nAmerican nature, that must be sought for in the Mexican manuscripts and\npaintings. The Toltecs, so long regarded as an ancient civilized race,\ndestroyed in the eleventh century by their enemies, are really telluric\nforces, agents of subterranean fire, the veritable smiths of Orcus\nand of Lemnos, of which Tollan was the symbol, the true masters of\ncivilization and art, who by the mighty convulsions which they caused\ncommunicated to men a knowledge of minerals.[I-257]\n\nI know of no man better qualified than was Brasseur de Bourbourg to\npenetrate the obscurity of American primitive history. His familiarity\nwith the Nahua and Central American languages, his indefatigable\nindustry, and general erudition, rendered him eminently fit for such\na task, and every word written by such a man on such a subject is\nentitled to respectful consideration. Nevertheless, there is reason to\nbelieve that the Abb\u00e9 was often rapt away from the truth by excess of\nenthusiasm, and the reader of his wild and fanciful speculations cannot\nbut regret that he has not the opportunity or ability to intelligently\ncriticise by comparison the French savant's interpretation of the\noriginal documents. At all events it is certain that he honestly\nbelieved in the truth of his own discovery; for when he admitted that,\nin the light of his better knowledge, the Toltec history, as recorded\nin the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, was an allegory--that no such people as\nthe Toltecs ever existed, in fact--and thereby rendered valueless his\nown history of the Toltec period, he made a sacrifice of labor, unique,\nI think, in the annals of literature.\n\nBrasseur's theory supposes that the continent of America occupied\noriginally the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and extended in\nthe form of a peninsula so far across the Atlantic that the Canary\nislands may have formed part of it. All this extended portion of the\ncontinent was many ages ago engulfed by a tremendous convulsion of\nnature, of which traditions and written records have been preserved\nby many American peoples.[I-258] Yucatan, Honduras, and Guatemala, were\nalso submerged, but the continent subsequently rose sufficiently to\nrescue them from the ocean. The testimony of many modern men of science\ntends to show that there existed at one time a vast extent of dry land\nbetween Europe and America.[I-259]\n\nIt is not my intention to enter the mazes of Brasseur's argument here;\nonce in that labyrinth there would be small hope of escape. His _Quatre\nLettres_ are a chaotic jumble of facts and wild speculations that would\nappal the most enthusiastic antiquarian; the materials are arranged\nwith not the slightest regard for order; the reader is continually\nharassed by long rambling digressions--literary no-thoroughfares, as it\nwere, into which he is beguiled in the hope of coming out somewhere,\nonly to find himself more hopelessly lost than ever; for mythological\nevidence, the pantheons of Ph\u0153nicia, Egypt, Hindostan, Greece, and\nRome, are probed to their most obscure depths; comparative philology is\nas accommodating to the theorist as ever, which is saying a great deal;\nthe opinions of geologists who never dreamed of an Atlantis theory, are\nquoted to show that the American continent formerly extended into the\nAtlantic in the manner supposed.\n\nI have presented to the reader the bare outline of what Brasseur\nexpects to prove, without giving him the argument used by that learned\nwriter, for the reason that a partial r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of the _Quatre Lettres_\nwould be unfair to the Abb\u00e9, while an entire r\u00e9sum\u00e9 would occupy more\nspace than I can spare. I will, however, deviate from the system I have\nhitherto observed, so far as to express my own opinion of the French\nsavant's theory.\n\nWere the original documents from which Brasseur drew his data\nobtainable, we might, were we able to read and understand them, know\nabout how far his enthusiasm and imagination have warped his calmer\njudgment; as it is, the Atlantis theory is certainly not proved, and\nwe may therefore reasonably decline to accept it. In my opinion there\nis every reason to believe that his first interpretation of the _Codex\nChimalpopoca_ was the true one, and that the 'double meaning' had no\nexistence save in his own distorted fancy.[I-260]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: AUTOCHTHONIC ORIGIN.]\n\nIt only remains now to speak of the theory which ascribes an\nautochthonic origin to the Americans. The time is not long past when\nsuch a supposition would have been regarded as impious, and even\nat this day its advocates may expect discouragement if not rebuke\nfrom certain quarters.[I-261] It is, nevertheless, an opinion worthy\nof the gravest consideration, and one which, if we may judge by the\nrecent results of scientific investigation, may eventually prove to\nbe scientifically correct. In the preceding pages it will have been\nremarked that no theory of a foreign origin has been proven, or even\nfairly sustained. The particulars in which the Americans are shown to\nresemble any given people of the Old World are insignificant in number\nand importance when compared with the particulars in which they do\n_not_ resemble that people.\n\nAs I have remarked elsewhere, it is not impossible that stray ships of\nmany nations have at various times and in various places been cast upon\nthe American coast, or even that adventurous spirits, who were familiar\nwith the old-time stories of a western land, may have designedly sailed\nwestward until they reached America, and have never returned to tell\nthe tale. The result of such desultory visits would be exactly what\nhas been noticed, but erroneously attributed to immigration en masse.\nThe strangers, were their lives spared, would settle among the people,\nand impart their ideas and knowledge to them. This knowledge would\nnot take any very definite shape or have any very decided effect,\nfor the reason that the sailors and adventurers who would be likely\nto land in America under such circumstances, would not be thoroughly\nversed in the arts or sciences; still they would know many things\nthat were unknown to their captors, or hosts, and would doubtless be\nable to suggest many improvements. This, then, would account for many\nOld World ideas and customs that have been detected here and there in\nAmerica, while at the same time the difficulty which arises from the\nfact that the resemblances, though striking, are yet very few, would\nbe satisfactorily avoided. The foreigners, if adopted by the people\nthey fell among, would of course marry women of the country and beget\nchildren, but it cannot be expected that the physical peculiarities\nso transmitted would be perceptible after a generation or two of\nre-marrying with the aboriginal stock. At the same time I think it\njust as probable that the analogies referred to are mere coincidences,\nsuch as might be found among any civilized or semi-civilized people\nof the earth. It may be argued that the various American tribes and\nnations differ so materially from each other as to render it extremely\nimprobable that they are derived from one original stock, but, however\nthis may be, the difference can scarcely be greater than that which\napparently exists between many of the Aryan branches.[I-262]\n\n[Sidenote: CONCLUSIONS.]\n\nHence it is many not unreasonably assume that the Americans are\nautochthones until there is some good ground given for believing\nthem to be of exotic origin.[I-263] To express belief, however, in a\ntheory incapable of proof appears to me idle. Indeed, such belief is\nnot belief; it is merely acquiescing in or accepting a hypothesis or\ntradition until the contrary is proved. No one at the present day can\ntell the origin of the Americans; they may have come from any one, or\nfrom all the hypothetical sources enumerated in the foregoing pages,\nand here the question must rest until we have more light upon the\nsubject.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[I-1] He affirms (in a work entitled _Christian Topography_) that,\naccording to the true orthodox system of geography, the earth is a\nquadrangular plane, extending four hundred days' journey east and\nwest, and exactly half as much north and south; that it is inclosed by\nmountains, on which the sky rests; that one on the north side, huger\nthan the others, by intercepting the rays of the sun, produces night;\nand that the plane of the earth is not set exactly horizontally, but\nwith a little inclination from the north: hence the Euphrates, Tigris,\nand other rivers, running southward, are rapid; but the Nile, having\nto run up-hill, has necessarily a very slow current.' _Draper's\nConflict between Religion and Science_, p. 65.\n\n[I-2] In answer to the question: 'What was God doing before he made\nthe heaven and the earth? for, if at any particular moment he began to\nemploy himself, that means time, not eternity. In eternity nothing\nhappens--the whole is present.' St Augustine caustically remarks: 'I\nwill not answer this question by saying that he was preparing hell for\npryers into his mysteries.'\n\n[I-3] The teachings of the Church were beyond controversy, the\ndecisions of the Church were final; and not only in religion but in\nlegislation and in science 'the pervading principle was a blind\nunhesitating credulity.' See _Buckle's Civilization_, vol. i., p. 307.\nThe Bishop of Darien once quoted Plato in the presence of Las Casas.\n\"Plato,\" Las Casas replied, \"was a Gentile, and is now burning in\nhell, and we are only to make use of his doctrine as far as it is\nconsistent with our holy Faith and Christian customs.\" _Helps' Life of\nLas Casas_, p. 120.\n\n[I-4] As an example of the intolerance displayed by these early\nwriters, and of the bitterness with which they attacked those few\nthinkers who dared to theorize without letting theological dogmas\nstand in their way, I translate the following passage from Garc\u00eda, who\nis one of the most comprehensive writers upon the origin of the\nAmericans: 'We would like not even to remember the unworthy opinions\nof certain veritable blasphemers, more barbarous than the Indians,\nwhich do not even deserve the name of opinions, but rather of follies:\nnamely, that, perhaps, the first Indians might have been generated\nfrom the earth, or from its putrefaction, aided by the sun's heat, as\n(Avicena allowing this production to be easy in men) Andres Cisalpino\nattempted to make credible, giving them less perfection than\nEmpedocles, who said that men had been born like the wild amaranth, if\nwe believe Marcus Varron.... Of the formation of man, though of straw\nand mud, the people of Yucatan, had light; which nonsense is not\ninferior to the attempts of those who made men by means of chemistry,\nor magic (described by Solorcano) giving it to be understood that\nthere may be others besides the descendants of Adam, contrary to the\nteachings of scripture: for which reason Taurelo feels indignant\nagainst Cisalpino, whose attempt would be reprehensible even as a\nparadox. Not less scandalous was the error of the ignorant Paracelso,\naccording to Reusnero and Kirchero, who left to posterity an account\nof the creation of two Adams, one in Asia, and another in the West\nIndies; an inexcusable folly in one who had (though corruptly)\ninformation of the Catholic doctrine. Not less erroneous is the\nopinion of Isaac de La Peyrere, who placed people on the earth before\nAdam was created, from whom, he said, descended the heathen; from\nAdam, the Hebrews; which folly was punished with eternal contempt by\nFelipe Priorio, Juan Bautista Morino, Juan Hilperto, and others,\nDanhavero giving it the finishing stroke by an epitaph, as Dicterico\nrelates: although some of the parties named state that La Peyrere\nbecame repentant and acknowledged his error, and did penance, which\nthe Orientals, from whom he took that absurdity, have not done. These,\nand others of the same nature, may not be held as opinions, but as\nevidences of blindness published by men of doubtful faith, wise, in\ntheir own esteem, and deceivers of the world, who, with lies and\nfraud, oppose the divine word, as St Clemens Alexandrinus says,\nclosing their ears to truth, and blindfolding themselves with their\nvices, for whom contempt is the best reward.' _Or\u00edgen de los Ind._, p.\n248. Garc\u00eda spent nine years in Peru, devoting himself to the study of\nthree points: the history of the natives before the arrival of the\nSpaniards, the origin of the natives, and the question as to whether\nthe apostles preached the gospel in America. On his return to Spain,\nhe concluded to write only upon the second topic, leaving the others\nfor a future time.\n\n[I-5] _Descent of Man_, vol. ii., p. 368.\n\n[I-6] The value of proof by analogy has been questioned by many\neminent authors. Humboldt writes: 'On n'est pas en droit de supposer\ndes communications partout o\u00f9 l'on trouve, chez des peuples \u00e0 demi\nbarbares, le culte du soleil, ou l'usage de sacrifier des victimes\nhumaines.' _Vues_, tom. i., p. 257. 'The instances of customs, merely\narbitrary, common to the inhabitants of both hemispheres, are, indeed,\nso few and so equivocal, that no theory concerning the population of\nthe New World ought to be founded upon them.' As regards religious\nrites, 'the human mind, even where its operations appear most wild and\ncapricious, holds a course so regular, that in every age and country\nthe dominion of particular passions will be attended with similar\neffects.' _Robertson's Hist. Amer._, vol. i., p. 269. Warden remarks\nthat nations known to be distinct, to have had no intercourse, breed\nsimilar customs--these, therefore, grow from physical and moral\ncauses. _Recherches_, p. 205. 'In attempting to trace relations\nbetween them and the rest of mankind, we cannot expect to discover\nproofs of their derivation from any particular tribe or nation of the\nOld Continent.' _Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man_, vol. ii., p. 494. 'To\ntell an inquirer who wishes to deduce one population from another that\ncertain distant tribes agree with the one under discussion in certain\npoints of resemblance, is as irrelevant as to tell a lawyer in search\nof the next of kin to a client deceased, that though you know of no\nrelations, you can find a man who is the very picture of him in\nperson--a fact good enough in itself, but not to the purpose.'\n_Latham's Man and his Migrations_, pp. 74-5.\n\n[I-7] Certainly many of the writers must have been either fools or\ndemented, if we judge them by their work and arguments.\n\n[I-8] _Garcia_, _Origen de los Ind._, pp. 7-12.\n\n[I-9] When De Gama established the globular form of the earth by his\nvoyage round the Cape of Good Hope, in 1497-8, 'the political\nconsequences that at once ensued placed the Papal Government in a\nposition of great embarrassment. Its traditions and policy forbade it\nto admit any other than the flat figure of the earth, as revealed in\nthe Scriptures.' In 1520 Magellan discovered the strait which now\nbears his name, and 'henceforth the theological doctrine of the\nflatness of the earth was irretrievably overthrown.' _Draper's\nConflict_, pp. 163-5. St Augustin affirmed that the world beyond the\ntropic of cancer was uninhabited. 'Ea vero veterum sententia,\nperspicua atque inuicta, vt ipsis videbatur, ratione nitebatur. Nam vt\nqu\u00e6que regio ad meridiem propius accedit, ita solis ardoribus magis\nexpositam animaduerterant, idque adeo verum est, vt in eadem Itali\u00e6\nprouincia Apuliam Liguria, & in nostra Hispania B\u00e6ticam Cantabria\nvsque adeo feruentiorem nota re liceat, vt per gradus vixdum octo\ngrande frigoris & \u00e6stus discrimen sit.' _Acosta_, _De Natura Novi\nOrbis_, fol. 27. 'Lactantius Firmianus, and St. Austin, who strangely\njear'd at as ridiculous, and not thinking fit for a Serious Answer the\nFoolish Opinion of Antipodes, or another Habitable World beyond the\nEquator: At which, Lactantius Drolling, says, what, Forsooth, here is\na fine Opinion broach'd indeed; an Antipodes! heigh-day! People whose\nFeet tread with ours, and walk Foot to Foot with us; their Heads\ndownwards, and yet drop not into the Sky! There, yes, very likely, the\nTrees loaden with Fruit grow downwards, and it Rains, Hails, and Snows\nupwards; the Roofs and Spires of Cities, tops of Mountains, point at\nthe Sky beneath them, and the Rivers revers'd topsi-turvy, ready to\nflow into the Air out of their Channels.' _Ogilby's America_, pp. 6-7.\nThe ancients believed a large portion of the globe to be uninhabitable\nby reason of excessive heat, which must have greatly deterred\ndiscovery.\n\n[I-10] Touching the question whether the Americans and the people of\nthe old world are of common origin, see: _Brasseur de Bourbourg_,\n_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 1-31; _Tylor's Anahuac_, p. 104;\n_Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. iv., pp. 14-24;\n_Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 1-31; _Ramirez_, in _Soc.\nMex. Geog., Boletin_, 2da \u00e9poca, tom. iv., p. 54; _M'Culloh's\nResearches on Amer._, pp. 175-8; _Mayer's Mex. as it Was_, p. 260;\n_Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., pp. 66-80; _Prescott's Mex._, vol.\niii., p. 389; _Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 237-49, 351, 354, 420-35;\n_Charlevoix_, quoted in _Carver's Trav._, pp. 197-8; _Fontaine's How\nthe World was Peopled_, p. 17, et seq.; _Crowe's Cent. Amer._, p. 61;\n_Williams' Enquiry into Tradition_; _Chevalier_, _Mexique_, p. 134;\n_Wilson's Pre-Hist. Man_, pp. 611-14, 485-6; _Carli_, _Cartas_, pt i.,\np. 16; _Chamisso_, in _Kotzebue's Voyage_, vol. ii., pp. 405-6;\n_Prichard's Researches_, vol. v., pp. 541-6; _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom.\ni., pp. 22, 31. Innumerable other speculations have been made on this\npoint, but in most cases by men who were but poorly qualified to deal\nwith a subject requiring not only learning, but a determination to\ninvestigate fairly and without bias. Adair's reasoning in this\nconnection will serve to illustrate: 'God employed six days, in\ncreating the heavens, this earth, and the innumerable species of\ncreatures, wherewith it is so amply furnished. The works of a being,\ninfinitely perfect, must entirely answer the design of them: hence\nthere could be no necessity for a second creation; or God's creating\nmany pairs of the human race differing from each other, and fitted for\ndifferent climates; because, that implies imperfection, in the grand\nscheme, or a want of power, in the execution of it--Had there been a\nprior, or later formation of any new class of creatures, they must\nmaterially differ from those of the six days work; for it is\ninconsistent with divine wisdom to make a vain, or unnecessary\nrepetition of the same act. But the American Indians neither vary from\nthe rest of mankind, in their internal construction, nor external\nappearance, except in colour; which, as hath been shewn, is either\nentirely accidental, or artificial. As the Mosaic account declares a\ncompletion of the manifestation of God's infinite wisdom and power in\ncreation, within that space of time; it follows, that the Indians have\nlineally descended from Adam, the first, and the great parent of all\nthe human species.' _Amer. Ind._, pp. 11-12. To the works of those\nmodern scientists, such as Lyell, Darwin, and others, who have treated\nof the unity of the human species at large, I need not refer the\nreader here. An excellent r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of the subject will, however, be\nfound in _Foster's Pre-Hist. Races_, pp. 353-67.\n\n[I-11] 'We find on the earliest Egyptian monuments,' says Sir John\nLubbock, 'some of which are certainly as ancient as 2400 B.C., two\ngreat distinct types, the Arab on the east and west of Egypt, the\nNegro on the south. These distinct types still predominate in Egypt\nand the neighbouring countries. Thus, then, says Mr. Poole, in this\nimmense interval we do not find \"the least change in the Negro or the\nArab; and even the type which seems to be intermediate between them is\nvirtually as unaltered. Those who consider that length of time can\nchange a type of man, will do well to consider the fact that three\nthousand years give no ratio on which a calculation could be\nfounded.\"' Crawfurd, also says: the millions '\"of African Negroes that\nhave during three centuries been transported to the New World and its\nislands, are the same in colour as the present inhabitants of the\nparent country of their forefathers. The Creole Spaniards, who have\nfor at least as long a time been settled in tropical America, are as\nfair as the people of Arragon and Andalusia, with the same variety of\ncolour in the hair and eye as their progenitors. The pure Dutch Creole\ncolonists of the Cape of Good Hope, after dwelling two centuries among\nblack Caffres, and yellow Hottentots, do not differ in colour from the\npeople of Holland.\"' _Pre-Hist. Times_, pp. 587-8. We find 'upon\nEgyptian monuments, mostly of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and\nfifteenth centuries before the Christian Era, representations of\nindividuals of numerous nations, African, Asiatic, and European,\ndiffering in physical characteristics as widely as any equal number of\nnations of the present age that could be grouped together; among these\nbeing negroes of the true Nigritian stamp, depicted with a fidelity as\nto color and features, hardly to be surpassed by a modern artist. That\nsuch diversities had been produced by natural means in the interval\nbetween that remote age and the time of Noah, probably no one versed\nin the science of anatomy and physiology will consider credible.'\n_Foster's Pre-Hist. Races_, p. 357.\n\n[I-12] _Noticias Americanas_, pp. 391-5, 405-7. On pages 286-304, he\nhas an argument, backed by geological evidences, to show that America\nis the oldest continent.\n\n[I-13] 'Were we to admit,' say some ethnologists, 'a unity of origin\nof such strongly-marked varieties as the Negro and European, differing\nas they do in colour and bodily constitution, each fitted for distinct\nclimates, and exhibiting some marked peculiarities in their\nosteological, and even in some details of cranial and cerebral\nconformation, as well as in their average intellectual\nendowments,--if, in spite of the fact that all these attributes have\nbeen faithfully handed down unaltered for hundreds of generations, we\nare to believe that, in the course of time, they have all diverged\nfrom one common stock, how shall we resist the argument of the\ntransmutationist, who contends that all closely allied species of\nanimals and plants have in like manner sprung from a common\nparentage?' _Lyell's Antiq. of Man_, pp. 433-4.\n\n[I-14] _Lescarbot_, _Hist. Nouv. France_, lib. i., cap. iii.\n\n[I-15] _Hist. Conq. Itza_, pp. 26-8.\n\n[I-16] _Pamphleteer_, 1815. Thompson calculates the spreading of\nNoah's children up to the time of Peleg, when the Bible declares the\nearth to have been divided. He also shows that this division happened\nearlier than is generally supposed.\n\n[I-17] _Orrio_, _Solucion_, p. 41, et seq. Torquemada also believes\nHam to have been the father of the race. _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp.\n21-30.\n\n[I-18] _Nieuwe Weereld_, p. 37.\n\n[I-19] _L'Estrange_, _Americans no Jewes_.\n\n[I-20] _Deserts_, vol. i., p. 26. 'The Peruvian language,' writes\nUlloa, 'is something like the Hebrew, and Noah's tongue was doubtless\nHebrew.' _Noticias Americanas_, p. 384.\n\n[I-21] _Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. iv., p. 17.\n\n[I-22] In _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, 2da \u00e9poca, tom. iii., p. 343.\n\n[I-23] See vol. iii. of this work, p. 450, et seq.\n\n[I-24] _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. iv., p. 15. Heredia y Sarmiento\nfollows Clavigero. _Sermones_, p. 84.\n\n[I-25] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi., p. 401. Priest, _Amer. Antiq._, pp.\n142-3, thinks that an ivory image representing a mother and child\nfound in Cincinnati, may have been taken to Britain by the Greeks or\nRomans, who knew of the prophecies concerning the Virgin and Child\nJesus, and thence brought to America. See, also, concerning religious\nbelief, baptism, circumcision, and other Christian-like rites in the\nNew World: _Tylor's Anahuac_, pp. 279-80; _Prescott's Mex._, vol.\niii., pp. 378-85; _Schoolcraft's Arch._, vol. i., pp. 17-18;\n_M'Culloh's Researches on Amer._, pp. 111-40; _Latrobe's Rambler_, pp.\n205-6.\n\n[I-26] See vol. iii., pp. 66-9, and comments in accompanying notes.\n\n[I-27] _Id._, pp. 72-5.\n\n[I-28] _Id._, p. 76.\n\n[I-29] _Id._, pp. 78-9.\n\n[I-30] _Id._, p. 86.\n\n[I-31] _Id._, p. 88.\n\n[I-32] _Id._, p. 89.\n\n[I-33] _Id._, p. 103.\n\n[I-34] _Mackenzie's Voyages_, p. cxviii.\n\n[I-35] 'Ou plut\u00f4t deux femmes, portant le nom d'Ara,' says Brasseur de\nBourbourg; I prefer, however, the original reading. The Ara is a kind\nof parroquet, common in South America, and so called because it\ncontinually repeats the cry _ara, ara_. Beings half bird, half woman,\nare as likely to figure in such a legend as the above as not. Besides,\nshortly afterwards the narrative speaks of 'les deux oiseaux,'\nreferring to the aras.\n\n[I-36] For both of these flood-myths see: _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, in\n_Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. xxx-xxxii. Herrera, _Hist. Gen._, dec. v.,\nlib. iii., cap. vi., gives a native tradition which relates that long\nbefore the time of the Incas there was a great deluge, from which some\nof the natives escaped by fleeing to the mountain-tops. The mountain\ntribes assert, however, that only six persons escaped this flood in a\nbalsa.\n\n[I-37] _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii., p. 25.\n\n[I-38] See vol. iii., p. 67.\n\n[I-39] See vol. iii., pp. 77, 89.\n\n[I-40] According to Ixtlilxochitl, the Toltec tradition relates that\nafter the confusion of tongues the seven families who spoke the Toltec\nlanguage set out for the New World, wandering one hundred and four\nyears over large extents of land and water. Finally they arrived at\nHuehue Tlapallan in the year 'one flint,' five hundred and twenty\nyears after the flood. _Relaciones_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._,\nvol. ix., p. 322. See also another account, p. 450; _Boturini_, _Cr\u00f3n.\nMex._, pt ii., pp. 5-8; _Id._, _Idea_, pp. 111-27; _Veytia_, _Hist.\nAnt. Mej._, tom. i., pp. 24, 145, 212-13; _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._,\np. 145; _Hist. y Antig._, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. i., p.\n284; _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, (Guat. 1857) tom. ii., pp. 55-6;\n_Delafield's Antiq. Amer._, p. 34; _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i., pp.\n114-15; _Prescott's Mex._, vol. iii., pp. 380-1; _Davis' Anc. Amer._,\np. 31; _Tylor's Anahuac_, p. 277.\n\n[I-41] They had also, as we have seen in the third volume, a great\nmany curious ideas as to the way in which man was created, and as in\nattempting to prove their theories many writers are apt to draw\nanalogies in this particular, I give a brief r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of the\ncreation-myths here for the reader's convenience: The grossest\nconceptions of the mystery of the beginning of man are to be found\namong the rude savages of the north, who, however, as they are quite\ncontent, in many instances, to believe that their earliest progenitor\nwas a dog or a coyote, seem entitled to some sympathy from the latest\nschool of modern philosophy, though it is true that their process of\ndevelopment was rather abrupt, and that they did not require very many\nlinks in their chain of evolution. But as we advance farther south,\nthe attempts to solve the problem grow less simple and the direct\ninstrumentality of the gods is required for the formation of man. The\nAleuts ascribe their origin to the intercourse of a dog and a bitch,\nor, according to another version, of a bitch and a certain old man who\ncame from the north to visit his brute-bride. From them sprang two\ncreatures, male and female, each half man, half fox; and from these\ntwo the human race is descended. Others of the Aleuts believe that\ntheir canine progenitor fell from heaven. The Tinneh also owe their\norigin to a dog; though they believe that all other living creatures\nwere called into existence by an immense bird. The Thlinkeet account\nof the creation certainly does not admit of much caviling or dispute\nconcerning its chronology, method, or general probability, since it\nmerely states that men were \"placed on the earth,\" though when, or\nhow, or by whom, it does not presume to relate. According to the\nTacully cosmogony, a musk-rat formed the dry land, which afterwards\nbecame peopled, though whether by the agency of that industrious\nrodent or not, is not stated. Darwinism is reversed by many of the\nWashington tribes, who hold that animals and even some vegetables are\ndescended from man. The human essence from which the first Ahts were\nformed, was originally contained in the bodies of animals, who upon\nbeing suddenly stampeded from their dwellings left this mysterious\nmatter behind them. Some of the Ahts contend, however, that they are\nthe direct descendants of a shadowy personage named Quawteaht and a\ngigantic Thunder Bird. The Chinooks were created by a Coyote, who,\nhowever, did his work so badly and produced such imperfect specimens\nof humanity, that but for the beneficent intervention and assistance\nof a spirit called Ik\u00e1nam the race must have ended as soon as it\nbegan. Some of the Washington tribes originated from the fragments of\na huge beaver, which was slain and cut in pieces by four giants at the\nrequest of their sister who was pining away for some beaver-fat. The\nfirst Shasta was the result of a union between the daughter of the\nGreat Spirit and a grizzly bear. The Cahrocs believe that Chareya, the\nOld Man Above, created the world, then the fishes and lower animals,\nand lastly man. The Potoyantes were slowly developed from Coyotes. The\nBig Man of the Mattoles created first the earth, bleak and naked, and\nplaced but one man upon it; then, on a sudden, in the midst of a\nmighty whirlwind and thick darkness, he covered the desolate globe\nwith all manner of life and verdure. One of the myths of Southern\nCalifornia attributes the creation of man and the world to two divine\nbeings. The Los Angeles tribes believe their one god Quaoar brought\nforth the world from chaos, set it upon the shoulders of seven giants,\npeopled it with the lower forms of animal life, and finally crowned\nhis work by creating a man and a woman out of earth. Still farther\nsouth, the Cochim\u00eds believe in a sole creator; the Peric\u00fais call the\nmaker of all things Niparaja, and say that the heavens are his\ndwelling-place; the Sinaloas pay reverence to Viriseva the mother of\nVairubi, the first man. According to the Navajos, all mankind\noriginally dwelt under the earth, in almost perpetual darkness, until\nthey were released by the Moth-worm, who bored his way up to the\nsurface. Through the hole thus made the people swarmed out on to the\nface of the earth, the Navajos taking the lead. Their first act was to\nmanufacture the sun and the moon, and with the light came confusion of\ntongues. The Great Father and Mother of the Moquis created men in nine\nraces from all manner of primeval forms. The Pima creator made man and\nwoman from a lump of clay, which he kneaded with the sweat of his own\nbody, and endowed with life by breathing upon it. The Great Spirit of\nthe P\u00e1pagos made first the earth and all living things, and then men\nin great numbers from potter's clay. The Miztecs ascribe their origin\nto the act of the two mighty gods, the male Lion Snake and the female\nTiger Snake, or of their sons, Wind of the Nine Snakes and Wind of the\nNine Caves. The Tezcucan story is that the sun cast a dart into the\nearth at a certain spot in the land of Aculma. From this hole issued a\nman imperfectly formed, and after him a woman, from which pair mankind\nare descended. The Tlascaltecs asserted that the world was the effect\nof chance, while the heavens had always existed. The most common\nMexican belief was, that the first human beings, a boy and a girl,\nwere produced from the blood-besprinkled fragments of the bone\nprocured from hades by the sixteen hundred fallen gods sprung from the\nflint-knife of which the goddess Citlalicue had been delivered.\nAccording to the Chimalpopoca manuscript the creator produced his work\nin successive epochs, man being made on the seventh day from dust or\nashes. In Guatemala there was a belief that the parents of the human\nrace were created out of the earth by the two younger sons of the\ndivine Father and Mother. The Quich\u00e9 creation was a very bungling\naffair. Three times and of three materials was man made before his\nmakers were satisfied with their work. First of clay, but he lacked\nintelligence; next of wood, but he was shriveled and useless; finally\nof yellow and white maize, and then he proved to be a noble work. Four\nmen were thus made, and afterwards four women.\n\n[I-42] 'This nice agreement with the Mosaic account of the height\nwhich the waters of the Deluge attained above the summits of the\nhighest mountains is certainly extraordinary; since we read in the\ntwentieth verse of the seventh chapter of Genesis: \"_Fifteen cubits\nupward_ did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered.\"'\n_Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii., p. 25.\n\n[I-43] _Relaciones_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp.\n321-2.\n\n[I-44] 'Un orient lointain,' says Brasseur de Bourbourg; but he must\neither mean what we call in English the Orient, the East, or\ncontradict himself--which, by the way, he is very prone to do--because\nhe afterwards asserts that Tula is the place 'on the other side of the\nsea,' from which the Quich\u00e9 wanderers came to the north-west coast of\nAmerica.\n\n[I-45] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp.\n105-6.\n\n[I-46] _Id._, pp. 167-8.\n\n[I-47] _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, p. 178; _Montanus_, _Nieuwe\nWeereld_, p. 258.\n\n[I-48] _Ross' Adven._, pp. 287-8.\n\n[I-49] _Warden_, _Recherches_, p. 190.\n\n[I-50] _Domenech's Deserts_, vol. ii., p. 4; _Schoolcraft's Arch._,\nvol. i., p. 19.\n\n[I-51] _Warden_, _Recherches_, p. 213.\n\n[I-52] The reader will recollect that the story of each of these\nheroes has been told at length in vol. iii. of this work.\n\n[I-53] The legend of Viracocha, or Ticeviracocha, as he is sometimes\ncalled, and his successor, is, according to Herrera, as follows:\n'Cuentan tambien los Indios, segun lo tienen por tradicion de sus\nantepassados, y parece por sus cantares, que en su antiguedad\nestuuieron mucho tiempo sin ver Sol, y que por los grandes votos, y\nplegarias que hazian \u00e2 sus dioses, sali\u00f4 el Sol de la laguna Titicaca,\ny de la Isla, que est\u00e2 en ella, que es en el Collao, y que pareci\u00f4\nluego por la parte de medio dia vn h\u00f5bre blanco de gran cuerpo, y de\nveneranda presencia, que era tan poderoso, que baxaua las sierras,\ncrecia los valles, y sacaua fuentes de las piedras, al qual por su\ngran poder llamauan: Principio de todas las cosas criadas, y padre del\nSol, porque dio ser a los hombres, y animales, y por su mano les vino\nnotable beneficio, y que obrando estas marauillas, fue de largo h\u00e2zia\nel Norte, y de camino yua dando orden de vida \u00e2 las gentes, hablando\ncon mucho amor, amonestando que fuessen buenos, y se amassen vnos \u00e2\notros, al qual hasta los vltimos tiempos de los Ingas llamau\u00e3\nTiceuiracocha, y en el Collao Tuapaca, y en otras partes Arnau\u00e2, y que\nle hizieron muchos Templos, y bultos en ellos \u00e2 su semejan\u00e7a, \u00e2 los\nquales sacrificauan. Dizen tambien, que passados algunos tiempos\noyeron dezir \u00e2 sus mayores, que pareci\u00f4 otro hombre semejante al\nreferido, que sanaua los enfermos, daua vista \u00e2 los ciegos, y que en\nla prouincia de los Ca\u00f1as, queriendo locamente apedrearle, lo vieron\nhincado de rodillas, al\u00e7adas las manos al Cielo, inuocando el diuino\nfauor, y que pareci\u00f4 vn fuego del Cielo que los espant\u00f4 tanto, que con\ngrandes gritos, y clamores le pedian, que los librasse de aquel\npeligro, pues las venia aquel castigo por el pecado, que auian\ncometido, y que luego cess\u00f4 el fuego, quedando abrasadas las piedras,\ny oy dia se ven quemadas, y tan liuianas, que aunque grandes se\nleuantan como corcho, y dizen, que desde alli se fue \u00e2 la mar, y\nentrando en ella sobre su manto tendido nunca mas se vio, por lo qual\nle llamaron Viracocha, que quiere dezir espuma de la mar, n\u00f5bre que\ndespues mud\u00f4 signification, y que luego le hizieron vn Templo, en el\npueblo de Cacha, y algunos Castellanos solo por su discurso han dicho,\nque este deuia de ser algun Apostol: pero los mas cuerdos lo tienen\npor vanidad, porque en todos estos Templos se sacrificaua al demonio,\ny hasta que los Castellanos entraron en los Reynos del Pir\u00fb, no fue\no\u00ecdo, ni predicado el santo Euangelio, ni vista la Santissima se\u00f1al de\nla Cruz.' _Hist. Gen._, dec. v., lib. iii., cap. vi.; _Acosta_, _Hist.\nde las Ynd._, p. 82.\n\n[I-54] Sum\u00e9 was a white man with a thick beard, who came across the\nocean from the direction of the rising sun. He had power over the\nelements, and could command the tempest. At a word from him the trees\nof the densest forest receded from their places to make a path for\nhim; the most ferocious animals crouched submissive at his feet; the\ntreacherous surface of lake and river presented a solid footing to his\ntread. He taught the people agriculture, and the use of maize. The\nCaboclos, a Brazilian nation, refused to listen to his divine\nteachings, and even sought to kill him with their arrows, but he\nturned their own weapons against them. The persecuted apostle then\nretired to the banks of a river, and finally left the country\nentirely. The tradition adds that the prints of his feet are still to\nbe seen on the rocks and in the sand of the coast. _Warden_,\n_Recherches_, p. 189.\n\n[I-55] Paye-Tome was another white apostle. His history so closely\nresembles that of Sum\u00e9 that it is probable they are the same person.\n_Id._\n\n[I-56] 'In former times, as they (the Chilians) had heard their\nfathers say, a wonderful man had come to that country, wearing a long\nbeard, with shoes, and a mantle such as the Indians carry on their\nshoulders, who performed many miracles, cured the sick with water,\ncaused it to rain, and their crops and grain to grow, kindled fire at\na breath, and wrought other marvels, healing at once the sick, and\ngiving sight to the blind,' and so on. 'Whence it may be inferred that\nthis man was some apostle whose name they do not know.' Quoted from\nRosales' inedited _History of Chili_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._,\nvol. vi., p. 419.\n\n[I-57] Bochica, the great law-giver of the Muyscas, and son of the\nsun, a white man, bearded, and wearing long robes, appeared suddenly\nin the people's midst while they were disputing concerning the choice\nof a king. He advised them to appoint Huncahua, which they immediately\ndid. He it was who invented the calendar and regulated the festivals.\nAfter living among the Muyscas for two thousand years, he vanished on\na sudden near the town of Hunca. _Warden_, _Recherches_, p. 187;\n_Klemm_, _Cultur-Geschichte_, tom. v., p. 174, quoting _Stevenson's\nTravels in South America_, vol. i., p. 397.\n\n[I-58] _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 35; _Acosta_, _Hist.\nde las Ynd._, pp. 67-8; _Montanus_, _Nieuwe Weereld_, p. 13.\n\n[I-59] In a work entitled _Fenix del Occidente_.\n\n[I-60] _Felicidad de Mej._, Mex. 1685, fol. 55.\n\n[I-61] _Boturini_, _Cat\u00e1logo_, in _Idea_, pp. 43, 50-2. Although the\nopinion that Quetzalcoatl was St Thomas, 'appears to be rather\nhazardous, yet one cannot help being astonished at the extent of the\nregions traversed by St. Thomas; it is true that some writers do not\nallow of his having gone beyond Calamita, a town in India, the site of\nwhich is doubtful; but others assert that he went as far as Meliapour,\non the other side of the Coromandel, and even unto Central America.'\n_Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., p. 50. 'Apud Iaiaob\u00e6 Indos in Occidenti\ntradita per avos viget memoria S. Apostoli Thom\u00e6, quam retinent a\ntransitu ejus per illas plagas, cujus non levia extant indicia:\npr\u00e6cipu\u00e8 qu\u00e6dam semita in illis solitudinibus hactenus perseverat, in\nqu\u00e2 non oritur herba nisi vald\u00e8 humilis et parvula, cum utrumque latus\nherbescat ultra modum; eo itinere dicunt Apostolum incessisse, et inde\nprofectum in Peruana regna. Apud Brasilienses quoque traditio est, ibi\npr\u00e6dicasse. Apud alios barbaros, etiam in regionem Paraguay venisse,\npostquam descendit per fluvium Iguazu, deinde in Paranam per Aracaium,\nubi observatur locus in quo sedit defessus Apostolus, et fertur\npr\u00e6dixisse, ut a majoribus acceptum est, post se illuc adventuros\nhomines qui posteris eorum annuntiarent fidem veri Dei, quod non leve\nsolatium et animos facit nostr\u00e6 religionis pr\u00e6dicatoribus, ingentes\nlabores inter illos barbaros pro dilatione Ecclesi\u00e6 perpetientibus.'\n_Nieremberg_, _Histori\u00e6 Natur\u00e6_, lib. xiv., cap. cxvii.\n\n[I-62] Following are a few points of Lord Kingsborough's elaborate\nargument: 'How truly surprising it is to find that the Mexicans, who\nseem to have been quite unacquainted with the doctrines of the\nmigration of the soul and the metempsychosis, should have believed in\nthe incarnation of the _only_ son of their supreme god Tonacatecutle.\nFor Mexican mythology speaking of no other son of that god except\nQuecalcoatle, who was born of Chimalman the Virgin of Tula, without\nconnection with man, and by his breath alone, (by which may be\nsignified his _word_ or his will, announced to Chimalman by word of\nmouth of the celestial messenger, whom he dispatched to inform her\nthat she should conceive a son,) it must be presumed that Quecalcoatle\nwas his only son. Other arguments might be adduced to show, that the\nMexicans believed that Quecalcoatle was both god and man, that he had\npreviously to his incarnation existed from all eternity, that he had\ncreated both the world and man, that he descended from heaven to\nreform the world by penance, that he was born with the perfect use of\nreason, that he preached a new law, and, being king of Tula, was\ncrucified for the sins of mankind, as is obscurely insinuated by the\ninterpreter of the Vatican Codex, plainly declared in the traditions\nof Yucatan, and mysteriously represented in the Mexican paintings.' If\nthe promise of the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary,--The Holy Ghost\nshall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow\nthee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall\nbe called the Son of God--be couched in the language of ancient\nprophecy, 'it is not improbable that the head of the dragon which\nforms the crest of three of the female figures (in one of the Mexican\npieces of sculpture), as it may also be presumed it did of the fourth\nwhen entire, (if it be not a symbol which Chimalman borrowed from her\nson's _name_,) was intended to denote that she had been overshadowed\nby the power of Huitzilopuchtli, whose device, as we are informed by\nSahagun in the first chapter of the first book of his History of New\nSpain, was the head of a dragon.' _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol.\nvi., pp. 507-8. See, more especially, his elaborate discussion of\nQuetzalcoatl's crucifixion and identity with the Messiah, vol. viii.,\npp. 5-51. As we have seen in a preceding volume, Quetzalcoatl is\ncompared with the heathen deities of the old world, as well as with\nthe Messiah of the Christians. See vol. iii., chap. vii.\n\n[I-63] See vol. iii., p. 450, et seq.\n\n[I-64] Though the presumption may be in favor of communication by\nBering Strait, yet the phenomena in the present state of our\nknowledge, favors the Aleutian route. _Latham's Comp. Phil._, p. 384.\nThe Aleutian archipelago is 'probably the main route by which the old\ncontinent must have peopled the new. Behring's Straits, though ...\nthey were doubtless one channel of communication, just as certainly as\nif their place had been occupied by solid land, were yet, in all\nlikelihood, only of subordinate utility in the premises, when compared\nwith the more accessible and commodious bridge towards the south.'\n_Simpson's Nar._, vol. ii., p. 225. 'There is no improbability that\nthe early Asiatics reached the western shores of America through the\nislands of the Pacific.' The trace of the progress of the red and\npartially civilized man from Oriental Asia was left on these islands.\n_Willson's Amer. Hist._, pp. 92-3. The first discoveries were made\nalong the coast and from island to island; the American immigrants\nwould have come by the Aleutian Isles. _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist.\nNat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 10. To come by Aleutian islands presents not\nnearly so great a difficulty as the migrations among Pacific Islands.\n_Prescott's Mex._, vol. iii., p. 374. Immigration from Asia 'appears\nto have taken place mostly by the Aleuthian islands.' _Smith's Human\nSpecies_, p. 238.\n\n[I-65] Some of the early writers were of course ignorant of the\nexistence of any strait separating America from Asia; thus Acosta--who\ndares not assume, in opposition to the Bible, that the flood did not\nextend to America, or that a new creation took place there--accounts\nfor the great variety of animals by supposing that the new continent\nis in close proximity to if not actually connected with the Old World\nat its northern and southern ends, and that the people and animals\nsaved in the ark spread gradually by these routes over the whole land.\n_Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 68-73, 81; _West und Ost Indischer Lustgart_,\npt i., pp. 8-9. See also _Montanus_, _Nieuwe Weereld_, pp. 38-42;\n_Gottfriedt_, _Newe Welt_, p. 4; _Villagutierre_, _Hist. Conq. Itza_,\npp. 26-8. Clavigero produces instances to show that upheavals,\nengulfings, and separations of land have been quite common, and thinks\nthat American traditions of destructions refer to such disasters. He\nalso shows that certain animals could have passed only by a tropic,\nothers only by an arctic road. He accordingly supposes that America\nwas formerly connected with Africa at the latitude of the Cape Verde\nislands, with Asia in the north, and perhaps with Europe by Greenland.\n_Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. iv., pp. 27-44. The great objection to\na migration by way of the cold latitude of Bering Strait, says a\nwriter in the _Historical Magazine_, vol. i., p. 285, is that tropic\nanimals never could have passed that way. He apparently rejects or has\nnever heard of the theory of change in zones. See farther, concerning\njoining of continents, and communication by Bering Strait: _Warden_,\n_Recherches_, pp. 202, 221; _Humboldt_, _Exam. Crit._, tom. ii., p.\n68, et seq.; _Snowden's Hist. N. and S. Amer._, p. 198; _Taylor_, in\n_Cal. Farmer_, Sept. 12, 1862; _Priest's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 62-3,\n82-3; _Valois_, _Mexique_, p. 197; _Adair's Amer. Ind._, p. 219.\nBradford denies emphatically that there ever was any connection\nbetween America and Asia. 'It has been supposed,' he writes, 'that a\nvast tract of land, now submerged beneath the waters of the Pacific\nOcean, once connected Asia and America.... The arguments in favor of\nthis opinion are predicated upon that portion of the Scriptures,\nrelating to the \"division\" of the earth in the days of Peleg, which is\nthought to indicate a physical division,--upon the analogies between\nthe Peruvians, Mexicans and Polynesians ... and upon the difficulty of\naccounting in any other manner for the presence of some kinds of\nanimals in America.' After demolishing these three bases of opinion,\nhe adds: 'this conjectured terrestrial communication never existed, a\nconclusion substantiated, in some measure, by geological testimony.'\n_Amer. Antiq._, pp. 222-8. Mr Bradford's argument, in addition to\nbeing thoughtful and ingenious, is supported by facts, and will amply\nrepay a perusal.\n\n[I-66] _Exam. Crit._, tom. ii., p. 68.\n\n[I-67] _Mex._, vol. iii., p. 418.\n\n[I-68] _Prehist. Man_, p. 615.\n\n[I-69] _Human Species_, p. 238.\n\n[I-70] _Rel., 2de exp\u00e9d._, p. 28.\n\n[I-71] _Peruvian Antiq._, p. 24. America was probably first peopled\nfrom Asia, but the memory of that ancient migration was lost. Asia was\nutterly unknown to the ancient Mexicans. The original seats of the\nChichimecs were, as they thought, not far to the north-west. They\nplaced Aztlan not in a remote country, but near Michoacan. _Gallatin_,\nin _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., pp. 158-9, 174. There are\nstrong resemblances in all things with Asiatic nations; less in\nlanguage than other respects, but more with Asia than with any other\npart of the world. Anatomical resemblances point the same way.\n_Carbajal Espinosa_, _Hist. Mex._, tom. i., pp. 196-203. The Americans\nmost probably came from Asia soon after the dispersion and confusion\nof tongues; but there has been found no clear notice among them of\nAsia, or of their passage to this continent. Nor in Asia of any such\nmigration. The Mexican histories do not probably go so far back.\n_Venegas_, _Noticia de la Cal._, tom. i., pp. 72-3. If a congregation\nof twelve representatives from Malacca, China, Japan, Mongolia,\nSandwich Islands, Chili, Peru, Brazil, Chickasaws, Comanches, &c.,\nwere dressed alike, or undressed and unshaven, the most skillful\nanatomist could not from their appearance separate them. _Fontaine's\nHow the World was Peopled_, pp. 147-9, 244-5. The people of Asia seem\nto have been the only men who could teach the Mexicans and Peruvians\nto make bronze, and could not teach them to smelt and work iron, one\nthousand or one thousand five hundred years before the Spanish\nConquest. _Tylor's Researches_, p. 209. It is almost proved that long\nbefore Columbus, Northern India, China, Corea, and Tartary, had\ncommunication with America. _Chateaubriand_, _Lettre aux Auteurs_, p.\n87. See also: _Smithsonian Rept._, 1866, p. 345; _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant.\nMej._, tom. i., p. 20; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._,\ntom. i., pp. 23-4; _Simpson's Nar._, vol. i., p. 190; _Gregg's Com.\nPrairies_, vol. ii., pp. 250-1; _Macfie's Vanc. Isl._, pp. 426-7;\n_Saint-Amant_, _Voyages_, p. 245; _Malte-Brun_, _Pr\u00e9cis de la G\u00e9og._,\ntom. vi., pp. 290, 295-6; _Warden_, _Recherches_, pp. 118-36;\n_Macgregor's Progress of Amer._, vol. i., p. 24; _M\u00fchlenpfordt_,\n_Mejico_, tom. i., p. 230; _Dodge_, in _Ind. Aff. Rept._, 1869, p.\n590; _Whymper's Alaska_, pp. 278-85; _Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man_, vol.\nii., p. 519; _Mitchill_, in _Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact._, vol. i.,\npp. 325-32; _Vigne's Travels_, vol. ii., p. 36; _Latham's Man and his\nMigrations_, p. 122; _Sampson_, in _Hist. Mag._, vol. v., p. 213.\n_Robertson's Hist. Amer._, vol. i., pp. 280-1; _Snowden's Hist. N. and\nS. Amer._, p. 200; _Stratton's Mound-Builders_, MS.; _Bradford's Amer.\nAntiq._, pp. 208, 215-16, 432; _Pickering's Races of Man_, in _U. S.\nEx. Ex._, vol. ix., pp. 287-8; _Carver's Trav._, pp. 209-13;\n_Kennedy's Probable Origin_; _Davis' Discovery of New Eng._;\n_Hellwald_, in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1866, p. 334. Herrera argued that\nas there were no natives in America of a color similar to those of the\npoliter nations of Europe, they must be of Asiatic origin; that it is\nunreasonable to suppose them to have been driven thither by stress of\nweather; that the natives for a long time had no king, therefore no\nhistoriographer, therefore they are not to be believed in this\nstatement, or in any other. The clear conclusions drawn from these\npointed arguments is, that the Indian race descended from men who\nreached America by the nearness of the land. 'Y asi mas verisimilmente\nse concluye que la generacion, y poblacion de los Indios, ha procedido\nde hombres que passaron a las Indias Ocidentales, por la vezindad de\nla tierra, y se fueron estendiendo poco a poco;' but from whence they\ncame, or by what route the royal historiographer offers no conjecture.\n_Hist. Gen._, dec. i., lib. i., cap. vi.\n\n[I-72] _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 179.\n\n[I-73] _Quarterly Review_, vol. xxi., pp. 334-5. The communication\nbetween An\u00e1huac and the Asiatic continent was merely the contact of\nsome few isolated Asiatics who had lost their way, and from whom the\nMexicans drew some notions of science, astrology, and some cosmogonic\ntraditions; and these Asiatics did not return home. _Chevalier_,\n_Mexique_, pp. 59, 56-8; _Viollet-le-Duc_, in _Charnay_, _Ruines\nAm\u00e9r._, pp. 87-9; _Fossey_, _Mexique_, pp. 120-1; _Democratic Review_,\nvol. xi., p. 617; _Lafond_, _Voyages_, p. 133.\n\n[I-74] Deguignes writes: 'Les Chinois ont p\u00e9n\u00e9tr\u00e9 dans les pays\ntr\u00e8s-\u00e9loign\u00e9s du c\u00f4t\u00e9 de l'orient; j'ai examin\u00e9 leur mesures, et elles\nm'ont conduit vers les c\u00f4tes de la Californie; j'ai conclu de-l\u00e0\nqu'ils avoient connu l'Am\u00e9rique l'an 458 J. C.' He also attributes\nPeruvian civilization to the Chinese. _Recherches sur les Navigations\ndes Chinois du c\u00f4t\u00e9 de l'Am\u00e9rique_, in _M\u00e9moires de l'Acad\u00e9mie des\nInscriptions_, tom. xvii. Paravey, in 1844, attempted to prove that\nthe province of Fousang was Mexico. _Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., p.\n51. 'In Chinese history we find descriptions of a vast country 20,000\nle to the eastward across the great ocean, which, from the description\ngiven, must be California and Mexico.' _Taylor_, in _Cal. Farmer_,\nSept. 12, 1862. 'L'histoire post\u00e9rieure des Chinois donne \u00e0 penser\nqu'ils ont eu autrefois des flottes qui ont pu passer au Mexique par\nles Phillippines.' _Farcy_, _Discours_ p. 46, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom.\ni., div. i.\n\n[I-75] A Chinese li is about one third of a mile.\n\n[I-76] '_Fou sang_, en chinois et selon la prononciation japonaise\n_Fouts s\u00f4k_, est l'arbrisseau que nous nommons _Hibiscus rosa\nchinensis_,' _Klaproth_, _Recherches sur le pays de Fou Sang_, in\n_Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1831, tom. li., p. 55, note. Others\nsuppose the fusang to be the maguey, and, indeed, it was used for much\nthe same purposes. It was, however, most probably, the mulberry;\n_fu-soh_, the Japanese equivalent for the Chinese _fusang_, being\ncompounded of _fu_, to aid, and _soh_, the mulberry, a tree which\nabounds in a wild state in the province of Yesso, and which has been\ncultivated by royal command in other parts of Japan, where, as the\nreader will presently see, Fusang was probably situated. Mr Brooks,\nJapanese Consul in San Francisco, also tells me that Fu Sang is a name\nused in Chinese poetry to mean Japan. In Japan it is also thus used,\nand also used in trade marks, as 'first quality of Fu Sang silk\ncocoons,' meaning Japanese cocoons.\n\n[I-77] I follow Deguignes in this sentence; Klaproth has it: 'Ceux qui\npeuvent recevoir leur grace sont envoy\u00e9s \u00e0 la premi\u00e8re (m\u00e9ridionale),\nceux au contraire auxquels on ne veut pas l'accorder sont d\u00e9tenus dans\nla prison du nord.' _Recherches_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._,\n1831, tom. li., p. 55.\n\n[I-78] Deguignes translates: 'des habitants \u00e9l\u00e8vent des biches comme\nen Chine, et ils en tirent du beurre.'\n\n[I-79] 'Il y a dans l'original _To Phou thao_. Deguignes ayant\nd\u00e9compos\u00e9 le mot _Phou tao_, traduit: \"on y trouve une grande quantit\u00e9\nde glayeuls et de p\u00eaches.\" Cependant le mot _Phou_ seul ne signifie\njamais _glayeul_, c'est le nom des joncs et autres esp\u00e8ces de roseaux\nde marais, dont on se sert pour faire des nattes. _Thao_ est en effet\nle nom de la p\u00eache, mais le mot compos\u00e9 _Phou tao_ signifie en chinois\nla vigne.' _Klaproth_, _Recherches_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._,\n1831, tom. li., pp. 57-8.\n\n[I-80] 'Les images des Esprits,' &c.; _Id._, p. 59.\n\n[I-81] 'Deguignes traduit: 'Pendant leurs pri\u00e8res ils exposent l'image\ndu d\u00e9funt.' Le texte parle de _chin_ ou g\u00e9nies et non pas des ames des\nd\u00e9funts.' _Id._\n\n[I-82] 'C'est une analogie curieuse qu'offre le pays \u00e0 vignes de\nFousang (l'Am\u00e9rique chinoise de Deguignes) avec le Vinland des\npremi\u00e8res d\u00e9couvertes scandinaves sur les c\u00f4tes orientales de\nl'Am\u00e9rique.' _Exam. Crit._, tom. ii., p. 63, note.\n\n[I-83] _Nouv. Jour. Asiatique_, 1832, p. 335, quoted by _Humboldt_,\n_Exam. Crit._, tom. ii., pp. 65-6.\n\n[I-84] _Warden_, _Recherches_, p. 123.\n\n[I-85] It is enough to look at an Aleut to recognize the Mongol.\n_Wrangel_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1853, tom. cxxxvii., p.\n213. 'The resemblance between north-west coast Indians and Chinese is\nrather remarkable.' _Deans' Remains in B. Col._, MS. 'I have\nrepeatedly seen instances, both men and women, who in San Francisco\ncould readily be mistaken for Chinese--their almond-shaped eyes, light\ncomplexion and long braided black hair giving them a marked\nsimilarity.... An experience of nearly nine years among the coast\ntribes, with a close observation and study of their characteristics,\nhas led me to the conclusion that these northern tribes (B. Col. and\nsurrounding region) are the only evidence of any exodus from the\nAsiatic shore ever having reached our borders.' _Taylor_, in _Cal.\nFarmer_, July 25, 1862. Grant, _Ocean to Ocean_, p. 304, says that the\nChinese and Indians resemble one another so much that were it not for\nthe queue and dress they would be difficult to distinguish. 'The\nPacific Indian is Mongolian in size and complexion, in the shape of\nthe face, and the eyes,' and he wants many of the manly\ncharacteristics of the Eastern Indians. Morelet, _Voyage_, tom. i., p.\n148, says of the Yucatan Indians, 'leur teint cuivr\u00e9 et quelquefois\njaun\u00e2tre pr\u00e9sente un ensemble de caract\u00e8res qui rapproche\nsinguli\u00e8rement leur race de celle des tribus d'origine mongole.' This\npoint of physical resemblance is, however, denied by several writers;\nthus Kneeland, _Wonders_, p. 53, says that though Americans have\ngenerally been accepted as Mongolians, yet if placed side by side with\nChinese, hardly any resemblance will be found in physical character,\nexcept in the general contour of their faces and in their straight\nblack hair; their mental characteristics are entirely opposite. Adair\nwrites: 'Some have supposed the Americans to be descended from the\n_Chinese_: but neither their religion, laws, customs, &c., agree in\nthe least with those of the Chinese: which sufficiently proves that\nthey are not of that line.' He goes on to say that distance, lack of\nmaritime skill, etc., all disprove the theory. He also remarks that\nthe prevailing winds blow with little variation from east to west, and\ntherefore junks could not have been driven ashore. _Amer. Ind._, pp.\n12-13. 'Could we hope that the monuments of Central and South America\nmight attract the attention and excite the interest of more American\nscholars than hitherto, the theory of the Mongol origin of the Red-men\nwould soon be numbered among exploded hypotheses.' _Nott and Gliddon's\nIndig. Races_, p. 188. 'MM. Spix et Martius ont remarqu\u00e9 la\nressemblance extraordinaire qui existe entre la physionomie des colons\nChinois et celle des Indiens. La figure des Chinois est, il est vrai,\nplus petite. Ils ont le front plus large, les l\u00e8vres plus fines, et en\ng\u00e9n\u00e9ral les traits plus d\u00e9licats et plus doux que ceux des sauvages de\nl'Am\u00e9rique. Cependant, en consid\u00e9rant la conformation de leur t\u00eate,\nqui n'est pas oblongue, mais angulaire, et plut\u00f4t pointue, leur cr\u00e2ne\nlarge, les sinus frontaux pro\u00e9minents, le front bas, les os des joues\ntr\u00e8s saillants, leurs yeux petits et obliques, le nez\nproportionnellement petit et \u00e9pat\u00e9, le peu de poils garnissant leur\nmenton et les autres parties du corps, leur chevelure moins longue et\nplate, la couleur jaun\u00e2tre ou cuivr\u00e9e de leur peau, on retrouve les\ntraits physiques communs aux deux races.' _Warden_, _Recherches_, p.\n123. The Americans certainly approach the Mongols and Malays in some\nrespects, but not in the essential parts of cranium, hair, and\nprofile. If we regard them as a Mongol branch, we must suppose that\nthe slow action of climate has changed them thus materially during a\nnumber of centuries. _Malte-Brun_, _Pr\u00e9cis de la G\u00e9og._, tom. vi., p.\n289.\n\n[I-86] This will be best shown by referring to Warden's comparison of\nAmerican, Chinese, and Tartar words. _Recherches_, pp. 125-6. The\nHaidahs, are said, however, to have used words known to the Chinese.\n_Deans' Remains in B. Col._, MS. Mr Taylor writes: 'The Chinese accent\ncan be traced throughout the Indian (Digger) language,' and\nillustrates his assertion with a comparative vocabulary of Indian and\nChinese. _Cal. Farmer_, Sept. 12, 1862. The Chinese in California 'are\nknown to be able to converse with them (the Indians) in their\nrespective languages.'! _Cronise's California_, p. 31.\n\n[I-87] Warden, _Recherches_, pp. 127-9, gives a long list of these\nresemblances. See also _Amp\u00e8re_, _Prom. en Am\u00e9r._, tom. ii., p. 301;\n_Prescott's Mex._, vol. iii., p. 396; _Fali\u00e9s_, _\u00c9tudes Hist. sur les\nCivilisations_, tom. i., pp. 380-1. Molina found (in Chili?)\ninscriptions resembling Chinese. _M'Culloh's Researches on Amer._, pp.\n171-2. Bossu found some similarity between the language of the Natchez\nof Louisiana, and the Chinese. _Nouveaux Voyages aux Indes\nOccidentales_, tom. i., let. xviii.; cited by _Warden_, _Recherches_,\np. 121. The last mentioned author also quotes a long list of analogies\nbetween the written language of the Chinese and the gesture language\nof the northern Indians, from a letter written by Wm Dunbar to the\nPhilosophical Society of Philadelphia, and comments thereon.\n_Recherches_, p. 176. Of the value of these philological proofs the\nreader may judge by the following fair sample: 'the Chinese call a\nslave, shungo; and the Naudowessie Indians, whose language from their\nlittle intercourse with the Europeans is the least corrupted, term a\ndog, shungush. The former denominate one species of their tea,\nshousong; the latter call their tobacco, shousassau.' _Carver's\nTrav._, p. 214. The supposition of Asiatic derivation is assumed by\nSmith Barton on the strength of certain similarities of words, but\nVater remarks, these prove only partial migrations. _Malte-Brun_,\n_Pr\u00e9cis de la G\u00e9og._, tom. vi., p. 290. 'On the whole, more analogies\n(etymol.) have been found with the idioms of Asia, than of any other\nquarter. But their amount is too inconsiderable to balance the\nopposite conclusion inferred by a total dissimilarity of structure.'\n_Prescott's Mex._, vol. iii., p. 396. Barton, _New Views_, gives a\ncomparative vocabulary to show that Asiatic traces have been\ndiscovered in the languages of South as well as North America. Latham,\n_Man and His Migrations_, p. 185, has proofs that 'the Kamskadale, the\nKoriak, the Aino-Japanese, and the Korean are the Asiatic languages\nmost like those of America.' 'Dans quatre-vingt-trois langues\nam\u00e9ricaines examin\u00e9es par MM. Barton et Vater, on en a reconnu environ\ncent soixante-dix dont les racines semblent \u00eatre les m\u00eames; et il est\nfacile de se convaincre que cette analogie n'est pas accidentelle,\nqu'elle ne repose pas simplement sur l'harmonie imitative, ou sur\ncette \u00e9galit\u00e9 de conformation dans les organes, qui rend presque\nidentiques les premiers sons articul\u00e9s par les enfans. Sur cent\nsoixante-dix mots qui ont des rapports entre eux, il y en a trois\ncinqui\u00e8mes qui rappellent le mantchou, le tungouse, le mongol et le\nsamoj\u00e8de, et deux cinqui\u00e8mes qui rappellent les langues celtique et\ntschoude, le basque, le copte et le congo.' _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom.\ni., pp. 27-8. Prichard, _Nat. Hist. Man_, vol. ii., pp. 512-13, thinks\nthat the Otom\u00ed monosyllabic language may belong to Chinese and\nIndo-Chinese idioms; but Latham, _Varieties of Man_, p. 408, doubts\nits isolation from other American tongues, and thinks that it is\neither anaptotic or imperfectly agglutinate.\n\n[I-88] _Nouveaux Voyages aux Indes Occidentales_, tom. i., lettre\nxviii. Cited by _Warden_, _Recherches_, p. 121.\n\n[I-89] _Trav._, p. 213.\n\n[I-90] _Hist. of Louisiana_, London 1774.\n\n[I-91] Speaking of the ruins of Central America, Stephens says: 'if\ntheir (the Chinese) ancient architecture is the same with their\nmodern, it bears no resemblance whatever to these unknown ruins.'\n_Cent. Amer._, vol. ii., p. 438.\n\n[I-92] _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i., p. 236. Speaking of the Popol Vuh,\nViollet-le-Duc says: 'Certains passages de ce livre ont avec les\nhistoires h\u00e9ro\u00efques de l'Inde une singuli\u00e8re analogie.' In _Charnay_,\n_Ruines Am\u00e9r._, p. 40. See also, _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Quatre\nLettres_, pp. 212-13, 236-42.\n\n[I-93] _Geschichte der Religion Jesu Christi_, tom. i., p. 426. Quoted\nin _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i., p. 256.\n\n[I-94] _Vues_, tom. i., p. 257. Tschudi, again, writes: 'As among the\nEast Indians, an undefined being, Bramah, the divinity in general, was\nshadowed forth in the Trimurti, or as a God under three forms, viz.,\n_Bramah_, _Vishnu_, and _Sciva_; so also the Supreme Being was\nvenerated among the Indians of Mexico, under the three forms of _Ho_,\n_Huitzilopoctli_, and _Tlaloc_, who formed the Mexican Trimurti. The\nattributes and worship of the Mexican goddess Mictanihuatl preserve\nthe most perfect analogy with those of the sanguinary and implacable\nKali; as do equally the legends of the Mexican divinity Teayamiqui\nwith the formidable Bhavani; both these Indian deities were wives of\nSiva-Rudra. Not less surprising is the characteristic likeness which\nexists between the pagodas of India and the Teocallis of Mexico, while\nthe idols of both temples offer a similitude in physiognomy and\nposture which cannot escape the observation of any one who has been in\nboth countries. The same analogy is observed between the oriental\nTrimurti and that of Peru; thus Con corresponds to Bramah, Pachacamac\nto Vishnu, and Huiracocha to Siva. The Peruvians never dared to erect\na temple to their ineffable God, whom they never confounded with other\ndivinities; a remarkable circumstance, which reminds us of similar\nconduct among a part of the inhabitants of India as to Bramah, who is\nthe Eternal, the abstract God. Equally will the study of worship in\nthe two hemispheres show intimate connection between the existence and\nattributes of the _devadasis_ (female servants of the Gods) and the\nPeruvian virgins of the Sun.\n\nAll these considerations, and many others, which from want of space we\nmust omit, evidently prove that the greater part of the Asiatic\nreligions, such as that of _Fo_, in China, of _Buddha_, in Japan, of\n_Sommono-Cadom_, in India, the _Lamaism_ of Thibet, the doctrine of\n_Dschakdschiamuni_ among the Mongols and Calmucs; as well as the\nworship of _Quetzalcoatl_, in Mexico, and of _Manco-Capac_, in Peru,\nare but so many branches of the same trunk; whose root the labors of\narch\u00e6ology and modern philosophy have not been able to determine with\ncertainty, notwithstanding all the discussion, perseverance, sagacity,\nand boldness of hypothesis, among the learned men who have been\noccupied in investigating the subject.' After remarking upon the\nmarvelous analogy between Christianity and Buddhism as found to exist\nby the first missionaries to Thibet, he goes on: 'Not less, however,\nwas the surprise of the first Spanish ecclesiastics, who found, on\nreaching Mexico, a priesthood as regularly organized as that of the\nmost civilized countries. Clothed with a powerful and effective\nauthority which extended its arms to man in every condition and in all\nthe stages of his life, the Mexican priests were mediators between man\nand the Divinity; they brought the newly born infants into the\nreligious society, they directed their training and education, they\ndetermined the entrance of the young men into the service of the\nState, they consecrated marriage by their blessing, they comforted the\nsick and assisted the dying.' Finally, Tschudi finds it necessary to\n'insist on this point, that Quetzalcoatl and Mango Capac were both\nmissionaries of the worship of Bramah or Buddha, and probably of\ndifferent sects.' _Peruvian Antiq._, pp. 17-20. Domenech, _Deserts_,\nvol. i., p. 52, has this passage, nearly word for word the same as\nTschudi, but does not mention the latter author's name. There is 'a\nremarkable resemblance between the religion of the Aztecs and the\nBuddhism of the Chinese.' _Gentleman's Magazine_; quoted in\n_Washington Standard_, Oct. 30, 1869. In Quetzalcoatl may be\nrecognized one of the austere hermits of the Ganges, and the custom of\nlacerating the body, practiced by so many tribes, has its counterpart\namong the Hindoos. _Priest's Amer. Antiq._, p. 211. Quetzalcoatl, like\nBuddha, preached against human sacrifice. _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i.,\np. 265.\n\n[I-95] 'Il est tr\u00e8s-remarquable aussi que parmi les hi\u00e9roglyphes\nmexicains on ne d\u00e9couvre absolument rien qui annonce le symbole de la\nforce g\u00e9n\u00e9ratrice, ou le culte du _lingam_, qui est r\u00e9pandu dans\nl'Inde et parmi toutes les nations qui ont eu des rapports avec les\nHindoux.' _Vues_, tom. i., p. 275.\n\n[I-96] _Recherches Asiatiques_, tom. i., p. 215.\n\n[I-97] _Vues_, tom. i., p. 276.\n\n[I-98] See vol. iii., p. 501, et seq.; see also _Brasseur de\nBourbourg_, _Quatre Lettres_, pp. 202-8.\n\n[I-99] See vol. iv., p. 163, for cut of this ornament. 'D'abord j'ai\n\u00e9t\u00e9 frapp\u00e9 de la ressemblance qu'offrent ces \u00e9tranges figures des\n\u00e9difices mayas avec la t\u00eate de l'\u00e9l\u00e9phant. Cet appendice, plac\u00e9 entre\ndeux yeux, et d\u00e9passant la bouche de presque toute sa longueur, m'a\nsembl\u00e9 ne pouvoir \u00eatre autre chose que l'image de la trompe d'un\nproboscidien, car le museau charnu et saillant du tapir n'est pas de\ncette longueur. J'ai observ\u00e9 aussi que les \u00e9difices plac\u00e9s \u00e0 l'Est des\nautres ruines offrent, aux quatre coins, trois t\u00eates symboliques\narm\u00e9es de trompes tourn\u00e9es en l'air; or, le tapir n'a nullement la\nfacult\u00e9 d'\u00e9lever ainsi son museau allong\u00e9; cette derni\u00e8re\nconsid\u00e9ration me semble d\u00e9cisive.' _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, p. 74.\n'There is not the slightest ground for supposing that the Mexicans or\nPeruvians were acquainted with any portion of the Hindoo mythology;\nbut since their knowledge of even one species of animal peculiar to\nthe Old Continent, and not found in America, would, if distinctly\nproved, furnish a convincing argument of a communication having taken\nplace in former ages between the people of the two hemispheres, we\ncannot but think that the likeness to the head of a rhinoceros, in the\nthirty-sixth page of the Mexican painting preserved in the collection\nof Sir Thomas Bodley; the figure of a trunk resembling that of an\nelephant, in other Mexican paintings; and the fact, recorded by Simon,\nthat what resembled the rib of a camel (la costilla de un camello) was\nkept for many ages as a relic, and held in great reverence, in one of\nthe provinces of Bogota,--are deserving of attention. _Kingsborough's\nMex. Antiq._, vol. viii., p. 27. 'On croit reconno\u00eetre, dans le masque\ndu sacrificateur (in one of the groups represented in the _Codex\nBorgianus_) la trompe d'un \u00e9l\u00e9phant ou de quelque pachyderme qui s'en\nrapproche par la configuration de la t\u00eate, mais dont la m\u00e2choire\nsup\u00e9rieure est garnie de dents incisives. Le groin du tapir se\nprolonge sans doute un peu plus que le museau de nos cochons; mais il\ny a bien loin de ce groin du tapir \u00e0 la trompe figur\u00e9e dans le _Codex\nBorgianus_. Les peuples d'Aztlan, originaires d'Asie, avoient-ils\nconserv\u00e9 quelques notions vagues sur les \u00e9l\u00e9phans, ou, ce qui me\nparo\u00eet bien moins probable, leurs traditions remontoient-elles jusqu'\u00e0\nl'\u00e9poque o\u00f9 l'Am\u00e9rique \u00e9toit encore peupl\u00e9e de ces animaux\ngigantesques, dont les squelettes p\u00e9trifi\u00e9s se trouvent enfouis dans\nles terrains marneux, sur le dos m\u00eame des Cordill\u00e8res mexicaines?\nPeut-\u00eatre aussi existe-t-il, dans la partie nord-ouest du nouveau\ncontinent, dans des contr\u00e9es qui n'ont \u00e9t\u00e9 visit\u00e9es ni par Hearne, ni\npar Mackensie, ni par Lewis, un pachyderme inconnu, qui, par la\nconfiguration de sa trompe, tient le milieu entre l'\u00e9l\u00e9phant et le\ntapir.' _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i., pp. 254-5.\n\n[I-100] _Squier's Observations on Memoirs of Dr Zestermann_, in _Amer.\nEthno. Soc., Transact._, April, 1851; _Atwater_, in _Amer. Antiq.\nSoc., Transact._, vol. i., pp. 196-267.\n\n[I-101] In this, as in all other theories, but little distinction is\nmade between the introduction of foreign culture, and the actual\norigin of the people. It would be absurd, however, to suppose that a\nfew ships' crews, almost, if not quite, without women, cast\naccidentally ashore in Peru in the thirteenth century, should in the\nfifteenth be found to have increased to a mighty nation, possessed of\na civilization quite advanced, yet resembling that of their mother\ncountry so slightly as to afford only the most faint and far-fetched\nanalogies.\n\n[I-102] Manco 'afterwards received from his subjects the title of\n\"Capac,\" which means sole Emperor, splendid, rich in virtue.'\n_Ranking's Hist. Researches_, p. 56. He cites for this, _Garcilasso de\nla Vega_, book i., chap. xxvi., a work on which he relies for most of\nhis information.\n\n[I-103] _A relation of two Russe Cossacks trauailes, out of Siberia to\nCatay_, &c., in _Purchas his Pilgrimes_, vol. iii., p. 798.\n\n[I-104] _Ranking's Hist. Researches_, pp. 171-2.\n\n[I-105] Quoted by Ranking, _Hist. Researches_, p. 183, from Abul Ghazi\nBahadur, _History of the Turks, Moguls, and Tartars_, vol. i., p. 11.\n\n[I-106] _Du Halde_, _Empire of China_, vol. i., p. 275. Quoted by\nRanking, _Hist. Researches_, p. 197-8.\n\n[I-107] Concerning the Mongolian origin of the Peruvians, see:\n_Ranking's Hist. Researches_. Almost all other writers who have\ntouched on this subject, are indebted to Mr Ranking for their\ninformation and ideas. See also _Humboldt_, _Exam. Crit._, tom. ii.,\np. 67, et seq.; _Malte-Brun_, _Pr\u00e9cis de la G\u00e9og._, tom. vi., pp.\n293-4; _Forster's Voyage Round the World_. Grotius thinks that the\nPeruvians must be distinct from other American people, since they are\nso acute, and believes them, therefore, to be descended from the\nChinese. Wrecks of Chinese junks have been found on the coast. Both\nadore the sun, and call the king the 'son of the sun.' Both use\nhieroglyphics which are read from above downwards. Manco Capac was a\nChinaman who gave these settlers a government founded on the Chinese\nsystem. _Montanus_, _Nieuwe Weereld_, pp. 32-3. De Laet, replying to\nthese arguments, considers that the acuteness of the Peruvians does\nnot approach that of the Chinese. Nowhere in Peru have the cunning and\nartistic works of Chinese artificers been seen. The Chinese junks were\ntoo frail to withstand a storm that could drive them across the\nPacific. And if the voyage were intentional they would have sought\nnearer land than the coasts of Mexico or Peru. The religion of the two\ncountries differs materially; so does their writing. Manco Capac was a\nnative Peruvian who ruled four hundred years before the coming of the\nSpaniards. _Novus Orbis_, in _Id._, pp. 33-4. Mr Cronise, in his\n_Natural Wealth of California_, p. 28, et seq., is more positive on\nthis subject than any writer I have yet encountered. I am at a loss to\nknow why this should be, because I have before me the works that he\nconsulted, and I certainly find nothing to warrant his very strong\nassertions. I quote a few passages from his work. 'The investigations\nof ethnologists and philologists who have studied the Hindoo, Chinese,\nand Japanese annals during the present century, have brought to light\nsuch a chain of evidence as to place beyond doubt that the inhabitants\nof Mexico and California, discovered by the Spaniards, were of\nMongolian origin.' Hindoo, Chinese, and Japanese annals all agree that\nthe fleet of Kublai Khan, son of Genghis Khan, was wrecked on the\ncoast of America. 'There are proofs clear and certain, that Mango\nCapac, the founder of the Peruvian nation, was the son of Kublai Khan\n... and that the ancestors of Montezuma, of Mexico, who were from\nAssam, arrived about the same time.... Every custom of the Mexicans,\ndescribed by their Spanish conquerors, proves their Asiatic origin....\nThe strange hieroglyphics found in so many places in Mexico, and from\nCalifornia to Canada, are all of Mongolian origin'.... 'Humboldt, many\nyears ago, conjectured that these hieroglyphics were of Tartar origin.\nIt is now positively known that they are.... The armor belonging to\nMontezuma, which was obtained by Cortez and is now in the museum at\nMadrid, is known to be of Asiatic manufacture, and to have belonged to\none of Kublai Khan's generals.' It is unnecessary to multiply\nquotations, or to further criticise a work so grossly misleading. The\nfollowing unique assertion is a fair specimen of Mr Cronise's vagaries\nwhen treading on unfamiliar ground: '\"Alta,\" the prefix which\ndistinguishes Upper from Lower California, is a word of Mongolian\norigin, signifying \"gold.\"' The most superficial knowledge of Spanish\nor of the history of California, would have told Mr Cronise that\n'alta' simply means 'high,' or 'upper,' and that the name was applied\nto what was originally termed 'New' California, in contradistinction\nto 'Baja' or 'Lower' California.\n\n[I-108] This relation, says Ranking, 'has naturally enough been\nconsidered by Robertson and others as a ridiculous fable; and any\nreader would be inclined to treat it as such, were it not accounted\nfor by the invasion of Japan, and the very numerous and convincing\nproofs of the identity of the Mongols and the Incas.' _Hist.\nResearches_, p. 55. He thinks that the giants were the Mongolian\ninvaders, mounted upon the elephants which they brought with them.\n'The elephants,' he says, 'would, no doubt, be defended by their usual\narmor on such an extraordinary occasion, and the space for the eyes\nwould appear monstrous. The remark about the beards, &c., shows that\nthe man and the elephant were considered as one person. It is a new\nand curious _folio_ edition of the Centaurs and Lapith\u00e6; and we cannot\nwonder that, on such a novel occasion, Cape St. Helen's did not\nproduce an American Theseus.' _Id._, pp. 53-4.\n\n[I-109] See _Ranking's Hist. Researches_, p. 56, et seq.; _Warden_,\n_Recherches_, pp. 187-9.\n\n[I-110] _Origin of the Japanese Race, and their Relation to the\nAmerican Continent_, MS.\n\n[I-111] See report of a lecture read by Charles Wolcott Brooks before\nthe California Academy of Science, in _Daily Alta California_, May 4,\n1875; _San Francisco Evening Bulletin_, same date.\n\n[I-112] See report of paper submitted by Mr Brooks to the California\nAcademy of Sciences, in _San Francisco Evening Bulletin_, March 2,\n1875. In this report the details and date of each wreck are given. The\nauthor of the paper assures me that he has records of over one hundred\nsuch disasters. Every one of these wrecks, when examined, proved to be\nJapanese, and not one Chinese. See also _Irving's Bonneville's\nAdven._, p. 427; _Smith's Human Species_, p. 239; _Roquefeuil_, in\n_Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1823, tom. xviii., pp. 248-9;\n_Anderson_, in _Hist. Mag._, vol. vii., pp. 80-1; _Lassepas_, _Baja\nCal._, pp. 45-6.\n\n[I-113] _Id._ _Lord's Nat._, vol. ii., pp. 216-7. 'Looking only at the\n_forms_ and endings of the words, their _ring_ and _sounds_ when\nuttered, we could not but notice the striking similarity, in these\nrespects, between the proper names as found on the map of Japan, and\nmany of the names given to places, rivers, etc., in this country.'\n(America.) _Rockwell_, in _Hist. Mag._, n. s., vol. iii., p. 141.\n\n[I-114] There were in California at the time of the Conquest, Indians\nof various races, some of the Japanese type. _Vallejo_, _Hist. Cal._,\nMS., tom. i., p. 3; _Vallejo_, _Remin. Cal._, MS., p. 6. The Aleutian\nIslanders resemble the Japanese in various respects. _Simpson's Nar._,\nvol. ii., p. 228. Priest, _Amer. Antiq._, p. 214, thinks that\nQuetzalcoatl may be regarded as a Japanese, as comparatively white and\nbearded.\n\n[I-115] Introduction to _Charnay_, _Ruines Am\u00e9r._, pp. 28-31.\n\n[I-116] _Nieuwe Weereld_, p. 39.\n\n[I-117] _Lord's Nat._, vol. ii., p. 217.\n\n[I-118] See: _Amp\u00e8re_, _Prom. en Am\u00e9r._, tom. ii., pp. 300-4;\n_Atwater_, in _Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., pp. 212-14,\n338-42; _Montanus_, _Nieuwe Weereld_, pp. 38-42; _Priest's Amer.\nAntiq._, pp. 58-9; _Religious Cer. and Cust._, vol. iii., pp. 4-10;\n_Robertson's Hist. Amer._, vol. i., pp. 277-81; _Vigne's Travels_,\nvol. ii., pp. 37-8; _Gage's New Survey_, p. 162; _Domenech's Deserts_,\nvol. i., pp. 7-9; _Farcy_, _Discours_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div.\ni., p. 45; _Humboldt_, _Essai Pol._, tom. i., pp. 79-80; _Adair's\nAmer. Ind._, pp. 12-13; _Norman's Rambles by Land and Water_, pp.\n215-16; _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i., p. 267; _Vater_, _Ueber Amer.\nBev\u00f6lkerung_, pp. 155-69, cited in _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i., p.\n175; _Laplace_, _Circumnav._, tom. vi., p. 156; _Warden_,\n_Recherches_, pp. 201-2; _Josselyn's Two Voyages_; _Williamson's\nObservations on Climate_; _Hill's Antiq. of Amer._; _Ixtlilxochitl_,\n_Relaciones_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp. 392-3,\n450; _Foster's Pre-Hist. Races_, pp. 334-5; _Volney's View_; _Bossu_,\n_Nouveaux Voy._; _Slight's Indian Researches_; _Carver's Trav._, pp.\n187-96, 208-19; _Fontaine's How the World was Peopled_, pp. 241-5;\n_Las Casas_, _Hist. Apolog\u00e9tica_, cap. ccix., quoted in\n_Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii., pp. 398-9; _Delafield's\nAntiq. Amer._, pp. 13-104; _Malte-Brun_, _Pr\u00e9cis de la G\u00e9og._, tom.\nvi., pp. 293-4; _Monglave_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. i., p. 60;\n_Heylyn's Cosmog._, p. 947; _Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, p. 174.\n\n[I-119] _Ensayo de un Estudio comparativo._\n\n[I-120] _Delafield's Antiq. Amer._, p. 57.\n\n[I-121] _Ranking's Hist. Researches_, p. 356.\n\n[I-122] See vol. iv., pp. 88, 95-6, for further description, also plan\nof Copan ruins, p. 85, for location of vault. Jones, commenting on the\nabove, remarks: 'This last sentence brings us to a specimen of Gem\nengraving, the most ancient of all the antique works of Art. Not only\nis the death \"Chamber\" identical with that of Egypt, but also the very\nway of reaching it--viz., first, by ascending the pyramidal base, and\nthen descending, and so entering the Sepulchre! This could not be\naccidental,--the builders of that pyramidal Sepulchre must have had a\nknowledge of Egypt.' _Hist. Anc. Amer._, pp. 116-17. Stephens, who in\nhis first volume of travels in Central America, p. 144, describes this\nvault, writes in vol. ii., pp. 439-40: 'The pyramids of Egypt are\nknown to have interior chambers, and, whatever their other uses, to\nhave been intended and used as sepulchres. These (American pyramids),\non the contrary, are of solid earth and stone. No interior chambers\nhave ever been discovered, and probably none exist.' Mr Jones\ncriticises Mr Stephens very severely for this apparent contradiction,\nbut it is customary with Mr Jones to tilt blindly at whatever\nobstructs his theories. Stephens doubtless refers in this passage to\nsuch chambers as would lead one to suppose that the pyramid was built\nas a token of their presence. L\u00f6wenstern is very positive that the\nMexican pyramid was not intended for sepulchral purposes. _Mexique_,\np. 274. Clavigero is of the same opinion: 'quelli degli Egizj erano\nper lo pi\u00f9 vuoti; quelli de' Messicani massiccj; questi servivano di\nbasi a' loro Santuarj; quelli di sepolcri de' Re.' _Storia Ant. del\nMessico_, tom. iv., pp. 19-20. Foster, on the other hand, writes:\n'There are those who, in the truncated pyramids, see evidences of\nEgyptian origin. The pyramids, like the temple-mounds, were used for\nsepulchres, but here the analogy ends.' _Pre-Hist. Races_, p. 187.\n\n[I-123] See vol. iv., p. 474.\n\n[I-124] _Stephens' Cent. Amer._, vol. ii., p. 440.\n\n[I-125] The reader can compare the various accounts of pyramidal\nstructures given in vol. iv. on this point. See heading 'pyramid,' in\nIndex.\n\n[I-126] _Stephens' Cent. Amer._, vol. ii., p. 439.\n\n[I-127] _Antiq. Amer._, p. 56.\n\n[I-128] Humboldt reviews the points of resemblance and comes to the\nconclusion that they afford no foundation upon which to base a theory\nof Egyptian origin. _Vues_, tom. i., pp. 120-4. 'There is much in the\nshape, proportions and sculptures of this pyramid (Xochicalco) to\nconnect its architects with the Egyptians.' _Mayer's Mex. as it Was_,\np. 186. Bradford finds that some 'of the Egyptian pyramids, and those\nwhich with some reason it has been supposed are the most ancient, are\nprecisely similar to the Mexican Teocalli.' But he only sees Egyptian\n_traces_ in this; he shows that similar pyramidal structures have been\nfound in very many parts of the world; and he believes the Americans\nto have originated from many sources and stocks. See _Amer. Antiq._,\np. 423.\n\n[I-129] See vol. iv., chap. v., vii., and x. Quoting from Molina,\n_Hist. Chili_, tom. i., notes, p. 169, M'Culloh writes: 'Between the\nhills of Mendoza and La Punta, upon a low range of hills, is a pillar\nof stone one hundred and fifty feet high, and twelve in diameter.'\n'This,' he adds, 'very much reminds us of the pillar and obelisks of\nancient Egypt.' _Researches_, pp. 171-2. Jones, _Hist. Anc. Amer._,\npp. 122-3, is very confident about the obelisk. He asks: 'What are the\nObelisks of Egypt? Are they not square columns for the facility of\nSculpture? And of what form are the isolated columns at Copan? Are\nthey not square, and for the same purpose of facility in Sculpture\nwith which they are covered, and with workmanship \"as fine as that of\nEgypt?\"... The columns of Copan stand detached and solitary,--the\nObelisks of Egypt do the same, and both are square (or four-sided) and\ncovered with the art of the Sculptor. The analogy of being derived\nfrom the Nile is perfect,--for in what other Ruins but those of Egypt,\nand Ancient America, is the square sculptured Column to be found?'\n\n[I-130] _Essai Pol._, tom. i., p. 265. Notwithstanding certain points\nof resemblance, says Prescott, 'the Palenque architecture has little\nto remind us of the Egyptian, or of the Oriental. It is, indeed, more\nconformable, in the perpendicular elevation of the walls, the moderate\nsize of the stones, and the general arrangement of the posts, to the\nEuropean. It must be admitted, however, to have a character of\noriginality peculiar to itself.' _Mex._, vol. iii., pp. 407-8.\n\n[I-131] There is a plate showing an Aztec priestess in Delafield's\n_Antiq. Amer._, p. 61, which, if correctly drawn, certainly presents a\nhead-dress strikingly Egyptian. The same might almost be said of a cut\nin vol. iv. of this work, p. 562, and, indeed, of several other cuts\nin the same volume. Mr Stephens, _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii., p. 441,\ngives, for the sake of comparison, a plate representing two specimens\nof Egyptian sculpture; one from the side of the great monument at\nThebes known as the Vocal Memnon, and the other from the top of the\nfallen obelisk at Carnac. 'I think,', he writes, 'by comparison with\nthe engravings before presented, it will be found that there is no\nresemblance whatever. If there be any at all striking, it is only that\nthe figures are in profile, and this is equally true of all good\nsculpture in bas-relief.' He happens, however, here, to have selected\ntwo Egyptian subjects which almost find their counterparts in America.\nIn the preceding volume of this work, p. 333, is given a cut of what\nis called the 'tablet of the cross' at Palenque. In this we see a\ncross, and perched upon it a bird, to which (or to the cross) two\nhuman figures in profile, apparently priests, are making an offering.\nIn Mr Stephens' representation from the Vocal Memnon we find almost\nthe same thing, the differences being, that instead of an ornamented\nLatin cross, we have here a _crux commissa_, or _patibulata_; that\ninstead of one bird there are two, not on the cross but immediately\nabove it; and that the figures, though in profile and holding the same\ngeneral positions, are dressed in a different manner, and are\napparently binding the cross with the lotus instead of making an\noffering to it; in Mr Stephens' representation from the obelisk of\nCarnac, however, a priest is evidently making an offering to a large\nbird perched upon an altar, and here, again, the human figures occupy\nthe same position. The hieroglyphs, though the characters are of\ncourse different, are, it will be noticed, disposed upon the stone in\nmuch the same manner. The frontispiece of Stephens' _Cent. Amer._,\nvol. ii., described on p. 352, represents the tablet on the back wall\nof the altar, casa No. 3, at Palenque. Once more here are two priests\nclad in all the elaborate insignia of their office, standing one on\neither side of a table, or altar, upon which are erected two batons,\ncrossed in such a manner as to form a _crux decussata_, and supporting\na hideous mask. To this emblem they are each making an offering.\n\n[I-132] Delafield, it is true, discerns a distinct analogy between the\nhieroglyphs of Egypt and America. And the evidence he adduces is\nabsurd enough. 'Hieroglyphic writings,' he says, 'are necessarily of\nthree kinds, viz: phonetic, figurative, and symbolical.' He then goes\non to show at great length, that both in Egypt and in America all\nthree of these systems were used: hence, the resemblance. _Antiq.\nAmer._, pp. 42-7. 'Les monumens du Palenque pr\u00e9sentent des\ninscriptions hi\u00e9roglyphiques qui ne paraissent pas diff\u00e9rer des\nhi\u00e9roglyphes de l'ancienne Th\u00e8bes.' _Giordan_, _Tehuantepec_, p. 57.\nJomard pronounces an inscription found at Grave Creek to be Lybian.\n_Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., pp. 411-12. Says M'Culloh: 'The _Game\nof the Flyers_, we notice in this place, as M. Denon in the plates to\nhis Travels in Egypt, has given the copy of some figures taken from\nthe Egyptian hieroglyphics, which have every appearance of a similar\ndesign with this Mexican amusement or ceremony.--The similarity of\ndevice will be best seen, by comparing the plate given by Clavigero,\nwith the (lxiii. plate) of Denon's Atlas, &c.' _Researches on Amer._,\npp. 170-1. Priest, _Amer. Antiq._, p. 122, gives a comparative table\nof Lybian characters, and others, which he affirms to have been found\nat Otolum, or Palenque: the whole statement is, however, too\napocryphal to be worthy of further notice. See, also, a long letter\nfrom Prof. Rafinesque to Champollion, 'on the Graphic Systems of\nAmerica, and the Glyphs of Otolum, or Palenque, in Central America,'\nin _Id._, pp. 123-9. The hieroglyphics of Palenque and Tula encourage\nthe idea that they were founded by an Egyptian colony. _Juarros_,\n_Hist. Guat._, p. 19.\n\n[I-133] In a letter by Jomard, quoted by Delafield, we read: 'I have\nalso recognized in your memoir on the division of time among the\nMexican nations, compared with those of Asia, some very striking\nanalogies between the Toltec characters and institutions observed on\nthe banks of the Nile. Among these analogies there is one which is\nworthy of attention. It is the use of the vague year of three hundred\nand sixty-five days, composed of equal months, and of five\ncomplementary days, equally employed at Thebes and Mexico, a distance\nof three thousand leagues. It is true that the Egyptians had no\nintercalation, while the Mexicans intercalated thirteen days every\nfifty-two years. Still farther: intercalation was proscribed in Egypt,\nto such a point that the kings swore, on their accession, never to\npermit it to be employed during their reign. Notwithstanding this\ndifference, we find a very striking agreement in the length of the\nduration of the solar year. In reality, the intercalation of the\nMexicans being thirteen days on each cycle of fifty-two years, comes\nto the same thing as that of the Julian calendar, which is one day in\nfour years; and consequently supposes the duration of the year to be\nthree hundred and sixty-five days, six hours. Now such was the length\nof the year among the Egyptians, since the sothic period was at once\none thousand four hundred and sixty solar years, and one thousand four\nhundred and sixty-one vague years; which was, in some sort, the\nintercalation of a whole year of three hundred and seventy-five days\nevery one thousand four hundred and sixty years. The property of the\nsothic period--that of bringing back the seasons and festivals to the\nsame point of the year, after having made them pass successively\nthrough every point--is undoubtedly one of the reasons which caused\nthe intercalation to be proscribed, no less than the repugnance of the\nEgyptians for foreign institutions. Now it is remarkable that the same\nsolar year of three hundred and sixty-five days, six hours, adopted by\nnations so different, and perhaps still more remote in their state of\ncivilization than in their geographical distance, relates to a real\nastronomical period, and belongs peculiarly to the Egyptians.... The\nfact of the intercalation (by the Mexicans) of thirteen days every\ncycle, that is, the use of a year of three hundred and sixty-five days\nand a quarter, is a proof that it was either borrowed from the\nEgyptians, or that they had a common origin.' _Antiq. Amer._, pp.\n52-3. 'On the 26th of February, the Mexican century begins, which was\ncelebrated from the time of Nabonassor, seven hundred and forty-seven\nyears before Christ, because the Egyptian priests conformably to their\nastronomical observations had fixed the beginning of their month\n_Toth_ and the commencement of their year at noon on that day; this\nwas verified by the Meridian of Alexandria, which was erected three\ncenturies after that epoch. Hence it has been contended there could\nexist no doubt of the conformity of the Mexican with the Egyptian\ncalendar, for although the latter assigned twelve months of thirty\ndays each to the year, and added five days besides, in order that the\ncircle of three hundred and sixty-five days should recommence from the\nsame point; yet, notwithstanding the deviation from the Egyptian mode\nin the division of the months and days, they yet maintained that the\nMexican method was conformable thereto, on account of the superadded\nfive days; with this only difference, that upon these the Americans\nattended to no business, and therefore termed them Nemontemi or\nuseless, whereas the Egyptians celebrated, during that epoch, the\nfestival of the birth of their gods, as attested by Plutarch de Feide,\nand Osiride. Upon the other hand it is asserted, that though the\nMexicans differed from the Egyptians by dividing their year into\neighteen months, yet, as they called the month Mextli Moon, they must\nhave formerly adopted the lunar month, agreeable to the Egyptian\nmethod of dividing the year into twelve months of thirty days; but to\nsupport this assertion no attempt has been made to ascertain the cause\nwhy this method was laid aside. The analogy between the Mexican and\nthe Egyptian calendars is thus assumed to be undeniable. Besides what\nhas been here introduced, the same is attempted to be proved in many\nother works which I pass over to avoid prolixity, and therefore only\nmention that they may be found in Boturini, in La Idea del Universo,\nby the abb\u00e9 don Lorenza de Hervas, published in the Italian language,\nin Clavigero's dissertations, and in a letter addressed to him by\nHervas, which he added to the end of his second volume.' _Cabrera_,\n_Teatro_, in _Rio's Description_, pp. 103-5. See also: _Humboldt_,\n_Vues_, tom. i., pp. 344, 348; _Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_,\ntom. iv., p. 20; _Malte-Brun_, _Pr\u00e9cis de la G\u00e9og._, tom. vi., p.\n295.\n\n[I-134] I follow, chiefly, M. Warden's r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of these accounts, as\nbeing the fullest and clearest. _Recherches_, p. 406, et seq.\n\n[I-135] _Hist. du Commerce_, cap. viii.\n\n[I-136] Acosta compares the gold of Ophir with that of Hispaniola. He\nentertains the opinion that Tarshish and Ophir are distant imaginary\nplaces and not distinct countries, but imagines them to be somewhere\nin the East Indies. 'Cur autem in Orientali potius India quam in hac\nOccidentali Ophir fuisse existimem, illud caput est, quod ad nostrum\nPeru non nisi infinito circuitu tota India Orientali & Sinarum regione\nenauigata Salomonia clasis peruenire poterar.' _De Novi Orbis_, p. 36.\nOphir is supposed to be in India or Africa. _Robertson's Hist. Amer._,\nvol. i., p. 7. Crowe, _Cent. Amer._, p. 65, considers the probability\nof Ophir and Tarshish being on the west coast of America. The\nPh\u0153nician '_Ophir_, or _Ofor_, which means, in their ancient language,\nthe _Western country_, was Mexico and Central America, the land of\ngold.' _Fontaine's How the World was Peopled_, pp. 259-60. On p. 162,\nhe says that the best authorities, Volney, Bochart, Michaelis, and\nForster, suppose Ophir to have been situated on the Persian Gulf. The\nPh\u0153nician Ophir was Hayti, for Columbus thought that he could trace\nthe furnaces in which the gold had been refined. _Carver's Trav._, p.\n192. Kingsborough, _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi., pp. 184-5, considers the\nposition of Ophir, but is undecided as to its position. Ens, _West und\nOst Indischer Lustgart_, pp. 5-8, disagreeing with Vatablus and\nStephanus, can find no resemblance to Ophir in Hayti or Peru, and\ncomes to the conclusion that Ophir lay somewhere in the Old World,\nmost likely in the East Indies. This seems to be a plagiarism of\nAcosta. See also _Gottfriedt_, _Newe Welt_, p. 3. Humboldt, _Exam.\nCrit._, tom. ii., pp. 40-5, discusses the position of Ophir in\nVeragua. Pi\u00f1eda, _De Rebus Salomonis_, believes Ophir to have been\nAmerica. _Warden_, _Recherches_, p. 196. See also _Id._, pp. 106-7.\n\n[I-137] _De Origine Gentium Americanarum_, lib. ii., cap. vi., vii.,\nviii.\n\n[I-138] 'Sur le cap Mollabat, au pied duquel on b\u00e2ti ensuite le vieux\nTanger.' _Gosselin_, cited by Warden, _Recherches_, p. 107, note 8.\n\n[I-139] 'Le cap Spartel, qui forme l'extr\u00e9mit\u00e9 occidentale du\nd\u00e9troit.' _Id._, note 9.\n\n[I-140] The Greek text of the _Periplus_ is printed in _Hudson's\nGeographi\u00e6 veteris Scriptores Gr\u00e6ci Minores_. It was also published by\nFalconer, with an English translation and many notes--8vo., Lond.\n1797. Many remarks upon Hanno's voyage are made by Compomanes,\n_Antig\u00fcedad Mar\u00edtima de la Rep\u00fablica de Cartago_, Madrid 1756;\nBougainville, _M\u00e9moires de l'Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions_, tom. xxvi.,\nxxviii.; Gosselin, _Recherches sur la G\u00e9ographie des Anciens_;\nRennell, _Geography of Herodotus_, vol. ii., pp. 409-43, 8vo.; and\nHeeren, _Researches on the Ancient Nations of Africa_, vol. i., pp.\n492-501.\n\n[I-141] Or _Tiphysque_.\n\n[I-142] 'Which is expressed by repeating four times from Valum-Votan\nto Valum-Chivim, from Valum-Chivim to Valum-Votan.' _Cabrera_,\n_Teatro_, in _Rio's Description_, p. 34. 'Valum-Votan, ou Terre de\nVotan, serait suivant Ordo\u00f1ez l'\u00eele de Cuba. Mais dans mon dernier\nvoyage, en contournant les montagnes qui environnent le plateau \u00e9l\u00e9v\u00e9\no\u00f9 est situ\u00e9 _Ciudad-Real_ de Chiapas, j'ai visit\u00e9 de grandes ruines\nqui portent le nom de _Valum-Votan_, \u00e0 deux lieues environ du village\nde _Teopixca_, situ\u00e9 \u00e0 7 l. de Cuidad-Real, et o\u00f9 Nu\u00f1ez de la Vega dit\navoir encore trouv\u00e9, en 1696, les familles du nom de Votan.' _Brasseur\nde Bourbourg_, _Popol Vuh_, p. lxxxviii.\n\n[I-143] Brasseur's account, which is, he says, taken from certain\npreserved fragments of Ordo\u00f1ez' _Hist. del Cielo_, differs at this\npoint; it reads: 'il alla \u00e0 Valum-Chivim, d'o\u00f9 il passa \u00e0 la grande\nville, o\u00f9 il vit la maison de Dieu, que l'on \u00e9tait occup\u00e9 \u00e0 b\u00e2tir.'\nThis 'house of God,' he remarks in a note, was, 'suivant Ordo\u00f1ez et\nNu\u00f1ez de la Vega, le temple que Salomon \u00e9tait occup\u00e9 \u00e0 b\u00e2tir \u00e0\nJ\u00e9rusalem.' After this, he goes on, Votan went '\u00e0 la cit\u00e9 antique, o\u00f9\nil vit, de ces propres yeux, les ruines d'un grand \u00e9difice que les\nhommes avaient \u00e9rig\u00e9 par le commandement de leur a\u00efeul commun, afin de\npouvoir par l\u00e0 arriver au ciel.' In another note he remarks, 'Ordo\u00f1ez\ncommentant ce passage y trouve tout naturellement la tour de Babel:\nmais il s'indigne contre les Babyloniens, de ce qu'ils avaient eu la\nmauvaise foi de dire \u00e0 Votan que la tour avait \u00e9t\u00e9 b\u00e2tie par ordre de\nleur a\u00efeul commun (No\u00e9): \"Il faut remarquer ici, dit-il, que les\nBabyloniens n'ont fait que tromper Votan, en lui assurant que la tour\navait \u00e9t\u00e9 construite par ordre de leur a\u00efeul No\u00e9, afin d'en faire un\nchemin pour arriver au ciel: jamais certainement le saint patriarche\nn'eut la moindre part dans la folie arrogante de Nemrod\" (_M\u00e9moire MS.\nsur Palenqu\u00e9_.) Nu\u00f1ez de la Vega rapporte la m\u00eame tradition sur Votan\net ses voyages (_Constitut. Di\u0153ces_, in Pr\u00e6amb., n. 34).' _Brasseur de\nBourbourg_, _Popol Vuh_, p. lxxxviii.\n\n[I-144] _Cabrera_, _Teatro_, in _Rio's Description_, p. 34. I have\nfollowed Cabrera's account because, unfortunately, Ordo\u00f1ez' work is\nnot to be had. Brasseur gives a fuller account of Votan's adventures\nthan Cabrera, but he professes to draw his information from fragments\nof Ordo\u00f1ez' writings, and it is impossible to tell whether his extra\ninformation is the result of his own imagination or of that of his\nequally enthusiastic original. The learned Abb\u00e9 relates that the men\nwith whom Votan conversed concerning the tower of Babel, assured him\n'que cet \u00e9difice \u00e9tait le lieu o\u00f9 Dieu avait donn\u00e9 \u00e0 chaque famille un\nlangage particulier. Il affirme qu'\u00e0 son retour de la ville du temple\nde Dieu, il retourna une premi\u00e8re et une seconde fois \u00e0 examiner tous\nles souterrains par o\u00f9 il avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 pass\u00e9, et les signes qui s'y\ntrouvaient. Il dit qu'on le fit passer par un chemin souterrain qui\ntraversait la terre et se terminait \u00e0 la racine du ciel. A l'\u00e9gard de\ncette circonstance, il ajoute que ce chemin n'\u00e9tait autre qu'un trou\nde serpent o\u00f9 il entra parce qu'il \u00e9tait un serpent.' _Popol Vuh_, p.\nlxxxix. See farther, concerning Votan: _Carbajal Espinosa_, _Hist.\nMex._, tom. i., p. 165; _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, p. 208; _Clavigero_,\n_Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., pp. 150-1; _Boturini_, _Idea_, p.\n115; _Levy_, _Nicaragua_, p. 4; _Tschudi's Peruvian Antiq._, pp.\n11-15; _Priest's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 248-9; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_,\n_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 43-5, 68-76; _Domenech's Deserts_,\nvol. i., pp. 10-7. This last is merely a literal copy of Tschudi, to\nwhom, however, no credit is given.\n\n[I-145] 'Ordo\u00f1ez tire un argument du mot _chivim_, qu'il \u00e9crit aussi\n_hivim_, pour rappeler le _chivim_ du pays des H\u00e9v\u00e9ens de la\nPalestine, d'o\u00f9 il fait sortir les anc\u00eatres de Votan. Dans la langue\ntzendale, qui \u00e9tait celle du livre attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Votan, la racine du mot\n_chivin_ pourrait \u00eatre _chib_ ou _chiib_, qui signifie _patrie_, ou\n_ghib_ qui veut dire armadille.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Popol Vuh_,\np. lxxxviii., note.\n\n[I-146] _Cabrera_, _Teatro_, in _Rio's Description_, pp. 47-53. It\nseems that the supposed Ph\u0153nician descent of the Americans has served\nas an excuse for the tyranny their conquerors exercised over them.\n'Cursed be Canaan!' said Noah, 'A servant of servants shall he be unto\nhis brethren.' Montanus says that it is a mistake to term the\nPh\u0153nicians descendants of Canaan, for they are a Semitic people.\n_Nieuwe Weereld_, p. 25.\n\n[I-147] 'The strong Galleys, with sails and oars, and always before\nthe constant East-Wind and onward wave-current, would accomplish ten\nmiles an hour by day, and during the night, without the Rowers, six\nmiles an hour, and, equally dividing the twenty-four hours, would make\na run of 192 miles per day. Nautical proofs will show that in the\nabove calculation the power of the Trade-Winds [_i. e._ the\nEast-Winds] are _underrated_. The distance from Teneriffe to Florida\nis about 3300 miles, which by the foregone data they would traverse in\nseventeen and a quarter days. The Voyage may therefore with safety be\nsaid to have been accomplished during an entire month, and that,\nconsequently the first landing of a branch of the human family in\nAncient America would be in the last month of Autumn, three hundred\nand thirty-two years before the Christian \u00c6ra.'\n\n[I-148] It would be impossible to give here the entire evidence with\nwhich Mr Jones supports his theory. Suffice it to say that the\nanalogies he adduces are far-fetched in the extreme, and that his\npremises are to a great extent grounded upon certain vague utterances\nof Isaiah the prophet. His unbounded dogmatism, were it less strongly\nmarked, would render his work offensive and unreadable to those who\ndisagree with his opinions; as it is, it is simply ludicrous. I cannot\nbetter express my opinion of the book than by using the words of the\ndistinguished _Am\u00e9ricaniste_ Dr M\u00fcller: 'Ganz ohne Werth soll die in\nLondon 1843 erschienene Schrift eines Engl\u00e4nders, George Jonas, \u00fcber\ndie Urgeschichte des alten America sein.' _Amerikanische\nUrreligionen_, p. 3.\n\n[I-149] _Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer._, pp. 168-72.\n\n[I-150] According to Mr Jones, Solomon's temple was built by Tyrian\nworkmen.\n\n[I-151] Gebelin affirms enthusiastically: '\"que cette inscription\nvient d'arriver tout expr\u00e8s du nouveau monde, pour confirmer ses id\u00e9es\nsur l'origine des peuples, et que l'on y voit, _d'une mani\u00e8re\n\u00e9vidente_, un monument ph\u00e9nicien, un tableau qui, sur le devant,\nd\u00e9signe une alliance entre les peuples am\u00e9ricains et la nation\n\u00e9trang\u00e8re, arrivant, par des _vents du nord_, d'un pays riche et\nindustrieux.\"' Humboldt, however, commenting upon this, writes: 'J'ai\nexamin\u00e9 avec soin les quatre dessins de la fameuse pierre de Taunton\nRiver.... Loin d'y reconno\u00eetre un arrangement sym\u00e9trique de lettres\nsimples ou de caract\u00e8res syllabiques, je n'y vois qu'un dessin \u00e0 peine\n\u00e9bauch\u00e9, et analogue \u00e0 ceux que l'on a trouv\u00e9s sur les rochers de la\nNorw\u00e8ge.' _Vues_, tom. i., pp. 181-2. 'The history of this inscription\nis scarcely surpassed, in the interest it has excited, or the novel\nphases it has exhibited at successive epochs of theoretical\nspeculation, by any Perusinian, Eugubine, or Nilotic riddle. When the\ntaste of American antiquaries inclined towards Ph\u0153nician relics, the\nDighton inscription conformed to their opinions; and with changing\ntastes it has proved equally compliant. In 1783 the Rev. Ezra Stiles,\nD.D., President of Yale College, when preaching before the Governor\nand State of Connecticut, appealed to the Dighton Rock, graven, as he\nbelieved, in the old Punic or Ph\u0153nician character and language: in\nproof that the Indians were of the accursed seed of Canaan, and were\nto be displaced and rooted out by the European descendants of\nJaphet!... So early as 1680 Dr. Danforth executed what he\ncharacterized as \"a faithful and accurate representation of the\ninscription\" on Dighton Rock. In 1712 the celebrated Dr. Cotton Mather\nprocured drawings of the same, and transmitted them to the Secretary\nof the Royal Society of London, with a description, printed in the\n_Philosophical Transactions_ for 1741, referring to it as \"an\ninscription in which are seven or eight lines, about seven or eight\nfeet long, and about a foot wide, each of them engraven with\nunaccountable characters, _not like any known character_.\" In 1730,\nDr. Isaac Greenwood, Hollisian Professor at Cambridge, New England,\ncommunicated to the Society of Antiquaries of London a drawing of the\nsame inscription, accompanied with a description which proves the\ngreat care with which his copy was executed. In 1768, Mr. Stephen\nSewall, Professor of Oriental Languages at Cambridge, New England,\ntook a careful copy, the size of the original, and deposited it in the\nMuseum of Harvard University; and a transcript of this was forwarded\nto the Royal Society of London, six years later, by Mr. James\nWinthrop, Hollisian Professor of Mathematics. In 1786 the Rev. Michael\nLort, D.D., one of the Vice-Presidents of the Society of Antiquaries\nof London, again brought the subject, with all its accumulated\nillustrations, before that learned society; and Colonel Vallency\nundertook to prove that the inscription was neither Ph\u0153nician nor\nPunic, but Siberian. Subsequently, Judge Winthrops executed a drawing\nin 1788; and again we have others by Judge Baylies and Mr. Joseph\nGooding in 1790, by Mr. Job Gardner in 1812; and finally, in 1830, by\na Commission appointed by the Rhode Island Historical Society, and\ncommunicated to the Antiquaries of Copenhagen with elaborate\ndescriptions: which duly appear in their _Antiquitates American\u00e6_, in\nproof of novel and very remarkable deductions.' _Wilson's Prehist.\nMan_, pp. 403-5. See also _Pidgeon's Trad._, p. 20.\n\n[I-152] 'Il est assez remarquable que, sur sept caract\u00e8res, aucun ne\ns'y trouve r\u00e9p\u00e9t\u00e9 plusieurs fois.' _Vues_, tom. i., pp. 183-4, with\ncut of part of inscription.\n\n[I-153] See _Schoolcraft_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i.,\npp. 386-97, for full account of this stone, with cuts. See also\n_Wilson's Prehist. Man_, pp. 408, et seq.\n\n[I-154] For this statement I have only newspaper authority, however.\n'Die \"Amerika,\" ein in Bogota, Neu Granada, erschienenes Journal,\nk\u00fcndigt eine Entdeckung an, die so seltsam ist, dass sie der\nBest\u00e4tigung bedarf, ehe man ihr Glauben schenken kann. Don Joaquim de\nCosta soll danach auf einem seiner G\u00fcter ein steinernes Monument\nentdeckt haben, das von einer kleinen Colonie Ph\u00f6nizier aus Sidonia im\nJahre 9 oder 10 der Regierung Hiranus, eines Zeitgenossen Salomons,\nungef\u00e4hr zehn Jahrhunderte vor der christlichen Aera errichtet wurde.\nDer Block hat eine Inschrift von acht Linien, die in sch\u00f6nen\nBuchstaben, aber ohne Trennung der Worte oder Punctation geschrieben\nsind. In der Uebersetzung soll die Inschrift besagen, dass jene M\u00e4nner\ndes Landes Canarien sich im Hafen Apiongaber (Bay-Akubal) einschifften\nund nach zw\u00f6lfmonatiger Fahrt von dem Lande Egypten (Afrika) durch\nStr\u00f6mungen fortgef\u00fchrt, in Guayaquil in Peru landeten. Der Stein soll,\nwie es heisst, die Namen der Reisenden tragen.' _Hamburg Reform_, Oct.\n24, 1873. See farther, concerning inscriptions: _Torquemada_, _Monarq.\nInd._, tom. i., p. 29; _Stratton's Mound-Builders_, MS., p. 13;\n_Priest's Amer. Antiq._, p. 121.\n\n[I-155] See particularly _Melgar_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, 2da\n\u00e9poca, tom. iii., p. 112, et seq.; and _Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer._, p.\n154, et seq.; _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, pp. 185-6.\n\n[I-156] See vol. iv. of this work, p. 118.\n\n[I-157] _Melgar_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, 2da \u00e9poca, tom. iii.,\npp. 110-11.\n\n[I-158] See farther, concerning Ph\u0153nician and Carthaginian theories:\n_Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 28-9, 255; _Hill's Antiq.\nAmer._; _Melgar_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, 2da \u00e9poca, tom. iii.,\np. 111; _Lescarbot_, _Hist. Nouv. France_; _Dally_, _Races Indig._,\npp. 5, 8; _Religious Cer. and Cust._, vol. iii., pp. 3-4; _Domenech's\nDeserts_, vol. i., pp. 9-21; _Vigne's Travels_, vol. ii., pp. 41-56;\n_Sheldon_, in _Am. Antiq. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., pp. 366-8;\n_Lizana_, _Devocionario_, in _Landa_, _Relacion_, p. 354; _Levy_,\n_Nicaragua_, pp. 10, 208; _Kennedy's Probable Origin_; _Baldwin's Anc.\nAmer._, pp. 171-4, 200, 207; _Du Pratz_, _Hist. Louisiane_, tom. iii.,\npp. 75-86; _Chateaubriand_, _Lettre aux Auteurs_, p. 87; _Stratton's\nMound-Builders_, M.S.; _Carver's Trav._, pp. 188, 191-2; _Montanus_,\n_Nieuwe Weereld_, pp. 16-22, 27-8; _De Costa_, _Pre-Columbian Disc.\nAmer._, p. xiv.; _Ritos Antiguos_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._,\nvol. ix., p. 10; _Revue Am\u00e9r._, tom. i., p. 3; _Farcy_, _Discours_, in\n_Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. i., pp. 43-4: _West und Ost Indischer\nLustgart_, p. 4; _Drake's Aborig. Races_, pp. 20-2; _Garc\u00eda_, _Or\u00edgen\nde los Ind._, pp. 41-77, 192-239; _Priest's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 250-1,\n333-4; _Adair's Amer. Ind._, p. 16; _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol.\nviii., p. 84; _Fontaine's How the World was Peopled_, pp. 254-61.\n\n[I-159] _Or\u00edgen de los Ind._, pp. 79-128.\n\n[I-160] 'Yo hice grande diligencia en averiguar esta verdad, y puedo\nafirmar, que he trabajado mas en ello, que en lo que escrivo en toda\nla Obra; i asi de lo que acerca de esta he hallado, pondre tales\nfundamentos al edificio, i maquina de esta sentencia, i opinion, que\npuedan mui bien sufrir su peso.' _Id._, p. 79.\n\n[I-161] Anian was the name given to the strait which was supposed to\nlie between Asia and America, and which, after its actual discovery,\nwas named Bering Strait. The unknown northern regions of America were\nalso called Anian.\n\n[I-162] The worthy Father's geographical knowledge was somewhat vague;\nthus in the next section he writes: 'Tambien pudieron ir las diez\nTribus desde la Tierra, que dice Esdras, \u00e0 la China.... De la China\npudieron ir por Mar \u00e0 la Tierra de Nueva-Espa\u00f1a, para donde no es mui\nlarga la navegacion, viniendo por el Estrecho, \u00f2 Canal, que est\u00e0,\nentre la China, i el Reino de Annian, i de Quivira.' _Origen de los\nInd._, p. 81.\n\n[I-163] Among several instances given by Garc\u00eda to show the cowardice\nof the Jews, is this: 'dice la Sagrada Escritura, por grande\nincarecimiento, que no les quiso llevar Moises por la Tierra de\nPhilistim, conociendo su pusilanimidad, i cobardia, porque no\ntemiesen, viendo los Enemigos, que venian en su seguimiento, i de\ncobardes se bolviesen \u00e0 Egipto.' With regard to the cowardice of the\nAmericans, he writes: 'Cuenta la Historia, que entr\u00f2 Cort\u00e8s, en la\nConquista de Nueva-Espa\u00f1a con 550 Espa\u00f1oles, i de estos eran los 50\nMarineros: i en Mexico tuvo, quando lo gan\u00f2, 900 Espa\u00f1oles, 200,000\nIndios, 80 Caballos: murieron de los Nuestros 50, i de los Caballos 6.\nEntr\u00f2 Pi\u00e7arro en el Per\u00f9 con pocos mas de 200 Espa\u00f1oles, con los\nquales, i con 60 Caballos tuvo Victoria contra el Rei Atanualpa.' Not\nonly at the time of the Conquest, he adds, did the Americans scatter\nand run on the discharge of a musket, but even at the present day,\nwhen they are familiar with firearms, they do the same. _Or\u00edgen de los\nInd._, pp. 85-6.\n\n[I-164] Immediately afterwards he says that the Jews and Americans\nwere alike, because they both bathed frequently.\n\n[I-165] This scarcely seems to be a parallelism, and certainly would\nnot be, had the worthy Father written, as he well might: 'freedom and\n_the hardships of the desert_,' instead of 'manna and the promised\nland'.\n\n[I-166] To show Garc\u00eda's style and logic, which are, indeed, but\nlittle different from the style and reasoning of all these ancient\nwriters, I translate literally, and without embellishment of any kind,\nhis attempts to prove that whatever differences exist at the present\nday between the Jew and the American, are due to the special act of\nGod. 'It was divinely ordained that men should be scattered throughout\nall countries, and be so different from one another in disposition and\ntemperament, in order that by their variety men should become\npossessed of a different and distinct genius; of a difference in the\ncolor of the face and in the form of the body; just as animals are\nvarious, and various the things produced by the earth, various the\ntrees, various the plants and grasses, various the birds; and finally,\nvarious the fish of the sea and of rivers: in order that men should\nsee in this how great is the wisdom of Him that created them. And\nalthough the variety and specific difference existing in these\nirrational and senseless beings causes in them a specific distinction,\nand that in men is only individual, or accidental and common; the Most\nHigh desired that this variety and common difference should exist in\nthe human species, as there could be none specific and essential, so\nthat there should be a resemblance in this between man and the other\ncreated beings: of which the Creator himself wished that the natural\ncause should be the arrangement of the earth, the region of the air,\ninfluence of the sky, waters, and edibles. By which the reader will\nnot fail to be convinced that it was possible for the Indians to\nobtain and acquire a difference of mental faculties, and of color of\nface and of features, such as the Jews had not.' _Or\u00edgen de los Ind._,\np. 105.\n\n[I-167] 'Y finalmente, si nos dixeren, que solos aquellos siete\ngeneros de Gentes, que he nombrado, que son Colcos, Egypcios, Etiopes,\nFenices, Syros de Palestina, i Syros de los Rios Termodon, i Pantenio,\ni sus vecinos los Macrones fueron los que vsaron en el Mundo la\ncircuncision.... A Herodoto, i \u00e0 los que alegaren lo referido, se\nresponde, que sin duda los Hebreos fueron los primeros que la vsaron,\npor mandado de Dios.' _Or\u00edgen de los Ind._, p. 110.\n\n[I-168] See _Or\u00edgen de los Ind._, pp. 119-23, for examples of\nlinguistic resemblances.\n\n[I-169] _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii., pp. 19-20, vol. vi.,\np. 536.\n\n[I-170] _Id._, vol. viii., p. 21.\n\n[I-171] _Id._, pp. 25-7, 30-1.\n\n[I-172] _Id._, p. 39.\n\n[I-173] _Id._, p. 58.\n\n[I-174] _Id._, pp. 67, 218-19, 240.\n\n[I-175] _Id._, p. 135.\n\n[I-176] _Id._, p. 154.\n\n[I-177] 'Y el Ynga Yupangue entraba solo, y \u00e9l mismo por su mano\nsacrificaba las ovejas y corderos.' _Betanzos_, _Historia de los\nIngas_, lib. i., cap. xi., quoted in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._,\nvol. viii., p. 156.\n\n[I-178] _Id._, pp. 157, 236, 389, vol. vi., pp. 273-5.\n\n[I-179] _Id._, vol. viii., p. 160.\n\n[I-180] _Id._, p. 174.\n\n[I-181] _Id._, p. 176.\n\n[I-182] _Id._, pp. 174-82. He presents a most elaborate discussion of\nthis point. See also vol. vi., pp. 512, 523.\n\n[I-183] _Id._, vol. viii., p. 238.\n\n[I-184] _Id._, p. 248.\n\n[I-185] _Id._, p. 257.\n\n[I-186] _Id._, p. 258, vol. vi., p. 236.\n\n[I-187] _Id._, pp. 164-6.\n\n[I-188] _Id._, p. 208. 'Representations of the lifting up of serpents\nfrequently occur in Mexican paintings: and the plagues which Moses\ncalled down upon the Egyptians by lifting up his rod, which became a\nserpent, are evidently referred to in the eleventh and twelfth pages\nof the _Borgian Manuscript_. An allusion to the passage of the Red Sea\n... seems also to be contained in the seventy-first page of the\n_Lesser Vatican MS._; and the destruction of Pharaoh and his host, and\nthe thanksgiving of Moses, may perhaps be signified by the figure on\nthe left, in the same page, of a man falling into a pit or gulf, and\nby the hand on the right stretched out to receive an offering.'\n\n[I-189] _Id._, p. 222.\n\n[I-190] _Id._, p. 232, et seq. Kingsborough reasons at some length on\nthis point.\n\n[I-191] _Id._, p. 361.\n\n[I-192] _Id._, p. 406.\n\n[I-193] _Id._, pp. 272-3, 333-5, 392-3; vol. viii., pp. 121-2, 142-3,\n391.\n\n[I-194] _Id._, vol. vi., pp. 300-1; vol. viii., p. 137.\n\n[I-195] _Id._, vol. vi., p. 504, vol. viii., p. 18.\n\n[I-196] _Id._, vol. vi., p. 125.\n\n[I-197] _Id._, p. 45.\n\n[I-198] _Id._, p. 142.\n\n[I-199] _Id._, p. 246. Duran sustains the theory that the Indians are\nthe descendants of the lost ten tribes of Israel. After giving several\nreasons founded on the Scriptures, he refers to the traditions\nobtained by him from the old people of the country. They related that\ntheir ancestors, whilst suffering many hardships and persecutions,\nwere prevailed upon by a great man, who became their chief, to flee\nfrom that land into another, where they might have rest; they arrived\nat the sea-shore, and the chief struck the waters with a rod he had in\nhis hands; the sea opened, and the chief and his followers marched on,\nbut were soon pursued by their enemies; they crossed over in safety,\nand their enemies were swallowed up by the sea; at any rate, their\nancestors never had any further account of their persecutors. Another\ntradition transmitted from generation to generation, and recorded in\npictures, is, that while their first ancestors were on their journey\nto the promised land, they tarried in the vicinity of certain high\nhills; here a terrible earthquake occurred, and some wicked people who\nwere with them were swallowed up by the earth opening under their\nfeet. The same picture that Father Duran saw, showed that the\nancestors of the Mexican people transmitted a tradition, relating that\nduring their journey a kind of sand (or hail) rained upon them. Father\nDuran further gives an account furnished him by an old Indian of\nCholula (some 100 years old) concerning the creation of the world: The\nfirst men were giants who, desirous of seeing the home of the sun,\ndivided themselves into two parties, one of which journeyed to the\nwest, and the other to the east, until they were stopped by the sea;\nthey then concluded to return to the place they started from, called\n_Vztacculemjueminian_; finding no way to reach the sun, whose light\nand beauty they highly admired, they determined to build a tower that\nshould reach the heavens. They built a tower; but the Lord became\nangry at their presumption, and the dwellers of heaven descended like\nthunderbolts and destroyed the edifice; the giants on seeing their\nwork destroyed, were much frightened, and scattered themselves\nthroughout the earth. _Duran_, _Hist. Indias_, MS., tom. i., cap. i.\n\n[I-200] _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi., p. 246.\n\n[I-201] _Id._, p. 248.\n\n[I-202] _Id._, p. 253.\n\n[I-203] _Id._, p. 254.\n\n[I-204] _Id._, p. 312.\n\n[I-205] _Id._, p. 361.\n\n[I-206] _Id._, p. 382.\n\n[I-207] _Id._, p. 401.\n\n[I-208] To enter into details on all these subjects would require\nvolumes as large, and I may add, as unreadable, as those of Lord\nKingsborough. The reader who wishes to investigate more closely, will\nfind all the points to which I have referred in volumes vi. and viii.\nof the noble writer's work, _Mexican Antiquities_. Mr James Adair, 'a\ntrader with the Indians, and resident in their country for forty\nyears,' very warmly advocates the Hebrew theory. As his intercourse\nwith the Americans was confined to the wild tribes, the genuine 'red\nmen' inhabiting the south-eastern states of North America, his\nargument and analogies differ in many points from those of\nKingsborough and Garc\u00eda, who treated chiefly of the civilized nations\nof Mexico and Central America. Here are some of his comparisons: 'The\nIsraelites were divided into Tribes and had chiefs over them, so the\nIndians divide themselves: each tribe forming a little community\nwithin the nation--And as the nation hath its particular symbol, so\nhath each tribe the badge from which it is denominated.' If we go from\nnation to nation among them we shall not find one individual who doth\nnot distinguish himself by his family name. Every town has a state\nhouse or synedrion, the same as the Jewish sanhedrim, where almost\nevery night the headmen meet to discuss public business. The Hebrew\nnation were ordered to worship Jehovah the true and living God, who by\nthe Indians is styled _Yohewah_. The ancient heathens, it is well\nknown, worshiped a plurality of Gods: but these American Indians pay\ntheir religious devoir to Loak Ishtohoollo Aba, The Great Beneficent\nSupreme Holy Spirit of Fire. They do not pay the least perceptible\nadoration to images. Their ceremonies in their religious worship\naccord more nearly with the Mosaic institutions, which could not be if\nthey were of heathen descent. The American Indians affirm, that there\nis a certain fixed time and place, when and where every one must die,\nwithout the possibility of averting it; such was the belief also of\nthe ancient Greeks and Romans, who were much addicted to copying the\nrites and customs of the Jews. Their opinion that God chose them out\nof all the rest of mankind as his peculiar and beloved people, fills\nboth the white Jew and the red American, with that steady hatred\nagainst all the world, which renders them hated and despised by all.\nWe have abundant evidence of the Jews believing in the ministration of\nangels, during the Old Testament dispensation, their frequent\nappearances and their services on earth, are recorded in the oracles,\nwhich the Jews themselves receive as given by divine inspiration, and\nSt Paul in his epistle addressed to the Hebrews speaks of it as their\ngeneral opinion that \"angels are ministering spirits to the good and\nrighteous on earth.\" The Indian sentiments and traditions are the\nsame. They believe the higher regions to be inhabited by good spirits,\nrelations to the Great Holy One, and that these spirits attend and\nfavor the virtuous. The Indian language and dialects appear to have\nthe very idiom and genius of the Hebrew. Their words and sentences are\nexpressive, concise, emphatical, sonorous, and bold, and often both in\nletters and signification synonymous with the Hebrew language. They\ncount time after the manner of the Hebrews, reckoning years by lunar\nmonths like the Israelites who counted by moons. The religious\nceremonies of the Indian Americans are in conformity with those of the\nJews, they having their Prophets, High Priests, and others of\nreligious order. As the Jews had a sanctum sanctorum or most holy\nplace, so have all the Indian nations. The dress also of their High\nPriests is similar in character to that of the Hebrews. The festivals,\nfeasts, and religious rites of the Indian Americans have also a great\nresemblance to that of the Hebrews. The Indian imitates the Israelite\nin his religious offerings. The Hebrews had various ablutions and\nanointings according to the Mosaic ritual--and all the Indian nations\nconstantly observe similar customs from religious motives. Their\nfrequent bathing, or dipping themselves and their children in rivers,\neven in the severest weather, seems to be as truly Jewish as the other\nrites and ceremonies which have been mentioned. The Indian laws of\nuncleanness and purification, and also the abstaining from things\ndeemed unclean are the same as those of the Hebrews. The Indian\nmarriages, divorces and punishments of adultery, still retain a strong\nlikeness to the Jewish laws and customs on these points. Many of the\nIndian punishments resemble those of the Jews. Whoever attentively\nviews the features of the Indian, and his eye, and reflects on his\nfickle, obstinate, and cruel disposition will naturally think of the\nJews. The ceremonies performed by the Indians before going to war,\nsuch as purification and fasting, are similar to those of the Hebrew\nnation. The Israelites were fond of wearing beads and other ornaments,\neven as early as the patriarchal age, and in resemblance to these\ncustoms the Indian females continually wear the same, believing it to\nbe a preventive against many evils. The Indian manner of curing the\nsick is very similar to that of the Jews. Like the Hebrews, they\nfirmly believe that diseases and wounds are occasioned by divine\nanger, in proportion to some violation of the old beloved speech. The\nHebrews carefully buried their dead, so on any accident they gathered\ntheir bones, and laid them in the tombs of their forefathers: thus,\nall the numerous nations of Indians perform the like friendly office\nto every deceased person of their respective tribe. The Jewish records\ntell us that the women mourned for the loss of their deceased\nhusbands, and were reckoned vile by the civil law if they married in\nthe space of at least ten months after their death. In the same manner\nall the Indian widows, by an established strict penal law, mourn for\nthe loss of their deceased husbands; and among some tribes for the\nspace of three or four years. The surviving brother by the Mosaic law,\nwas to raise seed to a deceased brother, who left a widow childless to\nperpetuate his name and family. The American law enforces the same\nrule. When the Israelites gave names to their children or others they\nchose such appellatives as suited best their circumstances and the\ntimes. This custom is a standing rule with the Indians. _Amer. Ind._\n\n[I-209] _Amer. Antiq._, pp. 68-70.\n\n[I-210] 'See Deut., chap. vi., from 4th to 9th verse, inclusive; also,\nchap. xi., verse 13 to 21, inclusive; and Exodus, chap. xiii., 11 to\n16, inclusive, to which the reader can refer, if he has the curiosity\nto read this most interesting discovery.... It is said by Calmet, that\nthe above texts are the very passages of Scripture which the Jews used\nto write on the leaves of their phylacteries. These phylacteries were\nlittle rolls of parchment, whereon were written certain words of the\nlaw. These they wore upon their forehead, and upon the wrist of the\nleft arm.' _Id._\n\n[I-211] _Antiquities of Licking County, Ohio_, MS.\n\nBrasseur de Bourbourg, although he rejects Kingsborough's theory,\nthinks that some Jews may have reached America; he recognizes a Jewish\ntype on certain ruins, and calls attention to the perfectly Jewish\ndress of the women at Palin and on the shores of Lake Amatitlan. _Hist.\nNat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 17. Customs and relics seem to show that the\nAmericans are of Hebrew descent, and that they came by way of the\nCalifornias. _Giordan_, _Tehuantepec_, p. 57. The theory of descent\nfrom the ten tribes is not to be despised. On the north-west there\nare many beliefs and rites which resemble the Jewish; circumcision\nobtains in Central America, and women wear Jewish costumes. Father\nRicci has seen Israelites in China living according to Moses' laws,\nand Father Adam Schall knew Israelites who had kept the Old Testament\nlaws, and who knew nothing of the death of the Savior. This shows that\nthe ten tribes took this direction, and as an emigration from Asia to\nAmerica is perfectly admissible, it is likely that the Jews were among\nthe number who crossed, probably by the Aleutian islands. _Rossi_,\n_Souvenirs_, pp. 276-7. Jones, as might be expected, 'will not yield\nto any man in the firm belief that the Aborigines of North America\n(_but North America only_) and the ancient Israelites are identical,\nunless controverted by the stern authority of superior historical\ndeductions.' _Hist. Anc. Amer._, pp. 2, 11-26, 188-90. Parker does\nnot accept the Jewish theory, chiefly because of the great variety of\ndistinct languages in America, but he points out several resemblances\nbetween north-west tribes and Jews. _Explor. Tour_, pp. 194-8. Meyer\nfinds many reasons for regarding the wild tribes of the north as\nJews; such as physical peculiarities; numerous customs; the number of\nlanguages pointing to a Babylonian confusion of tongues. Most Indians\nhave high-priests' temples, altars, and a sacred ark which they carry\nwith them on their wanderings. They count by four seasons, celebrate\nnew-moon and arbor festivals, and offer first fruits. In September,\nwhen the sun enters the sign of the scales, they hold their feast of\natonement. The name Iowa he thinks is derived from Jehova. They work\nwith one hand and carry their weapons in the other. The pillars of\ncloud and pillars of fire which guided the Israelites, may be volcanoes\non the east coast of Asia, by whose aid the ten tribes reached America.\n_Nach dem Sacramento_, pp. 241-5. If the Toltecs were Jews, they must\nhave visited the Old World in the year 753 of the Roman era, to obtain\nthe Christian dogmas apparent in their cult. _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._,\np. 45. The Navajo tradition that they came out of the water a long way\nto the north; their peaceful, pastoral manner of life; their aversion\nto hogs' flesh; their belief that they will return to the water whence\nthey came, instead of going to hunting-grounds like other tribes; their\nprophets who prophesy and receive revelation; their strict fast-days,\nand keenness in trade; their comparatively good treatment of women--are\nJewish similarities, stronger than any tribes can present. 'Scalping\nappears to have been a Hebrew custom.... The most striking custom of\napparently Hebraic origin, is the periodical separation of females,\nand the strong and universal idea of uncleanness connected therewith.'\n_Schoolcraft's Arch._, vol. iii., pp. 60, 62. The Tartars are probably\ndescended from the ten tribes; they boast of being Jews, are divided\ninto tribes, and practice circumcision. The separation of women at\ncertain times, and the expression Hallelujah Yohewah, are proofs of\nJewish descent; scalping is mentioned in Bible (68th Psalm, ver. 21).\n_Crawford's Essay._ According to various manuscripts the Toltecs are of\nJewish descent. Having crossed the Red Sea, they abandoned themselves\nto idolatry, and fearing Moses' reprimand, they separated from the\nrest and crossed the ocean to the Seven Caves, and there founded Tula.\n_Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, tom. ii., pp. 7-8. Juarez, _Municipalidad\nde Leon_, p. 10, states that Leon de Cordova is of the same opinion.\nEm. de Moraez, a Portuguese, in his History of Brazil, thinks nothing\nbut circumcision wanting to form a perfect resemblance between the\nJews and Brazilians. He thinks that America was wholly peopled by\nJews and Carthaginians. _Carver's Trav._, pp. 188-9. Catlin thinks the\nNorth Americans are a mixed race, who have Jewish blood in them. The\nmixture is shown by their skulls, while many customs are decidedly\nJewish. Probably part of tribes scattered by Christians have come\nover and intermarried. He gives analogies in monotheism, sanctuaries,\ntribeship, chosen people belief, marriage by gifts, war, burial,\nablutions, feasts, sacrifices, and other customs. Any philological\nsimilarity is unnecessary and superfluous. The Jew element was too\nfeeble to influence language. _Catlin's N. Amer. Ind._, vol. ii., pp.\n231-5. Melgar gives a list of the Chiapanec calendar names, and finds\nfourteen agree with suitable Hebrew words. He concludes, therefore,\nthat ancient intercourse with the Old World is proven. _Soc. Mex.\nGeog., Boletin_, 2da \u00e9poca, tom. iii., p. 108. Jarvis, _Religion Ind.\nN. Amer._, pp. 71-87, compares words in Hebrew and American languages.\nEthan Smith, _Views of the Hebrews_, presents eleven arguments in\nfavor of the Jewish theory. Beatty, _Journal of Two Months' Tour in\nAmerica_, gives a number of reasons why the Hebrew theory should be\ncorrect. See further, for general review of this theory: _Crowe's\nCent. Amer._, pp. 64-8; _Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., pp. 46-9;\n_Simon's Ten Tribes_, which is, however, merely a cheap abridgement of\nKingsborough; _Dally_, _Races Indig._, pp. 5-6; _Thorowgood's Jewes in\nAmerica_; _Worsley's Amer. Ind._, pp. 1-185; _L'Estrange_, _Americans\nno Jewes_; _Spizelius_, _Elevatio Relationis_, a criticism on _Menasse\nBen Israel's Hope of Israel_; _Tschudi's Peruvian Antiq._, pp. 8-11.\n\nIn opposition to the Hebrew theory we read that Wolff, the Jew\ntraveler, found no Jewish traces among the tribes of North America.\n_Fontaine's How the World was Peopled_, p. 157. 'The strong trait\nin Hebrew compound words, of inserting the syllable el or a single\nletter in the names of children, derived from either the primary or\nsecondary names of the deity, does not prevail in any Indian tribes\nknown to me. Neither are circumstances attending their birth or\nparentage, which were so often used in the Hebrew children's names,\never mentioned in these compounds. Indian children are generally\nnamed from some atmospheric phenomenon. There are no traces of the\nrites of circumcision, anointing, sprinkling, or washing, considered\nas consecrated symbols. Circumcision was reported as existing among\nthe Sitkas, on the Missouri; but a strict examination proved it to\nbe a mistake.' _Schoolcraft's Arch._, vol. iii., p. 61. The Rev. T.\nThorowgood in 1650, published a work entitled _Jewes in America, or\nProbabilities that the Americans are of that Race_. This was answered\nin 1651, by Sir Hamon L'Estrange, in a book entitled, _Americans no\nJewes_. L'Estrange believes that America was peopled long before the\ndispersion of the Jews, which took place 1500 years after the flood. A\nstrong mixture of Jewish blood would have produced distinct customs,\netc., which are not to be found. The native traditions as to origin\nare to be regarded as dreams rather than as true stories. The analogous\ncustoms and rites adduced by Thorowgood, L'Estrange goes on, are amply\nrefuted by Acosta and other writers. The occasional cannibalism of\nthe Jews was caused by famine, but that of the Americans was a regular\ninstitution. The argument that the Americans are Jews because they have\nnot the gospel, is worthy only of ridicule, seeing that millions of\nother pagans are in the same condition. Of the Hebrew theory Baldwin,\nwho devotes nearly two pages to it, writes: 'this wild notion, called\na theory, scarcely deserves so much attention. It is a lunatic fancy,\npossible only to men of a certain class, which in our time does not\nmultiply.' _Anc. Amer._, p. 167. Tschudi regards the arguments in\nfavor of the Jewish theory as unsound. _Peruvian Antiq._, p. 11. Acosta\nthinks that the Jews would have preserved their language, customs, and\nrecords, in America as well as in other places. _Hist. de las Ynd._,\npp. 79-80. Macgregor argues that the Americans could not have been\nJews, for the latter people were acquainted with the use of iron as\nfar back as the time of Tubal Cain; they also used milk and wheaten\nbread, which the Americans could and would have used if they had once\nknown of them. _Progress of Amer._, vol. i., p. 24. Montanus believes\nthat America was peopled long before the time of the dispersion of\nthe Jewish tribes, and raises objections to nearly every point that\nhas been adduced in favor of a Hebrew origin. _Nieuwe Weereld_, p.\n26, et seq. Torquemada gives Las Casas' reasons for believing that\nthe Americans are of Jewish descent, and refutes them. _Monarq.\nInd._, tom. i., pp. 22-7. The difference of physical organization is\nalone sufficient to set aside the question of Jewish origin. That so\nconservative a people as the Jews should have lost all the traditions,\ncustoms, etc., of their race, is absurd. _Democratic Review_, vol.\nxi., p. 617. Rafinesque advances, as objections to Jew theory, that\nthe ten tribes are to be found scattered over Asia; that the Sabbath\nwould never have fallen into disuse if they had once introduced it into\nAmerica; that the Hebrew knew the use of iron, had plows, and employed\nwriting; that circumcision is practiced only in one or two localities\nin America; that the sharp, striking Jewish features are not found in\nAmericans; that the Americans eat hogs and other animals forbidden to\nthe Jews; that the American war customs, such as scalping, torturing,\ncannibalism, painting bodies and going naked, are not Jewish in the\nleast; that the American languages are not like Hebrew. _Priest's Amer.\nAntiq._, pp. 76-9.\n\n[I-212] I translate freely from Bertrand, _M\u00e9moires_, p. 32, et seq.,\nfor this account.\n\n[I-213] In the State of New York.\n\n[I-214] The discovery was in this wise: 'Pr\u00e8s du village de\nManchester, dans le comt\u00e9 d'Ontario, \u00c9tat de New York, se trouve une\n\u00e9minence plus consid\u00e9rable que celle des environs, et qui est devenue\nc\u00e9l\u00e8bre dans les fastes de la nouvelle \u00c9glise sous le nom de Cumorah.\nSur le flanc occidental de cette colline, non loin de son sommet, et\nsous une pierre d'une grande dimension, des lames d'or se trouvaient\nd\u00e9pos\u00e9es dans un coffre de pierre. Le couvercle en \u00e9tait aminci vers\nses bords, et relev\u00e9 au milieu en forme de boule. Apr\u00e8s avoir d\u00e9gag\u00e9\nla terre, Joseph (Smith) souleva le couvercle \u00e0 l'aide d'un levier, et\ntrouva les plaques, l'Urim-Thummim, et le pectoral. Le coffre \u00e9tait\nform\u00e9 de pierres reli\u00e9es entre elles aux angles par du ciment. Au fond\nse trouvaient deux pierres plates plac\u00e9es en croix, et sur ces pierres\nles lames d'or et les autres objets. Joseph voulait les enlever, mais\nil en fut emp\u00each\u00e9 par l'envoy\u00e9 divin, qui l'informe que le temps\nn'\u00e9tait pas encore venu, et qu'il fallait attendre quatre ans \u00e0 partir\nde cette \u00e9poque. D'apr\u00e8s ses instructions, Joseph se rendit tous les\nans le m\u00eame jour au lieu du d\u00e9p\u00f4t, pour recevoir de la bouche du\nmessager c\u00e9leste, des instructions sur la mani\u00e8re dont le royaume de\nDieu devait \u00eatre fond\u00e9 et gouvern\u00e9 dans les derniers jours.... Le 22\nseptembre 1827, le messager des cieux lui laissa prendre les plaques,\nl'Urim-Thummim et le pectoral, \u00e0 condition qu'il serait responsable,\net en l'avertissant qu'il serait _retranch\u00e9_, s'il venait \u00e0 perdre ces\nobjets par sa n\u00e9gligence, mais qu'il serait prot\u00e9g\u00e9 s'il faisait tous\nses efforts pour les conserver.' _Bertrand_, _M\u00e9moires_, pp. 23-5.\n\n[I-215] Though the question of the Scandinavian discoveries would seem\nto merit considerable attention from one who wrote a 'colonial\nhistory' of America, yet Mr George Bancroft disposes of the entire\nsubject in a single page: 'The story of the colonization of America by\nNorthmen,' he writes, 'rests on narratives, mythological in form, and\nobscure in meaning; ancient, yet not contemporary. The chief document\nis an interpolation in the history of Sturleson, whose zealous\ncuriosity could hardly have neglected the discovery of a continent.\nThe geographical details are too vague to sustain a conjecture; the\naccounts of the mild winter and fertile soil are, on any modern\nhypothesis, fictitious or exaggerated; the description of the natives\napplies only to the Esquimaux, inhabitants of hyperborean regions, the\nremark which should define the length of the shortest winter's day,\nhas received interpretations adapted to every latitude from New York\nto Cape Farewell; and Vinland has been sought in all directions, from\nGreenland and the St. Lawrence to Africa.' _Bancroft's History_, vol.\ni., pp. 5-6. Irving says that as far as he 'has had experience in\ntracing these stories of early discoveries of portions of the New\nWorld, he has generally found them very confident deductions drawn\nfrom very vague and questionable facts. Learned men are too prone to\ngive substance to mere shadows, when they assist some preconceived\ntheory. Most of these accounts, when divested of the erudite comments\nof their editors, have proved little better than the traditionary\nfables, noticed in another part of this work, respecting the imaginary\nislands of St. Borondon, and of the Seven Cities.' _Columbus_, vol.\niii., p. 434. All of which would certainly be true enough of most\ntheories, but that it was erroneous as far as the Northmen's visits\nare concerned, has, I think, been conclusively shown in later years.\n\n[I-216] 'It might also be argued, if it were at all necessary, that,\nif these Sagas were post-Columbian compositions drawn up by Icelanders\nwho were jealous of the fame of the Genoese navigator, we should\ncertainly be able to point out something either in their structure,\nbearing, or style, by which it would be indicated. Yet such is not the\ncase. These writings reveal no anxiety to show the connection of the\nNorthmen with the great land lying at the west. The authors do not see\nanything at all remarkable or meritorious in the explorations, which\nwere conducted simply for the purpose of gain. Those marks which would\ncertainly have been impressed by a more modern writer forging a\nhistorical composition designed to show an occupation of the country\nbefore the time of Columbus, are wholly wanting. There is no special\npleading or rivalry, and no desire to show prior and superior\nknowledge of the country to which the navigators had from time to time\nsailed. We only discover a straightforward, honest endeavor to tell\nthe story of certain men's lives. This is done in a simple, artless\nway, and with every indication of a desire to mete out even handed\njustice to all. And candid readers who come to the subject with minds\nfree from prejudice, will be powerfully impressed with the belief that\nthey are reading authentic histories written by honest men.'\n_Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer._, pp. xli.-xlii.\n\n[I-217] Vol. viii., p. 114, et seq.\n\n[I-218] The exact dates in these relations I cannot vouch for; but the\nseveral authors who have written on the subject differ by only a year\nor two.\n\n[I-219] 'Helluland, from _Hella_, a flat stone, an abundance of which\nmay be found in Labrador and the region round about.' _De Costa's\nPre-Columbian Disc. Amer._, p. 28. 'From data in the Landnama and\nseveral other ancient Icelandic geographical works, we may gather that\nthe distance of a day's sailing was estimated at from twenty-seven to\nthirty geographical miles (German or Danish, of which fifteen are\nequal to a degree; each of these accordingly equal to _four_ English\nsea-miles). From the island of Helluland, afterwards called Little\nHelluland, Biarne sailed to Heriulfsnes (Ikigeit) in Greenland, with\nstrong south-westerly gales, in four days. The distance between that\ncape and _Newfoundland_ is about 150 miles, which will correspond,\nwhen we take into consideration the strong gales. In modern\ndescriptions it is stated that this land partly consists of naked,\nrocky flats, where no tree, not even a shrub, can grow, and which are\ntherefore usually called _Barrens_; thus answering completely to the\n_hellur_ of the ancient Northmen, from which they named the country.'\n_Abstract of Hist. Evid._, in _Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour._, vol. viii.,\np. 123.\n\n[I-220] 'Markland was situate to the south-west of Helluland, distant\nabout three days' sail, or about from eighty to ninety miles. It is\ntherefore _Nova Scotia_, of which the descriptions given by later\nwriters answer to that given by the ancient Northmen of Markland.'\n_Id._\n\n[I-221] 'Vinland was situate at the distance of two days' sail,\nconsequently about from fifty-four to sixty miles, in a south-westerly\ndirection from Markland. The distance from Cape Sable to Cape Cod is\nstated in nautical works as being W. by S. about seventy leagues, that\nis, about fifty-two miles. Biarne's description of the coasts is very\naccurate, and in the island situate to the eastward (between which and\nthe promontory that stretches to eastward and northward Leif sailed)\nwe recognize Nantucket. The ancient Northmen found there many shallows\n(_grunns\u00e6 fui mikit_); modern navigators make mention at the same\nplace \"of numerous riffs and other shoals,\" and say \"that the whole\npresents an aspect of drowned land.\"' _Id._, pp. 121-2. 'The leading\nevidences serve to attest that Vinland was the present very marked\nseaboard area of New England. The nautical facts have been carefully\nexamined by Professors Rafn and Magnusen, and the historical data\nadapted to the configuration of the coast which has Cape Cod as its\ndistinguishing trait. All this seems to have been done with surprising\naccuracy, and is illustrated by the present high state of the arts in\nDenmark and Germany.' _Schoolcraft's Arch._, vol. i., p. 111.\n\n[I-222] 'Kialarnes (from Ki\u00f6lr, a keel, and _nes_, a cape, most likely\nso named on account of its striking resemblance to the keel of a ship,\nparticularly of one of the long ships of the ancient Northmen) must\nconsequently be _Cape Cod_, the Nauset of the Indians, which modern\ngeographers have sometimes likened to a horn, and sometimes to a\nsickle or sythe.' _Id._, p. 122.\n\n[I-223] 'The Straumfi\u00f6rdr of the ancient Northmen is supposed to be\n_Buzzard's Bay_, and Straumey, Martha's Vineyard; although the account\nof the many eggs found there would seem more precisely to correspond\nto the island which lies off the entrance of Vineyard Sound, and which\nat this day is for the same reason called _Egg Island_.' _Id._\n\n[I-224] See _Abstract of Hist. Evid._, in _Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour._,\nvol. viii., p. 114, et seq., and _De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc.\nAmer._, p. 11, et seq.\n\n[I-225] In the year 983, according to _Abstract of Hist. Evid._, in\n_Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour._, vol. viii., p. 125. De Costa makes it 928.\n_Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer._, p. 86.\n\n[I-226] 'Professor Rafn in, what seems to the author, his needless\nanxiety to fix the locality of the White-man's land in America, says\nthat, as this part of the manuscript is difficult to decipher, the\noriginal letters _may_ have got changed, and vi inserted instead of\nxx, or xi, which numerals would afford time for the voyager to reach\nthe coast of America, in the vicinity of Florida. Smith in his\n_Dialogues_, has even gone so far as to _suppress_ the term _six_\naltogether, and substitutes, \"by a number of days sail unknown.\" This\nis simply trifling with the subject. In _Gr\u00f6nland's Historiske\nMindesm\u0153rker_, chiefly the work of Finn Magnussen, no question is\nraised on this point. The various versions all give the number six,\nwhich limits the voyage to the vicinity of the Azores. Sch\u00f6ning, to\nwhom we are so largely indebted for the best edition of Heimskringla,\nlays the scene of Marson's adventure at those islands, and suggests\nthat they may at that time have covered a larger extent of territory\nthan the present, and that they may have suffered from earthquakes and\nfloods, adding, \"It is likely, and all circumstances show, that the\nsaid land has been a piece of North America.\" This is a bold, though\nnot very unreasonable hypothesis, especially as the volcanic character\nof the islands is well known. In 1808, a volcano rose to the height of\n3,500 feet. Yet Sch\u00f6ning's suggestion is not needed. The fact that the\nislands were not inhabited when discovered by the Portuguese does not,\nhowever, settle anything against Sch\u00f6ning, because in the course of\nfive hundred years, the people might either have migrated, or been\nswept away by pestilence. _Gr\u00f6nland's Historiske Mindesm\u0153rker_, (vol.\ni., p. 150), says simply, that \"It is _thought_ that he (Are Marson)\nended his days in America, or at all events in one of the larger\nislands of the west. Some think that it was one of the Azore\nislands.\"' _De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer._, p. 87.\n\n[I-227] _Abstract of Hist. Evid._, in _Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour._, vol.\nviii., p. 125; _De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer._, p. 89, et seq.\n\n[I-228] See _Schoolcraft's Arch._, vol. i., pp. 110, et seq., for\nplate and discussion of Dighton Rock.\n\n[I-229] It bore the following inscription: _Elligr. Sigvaps: son: r.\nok. Bjanne. Tortarson: ok: Enripi. osson: laugardag. in: fyrir gagndag\nHolpu: varda te. ok rydu: M. C. XXXV_; or, _Erling Sighvatssonr, ok\nBjarne Pordarson, ok Endridi oddsson laugardaginn fyrir gagndag hlodu\nvarda pessa ok ruddu 1135_; 'c'est-\u00e0-dire: Erling Sigvatson, Bjarne\nThordarson, et Endride Oddson \u00e9rig\u00e8rent ces monceaux de pierres le\nsamedi avant le jour nomm\u00e9 Gagndag (le 25 avril) et ils nettoy\u00e8rent la\nplace en 1135.' _Warden_, _Recherches_, p. 152.\n\n[I-230] 'We have noticed the discovery of a place called Estotiland,\nsupposed to be Nova Scotia, in 1354, the inhabitants of which were\nEuropeans, who cultivated grain, lived in stone houses, and\nmanufactured beer, as in Europe at that day. Now, from the year 1354,\ntill the time of the first settlements made in Onondaga county, by the\npresent inhabitants, is about 400 years. Is it not possible,\ntherefore, that this glass bottle, with some kind of liquor in it, may\nhave been derived from this Estotiland, having been originally brought\nfrom Europe; as glass had been in use there, more or less, from the\nyear 664, till the Scandinavians colonized Iceland, Greenland, and\nEstotiland, or Newfoundland.' _Priest's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 260-1.\n\n[I-231] 'Malgr\u00e9 les r\u00e9clamations que mes suppositions soulev\u00e8rent de\ndivers c\u00f4t\u00e9s et les sourires incr\u00e9dules qu'elles appel\u00e8rent sur les\nl\u00e8vres de plusieurs de nos savants dont je respecte et honore les\nconnaissances, je persiste plus que jamais dans l'opinion que\nj'exprimais alors; plus j'avance dans mes \u00e9tudes am\u00e9ricaines plus je\ndemeure convaincu des relations qui exist\u00e8rent, ant\u00e9rieurement \u00e0\nChristophe Colomb, entre le Nouveau-Monde et les contr\u00e9es situ\u00e9es \u00e0\nl'orient de l'autre c\u00f4t\u00e9 de l'oc\u00e9an Atlantique, et plus je suis\npersuad\u00e9 que les Scandinaves ont d\u00fb, \u00e0 une p\u00e9riode m\u00eame plus recul\u00e9e\nque celle dont vos (Prof. Rafn's) int\u00e9ressants m\u00e9moires rapportent le\nsouvenir, \u00e9migrer vers le continent am\u00e9ricain.' _Brasseur de\nBourbourg_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1858, tom. clx., pp.\n261-92.\n\n[I-232] 'Il est impossible de ne point \u00eatre frapp\u00e9 de l'analogie qui\nexiste entre les id\u00e9es bramaniques sur la divinit\u00e9 et les passages du\n_Popol-Vuh_ cit\u00e9s plus haut. Mais si nous consultons les traditions\nbeaucoup plus r\u00e9centes, conserv\u00e9es m\u00eame apr\u00e8s l'\u00e9tablissement du\nchristianisme en Su\u00e8de, nous trouverons encore, entre les coutumes\nreligieuses des populations de ces contr\u00e9es et celles qui nous sont\nretrac\u00e9es dans le Popol-Vuh, plus d'un rapport.' _Viollet-le-Duc_, in\n_Charnay_, _Ruines Am\u00e9r._, pp. 41-2. See farther concerning emigration\nto America from north-western Europe: _Mitchill_, in _Amer. Antiq.\nSoc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 341, et seq.; _Priest's Amer. Antiq._,\nscattered notices, pp. 88-9, 234-329; _Robertson's Hist. Amer._, vol.\ni., pp. 278-80; _Schoolcraft's Arch._, vol. i., pp. 110-11, 120-4;\n_Brasseur de Bourbourg_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1855, tom.\ncxlvii., pp. 157-8; _Viollet-le-Duc_, in _Charnay_, _Ruines Am\u00e9r._,\npp. 11, 18-19, 23-4, 42-3; _Warden_, _Recherches_, pp. 146-54;\n_Montanus_, _Nieuwe Weereld_, pp. 28-30, 117; _Tschudi's Peruvian\nAntiq._, pp. 3-7, 21-2; _Malte-Brun_, _Pr\u00e9cis de la G\u00e9og._, tom. i.,\npp. 197-8; _Davis' Discovery of New England by the Northmen_;\n_Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, pp. 279-85; _Davis' Anc. Amer._, pp. 13-31;\n_Tylor's Anahuac_, pp. 278-9; _M'Culloh's Researches on Amer._, pp.\n21-2; _Brinton's Abb\u00e9 Brasseur_, in _Lippincott's Mag._, vol. i., p.\n79, et seq.; _Smith's Human Species_, p. 237; _Deuber_, _Geschichte\nder Schiffahrt_; _Hermes_, _Entdeckung von Amer._, pp. 1-134;\n_Foster's Pre-Hist. Races_, pp. 399-400; _Hill's Antiq. of Amer._;\n_Wilson's Prehist. Man_, pp. 394-420; _Kruger's Discov. Amer._, pp.\n1-134; _Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., pp. 53-64, 404, 411-12;\n_Beaufoy's Mex. Illustr._, p. 322; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist.\nNat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 18-22; _Id._, _Popol Vuh_, pp. li.-liv.,\nlxxxix.-xcii.; _Hist. Mag._, vol. ix., pp. 364-5; _Gondra_, in\n_Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., p. 15; _Humboldt's Exam.\nCrit._, tom. ii., pp. 83-104, 105-20; _Irving's Columbus_, vol. iii.,\npp. 432-40; _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i., p. 239; _Klemm_,\n_Cultur-Geschichte_, tom. v., pp. 164-71; _Rafinesque_, _The American\nNations_; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Quatre Lettres_, p. 17;\n_Williamson's Observations on Climate_; _Zesterman's Colonization of\nAmerica by Northwestern Europeans_; _Farcy_, _Discours_, in _Antiq.\nMex._, tom. i., div. i., pp. 48-9; _Simpson's Nar._, p. 159;\n_Schoolcraft_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., pp. 391-6.\n\n[I-233] About 1169-70.\n\n[I-234] 'All this is related in old Welsh annals preserved in the\nabbeys of Conway and Strat Flur.... This emigration of Prince Madog is\nmentioned in the preserved works of several Welsh bards who lived\nbefore the time of Columbus. It is mentioned by Hakluyt, who had his\naccount of it from writings of the bard Guttun Owen. As the Northmen\nhad been in New England over one hundred and fifty years when Prince\nMadog went forth to select a place for his settlement, he knew very\nwell there was a continent on the other side of the Atlantic, for he\nhad knowledge of their voyages to America; and knowledge of them was\nalso prevalent in Ireland. His emigration took place when Henry II.\nwas king of England, but in that age the English knew little or\nnothing of Welsh affairs in such a way as to connect them with English\nhistory very closely.' _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, p. 286. See also\n_Humboldt_, _Exam. Crit._, tom. ii., pp. 142-9; _Farcy_, _Discours_,\nin _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. i., pp. 49-50. 'Before wee passed\nthese ilands, under the lee of the bigger iland, we anchored, the wind\nbeing at north-east, with intent to refresh ourselves with the fowles\nof these ilands. They are of divers sorts, and in great plentie, as\npengwins, wilde duckes, gulles, and gannets; of the principall we\npurposed to make provisions, and those were the pengwins; which in\nWelsh, as I have beene enformed, signifieth a white head. From which\nderivation, and many other Welsh denominations given by the Indians,\nor their predecessors, some doe inferre that America was first peopled\nwith Welsh-men; and Montezanna, king, or rather emperour of Mexico,\ndid recount unto the Spaniards, at their first comming, that his\nauncestors came from a farre countrie, and were white people. Which,\nconferred with an auncient cronicle, that I have read many yeares\nsince, may be conjectured to bee a prince of Wales, who many hundreth\nyeares since, with certaine shippes, sayled to the westwards, with\nintent to make new discoveries. Hee was never after heard of.'\n_Hawkins' Voy._, in _Hakluyt Soc._, p. 111.\n\n[I-235] Written in Welsh, translated into English by Humphrey Llwyd,\nand published by Dr David Powel in 1584.\n\n[I-236] Dedicated to Prince Charles, and published in 1613.\n\n[I-237] See _Warden_, _Recherches_, pp. 154-7.\n\n[I-238] They are 'made of _raw-hides_, the skins of buffaloes,\nstretched underneath a frame made of willows or other boughs, and\nshaped nearly round, like a tub; which the woman carries on her head\nfrom her wigwam to the water's edge, and having stepped into it,\nstands in front, and propels it by dripping her paddle _forward_, and\n_drawing it to her_, instead of paddling by the side.' _Catlin's Amer.\nInd._, vol. ii., p. 261.\n\n[I-239] See comparative vocabulary. _Id._\n\n[I-240] As a good deal of importance has been attached to it, it will\nbe as well to give Jones' statement in full; it is as follows: 'These\npresents certify all persons whatever, that in the year 1660, being an\ninhabitant of Virginia, and chaplain to Major General Bennet, of\nMansoman County, the said Major General Bennet and Sir William\nBerkeley sent two ships to Port Royal, now called South Carolina,\nwhich is sixty leagues southward of Cape Fair, and I was sent\ntherewith to be their minister. Upon the 8th of April we set out from\nVirginia, and arrived at the harbor's mouth of Port Royal the 19th of\nthe same month, where we waited for the rest of the fleet that was to\nsail from Barbadoes and Bermuda with one Mr. West, who was to be\ndeputy governor of said place. As soon as the fleet came in, the\nsmallest vessels that were with us sailed up the river to a place\ncalled the Oyster Point; there I continued about eight months, all\nwhich time being almost starved for want of provisions: I and five\nmore traveled through the wilderness till we came to the Tuscarora\ncountry. There the Tuscarora Indians took us prisoners because we told\nthem that we were bound to Roanock. That night they carried us to\ntheir town and shut us up close, to our no small dread. The next day\nthey entered into a consultation about us, and, after it was over,\ntheir interpreter told us that we must prepare ourselves to die next\nmorning, whereupon, being very much dejected, I spoke to this effect\nin the British [Welsh] tongue: \"Have I escaped so many dangers, and\nmust I now be knocked on the head like a dog!\" Then presently came an\nIndian to me, which afterward appeared to be a war captain belonging\nto the sachem of the Doegs (whose original, I find, must needs be from\nthe Old Britons), and took me up by the middle, and told me in the\nBritish [Welsh] tongue I should not die, and thereupon went to the\nemperor of Tuscarora, and agreed for my ransom and the men that were\nwith me. They (the Doegs) then welcomed us to their town, and\nentertained us very civilly and cordially four months, during which\ntime I had the opportunity of conversing with them familiarly in the\nBritish [Welsh] language, and did preach to them in the same language\nthree times a week, and they would confer with me about any thing that\nwas difficult therein, and at our departure they abundantly supplied\nus with whatever was necessary to our support and well doing. They are\nsettled upon Pontigo River, not far from Cape Atros. This is a brief\nrecital of my travels among the Doeg Indians.\n\n Morgan Jones, the son of John Jones, of Basateg, near Newport, in the\nCounty of Monmouth. I am ready to conduct any Welshman or others to\nthe country.\n\n New York, March 10th, 1685-6.' _Gentleman's Mag._, 1740.\n\n[I-241] _Chambers' Jour._, vol. vi., p. 411.\n\n[I-242] 'These accounts are copied from manuscripts of Dr. W. O.\nPughe, who, together with Edward Williams (the bard of Glamorgan),\nmade diligent inquiries in America about forty years ago, when they\ncollected upwards of one hundred different accounts of the Welsh\nIndians.' _Id._ 'It is reported by travellers in the west, that on the\nRed River ... very far to the southwest, a tribe of Indians has been\nfound, whose manners, in several respects, resemble the Welch.... They\ncall themselves the McCedus tribe, which having the Mc or Mac attached\nto their name, points evidently to a European origin, of the Celtic\ndescription.... It is well authenticated that upwards of thirty years\nago, Indians came to Kaskaskia, in the territory, now the state of\nIllinois, who spoke the Welch dialect, and were perfectly understood\nby two Welchmen then there, who conversed with them.' _Priest's Amer.\nAntiq._, pp. 230-2.\n\n[I-243] _Recherches_, p. 157. Griffiths related his adventures to a\nnative of Kentucky, and they were published in 1804, by Mr Henry\nToulmin, one of the Judges of the territory of Mississippi. See\n_Stoddard's Sketches of Louisiana_, p. 475; _Philadelphia Medical and\nPhysical Journal_, vol. i., 1805.\n\n[I-244] _Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 305.\n\n[I-245] We read farther: 'But what is still more remarkable, in their\nwar song he discovered, not only the sentiments, but several lines,\nthe very same words as used in _Ossian's_ celebrated majestic poem of\nthe wars of his ancestors, who flourished about thirteen hundred years\nago. The Indian names of several of the streams, brooks, mountains and\nrocks of Florida, are also the same which are given to similar\nobjects, in the highlands of Scotland.' All this, could we believe it,\nwould fill us with astonishment; but the solution of the mystery lies\nin the next sentence: 'This celebrated metaphysician (Monboddo) was a\nfirm believer in the anciently reported account of America's having\nbeen visited by a colony from Wales long previous to the discovery of\nColumbus.' _Priest's Amer. Antiq._, p. 230. It is this being a 'firm\nbeliever' in a given theory that makes so many things patent to the\nenthusiast which are invisible to ordinary men.\n\n[I-246] _Monastikon Britannicum_, pp. 131-2, 187-8, cited in _De\nCosta's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer._, p. xviii.\n\n[I-247] See _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi., pp. 188-90; _De\nCosta's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer._, pp. xviii.-xx.\n\n[I-248] _M\u0153urs des Sauvages Am\u00e9riquains Compar\u00e9es aux M\u0153urs des\nPremiers Temps._ Paris, 1724.\n\n[I-249] _Garc\u00eda_, _Or\u00edgen de los Ind._, pp. 189-92.\n\n[I-250] _Pidgeon's Trad._, p. 16.\n\n[I-251] _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. lxx.-lxxx.\n\n[I-252] _Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 107. In the Greeks of Homer I find the\ncustoms, discourse, and manners of the Iroquois, Delawares, and\nMiamis. The tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides paint to me almost\nliterally the sentiments of the _red-men_, respecting necessity,\nfatality, the miseries of human life, and the rigour of blind destiny.\n_Volney's View of the Climate and Soil of the United States of\nAmerica._ London, 1804.\n\n[I-253] See _Priest's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 385-90; _Torquemada_,\n_Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 255; _Scenes in Rocky Mts._, pp. 199-202;\n_Villagutierre_, _Hist. Conq. Itza_, p. 6; _Kingsborough's Mex.\nAntiq._, vol. vi., pp. 184, 527-8.\n\n[I-254] See _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, p. 177; _Foster's Pre-Hist.\nRaces_, pp. 394-5.\n\n[I-255] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 6.\n\n[I-256] 'Imaginez un livre entier \u00e9crit en calembours, un livre dont\ntoutes les phrases, dont la plupart des mots ont un double sens, l'un\nparfaitement net et distinct de l'autre, et vous aurez, jusqu'\u00e0 un\ncertain point, l'id\u00e9e du travail que j'ai entre les mains. C'est en\ncherchant l'explication d'un passage fort curieux, relatif \u00e0\nl'histoire de Quetzal-Coatl, que je suis arriv\u00e9 \u00e0 ce r\u00e9sultat\nextraordinaire. Oui, Monsieur, si ce livre est en apparence l'histoire\ndes Tolt\u00e8ques et ensuite des rois de Colhuacan et de Mexico, il\npr\u00e9sente, en r\u00e9alit\u00e9, le r\u00e9cit du cataclysme qui bouleversa le monde,\nil y a quelques six ou sept mille ans, et constitua les continents\ndans leur \u00e9tat actuel. Ce que le _Codex Borgia_ de la Propagande, le\n_Manuscrit de Dresde_ et le _Manuscrit Troano_ \u00e9taient en images et en\nhi\u00e9roglyphes, le _Codex Chimalpopoca_ en donne la lettre; il contient,\nen langue nahuatl, l'histoire du monde, compos\u00e9e par le sage Hueman,\nc'est-\u00e0-dire par la main puissante de Dieu dans le grand Livre de la\nnature, en un mot, c'est le Livre divin lui-m\u00eame, c'est le\n_Teo-Amoxtli_.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg._ _Quatre Lettres_, p. 24.\n\n[I-257] _Id._, p. 39.\n\n[I-258] In the Codex Chimalpopoca, Brasseur reads that '\u00e0 la suite de\nl'\u00e9ruption des volcans, ouverts sur toute l'\u00e9tendue du continent\nam\u00e9ricain, double alors de ce qu'il est aujourd'hui, l'\u00e9ruption\nsoudaine d'un immense foyer sous-marin, fit \u00e9clater le monde et ab\u00eema,\nentre un lever et un autre de l'\u00e9toile du matin, les r\u00e9gions les plus\nriches du globe.' _Quatre Lettres_, p. 45.\n\n[I-259] _Id._, p. 108.\n\n[I-260] See farther, concerning Atlantis: _Brasseur de Bourbourg_,\n_MS. Troano_, tom. i., pp. 29-32, 199; _Irving's Columbus_, vol. i.,\npp. 24, 38, vol. iii., pp. 419, 492-4, 499-512; _Baril_, _Mexique_, p.\n190; _Dally_, _Races Indig._, p. 7; _Farcy_, _Discours_, in _Antiq.\nMex._, tom. i., div. i., pp. 41-2; _De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc.\nAmer._, p. xiii.; _Heylyn's Cosmog._, pp. 943-4; _Sanson d'Abbeville_,\n_Am\u00e9rique_, pp. 1-3; _Willson's Amer. Hist._, pp. 90-1; _Warden_,\n_Recherches_, pp. 97-113; _Carli_, _Cartas_, pt i., p. 1; _Brasseur de\nBourbourg_, in _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. xviii.-cxii.; _Davis' Anc.\nAmer._, p. 13; _Malte-Brun_, _Pr\u00e9cis de la G\u00e9og._, tom. i., pp. 28-30,\n213-15; _Wilson's Prehist. Man_, pp. 392-3; _Kingsborough's Mex.\nAntiq._, vol. vi., pp. 181-4; _Foster's Pre-Hist. Races_, pp. 394-9;\n_Larrainzar_, _Dictamen_, pp. 8-25; _Stratton's Mound-Builders_, MS.;\n_Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 216-22; _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, pp.\n174-84; _Mitchill_, in _Amer. Antiq. Soc._, _Transact._, vol. i., p.\n340; _Fali\u00e9s_, _\u00c9tudes Hist. sur les Civilisations_, tom. i., pp.\n185-93, 218; _M'Culloh's Researches on Amer._, pp. 26-32; _Humboldt_,\n_Exam. Crit._, tom. i., pp. 42, 130-206, tom. ii., pp. 46, 163-214;\n_Oviedo_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i., pp. 14-18, 22; _Monglave_, in _Antiq.\nMex._, pp. 57-60; _Cabrera_, _Teatro_, in _Rio's Description_, p. 126;\n_Villagutierre_, _Hist. Conq. Itza_, pp. 5-6; _Purchas his Pilgrimes_,\nvol. v., pp. 799-801; _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 29;\n_West und Ost Indischer Lustgart_, pt i., pp. 4-5; _Montanus_, _Nieuwe\nWeereld_, pp. 18-19; _Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. iv.,\np. 31; _Despr\u00e9aux_, in _Museo Mex._, tom. ii., pp. 84-6; _Major's\nPrince Henry_, p. 83; _Rafinesque_, in _Priest's Amer. Antiq._, pp.\n123-4; _Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., pp. 42-6, 413-14; _Fontaine's\nHow the World was Peopled_, pp. 256-7; _Herrera_, _Hist. Gen._, tom.\ni., lib. i., cap. ii.; _Smith's Human Species_, p. 83; _Soc. G\u00e9og.,\nBulletin_, tom. iv., p. 235.\n\n[I-261] Davis, _Anc. Amer._, p. 12, thinks that a portion of the\nanimals of the original creation migrated west. 'If this idea,' he\nsays, 'is new to others, I hope it may be considered more reasonable\nthan the infidel opinion, that men and animals were distinct creations\nfrom those of Asia.' 'Think you,' he adds sagely, 'they would have\ntransported venomous serpents from the old to the new world?'\n\n[I-262] Concerning unity or variety of the American races, see:\n_Prichard's Researches_, vol. i., p. 268, vol. v., pp. 289, 374, 542;\n_Morton's Crania Amer._, p. 62; _Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 197-98;\n_Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, pp. 66-7; _Maury_, in _Nott and Gliddon's\nIndig. Races_, p. 81; _Humboldt_, _Essai Pol._, tom. i., p. 83;\n_Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i., pp. 21-36; _Willson's Amer. Hist._, p.\n89; _Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 4; _Smith's Human Species_, p. 251;\n_Catlin's N. Amer. Ind._, vol. ii., p. 234; _Domenech's Deserts_, vol.\ni., pp. 3-4.\n\n[I-263] 'I am compelled to believe that the Continent of America, and\neach of the other Continents, have had their aboriginal stocks,\npeculiar in colour and in character--and that each of these native\nstocks has undergone repeated mutations, by erratic colonies from\nabroad.' _Catlin's N. Amer. Ind._, vol. ii., p. 232; _Bradford's Amer.\nAntiq._, pp. 224-5, thinks it consonant with the Bible to suppose\n'distinct animal creations, simultaneously, for different portions of\nthe earth.' A commentator on Hellwald who advocates autochthon theory\nremarks that: 'the derivation of these varieties from the original\nstock is philosophically explained on the principle of the variety in\nthe offspring of the same parents, and the better adaptation and\nconsequent chance of life.' _Smithsonian Rept._, 1866, p. 345. 'That\ntheory is probably, in every point of view, the most tenable and exact\nwhich assumes that man, like the plant, a mundane being, made his\nappearance generally upon earth when our planet had reached that stage\nof its development which unites in itself the conditions of the man's\nexistence. In conformity with this view I regard the American as an\nautochthon.' The question of immigration to America has been too much\nmixed with that of the migration in America, and only recently has the\nopinion made progress that America has attained a form of civilization\nby modes of their own. Neither the theory of a _populating\nimmigration_ or a _civilizing immigration_ from the old world meet any\ncountenance from the results of the latest investigations. _Hellwald_,\nin _Id._, p. 330. All tribes have similarities among them which make\nthem distinct from old world. _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat.\nCiv._, tom. i., p. 23. Dr. Morton says the study of physical\nconformation alone, excludes every branch of the Caucasian race from\nany obvious participation in the peopling of this continent, and\nbelieves the Indians are all of one race, and that race distinct from\nall others. _Mayer's Observations_, p. 11. We can never know the\norigin of the Americans. The theory that they are aborigines is\ncontradicted by no fact and is plausible enough. _Morelet_, _Voyage_,\ntom. i., pp. 177-8. The supposition that the Red Man is a primitive\ntype of a human family originally planted in the western continent\npresents the most natural solution of the problem. The researches of\nphysiologists, antiquaries, philologists, tend this way. The\nhypothesis of an immigration, when followed out, is embarrassed with\ngreat difficulties and leads to interminable and unsatisfying\nspeculations. _Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, p. 251. God has created\nseveral couples of human beings differing from one another internally\nand externally, and these were placed in appropriate climates. The\noriginal character is preserved, and directed only by their natural\npowers they acquired knowledge and formed a distinct language. In\nprimitive times signs and sounds suggested by nature were used, but\nwith advancement, dialects formed. It requires the idea of a miracle\nto suppose that all men descend from one source. _Kames_, in _Warden_,\n_Recherches_, p. 203. 'The unsuccessful search after traces of an\nante-Columbian intercourse with the New World, suffices to confirm the\nbelief that, for unnumbered centuries throughout that ancient era, the\nWestern Hemisphere was the exclusive heritage of nations native to its\nsoil. Its sacred and sepulchral rites, its usages and superstitions,\nits arts, letters, metallurgy, sculpture, and architecture, are all\npeculiarly its own.' _Wilson's Prehist. Man_, p. 421. Morton concludes\n'that the American Race differs essentially from all others, not\nexcepting the Mongolian; nor do the feeble analogies of language, and\nthe more obvious ones in civil and religious institutions and the\narts, denote anything beyond casual or colonial communication with the\nAsiatic nations; and even these analogies may perhaps be accounted\nfor, as Humboldt has suggested, in the mere coincidence arising from\nsimilar wants and impulses in nations inhabiting similar latitudes.'\n_Crania Amer._, p. 260. 'I am firmly of opinion that God created an\noriginal man and woman in this part of the globe, of different species\nfrom any in the other parts.' _Romans' Concise Natural Hist. of E. and\nW. Florida._ 'Altamirano, the best Aztec scholar living, claims that\nthe proof is conclusive that the Aztecs did not come here from Asia,\nas has been almost universally believed, but were a race originated in\nAmerica, and as old as the Chinese themselves, and that China may even\nhave been peopled from America.' _Evans' Our Sister Rep._, p. 333.\nSwan believes that 'whatever was the origin of different tribes or\nfamilies, the whole race of American Indians are native and indigenous\nto the soil.' _N.W. Coast_, p. 206.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nINTRODUCTORY TO ABORIGINAL HISTORY.\n\n     Origin and Earliest History of the Americans Unrecorded\n     -- The Dark Sea of Antiquity -- Boundary between Myth and\n     History -- Primitive Annals of America compared with those\n     of the Old World -- Authorities and Historical Material --\n     Traditional Annals and their Value -- Hieroglyphic Records\n     of the Mayas and Nahuas -- Spanish Writers -- The Conquerors\n     -- The Missionaries -- The Historians -- Converted Native\n     Chroniclers -- Secondary Authorities -- Ethnology -- Arts,\n     Institutions, and Beliefs -- Languages -- Material Monuments\n     of Antiquity -- Use of Authorities and Method of Treating the\n     Subject.\n\n\nThe preceding r\u00e9sum\u00e9 shows pretty conclusively that the American\npeoples and the American civilizations, if not indigenous to the\nNew World, were introduced from the Old at a period long preceding\nany to which we are carried by the traditional or monumental annals\nof either continent. We have found no evidence of any populating\nor civilizing migration across the ocean from east or west, north\nor south, within historic times. Nothing approaching identity has\nbeen discovered between any two nations separated by the Atlantic\nor Pacific. No positive record appears even of communication between\nAmerica and the Old World,--intentionally by commercial, exploring,\nor warlike expeditions, or accidentally by shipwreck,--previous to\nthe voyages of the Northmen in the tenth century; yet that such\ncommunication did take place in many instances and at different\nperiods is extremely probable. The numerous trans-oceanic analogies,\nmore or less clearly defined, which are observed, may have resulted\npartially from this communication, although they do not of themselves\nnecessarily imply such an agency. If scientific research shall in the\nfuture decide that all mankind descended from one original pair, that\nthe centre of population was in Asia rather than in America, and that\nall civilization originated with one Old World branch of the human\nfamily--and these are all yet open questions--then there will be no\ngreat difficulty in accounting for the transfer of both population\nand culture; in fact the means of intercontinental intercourse are so\nnumerous and practicable that it will perhaps be impossible to decide\non the particular route or routes by which the transfer was effected.\nIf, on the other hand, a contrary decision be reached on the above\nquestions, the phenomena of American civilization and savagism will be\neven more easily accounted for.\n\n[Sidenote: THE MYSTERY OF ANTIQUITY.]\n\nRegarding North America then, at the most remote epoch reached by\ntradition, as already peopled for perhaps hundreds of centuries, I\npropose in the remaining pages of this volume to record all that is\nknown of aboriginal history down to the period when the native races\nwere found by Europeans living under the institutions and practicing\nthe arts that have been described in the preceding volumes of this\nwork. Comparatively little is known or can ever be known of that\nhistory. The sixteenth century is a bluff coast line bounding the dark\nunnavigable sea of American antiquity. At a very few points along\nthe long line headlands project slightly into the waters, affording\na tolerably sure footing for a time, but terminating for the most\npart in dangerous reefs and quicksands over which the adventurous\nantiquarian may pass with much risk still farther from the firm land\nof written record, and gaze at flickering mythical lights attached\nto buoys beyond. As a rule, nothing whatever is known respecting the\nhistory of savage tribes until they come in contact with nations of\na higher degree of culture possessing some system of written record.\nRespecting the past of the Wild Tribes by whom most of our territory\nwas inhabited, we have only a few childish fables of creation, the\nadventures of some bird or beast divinity, of a flood or some other\nnatural convulsion, a victory or a defeat which may have occurred one\nor a hundred generations ago. These fables lack chronology, and have\nno definite historical signification which can be made available.\nThe Civilized Nations, however, had recorded annals not altogether\nmythical. The Nahua annals reach back chronologically, although not\nuninterruptedly to about the sixth century of our era; the Maya record\nis somewhat less extensive in an unbroken line; but both extend more\nor less vaguely and mythically to the beginning of the Christian\nera, perhaps much farther. Myths are mingled in great abundance with\nhistorical traditions throughout the whole aboriginal period, and it\nis often utterly impossible to distinguish between them, or to fix the\nboundary line beyond which the element of history is absolutely wanting.\nThe primitive aboriginal life, not only in America but throughout\nthe world, is wrapped in mystery. The clear light of history fades\ngradually, as we recede from the present age, into an ever-deepening\nshadow, which, beyond a varying indefinable point, a border-land\nof myth and fable, merges into the black night of antiquity. The\ninvestigations of modern science move back but slowly this bound\nbetween the past and present, and while the results in the aggregate\nare immense, in shedding new light on portions of the world's annals,\nprogress toward the ultimate end is almost inappreciable. If the\nhuman mind shall ever penetrate the mystery, it will be one of its\nlast and most glorious triumphs. America does not differ so much as\nwould at first thought appear from the so-called Old World in respect\nto the obscurity that shrouds her early history, if both are viewed\nfrom a corresponding stand-point--in America the Spanish Conquest in\nthe sixteenth century, in the eastern continent a remote period when\nhistory first began to be recorded in languages still in use. Or if\nwe attach greater importance to Biblical than to other traditions,\nstill America should be compared, not with the nations whose history\nis traced in the Hebrew record, but with the distant extremities of\nAsia, Europe, and Africa, on whose history the Bible throws no light,\nsave the statement that they were peopled from a common centre, in\nwhich populating movement America has equal claims to be included. To\nall whose investigations are a search for truth, darkness covers the\norigin of the American peoples, and their primitive history, save for\na few centuries preceding the Conquest. The darkness is lighted up here\nand there by dim rays of conjecture, which only become fixed lights of\nfact in the eyes of antiquarians whose lively imagination enables them\nto see best in the dark, and whose researches are but a sifting-out of\nsupports to a preconceived opinion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe authorities on which our knowledge of aboriginal history rests are\nnative traditions orally handed down from generation to generation, the\nAztec picture-writings that still exist, the writings of the Spanish\nauthors who came in contact with the natives in the period immediately\nfollowing the Conquest, and also of converted native writers who wrote\nin Spanish, or at least by the aid of European letters. In connection\nwith these positive authorities the actual condition, institutions,\nand beliefs of the natives at the Conquest, together with the material\nmonuments of antiquity, all described in the preceding volumes,\nconstitute an important illustrative, corrective, or confirmatory\nsource of information.\n\n[Sidenote: TRADITION AS AN AUTHORITY.]\n\nOral tradition, in connection with linguistic affinities, is our only\nauthority in the case of the wild tribes, and also plays a prominent\npart in the annals of the civilized nations. In estimating its\nhistorical value, not only the intrinsic value of the tradition itself,\nbut the authenticity of the version presented to us must be taken into\nconsideration; the latter consideration is, however, closely connected\nwith that of the early writers and their reliability as authorities on\naboriginal history. No tribe is altogether without traditions of the\npast, many--probably most--of which were founded on actual occurrences,\nwhile a few are wholly imaginary. Yet, whatever their origin, all are,\nif unsupported by written records, practically of little or no value.\nEvery trace of the circumstances that gave rise to a tradition is soon\nlost, although the tradition itself in curiously modified forms is long\npreserved. Natural convulsions, like floods and earthquakes, famines,\nwars, tribal migrations, naturally leave an impression on the savage\nmind which is not easily effaced, but the fable in which the record\nis embodied may have assumed a form so changed and childish that we\npass over it to-day as having no historical value, seeking information\nonly in an apparently more consistent tale, which may have originated\nat a recent date from some very trivial circumstance. Examples are not\nwanting of very important events in the comparatively modern history of\nIndian tribes, the record of which has not apparently been preserved\nin song or story, or the memory of which at least has become entirely\nobliterated in little more than a hundred years. Oral tradition has no\nchronology that is not purely imaginary; \"many moons ago,\" \"our fathers\ndid thus and so,\" may refer to antediluvian times or to the exploits\nof the narrator's grandfather. Among the American savages there was\nnot even a pride in the pedigree of families or horses to induce care\nin this respect, as among the Asiatic hordes of patriarchal times. But\nthe traditions of savages, valueless by themselves for a time more\nremote than one or two generations, begin to assume importance when\nthe events narrated have been otherwise ascertained by the records of\nsome contemporary nation, throwing indirectly much light on history\nwhich they were powerless to reveal. Three traditions are especially\nprevalent in some form in nearly every section of America;--that of a\ndeluge, of an aboriginal migration, and of giants that dwelt upon the\nearth at some time in the remote past. These may be taken as examples\nand interpreted as follows, the respective interpretations being\narranged in the order of their probability.\n\nThe tradition of a flood would naturally arise, 1st, from the\ndestruction of a tribe or part of a tribe by the sudden rising of\na river or mountain stream--that is from a modern event such as has\noccurred at some time in the history of nearly every people, and which\na hundred years and a fertile imagination would readily have converted\ninto a universal inundation. 2d. From the finding of sea-shells and\nother marine relics inland, and even on high mountains, suggesting\nto the natives' untutored mind what it proves to later scientific\nresearch--the fact that water once covered all. 3d. From the actual\nsubmersion of some portions of the continent by the action of volcano\nor earthquake, an event that geology shows not to be improbable, and\nwhich would be well calculated to leave a lasting impression on the\nminds of savages. 4th. From the deluge of the scriptural tradition,\nthe only one of the many similar events that may have occurred which\nmakes any claims to have been historically recorded. The accompanying\nparticulars would be naturally invented. Some must have escaped, and an\nark or a high mountain are the natural means.\n\nA traditional migration from north, south, east, or west may point to\nthe local journeying of a family or tribe, either in search of better\nhunting-grounds, or as a result of adverse fortune in war; in a few\ncases a general migration of many tribes constituting a great nation\nmay be referred to; and finally, it is not quite impossible that a\nfaint memory of an Old World origin may have survived through hundreds\nof generations.\n\n[Sidenote: INTERPRETATION OF TRADITION.]\n\nSo with the giant tradition, resulting, 1st, from the memory of a\nfierce, numerous, powerful, and successful enemy, possibly of large\nphysique. No tribe so valiant that it has not met with reverses,\nand the attributing of gigantic strength and supernatural powers\nto the successful foe, removes among the descendants the sting of\ntheir ancestors' defeat. 2d. From the discovery of immense fossil\nbones of mastodons and other extinct species. It is not strange that\nsuch were deemed human remains by the natives when the Spaniards in\nlater times have honestly believed them to be the bones of an extinct\ngigantic race. 3d. From the existence of grand ruins in many parts\nof the country, far beyond the constructive powers of the savage, and\ntherefore in his eyes the work of giants--as they were intellectually,\nin comparison with their degenerate descendants. 4th. From an actual\ntraditional remembrance of those who built the ruined cities, and\nintercourse with comparatively civilized tribes. 5th. From the\nexistence in primitive times of a race of giants.\n\nNumerous additional sources for each of these traditions might\ndoubtless be suggested; but those given suffice for illustration, and,\nas I have remarked, they are arranged in each case in what would seem\nthe natural order of probability. The near and natural should always\nbe preferred to the remote and supernatural; and the fables mentioned\nshould be referred to Noah's deluge, Asiatic origin, and the existence\nof a gigantic race, only when the previous suppositions are proved by\nextraneous evidence to be untenable. The early writers on aboriginal\nAmerica, using their reason only when it did not conflict with their\nfaith, reversed the order of probability, and thus greatly impaired\nthe usefulness of their contributions to history. The supposition\nof a purely imaginary origin, common to aboriginal legend and modern\nromance, should of course be added to each of the preceding lists, and\ngenerally placed before the last supposition given.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPassing from the wild tribes to the civilized nations of Mexico and\nCentral America, we find tradition, or what is generally regarded as\nsuch, much more complete and extensive in its scope, less childish\nin detail, and with a more clearly defined dividing line between\nhistory and mythology. Theoretically we might expect a higher grade\nof tradition among a partially civilized people; but on the other\nhand, what need had the Nahuas or Mayas of oral tradition when they\nhad the art of recording events? In fact, our knowledge of Aztec\nand Maya history is not in any proper sense traditional, although\ncommonly spoken of as such by the writers. Previous to the practice\nof the hieroglyphic art--the date of whose invention or introduction\nis unknown, but must probably be placed long before the Christian\nera--oral tradition was doubtless the only guide to the past; but\nthe traditions were recorded as soon as the system of picture-writing\nwas sufficiently perfected to suggest if not to clearly express their\nimport. After picture-writing came into general use, it is difficult\nto imagine that any historical events should have been handed down by\ntradition alone. Still in one sense the popular knowledge of the past\namong the Mexicans may be called traditional, inasmuch as the written\nrecords of the nation were not in the hands of the people, but were\nkept by a class of the priesthood, and may be supposed to have been\nread by comparatively few. The contents of the records, however, except\nperhaps some religious mysteries which the priests alone comprehended,\nwere tolerably well known to the educated classes; and when the records\nwere destroyed by Spanish fanaticism, this general knowledge became the\nchief source whence, through the 'talk of the old men,' the earlier\nwriters drew their information. It is in this light that we must\nunderstand the statement of many able writers, that the greater part\nof our knowledge of early American history is traditional, since this\nknowledge was not obtained by an actual examination of the records\nby the Spaniards, but orally from the people, the upper classes of\nwhom had themselves read the pictured annals, while the masses were\nsomewhat familiar through popular chants and plays with their contents.\nThe value of history faithfully taken from such a source cannot be\ndoubted, but its vagueness and conflicting statements respecting dates\nand details may be best appreciated by questioning intelligent men in\nthe light of nineteenth century civilization respecting the details\nof modern history, withholding the privilege of reference to books or\ndocuments.\n\n[Sidenote: HIEROGLYPHIC RECORDS.]\n\nOf the Nahua hieroglyphic system and its capabilities enough has\nbeen said elsewhere.[II-1] By its aid, from the beginning of the Toltec\nperiod at least, all historical events were recorded that were deemed\nworthy of being preserved. The popular knowledge of these events was\nperpetuated by means of poems, songs, and plays, and this knowledge was\nnaturally faulty in dates. The numerous discrepancies which students of\nthe present day meet at every step in the investigation of aboriginal\nannals, result chiefly from the almost total destruction of the painted\nrecords, the carelessness of those who attempted to interpret the few\nsurviving documents at a time when such a task by native aid ought to\nhave been feasible, the neglect of the Spanish priesthood in allowing\nthe art of interpretation to be well-nigh lost, their necessary\nreliance for historical information on the popular knowledge above\nreferred to, and to a certain degree doubtless from their failure to\nproperly record information thus obtained.\n\nBut few native manuscripts have been preserved to the present time,\nand only a small part of those few are historical in their nature,\ntwo of the most important having been given in my second volume.[II-2]\nMost of the events indicated in such picture-writings as have been\ninterpreted are also narrated by the early writers from traditional\nsources. Thus we see that our knowledge of aboriginal history depends\nchiefly on the hieroglyphic records destroyed by the Spaniards, rather\nthan on the few fragments that escaped such destruction. To documents\nthat may be found in the future, and to a more careful study of those\nnow existing, we may look perhaps for much corrective information\nrespecting dates and other details, but it is not probable that newly\ndiscovered picture-writings or new readings of old ones will extend the\naboriginal annals much farther back into the past. These remarks apply\nof course only to the Aztec documents; the Maya records painted on skin\nand paper, or inscribed on stone, are yet sealed books, respecting the\nnature of whose contents conjecture is vain, but from which the future\nmay evolve revelations of the greatest importance.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THE SPANISH WRITERS.]\n\nClosely connected with the consideration of tradition and hieroglyphic\nrecords as authorities for my present subject, is that of the Spanish\nand native writers through whom for the most part American traditions,\nboth hieroglyphically recorded and orally transmitted--in fact, what\nwas known to the natives at the Conquest of their own past history--are\nmade known to the modern student. These were Catholic missionaries\nand their converts, numerous, zealous, and as a class honest writers.\nThrough an excess of religious zeal they had caused at the first\nirreparable harm by destroying the native records, but later they seem\nto have realized to a certain extent their error, and to have done\nall in their power to repair its consequences by zealously collecting\nsuch fragments of historical knowledge as had been preserved among\nthe people. Their works have passed the test of severe criticism,\nand the defects of each have been fairly pointed out, exaggerated, or\ndefended, according to the spirit of the critic; but the agreement of\nthe different works in general outline, and even their differences in\ndetail and their petty blunders, show that in their efforts to record\nall that could be ascertained of the history of the New World and the\ninstitutions of its people, their leading motive was the discovery\nof the truth, although they were swayed like other writers of their\ntime, and all other times, by the spirit of the age, and by various\nreligious, political, and personal prejudices.\n\nThe prevailing weakness of Spanish writers on America is well\nknown--their religious enthusiasm and strong attachment to church\ndogmas, which, in view of some of its consequences, is pronounced at\nleast mistaken zeal even by devoted churchmen of the present day. They\nbelieved in the frequent miraculous interposition of God in the work\nof converting the native pagans; in the instrumentality of the devil\nin the spiritual darkness preceding the Conquest. In their antiquarian\nresearches a passage of scripture as commented by the Fathers brought\ninfinitely stronger conviction to their minds than any sculptured\nmonument, hieroglyphic record, historical tradition, or law of nature.\nIn short, they were true Catholics of their time.[II-3] The prevalence\nof this religious spirit among the only men who had an opportunity\nto clear up some of the mysteries of the American past is to be\nregretted. They could have done their work much better without its\ninfluence; but, on the other hand, without such a motive as religious\nenthusiasm there is little probability that the work would have been\ndone at all. It is not only in American researches, however, that this\nimperfection prevails. As we recede from the present we find men more\nand more religious, and religion has ever been an imperious mistress,\nbrooking no rivalry on the part of reason. Reliance on superstition and\nprejudice, rather than facts and reason, is not more noticeable perhaps\nin works on ancient America than in other old works. The faith of the\nSpaniards renders their conclusions on origin and the earlier periods\nof primitive history valueless, but if that were all, the defect would\nbe of slight importance, for it is not likely that the natives knew\nanything of their own origin, and the Spaniards had no means not now\naccessible of learning anything on that subject from other sources. We\nmay well pardon them for finding St Thomas and his Christian teachings\nin the Toltec traditions of Quetzalcoatl; the ten lost tribes of Israel\nin the American aborigines; Noah's flood and the confusion of tongues\nin an Aztec picture of a man floating on the water and a bird speaking\nfrom a tree; provided they have left us a correct version of the\ntradition, a true account of the natives and their institutions, and an\naccurate copy of the picture referred to. But it is not improbable that\ntheir zeal gave a coloring to some traditions and suppressed others\nwhich furnished no support to the Biblical accounts, and were invented\nwholly in the interests of the devil. Fortunately it was chiefly\non the mythological traditions supposed to relate to the creation,\ndeluge, connection of the Americans with the Old World peoples, and\nother very remote events that they exercised their faith, rather than\non historical traditions proper; fortunately, because the matters of\norigin and the earliest primitive history were entirely beyond the\nreach of such authorities, even had they been represented with the most\nperfect accuracy.\n\nThe writings of the authors in question were moreover submitted to a\nrigorous system of censorship by Spanish councils and tribunals under\nthe control of the priesthood, without the approval of whose officials\nno work could be published. The spirit that animated these censors\nwas the same as that alluded to above, and their zeal was chiefly\ndirected to the discovery and expurgation of any lurking anti-Catholic\nsentiment. Many valuable works were doubtless suppressed, but such\nof them as were preserved in manuscript, or those whose contents have\nsince been made known, have not proved that the censors directed their\nefforts against anything but heterodoxy and unfavorable criticism of\nSpanish dealings with the natives.\n\nSpanish credulity accepted as facts many things which modern reason\npronounces absurd; shall we therefore reject all statements that\nrest on Spanish authority? Do we reject all the events of Greek and\nRoman history, because the historians believed that the sun revolved\nabout the earth, and attributed the ordinary phenomena of nature to\nthe actions of imaginary gods? Should we deny the historical value\nof the Old Testament records because they tell of Jonah swallowed by\na whale, and the sun ordered to stand still? Do we refuse to accept\nthe occurrences of modern Mexican history because many of the ablest\nMexican writers apparently believe in the apparition of Nuestra Se\u00f1ora\nde Guadalupe? And finally, can we reject the statements of able and\nconscientious men--many of whom devoted their lives to the study of\naboriginal character and history, from an honest desire to do the\nnatives good--because they deemed themselves bound by their priestly\nvows and the fear of the Inquisition to draw scriptural conclusions\nfrom each native tradition? The same remarks apply to the writings of\nconverted and educated natives, influenced to a great degree by their\nteachers; more prone, perhaps, to exaggeration through national pride,\nbut at the same time better acquainted with the native character and\nwith the interpretation of the native hieroglyphics. To pronounce all\nthese works deliberately executed forgeries, as a few modern writers\nhave done, is too absurd to require refutation.\n\nThe writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who derived\ntheir information from original sources, and on whose works all that\nhas been written subsequently is founded, comprise, 1st, the conquerors\nthemselves, chiefly Cort\u00e9s, Diaz del Castillo, and the Anonymous\nConqueror, whose writings only touch incidentally upon a few points of\nancient history. 2d. The first missionaries who were sent from Spain\nto supplement the achievements of Cort\u00e9s by spiritual conquests. Such\nwere Jos\u00e9 de Acosta, Bernardino Sahagun, Bartolom\u00e9 de Las Casas, Juan\nde Torquemada, Diego Duran, Ger\u00f3nimo de Mendieta, Toribio de Benavente\n(Motolinia), Diego Garc\u00eda de Palacio, Didaco Valades, and Alonzo de\nZurita. Of these Torquemada is the most complete and comprehensive,\nso far as aboriginal history is concerned, furnishing an immense\nmass of material drawn from native sources, very badly arranged and\nwritten. Duran also devotes a large portion of his work[II-4] to history,\nconfining himself chiefly, however, to the annals of the Aztecs. The\nother authorities named, although containing full accounts of the\nnatives and their institutions, devote comparatively little space\nto historical traditions; Sahagun is the best authority of all, so\nfar as his observations go in this direction. All have been printed,\neither in the original Spanish or in translations, except Las Casas,\nwhose great historical works exist only in manuscript. 3d. The native\nwriters who after their conversion acquired the Spanish language and\nwrote on the history of their people, either in Spanish or in their own\nlanguage, employing the Spanish alphabet. Most of them were thoroughly\nimbued with the spirit of their converters, and their writings as\na class are subject to the same criticism. Domingo Mu\u00f1oz Camargo,\na noble Tlascaltec, wrote, about 1585, a history of his own people,\nwhich has been published only in a French translation. Fernando de\nAlvarado Tezozomoc, descended from the royal family of Azcapuzalco,\nwrote the chronicles of Mexican history from the standpoint of the\nTepanecs, represented at the time of the Conquest by the kingdom of\nTlacopan. Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl was a grandson of the last\nking of Tezcuco, from whom he inherited all that were saved of the\nrecords in the public archives. His works are more extensive than\nthose of any other native writer, covering the whole ground of Nahua\nhistory, although treating more particularly of the Chichimecs, his\nancestors.[II-5]\n\n[Sidenote: SECONDARY AUTHORITIES.]\n\nIn this class should be included the reported but little known\nwritings of Juan Ventura Zapata y Mendoza, Tadeo de Niza, and Alonzo\nFranco.[II-6] There are also many manuscripts by native authors whose\nnames are unknown, brought to light by comparatively recent\nresearches, and preserved for the most part in the Brasseur and Aubin\ncollections in Paris. Their contents are unknown except through the\nwritings of the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur. The Popol Vuh is another important\ndocument, of which there are extant a Spanish and a French\ntranslation. 4th. Spanish authors who passed their lives mostly in\nSpain, and wrote chiefly under royal appointment. Their information\nwas derived from the writers already mentioned, from the official\ncorrespondence of the colonists, and from the narratives of returning\nadventurers. Most of them touched upon aboriginal history among other\ntopics. To this class belonged Peter Martyr, Francisco Lopez de\nGomara, Antonio de Herrera, and Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Vald\u00e9s.\n5th. Catholic priests and missionaries who founded or were in charge\nof the missions at later periods or in remote regions, as Yucatan,\nGuatemala, Chiapas, Oajaca, Michoacan, and the north-western provinces\nof New Spain. They wrote chiefly in the seventeenth and eighteenth\ncenturies, and treat principally of the conversion of the natives, but\ninclude also in many cases their historical traditions and their\nexplanations of the few aboriginal documents that fell into the\npossession of the converts. The number of such works is very great,\nand many of them have never been printed. Among the most important\nwriters of this class are Diego de Landa, Diego Lopez Cogolludo, Padre\nLizana, and Juan de Villagutierre Soto-Mayor, on Yucatan; Ramon de\nOrdo\u00f1ez y Aguiar,[II-7] Fuentes y Guzman,[II-8] F. E. Arana,[II-9]\nFrancisco Garc\u00eda Pelaez,[II-10] and Domingo Juarros, on Guatemala;\nFrancisco Nu\u00f1ez de la Vega,[II-11] Francisco Ximenez,[II-12] and\nAntonio de Remesal, on Chiapas; Ribas, Alegre, and Arricivita on the\nnorth-western provinces; and Francisco de Burgoa on Oajaca. To the\nabove should be added the regular records kept in all the missions,\nand the numerous letters and reports of the missionaries in distant\nprovinces, many of which have been preserved, and not a few printed.\nThere may also be included in this class the writings of some later\nMexican authors, such as Boturini, Sig\u00fcenza y G\u00f3ngora, Veytia, Leon y\nGama, and Clavigero. Their works were mostly founded on the\ninformation supplied by their predecessors, which they did much to\narrange and classify, but they also had access to some original\nauthorities not previously used. Clavigero is almost universally\nspoken of as the best writer on the subject, but it is probable that\nhe owes his reputation much more to his systematic arrangement and\nclear narration of traditions that had before been greatly confused,\nand to the omission of the most perplexing and contradictory points,\nthan to deep research or new discoveries.\n\nThe preceding classes include all the original authorities, that is,\nall founded on information not accessible to later writers. These\nworks have been the foundation of all that has been written since,\nexcept what has been developed from linguistic and other scientific\nresearches. All that modern authors have done may be followed step by\nstep, their facts as well as their conclusions.\n\nOf the secondary authorities already alluded to, the condition and\ninstitutions of the natives, with the material relics of their past,\nnot much need be said. It is only indirectly by means of comparisons\nthat these authorities can help us in the study of history. How\nlittle they can teach unaided is illustrated in the case of the wild\ntribes, for whose history they are practically the only authorities.\nIn Mexico and Central America the state of civilization as shown in\nnative art, religion, government, or manners and customs, may indicate\nby resemblances or dissimilarities a connection or want of it between\nthe different civilized tribes, and may thus corroborate or modify\ntheir written annals; it may even throw some light on the unity or\ndiversity of its own origin by showing the nature of the connection\nbetween the Nahua and Maya cultures, in which striking resemblances\nas well as contrasts are observed. Outside of the regions mentioned,\nwhere there were no tangible records, we can only search among the\nwilder tribes for points of likeness by which to attach their past to\nthat of the civilized nations. It may be foreseen that the results of\nsuch a search will be but meagre and unsatisfactory, yet on several\nimportant branches of the subject, such as the relation borne by the\nMound-Builders and Pueblos to the southern nations, it furnishes our\nonly light.\n\n[Sidenote: LANGUAGE AS A HISTORICAL AUTHORITY.]\n\nOf the historical aids now under consideration, ethnology proper,\nthe study of physical and mental characteristics, has yielded and\npromises apparently the least important results. In fact, as has\nbeen already pointed out in another part of this work, it has hardly\nacquired the right to be classed among the sciences, so far as its\napplication to the American people is concerned. Theoretically it\nmay, in a more perfect state of development than now exists, throw\nsome light on the route and order of American migrations, possibly\non the question of origin; thus far, however, ethnological studies\nhave been practically fruitless. Results obtained from a comparison\nof the miscellaneous arts and customs of various tribes have likewise\nfurnished and will continue to furnish but very slight assistance in\nhistorical investigations. Resemblances and dissimilarities in these\nrespects depend intimately on environment, which in comparatively\nshort periods works the most striking changes. Strongly marked\nanalogies are noted in tribes that never came in contact with each\nother, while contrasts as marked appear in people but a short time\nseparated. Under the same circumstances, after all, men do about the\nsame things, the mind originating like inventions; and coincidences\nin arts and customs, unless of an extraordinary nature, may be more\nsafely attributed to an independent origin resulting from environment,\nthan to international identity or connection. That language is by far\nthe best of these secondary authorities is conceded by all. No better\nproof of relationship between native tribes can be desired than the\nfact that they speak the same language, or dialects showing clear\nverbal and constructive resemblances. The most prominent abuse of this\nauthority has been a disposition to connect the past of tribes in whose\nlanguages slight and forced verbal similarities are pointed out. There\nis also some difference of opinion about the use of the authority.\nThat two tribes speaking the same languages or similar dialects have\nhad a common origin, or have at least been intimately connected in the\npast, as tribes, is evident; but how far back that origin or connection\nmay extend, whether it may reach back through the ages to the first\ndivision of the human race, or even to the first subdivision of the\nAmerican peoples, is a disputed point. Fortunately the doubts that have\nbeen raised concern chiefly the question of origin, which for other\nreasons cannot yet be settled.[II-13]\n\nHaving thus given a sketch of the sources to which we may look for\nall that is known and has been conjectured respecting the American\npast, I shall proceed to place before the reader in the remaining\nchapters of my work what these authorities reveal on the subject. I\nhave not, I believe, exaggerated their value, but fully comprehend the\nunsubstantial character which must be attributed to many of them. I am\nwell aware that aboriginal American history, like the ancient Egyptian\nand Hebrew annals, differs materially in its nature and degree of\naccuracy from the history of England since the expedition of William\nthe Conqueror, or of Mexico since the Conquest by Hernan Cort\u00e9s. I do\nnot propose to record such events only as may be made to conform to the\nmodern idea of chronologic exactitude, rejecting all else as fabulous\nand mythic. Were such my purpose, a chapter on the subject already\ngiven in the second volume would suffice, with some contraction for\nthe earlier epochs, and a corresponding expansion, perhaps, for Aztec\nhistory during the century immediately preceding the Conquest. On the\ncontrary, I shall tell the tale as I find it recorded, mingled as it\ndoubtless is at many points with myth and fable, and shall recount,\nas others have done, the achievements of heroes that possibly never\nlived, the wanderings of tribes who never left their original homes.\nIt is not in a spirit of real or feigned credulity that I adopt this\ncourse,--on the contrary, I wish to clearly discriminate between fact\nand fancy wherever such discrimination may be possible, and so far as\nan extensive study of my subject may enable me to do so--but it is in\naccordance with the general plan of the whole work to record all that\nis found, rejecting only what may be proven false and valueless rather\nthan what may possibly be so.\n\n[Sidenote: TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT.]\n\nI have compared the American past to a dark sea, from the bluff coast\nline of which projects an occasional cape terminating in precipitous\ncliffs, quicksands, and sunken rocks, beyond which some faint lights\nare floated by buoys. The old authors, as Torquemada, Clavigero, and\nVeytia, had but little difficulty in crossing from the headlands to the\ntower of Babel beyond the Sea of Darkness; they told the story, fables\nand all, with little discrimination save here and there the rejection\nof a tale infringing apparently on orthodoxy, or the expression of\na doubt as to the literal acceptation of some marvelous occurrence.\nOf modern authors, those who, like Wilson, refuse to venture upon\nthe projecting capes of solid rock and earth, who utterly reject the\nAztec civilization with all its records, are few, and at this day\ntheir writings may be considered as unworthy of serious notice. Other\nwriters, of whom Gallatin is a specimen, venture boldly from the main\ncoast to the extremity of each projecting point, and acknowledge the\nexistence of the rocks, sands, and buoys beyond, but decline to attempt\ntheir passage, doubting their security. These men, in favor of whose\nmethod there is much to be said, accept the annals of the later Aztec\nperiods, but look with distrust upon the traditions of the Chichimec,\nToltec, and Olmec epochs; and hardly see in the far distance the\ntwinkling floating lights that shine from Votan's Empire of Xibalba.\nThen there are writers who are continually dreaming they have found\nsecure footing by routes previously unknown, from rock to rock and\nthrough the midst of shifting sands. Such are the advocates of special\ntheories of American history resting on newly discovered authorities\nor new readings of old ones. They carefully sift out such mythic\ntraditions as fit their theories, converting them into incontrovertible\nfacts, and reject all else as unworthy of notice; these, however,\nhave chiefly to do with the matter of origin. Finally, I may speak\nof Brasseur de Bourbourg, rather a class by himself, perhaps, than\nthe representative of a class. This author, to speak with a degree\nof exaggeration, steps out without hesitation from rock to rock over\nthe deep waters; to him the banks of shifting quicksand, if somewhat\ntreacherous about the edges, are firm land in the central parts; to\nhim the faintest buoy-supported stars are a blaze of noon-day sun; and\nonly on the floating masses of sea-weed far out on the waters lighted\nup by dim phosphorescent reflections, does he admit that his footing is\nbecoming insecure and the light grows faint. In other words, he accepts\nthe facts recorded by preceding authors, arranges them often with\ngreat wisdom and discrimination, ingeniously finds a historic record\nin traditions by others regarded as pure fables, and thus pushes his\nresearch far beyond the limits previously reached. He rejects nothing,\nbut transforms everything into historic facts.\n\nIn the present sketch I wish to imitate to a certain extent the writers\nof each class mentioned, except perhaps the specialists, for I have\nno theory to defend, have found no new bright sun to illumine what\nhas ever been dark. With the Spanish writers I would tell all that\nthe natives told as history, and that without constantly reminding the\nreader that the sun did not probably stand still in the heavens, that\ngiants did not flourish in America, that the Toltec kings and prophets\ndid not live to the age of several hundred years, and otherwise\nwarning him against what he is in no danger whatever of accepting\nas truth. With Wilson and his class of antiquarian sceptics I would\nfeel no hesitation in rejecting the shallow theories and fancies\nevolved by certain writers from their own brain. With Gallatin I wish\nto discriminate clearly, when such discrimination is called for and\npossible, between the historic and the probably mythic; to indicate\nthe boundary between firm land and treacherous quicksand; but also\nlike Brasseur, I would pass beyond the firm land, spring from rock\nto rock, wade through shifting sands, swim to the farthest, faintest,\nlight, and catch at straws by the way;--yet not flatter myself while\nthus employed, as the abb\u00e9 occasionally seems to do, that I am treading\ndry-shod on a wide, solid, and well-lighted highway.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[II-1] Vol. ii., pp. 523-52.\n\n[II-2] pp. 544-9.\n\n[II-3] The fact that they were Spaniards and Catholics is enough to\ncondemn them with critics of a certain class, of which Adair may be\nquoted as an example: 'I lay little stress upon Spanish testimonies,\nfor time and ocular proof have convinced us of the labored falsehood\nof almost all their historical narrations.... They were so divested of\nthose principles inherent to honest enquirers after truth, that they\nhave recorded themselves to be a tribe of prejudiced bigots.' _Amer.\nInd._, p. 197.\n\n[II-4] _Historia Antigua de la Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, MS. of 1588, folio, 3\nvolumes. A part of this work has recently been printed in Mexico. I\nhave a manuscript copy made by Mr C. A. Spofford from that existing in\nthe Congressional Library in Washington.\n\n[II-5] Ixtlilxochitl has been the subject of much criticism favorable\nand otherwise. The verdict of the best authors seems to be that he\nwrote honestly, compiling from authentic documents in his possession,\nbut carelessly, especially in the matter of chronology which presents\ncontradictions on nearly every page. Even Wilson, _Conq. Mex._, pp.\n23, 61, who stigmatizes as liars all the early writers on this\nsubject, admits that Alva lies elegantly, and has written an able\nthough fictitious narrative. Carelessness in dates and a disposition\nto unduly exalt his own race and family, are the most glaring faults\nof this author, and are observable also to a certain extent in all the\nnative historians.\n\n[II-6] _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., p. 91; _Clavigero_,\n_Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 10; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_,\n_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 196.\n\n[II-7] _Historia de la Creacion del Cielo y de la Tierra, conforme al\nSistema de la gentilidad Americana._\n\n[II-8] _Recopilacion Florida de la Historia del Reyno de Guatemala_,\nMS. in the Guatemalan Archives.\n\n[II-9] _Memorial de Tecpan-Atitlan_, a history of the Cakchiquel\nKingdom, MS. discovered by Brasseur.\n\n[II-10] _Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo Reyno de Guatemala._\nGuatemala, 1852.\n\n[II-11] _Constituciones Diocesanas del Obispado de Chiappas._ Rome,\n1702.\n\n[II-12] Vol. iii. of a History of Chiapas and Guatemala, found by\nScherzer at the University of San Carlos. See _Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind.\nGuat._, pp. viii., xiii.\n\n[II-13] Languages, 'the most ancient historical monuments of nations.'\n'If in the philosophical study of the structure of languages, the\nanalogy of a few roots acquires value only when they can be\ngeographically connected together, neither is the want of resemblance\nin roots any very strong proof against the common origin of nations.'\n_Humboldt's Pers. Nar._, vol. v., pp. 143, 293. Language, 'which\nusually exhibits traces of its origin, even when the science and\nliterature, that are embodied in it, have widely diverged.'\n_Prescott's Mex._, vol. iii., p. 394. 'In the absence of historical\nevidence, language is the best test of consanguinity; there are\nreasons why climate should alter the physical character, but it does\nnot appear that the language would be materially affected by such\nlocal influence.' _Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man_, vol. i., p. xvi.\n'Efectivamente, la historia por s\u00ed sola nada nos descubre acerca del\nor\u00edgen de las naciones, muy poco nos ense\u00f1a sobre la mezcla y\nconfusion de las razas, casi nada nos dice de las emigraciones de los\npueblos, mientras todo esto lo esplica admirablemente el an\u00e1lisis y la\ninvestigacion del fil\u00f3logo.' _Pimentel_, _Discurso_, in _Soc. Mex.\nGeog., Boletin_, tom. viii., pp. 367-8. 'The problem of the common\norigin of languages has no necessary connection with the problem of\nthe common origin of mankind.... The science of language and the\nscience of Ethnology have both suffered most severely from being mixed\nup together. The classification of races and languages, should be\nquite independent of each other. Races may change their language and\nhistory supplies us with several instances where one race adopted the\nlanguage of another. Different languages, therefore, may be spoken by\ndifferent races; so that any attempt at squaring the classification of\nraces and tongues must necessarily fail.' _M\u00fcller's Science of Lang._,\nvol. i., pp. 326-7.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE PRE-TOLTEC PERIOD OF ABORIGINAL HISTORY.\n\n     Subdivision of the Subject -- Tzendal Tradition of the\n     Votanic Empire -- Votan's Book and its Contents as reported\n     by Nu\u00f1ez de la Vega, Cabrera, and Ordo\u00f1ez -- Testimony of\n     Manners and Customs, Religion, Languages, and Monuments of\n     the Civilized Nations respecting the Primitive Maya Peoples\n     -- The Quich\u00e9 Record, or Popol Vuh -- Civilizing Efforts\n     of Gucumatz and his Followers -- Exploits of Hunahpu and\n     Xbalanque -- Conquest of Xibalba -- Migration from Tulan\n     Zuiva, the Seven Caves -- Meaning of the Quich\u00e9 Tradition --\n     Nahua Traditions -- The Toltecs in Tamoanchan according to\n     Sahagun -- The Codex Chimalpopoca -- Pre-Toltec Nations in\n     Mexico -- Olmecs and Xicalancas -- The Quinames -- Cholula\n     and Quetzalcoatl -- The Totonacs -- Teotihuacan -- Otom\u00eds,\n     Miztecs, Zapotecs, and Huastecs -- The Toltecs in Huehue\n     Tlapallan -- Migration to An\u00e1huac -- The Chichimecs in\n     Amaquemecan -- Ancient Home of the Nahuatlacas and Aztecs --\n     Primitive Annals of Yucatan -- Conclusions.\n\n\n[Sidenote: TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT.]\n\n[Sidenote: DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT.]\n\nIn order to render more vivid than it would otherwise have been a\npicture of Nahua and Maya institutions as they were found in the\nsixteenth century, I have devoted one chapter of a preceding volume to\nan outline view of aboriginal history; to fill in so far as possible\nits details, is my remaining task. The sketch alluded to will prove\nconvenient here, since it will enable me at various points to refer\nintelligibly and yet briefly to events somewhat in advance of their\nchronologic order. As has been stated, the sixth century is the most\nremote period to which we are carried in the annals of An\u00e1huac by\ntraditions sufficiently definite to be considered in a strict sense as\nhistoric records. Prior to the sixth century there were doubtless other\nperiods of Nahua greatness, for there is little evidence to indicate\nthat this was the first appearance in Mexico of this progressive\npeople, but previous development cannot be definitely followed--in a\nhistorical sense--although affording occasional glimpses which supply\ninteresting matter for antiquarian speculation.\n\nIn the southern regions, where the Maya culture flourished, or what\nmay be considered geographically as Central America, we have seen that\nthe chronologic record is much less extensive and perfect even than in\nthe north, taking us back in an oft-broken line only a few centuries\nbeyond the Conquest. Yet we have caught traditional glimpses far back\nin the misty past of a mighty aboriginal empire in these tropical\nlands, of the earlier and grander stages of Maya culture, of Votan,\nof Xibalba, of even the early periods of Nahua civilization and power.\nPalenque, Copan, and their companions in ruin, the wonderful material\nmonuments of the ancient epoch, proving it to be no mere creation of\nthe imagination, have been described and pictured. With the breaking-up\nof the Maya empire into separate nations at an unknown date, the\naboriginal history of Central America as a whole ceases, and down to\na period closely preceding the Conquest, we have only an occasional\nevent, the memory of which is preserved in the traditions of two or\nthree nations.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe history of the Native Races may be most conveniently subdivided\nas follows;--1st. The Pre-Toltec Period, embracing the semi-mythic\ntraditions of the earliest civilization, extending down to a\ndate--always preceding the sixth century, but varying in different\nparts of the territory--when the more properly historic annals of\nthe different nations begin, and including also the few traditions\nreferring to pre-Toltec nations north of Tehuantepec. 2d. The Toltec\nPeriod, referring like the two following periods to An\u00e1huac alone,\nand extending down to the eleventh century. 3d. The Chichimec Period,\nextending from the eleventh century to the formation of the tri-partite\nalliance between the Aztecs, Acolhuas, and Tepanecs in the fifteenth\ncentury. 4th. The Aztec Period, that of Aztec supremacy during the\ncentury preceding the Conquest. 5th. The annals of such Nahua nations\noutside the limits of the Aztec Empire proper as cannot be conveniently\nincluded in the preceding divisions. 6th. Historical traditions of\nthe Wild Tribes of the north. 7th. The Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel nations of\nGuatemala. 8th. Miscellaneous nations and tribes of Central America.\n9th. The Maya nations of Yucatan.\n\nThe first division, the Pre-Toltec Period, to which the present chapter\nis devoted, will include the few vague traditions that seem to point to\nthe cradle of American civilization, to the Votanic empire, to Xibalba,\nand to the deeds of the civilizers, or culture-heroes, in Tabasco\nand Chiapas. Who can estimate the volumes that would be required for\na full narration of all that actually occurred within this period,\nhad the record been made or preserved;--the development, from germs\nwhose nature is unknown, of American civilization; the struggles and\nmisfortunes of infant colonies; the exploits of native heroes; plots\nof ambition, glorious success, utter failure; the rise and fall of\nprinces and of empires; wars, triumphs, defeats; oppression and revolt;\npolitical combinations and intrigues; religious strife between the\nfanatic devotees of rival divinities; seasons of plenty and of famine;\nearthquake, flood, and pestilence--a tangled network of events spread\nover the centuries;--to relate all that we may know of it a chapter\nwill suffice.\n\n[Sidenote: VOTAN AND HIS DEEDS.]\n\nI have told in another volume the mythic tale of Votan,[III-1] the\nculture-hero, how he came to America and apportioned the land among\nthe people. He came by divine command from Valum Chivim by way of Valum\nVotan, built a great city of Nachan, 'city of the serpents'--so called\nfrom his own name, for he was of the race of Chan, a Serpent--and\nfounded a great empire in the Usumacinta region, which he seems to have\nruled over as did his descendants or followers for many centuries. He\nwas not regarded in the native traditions as the first man in America;\nhe found the country peopled, as did all the culture-heroes, but by\nhis teachings and by the aid of his companions he firmly established\nhis own ideas of religion and government. So far as his memory was\npreserved by tradition he was a civilizer, a law-giver, the introducer\nof the Maya culture, worshiped moreover, after his disappearance, as\na god. He came by sea from the east, but with the locality whence\nhe started I have nothing to do here; neither is it necessary to\nindulge in speculation respecting the four mysterious visits which\nhe paid after his arrival in America to his original home in the Old\nWorld, where it is gravely asserted he was present at the building\nof Solomon's temple and saw the ruins of the tower of Babel. His\nreported acts in the New World, whose people he came to civilize,\nwere;--the dividing or apportioning of the lands among the people;\ntheir instruction in the new institutions they were required to adopt;\nthe building of a great city, Nachan, afterwards the metropolis of\nan empire; the reception of a new band of disciples of his own race,\nwho were allowed to share in the success already achieved by his\nenterprise; the subdividing of his empire after its power had become\nwide-spread in the land into several allied monarchies subordinate in\na certain degree to Nachan, among whose capitals were Tulan, Mayapan,\nand Chiquimula; the construction of a subterranean road or 'snake hole'\nfrom the barranca of Zuqui to Tzequil; the deposit of a great treasure\nwith tapirs as sacred animals in a 'house of gloom' at Huehuetan in\nSoconusco, protected by guardians called _tlapianes_, at whose head\nwas a Lady Superior; and finally the writing of a 'book' in which was\ninscribed a complete record of all he had done, with a defense or proof\nof his claims to be considered one of the Chanes, or Serpents.[III-2]\n\n[Sidenote: THE BOOK OF VOTAN.]\n\nThis document is the authority, indirectly, for nearly all that is\nknown from Tzendal sources of Votan and his empire. Francisco Nu\u00f1ez de\nla Vega, Bishop of Chiapas, claims to have had in his possession[III-3] and\nto have read this historical tract. He does not describe it, but from\nhis having been able to read the contents, it would seem to have been,\nif genuine, not the original in hieroglyphics but an interpretation\nin European letters, although still perhaps in the Tzendal language.\nOf the contents, besides a general statement of Votan's coming as\nthe first man sent by God to portion out the land, and some of his\nexperiences in the Old World, this author says nothing definite.\nHe claims to have had much knowledge of Tzendal antiquity derived\nfrom the work mentioned and other native writings, but he feared to\nperpetuate this knowledge lest it might \"confirm more strongly an\nidolatrous superstition.\" He is the only authority for the deposit of\nthe treasure in the Dark House at Huehuetan, without saying expressly\nthat he derived his information from Votan's writings. This treasure,\nconsisting of aboriginal relics, the bishop felt it to be his duty\nto destroy, and it was publicly burned in 1691. It is not altogether\nimprobable that a genuine Maya document similar to the _Manuscript\nTroano_ or _Dresden Codex_,[III-4] preserved from the early times, may\nhave found a native interpreter at the time of the Conquest, and\nhave escaped in its disguise of Spanish letters the destruction that\novertook its companions.\n\nThe next notice of this manuscript is found in the writings of Dr Paul\nFelix Cabrera,[III-5] who in the last part of the eighteenth century found\nit in the possession of Don Ramon de Ordo\u00f1ez y Aguiar, a native and\nresident of Ciudad Real in Chiapas.[III-6] He describes the document as\nconsisting of \"five or six folios of common quarto paper, written in\nordinary characters in the Tzendal language, an evident proof of its\nhaving been copied from the original in hieroglyphics, shortly after\nthe conquest.\"[III-7] The manuscript, according to Cabrera, recounted\nVotan's arrival with seven families, to whom he apportioned the lands;\nhis voyages to the Old World; and his reception of the new-comers.\nReturning from one of his voyages \"he found seven other families of the\nTzequil nation, who had joined the first inhabitants, and recognized\nin them the same origin as his own, that is, of the Culebras. He\nspeaks of the place where they built their first town, which, from its\nfounders, received the name of Tzequil; he affirms the having taught\nthem refinement of manners in the use of the table, table-cloth, etc.;\nthat, in return for these, they taught him the knowledge of God and of\nhis worship; his first ideas of a king and obedience to him; and that\nhe was chosen captain of all these united families.\"\n\nOrdo\u00f1ez, at the time of Cabrera's visit, was engaged in writing his\ngreat 'History of the Heaven and Earth,'[III-8] a work, as the learned\nDoctor predicts, to be \"so perfect in its kind, as will completely\nastonish the world.\" The manuscript was never published, part of the\nhistorical portion was lost, and the remaining fragments or copies\nof them fell into the hands of Brasseur de Bourbourg, whose writings\ncontain all that is known of their contents; and it must be confessed\nthat from these fragments little or nothing of value has been extracted\nby the abb\u00e9 in addition to what Nu\u00f1ez de la Vega and Cabrera had\nalready made known. Ordo\u00f1ez was familiar with the Tzendal language\nand character, with the ancient monuments of his native state, and\nwas zealously devoted to antiquarian researches; he had excellent\nopportunities to collect and record such scraps of knowledge as\nthe Tzendal tribes had preserved from the days of their ancestors'\ngreatness;[III-9] but his enthusiasm seems rather to have led him to\nprofitless speculations on the original population of the New World and\n\"its progress from Chaldea immediately after the confusion of tongues.\"\nEven after rejecting the absurd theories and speculations which seem\nto have constituted the bulk of his writings, one cannot help looking\nwith some distrust on the few traditional statements respecting Votan\nnot given by other authors, and thinking of possible transformations\nthat may have been effected in Tzendal fables under the pens of two\nwriters like Ordo\u00f1ez and Brasseur, both honest investigators, but\nof that enthusiastic class of antiquarians who experience few or no\ndifficulties.\n\n[Sidenote: TZENDAL TRADITIONS.]\n\nThe few items of information respecting the Votanic period not already\nmentioned, some of them not in themselves improbable, but few traceable\nto any very definite native source, are the following: The date of the\nfoundation of the empire, according to Ordo\u00f1ez, was about 1000 B.C.\nWhether he had any other reason for this supposition than his theory\nthat the building of Solomon's temple, attributed by some writers\nto that period, took place during Votan's life, is uncertain. The\nname Tzequiles, applied to Votan's followers by the aborigines,--or\nrather, it would seem, by the first to the second division of the\nSerpents--is said to mean in Tzendal 'men with petticoats,' and to have\nbeen applied to the new-comers by reason of their peculiar dress.[III-10]\nTo them was given, after the permanent establishment of the empire,\none of the great kingdoms into which it was divided, with Tulan as\ntheir capital city. This kingdom with two others, whose capitals were\nMayapan in Yucatan and Chiquimula, possibly Copan, in Honduras, were\nallied with, yet to a certain degree subordinate to, the original\nempire whose capital was Nachan, built and ruled by Votan himself and\nhis descendants. The only names which seem to have been applied in the\nTzendal traditions to the people and their capital city were Chanes,\nor Serpents, and Nachan, or City of Serpents; but these names acquire\nconsiderable historical importance when it is noted that they are the\nexact equivalents of Culhuas and Culhuacan, names which will be found\nso exasperatingly prevalent in the Nahua traditions of the north.\nOrdo\u00f1ez claims, however, that the name Quich\u00e9, at a later period that\nof a Guatemalan kingdom, was also in these earlier times applied to\nVotan's empire.[III-11]\n\nOf Votan's death there is no tradition, nor is anything definite\nreported of his successors, save, what is perhaps only a conjecture,\nthat their names are recorded in the Tzendal calendar as the names of\ndays,[III-12] the order being that of their succession. In this case it is\nnecessary to suppose that Votan had two predecessors, Igh and Imox; and\nin fact Brasseur claims to find in one document a statement that Igh\nbrought the first colony to America.[III-13] Chinax, the last but two of\nthe line, a great soldier, is said to have been put to death by a rival\nof another nation.[III-14] Nu\u00f1ez de la Vega notes the existence of a family\nof Votans in his time, claiming direct descent from the great founder;\nand Brasseur states that a wild tribe of the region are yet known as\nChanes.[III-15]\n\n[Sidenote: THE VOTANIC EMPIRE.]\n\nSuch are the vague memories of the Chiapan past so far as they were\npreserved by the natives of the region, and collected by Europeans.\nThe nature of the traditions themselves, the sources whence they\nsprang, the medium through which they are given to us, are not such\nas to inspire great confidence in the accuracy of the details related,\nalthough some of the traditions are not improbable and were very likely\nfounded on actual occurrences. But whatever value may be attached\nto their details, the traditions in question have great weight in\nestablishing two general propositions--the existence in the remote\npast of a great and powerful empire in the Usumacinta region, and a\ngeneral belief among the subjects of that empire that the beginning\nof their greatness was due to a hero or demi-god called Votan. They\npoint clearly to the appearance and growth of a great race, nation,\nor dynasty; and they carry us no farther. Respecting the questions\nwho or what was Votan, man or mythic creation, populator, colonizer,\ncivilizer, missionary, conqueror, foreign or native born? When, how,\nand whence did he come to the central tierra caliente? Who were the\npeople among whom he wrought his mighty deeds, and what was their past\nhistory? we are left to simple conjecture,--conjecture of a class which\nfalls without the limits of my present purpose, and to which the first\nchapter of this volume has been devoted. Doubtless the Votanic was not\nthe first period of American civilization and power, but none earlier\nis known to us. In addition to the Tzendal traditions there are several\nother authorities bearing more or less directly on this primitive\nempire, which I proceed to investigate.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the second volume of this work I have described the physique,\ncharacter, manners and customs, arts, and institutions of the civilized\nnations of our territory, dividing them into two great families or\ngroups, the Mayas and the Nahuas, \"the former the more ancient, the\nlatter the more recent and wide-spread.\" The many contrasts observed\nbetween the institutions of the northern and southern nations seemed\nsufficiently marked to outweigh the frequently recurring resemblances,\nand to justify me in the opinion there expressed that their culture\nhad either been distinct from the beginning, or--what is more probable\nand for my purpose practically the same thing--that it had progressed\nin different paths for a long time previous to the coming of the\nSpaniards. The contrasts observed were attributed to a distinct origin\nof the two national groups, or, with more probability, to their long\nseparation; while the analogies were to be referred either to unity\nof origin, to the tendency of humanity to like development under like\ncircumstances, to frequent communication and friction by commerce or\nwar, or still better, to the influence of all these causes combined.\n\n[Sidenote: THE MAYAS AND NAHUAS.]\n\nThe picture presented in the third volume of the myths and languages of\nthe same nations favored the view previously taken. In the religious\nfancies, divinities, forms of worship, ideas of a future state,\nphysical, animal, and creation myths, to which the first part of\nthe volume was devoted, the analogies, it is true, seemed somewhat\nstronger and the contrasts less striking than in the characteristics\npreviously portrayed; this was perhaps because the myths of any people\npoint farther back into their past than do the so-called manners and\ncustoms; but in the consideration of languages which followed, the\ncontrasts between the two groups came out more distinctly marked than\nat any previous stage of the investigation. A very large proportion\nof the tongues of the civilized nations were found to belong more or\nless closely to one or the other of two linguistic families. Finally,\nin the fourth volume a study of material relics tended very strongly\nto confirm the opinion before arrived at respecting the development\nof Maya and Nahua culture in distinct channels, at least during the\nhistoric period. I need not repeat here even en r\u00e9sum\u00e9 the facts\nexhibited in the preceding volumes, nor the lessons that have at\ndifferent points been drawn from them; but I may briefly mention some\ngeneral conclusions founded on the preceding matter which bear on my\npresent purpose of historical investigation. First, as already stated,\nthe Maya and Nahua nations have been within traditionally historic\ntimes practically distinct, although coming constantly in contact.\nSecond, this fact is directly opposed to the once accepted theory of a\ncivilized people, coming from the far north, gradually moving southward\nwith frequent halts, constantly increasing in power and culture, until\nthe highest point of civilization was reached in Chiapas, Honduras,\nand Yucatan, or as many believed in South America. Third, the theory\nalluded to is rendered altogether untenable by the want of ruins in\nCalifornia and the great north-west; by the utter want of resemblance\nbetween New Mexican and Mexican monuments; by the failure to discover\neither Aztec or Maya dialects in the north; and finally by the strong\ncontrasts between the Nahuas and Mayas, both in language and in\nmonuments of antiquity. Fourth, the monuments of the south are not\nonly different from but much more ancient than those of An\u00e1huac, and\ncannot possibly have been built by the Toltecs after their migration\nfrom An\u00e1huac in the eleventh century, even if such a migration took\nplace. Fifth, these monuments, like those of the north, were built by\nthe ancestors of the people found in possession of the country at the\nConquest, and not by an extinct race or in remote antiquity.[III-16] Sixth,\nthe cities of Palenque, Ococingo, and Copan, at least, were unoccupied\nwhen the Spaniards came; the natives of the neighboring region knew\nnothing of their origin even if they were aware of their existence,\nand no notice whatever of the existence of such cities appears in\nthe annals of the surrounding civilized nations during the eight or\nnine centuries preceding the Conquest; that is, the nation that built\nPalenque was not one of those found by Europeans in the country, but\nits greatness had practically departed before the rise of the Quich\u00e9,\nCakchiquel, and Yucatan powers. Seventh, the many resemblances that\nhave been noted between Nahua and Maya beliefs, institutions, arts,\nand relics, may be consistently accounted for by the theory that at\nsome period long preceding the sixth century the two peoples were\npractically one so far as their institutions were concerned, although\nthey are of themselves not sufficient to prove the theory. Eighth,\nthe oldest civilization in America which has left any traces for our\nconsideration, whatever may have been its pre-historic origin, was\nthat in the Usumacinta region represented by the Palenque group of\nruins.[III-17]\n\nIt is not likely that Am\u00e9ricanistes of the present day will disagree\nmaterially with the preceding conclusions, especially as they do not\npositively assert the southern origin of the Nahua peoples or deny\ntheir traditional migration from the north. The general theory alluded\nto of a great migration from north to south, and the theory of a\ncivilized race of foreign origin extinct long before the Conquest,\nwill find few defenders in view of the results of modern research. It\nis true that many writers attribute more or less positively the grand\nruins of Central America to the Toltecs after their migration southward\nin the eleventh century; but their decision has been generally reached\nwithout even considering the possible existence of any other civilized\nnation in the annals of American antiquity. Their studies have shown\nthem that Palenque was not the work of an extinct race, and they have\nconsequently attributed the ruins to the oldest people mentioned in\nthe popular version of American traditional history--the Toltecs, and\nthe more naturally because that people, according to the tradition, had\nmigrated southward. Mr Stephens, who arrived at this conclusion in the\nmanner indicated, admits that from a study of the ruins themselves he\nwould have assigned the foundation of the cities to a much more remote\nperiod.[III-18]\n\n[Sidenote: MONUMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS.]\n\nThus the monumental relics of Central America by themselves and by\ncomparisons with other American ruins, point directly to the existence\nof a great empire in the Palenque region; and the observed phenomena\nof myths, language, and institutions agree perfectly with such a\nconclusion, which, however, unaided, they could not have established.\nWe may then accept as a reality the Votanic Maya empire on the\nauthority of the native traditions confirmed by the tangible records of\nruined cities, and by the condition of the southern civilized nations\nin the sixteenth century. It is more than probable that Palenque was\nthe capital, as Ordo\u00f1ez believes--the Nachan of the Votanic epoch--and\nnot improbable that Ococingo, Copan, and some of the older Yucatec\ncities were the centres of contemporaneous, perhaps allied powers.[III-19]\n\n[Sidenote: TRADITIONS OF THE QUICH\u00c9S.]\n\nI pass next to the traditions of the Quich\u00e9 nations as preserved in\nthe _Popol Vuh_, or National Book, and known to the world through\nthe Spanish translation of Ximenez and the French of Brasseur de\nBourbourg.[III-20] These traditions, the authenticity and general accuracy\nof which there is no reason to doubt, constitute a hopelessly entangled\nnetwork of mythic tales, without chronology, but with apparent\nalthough vague references here and there, to actual events in the\nprimitive history of the peoples whose descendants were the Quich\u00e9s\nand Cakchiquels, and with a more continuous account in the closing\nchapters, of the Quich\u00e9 annals of a much later period, immediately\npreceding the Conquest. In the introduction we read: \"This is the\norigin of the ancient history of Quich\u00e9. Here we write the annals of\nthe past, the beginning of all that has taken place in the city of\nQuich\u00e9, among the tribes of the Quich\u00e9 nations. Behold we bring about\nthe manifestation of what was in obscurity, its first dawning by the\nwill of the Creator and of the Former, of Him who begets and of Him who\ngives being. Their names are Hunahpu Vuch--'shooter of the blowpipe at\nthe opossum,' Hunahpu Ut\u00efu--'shooter of the blowpipe at the coyote,'\nZaki Nima Tzyiz--'great white pricker,' Tepeu--the 'dominator,' and\nGucumatz--the 'plumed serpent;' Heart of the Lakes, Heart of the Sea,\nMaster of the Verdant Planisphere, Master of the Azure Surface. Thus\nit is that these also are named, sung, and celebrated--the grandmother\nand the grandfather, whose names are Xpiyacoc and Xmucane, preserver\nand protectrice; twice grandmother and twice grandfather, as it is\nstated in the Quich\u00e9 annals; concerning whom was related all that\nthey did afterwards in the light of life, in the light of the word,\n(civilization). Behold that which we shall write after the word of\nGod, and in Christianity; we shall bring it to light because the _Popol\nVuh_, the national book, is no longer visible, in which it was clearly\nseen that we came from beyond the sea--'the narrative of our life\nin the land of shadow, and how we saw the light and life,' as it is\ncalled. It is the first book, written in olden times; but its view is\nhidden from him who sees and thinks. Wonderful is its appearance, and\nthe narrative of the time when he (the Creator) finished everything in\nheaven and on earth.\"[III-21]\n\nThen follows an account, which has already been presented in a\ncondensed translation,[III-22] of a time when all was silent, and there\nwas yet no earth, and no living thing, only the immobility and silence\nof a boundless sea, on the surface of which floated the Creator and\nhis companion deities named above, including Gucumatz, the 'plumed\nserpent.' Then the light appeared and the earth with its vegetation\nwas created by Gucumatz and the Dominator at the word of Hurakan,\nHeart of Heaven, the Thunderbolt. Life and fecundity were given to the\nanimals and birds, who were distributed as guardians of the forests\nand mountains, and called upon to speak and praise the names of those\nthat had made them; but the poor animals, after efforts twice repeated,\ncould not obey, and were assigned a position far below that which they\nhad been intended to fill. Two attempts at the creation of intelligent\nbeings followed, both failures. First man was made of earth, and\nalthough he could speak, he was intellectually stupid and physically\nclumsy, unable to stand erect, and soon mingled with the water like a\nman of mud. He was destroyed by the disgusted creators. The sorcerers,\nXpiyacoc and Xmucane, grandmothers of the sun and of the moon, were\nconsulted in the second creation, and the 'chief of Toltecat' is\nmentioned in addition to the names already given. Lots were cast, all\nneedful precautions were taken, and man was made again of wood and\npith; but he lacked intelligence, led a useless life, and forgot the\nHeart of Heaven. They became numerous on the face of the earth, but\nthe gods were wroth and sent upon them a flood, and a resinous shower\nfrom heaven; their houses refused to cover them, the trees shook them\nfrom the branches where they sought shelter, the animals and even the\nhousehold implements turned against the poor wooden men, reviling and\npersecuting them, until all were destroyed, save a few who remained as\na memorial in the form of apes.[III-23]\n\nAt this point the character of the narrative changes somewhat, and,\nalthough an account of a third and final creation of man, given on a\nsubsequent page,[III-24] should, in the opinion of Brasseur, be introduced\nhere, I proceed with a r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of the Quich\u00e9 tradition in the order\nof its arrangement in both the Spanish and French version, devoting a\nparagraph to each chapter of the French translation.\n\nThere was sky and earth, but little light; and a man named Vucub Cakix,\n'seven aras, or paroquets,' was puffed up with pride and said, \"those\nthat were drowned were like supernatural beings;[III-25] now will I be\ngreat above all created beings. I am their sun and their moon; great\nis my splendor.\" He was not the sun, nor did his view reach over the\nwhole earth, but he was proud of his riches. This was when the flood\ndestroyed the wooden manikins. Now we will tell when Vucub Cakix was\ndefeated and man was made.\n\n[Sidenote: VUCUB CAKIX AND ZIPACNA.]\n\nThis is the cause of his destruction by two young men, Hunahpu (or\nHunhunahpu) and Xbalanque, 'little tiger,' who were really gods, and\nthought it not good that Vucub Cakix should swell with pride and offend\nthe Heart of Heaven; and they plotted against his life and wealth.\nHe had two sons, Zipacna and Cabrakan, the 'earthquake,' by his wife\nChimalmat. Zipacna's work was to roll the great mountains which he made\nin a night, and which Cabrakan shook at will. The death of the father\nand son was resolved upon by the two young men.\n\nVucub Cakix was shot by them while eating the fruit called _nanze_ in\na tree-top, and his jaw broken, although in revenge he carried home the\narm of Hunahpu, which he hung over the fire. But an old man and an old\nwoman, Zaki Nim Ak and Zaki Nima Tzyiz--divinities already named, in\nhuman disguise--were induced by the two young men to volunteer their\nservices in curing the jaw of Vucub Cakix, who seems to have been a\nking, for they found him on his throne howling with pain. They pulled\nout his broken teeth of precious stones, in which he took great pride,\nsubstituting grains of maize; they dimmed his eyes, took away his\nriches, and recovered the missing arm. Then the king died as did his\nwife, and the purpose of Hunahpu and Xbalanque was accomplished against\nhim who was proud and regarded not the will of the Heart of Heaven.\n\nThese are the deeds of Zipacna, son of Vucub Cakix, who claimed to\nbe creator of the mountains. Bathing at the river-side he found four\nhundred young men striving in vain to carry away a tree which they\nhad cut. Generously he bore the burden for them, and was invited to\njoin their band, being an orphan; but they soon plotted against him,\ncasting a tree upon him in a deep pit they had employed him to dig. He\ncunningly took refuge in a branch gallery, cut off his hair and nails\nfor the ants to carry up to his foes, waited until the four hundred had\nbecome intoxicated in their rejoicing at his supposed death, emerged\nfrom the pit, and toppled over their house upon them so that not one\nescaped.\n\nBut in his turn Zipacna was conquered by Hunahpu and Xbalanque, who\nwere grieved that the four hundred had perished. Zipacna, bearing the\nmountains by night, wandered in the day by the river and lived on fish\nand crabs; by an artificial crab his two foes enticed him in a time of\nhunger to crawl on all fours into a cavern at the bottom of a ravine,\nwhere the mountain, previously mined, fell upon him. Thus perished and\nwas turned to stone, at the foot of Mt Meavan, the self-styled 'maker\nof the mountains,' the second who by his pride displeased the deities.\n\nOne only now remained, Cabrakan. \"It is I who destroy the mountains,\"\nhe said; but it was the will of Hurakan, 'the thunderbolt,' that his\npride also should be humbled, and the order was given to Hunahpu and\nXbalanque. They found him at his favorite employment of overturning\nthe hills, enticed him eastward to exhibit his skill and overthrow a\nparticularly high mountain which they claimed to have seen, killed a\nbird with their blowpipe on the way, and poisoned it with earth before\nit was given Cabrakan to eat. Thus was his strength destroyed; he\nfailed to move the mountain, was tied, and buried.\n\n[Sidenote: THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.]\n\nThus ends the first of the four divisions of the _Popol Vuh_.[III-26]\nNext we are to hear something of the birth and family of Hunahpu and\nXbalanque. The recital is, however, to be covered with mystery, and\nonly half is to be told of the relation of their father.[III-27] Xpiyacoc\nand Xmucane had two sons, Hunhunahpu and Vukub Hunahpu, the first being\nas the French translation unintelligibly renders it a sort of double\npersonage. The former had also by his wife Xbakiyalo two sons, Hunbatz\nand Hunchouen, very wise, great artists, and skillful in all things;\nthe latter never married. All four spent the day in playing at dice and\nat ball, and Voc, the messenger of Hurakan, came to see them, Voc who\nremained not far from here nor far from Xibalba.[III-28] After the death of\nXbakiyalo, the two played ball, journeying toward Xibalba, having left\nHunbatz and Hunchouen behind, and this became known to Hun Came and\nVukub Came, monarchs of Xibalba, who called together the council of the\nempire and sent to summon them or to challenge them to a game of ball,\nthat they might be defeated and disgraced.\n\nThe messengers were owls, four in number; and the players, after a\nsad parting from their mother, Xmucane, and from the young Hunbatz\nand Hunchouen, followed them down the steep road to Xibalba from\nthe ball-ground of Nimxob Carchah.[III-29] Crossing ravines and rivers,\nincluding one of blood, they came to the royal palace of Xibalba, and\nsaluted two wooden figures as monarchs, to the great amusement of the\nlatter and the assembled princes. Then the brothers were invited to a\nplace on the seat of honor, which proved to be a red-hot stone, and the\ncontortions of the guests when they sat upon it provoked a new burst of\nlaughter which well-nigh resulted in apoplexy. Five ordeals are here\nmentioned as existing in Xibalba, to the first of which only, that of\nthe House of Gloom,[III-30] were the brothers subjected; then they were\nsacrificed and their bodies buried together. But the head of Hunhunahpu\nwas hung in a tree, which at once became covered with gourds from which\nthe head could not be distinguished, and it was forbidden to all in\nXibalba to approach that tree.\n\nBut Xquiq, a virgin princess, daughter of Cuchumaquiq, heard of\nthe tree, and went alone to taste the forbidden fruit. Into her\noutstretched hand the head of Hunhunahpu spat, and the spittle caused\nthe young girl to conceive, and she returned home, after a promise from\nthe head that no harm should result to her. All this was by the order\nof Hurakan. After six months her condition was observed by her father,\nand in spite of her protestations that she had known no man, the owls,\nthe royal messengers, were ordered to sacrifice her and bring back her\nheart in a vase. She persuaded and bribed the royal officers, however,\nby the promise of future emoluments, to carry back to the kings the\ncoagulated sap of the blood-wort instead of her blood and heart, and\nshe escaped; thus were Hun Came and Vukub Came tricked by this young\ngirl.\n\nXquiq, far advanced in pregnancy, went for protection to the place\nwhere Xmucane was living with the young Hunbatz and Hunchouen. The old\nwoman was not disposed at first to credit the stranger's tale that she\nwas with child by Hunhunahpu, and therefore entitled to protection as\na granddaughter at the hands of Xmucane; but by calling upon the gods\nand gathering a basket of maize where no maize was growing, the young\ngirl proved the justice of her claim, and was received by the great\ngrandmother of her unborn children.\n\n[Sidenote: HUNAHPU AND XBALANQUE.]\n\nThe virgin mother brought forth twin sons, and they were named Hunahpu\nand Xbalanque. From their very birth they were ill-treated. They were\nturned out of the house by their grandmother for crying, and throughout\nchildhood and youth were abused by Hunbatz and Hunchouen, by reason of\njealousy. They passed their time shooting birds in the mountains with\ntheir blowpipes, while their brothers, great musicians, painters, and\nsculptors, remained at home singing and playing the flute. But at last\nHunbatz and Hunchouen were changed by the young heroes into monkeys.\nXmucane was filled with sadness, and she was offered the privilege of\nbeholding again the faces of her favorite grandsons, if she could do\nso without laughing; but their grimaces and antics were too ludicrous;\nthe old lady failed in three interviews to restrain her laughter, and\nHunbatz and Hunchouen appeared no more. Hunahpu and Xbalanque became in\ntheir turn musicians and played the air of _hunahpu qoy_, the 'monkey\nof Hunahpu.'[III-31]\n\nThe first work undertaken by the twins was the clearing of a milpa\nor cornfield. It was not very difficult on the first day, for their\nenchanted tools worked by themselves while the young agriculturists\nwent hunting, taking care to put dirt on their faces and to pretend\nto be at work when their grandmother brought their lunch at noon. In\nthe night, however, the wild beasts met and replaced all the trees and\nshrubbery that the brothers had removed. Hunahpu and Xbalanque watched\nfor them the next night, but in spite of their efforts the beasts all\nescaped--although the deer and rabbit lost their tails--except the rat,\nwhich was caught in a handkerchief. The rat's life was spared by the\nyouths and in return this animal revealed the glorious deeds of their\nfathers and uncles, their games at ball, and the existence of a ball\nof India rubber with other implements of the game which they had left\nabout the house. All of the implements and the ball came into their\npossession with the knowledge of the secret.\n\nJoyful at their discovery Hunahpu and Xbalanque went away to play in\nthe ball-ground of their fathers, and the monarchs of Xibalba, Hun\nCame and Vukub Came, heard them and were angry, and sent messengers\nto summon them as their fathers had been summoned to play at Xibalba.\nThe messengers came to the house of Xmucane, who, filled with alarm,\ndispatched a louse to carry the summons to her grandsons. On the way\nthe louse consented, to insure greater speed, to be swallowed by a\ntoad, the toad by a serpent, and the serpent by the great bird Voc. On\narrival a series of vomitings ensued, until the toad was free; but in\nspite of his most desperate efforts he could not throw up the louse,\nwho, it seems, had played him a trick, lodged in his gums, and not been\nswallowed at all. However, the message was delivered, and the players\nreturned home to take leave of their grandmother and mother. Before\ntheir departure they planted each a cane in the middle of the house,\nthe fate of which should depend upon their own, since it would wither\nat their death.\n\nThe ball-players set out for Xibalba by the route their fathers had\nfollowed, passing the bloody river and the river Papuhya; but they sent\nin advance an animal called Xan, with a hair of Hunahpu's leg to prick\nthe kings and princes. Thus they detected the artificial men of wood,\nand also learned the names of all the princes by their exclamations and\nmutual inquiries when pricked. On their arrival at court they refused\nto salute the manikins or to sit upon the red-hot stone; they even\npassed through the first ordeal in the House of Gloom, thus thrice\navoiding the tricks which had been played upon their fathers.\n\nThe kings were astonished and very angry, and the game of ball was\nplayed, and those of Xibalba were beaten. Then Hun Came and Vukub\nCame required the victors to bring them four bouquets of flowers,\nordering the guards of the royal gardens to watch most carefully, and\ncommitted Hunahpu and his brother to the House of Lances--the second\nordeal--where the lancers were directed to kill them. Yet a swarm of\nants in the brothers' service entered easily the royal gardens, the\nlancers were bribed, and the sons of Xquiq were still victorious. Those\nof Xibalba turned pale, and the owls, guards of the royal gardens, were\npunished by having their lips split.\n\nHunahpu and Xbalanque were subjected to the third ordeal in the House\nof Cold, but warmed by burning pine-cones they were not frozen. So in\nthe fourth and fifth ordeals, since they passed a night in the House\nof Tigers and in the House of Fire without suffering injury; but in the\nHouse of Bats, although the occupants did them no harm, Hunahpu's head\nwas cut off by Camazotz, 'ruler of bats,' who came from on high.\n\nThe beheading of Hunahpu was by no means fatal, but after a combination\nof events utterly unintelligible, including an assemblage of all the\nanimals, achievements particularly brilliant by the turtle and rabbit,\nand another contest at ball-playing, the heroes came out uninjured from\nall the ordeals to which they were subjected in Xibalba.\n\n[Sidenote: DEATH OF THE TWIN BROTHERS.]\n\nAt last, instructing two sorcerers, Xulu and Pacam, that those of\nXibalba had failed because the brutes were not on their side, and\ndirecting them also what to do with their bones, Hunahpu and Xbalanque\nstretched themselves voluntarily face down on a funeral pile, still in\nXibalba, and died together. Their bones were pulverized and thrown into\nthe river, where they sank and were changed into fine young men.\n\nOn the fifth day they re-appeared, like man-fishes; and on the day\nfollowing in the form of ragged old men, dancing, burning and restoring\nhouses, killing and restoring each other to life, and performing other\nwonderful things. They were induced to exhibit their skill before the\nprinces of Xibalba, killing and resuscitating the king's dog, burning\nand restoring the royal palace; then a man was made the subject of\ntheir art, Hunahpu was cut in pieces and brought to life by Xbalanque.\nFinally, the monarchs of Xibalba wished to experience personally the\ntemporary death; Hun Came, the highest in rank, was first killed, then\nVukub Came, but life was not restored to them; the two shooters of\nthe blow-pipe had avenged the wrongs of their fathers; the monarchs of\nXibalba had fallen.\n\nHaving announced their true names and motives, the two brothers\npronounced sentence on the princes of Xibalba. Their ball was to appear\nno more in the favorite game, they were to perform menial service,\nwith only the beasts of the woods as vassals, and this was to be their\npunishment for the wrongs they had done; yet strangely enough, they\nwere to be invoked thereafter as gods, or rather demons, according to\nXimenez. The character of the Xibalbans is here described. They were\nfond of war, of frightful aspect, ugly as owls, inspiring evil and\ndiscord; faithless, hypocritical, and tyrants, they were both black\nand white, painting their faces, moreover, with divers colors. But\ntheir power was ruined and their domination ceased. Meanwhile, the\ngrandmother Xmucane at home watched the growth of the canes, and was\nfilled alternately with grief and joy, as these withered and again\nbecame green according to the varying fortunes of the grandsons in\nXibalba.[III-32] Finally, to return to Xibalba, Hunahpu and Xbalanque\nrendered the fitting funeral honors to their fathers who had perished\nthere, but who now mounted to heaven and took their places as the sun\nand moon; and the four hundred young men killed by Zipacna became stars\nin the skies. Thus ends the second division of the National Book of the\nQuich\u00e9s.[III-33]\n\n[Sidenote: MIGRATION FROM TULAN.]\n\nThe first chapter of the third division relates another and final\ncreation of man from maize, in Paxil, or Cayala, 'land of divided and\nstagnant waters,' and has already been translated in full in another\nvolume.[III-34] According to Brasseur's opinion it should follow the\naccount of the preceding creations,[III-35] and precede the narrative of\nthe struggle with Xibalba; but was introduced here at the beginning\nof the Quich\u00e9 migrations intentionally in order to attach the later\nQuich\u00e9 nations more closely to the heroic epochs of their history.\nThe remaining chapters of the division have also been translated in\nsubstance.[III-36] In them are related the adventures of Balam-Quitz\u00e9,\nBalam-Agab, Mahucutah, and Iqi-Balam, the product of the final creation\nby Gucumatz and his companion deities, and the founders of the Quich\u00e9\nnations. The people multiplied greatly in a region called the East, and\nmigrated in search of gods to Tulan-Zuiva, the 'seven caves,' where\nfour gods were assigned to the four leaders; namely, Tohil, Avilix,\nHacavitz, and Nicahtagah. Here their language was changed or divided,\nand the division into separate nations was established. Suffering\nfrom cold and endeavors to obtain fire while they were awaiting the\nsun, are the points most dwelt upon during their stay in Tulan, and in\nconnection with these troubles the coming of an envoy from Xibalba is\nmentioned,[III-37] which circumstance may indicate that Tulan was in the\nXibalban region. But they determined to abandon or were driven from\nTulan, and after a tedious journey, including apparently a crossing\nof the sea, they reached Mt Hacavitz, where at last they beheld the\nsun. Mt Hacavitz was apparently in Guatemala, and the events mentioned\nin the record as having occurred subsequently to the arrival there,\nalthough many are of a mythical nature and few can be assigned to any\ndefinite epoch, may best be referred to the more modern history of\nthe Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel nations in Guatemala, to be treated in a future\nchapter.\n\nThe events preceding the rising of the sun on Mt Hacavitz, are not\neasily connected with the exploits of Hunahpu and Xbalanque; but to\nsuppose that they follow in chronologic order, and that the traditions\nin question reflect vaguely the history of the heroes or tribes that\nprevailed against Xibalba is at least as consistent as any theory that\ncan be formed. The chief objection is the implied crossing of the\nsea during the migration from Tulan, which may be an interpolation.\nA lamentation which they chanted on Mt Hacavitz has considerable\nhistorical importance. \"Alas,\" they said, \"we were ruined in Tulan,\nwe were separated, and our brothers still remain behind. Truly we\nhave beheld the sun, but they, where are they now that the dawn has\nappeared? Truly Tohil is the name of the god of the Yaqui nation, who\nwas called Yolcuat Quitzalcuat (Quetzalcoatl) when we parted yonder in\nTulan. Behold whence we set out together, behold the common cradle of\nour race, whence we have come. Then they remembered their brothers far\nbehind them, the nation of the Yaqui whom their dawn enlightened in the\ncountries now called Mexico. There was also a part of the nation which\nthey left in the east, and Tepeu and Oliman were the places where they\nremained.\"[III-38]\n\nA Cakchiquel record of what would seem to be the same primitive\ntraditions contained in the _Popol Vuh_, exists but has never been\npublished. It is only known through an occasional reference or\nquotation in the writings of Brasseur de Bourbourg. From one of these\nreferences[III-39] we learn that the barbarian Ut\u00efu, Jackal, or Coyote,\nthat conducted Gucumatz to Paxil where maize was discovered, was\nkilled by one of the heroes or deities; hence the name Hunahpu Ut\u00efu,\n'shooter of the blowpipe at the coyote.' The following quotation from\nthe same document refers to the name Tulan, which with its different\nspellings occurs so perplexingly often in all the primitive traditions\nof American civilization. \"Four persons came from Tulan, from the\ndirection of the rising sun, that is one Tulan. There is another Tulan\nin Xibalbay and another where the sun sets, and it is there that we\ncame; and in the direction of the setting sun there is another where\nis the god: so that there are four Tulans; and it is where the sun sets\nthat we came to Tulan, from the other side of the sea where this Tulan\nis, and it is there that we were conceived and begotten by our mothers\nand our fathers.\"[III-40]\n\n[Sidenote: MEANING OF THE QUICH\u00c9 TRADITIONS.]\n\nSuch in a condensed form are the tales that make up the primitive\nannals of the Quich\u00e9 nations of Guatemala. We may be very sure that,\nbe they marvelous or common-place, each is founded on an actual\noccurrence, and has its meaning. That meaning, so far as details are\nconcerned, has been doubtless in most instances lost. We may only\nhope to extract from the tenor of the record as a whole, a general\nidea respecting the nature of the historic events thus vaguely\nrecorded; and even this would be perhaps a hopeless task, were it\nnot for the aid derived from the Tzendal traditions, with monumental,\ninstitutional, and linguistic arguments already considered, and the\nNahua records yet to be examined. It is not altogether visionary to\nbehold in the successive creations by Gucumatz, the 'plumed serpent,'\nand his companions, as we have done in the coming of Votan, the\nintroduction or growth of a new civilization, new forms of government\nor religion, new habits of life in America; even if we cannot admit\nliterally the arrival at a definite time and place of a civilizer,\nGucumatz, or hope to reasonably explain each of his actions. It is\nnot necessary to decide whether the new culture was indigenous or of\nforeign origin; or even to suppose it radically different from any\nthat preceded or were contemporaneous with it. We need not go back\nto ancient times to see partisans or devotees attach the greatest\nimportance to the slightest differences in government or religion,\nlooking with pity or hatred on all that are indifferent or opposed.\nThus in the traditions before us opponents and rivals are pictured as\nthe powers of darkness, while tribes that cling to the freedom of the\nforests and are slow to accept the blessings of civilized life, are\nalmost invariably spoken of as brutes. The final creation of man, and\nthe discovery of maize as an essential element in his composition,\nrefer apparently to the introduction among or adoption by the new\npeople or new sect of agriculture as a means of support, but possibly\nto the creation of a high rank of secular or religious rulers. Ut\u00efu,\nthe Jackal, a barbarian, led Gucumatz and his companions to Paxil\nCayala where maize was found, but was killed by the new-comers in the\ntroubles that ensued. Early in the narrative, however, the existence\nof a rival power, the great empire of Xibalba, almost synonymous with\nthe infernal regions, is explicitly indicated, and a large portion\nof the _Popol Vuh_ is devoted to the struggle between the two. The\nprinces and nations of Xibalba, symbolized in Vukub Cakix, Zipacna,\nCabrakan, Hun Came, and Vukub Came, were numerous and powerful, but,\nsince the history is written by enemies, they were of course bad.\nTheir chief fault, their unpardonable sin, consisted in being puffed\nup with pride against the Heart of Heaven, in refusing to accept the\nviews of the new sect. Consequently the nations and chiefs that had\narrayed themselves on the side of Gucumatz, represented by Xbalanque\nand Hunahpu, of several generations, struggle long and desperately\nto humble their own enemies and those of the supreme god, Hurakan.\nThe oft-repeated struggles are symbolized by games at ball between\nthe rival chiefs. The ball grounds or halls are battle-fields. The\nanimals of the forests often take a prominent part on one side or the\nother; that is, the savage tribes are employed as allies. Occasionally\nmen are for some offense or stupidity changed to monkeys, or tribes\nallied with the self-styled reformers and civilizers prove false to\ntheir allegiance and return to the wild freedom of the mountains.\nIt is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the meaning of that\nportion of the narrative which recounts the immaculate conception of\nthe princess Xquiq; but Brasseur, not without reason, sees in the birth\nof Hunahpu and Xbalanque from a Xibalban mother, an indication that\nthe rival nations became more or less mixed by intermarriage. The same\nauthor conjectures that the quarrels between the two twins and their\nelder half-brothers record dissensions that arose between the chiefs\nof pure and mixed blood. After a long series of wars with varying\nresults, symbolized by the repeated games of ball, and the ordeals\nto which Xbalanque and his brother were successively subjected, the\nprinces of Xibalba were defeated. From the terms in which the victory\nis described in the tradition, the general impression is conveyed\nthat it was not a conquest involving the destruction of cities and the\nextermination or enslaving of the people; but rather the overthrow of\na dynasty; the transfer of the supreme power to nations that formerly\noccupied subordinate positions. The chief feature in the celebration of\nthe triumph was the apotheosis of the heroes who had fallen during the\nstruggle.\n\nAfter the triumph of Gucumatz' followers, the written tradition is\npractically silent. Of the greatness of the newly constituted empire we\nknow nothing; the record only re-opens when misfortune has again come\nupon the nations and they are forced to abandon Tulan for new homes.\nNeither their defeats nor the names of their conquerors were thought\nworthy of a place in the annals of the Quich\u00e9 nations, afterwards so\npowerful in Guatemala; yet we can hardly doubt that the princes of\nXibalba contributed to their overthrow. Forced to leave Tulan, spoken\nof as the cradle of their race, they migrated in three divisions,\none towards the mountains of Guatemala, one towards Mexico, and the\nthird toward the east by way of Tepeu and Oliman, which the Cakchiquel\nmanuscript is said to locate on the boundary of Peten and Yucatan.\n\n[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF XIBALBA.]\n\nThe Quich\u00e9 traditions, then, point clearly to, 1st, the existence in\nancient times of a great empire somewhere in Central America, called\nXibalba by its enemies; 2d, the growth of a rival neighboring power;\n3d, a long struggle extending through several generations at least,\nand resulting in the downfall of the Xibalban kings; 4th, a subsequent\nscattering,--the cause of which is not stated, but was evidently war,\ncivil or foreign,--of the formerly victorious nations from Tulan, their\nchief city or province; 5th, the identification of a portion of the\nmigrating chiefs with the founders of the Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel nations in\npossession of Guatemala at the Conquest. The National Book, unaided,\nwould hardly suffice to determine the location of Xibalba, which\nwas very likely the name of a capital city as well as of the empire.\nUtatlan, in the Guatemalan highlands, is clearly pointed out as the\nplace whence Xbalanque set out for its conquest, and several other\nnames of localities in Guatemala are also mentioned, but it should\nbe noted that the tradition comes through Guatemalan sources, and it\nis not necessary even to suppose that Utatlan was the centre of the\nforces that struggled against the powers of darkness. Yet since we know\nthrough Tzendal traditions and monumental relics, of the great Votanic\nempire of the Chanes, which formerly included the region of Palenque,\nthere can hardly be room for hesitation in identifying the two powers.\nThe description of Paxil Cayala, 'divided and stagnant waters,' \"a\nmost excellent land, full of good things, where the white and yellow\nmaize did abound, also the cacao, where were sapotes and many fruits,\nand honey; where all was overflowing with the best of food,\" agrees at\nleast as well with the Usumacinta region as with any other in Central\nAmerica. The very steep descent by which Xbalanque reached Xibalba\nfrom Utatlan, corresponds perfectly with the topography of the country\ntowards the Usumacinta. The statement that in the final migration from\nTulan to Guatemala, two parties were left behind, one of which went to\nMexico, and the other was left in the east, also seems to point in the\nsame direction. The _Cakchiquel Manuscript_ tells us that there was\na Tulan in Xibalba, evidently the one whence the final migration took\nplace, and from the Tzendal tradition through Ordo\u00f1ez we have learned\nthat Tulha, or Tulan, was one of the great cities of Votan's Empire.\nFinally there is absolutely nothing in the narrative which points to\nany other location.\n\n[Sidenote: XIBALBA THE VOTANIC EMPIRE.]\n\nXibalba was then the Empire of the Serpents, to which tradition assigns\nVotan as a founder; the same name was applied also to its capital city\nNachan, probably identical with Palenque; and Tulan, or Tulha, the\ncentre of nations which were successively subjects, allies, rivals,\nand conquerors of the imperial city, may be conjecturally identified\nwith the ruined Ococingo or Copan. Vukub Cakix, the last but two of\nthe Xibalban monarchs, was perhaps the same as Chinax who occupied the\nsame position in the Tzendal tradition and calendar. But who were the\nfollowers of Gucumatz, the nations before whose leaders, Hunahpu and\nXbalanque, the pride of Xibalba was humbled, and to whom the traditions\nthus far studied have assigned no name? It is most natural to identify\nthem with the Tzequiles, who, according to the tradition, arrived\nduring Votan's absence, gave his followers new ideas of government\nand religion, were assigned lands, and became a powerful people with\nTulan as their capital. This makes the Tzendal tradition much more\nintelligible and complete, and agrees much better with the Quich\u00e9\nrecord, than the opposite one adopted without any apparent reason by\nBrasseur de Bourbourg. According to the Quich\u00e9 chant of lamentation,\none division of the refugees from Tulan went north to Mexico, where\nthey found their 'dawn,' their greatness. This seems to point toward\nthe Nahua nations, which alone achieved greatness in Mexico during\nhistoric times. The tribes which migrated northward are called, in the\n_Popol Vuh_, Yaqui, a name which according to Brasseur de Bourbourg,\nhas much the same signification etymologically as Nahuatl, and was\ncommonly applied by the Maya-Quich\u00e9 peoples of Central America to the\nMexicans. Moreover, their god, Tohil, was called by these Yaqui tribes,\neven while they were yet in Tulan, Yolcuat Quitzalcuat, while the most\nprominent of the Nahua divinities is well known to the readers of the\npreceding volumes to have been Quetzalcoatl. Chanes, the only name\ngiven to the subjects of Votan and his successors, is the equivalent\nof Culhuas, a word which, especially in composition, is of frequent\noccurrence in all the native tongues. Culhuacan was one of the most\ncelebrated cities of An\u00e1huac, as the Acolhuas were among the most noted\npeoples. Again Tulan Zuiva is defined as the Seven Caves, in the Nahua\ntongues Chicomoztoc, which the Aztecs are well known to have claimed as\na former home. One of the divinities engaged in the creation, or in the\npropagation of the new doctrines in the region of Xibalba was the chief\nof Toltecat, another name prominent in all Nahua traditions as that of\ntheir most famous nation, the Toltecs; and finally Gucumatz, the great\nleader of Xibalba's conquerors, was identical with Quetzalcoatl, since\nboth names signify equally the 'plumed serpent,' the former in Quich\u00e9,\nthe latter in Aztec. These facts seem significant and naturally direct\nour attention to an examination of the early Nahua records.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THE NAHUAS IN TAMOANCHAN.]\n\nThe records of the Nahua nations, so far as they relate to the\npre-Toltec period, if more extensive and numerous, are not less\nconfused than those of the south. To bring into any semblance of order\nthis mass of contradictory semi-mythical, semi-historic details, to\npoint out and defend the historic meaning of each aboriginal tale,\nis an impossible task which I do not propose to undertake. The only\npracticable course is to present the leading points of these early\ntraditions as they are given by the best authorities, and to draw from\nthem, as I have done from the Tzendal and Quich\u00e9 records, some general\nconclusions respecting the most probable course of primitive history;\nfor conclusions of a very general nature, and bearing on probabilities\nonly, are all that we can expect to reach respecting pre-Toltec\nAmerica. Sahagun, justly esteemed as one of the best authorities,\nspeaks in substance as follows:[III-41]\n\nCountless years ago the first settlers arrived in New Spain. Coming\nin ships by sea, they approached a northern port; and because they\ndisembarked there it was called Panutla, or Panoaia, 'place where\nthey arrived who came by sea,' now corruptly called Pantlan (P\u00e1nuco);\nand from this port they began to follow the coast, beholding the\nsnowy sierras and the volcanoes, until they reached the province of\nGuatemala; being guided by a priest carrying their god, with whom he\ncontinually took counsel respecting what they ought to do. They came\nto settle in Tamoanchan, where they remained a long time, and never\nceased to have their wise men, or prophets, called _amoxoaque_, which\nmeans 'men learned in the ancient paintings,' who, although they came\nat the same time, did not remain with the rest in Tamoanchan; since\nleaving them there, they re-embarked and carried away with them all\nthe paintings which they had brought relating to religious rites and\nmechanical arts. Before their departure they spoke as follows:--\"Know\nthat our god commands you to remain here in these lands, of which he\nmakes you masters and gives you possession. He returns to the place\nwhence he and we came; but he will come back to visit you when it shall\nbe time for the world to come to an end; meantime you will await him\nin these lands, possessing them and all contained in them, since for\nthis purpose you came hither; remain therefore, for we go with our\ngod.\" Thus they departed with their god wrapped in blankets, towards\nthe east, taking all the paintings. Of the wise men only four remained,\nOxomoco, Cipactonal, Tlaltetecui, and Xuchicaoaca, who, after the\nothers had departed, consulted together, saying:--A time will come\nwhen there will be light for the direction of this republic; but during\nthe absence of our god, how shall the people be ruled? What order will\nthere be in all things, since the wise men carried away their paintings\nby which they governed? Therefore did they invent judicial astrology\nand the art of interpreting dreams; they composed the calendar, which\nwas followed during the rule of the Toltecs, Mexicans, Tepanecs, and\nChichimecs. By this calendar, however, it is not possible to ascertain\nhow long they remained in Tamoanchan,--although this was known by the\npaintings burned in the time of the Mexican ruler, Itzcoatl, in whose\nreign the lords and princes agreed that all should be burned that they\nmight not fall into the hands of the vulgar and be unappreciated. From\nTamoanchan they went to sacrifice at Teotihuacan, where they built two\nmountains in honor of the sun and moon, and where they elected their\nrulers, and buried the lords and princes, ordering the tumuli, still to\nbe seen, to be made over their graves. Some description of the mounds\nfollows, with the statement that they were the work of giants. The town\nof Teotl, or god, was called Teotihuacan, because the princes who were\nburied there were made gods after death, and were thought not to have\ndied but to have waked from a sleep. From Tamoanchan certain families\nwent to settle the provinces called Olmeca Vixtoti. Here are given some\ndetails of these Olmecs and of the Huastecs, to be spoken of later.\n\nAfter the centre of power had been a long time in Tamoanchan, it was\nafterwards transferred to the town called Xumiltepec. Here the lords\nand priests and the old men discovered it to be the will of their god\nthat they should not remain always in Xumiltepec, but that they were\nto go farther; thus all gradually started on their migration, having\nfirst repaired to Teotihuacan to choose their leaders and wise men. In\nthis migration they came to the valley of the Seven Caves. There is no\naccount of the time they remained there, but finally the Toltecs were\ntold by their god that they must return (that is towards Teotihuacan,\nor An\u00e1huac), which they did and came to Tollancingo (Tulancingo), and\nfinally to Tulan (Tollan).\n\n[Sidenote: THE NAHUA TRADITIONS.]\n\nIn the introduction to the same work[III-42] we are told also that the\nfirst settlers came from towards Florida, followed the coast, and\nlanded at the port of P\u00e1nuco. They came in search of the 'terrestrial\nparadise,' were called Tamoanchan, which means 'we seek our house,' and\nsettled near the highest mountains they found. \"In coming southward to\nseek the earthly paradise, they did not err, since it is the opinion of\nthose that know that it is under the equinoxial line.\"\n\nIn Sahagun's version of the tradition we find Tamoanchan,[III-43] the\nfirst home of the Nahua nations in America, definitely located down\nthe coast from P\u00e1nuco in the province of Guatemala. The coast region\nof Tabasco was probably included in this author's time in Guatemala; at\nleast it is as near Guatemala as the new-comers could get by following\nthe coast. The location therefore agrees with that of Xibalba and\nthe Votanic empire as derived from other sources; and in fact the\nwhole narrative may with great plausibility be applied to the events\ndescribed in the Quich\u00e9 tradition--the arrival of Gucumatz and his\ncompanions (although Sahagun does not name Quetzalcoatl as the leader\nof the immigrants), the growth of a great power in the central region,\nand the final forced migration from Tulan Zuiva, the Seven Caves. The\nabsence of the name Tulan, as applied to a city or county in Central\nAmerica, from the northern traditions as they have been preserved for\nour examination, may be very satisfactorily accounted for by the fact\nthat another great city founded much later in An\u00e1huac, the capital\nof the Toltec monarchy, was also called Tollan; consequently such\ntraditions as the Spaniards gathered from the natives respecting a\nTulan, were naturally referred by them to the later city. It is to be\nnoted, moreover, in this connection, that the descriptions given by the\nSpanish writers of Tollan, with its luxuriant vegetation, and birds of\nbrilliant plumage, often apply much better to the southern than to the\nnorthern An\u00e1huac. In addition to the points mentioned in the Quich\u00e9\nrecord, we learn from Sahagun that the Toltec calendar was invented or\nintroduced during the stay in that southern country of Tamoanchan;[III-44]\nthat the Nahua power in the south extended north to An\u00e1huac and\nembraced Teotihuacan, a holy city and religious centre, even in those\nremote times; that the Olmecs, Miztecs, and Huastecs belonged to the\nsame group of nations and their rise or appearance to the same period;\nand that from the Seven Caves the Toltecs migrated--that is their\ncentre or capital was transferred--to Tulancingo, and later to Tollan.\nAll these points we shall find confirmed more or less directly by other\nauthorities.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THE CODEX CHIMALPOPOCA.]\n\nA very important Nahua record, written in Aztec with Spanish letters by\nan anonymous native author, and copied by Ixtlilxochitl, which belonged\nto the famous Boturini collection, is the _Codex Chimalpopoca_.[III-45]\nUnfortunately it has never been published, and its contents are only\nknown by occasional references in the works of Brasseur de Bourbourg,\nwho had a copy of the document. From the passages quoted by the abb\u00e9\nI take the following brief account, which seems of some importance in\nconnection with the preceding:\n\n\"This is the beginning of the history of things which came to pass\nlong ago, of the division of the earth, the property of all, its\norigin and its foundation, as well as the manner in which the sun\ndivided it six times four hundred plus one hundred plus thirteen years\nago to-day, the twenty-second of May, 1558.\" \"Earth and the heavens\nwere formed in the year Ce Tochtli; but man had already been created\nfour times. God formed him of ashes, but Quetzalcoatl had perfected\nhim.\" After the flood men were changed into dogs.[III-46] After a new\nand successful attempt at creation, all began to serve the gods,\ncalled Apantecutli, 'master of the rivers,' Huictlollinqui, 'he who\ncauses the earth to shake,' Tlallamanac, 'he who presides on the\nearth,' and Tzontemoc, 'he whose hair descends.' Quetzalcoatl remained\nalone. Then they said, \"the vassals of the gods are born; they have\nalready begun to serve us,\" but they added, \"what will you eat, O\ngods?\" and Quetzalcoatl went to search for means of subsistence. At\nthat time Azcatl, the 'ant,' going to Tonacatepetl, 'mount of our\nsubsistence,' for maize, was met by Quetzalcoatl, who said, \"where\nhast thou been to obtain that thing? Tell me.\" At first the Ant would\nnot tell, but the Plumed Serpent insisted, and repeated, \"whither\nshall I go?\" Then they went there together, Quetzalcoatl\nmetamorphosing himself into a 'black ant.'[III-47] Tlaltlauhqui\nAzcatl, the 'yellow ant,'[III-48] accompanied Quetzalcoatl\nrespectfully, as they went to seek maize and brought it to Tamoanchan.\nThen the gods began to eat, and put some of the maize in our mouths\nthat we might become strong.[III-49] The same record implies that\nQuetzalcoatl afterwards became obnoxious to his companions and\nabandoned them.[III-50]\n\nIn this document we have evidently an account of substantially the\nsame events that are recorded in the Tzendal and Quich\u00e9 records:--the\ndivision of the earth by the Sun in the year 955 B.C., or as Ordo\u00f1ez\ninterprets the Tzendal tradition, by Votan 'about 1000 B.C.'; the\nformation of the earth by the supreme being, and the successive\ncreations of man, or attempts to introduce civilization among savages\nthrough the agency of Quetzalcoatl,--acts ascribed by the Quich\u00e9\ntradition to the same person under the name of Gucumatz; the flood\nand resulting transformation of men into dogs, instead of monkeys as\nin the _Popol Vuh_, symbolizing perhaps the relapse into savagism of\npartially civilized tribes;--the adoption of agriculture represented\nin both traditions as an expedition by Quetzalcoatl, or Gucumatz, in\nsearch of maize. According to the _Popol Vuh_ he sought the maize in\nPaxil and Cayala, 'divided and stagnant waters,' by the aid of Ut\u00efu,\n'the coyote;' while in the Nahua tradition, aided by Azcatl, 'the ant,'\nhe finds the desired food in Tonacatepetl, 'mount of our subsistence.'\nFinally, the _Codex Chimalpopoca_ identifies the home of the Nahua\nnations, whence the search for maize was made, with Tamoanchan, which\nSahagun has clearly located in Tabasco.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: PRIMITIVE NATIONS OF MEXICO.]\n\nBefore considering the traditions that relate the migration of the\nToltecs proper to Tollan in An\u00e1huac, it will be most convenient to\ngive the little that is known of those nations that are supposed to\nhave preceded the Toltecs in Mexico. The chief of these are the\nQuinames, Olmecs, Xicalancas, Totonacs, Huastecs, Miztecs, Zapotecs,\nand Otom\u00eds.[III-51] The Olmecs and Xicalancas, who are sometimes\nrepresented as two nations, sometimes as divisions of the same nation,\nare regarded by all the authorities as Nahuas, speaking the same\nlanguage as the Toltecs, but settled in An\u00e1huac long before the\nestablishment of the Toltec Empire at Tollan. As nations they both\nbecame extinct before the Spanish Conquest, as did the Toltecs, but\nthere is little doubt that their descendants under new names and in\nnew national combinations still lived in Puebla, southern Vera Cruz,\nand Tabasco--the region traditionally settled by them--down to the\ncoming of the Spaniards. They are regarded as the first of the Nahua\nnations in this region and are first noticed by tradition on the\nsouth-eastern coasts, whither they had come in ships from the east.\nSahagun, as we have seen, identifies them with certain families of the\nNahuas who set out from Tamoanchan to settle in the northern coast\nregion. Ixtlilxochitl tells us they occupied the land in the third age\nof the world, landing on the east coast as far as the land of\nPapuha,[III-52] 'muddy water,' or in the region about the Laguna de\nTerminos. Veytia names P\u00e1nuco as their landing-place, and gives the\ndate as a few years after the regulation of the calendar, already\nnoticed in Sahagun's record.[III-53] Their national names are derived\nfrom that of their first rulers Olmecatl and Xicalancatl. Two ancient\ncities called Xicalanco are reported on the gulf coast; one of them,\nwhich flourished nearly or quite down to the time of the Conquest, and\nwhose ruins are still said to be visible,[III-54] was just below Vera\nCruz; the other, probably the more ancient, stood at the point which\nstill bears the name of Xicalanco at the entrance to the Laguna de\nTerminos. This whole region is also said to have borne the name of\nAn\u00e1huac Xicalanco.[III-55] Mendieta and Torquemada[III-56] relate that\nthe followers of Xicalancatl peopled the region towards the\nGoazacoalco, where stood the two cities referred to. The people of\nthat part of the country were generally known at the time of the\nConquest as Nonohualcas. The chief development of this people, or of\nits Olmec branch, was, so far as recorded in tradition, in the state\nof Puebla further north and inland.\n\n[Sidenote: OLMECS AND XICALANCAS.]\n\nThis tradition of the arrival of strangers on the eastern coast,\nand the growth of the Olmec and Xicalanca powers on and north of\nthe isthmus, in view of the facts that these nations are universally\nregarded as Nahuas and as the first of the race to settle in An\u00e1huac,\ncannot be considered as distinct from that given by Sahagun respecting\nthe Nahua race, especially as the latter author speaks of the departure\nof certain families from Tamoanchan to settle in the provinces of\nOlmeca Vixtoti. It is most natural to suppose that the new power\nextended gradually northward to Puebla as well as inland into Chiapas,\nwhere it came more directly in contact with its great rival. This view\nof the matter is likewise supported by the fact that Quetzalcoatl, the\nculture-hero, is said to have wrought his great works in the time of\nthe Olmecs and Xicalancas--according to some traditions to have been\ntheir leader when they arrived on the coast. Sahagun also applies the\nname Tlalocan, 'land of riches,' or 'terrestrial paradise,' to this\nsouth-eastern region, implying its identity with Tamoanchan.[III-57]\n\nOur knowledge of Olmec history subsequent to their first appearance,\nis confined to a few events which occurred in Puebla. Here, chiefly on\nthe Rio Atoyac near Puebla de los Angeles and Cholula, they found the\nQuinames, or giants, a powerful people who long kept them subordinate\nin rank and power, or, as the tradition expresses it, 'enslaved them.'\nThese Quinames, as Ixtlilxochitl states, were survivors of the great\ndestruction which closed the second age of the world. They were,\naccording to Veytia, \"more like brutes than rational beings; their food\nwas raw meat of birds and beasts which they hunted indiscriminately,\nfruits and wild herbs, since they cultivated nothing; but they knew\nhow to make pulque with which to make themselves drunk; going entirely\nnaked with disheveled hair.\" They were cruel and proud, yet they\nreceived the strangers kindly, perhaps through fear of their great\nnumbers, they being so few, and magnanimously permitted them to settle\nin their lands. The Olmecs were treated well enough at first, although\nthey looked with terror upon the giants. The latter, aware of the fear\nthey inspired, became more and more insolent, claiming that as lords\nand masters of the land they were showing the strangers a great favor\nin permitting them to live there. As a recompense for this kindness\nthey obliged the Olmecs to serve as slaves, neither hunting nor fishing\nthemselves, but depending on their new servants for a subsistence.\nThus ill-treated, the Nahuas soon found their condition insupportable.\nAnother great cause of offence was that the Quinames were addicted\nto sodomy, a vice which they refused to abandon even when they were\noffered the wives and daughters of the newcomers. At last it was\nresolved at a council of the Olmec chiefs to free themselves once for\nall from their oppressors. The means adopted were peculiar. The giants\nwere invited to a magnificent banquet; the richest food and the most\ntempting native beverages were set before the guests; all gathered at\nthe feast, and as a result of their unrestrained appetites were soon\nstretched senseless like so many blocks of wood on the ground. Thus\nthey became an easy prey to the reformers, and perished to a man. The\nOlmecs were free and the day of their national prosperity dawned.\n\n[Sidenote: THE QUINAMES, OR GIANTS.]\n\nThe Quinames, traditionally assigned as the first inhabitants of nearly\nevery part of the country, have been the subject of much discussion\namong the Spanish writers. Veytia indeed rejects the idea that a race\nof giants actually existed, and Clavigero considers their existence\nas a race very doubtful, although admitting that there were doubtless\nindividuals of great size. Most other writers of this class accept\nmore or less literally the tradition of the giants who were the first\ndwellers in the land, deeming the discovery of large bones in various\nlocalities and the scriptural tales of giants in other parts of the\nworld, to be sufficient corroborative authority. Veytia thinks the\nQuinames were probably of the same race as the Toltecs, but were tribes\ncast out for their sloth; Ixtlilxochitl records the opinion entertained\nby some that they were descended from the Chichimecs. The former fixes\nthe date of their destruction as 107, the latter as 299, A.D. Oviedo\nadopts the conclusion of Mendoza that the giants probably came from\nthe Strait of Magellan, the only place where such beings were known\nto exist. Boturini saw no reason to doubt the existence of the giants.\nBeing large in stature, they could out-travel the rest of mankind, and\nthus became naturally the first settlers of distant parts of the world.\nTorquemada, followed by Veytia, identifies them with a similar race\nthat traditionally appeared at a very early time in Peru, where they\nwere destroyed by fire from heaven.[III-58]\n\nThe Quinames were of course not giants, and it is not at all probable\nthat they were savage tribes. Such tribes are described as animals\nrather than giants in the American traditionary annals. The spirit\nof the narrative, the great power ascribed to the Quinames, their\nkind reception of the strangers, their growing insolence, even their\nvices, point clearly, here as in Chiapas, to a powerful nation, at\nfirst feared as masters, then hated as rivals, but finally ruled as\nsubjects by the newly risen power. While it is impossible to decide\nauthoritatively in the matter, it may be regarded as more than likely\nthat this foe was a branch of that overthrown in the south; that the\nXibalban power, as well as that of the Nahuas, extended far towards\nAn\u00e1huac in the early days; that the great struggle was carried on in\nthe north as well as in the south.\nAbout the time the Quinames were defeated, the pyramid of Cholula was\nerected under the direction of a chief named Xelhua. The occasion of\nits being built seems to have been connected in some way with a flood,\nprobably that mentioned in the Quich\u00e9 tradition, the reports of which\nmay or may not be founded on an actual inundation more than usually\ndisastrous in a country subject to periodical overflow. The authorities\nare not agreed whether the mighty mound was intended as a memorial\nmonument in honor of the builder's salvation from a former flood, or\nas a place of refuge in case the floodgates of the skies should again\nbe opened; neither is it settled whether Xelhua was an Olmec or a\nQuiname chieftain, although most authors incline to the former opinion.\nPedro de los Rios tells us that the bricks for the construction of the\npyramid were manufactured at Tlalmanalco and passed by a line of men\nfrom hand to hand for a distance of several leagues. Of course the\nSpanish writers have not failed to connect this pyramid in some way\nwith the Hebrew traditions respecting the tower of Babel, especially as\nwork on the Cholula tower was stopped by fire, sent from heaven by the\nirritated deities.[III-59]\n\n[Sidenote: QUETZALCOATL, THE CULTURE-HERO.]\n\nDuring the Olmec period, that is, the earliest period of Nahua\npower, the great Quetzalcoatl appeared. We have seen that in the\n_Popol Vuh_ and _Codex Chimalpopoca_ this being is represented as the\nhalf-divinity, half-hero, who came at the head of the first Nahuas\nto America from across the sea. Other authorities imply rather that\nhe came later from the east or north, in the period of the greatest\nOlmec prosperity, after the rival Quinames had been defeated. To such\ndifferences in detail no great importance is to be attached; since\nall that can be definitely learned from these traditions is the facts\nthat Quetzalcoatl, or Gucumatz, was the most prominent of the Nahua\nheroes, and that his existence is to be attributed to this earliest\nperiod, known in Mexico as Olmec, but without a distinctive name in\nthe south. Quetzalcoatl was a white, bearded man, venerable, just, and\nholy, who taught by precept and example the paths of virtue in all the\nNahua cities, particularly in Cholula. His teachings, according to the\ntraditions, had much in common with those of Christ in the Old World,\nand most of the Spanish writers firmly believed him to be identical\nwith one of the Christian apostles, probably St Thomas. During his\nstay in this region his doctrines do not seem to have met with a\nsatisfactory reception, and he left disheartened. He predicted before\nhis departure great calamities, and promised to return in a future\nyear Ce Acatl, at which time his doctrines were to be fully accepted,\nand his descendants were to possess the land. Montezuma is known to\nhave regarded the coming of Cort\u00e9s and the Spaniards as a fulfillment\nof this prediction, and in his speech to the new-comers states further\nthat after his first visit Quetzalcoatl had already once returned,[III-60]\nand attempted unsuccessfully to induce his followers to go back with\nhim across the sea. The first part of the prophet's prediction actually\ncame to pass, as traditions tell us, for only a few days after his\ndeparture occurred the earthquake which destroyed the pyramid at\nCholula, the American Babel, and ushered in the new or fourth age of\nfire, according to Ixtlilxochitl. On the ruins of the pyramid was built\na temple to Quetzalcoatl, who was afterwards worshiped as a god.[III-61]\n\nWe shall find very similar traditions of another Quetzalcoatl who\nappeared much later, during the Toltec period, and who also made\nCholula a centre of his reform. As we shall see, the evidence is\ntolerably conclusive that the two are not the same, yet it is more than\nlikely that the traditions respecting them have been considerably mixed\nboth in native and European hands. After the time of Quetzalcoatl we\nknow nothing of Olmec or Xicalanca history down to the establishment of\nthe Toltec empire, when these nations were still in possession of the\ncountry of Puebla and Tlascala. Boturini conjectures that, being driven\nfrom Mexico, they migrated to the Antilles and to South America. There\nis not, however, the slightest necessity to suppose that the Olmecs\never left the country at all. Their institutions and language were the\nsame as that of the Toltec peoples that nominally succeeded them, and\nalthough like the Toltecs they became extinct as a nation, yet there is\nno reason to doubt that their descendants lived long in the land, and\ntook part in the new political combinations that make up Nahua history\ndown to the Conquest.[III-62]\n\n[Sidenote: THE TOTONACS AND TEOTIHUACAN.]\n\n[Sidenote: APOTHEOSIS OF NANAHUATZIN.]\n\nThe Totonacs are included by the authorities among the primitive,\nor Pre-Toltec nations in An\u00e1huac. At the time of the Conquest they\noccupied central Vera Cruz, their chief city being Zempoala; but they\nclaimed to have migrated from the valley of Mexico, and to have lived\nlong near the banks of Lake Tezcuco, where they built the pyramids\nat Teotihuacan, a place already noticed as a religious centre in\nthis early period. Torquemada seems to be the original authority for\nthe Totonac traditions respecting their primitive history, having\nobtained his information from an aged native. His brief account,\nquoted in substance by all others who have mentioned the subject, is as\nfollows:--\"Of their origin they say that they set out from the place\ncalled Chicomoztoc, or Seven Caves, together with the Xalpanecs; and\nthat they were twenty divisions, or families, as many of one as of\nthe other; and although thus divided into families, they were all of\none language and of the same customs. They say they started from that\nplace, leaving the Chichimecs still shut up there; and they directed\ntheir journey towards this part of Mexico, and having arrived at the\nplains on the lake, they halted at the place where Teotihuacan now is;\nand they affirm that they built these two temples which were dedicated\nto the sun and moon. Here they remained for some time, but either not\ncontented with the place, or with a desire to pass to other places,\nthey went to Atenamitic, where Zacatlan now stands.\" Thence they\ngradually moved eastward until at last they settled on the coast in\ntheir present location. That the pyramids of Teotihuacan[III-63] were built\nby the Nahuas--the Olmecs or one of their companion nations--and became\ntheir religious centre and the burial-place of their kings and priests\nlong before the establishment of the empire of Tollan, there can be\nbut little doubt; nor is it improbable that the Totonacs were, as they\nclaim to be, a pre-Toltec tribe in An\u00e1huac; but that they were in this\nearly time a Nahua tribe, a nation contemporaneous with the Olmecs and\nof the same institutions, that they were the builders of Teotihuacan,\nis only proved by their own claim as recorded by Torquemada. This\nevidence must probably be regarded as insufficient in view of the\nfact that the Totonac language is wholly distinct from the Nahua.[III-64]\nIt is true that, as will be seen later, all the ancient tribes, that\nadopted more or less the Nahua institutions, and joined in the struggle\nagainst the rival Maya powers, did not speak the same language; but it\nis also very probable that many nations in later times, when the Nahua\npower as represented by the Aztecs had become so predominant, claimed\nancient Nahua affinities to which they had no right.[III-65] In addition\nto what has already been said respecting Teotihuacan, only one event is\nmentioned in its pre-Toltec history,--the apotheosis of Nanahuatzin, an\nevent which probably preceded rather than followed the erection of the\npyramids. The strange fable respecting this event, already related in\na preceding volume,[III-66] is, briefly, to the effect that the gods were\nassembled at Teotihuacan for the purpose of inducing the sun to appear\nand illumine their darkness. A great fire having been kindled, and the\nannouncement made that the honors of apotheosis would be given to him\nwho should give himself up as a living sacrifice, Nanahuatzin threw\nhimself into the fire, was instantly devoured and transformed into the\nsun, which at once appeared in the east. Metztli followed the example\nof Nanahuatzin, and took his place in the heavens as the moon, less\nbrilliant than his companion, since the heat of the fire had somewhat\nabated before his sacrifice. The true historic signification of this\naccount we cannot hope to ascertain, yet it is of great interest, since\nit seems to point to the introduction in these regions of sun-worship\nand of human sacrifice; indeed, the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, according\nto Brasseur, expressly states that \"then began divine immolation at\nTeotihuacan.\" The same authority gives this event also as the beginning\nof a new chronologic period called Nahui Ollin Tonatiuh, 'the sun in\nits four movements,' thus suggesting some connection between this\nassemblage and that mentioned by Sahagun as having taken place in\nthe south, when the new calendar was invented. The remark in the same\ndocument that \"on that day the kings did tremble,\" may point to this\nepoch as that of the great revolution--carried on chiefly in Chiapas,\nbut which may have extended to An\u00e1huac--by which the kings of Xibalba\nwere overthrown; especially since the narrative of the sacrifice\nat Teotihuacan bears a striking resemblance to the apotheosis of\nHunhunahpu and his fellow-heroes at Xibalba.[III-67]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo far as the other so-called primitive nations of New Spain are\nconcerned, little can be said, except that they claim and have always\nbeen credited with a very ancient residence in this land, dating\nback far beyond the beginning of the historic period. The Otom\u00eds, one\ndivision of whom are known as Mazahuas, differ entirely from the Nahua\nnations in language, having possibly a slight linguistic affinity with\nthe Totonacs, and although far from being savages, they have always\nbeen to a certain extent an outcast and oppressed race, the 'Jews of\nAn\u00e1huac,' as one writer terms them, down-trodden in succession by\nToltec, Chichimec, and Aztec. They probably occupied a very large\nportion of An\u00e1huac and the surrounding mountains, when the Toltecs\nproper established their power. Ixtlilxochitl, followed by Veytia,\nrepresents the Otom\u00eds, though differing in language, as having been\none of the Acolhua tribes that made their appearance in An\u00e1huac many\ncenturies later, but the event referred to as their coming to the\ncountry at that period, may probably be their coming down from the\nmountains and adopting more or less the civilized life of the Acolhuas\nat Tezcuco.[III-68]\n\nThe Miztecs and Zapotecs are simply mentioned by the authorities\nin connection with the Olmecs and Xicalancas as having occupied the\nsouth-eastern region during the primitive period. Later they became\npowerful nations in the country now constituting the state of Oajaca,\nand were probably at least the equals of the Aztecs in civilization.\nTheir own annals do not, so far as they may be interpreted, reach back\nto the pre-Toltec times, and although they may very likely have come\nin contact with the Olmecs in Puebla, or even have been their allies,\nreceiving from them or with them the elements of Nahua culture, yet\nthe fact that their languages are distinct from the Nahua, shows\nthat they like the Totonacs were not, as some authors imply, simply a\nbranch of the Nahua people in Tamoanchan. It is more natural to suppose\nthat these three nations were either wild tribes, or, if partially\ncivilized, connected with the Maya, Xibalban, or Quiname nations, and\nthat they accepted more or less fully the Nahua ideas after the Olmec\nnations had risen to power in An\u00e1huac. The statement of Brasseur that\nthe tribes of Oajaca received their civilization from the two brothers\nof Xibalba's conquerors, Hunbatz and Hunchouen, is probably unfounded,\nsince nothing of the kind appears in the chapter of Garc\u00eda's work to\nwhich the abb\u00e9 refers.[III-69]\n\n[Sidenote: THE HUASTECS IN VERA CRUZ.]\n\nTo the Huastecs of Northern Vera Cruz, the preceding remarks may also\nbe applied, save that their language, while distinct from the Nahua,\nis also very evidently connected with the great Maya linguistic family\nof the south. Yet the ruins of Huastec and Totonac Vera Cruz,[III-70] are\nmore like the Nahua monuments than like those of Yucatan or Chiapas,\nshowing how powerful was the influence of the Nahua element in the\nnorth. The only historical tradition relating to the Huastecs is the\nfollowing from Sahagun:--In the time of the Olmecs, after the art\nof making pulque had been invented in the mountain called thereafter\nPopoconaltepetl, 'mountain of foam,' the inventors prepared a banquet\non the same mountain. All the principal old men and old women were\ninvited, and before each guest were placed four cups of the new\nwine,--the quantity deemed sufficient to exhibit the excellence of\nthe newly-discovered beverage, and to cheer without inebriating the\ndignitaries present. But one chief, Cuextecatl by name, was so rash as\nto indulge in a fifth cup, and was moved thereby to discard the maxtli\nwhich constituted his court dress, and to conduct himself in a very\nindecorous manner; so much so that after recovering his sound sense,\nhe was forced by very shame to flee with all his followers, and all\nthose of his language, to the region of P\u00e1nuco, where they settled,\nand were called from their leader Cuextecas, afterwards Guaxtecas or\nHuastecs.[III-71]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THE TOLTECS IN HUEHUE TLAPALLAN.]\n\nI now come to what may be termed the regular annals of that branch of\nthe Nahua nations which finally established a kingdom in An\u00e1huac with\nTollan for a capital, and which acquired the name of Toltec. These\nannals will be found not more satisfactory or less mythical than the\ntraditions that have been given in the preceding pages, although in\ntheir more salient points they seem to agree with those traditions.\nThey were recorded in a most careless and confused manner by the native\nwriter Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl, who derived his information from\nthe documents which survived the destruction by the Spanish priests.\nThe comments of later writers, and their attempts to reconcile this\nauthor's statements one with another and all with scriptural traditions\nand with the favorite theory of a general migration from the north,\nhave still further confused the subject. I have no hope of being able\nto reduce Ixtlilxochitl's statements to perfect order, or to explain\nthe exact historical meaning of each statement; still, by the omission\nof a large amount of profitless conjecture, scriptural comparison,\nand hopelessly entangled chronology, the tradition may be somewhat\nsimplified so as to yield, as other traditions have done, some items of\ngeneral information respecting the primitive Nahua period.\n\nAt the end of the first age of the world or the 'sun of waters,' as\nwe are told by Ixtlilxochitl, the earth was visited by a flood which\ncovered even the most lofty mountains. After the repeopling of the\nearth by the descendants of a few families who escaped destruction,\nthe building of a tower as a protection against a possible future\ncatastrophe of similar nature, and the confusion of tongues and\nconsequent scattering of the population--for all these things were\nfound in the native traditions, as we are informed--seven families\nspeaking the same language kept together in their wanderings for\nmany years; and after crossing broad lands and seas, enduring great\nhardships, they reached the country of Huehue Tlapallan, or 'Old'\nTlapallan; which they found to be fertile and desirable to dwell\nin.[III-72] The second age, the 'sun of air,' terminated with a great\nhurricane which swept away trees, rocks, houses, and people, although\nmany men and women escaped, chiefly such as took refuge in caves\nwhich the hurricane could not reach. After several days the survivors\ncame out to find a multitude of apes living in the land; and all this\ntime they were in darkness, seeing neither the sun nor moon. The next\nevent recorded, although Veytia makes it precede the hurricane, is the\nstopping of the sun for a whole day in his course, as at the command of\nJoshua as recorded in the Old Testament. \"When the mosquito, however,\nsaw the sun thus suspended and pensive, he addressed him saying, 'Lord\nof the world, why art thou thus motionless, and doest not thy duty as\nis commanded thee? Dost thou wish to destroy the world as is thy wont?'\nThen seeing that he was yet silent and made no response, the insect\nwent up and stung him in the leg, whereupon he, feeling himself stung,\nstarted anew on his accustomed course.\"\n\nNext occurred an earthquake which swallowed up and destroyed all\nthe Quinames, or giants--at least all those who lived in the coast\nregions--together with many of the Toltecs and of their neighbors the\nChichimecs. After the destruction of these Philistines, \"being at peace\nwith all this new world, all the wise Toltecs, both the astrologers and\nthose of other arts, assembled in Huehue Tlapallan, the chief city of\ntheir dominion, where they treated of many things, the calamities they\nhad suffered and the movements of the heavens since the creation of the\nworld, and of many other things, which on account of their histories\nhaving been burned, have not been ascertained further than what has\nbeen written here, among which they added the bissextile to regulate\nthe solar year with the equinox, and many other curiosities as will\nbe seen in their tables and arrangement of years, months, weeks, days,\nsigns, and planets as they understood them.\"\n\nOne hundred and sixteen years after this regulation or invention of the\nToltec calendar, \"the sun and moon were eclipsed, the earth shook, and\nthe rocks were rent asunder, and many other things and signs happened,\nthough there was no loss of life. This was in the year Ce Calli, which,\nthe chronology being reduced to our systems, proves to be the same date\nwhen Christ our Lord suffered\" (33 A.D.)\n\nThree hundred and five years later, when the empire had been long at\npeace, Chalcatzin and Tlacamihtzin, chief descendants of the royal\nhouse of the Toltecs, raised a revolt for the purpose of deposing the\nlegitimate successor to the throne. The rebellious chiefs were after\nlong wars driven out of their city Tlachicatzin in Huehue Tlapallan,\nwith all their numerous families and allies. They were pursued by their\nkindred of the city or country of Tlaxicoluican for sixty leagues, to\na place discovered by Cecatzin, which they named Tlapallanconco or\n'little' Tlapallan. The struggle by which the rebels were conquered\nlasted eight years,--or thirteen, according to Veytia--and they\nwere accompanied on their forced migration by five other chiefs. The\ndeparture from Huehue Tlapallan seems to have taken place in the fifth\nor sixth century.[III-73]\n\n[Sidenote: EXILE OF THE TOLTECS.]\n\n[Sidenote: THE TOLTEC MIGRATION.]\n\nThey remained at Tlapallanconco[III-74] three years, and towards the end\nof their stay the seven chieftains assembled to deliberate whether\nthey should remain there permanently or go farther. Then rose a\ngreat astrologer, named Hueman, or Huematzin, saying that according\nto their histories they had suffered great persecutions from heaven,\nbut that these had always been followed by great prosperity; that\ntheir persecutions had always occurred in the year Ce Tecpatl, but\nthat year once passed, great blessings ensued; that their trouble was\na great evil immediately preceding the dawn of a greater good, and\nconsequently it did not behoove them to remain so near their enemies.\nMoreover, his astrology had taught him that towards the rising sun\nthere was a broad and happy land, where the Quinames had lived for many\nyears, but so long a time had now passed since their destruction that\nthe country was depopulated; besides, the fierce Chichimecs, their\nneighbors, rarely penetrated those regions. The planet which ruled\nthe destinies of that new country yet lacked many years of carrying\nout its threats, and in the meantime they and their descendants to\nthe tenth generation might enjoy a golden and prosperous century.\nAgain, the threatening planet did not rule their nation, but that\nof the giants, so that possibly it might do no great injury even to\ntheir descendants. He advised that some colonists be left here to\npeople the country, become their vassals, and in time to turn upon\ntheir enemies and recover their native land and original power. These\nand other things did Hueman counsel, and they seemed good to the\nseven chiefs; so that after three years were passed, or eleven years\nfrom the time when they left Huehue Tlapallan, they started on their\nmigration. The first stopping-place, about seventy leagues distant\nand reached in twelve days was Hueyxalan--'great sandy' as Veytia\ninterprets it--a place discovered by Cohuatzon where they remained four\nyears. They next halted after a journey of twenty days at Xalisco,\na country about a hundred leagues farther east--or as Veytia says\nwest--near the seashore. They lived eight years in this land, which\nwas discovered by Ziuhcohuatl. Other twenty days and hundred leagues\ntook them to Chimalhuacan Atenco on the coast where there were certain\nislands, and here they dwelt five years. At the start they had taken a\nvow, under penalty of severe punishment, to have no intercourse with\ntheir wives for twenty-three years; but as the time was now expired\nthey began here to increase and multiply. After the five years they\nresumed their journey eastward for eighteen days or eighty leagues\nto Toxpan, discovered by Mezotzin, where they lived for five years\nalso. Quiyahuitztlan An\u00e1huac, discovered by Acapichtzin--was twenty\ndays' journey or a hundred leagues east of Toxpan, also on the coast,\nwith inlets so that they were obliged to pass in boats from one place\nto another. They remained here six years suffering great hardships.\nThe next halting-place was Zacatlan, distant eighteen days or eighty\nleagues in a direction not stated. Chalcatzin was the discoverer,\nand during the first of their seven years' stay here--just fifty-two\nyears, or a _xiuhtlalpilli_, after their wars began--a son was born to\nthe chief, and named from the place Zacapantzin. At Totzapan, eighty\nleagues distance from Zacatlan, they lived six years, in the last of\nwhich a son named Totzapantzin was born to Cecatzin, who discovered\nthis place. This was just fifty-two years after they left their native\ncountry. Twenty-eight days or one hundred and forty leagues brought\nthem to Tepetla, Cohuatzon being the discoverer for the second time,\nwhere they remained seven years. At Mazatepec eighteen days or eighty\nleagues distant, discovered by Ziuhcohuatl, they tarried eight years;\nat Ziuhcohuatl, at the same distance, discovered by Tlapalmetzin,\nalso eight years; at Yztachuexucha, twenty days or one hundred leagues\nnorthward, discovered by Metzotzin, twenty-six years. Finally a journey\nof eighteen days or eighty leagues brought them to Tulancingo--written\nalso Tulantzinco and Tollantzinco--discovered by Acapichtzin. Here\nthey built a house sufficiently large to contain all the people, and\nremained eighteen years before transferring their capital to Tollan\nfarther east and establishing what was afterwards known as the Toltec\nempire. The third year of their stay in Tulancingo completed an age, or\none hundred and four years since the departure from their country.[III-75]\nAccording to Ixtlilxochitl, the Toltecs reached An\u00e1huac in the sixth\ncentury, or according to Veytia and others who have attempted to\nreconstruct his chronology, near the end of the seventh century.[III-76]\n\nThis tradition of the Toltecs affords in itself no sufficient data from\nwhich to locate accurately Huehue Tlapallan, their most ancient home\nin America. The name is interpreted as 'ancient red land, or land of\ncolor,' and might perhaps apply as well to the north as to the south.\nPedro de Alvarado writing from Santiago, or Old Guatemala, to Cort\u00e9s\nin 1524, announces his intention to set out in a few months to explore\nthe country of Tapalan \"which is in the interior fifteen days' march\nfrom here. It is pretended that the capital is as large as Mexico.\"[III-77]\nThis indicates that at the time of the Conquest the name was still\napplied to a region which may correspond very well to Honduras, Peten,\nor Tabasco. Ixtlilxochitl himself, in relating the expeditions on\nwhich his ancestor of the same name accompanied Cort\u00e9s, mentions one\nto \"Tlapalan, a province which lies toward Ihueras,\" or Ibueras, being\nthe former name of Honduras.[III-78] Brasseur says that \"Mexican geography\nat the time of the discovery applied this name only to the provinces\nnorth of Guatemala, between the tributaries of the Rio Usumacinta and\nHonduras;\" and also that the country was spoken of by authors at the\ntime of the Conquest as Tlapallan de Cort\u00e9s, on account of Cort\u00e9s'\nexpedition to Honduras, but he mentions no authors except those I have\nreferred to.[III-79] The same author believes that the name Tlapallanconco\ngiven by Ixtlilxochitl to the first station, sixty leagues from Huehue\nTlapallan, should be Tlapallantzinco. He tells us that the Guatemalan\nhistories mentions such a city conquered by the Quich\u00e9s in Soconusco\non the coast, at a point not far from sixty leagues distant from the\nOcocingo region.[III-80] Again, according to Sahagun and Torquemada, when\nQuetzalcoatl, the second of the name, who flourished while the Toltecs\nwere at Tollan, left the country, he embarked or disappeared on the\ngulf coast near the Goazacoalco River, announcing his intention to go\nto Tlapallan. This would certainly favor the idea that Tlapallan was a\nsouthern country.\n\n[Sidenote: THE COUNTRY OF HUEHUE TLAPALLAN.]\n\nOn the other hand, the eastward direction attributed to the migration\nfrom Tlapallanconco to An\u00e1huac is not consistent with any Central\nAmerican location of the starting-place; but, in connection with the\nfact that Xalisco is given as the second station about a hundred and\nseventy leagues distant from Tlapallanconco, would agree somewhat\nbetter with the theory generally adopted by the Spanish writers that\nthe original home of the Toltecs was in the north-west, probably on\nthe Gulf of California; yet the name Tlapallan has never been found in\nthe north-west.[III-81] Material relics of any great empire are wanting in\nthat region, at least beyond Quemada in Zacatecas, and the itinerary is\nfull of inconsistencies which prove it to be unreliable as a historic\nrecord. For instance, an eastern course of a hundred leagues to any\npoint on the coast of Jalisco would be an impossibility; the next two\nmoves led a hundred leagues down the Pacific Coast, and then across\nthe continent to Toxpan, or Tuxpan, on the gulf coast in Vera Cruz;\nthen, although Tuxpan is on the eastern coast, the migration continued\nstill a hundred leagues eastward, another impossibility of course.\nHow they returned to the states of Vera Cruz and Mexico, where the\nother stations would seem to be located, does not appear. In fact\nthe tradition of this migration as it reads, so far as directions,\ndistances, and names are concerned, is meaningless, a fact due either\nto the carelessness of the compiler or the scantiness of his materials.\nIntrinsically then the evidence, while not conclusive, favors the idea\nthat Huehue Tlapallan was in the south.\n\nComparing the Toltec tradition with those that have been already given,\nwe find, except in names, a strong resemblance in general features.\nIn the successive creations and destructions of men; the apes that\npeopled the land after one of the destructions; the ancient settlement\nand growth to power of the Toltecs in a fertile country named Huehue\nTlapallan; the destruction of a rival power, that of the Quinames;\nthe regulation or invention of the calendar by an assemblage of wise\nmen in Huehue Tlapallan; and a final forced migration to new homes--in\nall these features the tradition seems to represent a vague memory of\nevents already familiar to us as having occurred in the central region;\nin the Votanic empire of the Tzendal traditions; in the Xibalba, Paxil,\nand Tulan Zuiva, or Seven Caves, of the Quich\u00e9 record; and especially\nin the Tamoanchan and Tonacatepetl of the annals gathered by Sahagun.\n\n[Sidenote: SOUTHERN ORIGIN OF THE TOLTECS.]\n\nIn opposition to those analogies we have the fact that the Spanish\nwriters locate Huehue Tlapallan in the north, as they do also the\noriginal homes of all the nations that are reported by native tradition\nto have migrated successively into An\u00e1huac. It is not probable that\nthis idea of a northern origin was a pure invention of the Spaniards;\nthey doubtless found among the Aztecs with whom they came in contact\nwhat seemed to them a prevalent popular notion that the ancestors of\nthe race came from the north. Yet the tradition given by Sahagun--and\nreferring to a time long prior to the Toltec migration of the fifth or\nsixth century--relating to the first appearance of the Nahua civilizers\non the gulf coast, whither they had come by sea from the north-east,\nprobably from Florida, would have been perhaps a sufficient foundation\nfor such a popular idea; and the not improbable fact that the Aztecs\nproper and some other nations, prominent in rank and power at the\ntime of the Conquest, did actually come into An\u00e1huac from the region\nimmediately adjoining it on the north or north-west, would certainly\nhave contributed to confirm that idea. In other words the Aztecs when\nquestioned by the Spaniards may have replied that they came from the\nnorth, referring in most cases to the latest move of their nation into\nAn\u00e1huac, but possibly in some instances to the vague traditions of\ntheir fathers respecting the very earliest periods of their existence\nas a race. The Spaniards at once connected the reported northern\norigin with the world-peopling migration from Central Asia after the\nconfusion of tongues; and since the old and new world were supposed\nto be connected or nearly so in the north, they found the native\ntradition strongly confirmed by the scriptures. When the theory of\nsuccessive migrations from the north, thus confirmed, had once been\nestablished in their minds, nothing could overthrow it; it became in\na certain sense a part of their religion. Each migration subsequently\nfound recorded in the native annals, as means of communication between\nthe conquerors and conquered became perfected, was at once given a\nnorth-to-south direction. The natives themselves were in many instances\nnot unwilling to please their masters by orthodox interpretations\nof their picture-writings. Finally the ruins of Quemada, the Casas\nGrandes of Chihuahua, and the adobe buildings on the Gila were\ndiscovered--doubtless traces left by migrating nations, and thus the\nlast doubt on the subject, if any could exist, was removed even from\nthe minds of later and more intelligent class of Spanish writers, like\nClavigero and Veytia.[III-82]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THE PRIMITIVE CHICHIMECS.]\n\nIn the Toltec tradition we have found the Chichimecs mentioned as a\npowerful and fierce people and their neighbors in Huehue Tlapallan.\nSince this is the first mention of that famous people, since all the\nbest authorities insist that the Toltecs and Chichimecs were of the\nsame blood and language, and since the Chichimecs afterwards succeeded\nthe Toltecs in An\u00e1huac, we naturally turn to the Chichimec traditions\nof their early home for additional information respecting Huehue\nTlapallan, although the Chichimec migration occurring several centuries\nlater would come chronologically beyond the limits of this chapter.\nOur search in this direction for data from which to determine the\nlocation of the ancient Nahua empire is, however, fruitless. Although\nIxtlilxochitl is still the chief authority, we have no mention of\nHuehue Tlapallan. The country--or _a_ country, for it is not certain\nthat it was the original Chichimec home and not one located in central\nMexico, although some of the traditions seem to point to primitive\ntimes--of immense extent, is called Amaquemecan; one of its chief\ncities seems to have borne the same name, and another city was Oyome.\nThe names Necuametl and Nacuix are also applied to the country by\nIxtlilxochitl, and he further states that the Chichimecs came like the\nother nations from Chicomoztoc. Some fourteen kings are named as having\nruled over the kingdom, beginning with Chichimecatl who brought the\npeople to the country and from whom they took their name. Nothing is\nknown of the reigns of any except the last three, the first of whom is\nreported to have sent his son at the request of the Toltecs to become\nthe first king in Tollan. Ixtlilxochitl in his account of the sending\nfor this king says that the Chichimecs were at that time in the region\nof P\u00e1nuco, and that fear of hostility from them was the chief motive\nof the Toltecs in inviting a Chichimec to rule over them. It is not,\nhowever, stated that the Chichimec capital was in that part of the\ncountry. When at last the empire came into the hands of two brothers,\none of whom Xolotl, with all his people, decided to migrate, not\none of their halting-places is named, until they had journeyed for a\nwhole year and reached the vicinity of An\u00e1huac; consequently there is\nno clue to the course of their migration. Besides the statement that\nthe Chichimecs came from the Seven Caves, and another by Veytia that\nthe kings wore quetzal-feathers, there seems to be absolutely nothing\nin the tradition to indicate whether Amaquemecan was in the north\nor south. Yet the Spanish writers have no hesitation in fixing the\ndirection, although disagreeing somewhat about the locality. From two\nto three hundred leagues north of Jalisco, beyond New Mexico, and in\nAlaska are some of the decisions in this matter,--decisions resting on\nauthority that the reader already understands. It seems probable that\nthe great original Nahua empire whether it be called Huehue Tlapallan,\nTamoanchan, Tulan, or Amaquemecan, was the Chichimec empire--that is,\nthat the Toltecs or revolting branch constituted but a small portion of\nthe Chichimec or Nahua people.[III-83]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: MIGRATION FROM THE SOUTH.]\n\nThe Chichimec migration was followed by many others at irregular\nintervals, ending with that of the Aztecs, all of which will be\nspoken of in their proper place. The chronologic order attributed by\ntradition to these migrations is not to be relied on, giving, as may\nbe supposed, only a vague idea of the order in which the different\nnations acquired some prominence in and about the valley of Mexico.\nIn its ancient centre--not in An\u00e1huac, whether it was in the north or\nsouth--the primitive Nahua power was overthrown, or from that centre\nit was transferred to be re-established by exiled princes and their\ndescendants on the Mexican plateaux. This transfer, whose nature we may\nvaguely comprehend, but of whose details we know nothing, is the event\nor series of events referred to by the various migration-traditions.\nThe recollections of these events assumed different forms in the\ntraditions of different tribes until each nation claimed or were deemed\nby the Spaniards to claim a distinct migration from its former home.\nThe accounts of the migrations following the Toltec will be given in\ntheir proper place, and here we have only to notice that the Seven\nCaves are mentioned as a starting-place or station in most if not\nall of these migrations, and that the only names that appear in the\ntraditions applied to the ancient Nahua dwelling-place are Aztlan,\nCulhuacan or Teo Culhuacan, and Aquilasco. These names are perhaps\napplied to cities in the ancient home, but it is by no means certain,\nas will appear later, that they did not all belong to localities\nin central Mexico. At least neither the names nor the events of the\nmigrations as reported afford any proof of geographical location. The\nanalogy between Culhuacan and Culiacan is not a strong argument in\nfavor of a north-western location, or at most does not outweigh the\nidentity of the names Culhuacan and Nachan. A palm-tree painted on the\npicture-writing supposed to record one of the migrations, in connection\nwith the starting-place, as has been remarked by several authorities,\nseems to favor the idea that the point of departure was in the south\nrather than in the north, and would certainly be a circumstance of\nconsiderable weight against an extreme northern location for Aztlan.\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 Brasseur de Bourbourg attempts to reconcile the general\nfact shown by all the earlier traditions that the primitive Nahua\npower was in the south, with the idea of a migration from the north\napparently entertained by each of the nations of An\u00e1huac and by the\nSpanish writers. According to his idea the Nahuas, overcome by the\nmonarchs of Xibalba, were driven from Chiapas, dwelt a few years on the\nPacific coast at Tlapallantzinco, and thence migrated north-westward\nin different bands, following the general direction of the coast,\nto Sonora and Upper California. Along this route, as this author\nclaims, distinct traces of their migration are apparent, referring\nperhaps, although he does not say so, to linguistic traces. In this\nnorthern region, about the Gulf of California, they established great\nkingdoms and built great cities, each Nahua colony becoming a centre\nof civilization to the wild tribes with whom it came in contact. From\nthis region, to places in which the names Teo Culhuacan, Aztlan, etc.,\nof the traditions may be applied, the different Nahua nations descended\ninto An\u00e1huac in successive migrations from the seventh to the twelfth\ncentury, impelled by civil convulsions or the pressure of outside and\nwarlike tribes.[III-84]\n\nI am inclined to find in the abb\u00e9's theory a statement--too definite\nperhaps--of a general fact. That is, the Nahua power--established\nin eastern and south-eastern Mexico by the Olmec tribes almost\nsimultaneously with its growth in the south--was after its overthrow\nin Central America established by exiled nobles over western and\nnorth-western Mexico. I find no evidence, however, that the Nahua\npower ever became settled and flourishing farther north than Durango\nand Sinaloa, although the influence of their institutions may, not\nimprobably, have extended to the Sonora tribes; into California and\nthe far north-west the Nahuas never penetrated. If a Nahua empire or\npolitical power ever really existed in the north-west, its centre\nwas probably in the region of Quemada, in Zacatecas and Jalisco.\nSoon, however, the valley of Mexico became the political centre, and\nthe subsequent history of the country was essentially a history of\nAn\u00e1huac. The modern aboriginal annals of each nation dated from its\nrise to notice in An\u00e1huac, and in the traditions of previous history\nimperfectly communicated to the Spaniards, their former greatness in\nthe south, their defeat and exile, their life in outside provinces, and\ntheir settlement in the valley were sadly confused.\n\n[Sidenote: ANNALS OF YUCATAN.]\n\nMendieta, Torquemada, Gomara, and others, record the popular tradition\nof the settlement of Mexico as follows: An old man Iztac Mixcohuatl,\nby his wife Ilancueitl, in Chicomoztoc, or the Seven Caves, had six\nsons, Xelhua, Tenuch, Ulmecatl, Xicalancatl, Mixtecatl, and Otomitl.\nTenuch's descendants were the Aztecs; Xelhua gave his name to no\nnation, but his followers settled at various points in the south-east;\nthe others founded the nations which took their names. Mendieta adds\nthat by another wife the same old man had a son named\nQuetzalcoatl.[III-85] Pi\u00f1eda tells us that a nephew of Votan divided\nthe land of An\u00e1huac.[III-86] According to Arlegui the Toltecs came\nfrom the west and divided New Spain between their seven\nfamilies.[III-87] I believe I have now given all the important\ntraditions that seem to belong to the pre-Toltec period in Mexico, and\nI deem it unnecessary to refer to the authors who merely give an\nabridged version of the same accounts, many of them confining\nthemselves to the simple statement that the Toltecs, a very skillful\npeople, came first from the north and settled in the region afterwards\nknown as New Spain.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nReturning to the south, it only remains to examine briefly the\nprimitive Maya annals of Yucatan, which confirm in a few points those\nof other peoples, so far as they relate to the great American centre\nof civilization in the south. These annals will be given in full\nelsewhere; a very general view, with especial reference to the points\nreferred to, will suffice here. A prevalent belief among the Mayas at\nthe time of the Conquest was, that the peninsula was settled in ancient\ntimes by two races, one from the east, the other from the west. It\nis not implied that they came at the same period, but rather that the\nmigration from the east preceded that from the west by many centuries.\nLizana tells us that in ancient times the east was called _cenial_,\nor 'little descent,' and the west _nohenial_, or 'great descent,'\nbelieving that these names indicate the comparative numbers of the\nrespective colonies. Landa and Herrera record a tradition that the\noldest inhabitants came from the east, the sea being divided to afford\nthem a passage. Cogolludo concludes, contrary to the opinion of Lizana,\nthat the colony from the east must have been much more numerous as well\nas more ancient than the other, because of the universal use of the\nMaya language and of Maya names of places throughout the peninsula--a\nconclusion that carries little weight, since it rests mainly on the\nassumption that those who came from the west spoke the Aztec language,\nan assumption for which there is no authority whatever.\n\n[Sidenote: ZAMN\u00c1'S EMPIRE.]\n\nThe personage whose name appears first in the Maya tradition is\nZamn\u00e1, son of the chief deity, who taught the people, invented the\nhieroglyphic alphabet, and gave a name to each locality in Yucatan. His\nr\u00f4le, so far as anything is known of it, was precisely the same as that\nof Votan in Chiapas. Zamn\u00e1 is reported to have lived long in the land\nand to have been buried at the close of his career at Izamal. During\nhis life he founded Mayapan, 'standard (or capital) of Maya,'--Maya\nbeing the native name of the country and signifying according to some\nauthorities 'land without water'--a city which was several times ruined\nand rebuilt after its founder's time. Zamn\u00e1 may be most naturally\nconnected with the traditional migration from the east. Cogolludo, it\nis true, states that he was at the head of the other colony, and this\nstatement is repeated in one place by Brasseur, but as the Spanish\nwriter directly contradicts his statement on the same page, not much\nimportance is to be attached to it. Vague as it is, the tradition of\nZamn\u00e1 and his followers from the east seems identical with that of\nVotan. If we suppose that such persons as Zamn\u00e1 and Votan actually had\nan existence--a supposition which like its opposite forms no part of\nthis chapter--it would be impossible to determine whether the two were\nthe same, or Zamn\u00e1 the companion, disciple, or descendant of Votan;\nbut we may well believe that the period, the empire, the institutions\nalluded to in the Maya record are the same as those connected with the\nVotanic or Xibalban traditions. The ancient power whose centre was in\nChiapas, Tabasco, and Honduras, extended north-eastward into Yucatan as\nit did north-westward into An\u00e1huac. Ordo\u00f1ez states, as usual without\ngiving his authority, that Mayapan was one of the allied capitals,\nwhich with Nachan and Tulan constituted the Votanic empire. The fact\nthat the name of the Cocomes, the most ancient people, or at least\nthe oldest line of kings and nobles, in Yucatan signifies in the Nahua\ntongue 'serpents,' like the name Chanes applied to Votan's followers,\nmay have some significance, although in the Maya tongue Cocome is also\nsaid to mean 'listener.'\n\nAt an unknown date, but subsequent to that of Zamn\u00e1's rule, we find\nthree brothers, the Itzaob, reigning at Chichen over a people called\nfrom them the Itzas, as the city also was called thereafter Chichen\nItza. They came from the west, were just and chaste men, and their\nreign a long and glorious one. One of them, however, having finally\nleft the country, the others gave themselves up to immoral practices,\nand were put to death. Notwithstanding the fact that the brothers came,\naccording to the Spanish writers, from the west, there is much reason\nto suppose that the nation whose capital was at Chichen, was an ancient\npeople dating back to the time of Zamn\u00e1, since the most satisfactory\ninterpretation of the name 'Itza' is that it came from 'Ytzamna,' the\nmore ancient form of the great founder's name. Connected with the three\nbrothers in a manner not clearly defined by the tradition--either\nruling conjointly with them or more probably coming into power\nimmediately after their downfall--was Cukulcan, who also came from\nthe west, who was also famous for the purity of his life, and whose\nteachings in fact were identical with those of Quetzalcoatl among the\nNahua peoples. He also is credited with the founding, or re-founding of\nMayapan, which under his rule became the political centre of the whole\ncountry, although Chichen still retained great prominence. Cukulcan\nhaving raised the country to a condition of the highest prosperity,\nfinally abandoned Yucatan for some unknown motive and returned\nwestward, disappearing at Champoton, or Potonchan, on the coast, where\nhe dwelt for some time and where a temple in his honor was afterwards\nerected. After his departure the Cocome princes came into power, their\ncapital being still Mayapan.\n\nThe identity in character, teachings, and actions between Cukulcan and\nQuetzalcoatl, suggests the first appearance in Yucatan, at this time,\nof Nahua tribes or Nahua institutions, corresponding to a certain\nextent with the appearance of the Olmecs and Xicalancas in An\u00e1huac,\nand indicating that the Nahua influence was exerted during its earliest\nperiod of development in the north-east as well as in the north-west.\nIndeed, Veytia records a tradition to the effect that Yucatan was\nsettled by the Olmecs and Xicalancas driven from Mexico at the coming\nof the Toltecs; this author justly rejects the latter part of this\nreport, but expresses his belief that bands from these nations did\nactually settle in the peninsula. When to the analogies already noticed\nbetween Quetzalcoatl and Cukulcan we add the fact that their names\nare etymologically identical, both signifying 'plumed serpent,' little\nreason remains to doubt that the Maya tradition refers, like the others\nthat have been noticed, to the first coming into prominence of the\nNahuas in America.\n\n[Sidenote: THE TUTUL XIUS IN YUCATAN.]\n\nThe next prominent event in Yucatan history, as it is also the last\nthat has any special bearing upon the period now under consideration,\nand the most important in that connection, is the arrival of the Tutul\nXius. According to the traditions of the natives as recorded by the\nSpaniards, this peaceful but highly cultivated people came from the\nsouth, perhaps from Chiapas, after wandering for forty years in the\nunsettled and mountainous portions of the country, and settled near\nMayapan. The Cocomes, successors to the Itza brothers and Cukulcan,\nhaving at the time governed the country long and prosperously, received\nthe new-comers kindly and formed an alliance with them, an alliance\nwhich continued for a long time until the Cocome kings, becoming\ntyrannical, were overthrown by a revolution in which the Tutul Xius\nwere the most prominent actors. It is, however, with their arrival and\nnot with their subsequent actions that we have to do here. The mere\ntradition of their arrival after a long migration from the southern\nhighlands would at best furnish only slight grounds for the conjecture\nof the Spaniards that they came from Chiapas; but another document\nunknown to the Spanish missionary-authors throws great light upon\nthis people, and invests their appearance in Yucatan with increased\nimportance. The document referred to is the Maya manuscript translated\nby Pio Perez, first published in Mr Stephens' work on Yucatan, and\nlater with the work of Bishop Landa, which begins as follows:--\"This\nis the series of katunes elapsed since the four Tutul Xius departed\nfrom the house of Nonoual, which was west of Zuina, and came from the\nland of Tulapan. Four katunes passed after they set out before they\narrived here with Holonchan Tepeuh and his companions, before they\nreached this peninsula; the 8 Ahau had passed, the 6 Ahau, the 4 Ahau,\nand the 2 Ahau--eighty-one years before they arrived in this peninsula,\neighty-one years that they spent in their journey from their country\nto this peninsula of Chacnouitan.\" Here we find it distinctly stated\nthat this people came from Tulapan, 'capital of Tula,' the very place\nfrom which, according to the Quich\u00e9 record, the Nahua nations migrated,\nand it is more than likely that Zuina should be Zuiva, defined in the\n_Popol Vuh_ as the Seven Caves. This, in connection with the Quich\u00e9\nlamentation over that division of their brothers which they had left\nin the east, is amply sufficient to identify the Tutul Xius as one of\nthe Nahua tribes that migrated from the original centre. The family of\nNonoual seems to have given a name to the tribes that occupied Tabasco\ndown to the Conquest. This document assumes to give the date of the\nTutul Xiu migration, a most important date, since it is also that of\nthe overthrow of Nahua power in Chiapas and its transfer to An\u00e1huac;\nbut until the Maya system of Ahau katunes[III-88] shall have been the\nobject of much additional research, there is little hope of arriving\nat an accurate interpretation of the date. Sr Perez gives it as 144\nA.D. The Abb\u00e9 Brasseur, relying on the same document, gives the date\nrepeatedly as 171 A.D.; but in his translation of the document in\nLanda's work he concluded that it should be 401 A.D., reckoning each\nAhau katun as twenty years, and remarking that this date agrees much\nbetter than the earlier one with Ixtlilxochitl's chronology. Of the\nPerez manuscript Mr Gallatin remarks that it contains all we know of\nthe history and chronology of Yucatan. To ascertain dates is out of\nthe question; but it is probable that the events are stated in their\nrespective order.[III-89]\n\n[Sidenote: OVERTHROW OF THE NAHUAS.]\n\nA Mexican document, known only through Brasseur de Bourbourg, and by\nhim called the _Codex Gondra_, furnishes some additional information\nrespecting the overthrow of the Nahua power in Central America, and\nespecially respecting the house of Nonoual alluded to in the Perez\ndocument. I quote from the author named as follows:--\"The manuscript\nbegins with a description of the twenty wards of the great city of\nTollan, or Tulh\u00e1, _Huey Tollan_; but it gives the names of only the\nfirst twelve, the translator, who apparently attached but little\nimportance to names, having deemed it proper to omit the other eight.\nThe author relates the events that precipitated the ruin of the throne,\noccasioned by the minority of the last Chane prince, whose guardianship\nwas claimed by two powerful families, one called the Chichimec-Toltecs,\nand the other the Chichimecs of Nonohualco. The quarrel terminated\nin the insurrection of the latter and the assassination of the young\nmonarch. But the prince was beloved by the people, and on account of\nthe popular indignation, the murderers were forced to flee by night\nwith all their followers. On their departure from Tulh\u00e0, Xelhua,\nthe chief the Nonohualcos, went to consult the oracle of Culhuacan,\n[Palenque?] which enjoined him to depart. On the way he did penance for\nhis crime, and after several defeats at the hands of the tribes through\nwhose lands he was forced to pass, he at last founded the kingdom of\nthe Nonohualcos, fixing the capital at Quetzaltepec in the mountains\nabout the country of the Zoques, who were conquered by his successors.\nThe author gives the names of the thirteen princes who occupied the\nthrone after Xelhua with the leading events of their reigns. But while\nXelhua was establishing a new empire, Ieyxcohuatl, chief of the Toltec\nparty, who had seized upon the power after the death of the young king\nof Tulh\u00e0, of which he had been the principal cause, was forced after\na few years of power to abandon in his turn the capital, with all his\nfollowers, to avoid the vengeance of the people. He went into exile\nwith the Toltecs, and the manuscript gives their itinerary as far as\nTlachihualtepec, or Cholula, at the time occupied by the Olmecs and\nXicalancas, who ruled the whole Aztec plateau.\"[III-90]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have placed before the reader such historical traditions of the\ncivilized nations as seem to bear upon the earliest period of their\ndevelopment. Their exact meaning, so far as details are concerned,\nis with the aid of existing authorities beyond the reach of the most\ncareful study, and no attempt has been made to attach a definite\nsignificance to each aboriginal tale, or to form from all a symmetrical\nchronologic whole; indeed, their interpretation has not been carried\nso far in many cases as the authorities seemed with considerable\nplausibility to justify. Taking up one after another the annals\nof the leading nations as recorded by the best authorities, I have\nendeavored to point out only the apparent general significance of\neach. The evidence thus elicited by a separate examination of each\nwitness has pointed--with varying force, but with great uniformity of\ndirection--towards the Central or Usumacinta region, not necessarily\nas the original cradle of American civilization, but as the most\nancient home to which it can be traced by traditional, monumental,\nand linguistic records. In obtaining this evidence there has been no\noccasion to resort to the sifting process of rejecting all testimony\nseemingly opposed to a preconceived theory. Almost the only argument\nagainst the general tenor of the traditions, monuments, and languages,\nhas been the prevalent idea among Spanish writers favoring a migration\nfrom the north; and the force of this argument has proved to be more\napparent than real. Comparison of the records one with another has\ngreatly strengthened the evidence derived from them separately; and\nthe cumulative proof afforded by their successive examination has been\ndeemed sufficient to confirm the general conclusions of the preceding\npages, which may be expressed as follows:\n\n[Sidenote: GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.]\n\nThroughout several centuries preceding the Christian era, and perhaps\none or two centuries following, there flourished in Central America\nthe great Maya empire of the Chanes, Culhuas, or Serpents, known to\nits foes as Xibalba, with its centre in Chiapas at or near Palenque,\nand with several allied capitals in the surrounding region. Its first\nestablishment at a remote period[III-91] was attributed by the people to\na being called Votan, who was afterwards worshiped as a god. Whether\nsuch a person as Votan ever had an actual existence; who, or what he\nwas; whence, or how, or among what people the civilization attributed\nto him was introduced--we can only form vague conjectures. America\nwas certainly peopled before the Votanic era, and that most likely\nby civilized as well as savage tribes, but pre-Votanic nations have\nleft absolutely no record.[III-92] Perhaps the most reasonable conjecture\nis that the Votanic power was of gradual growth, at first humble\nand subordinate, but constantly increasing, overcoming, absorbing,\nsucceeding other powers as others in later times succeeded, absorbed,\nand overcame it. The Votanic institutions can only be known by the\ntraces they may be supposed to have left in those of the later Maya\nnations. The prevailing language was doubtless either the Maya, the\nTzendal, or a mother-tongue from which these as well as the Quich\u00e9,\nCakchiquel, and others of the same linguistic family, have sprung;\nalthough it is not unlikely that the empire embraced some nations\nspeaking other languages. From its centre in the Usumacinta region the\nVotanic power was gradually extended north-westward towards An\u00e1huac,\nwhere its subjects vaguely appear in tradition as Quinames, or giants.\nIt also penetrated north-eastward into Yucatan, where Zamn\u00e1 was its\nreputed founder, and the Cocomes and Itzas probably its subjects. In\nother regions where its influence was doubtless felt it seems to have\nleft no definite traces.\n\nMuch of our knowledge respecting the original Maya empire is drawn from\nthe traditions of a rival power. It is not quite certain even that any\nof the ruined temples or palaces in the central region were entirely\nthe work of the ancient people before they came under Nahua influences;\nthe differences noted in the monuments referred to suggest the effects\nof such influences exerted in different degrees.[III-93] The Maya empire\nseems to have been in the height of its prosperity when the rival\nNahua power came into prominence, perhaps two or three centuries before\nChrist.[III-94] The origin of the new people and of the new institutions\nis as deeply shrouded in mystery as is that of their predecessors,\nalthough the nature of the institutions themselves is well known to\nus in a later and doubtless somewhat modified state of development.\nThe language of the nations among which these institutions were first\nestablished was doubtless the Nahua, or old Aztec. The Plumed Serpent,\nknown in different tongues as Quetzalcoatl, Gucumatz, and Cukulcan,\nwas the being who traditionally founded the new order of things. The\nNahua power grew up side by side with its Xibalban predecessor, having\nits capital Tulan apparently in Chiapas. Like the Maya power, it was\nnot confined to its original home, but was borne by the Olmec colonies\ntowards An\u00e1huac, where it came in contact with that of the Quinames;\nand in the person of Cukulcan it penetrated the peninsula of Yucatan\nto exert its influence upon the Itzas and Cocomes. The two powers seem\nnot to have been on unfriendly terms at first. In fact there is much\nreason to suspect that their respective institutions did not differ\nradically, and that their rivalry developed into open hostility only\nafter the Nahuas had succeeded in introducing their ideas among so many\nMaya nations, and in reducing to a life of civilization so many wild\ntribes, that they had acquired a balance of political power. For it\nis certain that, whatever may have been true of the Maya culture, the\nNahua institutions and power were by no means confined to nations of\nthe Nahua language, and that some of the leading nations which accepted\nthe Nahua ideas of religion and government spoke other and even Maya\ntongues. The struggle on the part of the Xibalbans seems to have been\nthat of an old effete monarchy against a young and progressive people.\nWhatever its cause, the result of the conquest was the overthrow of the\nVotanic monarchs at a date which may be approximately fixed within a\ncentury before or after the beginning of our era.[III-95] From that time\nthe ancient empire disappears from traditional history, and there is\nno conclusive evidence that the Xibalban kings or their descendants\never renewed the struggle. Yet we read of no great destruction or\nenslavement or migration of the Chanes resulting from the Nahua\nvictory. The result was only a change of dynasty accompanied by the\nintroduction of some new features in government and religious rites.\nThe old civilization was merged in the new, and practically lost its\nidentity; so much so that all the many nationalities that in later\ntimes traced their origin to this central region were proud, whatever\ntheir language, to claim relationship with the successful Nahuas, whose\ninstitutions they had adopted and whose power they had shared.\n\nRespecting the ensuing period of Nahua greatness in Central America\nnothing is recorded save that it ended in revolt, disaster, and a\ngeneral scattering of the tribes at some period probably preceding the\nfifth century. The national names that appear in connection with the\nclosing struggles are the Toltecs, Chichimecs, Quich\u00e9s, Nonohualcas,\nand Tutul Xius, none of them apparently identical with the Xibalbans.\nIndeed there seems to be very little reason to suppose that this final\nstruggle was a renewal of the old contest between the followers of\nVotan and Quetzalcoatl, although Brasseur de Bourbourg seems inclined\nto take that view of it; but a series of civil wars between rival Nahua\ntribes, or tribes that had accepted Nahua government, seems rather to\nhave been the agency that brought about their final forced migrations.\nOf the subsequent history of the nations that finally remained masters\nof their central home nothing is known; it may be conjectured that\nthe Tzendales and Chiapanecs found by the Spaniards in that part of\nthe country were their somewhat degenerate descendants. Of the tribes\nthat were successively defeated and forced to seek new homes, those\nthat spoke the Maya dialects, although considering themselves Nahuas,\nseem to have settled chiefly in the south and east.[III-96] Some of them\nafterwards rose to great prominence in Guatemala and Yucatan, and their\nannals will form the subject of future chapters. The Nahua-speaking\ntribes as a rule established themselves in An\u00e1huac and in the western\nand north-western parts of Mexico, as their companion tribes, the\nOlmecs and Xicalancas, had already established themselves in the\nsouth-eastern region. The valley of Mexico and the country immediately\nadjoining soon became the centre of the Nahuas in Mexico; its history\nor that of the nations that successively rose to power there, will be\ncontinued in the following chapter.\n\nFrom this epoch of separation in Chiapas the Mayas of the south and\nthe Nahuas of the north were practically distinct peoples, as they have\nbeen considered in the preceding volumes of this work. At the date of\nseparation all were in a certain sense Nahua nations, and the Nahuas\nproper had doubtless been considerably affected by the ancient peoples\nwhom they had overcome or converted, and with whom they had so long\nassociated:--hence the analogies that appear between the institutions\nand monuments of the north and south. Of the contrasts that also\nappear, some date back to original differences between the two rival\npowers; others result from development and progress in different\npaths, during the ten centuries that elapsed before the coming of the\nSpaniards.\n\nBradford, Squier, Tylor, Viollet-le-Duc, Bartlett, and M\u00fcller,[III-97]\nmay be mentioned with Brasseur de Bourbourg among the authorities who\npractically agree with the conclusions expressed above, at least so far\nas the southern origin of the Nahua culture is concerned. It is true\nthat the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur's general conclusions differ in many points from\nthose that I have given; that his opinions expressed in different works\nand even in different parts of the same work differ most perplexingly\nfrom each other; that his theories in many of their details rest\non foundations that seem purely imaginary; that his style, while\nfascinating to the general reader, is most confusing to the student;\nand that his citations of authorities are often inaccurate;--yet\nhe must be regarded as the true originator of the views advanced in\nthis chapter, inasmuch as the material from which they are built up\nwas largely the fruit of his investigations, and his researches have\ndone more than those of all other writers combined to throw light on\nprimitive American history.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[III-1] Vol. iii., p. 450, et seq.\n\n[III-2] Ordo\u00f1ez states in one part of his work that this record was\nnot written by Votan himself, but by his descendant in the eighth or\nninth generation. _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, in _Popol Vuh_, p.\nlxxxvii.\n\n[III-3] _Constituciones Diocesanas del Obispado de Chiappas._ Rome,\n1702.\n\n[III-4] See vol. ii., pp. 771-4.\n\n[III-5] _Teatro Critico Americano_, p. 32, et seq.\n\n[III-6] See vol. iv., p. 289.\n\n[III-7] 'At the top of the first leaf, the two continents are painted\nin different colours, in two small squares, placed parallel to each\nother in the angles: the one representing Europe, Asia, and Africa is\nmarked with two large SS; upon the upper arms of two bars drawn from\nthe opposite angles of each square, forming the point of union in the\ncentre; that which indicates America has two SS placed horizontally on\nthe bars, but I am not certain whether upon the upper or lower bars,\nbut I believe upon the latter. When speaking of the places he had\nvisited on the old continent, he marks them on the margin of each\nchapter, with an upright S, and those of America with an horizontal S.\nBetween these squares stands the title of his history \"Proof that I am\nCulebra\" (a snake), which title he proves in the body of his work, by\nsaying that he is Culebra, because he is Chivim.' _Cabrera_, _Teatro_,\npp. 33-4.\n\n[III-8] _Historia del Cielo y de la Tierra_, MS. See vol. iv., p. 289,\nfor additional notes respecting this author.\n\n[III-9] 'Un estudio de muchos ratos (mas de treinta a\u00f1os) ...\nacompa\u00f1ado de la constante aplicacion con que me dediqu\u00e9 \u00e1 entender\nlas frases de que usaron los Indios en su primitive gentilismo,\nprincipalmente en la historia que de su establecimiento en esta region\nque nosotros llamamos Am\u00e9rica, escribi\u00f3 Votan, la cual consegu\u00ed, de\nles mismos Indios (quienes me la franquearon), y sobre todo, la\nconveniencia que resulta de una prolixa combinacion de la situacion de\naquella ciudad (Palenque), de la disposicion y arquitectura de sus\nedificios, de la antig\u00fcedad de sus gerogl\u00edficos, y finalmente de las\nproducciones de su terreno, con las noticias que, \u00e1 costa de porfiadas\ndiligencias, habia adquirido; cre\u00ed que me tenian en estado de\ndespertar un sistema nada nuevo, pero olvidado.' _Ordo\u00f1ez_, MS., in\n_Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Cartas_, p. 7.\n\n[III-10] Ordo\u00f1ez, as represented by Cabrera--_Teatro_, p. 96--claims\nthat the name _Tzequiles_ has precisely the same meaning as\n_Nahuatlacas_ in the Nahua dialect, and he applies the name to a Nahua\nrather than a Maya people, with much reason as will appear later,\nalthough Brasseur is of a contrary opinion. _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom.\ni., p. 70.\n\n[III-11] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Cartas_, p. 10.\n\n[III-12] For list see vol. ii., p. 767.\n\n[III-13] _Cartas_, p. 71.\n\n[III-14] _Pi\u00f1eda_, _Descrip. Chiapas_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_,\ntom. iii., pp. 343-6; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom.\ni., pp. 95-7.\n\n[III-15] _Cabrera_, _Teatro_, p. 30; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Popol\nVuh_, p. cix.; _Carbajal Espinosa_, _Hist. Mex._, tom. i., p. 165; See\non Votan and his empire, besides the works that have been mentioned in\nthis chapter, _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, p. 203; _Clavigero_, _Storia\nAnt. del Messico_, tom. i., pp. 150-1, tom. iv., pp. 15-16;\n_Boturini_, _Idea_, pp. 114-5; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Popol Vuh_,\nintrod; _Id._, _Esquisses_; _Id._, _Palenqu\u00e9_; _Fontaine's How the\nWorld was Peopled_, p. 136; _Tschudi's Peruvian Antiq._, pp. 11-15;\n_Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., p. 10, et seq.; _Levy_, _Nicaragua_, p.\n4; _Priest's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 248-9; _Beaufoy's Mex. Illust._, pp.\n218-21; _Farcy_, _Discours_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. i., p.\n43.\n\n[III-16] On the Antiquity of Copan, the ruins of Yucatan, and\nPalenque, see vol. iv., pp. 104, 280-5, 359-62.\n\n[III-17] 'The monuments of the Mississippi present stronger internal\nevidence of great antiquity than any others in America, although it by\nno means follows that they are older than Palenque and Copan.' Vol.\niv., p. 790.\n\n[III-18] _Yucatan_, vol. ii., pp. 454-5. By a careful study of Mr\nStephens' conclusions, it will appear evident to the reader that he\nascribes the Central American ruins to the Toltecs, simply as the\noldest nations on the continent of America, of which we have any\nknowledge, and that he reconciles their condition at the time of his\nexploration with their recent origin, chiefly by a consideration of\nthe Yucatan ruins, most of which doubtless do not date back to the\nVotanic empire, and many of which were still occupied at the coming of\nthe first Spaniards.\n\n[III-19] Although in the 'general view,' vol. ii., chap. ii., I have\nclassed the Toltecs among the Nahua nations, it will be noticed that\nthe preceding conclusions of the present chapter are independent of\nsuch a classification, and are not necessarily opposed to the theory,\nheld by some, that the cities of Central America were built by the\nToltecs _before_ they assumed a prominent position among the nations\nof An\u00e1huac. The following notes bear more or less directly on points\ninvolved in the preceding text. Mr Tylor, _An\u00e1huac_, pp. 189-93;\n_Researches_, p. 184, believes that the civilization of Mexico and\nCentral America were originally independent although modified by\ncontact one with the other, and attributes the Central American cities\nto a people who flourished long before the Toltecs, and whose\ndescendants are the Mayas. Yet he favors the climatic theory of the\norigin and growth of civilization, according to which the culture of\nthe south must have been brought from the Mexican tierra templada. I\nhave no objection to offer to this theory. It is in the Usumacinta\nregion that the Maya civilization has left its first record both\ntraditional and monumental; and that is sufficient for my present\npurpose. Orozco y Berra, _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 124-5, etc., concludes from\nhis linguistic researches that the Palenque civilization was much\nolder than the Toltec and distinct from it. Hellwald, in _Smithsonian\nRept._, 1866, pp. 340-1, pronounces the Palenque culture the oldest in\nAmerica, with no resemblance to that of the Nahuas. He rejects the\ntheory that the ruins were the work of migrating Toltecs. Palenque\nwill probably some day decide the question of American civilization.\nIt only awaits a Champollion. _Charnay_, _Ruines Am\u00e9r._, p. 439. The\nruins in the south have undoubted claims to the highest antiquity.\n_Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, p. 199. The Usumacinta seems a kind of\ncentral point for the high culture of Central America. _M\u00fcller_,\n_Amerikanische Urreligionen_, p. 456.\n\n[III-20] See vol. iii., pp. 42-4, note 1, for a bibliographical notice\nof the _Popol Vuh_.\n\n[III-21] _Popol Vuh_, pp. 1-5; _Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp.\n4-5.\n\n[III-22] Vol. iii., pp. 44-7.\n\n[III-23] _Popol Vuh_, pp. 5-31; _Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp.\n5-14.\n\n[III-24] _Popol Vuh_, p. 195, et seq.\n\n[III-25] Or, as Brasseur translates, 'the remnant of those that were\ndrowned,' etc.\n\n[III-26] pp. 31-67; _Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp. 15-29.\n\n[III-27] Ximenez, p. 29, conveys the idea, however, that it is only\nfrom ignorance that so little is told, and not from a desire to be\nmysterious.\n\n[III-28] Ximenez renders this word by 'infierno,' or hell. No\nsatisfactory meaning can be derived from its etymology.\n\n[III-29] Carchah is the name of an Indian town in Vera Paz.\n\n[III-30] _Casa lobrega, maison t\u00e9n\u00e9breuse_. It will be remembered that\nVotan is said to have established a House of Gloom at Huehuetan. See\np. 160.\n\n[III-31] A ballet, according to Brasseur, still performed by the\nnatives of Guatemala, clad in wooden masks and peculiar costumes.\n\n[III-32] The place whence the brothers started to contend against the\nprinces of Xibalba, seems to have been Utatlan in Guatemala--see vol.\niv., pp. 124-8--for Gumarcaah the Quich\u00e9 name of that place is said to\nsignify 'house of old withered canes.' Moreover, Torquemada and Las\nCasas have preserved the tradition that Exbalanquen (Xbalanque) set\nout from Utatlan for the conquest of hell. _Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii.,\np. 53; _Hist. Apolog\u00e9tica_, MS., cap. 125. Xibalba doubtless had the\nsignification of the infernal regions in the popular traditions.\n\n[III-33] _Popol Vuh_, pp. 68-192; _Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp.\n29-79.\n\n[III-34] See vol. ii., pp. 716-7.\n\n[III-35] See p. 172.\n\n[III-36] Vol. iii., pp. 47-54.\n\n[III-37] _Popol Vuh_, pp. 221-2.\n\n[III-38] _Popol Vuh_, pp. 245-7; _Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp.\n98-9.\n\n[III-39] Notes to _Popol Vuh_, pp. lxxxv, ccliv.\n\n[III-40] _Id._, pp. xci-ii.\n\n[III-41] _Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 139-45.\n\n[III-42] Tom. i., p. xviii.\n\n[III-43] According to Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom.\ni., p. 59, the name should be Temoanchan to agree exactly with\nSahagun's definition, 'vamos \u00e1 nuestra casa.' The same author heard an\nIndian of Guatemala define the name as an earthly paradise. _Popol\nVuh_, pp. lxxviii-lxxix.\n\n[III-44] Brasseur believes that the Oxomoco and Cipactonal of the\nNahua myth, are the same as the Xpiyacoc and Xmucane of the _Popol\nVuh_, since the former are two of the inventors of the calendar, while\nthe latter are called grandmothers of the sun and light. _Popol Vuh_,\npp. 4, 20.\n\n[III-45] 'Una _Historia de los Reynos de Culhu\u00e0can, y Mexico_, en\nlengua _Nahuatl_, y papel Europ\u00e8o de Autor Anonymo, y tiene a\u00f1adida\nuna _Breve Relacion de los Dioses, y Ritos de la Gentilidad_ en lengua\nCastellana, etc. Est\u00e0 todo copiado de letra de Don Fernando de Alba y\nle falta la primera foja.' _Boturini_, _Cat\u00e1logo_, pp. 17-18. 'M.\nAubin, qui poss\u00e8de les copies faites par Gama et Pichardo, ajoute au\nsujet de ce document: \"Cette histoire, compos\u00e9e en 1563 et en 1579,\npar un \u00e9crivain de Quauhtitlan et non par Fernando de Alba\n(Ixtlilxochitl), comme l'a cru Pichardo, n'est gu\u00e8re moins pr\u00e9cieuse\nque les pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes (in Brasseur's list), et remonte, ann\u00e9e par ann\u00e9e,\n_au moins_ jusqu'\u00e0 l'an 751 de J. C. A la suite de ces annales se\ntrouve l'histoire anonyme (l'Histoire des soleils), d'o\u00f9 Gama a\nextrait le texte mexicain de la tradition sur les soleils.\"' _Brasseur\nde Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. lxxix.; _Id._, _Popol\nVuh_, p. xi.\n\n[III-46] _Chichime_ or 'dogs,' a transformation which may not\nimprobably have something to do with the origin of the name\nChichimecs, a name applied to so many tribes in all parts of the\ncountry. The _Codex Chimalpopoca_, however, speaks also of a\ntransformation into monkeys as a result of a great hurricane. _Popol\nVuh_, p. lxxx.\n\n[III-47] Or, as Brasseur suggests, adopting the customs of the people\nin order to obtain the entr\u00e9e of Tonacatepetl and the secret of their\nagriculture.\n\n[III-48] Molina, _Vocabulario_, translates the name, 'red ant.'\n\n[III-49] _Codex Chimalpopoca_, in _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat.\nCiv._, tom. i., pp. 53-9, 70-1.\n\n[III-50] _Id._, p. 117.\n\n[III-51] The Cuicatecs, Triquis, Chinantecs, Mazatecs, Chatinos,\nPapabucos, Soltecos, Chontales, and Cohuixcas, in the south-western\nregions, are regarded by Orozco y Berra as fragments of pre-Toltec\nnations. _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 121, 126. Prichard, _Nat. Hist. Man_, vol.\nii., p. 512, adds the Coras, Tepanecs, and Tarascos. The Codices\nVaticanus and Tellerianus, give the names of the tribes that migrated\nfrom the seven caves, as Olmecs, Xicalancas, Chichimecs, Nonohualcas,\nMichinacas, Couixcas, Totonacs, and Cuextecas. The Nonohualcas and\nXicalancas, however, were probably the same, and we shall see later\nthat Chichimecs was probably never a tribal name at all. _Gallatin_,\nin _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 135.\n\n[III-52] _Relaciones_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., p.\n459. Papuhya, 'river of mud,' is a name also applied by the Quich\u00e9\ntradition to a river apparently in this region. See p. 178; _Popol\nVuh_, pp. 140-1. Brasseur in the same work, pp. lxxii., lxxvii-viii.,\nrefers to _Las Casas_, _Hist. Apol._, tom. iii., cap. cxxiii-iv., as\nrelating the arrival of these nations under Quetzalcoatl and twenty\nchiefs at Point Xicalanco.\n\n[III-53] _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., p. 150.\n\n[III-54] See vol. iv., p. 434.\n\n[III-55] See vol. ii., p. 112.\n\n[III-56] _Hist. Ecles._, p. 146; _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 32.\n\n[III-57] _Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i., lib. iii., p. 264, tom.\niii., lib. x., p. 136: Camargo, _Hist. Tlax._, in _Nouvelles Annales\ndes Voy._, 1843, tom. xcviii., pp. 135-7, is the only author who\ndiffers materially in his account of the arrival and establishment of\nthe Olmecs and Xicalancas. He states that in company with the Zacatecs\nthey came from the Seven Caves, passed through Mexico, Tochimilco,\nAtlixco, Calpan, and Huexotzinco, founding their chief settlement in\nTlascala where the village of Natividad now stands. See vol. iv., pp.\n478-9, for notice of ruins. Gomara, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 299-300, also\nbrings these nations from the Seven Caves.\n\n[III-58] Concerning the giants, see _Ixtlilxochitl_, in\n_Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp. 205-6, 392, 459; _Veytia_,\n_Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., pp. 143-54; _Duran_, _Hist. Indias_, MS.,\ntom. i., cap. ii. This author represents the Quinames as having been\nkilled while eating and drinking, by the Tlascaltecs who had taken\npossession of their arms. He says they yielded after a desperate\nresistance. _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 34-6;\n_Boturini_, _Idea_, pp. 130-5; _Arlegui_, _Chr\u00f3n. Zacatecas_, p. 6;\n_Oviedo_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii., pp. 539-41; _Clavigero_, _Storia\nAnt. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 125; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist.\nNat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 66, 153-4; _Id._, _Popol Vuh_, pp. lxviii.,\ncxxvii.; _Id._, _Esquisses_, p. 12; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes\nAmer._, pp. 15, 21; _Rios_, _Compend. Hist. Mex._, p. 5; _Pi\u00f1eda_, in\n_Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. iii., p. 346; _Pimentel_, in _Dicc.\nUniv._, tom. x., p. 610.\n\n[III-59] On building of Cholula pyramid, see _Codex Mexicano_, in\n_Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. v., p. 172; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in\n_Id._, vol. ix., pp. 206, 459; _Gondra_, in _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq.\nMex._, tom. iii., pp. 45, 69; _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i.,\npp. 15, 18, 153; _Boturini_, _Idea_, pp. 113-14; _Humboldt_,\n_M\u00e9langes_, p. 553; _Id._, _Vues_, tom. i., p. 114; _Popol Vuh_, p.\ncxxv.; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 153,\n301-3; _Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, p. 132; _Gallatin_, in _Amer.\nEthno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 167.\n\n[III-60] _Cort\u00e9s_, _Cartas_, p. 86. Quetzalcoatl however is not\nnamed.\n\n[III-61] Respecting Quetzalcoatl in his mythological aspects as a\ndivinity, see vol. iii., pp. 248-87. The story of his visit to the\nOlmecs is told in _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp.\n206, 459; _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., pp. 155-6, 161-204.\n\n[III-62] _Boturini_, _Idea_, p. 135; _Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del\nMessico_, tom. iv., p. 52, tom. i., p. 147. Between Chiapas and\nZacatecas is a vast space, of which the only notion given us by\nhistory is the fact that the Olmecs, Xicalancas, and Zapotecs lived in\nthe region of Puebla and Tlascala. They were the primitive peoples,\nthat is, the first known. _Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 124-5.\nThe Xicalancas founded Atlixco and Itzucan, but migrated to South\nAmerica. The Olmecs who had been driven to the gulf coasts followed\nthem. _Carbajal Espinosa_, _Hist. Mex._, tom. i., p. 242. The\nXicalancas possessed the country before the Chichimecs, by whom they\nwere regarded as enemies. _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex.\nAntiq._, vol. ix., p. 461. Mexicans, Culhuas, Tepanecs, Olmecs,\nXicalancas, Tarascos, and Chichimecs were all of the same race and\nlanguage. _Camargo_, _Hist. Tlax._, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._,\n1843, tom. xcviii., pp. 131, 135, 188. See also _Brasseur de\nBourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 67, 196, tom. iii., p. 9;\n_Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 200, 213; _Hellwald_, in _Smithsonian\nRept._, 1866, p. 337; _M\u00fcller_, _Reisen_, tom. iii., pp. 33-4.\n\nThe Olmecs passed from Mexico to Guatemala, which they conquered.\n_Alcedo_, _Dicc._, tom. iii., p. 374. Palenque, the oldest American\ncity, was built by the Olmecs, a mixture of yellow aborigines and the\nfirst white immigrants. _Viollet-le-Duc_, in _Charnay_, _Ruines\nAm\u00e9r._, p. 45. The Mazahuas and Olmecs belong to the aborigines of\nGuatemala. _M\u00fcller_, _Amerikanische Urreligionen_, p. 456.\n\n[III-63] For description see vol. iv., pp. 529-44.\n\n[III-64] Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 56,\npronounces the Totonac very like the Maya. Orozco y Berra,\n_Geograf\u00eda_, p. 127, deems the relationship doubtful. See vol. iii.,\npp. 776-7.\n\n[III-65] On the Totonacs, see _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i.,\np. 278; _Pimentel_, _Cuadro_, tom. i., pp. 223-7; _Clavigero_, _Storia\nAnt. del Messico_, tom. iv., pp. 51-2; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist.\nNat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 151-61, tom. iii., pp. 350-1. This author\nsays that the Totonacs came from the north at about the same time as\nthe Olmecs came from the south. There seems to be no authority for\nthis save the popular opinion that locates Chicomoztoc in the north.\n_Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 120, 140. The Aztecs attributed\nTeotihuacan, Cholula, Papantla, etc., to the Toltecs because they were\nthe oldest people they knew; but they may have been built before the\nToltec invasion. _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i., p. 98.\n\n[III-66] Vol. iii., p. 60, et seq.\n\n[III-67] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp.\n180-8; _Popol Vuh_, pp. cxlii-iii.; _Boturini_, _Idea_, pp. 37-41; see\nalso references in vol. iii., p. 60, et seq.\n\n[III-68] On the Otom\u00eds, see _Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_,\ntom. i., pp. 147-8, tom. iv., p. 51; _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom.\nii., p. 39; _Alegre_, _Hist. Comp. de Jesus_, tom. i., p. 90;\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., p. 210;\n_Carbajal Espinosa_, _Hist. Mex._, tom. i., p. 243; _Brasseur de\nBourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 156-9, 196, tom. ii., p.\n235, tom. iii., p. 56; _Motolinia_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._,\ntom. i., p. 9; _Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 120, 136-7;\n_Pimentel_, _Cuadro_, tom. i., pp. 117-18; _Gondra_, in _Prescott_,\n_Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., p. 20; _Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man_,\nvol. ii., p. 512.\n\n[III-69] Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii., lib. x., p. 136, heads a\nparagraph 'Olmecas, Vixtoti and Mixtecas,' speaking of all together,\nand applying to them the name _Tenimes_, or those who speak a\nbarbarous tongue. Orozco y Berra, _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 120, 125, 133,\nspeaks of the 'Ulmecas or Mixtecs,' and thinks they were driven from\ntheir former position by the first Nahua invasion, driving out in turn\nthe Chuchones. He pronounces the Miztec and Zapotec kindred tongues,\nand states that these nations joined their fortunes from an early\nperiod. Veytia, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., p. 150, says the Zapotecs\nare reported to have come with the Olmecs and Xicalancas. _Clavigero_,\n_Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 150; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_,\n_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 154; _Id._, _Popol Vuh_, p. cclv.;\n_Garc\u00eda_, _Or\u00edgen de los Ind._, pp. 327-8; _Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc._,\nvol. i., p. 98; _Hellwald_, in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1866, p. 337;\n_Pimentel_, _Cuadro_, tom. i., p. 37.\n\n[III-70] See vol. iv., p. 425, et seq.\n\n[III-71] Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 142-3;\n_Squier's Cent. Amer._, pp. 316-17. Huaxtlan means 'where the _huaxi_\n(a kind of fruit) abounds.' _Pimentel_, _Cuadro_, tom. i., pp. 5-6;\n_Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, p. 141; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno.\nSoc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 173; _Brinton_, in _Hist. Mag._, n. s.,\nvol. i., p. 16; _Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man_, vol. ii., p. 513; _Id._,\n_Researches_, vol. v., p. 342, 345.\n\n[III-72] The date of the arrival in Huehue Tlapallan is given by\nIxtlilxochitl in his first Toltec relation (p. 322) as 2236 years\nafter the creation, or 520 years after the flood. That is, it occurred\nlong before the Christian era. In other places (pp. 206, 459) the same\nauthor represents the Toltecs as banished from their country and\nmigrating to Huitlapalan in California on the South Sea in 387 A.D.,\nwhence they continued their journey to Tulancingo. Now, although I\nattach very little importance to this author's chronology, and shall\nenter into no discussion with a view either to reconcile or overthrow\nit, yet it is plain that this last statement, notwithstanding the use\nof the name Huitlapalan, refers to a migration long subsequent to that\nmentioned in the text. The date 387 A.D., therefore, given by\nGallatin, (in _Schoolcraft's Arch._, vol. v., p. 96) and M\u00fcller,\n(_Reisen_, tom. iii., p. 97), as that of the arrival in Huehue\nTlapallan, according to Ixtlilxochitl, is calculated to convey a false\nimpression.\n\n[III-73] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 322, says it was 305 years after the death\nof Christ, or about 338 A.D.; but on the same page he again makes the\ndate 439 A. D. Veytia, tom. i., p. 208, dates the rebellion 583, the\nexile 596, and the founding of Tlapallanconco 604 A.D. Clavigero, tom.\niv., p. 46, gives 544 as the date of departure, but on p. 126 of tom.\ni., he gives 596, agreeing with Veytia. M\u00fcller, in his tables,\n_Reisen_, tom. iii., p. 97, dates the outbreak of war 427, the\ndeparture 439, the migration 447 A.D. Brasseur, _Popol Vuh_, p. clv.,\ngives the last of the fourth century as the date of the Toltec\nmigration. Cabrera, _Teatro_, pp. 90-1, makes the date 181 B.C. 544\nA.D., one of Clavigero's dates, is that which has, perhaps, been most\ncommonly adopted by modern writers.\n\n[III-74] Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 126, writes this\nname Tlapallantonco; and in _Popol Vuh_, p. clix., he insists that it\nshould be Tlapallantzinco. M\u00fcller, _Reisen_, tom. iii., p. 98, calls\nit also Tlappallanzingo.\n\n[III-75] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 324, makes this third year 543, and their\narrival in Tulancingo consequently 540 A.D.; or as is implied on p.\n307, 487 A.D.; or adding 104 years to the first date given by this\nauthor in note 71, we have 442 A.D. Veytia, tom. i., p. 221, 697 A.D.\n_Id._, after Boturini, in _Tezcoco en los Ultimos Tiempos_, 687 A.D.\nM\u00fcller, _Reisen_, tom. iii., p. 97, 558 A.D. Clavigero, tom. iv., p.\n51, 648 A.D., or tom. i., p. 126, 700 A.D.\n\n[III-76] In other parts of his work Ixtlilxochitl has a very different\naccount of this migration to the effect that the Toltecs were banished\nfrom their country, sailed and coasted on the South Sea, arrived at\nHuitlapalan or Huitlapatlan--the Gulf of California, or a place on the\ncoast of California--in 387 A.D., coasted Xalisco, arrived at\nGuatulco, then at Tochtepec or Turlitepeque on the North Sea, and\nfinally at Tulancingo, pp. 206-7, 459-60. On the Toltec migration see\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp. 321-4;\n_Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., pp. 6-33, 139, 157, 205-21, 231;\n_Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 126, tom. iv., pp.\n46, 51; _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 36-7; _Boturini_,\n_Idea_, pp.136-7; _Carbajal Espinosa_, _Hist. Mex._, tom. i., pp.\n216-18; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 100,\n126; _Popol Vuh_, pp. clv., clix-xi.; _Id._, _Esquisses_, pp. 11,\n13-14; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 203;\n_Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, p. 202; _M\u00fcller_, _Reisen_, tom. iii., pp.\n91-7.\n\n[III-77] _Alvarado_, in _Ternaux-Compans_, _Voy._, s\u00e9rie i., tom. x.,\np. 147; _Id._, in _Ramusio_, _Navigationi_, tom. iii., fol. 300.\n\n[III-78] _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix.,\np. 446.\n\n[III-79] _Popol Vuh_, pp. lxiv., cxii., cxxvi-viii.\n\n[III-80] _Id._, p. clix.\n\n[III-81] The discovery of a town of similar name by Cort\u00e9s, doubtingly\nreported by Veytia, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., p. 23, and others,\nseems to rest on no authority whatever.\n\n[III-82] The Nahuas state that they came from the north-west.\n_Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 147; _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom.\ni., p. 33. The tradition of the Toltecs will not allow us to fix\neither date, locality, or source of their migration, but the north is\nvaguely given as the source. _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc.,\nTransact._, vol. i., p. 203. Huehue Tlapallan situated north-west of\nthe Gila. _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i., p. 204. Not in the Gila Valley.\n_Smith's Human Species_, p. 250. Tradition shows Huehue Tlapallan,\nmiserable like all nations abandoned to luxury and power, unable to\nfeed its children, casting them forth. _Ramirez_, in _Revista\nCientifica_, tom. i., p. 21. Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, p.\nclix., speaks of Tlaxi Coliuhcan, mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl, as the\nold capital of the Quinames, or Palenque. He perhaps has no other\nreason for this than the resemblance of the names Coliuhcan and\nColhuacan. He says, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 100, that Huehue\nTlapallan may be translated 'land of colors' or 'land of nobles.'\nThroughout his works he places this country in the south, identifying\nit with Xibalba. It is proved incontestably that the Toltecs came from\nTulh\u00e1, whose ruins are seen near Ococingo. _Id._, _Cartas_, p. 28.\nCabrera, _Teatro_, p. 94, thinks Tlapalla must have been in the\nsouth-east.\n\n[III-83] _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix.,\npp. 208-9, 217, 333, 335-7, 392-4, 450; _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._,\ntom. i., pp. 25, 139, 231, 301-2, tom. ii., pp. 3-7; _Torquemada_,\n_Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 38-40. Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom.\ni., pp. 125-6, thinks that Chalcatzin and Tlacamitzin were the\nsuccessors of Xhunahpa left by Xbalanque in command of the Nahuas, and\nthat they were defeated and exiled by the monarch of Xibalba. For\ndetails and further references respecting the Chichimec migration see\na future chapter. The Chichimec kings were: Chichimecatl, Mixcohuatl,\nHuitzilopochtli, Huemac, Nauhyotl, Quauhtepetla, Nonohualca, Huetzin,\nQuauhtonal, Masatzin, Quetzal, Icoatzin, Mozeloquitzin,\nTlamacatzin--in one place Nequametl and Namocuix are named instead of\nChichimecatl. _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 394; _Veytia_, tom. i., p. 231;\n_Carbajal Espinosa_, _Hist. Mex._, tom. i., pp. 225-6; _M\u00fcller_,\n_Reisen_, tom. iii., pp. 43-4.\n\n[III-84] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 126,\n179-80; _Id._, _Cartas_, pp. 31-4; _Id._, _Popol Vuh_, pp. clix-clxi.\nBrasseur gives a report of the ruins of a northern Tula in California,\nwhich of course is unfounded. He thinks the Opatas, Yaquis, Mayos, and\nTarahumares are remnants of the old Toltec populations in this region.\nHe does not attribute the ruins of the New Mexican and Arizona group\nto the Toltecs, at least not at this early period. Bradford also,\n_Amer. Antiq._, p. 202, speaks of the first age as diffusing\npopulation from the centre through the north, to return in a reflux of\nnumerous tribes in the second age.\n\n[III-85] _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, pp. 145-6; _Torquemada_, _Monarq.\nInd._, tom. i., pp. 32-3; _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 299-300;\n_Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man_, vol. ii., p. 514; _Brasseur de\nBourbourg_, _Popol Vuh_, pp. xxix.-xxx.\n\n[III-86] _Descrip. Chiapas_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. iii.,\np. 344.\n\n[III-87] _Chr\u00f3n. Zacatecas_, pp. 6-7.\n\n[III-88] See vol. ii., pp. 762-5.\n\n[III-89] For details and for subsequent Yucatan history, see a future\nchapter. My authorities for the preceding remarks are _Landa_,\n_Relacion_, pp. 28-50; _Lizana_, in _Id._, pp. 348-56; _Cogolludo_,\n_Hist. Yuc._, pp. 178-9, 192, 196-7; _Las Casas_, _Hist. Apolog\u00e9tica_,\nMS., cap. 123; _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii., p. 52;\n_Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., p. 237; _Herrera_, _Hist. Gen._,\ndec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii.; _Ternaux-Compans_, in _Nouvelles Annales\ndes Voy._, 1843, tom. xcvii., pp. 31-6. _Perez_, in _Landa_,\n_Relacion_, pp. 420-3; _Id._, in _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. ii., pp.\n465-9; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 68,\n76-80, 126-7; _Id._, _Popol Vuh_, pp. lxxix, clv.-vi.; _Id._,\n_Cartas_, p. 13; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol.\ni., pp. 171-3; _Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, p. 128.\n\n[III-90] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Cartas_, pp. 27-8. The abb\u00e9 seems\nto have made but little if any use of the Codex Gondra in his\nsubsequent works; although it may be supposed that from it, and indeed\nfrom the very portion above quoted, he takes his account of the\nclosing events of the Toltec empire in An\u00e1huac to be given in a future\nchapter.\n\n[III-91] About 1000 B.C. by Ordo\u00f1ez, and 955 B.C. by the Codex\nChimalpopoca, are the only definite dates given for this\nestablishment.\n\n[III-92] Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 44, speaks of\ncyclopean ruins in Central America left by civilized nations preceding\nor contemporary with those among whom Votan introduced his culture;\nbut this is purely imaginary; there are ruins which may ante-date the\nepoch in question, but none to which there is any good reason for\nassigning so great an antiquity.\n\n[III-93] It may be well to give here the conclusions of M.\nViollet-le-Duc, the distinguished French architect, respecting these\nruins and their builders, although they carry the matter back to the\nquestion of origin, and consequently beyond the sphere of this\nchapter. This author's conclusions are professedly based on an\nexamination of material monuments, but were doubtless much affected,\nlike those of other late writers, including myself, by the study of\nBrasseur's works.\n\nThe whole continent was peopled with wild tribes of yellow blood from\nAsia via the north-west at a very remote period. About 1000 B.C., the\nCulhuas, a mixed race of black and white blood appeared from the east\nand introduced agriculture and a slight degree of civilization. Soon\nafter the Culhuas, the Nahuas appeared, a white race coming from the\nnorth of Europe via the Mississippi Valley, Florida, and West Indies,\nin successive migrations. Palenque was built by the yellow races under\na strong influence of the Culhuas and a very slight Nahua influence;\nthe cities of Yucatan were built when the Nahuas had conquered their\nrivals and the influence of the white race had become predominant;\nMitla owes its origin to a still more recent period, and was built by\na migrating tribe in which the yellow blood seems to have\npredominated. _Viollet-le-Duc_, in _Charnay_, _Ruines Am\u00e9r._\n\n[III-94] A document, for the authenticity of which even Brasseur de\nBourbourg declines to vouch, dates the first appearance of the Nahuas\nat 279 B.C. The abb\u00e9 thinks that event was probably during the century\nbefore Christ; but he, it must be remembered, accepts the coming of\nQuetzalcoatl and his followers and the introduction of a new\ncivilization literally. _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 101.\n\n[III-95] I find no authority for Brasseur de Bourbourg's opinion that\nthe fall of Xibalba preceded the final scattering of the Nahua nations\nby only one century.\n\n[III-96] Orozco y Berra, _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 128-9, judges from the\noccurrence of Nahua names in Guatemala that nations speaking Nahua\nwere formerly located there, and were overcome either by Maya-speaking\ntribes that they found in the country, or by others that invaded the\ncountry after them.\n\n[III-97] _Amerikanische Urreligionen_, p. 524. Some of these writers,\nhowever, believe strongly in a migration of tribes from the north,\nalthough attributing the Nahua culture to the south.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE TOLTEC PERIOD.\n\n     The Nahua Occupation of Mexico in the Sixth and Seventh\n     Centuries -- Condition of An\u00e1huac -- The Mixcohuas and\n     Chichimec Culhuas -- The Toltecs at Tulancingo and Tollan\n     -- Establishment of a Monarchy and Choice of a King,\n     710-720 A.D. -- Kingdoms of Culhuacan and Quauhtitlan --\n     The Teoamoxtli -- Prophecies and Death of Hueman -- Birth\n     of Quetzalcoatl -- Foundation of the Empire, 856 A.D. --\n     Alliance between Culhuacan, Otompan, and Tollan -- Reign\n     of Topiltzin Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl at Tollan -- Excesses of\n     Huemac II., or Tecpancaltzin -- Xochitl, the King's Mistress\n     -- Fulfillment of the Prophet's Predictions -- Toveyo's\n     Adventures -- Plagues sent upon the Toltecs -- Famine and\n     Pestilence -- Reign of Acxitl, or Topiltzin -- Debauchery\n     of King, Nobles, and Priests -- Tokens of Divine Wrath --\n     Foreign Invaders -- Final Overthrow of the Toltec Empire.\n\n\nThe sixth and seventh centuries of our era saw the Nahua power,\nrepresented by the various Toltec Chichimec tribes, transferred\nfrom Central America to the Mexican plateaux, with its centre about\nthe lakes of the valley. The general nature of this transfer we may\ncomprehend from what has been said in the preceding chapter; of its\ndetails we know little or nothing. Each tribe that rose to national\nprominence in An\u00e1huac during the succeeding centuries, preserved a\nsomewhat vague traditional memory of its past history, which took the\nform in every case of a long migration from a distant land. In each of\nthese records there is probably an allusion to the original southern\nempire, its disruption, and the consequent tribal scattering; but at\nthe same time most of the events thus recorded relate apparently to\nthe movements of particular tribes in and about An\u00e1huac at periods\nlong subsequent to the original migration and immediately preceding\nthe final establishment of each tribe. The Toltec version of this\ncommon record has already been given, down to the establishment of\none of the many exiled tribes--the Toltecs proper--at Tulancingo just\nnorth-east of the valley of Mexico. The annals of other Nahua tribes,\nthe Chichimecs, Nahuatlacas, Tepanecs, Acolhuas, and Aztecs--all of\nwhich may be regarded to a great extent as different versions of the\nsame common record--will be presented in a future chapter with all\ntheir particulars, fabulous or historical, so far as they have been\npreserved. The migrations narrated may all be supposed to date back to\na common beginning, but are arranged by the authorities chronologically\naccording to the dates of their termination.\n\nWe have seen the Olmec tribes established for several centuries on\nthe eastern plateaux, or in the territory now constituting the states\nof Puebla and Tlascala. Cholula was the Olmec capital, a flourishing\ncity celebrated particularly for its lofty pyramid crowned with a\nmagnificent temple built in honor of Quetzalcoatl. Teotihuacan within\nthe valley of An\u00e1huac had long been as it long continued to be the\nreligious centre of all the Nahua nations. Here kings and priests\nwere elected, ordained, and buried. Hither flocked pilgrims from\nevery direction to consult the oracles, to worship in the temples of\nthe sun and moon, and to place sacrificial offerings on the altars of\ntheir deities. The sacred city was ruled by the long-haired priests\nof the Sun, famous for their austerity and for their wisdom. Through\nthe hands of these priests, as the Spanish writers tell us, yearly\nofferings were made of the first fruits of all their fields; and each\nyear at harvest-time a solemn festival was celebrated, not unattended\nby human sacrifice. It is true that the Spanish authorities in their\ndescriptions of Teotihuacan and the ceremonies there performed, refer\nfor the most part to the Toltec rather than the pre-Toltec period;\nbut it has been seen in the preceding chapter that this city rose\nto its position as the religious centre of the Nahuas in Mexico long\nbefore the appearance of the Toltecs, and there is no evidence of any\nessential change in its priesthood, or the nature of its theocratic\nrule.[IV-1] No national name is applied in tradition to the people that\ndwelt in Teotihuacan at this period, although the Totonacs claim to\nhave built the pyramids before they were driven eastward by Chichimec\ntribes. Tabasco, Vera Cruz, and Tamaulipas were occupied by Xicalancas,\nTotonacs, and Huastecs, respecting whom little more than their names\nis known. Southward in Oajaca were already settled the Miztecs and\nZapotecs. The Otom\u00eds, a very numerous people, whose primitive history\nis altogether unknown, occupied a large part of the valley of Mexico,\nand the surrounding mountains, particularly toward the north and\nnorth-west. There were doubtless many other tribes in Mexico when the\nlater Nahua nations came, particularly in the north and west, which\ntribes were driven out, at least from the most desirable locations,\nsubjected, or converted and partially civilized by the new-comers; but\nsuch tribes have left no traces in history.[IV-2]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: AN\u00c1HUAC IN THE SIXTH CENTURY.]\n\nDuring the sixth and seventh centuries we must imagine An\u00e1huac and the\nadjoining territory on the north and west, for a broad but unknown\nextent, as being gradually occupied by numerous Nahua nations of\nvarying power and numbers and of varying degrees of civilization. Some\nwere originally or soon became in their new homes wild hunting tribes,\npowerful but rude, the terror of their neighbors; others settled in\nthe fertile valleys, lived by agriculture, and retained much of their\noriginal culture. The more powerful nations, probably the most advanced\nin culture as well, established themselves in and about the valley of\nMexico, where their capitals were soon flourishing cities, and where\nall branches of aboriginal art received more attention than elsewhere\nand were correspondingly developed. These central peoples became known,\nperhaps at once, but more probably at a later date, as Toltecs, a\nname which, whatever its original derivation and signification, became\nsynonymous with all that is skillful and excellent in art. On the other\nhand the outside Nahua nations, many of which had lost in their new\nlife something of the true Nahua polish, and all of whom were regarded\nmore or less as barbarians by their more favored brothers of the lake\nshores, were from this time known as Chichimecs, whatever may have been\nthe original application of that name.\n\n[Sidenote: THE MIXCOHUAS.]\n\nIt has been remarked that little or nothing is known of the events that\noccurred during these two centuries, during which the whole western\nsection of the country came into possession of numerous Nahua tribes,\nas the eastern section had done long before, and as the whole country\nremained down to the Spanish Conquest; for there is little evidence\nof any subsequent migrations from or into Mexico. Ixtlilxochitl and\nthe Spanish writers, Torquemada, Vetancvrt, Clavigero, Duran, Veytia,\nand the rest, confine their attention to the Toltecs proper, their\nmigration from Huehue Tlapallan to Tulancingo, which I have already\nnarrated, their subsequent removal to Tollan, the establishment\nof their monarchy, and the succession of their kings. According to\nthese authors, the Toltecs met no opposition, Tollan had no rivals\nnor allied capitals. Brasseur de Bourbourg, however, finds in the\n_Codex Chimalpopoca_, already alluded to,[IV-3] and the _Memorial\nde Culhuacan_,[IV-4] another similar chronologic record in the Nahua\nlanguage, a slight account of some of the other nations that settled in\nAn\u00e1huac at this period, even prior to the establishment of the Toltecs\nat Tollan. These two documents are the chief authorities for the whole\nToltec period, and since neither of them has ever been published,\nnothing remains but to accept the version given by the abb\u00e9.[IV-5] The\nMixcohuas were the first of the new tribes that came into notice in the\nannals. They first appear at Chalchiuhapan, afterwards Tlascala, but\nsoon present themselves before the priests of Teotihuacan to receive\ntheir sanction and become 'vassals of the Sun.' Faithless to the vows\ntaken at the sacred city, the new-comers, instead of establishing\nthemselves peaceably in the land, proved at first a torment to the\nolder inhabitants and a source of great anxiety to the priests who had\nencouraged their coming; but the first bands of Mixcohuas were finally\nsubdued and forced to submit to the requirements of the priests of the\nSun by the aid of other succeeding but kindred bands of Chichimecs.\nThus the first epoch of Nahua occupation was one of strife, during\nwhich the name of Mixcohuatl, or Mixcohuatl Mazatzin, 'the hunter,' is\nmost prominent; together with those of Xiuhnel and Mimich, who defeat\nthe Olmecs at Huitzilapan. The united bands under Mixcohuatl are known\nin the tradition as Chichimec Culhuas, the founders of the city of\nCulhuacan on the lake shore, who in a period of sixteen years--from\n670 to 686, according to the authorities--became masters of nearly the\nwhole region south and east of the lakes.[IV-6] At about the same time the\nprovince of Quauhtitlan, 'land of forests,' north-west of the lakes,\nseems to have been occupied by another Chichimec nation--for all are\nknown in the traditions as Chichimecs whenever they are alluded to as\ncoming from without the valley, but become good Toltecs as soon as they\nacquire a degree of power within its limits. Chicon Tonatiuh, 'seven\nsuns,' is named as the leader of this nation, and the chief cities of\nthe province were Huehuetocan, 'city of old men,' and Macuexhuacan,\n'city of necklaces.'\n\n[Sidenote: FOUNDATION OF TOLLAN.]\n\nMeanwhile the exiles from Huehue Tlapallan were tarrying at Tulancingo,\nwhere they had arrived toward the end of the seventh century,[IV-7]\nand where--contrary to the advice of their prophet Hueman, if we may\ncredit the tradition--weary with their long wanderings, they lived\nfrom sixteen to twenty years in a house which they built sufficiently\nlarge to accommodate them all. During their stay they sent out parties\nto make settlements in the adjoining territory, as had been their\ncustom wherever they had stopped in their long migration. Finally they\nlistened to the counsels of the venerable Hueman, and, still under the\ncommand of their seven chiefs, transferred their home to Xocotitlan on\nthe river Quetzalatl, since called Tula, Tullanatl, or Montezuma, where\nthey founded the city of Tollan,[IV-8] where now stands the little village\nof Tula, about thirty miles north-west of the city of Mexico. According\nto Brasseur the Otom\u00ed city that stood here before the coming of the\nToltecs was called Mamh\u00e9ni. It cannot be supposed that the Otom\u00eds\nyielded up their fertile valley to the strangers without a struggle;\nbut the relation of this struggle like that of many a subsequent one in\nwhich the Toltecs must have engaged in order to establish and maintain\ntheir power, seems to have been intentionally omitted in the native\nannals as recorded by the Spanish writers.\n\nDuring the first six years of their stay in the valley of the\nQuetzalatl, the Toltecs gave their attention to the building of the new\ncity, and the careful cultivation of the surrounding lands; at least\nsuch is the account given by Ixtlilxochitl and those who have followed\nhim; but, according to Brasseur's interpretation, they spent the six\nyears in the conquest of the province and siege of the ancient city\nwhich they re-named Tollan. Up to this time the exiles from Huehue\nTlapallan had lived under the command of the rebel princes Chalcaltzin\nand Tlacamihtzin with their five companions acting as chiefs of the\ndifferent families,[IV-9] but all acting under the directions of Hueman\nthe prophet. The great age attributed to both prophet and chiefs,\nwho for over a century at the least had directed the wanderings of\ntheir people, does not, of course merit serious discussion, since\nit cannot be literally accepted. The most natural, yet a purely\nconjectural, interpretation of the tradition is that a line or family\nof chieftains is represented by its founder or by its most famous\nmember; and that by Hueman is to be understood the powerful priesthood\nthat ruled the destinies of the Toltecs, from the earliest days to\nthe fall of their empire. The government was a theocratic republic,\neach chief directing the movements of his band in war and, so far as\nsuch direction was needed, in peace, but all yielding, through fear of\nthe gods or veneration for their representatives, implicit obedience\nto the counsels of their spiritual leader in all matters of national\nimport. But in the seventh year after their arrival in Tollan, when\nthe republic was yet in a state of peace and prosperity, undisturbed\nby foreign or internal foes, the chiefs convened an assembly of the\nheads of families and the leading men. The object of the meeting was\nto effect a change in the form of their government, and to establish a\nmonarchy. The motive of the leaders, as represented by the tradition,\nwas a fear of future disturbances in a commonwealth governed by so many\nindependent chieftains. They recommended the election of an absolute\nmonarch, offering to surrender their own power and submit to the rule\nof whatever king the people might choose. The members of the convention\nacquiesced in the views of the chieftains, and approved the proposed\nchange in their form of government. An election being next in order,\na majority expressed their preference for one of the seven chiefs to\noccupy the new throne.\n\n[Sidenote: A MONARCHY ESTABLISHED.]\n\nAt this stage of the proceedings Hueman addresses the meeting; though\nentertaining the highest opinion of the character, ability, and\npatriotism of the candidates proposed, he deems it his duty to oppose\ntheir election. He reminds the people that the main object of the\nproposed change was to secure a peaceable and independent possession of\ntheir new country; that the Chichimecs had pursued and already caused\nthem much trouble; that much was to be feared from their confirmed\nhostility; that their foes were not far distant, and would very likely\ninvade the country at no very distant day. He recommended as the most\nefficient means of avoiding future strife, that an embassy with rich\npresents be sent to the Chichimec monarch, asking for a son or other\nnear relative who should be crowned king of the Toltecs. An express\nstipulation must, however, be required on the part of the Chichimec\nking that the Toltecs should ever be a perfectly free and independent\npeople, owing no allegiance whatever to the Chichimecs, although\nthe two powers would enter into an alliance for mutual defense and\nassistance. The advice of the aged and venerated counsellor was of\ncourse accepted without objection; in fact, as pictured by the Spanish\nwriters, Toltec history is for the most part but a record of sage\ncounsels of wise rulers cheerfully acquiesced in by an appreciative\nand obliging people. Ambassadors of the highest rank, laden with\ngifts of value, were dispatched by the shortest routes to the court\nof Huehue Tlapallan--notwithstanding the implied vicinity of some\nChichimec nations--where Icauhtzin[IV-10] occupied the throne. The mission\nwas entirely successful. The second son of the king, still a young\nman, whose name in his own country is unknown, was with the required\nstipulations, brought back by the embassy and crowned at Tollan under\nthe name of Chalchiuh Tlatonac,[IV-11] 'shining precious stone.'\n\nThe young king, by reason of his fine personal appearance, his\ncharacter, intelligence and amiability, seems to have greatly pleased\nfrom the first the people over whom he was called to rule. The events\nrelated above, the settlement at Tollan and the connection of the first\nking, must be attributed to the first quarter of the eighth century,\nbetween 710 and 720.[IV-12] Immediately after the accession of the young\nmonarch, a law was established by him and his counsellors to the\neffect that no king should reign more than fifty-two years, but at the\nexpiration of this term should abdicate in favor of his eldest son,[IV-13]\nwhom he might, however, still serve as adviser. Should the king die\nbefore the allotted time had elapsed, it was provided that the state\nshould be ruled during the unexpired term by magistrates chosen by the\npeople. In addition to the inherent improbability of such extraordinary\nlegislation, it should be noted that subsequent events, even as related\nby Ixtlilxochitl, do not in all cases agree with it. Its meaning can\nonly be conjectured; it is noticeable, however, that the time allotted\nto each reign was exactly a cycle of fifty-two years, and it is not\naltogether unlikely that a custom prevailed of alluding in the pictured\nannals to each cycle by the name of the most famous king whose reign\nfell within the period. The next event, and the only one particularly\nrecorded in the reign of Chalchiuh Tlatonac, was his marriage.\nRealizing the importance of providing for heirs that the dynasty might\nbe perpetuated, he left the choice of a wife entirely to his subjects,\nmuch to their satisfaction, as indicating a desire on the part of\nroyalty to please the people. The choice fell upon a beautiful daughter\nof Acapichtzin. The latter had himself been a favorite candidate for\nroyal honors when a kingdom was first proposed, and was thus rewarded\nby seeing his daughter raised to the dignity of first Toltec queen. The\nOlmec, Xicalanca, and other Toltec nations had voluntarily given their\nallegiance to the monarch of Tollan, who reigned long and prosperously\nfor fifty-two years, when he died and was buried in the chief temple in\n7 Acatl, or about 771 A.D.[IV-14]\n\n[Sidenote: THE KINGDOM OF TOLLAN.]\n\nThus in the record preserved by the Spanish writers, all participation\nin the new monarchy by other Chichimec Toltec tribes than those in and\nabout Tollan, is altogether ignored. The Olmecs and other pre-Toltec\nnations are represented as having voluntarily offered their allegiance,\nnew towns founded by colonists sent out from Tollan and Tulancingo\nbecame of course tributary to the new kingdom, and it is even admitted\nthat powerful Chichimec nations were established not far distant, and\nwere regarded with some anxiety in view of probable future events until\nthe danger was averted by the selection of a Chichimec prince as king,\nand the consequent transformation of their rivals into allies. The\nabsence of any further mention of these allied and friendly nations\nthroughout the whole period of Toltec history is certainly most\nextraordinary, and might be sufficient in itself to arouse a suspicion\nthat in the records from which this account was drawn the kingdom of\nTollan was given unmerited prominence, while its allies and rivals were\nintentionally denied their share in the glories of the Toltec empire.\nThis suspicion seems to be to a considerable extent confirmed by the\ntwo Nahua documents already referred to.[IV-15] These authorities relate\nsubstantially the same course of events as the others, and refer them\nto approximately the same date; they tell us of the original theocratic\nrepublic ruled by independent chieftains who were subordinate to a\ncentral sacerdotal power; the determination finally reached to adopt\na monarchical form of government; and the choice of a king, who\ndoes not seem to have been one of the tribal chieftains. But they\nattribute these acts to several more or less closely allied nations,\nof which that established at Tollan was only one, and not the chief.\nThe sacerdotal supremacy attributed to the priesthood of Tollan under\nthe name of Hueman, was really exercised by the priests of the sun at\nTeotihuacan; there were the deliberations held; and there probably did\nthe first king receive the rites of coronation. The leading nation in\nAn\u00e1huac at the time was that of the Chichimec Culhuas under Mixcohuatl\nMazatzin; those at Tollan and Quauhtitlan, and perhaps others whose\nname has not been preserved, having been less powerful allies. The\nchoice of the chiefs fell upon Nauhyotl, or Nauhyotzin, as the first\nToltec king, and having been crowned probably at Teotihuacan, he\nestablished his capital at Culhuacan, then, as for a long time after\nthe metropolis of An\u00e1huac, in 11 Calli, or 721 A.D. Of Nauhyotl's\nfamily and previous rank nothing is known. Whether he was a prince\nhigh in rank in a foreign land, identical with the Chalchiuh Tlatonac\nof Ixtlilxochitl, or, as Brasseur conjectures, sprung from the union\nof a native princess of the pre-Toltec tribes and a Chichimec Culhua\nchief, we have no means of determining. He was the first, so far as\ncan be known, to assume the titles Tlatoani and Topiltzin,[IV-16] both of\nwhich endured to the time of the Conquest, the former signifying 'lord'\nor 'monarch,' and implying the highest rank in matters temporal, as\nthe latter in matters spiritual, corresponding very nearly with that\nof 'pope' in Catholic countries. The close connection between church\nand state in all the Nahua nations has been frequently pointed out in\nthis work; as the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur says, \"the empire and the priesthood\nwere one, and the ritual was the base of the throne. In order to firmly\nestablish the monarchy, and ensure the fruits of their conquests, the\nToltecs must rule not only the bodies but the conscience of their\nsubjects. Where persuasion and the imposing spectacle of religious\nceremonies were of no avail, violence and terror were resorted to,\nand insensibly the peoples of Mexico adopted the civilization of their\nmasters together with their superstitious rites.\"[IV-17]\n\n[Sidenote: KINGDOM OF QUAUHTITLAN.]\n\nIn 725 Chicon Tonatiuh, assumed the title of Tlatoani and became king\nof Quauhtitlan, probably in some degree subordinate to the king at\nCulhuacan. The first mention by these authorities of a king in Tollan\nis to the effect that Mixcohuatl Mazatzin was called to that throne\nin 752. Meantime one of Mixcohuatl's sons, named Texcatlipocatl,\nafterwards deified as Tezcatlipoca, had founded the dominion of\nTezcuco, and another son, named like his father Mixcohuatl, but\nbetter known and afterwards worshiped as Camaxtli, had continued the\nconquests of the Mixcohuas on the eastern plateau of Huitzilapan, or\nTlascala.[IV-18] In 753 Chicon Tonatiuh, who had died two years before,\nwas succeeded in Quauhtitlan by Xiuhnel; the new king was murdered\nsoon after by his subjects, or as the tradition has it, was stabbed\nthrough the liver by a native woman in whose arms he was sleeping.\nA revolt followed, by which the Toltec power in that province was\ntemporarily overthrown by the aboriginal inhabitants, whoever they\nmay have been. In 767 Nauhyotl, king at Culhuacan, died and was\nsucceeded by Totepeuh, identical with Mixcohua Camaxtli, also known\nas Nonohualcatl, and whose father was at the time reigning at Tollan.\nEarly in the reign of Totepeuh a wide-spread war is vaguely reported\nas having been waged chiefly in the regions outside the valley. In\nthis war the original inhabitants of the country, the Toltec tribes\nalready settled there, and newly arrived Chichimec bands are vaguely\nmentioned as the combatants; Xochitzin, a beautiful princess possessed\nof supernatural powers, or at least holding communication with the\ngods and regarded as an oracle, was the prime mover in this war;\nHuactli was the most prominent leader, in full sympathy apparently\nwith the Toltec sovereign; and at the end of the strife Huactli married\nXochitzin and became king of the re-established dominion of Quauhtitlan\nin 804. Thirteen years later after a long reign Mixcohuatl Mazatzin,\nking of Tollan, died. He had been a very famous warrior, one of the\nmost prominent of all the Toltec chieftains in An\u00e1huac, and was in\nafter years worshiped as one of the gods of war.[IV-19] His successor was\nHuetzin, whom Brasseur conjectures to have been a son of the late king\nand identical with Tezcatlipoca.\n\n[Sidenote: THE TEOAMOXTLI, OR DIVINE BOOK.]\n\nReturning now to the other version of Toltec history we learn that\nafter the death of the first king of Tollan, his son Ixtlilcuechahuac\nmounted the throne.[IV-20] His reign, like that of his predecessor, was\npeaceful and prosperous; but the only event recorded was a meeting of\nall the sages under the direction of the aged Hueman, which took place\nonly a few years before the end of the second king's term of office.\nAt this assembly there were brought forward all the Toltec records\nreaching back to the earliest period of their existence, and from\nthese documents, after a long conference and the most careful study,\nthe _Teoamoxtli_, or 'book of God,' was prepared. In its pages were\ninscribed the Nahua annals from the time of the deluge, or even from\nthe creation; together with all their religious rites, governmental\nsystem, laws and social customs; their knowledge respecting agriculture\nand all the arts and sciences, particular attention being given to\nastrology; and a complete explanation of their modes of reckoning time\nand interpreting the hieroglyphics. To the divine book was added a\nchapter of prophecies respecting future events and the signs by which\nit should be known when the time of their fulfillment was drawing near.\n\nAfter the completion of the Teoamoxtli, Hueman, now three hundred\nyears old, announced his approaching end and made known to the Toltecs\ntheir future. After ten cycles had elapsed from the time when they\nleft Huehue Tlapallan, they were to be ruled by a king whose right to\nthe royal power would not be undisputed among his subjects. From his\nmother's womb he would have certain personal peculiarities by which\nhe might be known; his curly hair would assume the form of a mitre\nor tiara. The earlier years of his reign were to be years of great\nprosperity; his rule would be wise, just, and able. In middle life\nthe king would abandon the ways of wisdom and virtue, giving himself\nup to all manner of vice leading infallibly to disaster; and worst of\nall his subjects would imitate his vicious conduct and share in his\nmisfortunes. Great calamities were to come upon the Toltecs, sent by\nTloque Nahuaque, the great God, and like unto these with which their\nancestors were afflicted in the remote past. Finally the kingdom was to\nbe destroyed by civil wars, and the king, driven from his possession,\nafter nearly all his subjects had perished, was to return to the\nancient home of their race, there in his later years to become once\nmore wise and discreet. Yet a sign was not denied this fated people;\nfor certain unnatural phenomena were to announce their destruction\nas drawing nigh. When the rabbit should have horns like a deer, and\nthe humming-bird be found with spurs, and stones yield fruit; when\nthe priests of the temples should forget their vows of chastity with\nnoble ladies, pilgrims to the shrines of the god--then might they\nlook for the fulfillment of Hueman's predictions; for lightnings and\nhail and snow, for famine and pestilence and devouring insects, to be\nfollowed by desolating wars. For such as escaped these disasters, or\nfor their descendants, another visitation of divine wrath was reserved\nin the form of a foreign people from the east, who ten cycles later\nwere to take possession of the country in fulfillment of the words of\nthe ancient prophet Quetzalcoatl. No further information is given of\nHueman's death or of Ixtlilcuechahuac's rule.\n\nHuetzin, the third king, was crowned, according to Veytia's chronology,\nin 823,[IV-21] a date that very nearly agrees with that given in the\nother version, or 817. Totepeuh,[IV-22] the fourth, elsewhere mentioned\nas second king at Culhuacan, took the throne from his father after\nfifty-two years; and handed it down after a like period to his\nown son Nacaxoc,[IV-23] the fifth monarch at Tollan, who was in turn\nsucceeded by Mitl in 979.[IV-24] These reigns, the last of which lasted\nfifty-nine years, were marked by the occurrence of no event specially\nimportant, though in all great progress was made, new towns founded,\nold cities beautified, and new temples built, including one of great\nmagnificence at Quauhnahuac (Cuernavaca, possibly Xochicalco) and\nanother at Tollan intended to rival that of the Sun at Teotihuacan,\nwhich city is incidentally admitted to have surpassed Tollan in extent\nand magnificence. During this period the Toltec power was firmly\nestablished over a broad territory, and there were yet no tokens of\napproaching destruction.[IV-25]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: TOTEPEUH KING OF TOLLAN.]\n\n[Sidenote: VENGEANCE OF QUETZALCOATL.]\n\nIn the annals of Culhuacan we left Totepeuh on the throne. His first\nmilitary expedition was directed towards the eastern plateau, where\nChalchiuhapan, later Tlascala, seems to have been founded at about\nthis time, and where this king was afterwards worshiped under his name\nof Camaxtli. In his next expedition, to the province of Huitznahuac,\nhe encountered, defeated after many fruitless attempts, and finally\nmarried a bold princess Chimalman, who fought entirely naked at the\nhead of a body of amazons. The conquest of Cuitlahuac next claimed\nhis attention, for this was the only city on the lakes that had been\nable to withstand the power of his father and predecessor. To this\ncity and this period Brasseur traces back the foundation of the Nahual\nTeteuctin, an order of chivalry, whence proceeded the highest titles\nof learning and nobility, down to the coming of the Spaniards.[IV-26]\nQueen Chimalman, becoming enceinte immediately after marriage, dreamed\nthat she bore in her bosom a chalchiuite, or precious stone, and\ndecided to name her son, predestined to a glorious career, Quetzalcoatl\nChalchiuitl. At his birth, which occurred nine months later, the heir\nwas named also Ceacatl, probably from the day on which he was born. In\naddition to his mother's dream and the auguries drawn from it, the fact\nthat Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl united in his veins the noblest blood of the\nToltecs and the pre-Toltec peoples, gave special import to his birth,\nand the event was celebrated with great pomp at Culhuacan, and gifts of\ngreat value were sent from all directions.[IV-27] 839 is the approximate\ndate to which Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl's birth is referred; his mother\ndied in childbed, and the child was entrusted to the king's sister\nCohuatl, a priestess of the temple, perhaps the same as Cihuacoatl,\nor Cioacoatl, afterwards deified as the goddess of childbirth.[IV-28]\nIn 845 King Totepeuh Nonohualcatl himself, now far advanced in years,\nwas murdered by conspiring nobles under the leadership of Apanecatl,\nZolton, and Cuilton; he was succeeded by Yohuallatonac, and at the same\ntime Ihuitimal,--a name that bears no resemblance to that of Huetzin's\nsuccessor according to the Spanish writers,--took Huetzin's place on\nthe throne of Tollan. Brasseur believes that Huetzin left Tollan to\nbecome king at Culhuacan, and that he was the same as Yohuallatonac.\nIt must be noted that the confused state of the aboriginal annals is\ndue not only to the incompleteness of the native records--many having\nbeen destroyed--and the errors of interpreters, but also largely to\nthe unfortunate custom of the Nahua peoples of giving many names to the\nsame person, and multiplying names apparently in proportion to fame and\nrank. It is recorded that Ceacatl, while yet a boy, wreaked a terrible\nvengeance on the murderers of his father. The latter took refuge in the\nfortress of Cuitlahuac on one of the lake islands deemed impregnable,\nbut by a subterranean passage leading under the waters, the prince\nand his followers gained access to fort and temple. The leaders of the\nconspiracy were sprinkled with red pepper after a preparatory flaying\nand mangling, and dying in indescribable torture were sacrificed to the\nmemory of Totepeuh, the first of the many thousand victims subsequently\noffered to the same divinity under his name of Camaxtli. From this time\nnothing whatever is recorded of Ceacatl for about twenty years, until\nhe re-appears under his name of Quetzalcoatl as the most celebrated of\nthe Toltec kings and high-priests, afterwards deified like most heroes\nof this early time.\n\nThe only event recorded before the re-appearance of Quetzalcoatl is\none of great importance, a convention of the princes and wise men of\nAn\u00e1huac and vicinity. At this assemblage the system of government and\nthe laws of succession were perfected and as may be supposed given\nsubstantially the form which they preserved down to the Conquest; but\nthe most important act was the establishment of an alliance between\nthe crowns of Culhuacan, Otompan, and Tollan. Each king was to be\nperfectly independent in the affairs of his own domain; but in matters\naffecting the general interests the three monarchs were to constitute\na council, in which the king of Culhuacan was to rank first, assuming\na title nearly equivalent to that of Emperor. Otompan took the second\nplace and Tollan the third. This is the first mention of Otompan as\na capital, but since its domain seems to have included the territory\nof Teotihuacan and Tezcuco, its prominent position in the league is\nnot improbable. The establishment of this alliance, or, as it may be\nmore conveniently termed, empire, is referred to the date 1 Tecpatl,\n856.[IV-29]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: CEACATL QUETZALCOATL.]\n\nCeacatl Quetzalcoatl re-appears in history, still following the same\nauthorities, about the year 870, and succeeded Ihuitimal as king of\nTollan, assuming the title Topiltzin, on the death of that king in\n873.[IV-30] All the Spanish writers have much to say of Quetzalcoatl,\nalthough none of them--except Sahagun, who expresses himself very\nclearly on the subject--[IV-31] seem to have regarded him as one of the\nToltec kings in the regular order of succession to the throne; and\ntheir accounts are inextricably confused by reason of their having\nmade no distinction between Quetzalcoatl the original culture-hero, and\nQuetzalcoatl, the pontiff-ruler of Tollan, applying indiscriminately to\none person all the traditions in which the name occurred. I will give\nfirst the regular Spanish version of these traditions.\n\nMendieta records the tradition that he was the son of Camaxtli and\nChimalman, and also another to the effect that Chimalman became\npregnant by swallowing a chalchiuite, which she found when sweeping;\nbut other authorities, without going back to his birth, represent\nhim as appearing on the eastern coast, most of them agreeing on the\nregion of P\u00e1nuco as the locality. He was tall, well formed, with broad\nforehead and large eyes, of fair complexion, with long black hair[IV-32]\nand a full beard. Bare as to his head and feet, he wore a long white\nrobe ornamented with black flowers, according to Las Casas, or with\nblack or red crosses, as other writers say, supporting his steps with\na staff. He was austere in manner, but in character all that is good,\nand gentle, disapproving all acts of violence and blood, and withal\nmost chaste, neither marrying nor knowing women. With him was a large\ncompany of artists and men learned in every branch of science, whom\nsome of the authors seem to consider a colony from a foreign land. From\nP\u00e1nuco Quetzalcoatl, with his companions, came to Tollan after having\ntarried for some time, as Camargo tells us, at Tulancingo. He was at\nfirst received by the Toltecs with much enthusiasm, and during his\nstay in Tollan filled the position of high-priest or supreme spiritual\nruler. His rule was mild, but he insisted on a strict performance of\nall religious duties, and subjected himself to severe penances, such as\nthe drawing of blood from tongue and limbs by means of maguey-thorns.\nHe was not without supernatural powers, since his announcements made\nby a crier from the top of a neighboring mountain could be heard for\na distance of three hundred miles. He introduced many new religious\nrites, including the practice of fasting and the drawing of blood\nfrom their own body by penitents, also according to some authorities,\nthe establishment of convents and nunneries, and the sacrifice of\nbirds and animals; to human sacrifices he was ever opposed. He was a\npatron of all the arts and sciences, which in his time reached their\nhighest state of development.[IV-33] Finally, Quetzalcoatl left Tollan\nand went to Cholula, which city with others on the eastern plateau,\nsome authors--still referring to another Quetzalcoatl, and another\nepoch--credit him with having founded. There are many versions of his\nmotives for abandoning Tollan, most referring to certain troubles\nbetween him and a rival Huemac or Tezcatlipoca. Playing ball with\nTezcatlipoca, the latter assumed the form of a tiger, scared the\nspectators so that many fell over a precipice, and pursued his opponent\nfrom town to town until he reached Cholula; or he was driven away by\nthe tricks of a sorcerer named Titlaca\u00e2on, or Titlacahua, who appeared\nin the form of an old man. By dint of much persuasion the magician\ninduced Quetzalcoatl, who was unwell, to drink a medicine which he had\nbrought, recommended to act as a narcotic. The medicine proved to be\npulque, the high-priest was soon intoxicated, and in this condition\nwas easily persuaded that by going to the ancient country of Tlapallan\nhe might regain his youth. The other tricks of this sorcerer are many,\nbut they seem to belong to the final overthrow of the Toltec empire\nrather than to Quetzalcoatl's time. Many details are given of the\nhigh-priest's journey towards Tlapallan, of the places through which\nhe passed, and the wonderful traces which he left. He is generally\ncredited with having stopped a short time at Quauhtitlan, and with\nhaving lived some years at Cholula, where he was especially popular,\nand where in after years his doctrines found their most devoted\nfollowers. But his chief enemy, Huemac, and the necromancers followed\nhim even to Cholula with their persecutions, and he was forced to set\nout again on his journey towards Tlapallan. He finally disappeared in\nthe Goazacoalco region, after predicting the future coming of bearded\nwhite men from the east. I have given here only a brief outline of the\ntraditions respecting Quetzalcoatl, because a full account has been\npresented in another volume, to which the reader is referred.[IV-34]\n\n[Sidenote: FLIGHT OF QUETZALCOATL.]\n\nThe supposition that Quetzalcoatl was a member of the Toltec royal\nfamily and reigned as a king at Tollan, together with the evident\nconfounding in the traditions as recorded by the Spanish writers\nof two distinct persons named Quetzalcoatl,[IV-35] remove most of the\ndifficulties connected with this famous personage, the second of the\nname. It seems to me most probable that the traditions relating to\nQuetzalcoatl's foreign origin or his long absence in distant parts of\nthe country, his arrival at P\u00e1nuco, and his final disappearance in the\nsouth--although these are all accepted by Brasseur--should be referred\nto the Quetzalcoatl of primitive times. The young prince, unable\nfor some unrevealed reason, to obtain after his arrival at years of\ndiscretion the crown of his murdered father, retired to some city in or\nnear An\u00e1huac, probably Tulancingo, where he first comes into notice,\nto bide his time. Here he settled on his future policy including\nsome religious reforms, communicated with powerful friends throughout\nAn\u00e1huac, and perfected his plans for recovering his lost throne. Some\ncrosses and other relics seen by the Spaniards in the mountains of\nMeztitlan, were attributed by native tradition to Ceacatl's residence\nin Tulancingo.[IV-36] Such was the force of his claim as son of Totepeuh,\nand such the influence of the religious dogmas zealously promulgated by\nhim and his disciples, that at last on the death of Ihuitimal, perhaps\nhis brother, he was raised to the throne of Tollan, as has been said,\nin 873, under the title of Topiltzin Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl.\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF CEACATL.]\n\nThere is nothing in the Spanish version of the Quetzalcoatl traditions\nby which to fix the epoch in which he flourished. It is merely implied\nthat Huemac, his chief enemy, was temporal ruler at the same time\nthat he exercised the functions of high-priest, and succeeded him\nin power. Huemac is identified by Brasseur, not without some reason,\nwith Nacaxoc, the fifth king of the Spanish writers, whose reign is\nrepresented by them as having been most peaceful and uneventful.\nHe is also known as Tezcatlipoca, and was closely related to\nYohuallatonac,[IV-37] the king of Culhuacan. In the _Codex Chimalpopoca_\nhe is called both Huemac and Matlacxochitl.\n\nAfter Quetzalcoatl had been about ten years on the throne, opposition\nto his power, fomented by his enemies from the first, assumed serious\nproportions. Several causes are plausibly attributed by the records\nand their interpreters to this opposition. The new pontiff-king had\neffected many innovations in religious ceremonies. It does not appear\nthat his doctrines differed very materially from those entertained by\nhis predecessors, but the changes introduced by him had been so readily\nadmitted by reason of the popularity and zeal of their author and his\nsubordinates, as to excite jealousy among the ecclesiastical powers.\nMost prominent among his peculiar reforms, and the one that is reported\nto have contributed most to his downfall, was his unvarying opposition\nto human sacrifice. This sacrifice had prevailed from pre-Toltec\ntimes at Teotihuacan, and had been adopted more or less extensively\nin Culhuacan and Tollan. By Quetzalcoatl it was absolutely prohibited\nin the temples of the latter capital, and thus the powerful priesthood\nof Otompan, and Culhuacan was arrayed against him. Again it is thought\nthat under Quetzalcoatl the spiritual power always closely connected\nwith the temporal in Nahua governments, became so predominant as to\nexcite the jealousy and fears of the nobility in Tollan, who were\nrestive under a priestly restraint not imposed on their brothers of\ncorresponding rank in the other nations of the empire. Finally, under\nthe rule of Ceacatl, Tollan had become the metropolis of the empire. It\ndoes not appear that the terms of the alliance, according to which the\nmonarch of Culhuacan outranked the others, had been changed; but in the\nmagnificence of her palaces and temples, and the skill and fame of her\nartists, if not in population, Tollan now surpassed the cities of the\nvalley, and thus naturally was looked upon as a too successful rival.\nThe dissatisfied element at home was headed by Huemac, or Tezcatlipoca,\nwho had perhaps some well-founded claim to the throne, and received\nthe support of the allied monarchs. The ensuing struggle is symbolized\nin the record of the Spanish writers by the successive tricks of\nthe necromancers; and the religious strife between rival sects was\ncontinued with more or less bitterness down to the latest Aztec epoch.\nSuch was Quetzalcoatl's repugnance to the shedding of human blood, that\nhe seems to have voluntarily abandoned his throne against the wishes\nof his more warlike partisans, and after a brief stay in Quauhtitlan,\nto have crossed to the eastern plateau of Huitzilapan in 895. Huemac,\nTezcatlipoca, or Nacaxoc succeeded immediately to the royal power in\nTollan.[IV-38]\n\n[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF CHOLULA.]\n\nThe teachings and influence of Quetzalcoatl had preceded him among\nthe Olmec nations of the eastern region. His father, under the name of\nCamaxtli, had done more than any other to bring these nations under the\nToltec power, had founded the city afterwards known as Tlascala, and\nwas perhaps already worshiped as a deity. Moreover the Quetzalcoatl of\nold had traditionally introduced Nahua institutions in this region,\nwhere he was still the object of supreme veneration. Whether the\ncity of Cholula was actually founded at this time or by the first\nQuetzalcoatl, it is impossible to determine,[IV-39] but the coming of\nCeacatl seems to have marked the beginning of a new era of prosperity\non the eastern plateau. Temples in honor of Camaxtli were erected in\nTlascala and Huexotzinco, while Cholula became the capital of what may\nalmost be termed a new Toltec monarchy. All the southern and eastern\nprovinces subject to the empire during Ceacatl's reign at Tollan, gave\nin their adhesion to him at Cholula. Large numbers of his partisans\nalso followed him from Tollan, and all the primitive peoples, among\nwhom human sacrifice in pre-Toltec times had been unknown, were glad\nto submit to the royal high-priest. His reign in Cholula lasted about\nten years,[IV-40] and during this time his doctrines are thought to have\nbeen introduced by disciples dispatched from Cholula into the southern\nregions of Oajaca.\n\nIn 904 Yohuallatonac was succeeded in Culhuacan by Quetzallacxoyatl,\nand Huemac, having subdued by his strict and severe measures all open\nopposition to his rule at home, but looking with much uneasiness on the\nprosperity of Ceacatl in his new capital, and the constant emigration\nof his own subjects eastward, resolved again to attack his former\nrival. At the head of a large army he directed his march towards\nCholula. Quetzalcoatl as before, notwithstanding the remonstrance\nof his people, refused to resist his progress, but departed before\nHuemac's arrival for other lands as before related. Cholula, with the\nneighboring cities and provinces fell an easy prey to the valiant\nHuemac; but so long did he remain absent in his insatiable desire\nto conquer new territory, that his subjects revolted and with the\nco-operation of the king of Culhuacan proclaimed Nauhyotl king about\nthe year 930.[IV-41] Huemac did not yield without a struggle. Returning\nwestward to defend his throne he met Nauhyotl on the lake shores;\nhis army was routed and he was killed, or at least disappeared. As\nTezcatlipoca and under various other titles he ever after ranked among\nthe highest in the pantheon of Nahua divinities.[IV-42]\n\nDuring the ensuing era of peace among the Toltecs under Nauhyotl, or\nMitl, and his allies, it seems that Cholula regained its prosperity,\nre-established the institutions and worship of Quetzalcoatl, and\nsoon rivaled in magnificence Tollan, Culhuacan, and Teotihuacan.\nStill remaining to a certain extent a part of the Toltec empire,\nunder the rule of the king at Tollan, Cholula seems to have preferred\nfrom this period a republican form of home rule, similar, if not\nidentical, to that in vogue on the eastern plateau at the coming of the\nSpaniards.[IV-43] Four of Quetzalcoatl's chief disciples were charged with\nthe establishment of a permanent government, which they entrusted to\ntwo supreme magistrates, one chosen from the priesthood and exercising\nthe functions of high-priest under the title of Tlachiach or 'lord\nfrom on high,' and the other from the nobility being at the head of the\ncivil government with the title Aquiach.\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF NAUHYOTL.]\n\nThe reign of Nauhyotl, or Mitl,[IV-44] at Tollan was one of great\nprosperity and peace. The new king devoted all his energies to\npromoting the glory of his capital city, where he re-established\nnearly all the reforms instituted by Ceacatl and partially abolished\nby Huemac. He is represented as having looked with some uneasiness on\nthe growing prosperity of Cholula, and on the pilgrimages continually\nundertaken by residents of Tollan to the eastern shrines; but instead\nof resorting like his predecessor to hostile measures, he determined\nto eclipse the glory of Cholula by the erection of new and magnificent\ntemples at home. The finest of these temples was that built in honor of\nthe Goddess of Water,[IV-45] or the Frog Goddess, to which was attached a\ncollege of priests vowed to celibacy. Meantime the worship of Camaxtli\nand Tlaloc were more firmly established than before at Tlascala and\nHuexotzinco, and grand temples were built in several Toltec provinces\nwithout An\u00e1huac, particularly in the south, one of the most famous\nbeing near Quauhnahuac, later Cuernavaca, the ruins of which may\nbe supposed with some plausibility to be identical with those of\nXochicalco.[IV-46] After having restored Tollan to the position it had\noccupied under Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, Nauhyotl died after a reign of\nfifteen years in 945.[IV-47]\n\nAll the authorities agree that Nauhyotl was succeeded at his death\nby his queen Xiuhtlaltzin,[IV-48] who reigned four years, showing\ngreat zeal and wisdom in the management of public affairs, and dying\ndeeply regretted by all her subjects.[IV-49] The Spanish writers name\nTecpancaltzin as the successor of the lamented queen, referring to his\nreign and to that of his successor the events which brought about the\noverthrow of the Toltec empire. The Nahua records, however, represent\nqueen Xiuhtlaltzin as having been followed by her son Matlaccoatl,\nwho reigned from 949 to 973, and who in his turn was succeeded by\nTlilcoatzin, ruling from 973 to 994, and preceding Tecpancaltzin,\nrespecting whose reign these records agree to a great extent with\nthe other authorities. We have no record of any specific events that\noccurred during the reign of the three sovereigns last mentioned, save\nthat in Culhuacan Quetzallacxoyatl was succeeded in 953 by Chalchiuh\nTlatonac, and the latter in 985 by Totepeuh, the second of the\nname.[IV-50]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI come now to the last century of the period to which this chapter\nis devoted, a century whose annals form a continuous record of civil\nand religious strife in An\u00e1huac, invasions by powerful bands from\nthe adjoining regions on the north and north-west, pestilence and\nfamine, resulting in the utter overthrow of the Toltec empire. There\nis somewhat less contradiction among the two classes of authorities\nquoted respecting the events of this century than in the case of those\npreceding. The Spanish writers still speak of Tollan, it is true, as\nif that city alone constituted the empire; but the Nahua documents\nalso ascribe almost exclusively to Tollan the occurrences which caused\nthe destruction of the Toltec power. The latter documents, however,\nstill keep up the thread of historical events at Culhuacan and in other\nprovinces, and they are doubtless much more reliable in the matter\nof dates than the Spanish version, besides narrating the invasions\nof foreign tribes, a disturbing element in Toltec politics almost\nentirely ignored by Ixtlilxochitl and his followers. Notwithstanding\nthe general agreement of the authorities referred to, it must be noted\nthat the record is but a succession of tales in which the marvelous\nand supernatural largely predominate, conveying a tolerably accurate\nidea of the general course of history during this period, but throwing\nvery little light on its details. In accordance with my plan already\nannounced, I have but to tell the tales as they are recorded; their\ngeneral meaning is sufficiently apparent, and I shall offer but rarely\nconjectures respecting the specific significance of each.\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF HUEMAC II.]\n\nHuemac II., also known as Tecpancaltzin,[IV-51] the eldest son of Totepeuh\nII. of Culhuacan, mounted the throne of Tollan in 994,[IV-52] at a time\nwhen that city in respect of art and high culture was at the head of\nthe empire, although Culhuacan still retained her original political\nsupremacy, while both Teotihuacan and Cholula were rivals in the\npower and fame of their respective priesthood. There are no data for\nassigning even approximately exact limits to the Toltec empire at\nthis period. It is probably, however, that while the Toltec was less\nabsolute and despotic than the Aztec power in the sixteenth century,\nyet it was exerted throughout fully as wide an extent of territory,\nincluding Michoacan and a broad region in the north-west never\naltogether subjected to the Aztec kings. The Toltec domain had been\nenlarged gradually by the influence of the priesthood, particularly\nunder Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, until there were few provinces from\nTehuantepec to Zacatecas, from the North to the South Sea, which\ndid not render a voluntary allegiance to the allied monarchs of the\ncentral region. And at the same time it cannot be believed that foreign\nconquest by force of arms had so small a place among the events of\nToltec history as the records would imply. Huemac II., unlike the first\nof the same name, belonged to the sect of Quetzalcoatl, using his\npower to restrain the practice of human sacrifice if not altogether\nabolishing it in the temples of Tollan. He even seems to have added\nthe name of Quetzalcoatl to his other royal and pontifical titles, or\npossibly had this title before his coronation, as high-priest of the\nsect at Culhuacan. The application of this title to Huemac, and that of\nTezcatlipoca to the high-priest of the rival sect, has been productive\nof no little confusion in the record, since it is sometimes impossible\nto decide whether certain events should be attributed to this reign or\nto the time of Ceacatl and Huemac I. The new king was endowed with fine\nnatural qualifications for his position, and enjoyed to a remarkable\ndegree the confidence and esteem of the people. During the first\nyear he ruled with great wisdom, speaking but little, attending most\nstrictly to the performance of his religious duties, and always prompt\nin the administration of justice to his subjects of whatever station;\nbut the old fire of religious strife, though smouldering, was yet\nalive and ready to be fanned into a conflagration which should consume\nthe whole Toltec structure. The leaders of the rival sect, followers\nof the bloody Tezcatlipoca and bitter enemies to all followers of\nQuetzalcoatl, although now in the minority were constantly intriguing\nfor the fall of Huemac. But they well knew the popularity of their\nhated foe, and bent all their energies to the task of dragging him\ndown from his lofty pedestal of popular esteem, by tempting him into\nthe commission of acts unworthy of himself as high-priest, king, and\nsuccessor of the great Quetzalcoatl. A scandal was to be created; wine\nand women were naturally the agents to be employed; the tale is a very\nstrange one.\n\n[Sidenote: THE KING'S MISTRESS.]\n\nPapantzin, a Toltec noble of high rank, presented himself one day at\ncourt, together with his daughter, the beautiful Xochitl,[IV-53] bearing\nwith other gifts to the king a kind of syrup and sugar made from\nmaguey-juice by a process of which Papantzin was the inventor. This\nsyrup is generally spoken of as pulque, but there seems to be little\nreason for making a fermented liquor of 'miel prieta de maguey.'[IV-54]\nWhatever the nature of the syrup, it pleased the royal palate, and\nthe lovely face and form of the young Xochitl were no less pleasing\nto the royal eye. The king expressed his appreciation of the new\ninvention, and his desire to receive additional samples of the sweet\npreparation, at the same time telling the father that he would be\npleased to receive such gifts at the hands of the daughter, who might\nvisit him for such a purpose unattended save by a servant. Proud of the\nhonor shown to his family, and without suspicion of evil intentions,\nPapantzin only a few days later sent Xochitl, accompanied by an elderly\nfemale attendant, with a new gift of maguey-syrup. The attendant was\ndirected to await her mistress in a distant apartment of the palace,\nwhile Xochitl was introduced alone to the presence of Huemac. Bravely\nthe maiden resisted the monarch's blandishments and protestations of\nardent love, but by threats and force was compelled to yield her person\nto his embrace. She was then sent to the strongly-guarded palace of\nPalpan near the capital, and there, cut off from all communication\nwith parents or friends, lived as the king's mistress. Her parents were\nnotified that their daughter had been entrusted by Huemac to the care\nof certain ladies who would perfect her education and fit her for a\nprominent position among the ladies of the court and for a brilliant\nmarriage. To Papantzin the royal manner of showing honor to his family\nseemed at best novel and strange, but he could suspect no evil intent\non the part of the pious representative of Quetzalcoatl. New favors\nwere subsequently shown the dishonored father, in the shape of lands\nand titles and promises. For three years Huemac continued his guilty\namour in secret, and in the meantime, in 1002,[IV-55] a child was born,\nnamed Meconetzin, 'child of the maguey,' or at a later period Acxitl.\nAccording to the _Codex Chimalpopoca_ the king during these three years\ngave himself up to the pleasures of the wine cup also, yielding to the\ntemptations placed before him by the crafty followers of Tezcatlipoca,\nand during one of his drunken orgies revealed the secret of his love;\nbut however this may have been, that secret was finally suspected;\nPapantzin in the disguise of a laborer visited the palace of Palpan,\nmet his daughter with the young Meconetzin in her arms, and listened\nto the tale of her shame. The angry father seems to have been quieted\nwith the promise that his daughter's son should be proclaimed heir to\nthe throne, since the queen had borne her husband only daughters; but\nthe scandal once suspected was spread far and wide by the priesthood\nof Tezcatlipoca, and the faith of the Toltecs in their saintly monarch\nwas shaken. The queen having died, Xochitl with her young son was\nbrought to the royal palace, and there is some reason to suppose that\nshe was made Huemac's legitimate queen by a regular marriage. Very\nserious dissatisfaction, and even open hostility among the princes of\nhighest rank, were excited by the king's actions, both on account of\nthe shameful nature of such acts, and also because their own chance\nof future succession to the throne was destroyed by Huemac's avowed\nintention to make Acxitl his heir. Everything presaged a revolution,\nand the foes of Quetzalcoatl were cheered with hopes of approaching\ntriumph. Huemac's mind was filled with trouble, which all the flattery\nof the court could not wholly remove, and the prospects of his family\nwere not brightened by the fact that the young Acxitl from his birth\nhad the physical peculiarities predicted by the prophet Hueman of olden\ntime, in connection with such wide-spread and fatal disasters. Yet it\nwas hoped that by careful instruction and training, even the decrees of\nfate might be reversed and impending disaster averted, especially as in\nchildhood and youth prince Acxitl gave most cheering promise of future\ngoodness and ability.[IV-56]\n\n[Sidenote: TOVEYO'S ADVENTURES.]\n\nAnother event served to increase the troubles that began to gather\nabout the throne. It appears that Huemac by his first queen Maxio had\nthree daughters, who were much sought in marriage, rather for motives\nof political ambition, perhaps, than love, by the Toltec nobles. One\nespecially was greatly beloved by her father and none of the many\naspirants to her hand found favor in her eyes. One day while walking\namong the flowers in the royal gardens, she came upon a man selling\nchile. Some of the traditions say that the pepper-vender, Toveyo,[IV-57]\nwas Tezcatlipoca who had assumed the appearance of a plebeian; at any\nrate he was entirely naked and awakened in the bosom of the princess a\nlove for which her Toltec suitors had sighed in vain. So violent was\nher passion as to bring on serious illness, the cause of which was\ntold by her maids to Huemac, and the indulgent father, though very\nangry with Toveyo at first, finally, as the only means of restoring\nhis daughter to health, sought out the plebeian vender of pepper and\nforced him, perhaps not very much against his will, to be washed\nand dressed and to become the husband of the love-sick princess.\nThis marriage caused great dissatisfaction and indignation among the\nToltecs; an indignation that is easily understood, however the legend\nbe interpreted. In case a literal interpretation be accepted, the upper\nclasses in Tollan may naturally have been shocked by the admission of\na low-born peasant to the royal family; on the other hand the version\ngiven may have originated with the disappointed suitors, who gratified\ntheir spite by reviling the successful Toveyo. It is also possible that\nthe legend symbolizes by this marriage the granting of new privileges\nto the lower classes against the will of the nobility; however this may\nbe, the result was wide-spread discontent ready to burst forth in open\nrevolt.[IV-58]\n\nAmong the disaffected lords who openly revolted against Tollan,\nCohuanacotzin, Huehuetzin, Xiuhtenancaltzin, and Mexoyotzin[IV-59] are\nmentioned, by Ixtlilxochitl as rulers of provinces on the Atlantic,\nby Veytia as lords of regions extending from Quiahuiztlan (according\nto Brasseur, Vera Cruz) northward along the coast of the North Sea to\na point beyond Jalisco. Respecting the events of this revolution of\nToltec provinces thus vaguely located, we have only the continuation\nof Toveyo's adventures, which seems to belong to this war. The tale\nruns that Huemac, somewhat frightened at the storm of indignation which\nfollowed his choice of a son-in-law, sent him out to fight in the wars\nof Cacatepec and Coatepec, giving secret orders that he should be\nso stationed in battle as to be inevitably killed. The main body of\nthe Toltec army yielded to the superior numbers of the foe and fled\nto Tollan, leaving Toveyo and his followers to their fate; but the\nlatter, either by his superior skill or by his powers as a magician,\nnotwithstanding the small force at his command, utterly routed the\nenemy and returned in triumph to the capital, where the king and people\nreceived him with great honors and public demonstrations of joy. For\na time the kingdom seems to have remained without disturbance, and\nfortune once more smiled on Huemac.[IV-60]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: OMENS OF DESTRUCTION.]\n\nAs to the exact order in which occurred the subsequent disasters\nby which the Toltec empire was overthrown, the authorities differ\nsomewhat, although agreeing tolerably well respecting their nature.\nMany events ascribed by Brasseur to Huemac's reign are by Veytia and\nothers described as having happened in that of his successor. There\ncan, however, be but little hesitation in following the chronology of\nthe Nahua documents often referred to, in preference to that of the\nSpanish writers. The latter is certainly erroneous; the former at the\nworst is only probably so. With his returning prosperity the king seems\nto have returned to his evil ways while the partizans of Tezcatlipoca\nresumed their intrigues against him. The sorcerer assembled a mighty\ncrowd near Tollan, and kept them dancing to the music of his drum until\nmidnight, when by reason of the darkness and their intoxication they\ncrowded each other off a precipice into a deep ravine, where they were\nturned to stone. A stone bridge was also broken by the necromancer and\ncrowds precipitated into the river.[IV-61] Other wonderful acts of the\nsorcerer against the well-being of the Toltecs as related by Sahagun\nhave been given in another volume.[IV-62] From one of the neighboring\nvolcanoes a flood of glowing lava poured, and in its lurid light\nappeared frightful spectres threatening the capital. A sacrifice of\ncaptives in honor of Tezcatlipoca, was decided upon to appease the\nangry gods, a sacrifice which Huemac was forced to sanction. But when a\nyoung boy, chosen by lot as the first victim, was placed upon the altar\nand the obsidian knife plunged into his breast, no heart was found\nin his body, and his veins were without blood. The fetid odor exhaled\nfrom the corpse caused a pestilence involving thousands of deaths. The\nstruggles of the Toltecs to get rid of the body have been elsewhere\nrelated.[IV-63] Next the Tlaloc divinities appeared to Huemac as he walked\nin the forest, and were implored by him not to take from him his wealth\nand his royal splendor. The gods were wroth at this petition, his\napparent selfishness, and want of penitence for past sins, and they\ndeparted announcing their purpose to bring plagues and suffering upon\nthe proud Toltecs for six years. The winter of 1018 was so cold that\nall plants and seeds were killed by frost, and was followed by a hot\nsummer, which parched the whole surface of the country, dried up the\nstreams, and even calcined the solid rocks.\n\n[Sidenote: PLAGUES SENT UPON THE TOLTECS.]\n\nHere seem to belong the series of plagues described by the Spanish\nwriters, although attributed by them to the following reign.[IV-64]\nThe plagues began with heavy storms of rain, destroying the ripening\ncrops, flooding the streets of towns, continuing for a hundred days,\nand causing great fear of a universal deluge. Heavy gales followed,\nwhich leveled the finest buildings to the ground; and toads in immense\nnumbers covered the ground, consuming everything edible and even\npenetrating the dwellings of the people. The next year unprecedented\nheat and drought prevailed, rendering useless all agricultural labor,\nand causing much starvation. Next heavy frosts destroyed what little\nthe heat had spared, not even the hardy maguey surviving; and then came\nupon the land great swarms of birds and locusts and various insects.\nLightning and hail completed the work of devastation, and as a result\nof all their afflictions Ixtlilxochitl informs us that nine hundred\nof every thousand Toltecs perished. Huemac and his followers were held\nresponsible for disasters that had come upon the people; a hungry mob\nof citizens and strangers crowded the street of Tollan and even invaded\nthe palace of the nobles, instigated and headed by the partizans of\nTezcatlipoca; and the king was even forced at one time to abandon\nthe city for a time. The _Codex Chimalpopoca_ represented the long\nrain already referred to as having occurred at the end of six years'\ndrought and famine, and to have inaugurated a new season of plenty.\nIxtlilxochitl refers to bloody wars as among the evils of the time. All\nwe may learn from the confused accounts, is that the Toltec empire at\nthat period was afflicted with war, famine, and pestilence; and that\nthese afflictions were attributed to the sins of Huemac II., by his\nenemies and such of the people as they could influence.\n\nAfter the plagues were past, and prosperity had again begun to smile\nupon the land, Huemac abandoned his evil ways and gave his whole\nattention to promoting the welfare of his people; but he still clung\nwith fatal obstinacy to his purpose of placing his son on the throne,\nand determined to abdicate immediately in favor of Acxitl. His father,\nking of Culhuacan, died in 1026, and the crown, to which Huemac\nhimself, as the eldest son would seem to have been entitled, passed\nto Totepeuh's second son, Nauhyotl II. It is possible that Huemac\nconsented to this concession in consideration of the support of the\nnew king in his own projects at Tollan. After thoroughly canvassing\nthe sentiments of his vassal lords, and conciliating the good will\nof the wavering by a grant of new honors and possessions, he publicly\nannounced his intention to place Acxitl on the throne. The immediate\nconsequence was a new revolt, and from an unexpected source, since it\nwas abetted if not originated by the followers of Quetzalcoatl, who\ndeemed Acxitl, the child of adulterous love, an unworthy successor of\ntheir great prophet. Maxtlatzin was the most prominent of the many\nnobles who espoused the rebel cause, and Quauhtli was the choice\nof the malcontents for the rank of high-priest of Quetzalcoatl. To\nsuch an extremity was the cause of Huemac and his son reduced that\nthey were forced to a compromise with the two leaders of the revolt,\nwho consented to support the cause of Acxitl on condition of being\nthemselves raised to the highest rank after the son of Huemac, and of\nforming with him a kind of triumvirate by which the kingdom should be\nruled. All the authorities agree respecting this compromise, although\nonly the documents consulted by Brasseur speak of open revolt as the\ncause which led to it. It is evident, however, that nothing but the\nmost imminent danger could have induced the king of Tollan to have\nentered into so humiliating an arrangement. Immediately after the\nconsummation of the new alliance, the 'child of the maguey' was crowned\nking and high-priest with great ceremony in 1029, under the title of\nTopiltzin Acxitl Quetzalcoatl. Topiltzin is the name by which he is\nusually called by the Spanish writers, although it was in reality, like\nthat of Quetzalcoatl, a title held by several kings. Acxitl is the more\nconvenient name, as distinguishing him clearly from his father and from\nCeacatl Quetzalcoatl. Huemac and Queen Xochitl retired ostensibly from\nall connection with public affairs.[IV-65]\n\n[Sidenote: EXCESSES OF ACXITL.]\n\nThe three lords of distant provinces, Huehuetzin, Xiuhtenancaltzin,\nand Cohuanacotzin, who had once before rebelled against the king of\nTollan, now refused their allegiance to Acxitl; but at first they\nfor some reason, perhaps their own difficulties with the wild tribes\nabout them, engaged in no open hostilities. The new monarch, then\nabout forty years of age, justified the high promise of his youth, and\nguided by the sage counsels of his reformed father, ruled most wisely\nfor several years, gradually gaining the confidence of his subjects.\nBut the decrees of the gods were infallible, and Acxitl, like his\nfather before him, yielded to temptation and plunged into all manner\nof lasciviousness and riotous living. So low did he fall as to make\nuse of his position of high-priest to gratify his evil passions. His\ninciters and agents were still Tezcatlipoca and his crafty partisans,\nwho persuaded ladies of every rank that by yielding to the king's\nembraces they would merit divine favor. The royal example was followed\nby both nobles and priests. High church dignitaries and priestesses\nof the temples consecrated to life-long chastity forgot all their\nvows; force was employed where persuasion failed. So openly were the\nrequirements of morality disregarded, that the high-priestess of the\nGoddess of the Water, a princess of royal blood, on a pilgrimage to\nthe temple of Quetzalcoatl at Cholula, lived openly with the chief\npontiff of that city and bore him a son, who afterwards succeeded\nto the highest ecclesiastical rank. Vice took complete possession\nof society in all its classes, spreading to cities and provinces not\nunder the immediate authority of Tollan. Public affairs were left to be\nmanaged by unscrupulous royal favorites; the prayers of the aged Huemac\nand Xochitl to the gods, like their remonstrances with Acxitl, were\nunavailing; crimes of all kinds remained unpunished; robbery and murder\nwere of frequent occurrence; and the king was justly held responsible\nfor all.\n\nBut Acxitl was at last brought to his senses, and his fears if not his\nconscience were thoroughly aroused. Walking in his garden one morning,\nhe saw a small animal of peculiar appearance, with horns like a deer,\nwhich, having been killed, proved to be a rabbit. Shortly after he saw\na _huitzilin_, or humming-bird, with spurs, a most extraordinary thing.\nTopiltzin Acxitl was familiar with the Teoamoxtli, or 'divine book,'\nand with Huemac's predictions; well he knew, and was confirmed in his\nopinion by the sages and priests who were consulted, that the phenomena\nobserved were the tokens of final disaster. The king's reformation\nwas sudden and complete; the priests held out hopes that the prodigies\nwere warnings, and that their consequences might possibly be averted\nby prayer, sacrifice, and reform. The Spanish writers introduce at this\nperiod the series of plagues, which I have given under Huemac's reign;\nand Brasseur adds to the appearance of the rabbit and the humming-bird\ntwo or three of the wonderful events attributed by Sahagun to the\nnecromancer Titlaca\u00e2on, without any reason that I know of for ascribing\nthese occurrences to this particular time. Such were the appearance\nof a bird bearing an arrow in its claws and menacingly soaring over\nthe doomed capital; the falling of a great stone of sacrifice near the\npresent locality of Chapultepec; and the coming of an old woman selling\npaper flags which proved fatal to every purchaser.[IV-66] These events\noccurred in 1036 and the following years. The king was wholly unable to\ncheck the torrent of vice which was flowing over the land; indeed, in\nhis desire to atone for his past faults, he seems to have resorted to\nsuch severe measures as to have defeated his own aims, converting his\nformer friends and flatterers into bitter foes.\n\n[Sidenote: CHICHIMEC INVASION.]\n\nIn the midst of other troubles came the news that Huehuetzin was\nmarching at the head of the rebel forces towards Tollan, and was\nalready most successful on the northern frontier. The other two\nlords from the gulf coasts, who had refused to acknowledge the power\nof Acxitl, were in league with Huehuetzin. Unable to resist this\nformidable army, the Toltec king was compelled to send ambassadors\nbearing rich presents to sue for peace,--according to the Spanish\nwriters at the capitals of the distant rebellious provinces; but as\nBrasseur says to the headquarters of the hostile army not very far from\nTollan. The presents were received, but no satisfactory agreement seems\nto have been made at first. Veytia and Ixtlilxochitl speak vaguely of a\ntruce that was concluded as a result of this or a subsequent embassy,\nto the effect that the Toltecs should not be molested for ten years,\nan old military usage requiring that ten years should always intervene\nbetween the declaration of war and the commencement of hostilities;\nand the latter states that the army was withdrawn in the meantime,\nbecause sufficient supplies could not be obtained in the territory of\nthe Toltecs. Brasseur, without referring to any other authorities than\nthose named, tells us that after remaining a whole year near Tollan,\nHuehuetzin was forced to return to his own province to repel the\ninvasions of hostile tribes, which tribes, it is implied, were induced\nto come southward and to harass the Toltec nations.[IV-67]\n\nTaking advantage of the precarious condition of the Toltecs, many\nof the tribes even in and about An\u00e1huac shook off all allegiance to\nthe empire, and became altogether independent; and at the same time\nnumerous Chichimec tribes from abroad took advantage of the favorable\nopportunity to secure homes in the lake region. These foreign tribes\nare all reported to have come from the north, but it is extremely\ndoubtful if any accurate information respecting the invaders has\nbeen preserved. For the conjecture that all or any of them came from\nthe distant north, from California, Utah, or the Mississippi Valley,\nthere are absolutely no grounds; although it is of course impossible\nto prove that all came from the region adjoining An\u00e1huac. By far the\nmost reasonable conjecture is that the invaders were the numerous\nNahua bands who had settled in the west and north-west, in Michoacan,\nJalisco, and Zacatecas, about the same time that the nations called\nToltecs had established themselves in and about An\u00e1huac. Brasseur\nfinds in his authorities, the only ones that give any particulars of\nthe invaders, that among the first Chichimec bands to arrive were the\nAcxotecas and Eztlepictin, both constituting together the Teotenancas.\nThe Eztlepictin settled in the valley of Tenanco, south of the lakes,\nwhile the Acxotecas took possession of the fertile valleys about\nTollan. A war between Nauhyotl II. of Culhuacan and the king of Tollan\nis then vaguely recorded, in which Acxitl was victorious, but is\nsupposed to have suffered from the constant hostility of Culhuacan\nfrom that time forward, although that kingdom soon had enough to do to\ndefend her own possessions. The Eztlepictin introduced a new divinity,\nand a new worship, which Acxitl, as successor of Quetzalcoatl made\na desperate effort to overthrow. He marched with all the forces he\ncould command to Tenanco, but was defeated in every battle. What was\nworse yet, during his absence on this campaign, the Acxoteca branch of\nthe invaders were admitted, under their leader Xalliteuctli, by the\npartisans of Tezcatlipoca into Tollan itself. Civil strife ensued in\nthe streets of the capital between the three rival sects, until Tollan\nwith all her noble structures was well-nigh in ruins. At the same time\nwars were waged between the three allied kingdoms, and pest and famine\ncame once more upon the land. These events occurred between 1040 and\n1047.[IV-68]\n\n[Sidenote: TOKENS OF DIVINE WRATH.]\n\nIt was evident that the gods were very angry with this unhappy people.\nTo avert their wrath, as Torquemada relates, a meeting of all the\nwise men, priests, and nobles, was convened at Teotihuacan, where the\ngods from the most ancient times had been wont to hear the prayers of\nmen. In the midst of the propitiatory feasts and sacrifices a demon of\ngigantic proportions with long bony arms and fingers appeared dancing\nin the court where the people were assembled. Whirling through the\ncrowd in every direction the demon seized upon the Toltecs that came\nin his way and dashed them lifeless at his feet. Multitudes perished\nbut none had the strength to fly. A second time the giant appeared in a\nslightly different form and again the Toltecs fell by hundreds in his\ngrasp. At his next appearance the demon assumed the form of a white\nand beautiful child sitting on a rock and gazing at the holy city from\na neighboring hilltop. As the people rushed in crowds to investigate\nthe new phenomena, it was discovered that the child's head was a mass\nof corruption, exhaling a stench so fatal that all who approached were\nstricken with sudden death. Finally the devil or god appeared in a\nform not recorded and warned the assembly that the fate of the Toltecs\nin that country was sealed; the gods would not listen to further\npetitions; the people could escape total annihilation only by flight.\nThe assembly broke up, and the members returned to their homes utterly\ndisheartened.[IV-69]\n\nLarge numbers of the Toltec nobles had already abandoned their country\nand departed for foreign provinces, and this emigration was constantly\non the increase even before it was definitely determined by the ruler\nto migrate. In the meantime, if Brasseur's authorities may be credited,\na new sect, the Ixcuinames or 'masked matrons,' introduced their rites,\nincluding phallic worship and all manner of sorcery and debauchery,\ninto Tollan, thus adding a new element of discord in that fated city.\nThe Ixcuinames originated in the region of P\u00e1nuco among the Huastecs,\nand began to flourish in Tollan about 1058.[IV-70] To civil and religious\nstrife, with other internal troubles, was now added the peril of\nforeign invasion. According to the Spanish writers the ten years' truce\nconcluded between Acxitl and his foes under the command of Huehuetzin,\nwas now about to expire, and the rebel prince of the north appeared\nat the head of an immense army, ready to submit his differences with\nthe Toltec king to the arbitration of the battle-field. According to\nBrasseur, the Teo-Chichimecs invaded the rest of An\u00e1huac, while the\nformer foes of Huemac and his son, under Huehuetzin, from the provinces\nof Quiahuiztlan and Jalisco, threatened Tollan. I may remark here that\nI have little faith in this author's division into tribes of the hordes\nthat invaded An\u00e1huac at this period and in the following years. We know\nthat many bands from the surrounding region, particularly on the north,\nmost of them probably Nahua tribes, did take advantage of internal\ndissensions among the Toltec nations to invade the central region. For\na period of many years they warred unceasingly with the older nations\nand among themselves; but to trace the fortunes of particular tribes\nthrough this maze of inter-tribal conflict is a hopeless task which I\nshall not attempt. Many of these so-called Chichimec invading tribes\nafterwards became great nations, and played a prominent part in the\nannals to be given in future chapters; and while it is not improbable\nthat some of them, as the Teo-Chichimecs, Acolhuas, or Tepanecs, were\nidentical with the invading tribes which overthrew the Toltec empire,\nthere is no sufficient authority for attempting so to identify any one\nof them. Neither do I find any authority whatever for the conjecture\nthat the invaders were barbarian hordes from the distant north, who\nbroke through the belt of Nahua nations which surrounded An\u00e1huac,\nor were instigated by those nations from jealousy of Toltec power to\nundertake its overthrow. Yet it would be rash to assume that none of\nthe wild tribes took part in the ensuing struggle; as allies, or under\nNahua leaders, they probably rendered efficient aid to the Chichimec\ninvaders, and afterwards in many cases merged their tribal existence in\nthat of the Chichimec nations.\n\n[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF AN\u00c1HUAC.]\n\nThe other Toltec cities, Otompan, Tezcuco, Culhuacan, seem to have\nfallen before the invaders even before Tollan, although it is vaguely\nreported that after the destruction of Otompan the king of Culhuacan\nformed a new alliance for defense with Azcapuzalco and Coatlichan,\nexcluding Tollan. All the cities were sacked and burned as fast as\nconquered except Culhuacan, which seems to have escaped destruction\nby admitting the invaders within her gates and probably becoming their\nallies or vassals. This was in 1060.[IV-71] Meantime Huehuetzin's forces\nwere threatening Tollan. By strenuous efforts a large army had been\nraised and equipped for the defense of the royal cause. The princes\nQuauhtli and Maxtlatzin, lately allied to the throne, brought all their\nforces to aid the king against whom they had formerly rebelled. The\naged Huemac came out from his retirement and strove with the ardor of\nyouth to ward off the destruction which he could but attribute to his\nindiscretions of many years ago. Even Xochitl, the king's mother, is\nreported to have enlisted an army of amazons from the women of Tollan\nand to have placed herself at their head. Acxitl formed his army\ninto two divisions, one of which, under a lord named Huehuetenuxcatl,\nmarched out to meet the enemy, while the other, commanded by the king\nhimself, was stationed within intrenchments at Tultitlan. The advance\narmy, after one day's battle without decisive result, fell back and\ndetermined to act on the defensive. Reinforced by the division under\nHuemac, and by Xochitl's amazons, who fought most bravely, General\nHuehuetenuxcatl carried on the war for three years, but was at last\ndriven back to join the king. At Tultitlan a final stand was made by\nAcxitl's orders. For many days the battle raged here until the Toltecs\nwere nearly exterminated, and driven back step by step to Tollan,\nXaltocan, Teotihuacan, and Xochitlalpan successively. Here Huemac and\nXochitl were slain, also Quauhtli and Maxtlatzin. Acxitl escaped by\nhiding in a cave at Xico in Lake Chalco. In a final encounter General\nHuehuetenuxcatl fell, and the small remnant of the Toltec army was\nscattered in the mountains and in the marshes of the lake shore.[IV-72]\n\n[Sidenote: FLIGHT OF ACXITL]\n\nFrom his place of concealment at Xico, Topiltzin Acxitl secretly\nvisited Culhuacan, gathered a few faithful followers about him,\nannounced his intention of returning to Huehue Tlapallan, promised to\nintercede in their behalf with the Chichimec emperor of their old home,\nand having committed his two infant children Pochotl and Xilotzin to\nfaithful guardians to be brought up in ignorance of their royal birth,\nhe left the country in 1062.[IV-73] He is supposed to have gone southward\naccompanied by a few followers. Other bodies of Toltecs had previously\nabandoned the country and gone in the same direction, and large numbers\nare reported to have remained in Culhuacan, Cholula, Chapultepec and\nmany other towns that are named. Veytia, Ixtlilxochitl, Torquemada,\nand Clavigero tell us that of these who fled some founded settlements\non the coasts of both oceans, from which came parties at subsequent\nperiods to re-establish themselves in An\u00e1huac. Others crossed the\nisthmus of Tehuantepec and passed into the southern lands. The other\nauthors also agree that of those who escaped destruction part remained,\nand the rest were scattered in various directions. None imply a general\nmigration en masse towards the south.[IV-74] Lists are given of the Toltec\nnobles that remained in An\u00e1huac and of the cities where they resided.\nThe larger number were at Culhuacan, under Xiuhtemoc, to whom the\nking's children were confided. These remaining Toltecs were afterwards\ncalled from the name of their city Culhuas.[IV-75]\n\nBrasseur finds in his two Nahua records data for certain events that\ntook place after the flight of Topiltzin Acxitl. Maxtlatzin, as he\nclaims, escaped from the final battle and intrenched himself in one\nof the strong fortresses among the ruins of Tollan. The Chichimecs\nsoon took possession of the city in two divisions known as Toltec\nChichimecs and Nonohualcas. They even went through the forms of\nchoosing a successor to Acxitl, selecting a boy named Matlacxochitl,\nwhom they crowned as Huemac III. To him the chiefs rendered a kind of\nmock allegiance, but still held the power in their own hands. Desperate\nstruggles ensued between the two Chichimec bands led by Huehuetzin and\nIcxicohuatl, the followers of Tezcatlipoca under Yaotl, and the forces\nof Maxtlatzin in the fortress. The result was the murder of the mock\nking about 1064, and the final abandonment of Tollan soon after. It is\nclaimed by the authorities which record these events that Huemac II.\nsurvived all these troubles and died at Chapultepec in 1070.[IV-76]\n\n[Sidenote: DOWNFALL OF THE EMPIRE.]\n\nIt is not difficult to form a tolerably clear idea of the state\nof affairs in An\u00e1huac at the downfall of the Toltec empire,\nnotwithstanding the confusion of the records. There is, as we have\nseen, no evidence of a general migration southward or in any other\ndirection. It is true the records speak of a large majority of the\nToltecs as having migrated in different directions as a result of their\ndisasters, but it must be remembered that in America, as elsewhere,\nhistorical annals of early periods had to do with the deeds and\nfortunes of priests and kings and noble families; the common people\nwere useful to fight and pay taxes, but were altogether unworthy of\na place in history. It is probable that the name Toltecs, a title of\ndistinction rather than a national name, was never applied at all to\nthe common people. When by civil strife and foreign invasion their\npower was overthrown, many of the leaders, spiritual and temporal,\ndoubtless abandoned the country, preferring to try their fortunes in\nthe southern provinces which seem to have suffered less than those\nof the north from the Toltec disasters. Their exiles took refuge\nin the Miztec and Zapotec provinces of Oajaca, and some of them\nprobably crossed to Guatemala and Yucatan, where they were not without\ninfluence in molding future political events. The mass of the Toltec\npeople remained in An\u00e1huac; some of them kept up a distinct national\nexistence for a while in Culhuacan, and perhaps in Cholula; but most\nsimply became subjects of the invading chiefs, whose language and\ninstitutions were for the most part identical with those to which they\nhad been accustomed. The population had been considerably diminished\nnaturally by the many years of strife, famine, and pestilence; but\nthis diminution was greatly exaggerated in the records. The theory\nthat the population was reduced to a few thousands, most of whom left\nthe country, leaving a few chiefs with their followers in a desolate\nand barren land, from which even the invading hordes had retired\nimmediately after their victory, is a very transparent absurdity. The\nToltec downfall was the overthrow of a dynasty, not the destruction\nof a people. The ensuing period was one of bitter strife between rival\nbands for the power which had been wrested from the Toltec kings. The\nannals of that period cannot be followed; but history recommences with\nthe success of some of the struggling factions, and their development\ninto national powers.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[IV-1] _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., pp. 247-50. 'Era servido\nde unos Sacerdotes llamados _Papahua Tlemac\u00e0zque_, que, \u00e0 distincion\nde los dem\u00e0s, tra\u00ecan el cabello en melenas sueltas, y al acabarse el\nCyclo Indiano, sacaban, y vendian el _Fuego Nuevo_ \u00e0 los Pueblos\nvecinos.' _Boturini_, _Idea_, p. 42. 'All\u00ed tambien se enterraban los\nprincipales y se\u00f1ores, sobre cuyas sepulturas se mandaban hacer\nt\u00famulos de tierra, que hoy se ven todavia.' _Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._,\ntom. iii., lib. x., p. 141.\n\n[IV-2] Brasseur cites Torquemada and Duran as authorities for the\nexistence at this period of some remnants of the old Quinames, and of\nother savage tribes whose names have been lost; but these authors in\nthe chapters cited say nothing to which such a meaning can fairly be\nattributed.\n\n[IV-3] See p. 192.\n\n[IV-4] _Boturini_, _Cat\u00e1logo_, p. 17, No. 12. 'Diferentes Historias\nOriginales en lengua N\u00e0huatl, y papel Europ\u00e8o de los Reynos de\nCulhu\u00e0can, y Mexico, y de otras Provincias, el Autor de ellas dicho\nDon Domingo Chimalp\u00e0in. Empiezan desde la Gentilidad, y llegan \u00e0 los\na\u00f1os de 1591.' See also _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._,\ntom. i., p. lxxvi.\n\n[IV-5] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 198, et seq. This author refers\noccasionally in his foot-notes to the Spanish writers Torquemada,\nDuran, and others, but such citations when looked up rarely prove to\nhave any bearing on the matter in question, being for the most part\nonly definitions of names employed in the text. It is much to be\nregretted that there are no means of testing Brasseur de Bourbourg's\nversion of these important annals. See, however, on this point, a\nfuture note of this chapter.\n\n[IV-6] In addition to the two documents referred to, Camargo, _Hist.\nTlax._, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 145,\nhas the following, which may refer to the migration of this earliest\nbranch of the Nahua peoples; 'according to their account, it was in\nfive Tochtli that they arrived at the Seven Caves. Thence they went to\nAmaquetepec, then to Tepenec, or Echo Mountain, where Mitmitzichi\n(Mimich) killed Izpapalotl with his bow and arrows. Next they passed\nto the province of Tomallan, which they conquered after a long war, to\nCulhuacan, to Teotla Cochoalco, and to Teohuiznahuac where they wished\nto shoot Cohuatlicue, queen of that province; but they made peace with\nher. She married Mixcohuatl Amacohtle and by him had a son\nColchacovatl [probably Quetzalcoatl].'\n\n[IV-7] See note on p. 213 for dates.\n\n[IV-8] Also written Tula, Tulan, Tulla, Tullan, and Tulha.\n\n[IV-9] Chalcatzin, Tlacamilitzin, Checatl, Cohuatzon, Mazacohuatl,\nTlapalhuitz, and Huitz. _Veytia_, tom. i., p. 207. Chalcatzin, Acatl,\nEccatl, Cohuatzin, Mazacohuatl Otziuhcohuatl, Tlapalhuiz, and Huitz.\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 393. Zaca, Chalcatzin, Ecatzin, Cohuazon,\nTzihuacohuatl, Tlapalmetzotzin, and Metzoltzin. _Id._, p. 450.\nTlacomihua or Acatl, Chalchiuhmatz, Avecatl, Coatzon, Tziuhcoatl,\nTlapalhuitz, and Huitz. _Id._, pp. 206-7. Tzacatl, Chalcatzin,\nEhecatzin, Cohuatzon, Tzihuac-Cohuatl, Tlapalmetzotzin, and Metzotzin.\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 37. Tzacatl, Telacalzin, Echecalzin,\nCohualzon, Tezihuaccoahuatl, Tlapalmezoltzin, and Melzolzin.\n_Boturini_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., p. 230.\n\n[IV-10] _Ixtlilxochitl._ Called also Achcauhtzin, _Cabrera_, _Teatro_,\np. 95. Icoatzin, _Veytia_, tom. i., p. 301.\n\n[IV-11] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 37; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 127;\n_Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 215.\nChalchiuhtlanetzin, or Chalchiuhtlatonac. _Veytia_, tom. i., pp. 233,\n301. Chalchiuhtlahuextzin, _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 393.\nTlalchiuhtlanelzin. _Boturini_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom.\niv., p. 230. Ixtlilxochitl seems to imply, in another part of his\nwritings, _Hist. Chich._, p. 207, that the king was chosen among the\nToltecs themselves. This Sr Pimentel, in _Dicc. Univ._, tom. x., p.\n611, deems much more probable than the course indicated in the other\naccounts.\n\n[IV-12] 503 or 510 or 509 or 556. _Ixtlilxochitl_. 700, et seq.\n_Torquemada_. 713-19. _Veytia_. Brasseur has 718. 670, et seq.\n_M\u00fcller_. All the authorities agree on 7 Acatl as the date of the\nestablishment of the kingdom. Clavigero interprets the date as 667.\n\n[IV-13] See vol. ii., p. 140.\n\n[IV-14] 608 A.D., according to _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 450. On the\nestablishment of the Toltecs in Tollan and the reign of the first\nking, see: _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix.,\npp. 206-7, 322-5, 336, 392-3, 450, 458, 460; _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant.\nMej._, tom. i., pp. 221-39; _Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_,\ntom. i., pp. 126-7, tom. iv., pp. 46, 51; _Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._,\ntom. iii., lib. x., pp. 106-15, 145, lib. xi., p. 312; _Torquemada_,\n_Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 37, 254; _Boturini_, _Idea_, pp. 77, 139;\n_Id._, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., p. 230; _Gomara_,\n_Conq. Mex._, fol. 299; _Motolinia_, _Hist. Indios_, in _Icazbalceta_,\n_Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 5; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro Mex._, pt ii., p.\n11; _Cabrera_, _Teatro_, p. 95; _Arlegui_, _Chr\u00f3n. Zacatecas_, p. 6;\n_Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 209, et seq.;\n_Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, p. 138; _Prescott's Mex._, vol. i., pp.\n12-13; _M\u00fcller_, _Amerikanische Urreligionen_, p. 524; _Mayer's Mex.\nAztec, etc._, vol. i., p. 95; _Chevalier_, _Mexique_, p. 55; _Gondra_,\nin _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., p. 20; _Schoolcraft's\nArch._, vol. v., p. 95; _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, p. 46; _Pimentel_, in\n_Dicc. Univ._, tom. x., pp. 610-11.\n\n[IV-15] _Codex Chimalpopoca_, and _Memorial de Culhuacan_, as cited by\n_Brasseur de Bourbourg_.\n\n[IV-16] Respecting these titles see vol. ii., pp. 186-7, 201, vol.\niii., p. 434.\n\n[IV-17] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 225.\n\n[IV-18] 'On regarda aussi comme des dieux Camaxtle et Tezcatlipuca qui\nvinrent de l'occident; mais ces pr\u00e9tendus dieux \u00e9taient sans doute des\nenchanteurs diaboliques et poss\u00e9d\u00e9s du d\u00e9mon, qui pervertirent toutes\nces nations.' _Camargo_, _Hist. Tlax._, in _Nouvelles Annales des\nVoy._, 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 146. 'Fueron grandes capitanes\nesforzados y entre ellos valerosos hombres; los quales se\u00f1orearon por\ngrado \u00f2 por fuerza aquellas Provincias de Mexico, Tetzcuco y Tlaxcala,\ncuyos propios naturales a habitadores y aborigenes eran las gentes que\nse llaman Othomies.' _Las Casas_, _Hist. Apolog\u00e9tica_, MS., cap. 122.\n\n[IV-19] See vol. ii., pp. 335-6, 351-2, vol. iii., pp. 118, 403-6.\n\n[IV-20] Ixtlilcuechahuac, otherwise called Tzacatecatl, Tlaltecatl,\nand Tlachinotzin, in 771 A.D. _Veytia_, tom. i., p. 231. 608.\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 450. Ixliuechahuexe or Tzacatcatl, 614. _Id._, p.\n325. Ixtlilcuechanac or Tlaltecatl Huetzin. _Id._, p. 393.\nTlilquechahuac Tlalchinoltzin, 572. _Id._, p. 207. Tlilque\nChaocatlahinoltzin. _Id._, p. 460. Aixtilcuechahuac. _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro Mex._, pt ii., p. 11. 719 A.D. _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 127.\nWas reigning in 660. _Boturini_, _Idea_, p. 139. The preceding hardly\nconfirms Brasseur's statement that 'toutes les Relations\nd'Ixtlilxochitl concordent ici avec le Codex Chimalp., pour donner le\nnom de Huetzin au second roi de Tollan.' This is a pretty fair sample\nof the abb\u00e9's references.\n\n[IV-21] 666, or 613. _Ixtlilxochitl_, who also writes the name Huetzin\nTotepeuh and Huitzin. 771. _Clavigero._\n\n[IV-22] Totepauh and Totepeuhque. _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 326, 460; on p.\n450 his reign is ignored.\n\n[IV-23] Nacazxoc. _Torquemada_, and _Vetancvrt_. Nacaxzoch, Nacalxur,\nNacaxoc Mitl, and Nacazxot. _Ixtlilxochitl_, who on pp. 450 and 393\ncalls him the fourth king.\n\n[IV-24] _Veytia._ 927 according to _Clavigero_. 822 or 768 according\nto _Ixtlilxochitl_, who calls him Tlacomihua on pp. 207, 460, names\nhim as fifth king on p. 393, and ignores his reign on p. 450.\n\n[IV-25] For the annals of Tollan during this period see\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 207, 325-6, 393, 450, 460; _Veytia_, tom. i., pp.\n239-58; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 37. _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 127-8;\n_Sahagun_, tom. iii., lib. x., p. 114; _Boturini_, _Idea_, pp. 139-40;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro Mex._, p. 11; _M\u00fcller_, _Amerikanische\nUrreligionen_, p. 524.\n\n[IV-26] Chief among which titles was that of Tecuhtli, respecting\nwhich see vol. ii., pp. 194-200.\n\n[IV-27] 'On c\u00e9l\u00e9bra de grandes f\u00eates \u00e0 la naissance de Colchacovat.'\n_Camargo_, _Hist. Tlax._, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1843, tom.\nxcviii., p. 146. See also note 6 of this chapter.\n\n[IV-28] See vol. ii., pp. 269, 434, 608, vol. iii., pp. 350, 363.\n\n[IV-29] This alliance rests altogether on the _Codex Chimalpopoca_ and\n_Mem. de Culhuacan_. It is to be noted that Brasseur refers clearly to\n_Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, lib. xi., cap. 18, as an authority,\nwhich chapter contains not a word bearing on the subject.\n\n[IV-30] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 37, relates the\nsuccession of the Toltec kings at Tollan, agreeing substantially with\nthe accounts of Ixtlilxochitl, Veytia, and the rest. It is to be\nnoted, however, that on page 254 the same author gives another\naccount, inextricably confused, totally disagreeing with the\npreceding, but agreeing in most of its names, with that derived by\nBrasseur from the two records in his possession. This proves that the\nversion of the Toltec traditions followed by the Spanish writers,\nreferring everything to Tollan and ignoring all other nations and\nkings, was not the only one extant when the Spaniards came. It\nconfirms to a certain extent Brasseur's account of other Toltec\nnations and monarchs besides those at Tollan, and is therefore\nimportant. I translate this version of the tradition from Torquemada,\nwithout any attempt to reconcile its many inconsistencies with itself\nand the versions already presented. It has the appearance of a\nsuccessive interpretation of the records of distinct kingdoms, or\ndistinct periods, tacked together and referred vaguely to Toltec\nhistory by a writer who did not suspect the existence of any other\npower than that at Tollan. 'When the Mexicans arrived in this region\nof Tulla, it was already settled by many people; because, according to\nthe truth as found in the most authentic histories of these nations,\nin 700 A.D., they began to settle here. Their first captain, or\nleader, was named Totepeuh, who lived a long and tranquil life, being\na bold and famous chieftain. At his death those of the province of\nTulla raised to the throne another called Topil [Topiltzin], who\nreigned fifty years and was succeeded by Huemac, mentioned elsewhere\nin connection with the tricks of Quetzalcohuatl. [These are among the\nvery last rulers in Tollan by other accounts.] This Huemac was a very\npowerful king, who was much feared and caused himself to be worshiped\nas a god. He went out from Tulla to increase the extent of his\nkingdom, occupying himself throughout his reign in gaining new\nprovinces, preferring the bustle of war to the quiet of peace. But\nwhile he was engaged in wars abroad the Toltecs made Nauhyotzin king,\nwho was the second lord, and of Chichimec birth. He also left Tullan\nand marched towards this lake with a large number of people to conquer\nas much as possible of the territory thereabouts. He reigned more than\nsixty years, and at his death the kingdom was given to\nQuauhtexpetlatl, [a name not appearing elsewhere] who in his turn was\nfollowed by Huetzin Nonohualcatl [according to Brasseur, Huetzin\nprobably succeeded Nonohualcatl at Culhuacan. All that follows\nprobably belongs to the Chichimec period much later, and relates to\nthe kings of Culhuacan]. After him reigned Achitometl, and,\nafterwards, Quauhtonal, and in the tenth year of his reign the\nMexicans arrived at Chapultepec; so that when the said Mexicans were\nin the city or province of Tulla, this prince was neither its king or\nlord (as Gomara says), but continuing the account and succession of\nthese Toltec kings, we say that the said Achitometl was succeeded by\nMazatzin, [and not by Quauhtonal as above. This is unintelligible.\nMazatzin was, according to Brasseur, the first king at Tollan] and he\nby Quetzal. After him came Chalchiuhtona, and then Quauhtlix, then\nYohuallatonac, followed by Tziuhtecatl. It is said that in the third\nyear of this king's reign the Mexicans arrived where the city of\nMexico now is. At Tziuhtecatl's death, Xiuhtemoctzin succeeded to the\nthrone, and he was followed by Coxcotzin.' Then follows an account of\nthe coming of Quetzalcoatl and his companions, in which the author is\nevidently much confused between the first and second of that name.\n\nGomara, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 301-2, gives a similar account, differing,\nhowever, in orthography and in some of the successions. The order of\nsuccession, according to this writer, is in substance as follows: 1st.\nTotepeuch, in 721, who died over 100 years after their arrival. 2d.\nTopil, son of the former, ruled about 50 years. An interregnum ensued\nof over 110 years; either had no kings or their names are forgotten.\n3d, 4th. Two rulers chosen, Vemac and Nauhiocin, the latter a\nChichimec. Both left Tollan with their followers; the latter settled\nnear the lake, and reigned over 60 years. 5th. Quauhtexpetlatl. 6th.\nVecin. 7th. Nonoualcatl. [We have seen that Torquemada unites these\ntwo names in one king.] 8th. Achitometl. 9th. Quauhtonal, in the 10th\nyear of whose reign came the Mexicans to Chapultepec. 10th. Mazacin.\n11th. Queza. 12th. Chalchiuhtona. 13th. Quauhtlix. 14th.\nIohuallatonac. 15th. Ciuhtetl. 16th. Xiuiltemoc. 17th. Cuxcux, and so\non with the Chichimec and Aztec kings of much later periods. It is\nvery evident that these writers had access to the same documents which\nBrasseur uses, but did not comprehend their meaning.\n\n[IV-31] 'En esta ciudad (Tollan) rein\u00f3 muchos a\u00f1os un rey llamado\n_Quetzalcoatl_, gran nigrom\u00e1ntico, \u00e9 inventor de la nigromancia,' etc.\n_Hist. Gen._, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 266.\n\n[IV-32] Brasseur, tom. i., p. 255, misinterpreting Torquemada, tom.\ni., p. 255, calls him blonde; in another place, tom. ii., p. 48,\nTorquemada distinctly states that he has black hair.\n\n[IV-33] The invention of the calendar attributed to him by Mendieta,\n_Hist. Ecles._, pp. 97-8, Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. ii., lib. vii.,\np. 264, and others, should evidently be referred to the Quetzalcoatl\nof other times.\n\n[IV-34] See vol. iii., pp. 239-87; also _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._,\ntom. i., pp. 161-205; _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, pp. 82-3, 92-3,\n97-8; _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 255, 282, 380, tom.\nii., pp. 20, 48-52, 79; _Herrera_, _Hist. Gen._, dec. ii., lib. vii.,\ncap. ii.; _Las Casas_, _Hist. Apolog\u00e9tica_, MS., cap. 122, 173;\n_Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i., lib. iii., pp. 243-8, 25-9;\n_Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. ii., pp. 11-13; _Gomara_,\n_Conq. Mex._, fol. 300; _Camargo_, _Hist. Tlax._, in _Nouvelles\nAnnales des Voy._, 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 145; _Ternaux-Compans_, in\n_Id._, 1840, tom. lxxxvi., pp. 16-20; _Gondra_, in _Prescott_, _Hist.\nConq. Mex._, tom. iii., pp. 66-9; _Tylor's Researches_, pp. 154-5.\n\n[IV-35] By calling them distinct persons it is not necessarily implied\nthat the first Quetzalcoatl ever had a real existence.\n\n[IV-36] _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., pp. 171-2.\n\n[IV-37] Probably, as has been said, the same as Huetzin and\nTexcaltepocatl.\n\n[IV-38] 875. _Clavigero._ 927. _Veytia._ 770 or 716. _Ixtlilxochitl._\n\n[IV-39] 'Los que de esta ciudad (Tollan) huyeron, edificaron otra muy\npr\u00f3spera que se llama _Cholulla_.' _Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. ii.,\nlib. viii., p. 207.\n\n[IV-40] See references already given on Quetzalcoatl, and also\n_Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 265, et seq.\n\n[IV-41] This king is called Mitl and Tlacomihua by Veytia and the\nrest. Dates: 927. _Clavigero._ Veytia, tom. i., p. 252, has 779, which\nmay be a misprint for 979. 822 or 768. _Ixtlilxochitl._ Huemac's\nexpedition eastward, and the crowning of Nauhyotl, or Nauhyotzin,\nduring his absence is recorded by Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i.,\np. 254, and Gomara, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 301, as quoted in note 30 of\nthis chapter.\n\n[IV-42] Respecting Tezcatlipoca, fables respecting his life on earth,\nand his worship as a god, see vol. iii., pp. 199-248.\n\n[IV-43] See vol. ii., pp. 141-2.\n\n[IV-44] Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 322, says that\nIxtlilxochitl in one place calls this king Nauhyotl. Although I have\nbeen unable to find this statement in the works of the writer\nmentioned, yet there can be little doubt of the two kings' identity.\n\n[IV-45] Chalchihuitlicue, Toci, Teteionan, etc. See vol. iii., p. 350,\net seq., p. 367, et seq.\n\n[IV-46] For description of Xochicalco see vol. iv., pp. 483-94.\n\n[IV-47] On Nauhyotl's reign, see _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's\nMex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp. 207, 326, 393, 450, 460; _Veytia_, _Hist.\nAnt. Mej._, tom. i., pp. 255-8; _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i.,\np. 37; _Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 127;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro Mex._, pt ii., p. 11; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_,\n_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 319-31. The date 945 is from the\n_Codex Chimalpopoca_. The Spanish writers make his reign much longer,\nall except Clavigero representing him as having reigned, by the\nconsent of his subjects, several years over the time prescribed by\nlaw. 979-1035. _Veytia._ 927-79. _Clavigero._ 822-80, or 768-826.\n_Ixtlilxochitl._ Torquemada and Gomara, as quoted in note 30, state\nthat this king also marched eastward at the head of a large army to\nadd to his domain by conquest.\n\n[IV-48] Also Xiuhquentzin, Xiuliquentzin, and Xiuhzaltzin,\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, and Xiuhzaltzin, _Vetancvrt_.\n\n[IV-49] See references in note 47 and following pages of each\nauthority.\n\n[IV-50] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 331,\n336. Klemm, _Cultur-Geschichte_, tom. v., p. 181, speaks of an\ninterregnum of forty-eight years after the death of Queen\nXiuhtlaltzin.\n\n[IV-51] Called also Yztaccaltzin. _Ixtlilxochitl._ Atecpanecatl and\nIztacquauhtzin. _Codex Chimalpopoca_ and _Ixtlilxochitl_, according to\n_Brasseur_.\n\n[IV-52] 1039, 830, 884, according to the Spanish writers. See note 47.\nClavigero ignores this king, while Torquemada, followed by Boturini in\n_Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., p. 230, and Vetancvrt,\n_Teatro Mex._, p. 11, seems to identify him with his successor.\n\n[IV-53] _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 208, calls the name Quetzalxochitzin, and\nmakes her the wife rather than the daughter of Papantzin.\n\n[IV-54] Bustamante, in _Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i., lib. iii., p.\n246, erroneously charges Veytia with saying that Papantzin presented\nto the king a vessel of pulque invented by Xochitl. Brasseur, for\nreasons not very intelligible, refers to this period Sahagun's account\nof the invention of pulque in Olmec times (see pp. 207-8 of this\nvolume), and also the efforts of the sorcerers to make Quetzalcoatl\ndrink pulque that he might be induced to leave Tollan. I have\nattributed these tales to the times of Ceacatl. See p. 259 of this\nvolume, also vol. iii., p. 242, 253, 261.\n\n[IV-55] 1051. _Veytia_. 900. _Ixtlilxochitl._\n\n[IV-56] See respecting the first part of Huemac's reign,\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp. 207,\n328-9, 460; _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., p. 262, et seq.;\n_Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 37; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_,\n_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 337-48.\n\n[IV-57] Tobeyo. _Sahagun._ Tohu\u00e9yo, 'our neighbor.' _Brasseur._ It\ndoes not seem to have been originally a proper name.\n\n[IV-58] For a fuller account of the tale of Toveyo, see vol. iii., pp.\n243-4. Also, _Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i., lib. iii., pp. 247-9.\n\n[IV-59] Cohuanacox, Huetzin, Xiuhtenan, and Mexoyotzin.\n\n[IV-60] _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix.,\npp. 207, 393; _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., p. 271, et seq.;\n_Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i., lib. iii., pp. 249-51. Brasseur,\n_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 356-60, represents Cohuanacox and\nMeyoxotzin as lords of Quiahuiztlan-Anahuac, or Vera Cruz, but gives\nno farther details of their revolt. Huetzin, he calls the Prince of\nJalisco, stating that he marched at the head of a large army against\nHuemac, but was defeated at Coatepec near Tollan by the bravery of\nToveyo, who drove him with great loss back to the frontiers of\nJalisco. For these facts he refers to no other authorities than those\nmentioned in this note, and these contain no such information.\n\n[IV-61] _Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i., lib. iii., p. 251. Brasseur\nhas no difficulty in interpreting this tale to indicate an\nearthquake.\n\n[IV-62] See vol. iii., pp. 245-8.\n\n[IV-63] Vol. iii., p. 247. The other details, like the interview with\nthe Tlalocs, are from the _Codex Chimalpopoca_.\n\n[IV-64] _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix.,\npp. 207-8, 329-30; _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., p. 280, et\nseq. Dates, 1097, et seq. _Veytia_. 984, et seq. _Ixtlilxochitl_.\nThere is no agreement about the duration of the plagues. They seem,\nhowever, to have been continuous for at least five years.\n\n[IV-65] _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix.,\npp. 207, 329, 393, 460. This author's dates are 937 and 882. _Veytia_,\n_Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., pp. 271-4. Date 1091. Date according to\nClavigero, 1031. _Codex Chimalpopoca_, in _Brasseur de Bourbourg_,\n_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 370-5; Maxtlatzin is called the prince\nof Xochimilco. According to the _Mem. de Culhuacan_, in _Id._, Huemac\ndied at this time.\n\n[IV-66] _Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i., lib. iii., p. 254.\n\n[IV-67] _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., pp. 282-7;\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp.\n329-31; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp.\n376-85.\n\n[IV-68] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp.\n385-93. Veytia and Ixtlilxochitl are occasionally referred to on these\nevents, but the chapters referred to contain absolutely nothing on the\nsubject.\n\n[IV-69] _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 37-8.\n\n[IV-70] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp.\n400-2.\n\n[IV-71] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp.\n402-5.\n\n[IV-72] Such is the account given by Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia.\nBrasseur's version, although founded on the same authorities, differs\nwidely. According to this version, Topiltzin Acxitl remained in\nTollan; Quauhtli and Maxtlatzin with the aged Huemac marched to meet\nthe foe. After a fierce conflict near Tultitlan, lasting several days,\nthe army was driven back to Tollan. The king resolved to burn the city\nand leave the country. For the burning of Tollan, Sahagun, _Hist.\nGen._, tom. i., lib. iii., p. 255, is referred to, where he says,\n'hizo quemar todas las casas que tenia hechas de plata y de concha,'\netc., referring to the departure of Quetzalcoatl for Tlapallan. The\nQuetzalcoatl alluded to may be either Acxitl or Ceacatl. Retreating\nto Xaltocan and then towards Teotihuacan, a final stand was made by\nHuemac, Xochitl, Maxtlatzin, and Huehuemaxal (Huehuetenuxcatl?)\nagainst the Chichimecs. The Toltecs were utterly defeated, and of the\nleaders Xochitl and Quauhtli fell, Acxitl concealing himself for\nseveral weeks in the caves of the island of Xico. _Hist. Nat. Civ._,\ntom. i., pp. 405-9.\n\n[IV-73] _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix.,\npp. 208, 331-3, 393, 450, 460. This author estimates the total loss of\nthe Toltecs in the final war at 3,200,000, and that of the enemy at\n2,400,000. He states that Topiltzin, before his departure, visited\nAllapan, a province on the South Sea, and notified his few remaining\nsubjects that after many centuries he would return to punish his foes.\nHe reached Tlapallan in safety and lived to the age of 104 years\ngreatly respected. He records a tradition among the common people that\nTopiltzin remained in Xico, and many years after was joined by\nNezahualcoyotl, the Chichimec emperor, and others. This author dates\nthe final defeat of the Toltecs in 1011, 959, 958, and 1004. _Veytia_,\n_Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., pp. 287-304. This writer gives the date as\n1116; states that Topiltzin's youngest son, Xilotzin, was captured and\nkilled; gives 1612 as the number of Toltecs assembled in Culhuacan\nbefore the king's departure. Topiltzin reached Oyome, the Chichimec\ncapital, in safety, and was kindly received by the emperor, Acauhtzin,\nwho succeeded to the throne in that year, to whom Topiltzin gave all\nhis rights to the kingdom of Tollan, on condition that he would punish\nthe enemies of the Toltecs. He died in 1155. According to Clavigero,\n_Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 131, the Toltec empire ended\nwith Topiltzin's death in 1052. Most modern writers take the date from\nClavigero. Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 410, says, 'Apr\u00e8s\navoir donn\u00e9 \u00e0 tous des conseils remplis de sagesse sur la future\nrestauration de la monarchie, il prit cong\u00e9 d'eux. Il traversa, sans\n\u00eatre connu, les provinces olm\u00e8ques et alla prendre la mer \u00e0 Hueyapan,\nnon loin des lieux o\u00f9 le grand Quetzalcohuatl avait disparu un si\u00e8cle\net demi auparavant. L'histoire ajoute qu'il gagna, avec un grand\nnombre de Tolt\u00e8ques \u00e9migrant comme lui, les contr\u00e9es myst\u00e9rieuses de\nTlapallan, o\u00f9 apr\u00e8s avoir fond\u00e9 un nouvel empire, il mourut dans une\nheureuse vieillesse.'\n\n[IV-74] On the Toltec empire, see _Prescott's Mex._, vol. i., pp.\n11-14; _Chevalier_, _Mex. Ancien et Mod._, pp. 48-52; _M\u00fcller_,\n_Amerikanische Urreligionen_, pp. 456, 522-5; _Mayer's Mex. Aztec,\netc._, vol. i., p. 95; _Schoolcraft's Arch._, vol. v., pp. 95-6;\n_Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 96-7, 138-40; _Rios_, _Compend.\nHist. Mex._, pp. 5-6; _Villa-Se\u00f1or y Sanchez_, _Theatro_, tom. i., pp.\n1-3; _Helps' Span. Conq._, vol. i., p. 287; _M\u00fcller_, _Reisen_, tom.\niii., pp. 32-41; _Lacunza_, in _Museo Mex._, tom. iv., p. 445;\n_Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, pp. 14-17; _Ruxton_, in\n_Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1850, tom. cxxvi., pp. 38-40;\n_Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., pp. 39-40; _Foster's Pre-Hist. Races_,\npp. 341-4; _Mayer's Observations_, p. 6; _Carbajal Espinosa_, _Hist.\nMex._, tom. i., pp. 216-24.\n\n[IV-75] _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., pp. 18-19;\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp. 333-4,\n393-4; _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 37; _Clavigero_,\n_Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 131. The number of remaining\nToltecs is estimated at 16,000, who were divided into five parties,\nfour of them settling on the coasts and islands, and the fifth only\nremaining in An\u00e1huac.\n\n[IV-76] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp.\n410-23. I suppose that this information was taken from the _Codex\nGondra_ already quoted--see p. 230 of this volume--and applied by the\nsame author in another work, and with apparently better reasons, to\nthe overthrow of the great original Nahua empire in the south.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.\n\n     The Chichimecs in Amaquemecan -- Migration to An\u00e1huac\n     under Xolotl -- The Invaders at Chocoyan and Tollan --\n     Foundation of Xoloc and Tenayocan -- Xolotl II., Emperor of\n     the Chichimecs -- Division of Territory -- The Toltecs at\n     Culhuacan -- Rule of Xiuhtemoc and Nauhyotl III. -- Pochotl,\n     Son of Acxitl -- Conquest of Culhuacan -- Death of Nauhyotl\n     -- Huetzin, King of Culhuacan -- Migration and Reception of\n     the Nahuatlaca Tribes -- The Acolhuas at Coatlichan and the\n     Tepanecs at Azcapuzalco -- Nonohualcatl, King of Culhuacan\n     -- Revolt of Yacanex -- Death of Xolotl II. -- Nopaltzin,\n     King at Tenayocan, and Emperor of the Chichimecs -- Reigns\n     of Achitometl and Icxochitlanex at Culhuacan -- Tendencies\n     toward Toltec Culture.\n\n\nThe Chichimec occupation of An\u00e1huac begins with the traditional\ninvasion under Xolotl, but in order to properly understand that\nimportant event, it will be necessary to glance at the incidents which\npreceded and led to it.\n\nThe little that is known of the early history of the Chichimecs has\nbeen told in a former chapter; I will therefore take up the narrative\nat the time of King Tlamacatzin's death at Amaquemecan,[V-1] which event\noccurred in the same year as the final destruction of Tollan. As I have\nalready explained sufficiently my idea of the nature of the migrations\nby which An\u00e1huac is represented as having been re-peopled, I may relate\nthese migrations literally, as they are given by the authorities,\nwithout constantly reminding the reader of their general signification.\nTlamacatzin left two sons, Acauhtzin[V-2] and Xolotl,[V-3] who, after\nwrangling about the succession for some time, finally agreed to divide\nthe kingdom between them.[V-4]\n\nNow, for a great number of years a harassing system of border warfare\nhad been carried on between the Chichimecs and the Toltecs; the former\ndoubtless raided upon their rich and powerful neighbors for purposes of\nplunder, and the latter were probably not slow to make reprisals which\nserved as an excuse for extending their already immense territory.\nWhen the Toltec troubles arose, however, and the direful prophecies of\nHueman began to be fulfilled, the people of An\u00e1huac found that they had\nenough to do to take care of themselves, and that their legions could\nbe better employed in defending the capital than in waging aggressive\nwars upon the distant frontiers of the empire. They therefore recalled\ntheir troops, and the Chichimec border was left undisturbed. It was not\nlong before the brother monarchs of Amaquemecan began to wonder at this\nsudden cessation of hostilities, and determined to find out the cause,\nfor they were ignorant of the struggles and final overthrow of the\nToltec empire. They at once dispatched spies into the Toltec territory.\nIn a short time these men returned with the startling announcement that\nthey had penetrated the enemy's country for a distance of two hundred\nleagues from Amaquemecan, and had found all that region deserted, and\nthe towns, formerly so strong and populous, abandoned and in ruins.\n\n[Sidenote: XOLOTL'S INVASION.]\n\nXolotl, who seems to have been of a more ambitious and enterprising\ndisposition than his brother, listened eagerly to this report, which\nseemed to promise the fulfillment of his dreams of independent and\nundivided sway. Summoning his vassals to the capital, he told them\nwhat his spies had seen, and in an eloquent speech reminded them that\nan extension of territory was needed for their increasing population,\nexpatiated on the richness and fertility of the abandoned region,\npointed out to his hearers how easy it would be to avenge on their\ncrippled enemies the injuries of many years, and concluded by requiring\nthem to be ready to accompany him to conquest within the space of six\nmonths.[V-5]\n\nIt is difficult to credit the statements of the old authors respecting\nthe number of Chichimecs that espoused Xolotl's cause. Ixtlilxochitl\nand Veytia state that no less than three million two hundred and two\nthousand men and women, besides children, rallied to his standard,\nleaving one million six hundred thousand subjects of Acauhtzin,\nand thus making it not a mere expedition, but a decided emigration.\nTorquemada, who fears he will not be believed if he states the actual\nnumber who took part in the exodus, takes pains to assure us that\nthe historic paintings mention over a million warriors, commanded by\nsix great lords, and over twenty (two?) thousand inferior chiefs and\ncaptains, and as each of these had under him more than a thousand men,\nthe total number would approach nearer to the larger numbers than to\nTorquemada's unwontedly modest statement. The number was ascertained\nby census, taken at five different places to check the increase or\ndecrease caused by leaving colonists along the route, by new arrivals,\nand especially by deserters. The counting was effected by each plebeian\ncasting a small stone into a heap set apart for his class, and each\nlord or officer a larger stone into another heap. Ixtlilxochitl\nmentions two of these _nepohualcos_, or 'counting-places,' one near\nOztotipac in Otompan district, and another three leagues from Ecatepec,\nnear Mexico; while Torquemada refers to twelve similar hillocks near\nTenayocan.[V-6]\n\n[Sidenote: XOLOTL'S INVASION.]\n\nHaving taken leave of his brother Acauhtzin, Xolotl started on his\njourney. Halts were made at a number of stations to gather supplies,\nand when camp was broken, settlers were left--generally selected from\namong the old and feeble--and their places filled by fresh recruits.\nOwing to these detentions it took the army some time to reach Chocoyan,\nor 'place of tears,' in An\u00e1huac, where many Toltec ruins were found.\nAfter proceeding some distance farther, and making several halts,\nXolotl dispatched the six principal chiefs of his army, each with\nan appropriate force, in various directions, with instructions to\nexplore the country, and reduce the inhabitants, if they found any, to\nsubjection; at the same time he recommended these officers to use the\npeople kindly, except where they offered resistance, in which case they\nwere to be treated as enemies.[V-7]\n\nXolotl himself proceeded with the body of the army, and after halting\nin several places, he finally reached Tollan. But the ancient splendor\nof the Toltec capital was departed, its streets were deserted and\novergrown with vegetation, its magnificent temples and palaces were\nin ruins, and desolation reigned where so lately had been the hum\nand bustle of a mighty metropolis.[V-8] The site of Tollan being too\nimportant to be abandoned, Xolotl established some families there,\nwhich formed the nucleus of a future population. He then continued\nhis march to Mizquiyahualan and Tecpan, and finally came to Xaltocan,\non the shore of the lake of the same name, where he and his followers\nabode for a long time in the caves that abounded in that region, and\nwhere they subsequently founded the town of Xoloc or Xolotl, which\nafterwards became a city of considerable importance in An\u00e1huac.[V-9]\n\nThe narrative becomes somewhat confused at this point, owing to the\nconflicting accounts of the various authorities. It seems, however,\nthat the Chichimecs remained for a long time, several years perhaps, at\nthe settlement of Xoloc, doing little but sending out scouting parties\nto reconnoitre the immediately surrounding country. Finally, according\nto the majority of the Spanish writers, Xototl dispatched certain\nchiefs on regular exploring expeditions, and set out himself with\nhis son Nopaltzin and a large force; journeying by way of Cempoala,\nTepepulco, Oztolotl, Cohuacayan, and Tecpatepec, until he reached the\nhill of Atonan. Here he descried a goodly region lying to the south and\neast, which he at once sent his son Nopaltzin to take possession of,\nwhile he returned to Xoloc.[V-10]\n\n[Sidenote: CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY.]\n\nNopaltzin wandered for some time from place to place, seemingly making\nit his object rather to search for an inhabited country than to take\npossession of an uninhabited one. At first his efforts met with no\nsuccess, notwithstanding he ascended several high mountains for the\npurpose of seeing afar off. At last he came to Tlalamoztoc, whence\nhis view extended over the country toward Tlazalan, and Culhuacan\nvalley,[V-11] and Chapultepec, on the other side of the lake; throughout\nthis region smoke arose in various places, denoting the presence of\nhuman inhabitants. Without loss of time, the prince returned to his\nfather with the news of his discovery, passing the ruined city of\nTeotihuacan on his way. Xolotl had in the meantime visited the large\nToltec city of Cuhuac (Culhuacan?), and had also received information\nof Toltec settlements on the coast and in the interior. A consultation\nwas held, and it was decided that Tultitlan was the most eligible site\nfor a capital. Accordingly Xolotl left Xoloc in the care of a governor\nand proceeded to that region and there founded Tenayocan opposite\nTezcuco, on the other side of the lake.[V-12]\n\nBrasseur's version of these events is somewhat different. He does\nnot mention Xolotl's expedition to the hill of Atonan, though he does\nnot omit to relate that Toltec settlements were described from that\nelevation by the reconnoitering parties sent out from the Chichimec\ncamp at Lake Xaltocan; neither does he in any way refer to Nopaltzin's\njourney, at his father's command, to Tlalamoztoc. The reason of this\ndifference is that according to Brasseur's version Nopaltzin was not\nthe son of Xolotl, the first Chichimec emperor but of Amacui, one\nof six great chiefs, who were the first to follow in the successful\ninvaders' wake, this they did not do, however, until after Xolotl had\nestablished himself at Tenayocan.[V-13] It seems that this Amacui has\nbeen confounded throughout with Xolotl by the majority of the Spanish\nchroniclers; in their version of the events which followed the founding\nof Tenayocan, during a period of nearly two hundred years, the deeds\nof the former are all ascribed to the latter, or at least the narrative\nis continued without any break, and no mention is made of any change of\nkings.[V-14]\n\nThe Spanish writers relate that the chiefs of whom Amacui was one were\nattracted to An\u00e1huac by the reports which reached them of Xolotl's\nunopposed invasion, and of the richness of the land that he had\nappropriated.[V-15] Upon their arrival in An\u00e1huac they respectfully asked\nthe Chichimec king's permission to settle near him, and to hunt in his\nnewly acquired territory. Xolotl evinced no jealousy, but welcomed the\nnew-comers with generous hospitality; doubtless the politic monarch\nsaw that such arrivals could not fail to strengthen his position, as\nall who came were pretty sure to acknowledge his supremacy and ally\nthemselves to him, as chief of all the Chichimecs. From what source\nAmacui derived the influence which he afterwards used for his own\naggrandizement is not known; it could scarcely have been from his\npersonal power as a prince, because we are told that the number of\nhis followers was small; but at all events, whatever were the means\nhe used, he succeeded, at Xolotl's death, in getting elected to the\nthrone.[V-16] This being in all probability the true version, the events\nthat are now to be recorded may be regarded as happening in the reign\nof Amacui, or Amacui Xolotl, as he was styled on his accession.\n\n[Sidenote: REMNANTS OF THE TOLTECS.]\n\nOne of the first acts of the new king, whom we may call Xolotl II.,\nwas to remove from his capital at Tenayocan and take up his residence\nat Quauhyacac, at the foot of the mountains of Tezcuco. Calling\nhis chiefs together, he next proceeded to take formal possession\nof the country. The ceremony, which consisted in discharging arrows\ntowards the cardinal points, and in burning wreaths of dry grass, and\nscattering the ashes towards the four quarters, was performed in the\nroyal presence at a great number of places; the spots selected being\ngenerally the summits of mountains. He also dispatched four lords,\nwith the necessary forces, in the direction of the four quarters,\ninstructing them to take possession of the country along their route,\nbut not to disturb the Toltecs, except those who offered resistance,\nwho were to be subjected by force. Either the progress made by\nthese four expeditions must have been very slow, or the extent of\ncountry traversed by them must have been very great, for we are told\nthat they did not return until four years after their setting-out.\nThe most populous Toltec settlements were found at Culhuacan,\nQuauhtitenco, Chapultepec, Totoltepec, Tlazalan, and Tepexomaco, all\nruled by lords, and at Cholula, where two priests held the reigns of\ngovernment.[V-17] The name of the ruler at Chapultepec was Xitzin, with\nhis wife Oztaxochitl and a son;[V-18] at Tlazalan was Mitl with his\nwife Cohuaxochitl,[V-19] and two sons, Pixahua and Axopatl,[V-20] who,\ninstructed by their father, afterwards revived the art of working in\nmetals; at Totoltepec were Nacaxoc, his wife, and his son Xiuhpopoca;\nat Tepexomaco were Cohuatl, his wife, and his son Quetzalpopoca; at\nCholula ruled Ixcax, the issue of the adulterous connection of the\npontiff with the high-priestess of the Goddess of Water. All these\nprinces hastened to acknowledge the supremacy of Xolotl II., though\nwithout actually paying him homage. Besides this, the four lords who\nhad been dispatched to the four quarters, announced on their return\nthat they had visited a great number of places, among which were\nTehuantepec, Guatemala, and Goazacoalco.[V-21]\n\nThe invaders had hitherto met with no opposition from the few\nToltecs who were left in An\u00e1huac; their plans had all been effected\ndeliberately and slowly, but surely and without any trouble. Matters\nhaving now begun to assume a settled aspect, the Chichimec king at once\nturned his attention to a partition of lands among the nobles who had\naccompanied him and assisted his enterprise, and, as is usual in such\ncases, he dispensed with a free hand that which of right was not his to\ngive. To each lord he assigned a defined section of the territory and\na certain number of dependents, with instructions to form a town, to\nbe named after its founder.[V-22] Toltec cities retained their original\nnames, and orders were issued that their inhabitants should not be\ninterfered with, nor intruded upon by Chichimec settlers. One of the\nmost thickly settled districts was that lying north and north-east\nof Tenayocan, named Chichimecatlalli, or 'land of Chichimecs.' Within\nits boundaries were the towns of Zacatlan, Quauhchinanco, Totoltepec,\nAtotonilco. Settlements were also formed on the coast, the whole\nextent of country appropriated by the Chichimecs being, according to\nIxtlilxochitl, over two hundred leagues in circumference.[V-23] It was\nabout this time that Xolotl II., as supreme ruler, assumed the title\nof Huey Tlatoani Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, 'great lord and king of the\nChichimecs.'[V-24]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: AFFAIRS IN CULHUACAN.]\n\nAt this juncture it will be necessary to glance at the state of affairs\nin Culhuacan.[V-25] It has been related how Topiltzin, when he fled from\nAn\u00e1huac, left Culhuacan, the most populous of the Toltec settlements\nat the time of the fall of the empire, to the care of Xiuhtemoc, an old\nrelative, who was to act as a kind of honorary king, or regent, and as\nsuch receive obedience and tribute. The Toltec monarch also entrusted\nto Xiuhtemoc the charge of his son Pochotl, then an infant, with\ninstructions that the young prince should be sent to the village of\nQuauhtitenco, situated in a forest near the ancient capital, and there\nbrought up in secrecy and in ignorance of his royal birth. Another of\nTopiltzin's relatives named Cocauhtli, who was married to Ixmixuch and\nhad a son called Acxoquauh, seems also to have assisted Xiuhtemoc in\ngoverning Culhuacan, or at least to have had great influence there.[V-26]\n\nFor a number of years Xiuhtemoc continued to govern Culhuacan with\nmuch wisdom, and the province flourished wonderfully under his\nprudent administration. He never attempted to claim any other title\nthan 'father,' and was well beloved by his subjects. In the meantime\nPochotl, Topiltzin's son, grew to be a young man, of a suitable age\nto be associated with Xiuhtemoc, according to his father's directions.\nXiuhtemoc seems, however, to have been in no hurry to draw the prince\nfrom his obscurity. What his object was in this delay, is unknown; it\nwould appear at first sight as if he was scheming for the succession\nof his own son Nauhyotl, but his patriotic conduct and loyal character\nseems to render such a cause improbable. At all events Pochotl was\nstill at Quauhtenanco where Xiuhtemoc died.\n\nHis son Nauhyotl, a prince well liked by the people, immediately seized\nthe throne, and being of a more ambitious disposition than his father,\nlost no time in assuming the royal titles and in causing himself to be\npublicly proclaimed king and crowned with all the rites and ceremonies\nsacred to the use of the Toltec monarchs, being the third of the\nname on the throne of Culhuacan. According to Brasseur, two princes,\nAcxoquauh and Nonohualcatl, were admitted in some way to a share in the\ngovernment.[V-27]\n\nThis bold act of usurpation[V-28] met with little or no outward\nopposition, notwithstanding it was well known that Pochotl still lived.\nThis was doubtless due to the critical state of affairs in Culhuacan\nat the time of Xiuhtemoc's death. The Chichimecs were steadily\nincreasing in power; Xolotl seemed disposed to adopt a more decided\npolicy toward the Toltecs than his predecessor, and it might at any\nmoment be necessary to check his encroachments. In this condition of\nthings it was natural that the energetic Nauhyotl, who had been brought\nup at court under the immediate care and instruction of his politic\nfather, should be a more acceptable and fitting king than Pochotl, who\nhad been brought up in total ignorance of the duties of a prince, and\neven of his own rights. Nevertheless, there were some who murmured\nsecretly on seeing Topiltzin's son defrauded of his rights, and\nNauhyotl being aware of this discontent, determined to set the public\nmind at rest. He accordingly sent for Pochotl, publicly acknowledged\nhim as the descendant of the Toltec kings, declared his intention of\nleaving the crown to him at his death, and gave him the hand of his\nyoung and beautiful daughter Xochipantzin[V-29] in marriage, all of\nwhich proceedings met with general approval both from the people and\nfrom Pochotl himself, whose unexpected elevation does not seem to have\nrendered him very exacting.[V-30]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: RULE OF XOLOTL II.]\n\nFavored by the peaceful, non-interfering policy of Xolotl I., the\nToltecs at Culhuacan had increased rapidly in wealth and population.\nXolotl II. seems to have grown impatient of this rivalry, and to have\ndetermined to define the position of Culhuacan and assert his own\nsupremacy in An\u00e1huac without farther delay. Of the way in which he\naccomplished this end there is more than one version.\n\nAccording to Veytia and others, he informed Nauhyotl that by right of\nthe cession of the land of An\u00e1huac made to the monarch of Amaquemecan\nby Topiltzin,[V-31] he should require him to do homage and pay a small\ntribute to the Chichimec empire in recognition of its supremacy; this\ndone, he would recognize him as king of the Toltecs. To this demand\nNauhyotl answered haughtily that Toltec kings acknowledged no superiors\nbut the gods, and paid tribute to no earthly sovereign. Xolotl I.,\nhe added, had been permitted to enter An\u00e1huac and people it, because\nhe had done so peaceably. Topiltzin's cession was invalid, and he,\nNauhyotl, merely governed during the minority of the rightful heir of\nPochotl, now deceased, and had no power to dispose of any rights to the\nland.[V-32]\n\nSuch a reply could have but one effect on the fierce Chichimec. He\nresolved to crush his rival at once before he became too strong, and\nfor this purpose gave orders to Nopaltzin to advance without delay\nagainst Culhuacan. In the meantime Nauhyotl was not idle. A number\nof canoes were brought out to defend the water-line, and he himself\nissued forth at the head of a force which, though greatly inferior to\nthe Chichimec army in point of numbers, attacked the enemy without\nhesitation, and succeeded in maintaining the field valorously until\nevening. Gradually, however, Nopaltzin's numbers began to tell,\nuntil at length the Toltecs were routed. The Chichimecs then entered\nCulhuacan without difficulty, despite its advantageous position. The\ncarnage was immediately suspended and no disorder allowed. The Toltecs\nhad suffered great loss, and among the slain was Nauhyotl, whose death\nwas deeply deplored by his subjects and regretted by the conquerors.\n\n[Sidenote: CULHUAS AND CHICHIMECS.]\n\nNopaltzin gave orders that the dead king should be buried with all the\nusual honors, and after leaving a garrison in the town, departed to\ncarry the news of his success to his father. This battle was the first\nin which the Chichimecs had engaged since their arrival in An\u00e1huac,\nand Nopaltzin was much praised for its successful issue by Xolotl. The\nChichimec emperor now proceeded in person to Culhuacan, to assure the\ninhabitants of his good will and to receive their homage. Pochotl's\nfirst-born, Achitometl, then only five years of age, was solemnly\nproclaimed king, with the condition that he should pay yearly a small\ntribute in fish to the Chichimec government. After this amicable\narrangement, the intercourse between the two nations became daily\nstronger, to the no small benefit of the Chichimecs.[V-33]\n\nTorquemada gives another account of the events which led to the war.\nItzmitl, who succeeded to the lordship of Coatlichan on the death\nof his father Tzontecoma, had a son named Huetzin by Malinalxochitl,\ndaughter of Cozcaquauhtli of Mamalihuasco,[V-34] for whom he was anxious\nto secure a temporary regency until he should in natural course\nsucceed to the government of Coatlichan. Relying on a promise made\nby Xolotl I. to Tzontecoma, Itzmitl asked Xolotl II. to award his\nson a lordship, and pointed to Culhuacan as available since it was\nan unappropriated Toltec settlement, to which he had a certain right\nfrom the marriage of Tzontecoma with a member of its royal family.\nXolotl informed Achitometl, a grandson of Nauhyotl, of his wish that\nHuetzin should stay with the king of Culhuacan until he succeeded to\nhis own inheritance.[V-35] Achitometl, pretending to favor the project,\nimmediately sent information to Nauhyotl, who at once took steps\nto secure himself. Xolotl paid a visit to Culhuacan to make formal\narrangements for the reception of his prot\u00e9g\u00e9, and was received with\nthe most friendly assurances. But when Huetzin arrived, after the\ndeparture of Xolotl, an armed force opposed his entrance, and he\nprecipitately retreated. This breach of faith caused a war, which\nresulted in the death of Nauhyotl, and the elevation of Huetzin to the\nthrone.[V-36]\n\nBrasseur's relation of these events, partly derived from the\nmanuscripts to which he had access, differs from the others in some\nparticulars, though it generally agrees with Torquemada's account.\nAccording to this writer, Huetzin, who, it is here stated, was\nPochotl's grandson on the mother's side,[V-37] coveted and endeavored to\nobtain the crown of Culhuacan prior to the arrangement made between his\nfather and Xolotl. To gain this end he had, on account of his descent,\nthe assistance of the Acolhuas, who were at all times disposed to\nre\u00ebstablish the original Toltec dynasty, and the sympathy of Xolotl II.\nand his son Nopaltzin, who were of course inclined to favor any scheme\nthat would cripple Nauhyotl. The king of Culhuacan defeated Huetzin's\nplans for the time, however, by proclaiming Achitometl--Pochotl's\neldest son, by the princess Xochipantzin, and consequently Nauhyotl's\ngrandson--as his successor, thus restoring the ancient dynasty, and\ndoing away with the pretext under which the pretender had won so much\nsympathy. It seems that the claims of Huetzin met with no farther\nnotice until the death of Quauhtexpetlatl, a son of Nauhyotl II., who\nhad accompanied his father into exile, and after his death had returned\nto Culhuacan and been associated with Nauhyotl III., the present king.\nUpon the death of this prince, which occurred in 1129, Xolotl entered\ninto an agreement with the lord of Coatlichan to procure for Huetzin,\nthe son of the latter, Quauhtexpetlatl's share in the government\nof Culhuacan. Hence followed the struggle, detailed by Torquemada,\nwhich resulted in Huetzin's elevation to the throne he had so long\ncoveted.[V-38]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THE NAHUATLACA TRIBES.]\n\nA digression is necessary at this point, in order to refer to the\ntraditional arrival in An\u00e1huac of the Nahuatlaca tribes, which occurred\nat irregular intervals during a period extending from the early years\nof the Chichimec occupation down to, and a little beyond, the events\nrecorded above.\n\n[Sidenote: NAHUATLACA MIGRATION.]\n\nThe original home of the Nahuatlacas was Aztlan, the location of\nwhich has been the subject of much discussion.[V-39] The causes that\nled to their exodus from that country can only be conjectured;[V-40]\nbut they may be supposed, however, to have been driven out by their\nenemies, for Aztlan is described as a land too fair and bounteous to\nbe left willingly in the mere hope of finding a better.[V-41] The native\ntradition relates that a bird was heard for several days constantly\nrepeating the word _tihui, tihui_, meaning 'let us go,' 'let us go.'\nThis, Huitziton, foremost and wisest among the Nahuatlaca chiefs,\ntook to be a message from the gods directing the people to seek a new\nhome. In making a declaration of such moment he needed the support of\nanother influential man. He accordingly persuaded another chief called\nTecpatzin, who at first seemed sceptical, that the bird's note was\nnothing less than a divine message, and the two announced it as such to\nthe people.[V-42]\n\nWhether all the numerous tribes into which the Nahuatlacas were\ndivided, left Aztlan at the same time, or, if not, in what order they\nleft, it is impossible to tell. It seems, however, that after several\nyears' wandering, a number of them were together at a place called\nChicomoztoc, the famous 'seven caves.'[V-43] The little that is known of\ntheir wanderings before reaching this point will be found in the next\nchapter, in connection with the Aztec migration.\n\nThe list of tribes settled at Chicomoztoc at this time comprises only\nseven according to most authors. They are named for the most part after\nthe locality in which they subsequently settled in and about An\u00e1huac,\nand are as follows: the Xochimilcas, Chalcas, Tepanecs, Acolhuas,\nTlahuicas, Tlascaltecs, and Aztecs or Mexicans; to which some writers\nadd the Tarascos, Matlaltzincas, Malinalcas, Cholultecs, Huexotzincas,\nCuitlahuacs, Mizquicas, and Cohuixcas.[V-44] Some authors do not include\nthe Acolhuas and Tepanecs; no importance is, however, to be attached\nto the traditional tribal divisions of the invading hordes before they\nsettled in An\u00e1huac.\n\nIt was at Chicomoztoc that the separation of the Aztecs from the rest\nof the Nahuatlacas took place. The tradition relates that while the\npeople were seated beneath a great tree partaking of a meal, a terrible\nnoise was suddenly heard to issue from the summit of the tree; the\nidol which stood upon the altar at its foot then called the chiefs of\nthe Aztec tribe aside and commanded them to order the other tribes to\ndepart in advance, leaving the Aztecs at Chicomoztoc. The number of\ntribes that were thus sent in advance is not known; Torquemada says\neight, Acosta and Duran say six,[V-45] and others greater or smaller\nnumbers.\n\n[Sidenote: ACOLHUAS AND TEPANECS.]\n\nFrom the time of the separation we hear little more of the Nahuatlaca\ntribes until we find them coming into An\u00e1huac and settling in various\nparts of the country. In this manner we hear of the Xochimilcas,\n'cultivators of flowers,' coming into the valley and occupying a\ndistrict south of Tezcuco Lake, where they founded Xochimilco; but\nall we know of their former history is that they left Aquilazco, their\noriginal home, which we may suppose to have been a district of Aztlan,\nunder a chief named Huetzalin,[V-46] who, dying on the journey, was\nsucceeded by Acatonal, who conducted the tribe as far as the ruined\ncity of Tollan and there died, after having ruled twenty-three years.\nThe tribe then proceeded under the conduct of Tlahuil Tecuhtli[V-47]\nto the Culhuacan territory and attempted to settle there, one year\nafter the accession of Huetzin.[V-48] But the people of Culhuacan were\nsuspicious of the new comers and drove them to the other side of\nthe lake to a place called Teyahualco, at the same time forbidding\nthem to settle on any part of the lands belonging to the capital.\nFor some years the Xochimilcas remained quietly at Teyahualco, but\nin 1141 Tlahuil Tecuhtli pounced suddenly upon Culhuacan, and before\nits defenders could gain their arms he penetrated into the heart of\nthe city and sacked it remorselessly. The inhabitants soon rallied,\nhowever, and not only drove the marauders out of the city, but pursued\nthem as far as the site of the ancient city of Ocopetlayuca. Here\nTlahuil Tecuhtli resolved to establish himself and, with the permission\nof the king of Culhuacan, he forthwith founded the city of Xochimilco,\nwhich subsequently became one of the principal places in An\u00e1huac.[V-49]\nThe Chalcas settled on the east side of the lake of Chalco and founded\na number of towns of which the principal was Chalco. For the Tlahuicas\nno room could be found about the lake; they therefore proceeded to a\ndistrict south of Mexico, where before long a number of settlements\nrose around their capital Quauhnahuac.[V-50] Of the other tribes\nincluded by some authors among the Nahuatlacas, we find the Tarascos\nsettled in Michoacan, the Matlaltzincas in the province of that name,\nand extending towards Michoacan; the Malinalcas in the province of\nMalinalco; the Cuitlahuacs in the province of Cuitlahuac; the Mizquicas\nin Mizquic; the Cohuixcas in Guerrero.[V-51]\n\n[Sidenote: ACOLHUAS AND TEPANECS.]\n\nThe Tepanecs and Acolhuas become prominent in the affairs of An\u00e1huac\nat this period, that is, during the reign of the Chichimec emperor\nXolotl II. They were among the numerous bands that contributed to the\noverthrow of the Toltec empire, and are classed by several writers\namong the Nahuatlaca tribes.[V-52] One of their chiefs, Tzontecoma of\nCoatlichan, was, as we have seen, the grandfather of Huetzin, the\npresent king of Culhuacan. The event that brings them into prominent\nnotice at this time is their tendering allegiance to Xolotl II. In\ndoing this they claimed descent from the Citin,[V-53] illustrious for\nnobility of race and for heroic deeds. According to many of the Spanish\nwriters the Otom\u00eds came into An\u00e1huac and tendered their allegiance\nto Xolotl II. in company with the Acolhuas and Tepanecs. We have\nalready seen, however, that the Otom\u00eds were one of the most ancient\nnations of An\u00e1huac, and were there long before the Toltecs; this\nreputed entry of theirs was perhaps nothing more than their coming\nin from the mountains and adopting, to a certain extent, a civilized\nlife.[V-54] The story goes that Xolotl II. and his son Nopaltzin were\nflattered by the propositions of these powerful chiefs and entertained\ntheir guests right royally. Nor did the Chichimec monarch delay\nto confer upon the three principal chiefs substantial marks of his\nfavor and consideration. To the lord Acolhua with the Tepanecs he\nassigned several districts south of Tenayocan, with Azcapuzalco for a\ncapital, and gave him the hand of his eldest daughter, Cuetlaxochitl,\nin marriage; the lord of the Otom\u00eds received the emperor's second\ndaughter, and a district four or five leagues north of Azcapuzalco,\nwith Xaltocan for its capital; Tzontecoma, the third chief, a young\nman, was awarded for the Acolhua home a district one league south of\nTezcuco, with Coatlichan for a capital, and, as Xolotl had no more\ndaughters, he was given for a wife the princess next in rank.[V-55] It\nwas in compensation for this inferior marriage that Xolotl afterwards\nobtained the throne of Culhuacan for Tzontecoma's grandson, Huetzin,\naccording to Torquemada's account given on a preceding page. The\nthree marriages were celebrated at Tenayocan with extraordinary\npomp, and were followed by a succession of public games, gladiatorial\nexhibitions, and amusements of all sorts, which lasted sixty days.\n\nIt is difficult to say in what relation the Acolhua and Tepanec princes\nstood towards the Chichimec emperor. According to most of the Spanish\nauthorities, they swore allegiance to Xolotl, and took rank as the\nfirst vassals of the empire, though they were exempted from payment of\ntribute. It is Brasseur's opinion, however, that this statement must\nnot be accepted too literally. Nothing was more jealously guarded by\nall these peoples than their independence and sovereign rights in the\nland they occupied. At the same time, the right of first occupation\nbeing held sacred by them, it was natural that the tribes that came\nin after the Chichimecs, should address themselves to Xolotl, before\nattempting any formal settlement. The act of the new tribes was,\ntherefore, an observance of international etiquette rather than an\nacknowledgment of vassalage.[V-56]\n\n[Sidenote: THE TOLTECS IN AN\u00c1HUAC.]\n\nThe settlement of the Acolhuas and Tepanecs in An\u00e1huac resulted in\nan improved order of things, and in the rapid advance of culture\nthroughout the country. Their comparatively high state of civilization\nwas not slow to impart itself to the ruder Chichimecs, who were proud\nto ally themselves by marriage to the polished strangers, and eager\nto emulate their refinement. For the same reasons the name Acolhua\nsoon came to designate the Chichimecs of the capital and surrounding\ndistricts. Nor was it the people alone who received this impulse\nfrom the new-comers. Xolotl began to perceive that if he wished to\nestablish a permanent and hereditary monarchy it would be necessary to\ncure his fierce nobles of their nomadic tastes and habits by giving\nthem possessions, and thus making it to their interest to lead an\norderly and settled life. To this end he created a number of fiefs, and\ndistributed them among his lords, according to their rank and quality.\nThose lying nearest to the centre of the empire were granted to the\nprinces of the royal family, or to chiefs of undoubted loyalty; while\nto the more turbulent nobles distant provinces were assigned.[V-57]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFor some time after the accession of Huetzin to the throne of\nCulhuacan, where, the reader will recollect, he had been placed by\nXolotl II. after the defeat and death of Nauhyotl, it seems that\nNonohualcatl, Nauhyotl's eldest son,[V-58] and Ameyal, Pochotl's eldest\nson by Nauhyotl's daughter, were permitted to retain their position as\nheirs to the throne which they had enjoyed during the reign of the late\nking. But this did not last very long; the ruse by which Ameyal had\nendeavored to frustrate Xolotl's designs upon the throne of Culhuacan\nwas not forgotten, and before many months had elapsed the young prince\nwas despoiled of his dignities and cast into prison, where he was kept\nclosely confined for several years.\n\nAlthough the Toltec element in An\u00e1huac was growing weaker every year,\nand threatened to totally disappear in a short time, yet what little\nthere was left of it possessed great importance in the eyes of Xolotl\nII. The Chichimec emperor, partly perhaps from motives of pride, partly\nbecause he saw that it would tend to ensure his son's succession,\ndesired nothing so much as to ally his family by blood with the ancient\nToltec dynasty. With this end in view, the old monarch had for some\ntime been looking about for a suitable bride for his son Nopaltzin. At\nlength the lady was found in the person of Azcatlxochitl, sister of\nAmeyal, and therefore daughter of Pochotl, the son of Topiltzin, the\nlast Toltec king. This princess, who was then about twenty-five years\nof age, was possessed of singular beauty and rare accomplishments, and\nwas withal a model of modesty. Her father being dead, and her brother\nin captivity, she lived in seclusion with her mother at Tlaximaloyan,\na town on the frontier of Michoacan. Whatever dislike the Chichimec\nnobles may at first have had for this alliance, was speedily overcome;\nthe hand of the Toltec princess was formally demanded and given, and\nsoon afterwards the marriage was celebrated with great magnificence.\nBy this union Nopaltzin had three sons, Tlotzin Pochotl,[V-59] who\nsubsequently succeeded his father as Chichimec emperor, Huizaquen\nTochin Tecuhtli, and Coxanatzin Atencatl.[V-60] When these came of age,\ntheir father obtained Tlazatlan from Xolotl for the eldest son to rule,\nuntil he should succeed to the imperial throne; for the second son\nhe obtained a grant of Zacatlan, and for the third Tenamitec. Before\ndeparting to his fief, Tlotzin was married to Tocpacxochitzin, daughter\nof the lord of Quahuatlapal, one of the great chiefs that came with\nXolotl from Amaquemecan.[V-61]\n\nBrasseur states that the tributes of the seigniory of Oztoticpac,\nin the province of Chalco, were granted to Tlotzin at his birth,[V-62]\nand there the prince usually resided during his youth, under the able\ninstruction of a noble Toltec named Tecpoyo Acauhtli, who, it is said,\naccompanied his pupil to Tlazatlan, whither he went after his marriage,\nand continued to educate him there.[V-63] It was at this latter place\nthat Tlotzin's son Quinantzin, who afterwards became emperor, was born.\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF XOLOTL II.]\n\nAbout this time Xolotl's peace was much disturbed by a conspiracy\nwhich nearly put an end to his life. It seems that for a long time a\nnumber of powerful Chichimec nobles had regarded with growing disfavor\nthe civilization which the emperor, his son, and his grandson, were\nso anxious to advance, though whether this was their only reason for\nconspiring against the old monarch's life is not clear. Of course\nany plot which tended to weaken the Chichimec empire called for\nthe sympathy of the people of Culhuacan and the Toltecs generally\nthroughout the country,[V-64] and thus the discontented faction grew to\nbe quite formidable. At first the conspirators confined themselves\nto grumbling, and made no active demonstration; but as time went on\nand the aged emperor showed no signs of failing, their impatience for\nhis death grew unbearable, and finally they deliberately plotted his\nassassination.\n\nDuring the later years of his life Xolotl left the government almost\nentirely in the hands of his son Nopaltzin, and passed the greater\npart of his time in the royal gardens at Tezcuco. He had several times\nexpressed a wish to have an additional supply of water brought into\nthese grounds, and it was in gratifying his desire that the traitors\nattempted to take his life. The new supply having been introduced\nfrom a neighboring mountain stream, the conspirators waited until a\ntime when the emperor was supposed to be reposing in a low-lying part\nof the gardens, and then suddenly breaking down a dam which had been\nconstructed for the purpose, they let the water overflow the grounds.\nBut their design was happily frustrated. It happened that Xolotl had\nnot lain down in the usual spot, but had sought an elevation, where\nthe flood could not reach him. From his conduct it would seem that he\nhad been apprised of the plot, for instead of being disconcerted, he\nmade merry over the disaster, saying: \"I have long been convinced of\nthe love of my subjects; but I now perceive that they love me even\nmore than I imagined; I wished to increase the supply of water for\nmy gardens, and, behold, they even exceed my wishes; therefore I will\ncommemorate their devotion with feasts.\" And he accordingly gave orders\nthat the next few days should be devoted to public rejoicing, to the\ngreat confusion of his enemies. But the old monarch's heart was sore\nwithin him, nevertheless, and the treachery of his subjects weighed\nheavily upon him.[V-65]\n\nBut the disaffection that had given rise to this iniquitous plot\nwas not quelled by its failure, and received a new impulse from a\nlove-quarrel which led to serious consequences. Before narrating\nthis event, it should be stated that Ameyal, henceforth known as\nAchitometl,[V-66] had been released from captivity, probably through the\ninfluence of his sister, Nopaltzin's wife, and that Nonohualcatl[V-67]\nhad succeeded to the throne of Culhuacan by reason of Huetzin's falling\nheir to his father's seigniory of Coatlichan.[V-68]\n\n[Sidenote: REVOLT OF YACANEX.]\n\nNow, Achitometl had a daughter named Atotoztli, whose exceeding beauty\nand high rank brought countless admirers to her feet. Most favored\namong these, or most daring, it is not clear which, was Yacanex,[V-69]\nlord of Tepetlaoztoc, and vassal of Huetzin. This noble presented\nhimself before Achitometl, and imperiously demanded his daughter's\nhand. Angered at his insolence, the Culhua prince responded that\nAtotoztli was promised to Huetzin, but that if she were not he could\nnever entertain a request made in such a manner. Yacanex, furious\nat this rebuff, but not in a position to proceed to extremes at the\nmoment, returned to his fief and set about stirring up a rebellion\nagainst his rival and suzerain, Huetzin. His own people rose to a man\nat his call, and he was soon joined by several powerful neighboring\nchiefs.[V-70] According to Brasseur, Yacanex, having gathered his forces,\nmarched to Culhuacan, and there repeated his demand to Achitometl; but\nthat prince reminded the rebellious noble of his promise to Huetzin,\nand declared his determination to yield his daughter's hand to no one\nelse. Upon this Yacanex returned, with threats, to Tepetlaoztoc.[V-71]\nThere his army was swelled by a number of malcontents, among whom\nwere two of Huetzin's sons, who thought themselves robbed of their\ninheritance, because their father had left the crown of Culhuacan to\nNonohualcatl when he succeeded his father at Coatlichan. The provinces\nof Otompan and Tezcuco also broke out into open revolt, and before long\nthere was danger that the whole of An\u00e1huac would be involved in war.\n\nXolotl and Nopaltzin now began to feel seriously alarmed. Tochin\nTecuhtli, who, as we have seen, had been previously disgraced,[V-72]\nand who had therefore joined the rebels, was secretly sent for, and\ninduced by fair promises to desert Yacanex and take command of the\nimperial troops. He immediately proceeded to join Huetzin, and the two\nwith their united forces then marched against the rebels. But Yacanex\nhad taken up an unassailable position in the mountains, and for some\nmonths could not be drawn into an engagement. At length, his strength\nbeing greatly increased by the numbers that flocked to his standard, he\ndecided to risk a battle and descended into the plain. The engagement,\nwhich lasted an entire day and was attended with great loss on both\nsides, ended in the rout and almost total annihilation of the rebels.\nYacanex, with his ally Ocotox and a small remnant of his followers,\nescaped to the mountains in the east; and Huetzin's two sons[V-73] fled\nto Huexotzinco.[V-74]\n\n[Sidenote: NOPALTZIN EMPEROR.]\n\nAt this time Nopaltzin, with his son Tlotzin and his grandson\nQuinantzin, then about nine or ten years old, were sojourning in the\nforest of Xolotl, near Tezcuco. Ocotox, who had escaped with Yacanex,\nconceived the bold idea of capturing this royal party. But the princes\nwere secretly informed of the plot, and, gathering what men they could,\nthey rushed suddenly upon the concealed enemy with such fury that but\nfew escaped. Quinantzin, though so young, is said to have been foremost\nin the mel\u00e9e and to have fought so valorously that Xolotl rewarded him\nwith the lordship of Tezcuco, and ceded him its revenues.[V-75] Tochin\nTecuhtli was well rewarded for his services; he received in marriage\nthe hand of Tomiyauh, daughter or grand-daughter of Upantzin, king\nof Xaltocan, and was made lord of the seigniory of Huexotla, which\ncomprised the towns of Teotihuacan and Otompan; Huetzin returned to\nCoatlichan and there married the Helen of the war, Atotoztli, daughter\nof Achitometl.[V-76] Thus was this rebellion brought to an end in the\nyear 1151.[V-77]\n\nA few years after these events Xolotl II. expired at Tenayocan in the\narms of his son Nopaltzin, to whom he left the crown, exhorting him to\nmaintain peace in the empire if possible.[V-78]\n\nAfter the body of the late emperor had been interred with the customary\nceremonies, Nopaltzin was crowned Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, and formally\nreceived the homage of his vassals. The coronation f\u00eates were on a\nscale of unusual magnificence, and lasted forty days.[V-79]\n\nIn spite of the wishes of the late emperor, Nopaltzin's reign was\nanything but a peaceful one. An\u00e1huac was at this time divided into a\ngreat number of states, many of which had their peculiar languages,\nmanners, and customs. The principal of these divisions were Tenayocan,\nCoatlichan, Azcapuzalco, Xaltocan, Quauhtitlan, Huexotla, and\nCulhuacan. Each of these communities was exceedingly watchful of its\nown interests and regarded all the others with more or less jealousy.\nIn the early part of his reign the people of Tulancingo rebelled, and\nNopaltzin marched in person to subdue them; it is doubtful, however, if\nhe would have succeeded had not Tlotzin opportunely come to his aid,\nwhen, after a campaign of nineteen days, victory was obtained.[V-80] On\nanother occasion, Aculhua, King of Azcapuzalco, usurped the lands of\nChalchiuhcua, lord of Tepotzotlan, at a time when Nopaltzin was too\nbusy to prevent it.\n\nIn 1171 Nonohualcatl, king of Culhuacan, died and was succeeded by\nAchitometl, or Ameyal.[V-81] This prince, whose life had been such an\neventful one, labored hard to advance civilization, and during his life\nthe city of Culhuacan made great progress. But his reign was a short\none, and he had been on the throne but a few years, when he died, and\nwas succeeded by his son Icxochitlanex.\n\nNopaltzin, following the example set by his father, did all in\nhis power to further Toltec culture. Great attention was paid to\nagriculture; masters were appointed in the several towns to teach the\nvarious arts, new laws were made and old ones revised, and civilization\nbegan to assume a higher phase than it had hitherto done since the fall\nof the Toltec empire.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[V-1] Whether this Amaquemecan was the original home of the Chichimecs\nor not is uncertain. According to Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom.\ni., p. 355, it certainly was not, since he states that it was founded\nin 958 by Xolotl Tochinteuctli. The ancestors of the Xolotl who\ninvaded An\u00e1huac, he adds, tom. ii., p. 199, 'sortis de Chicomoztoc,\navaient conquis le royaume d'Amaquem\u00e9, o\u00f9 ils avaient \u00e9tabli leur\nr\u00e9sidence.' Concerning the location and extent of Amaquemecan the\nauthorities differ greatly. Thus Ixtlilxochitl gives its area as 2000\nby 1000 leagues, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 335. Torquemada,\n_Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 40, places its frontier 200 leagues north\nof Jalisco, which Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p.\n132, thinks too near, since no traces of it exist, he says, within\n1200 miles. Boturini, _Idea_, p. 141, places Amaquemecan in Michoacan.\nArlegui, _Chr\u00f3n. Zacatecas_, p. 7, among the wild tribes north of New\nMexico. Cabrera, _Teatro_, p. 58, in Chiapas.\n\n[V-2] Spelled also Achcauhtzin, and Axcauhtzin.\n\n[V-3] 'L'\u00e9tymologie du nom de _Xolotl_ offre de grandes difficult\u00e9s.\nDans son acceptation ordinaire, il signifie esclave, valet, servant,\net cependant on le voit appliqu\u00e9 \u00e0 plusieurs princes comme un titre\ntr\u00e8s-\u00e9lev\u00e9. Lorenzana, dans ses annotations aux Lettres de Fernand\nCort\u00e8s, le traduit par _Ojo_, \u0153il, et on le lui donna, dit-il, \u00e0 cause\nde sa vigilance. Mais dans quelle langue a-t-il cette signification?'\n_Brasseur_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 199.\n\n[V-4] So says Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 39; but\naccording to Boturini, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., p.\n231, Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 337, and Brasseur,\n_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 200, Acauhtzin reigned alone.\nClavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 133, affirms that\nthe old king divided the kingdom equally between his two sons.\n\n[V-5] _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 40-1, gives in full\nXolotl's speech to his lords. Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough's Mex.\nAntiq._, vol. ix., p. 337, relates that he appointed Oyome as the\nrendezvous. Brasseur de Bourbourg, as before stated, does not suppose\nXolotl to have shared the Chichimec throne with his brother Acauhtzin;\nhe therefore tells the story as if Xolotl induced the great nobles to\nfavor his project of invasion by his eloquence and argument, but used\nno kingly authority in the matter.\n\nVeytia, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i., pp. 302-3, tom. ii., pp. 3-4, 13,\nassigns an altogether different cause for the Chichimec invasion of\nAn\u00e1huac. He affirms that when Topiltzin (Acxitl), the Toltec monarch,\nfled from Tollan, he went to Acauhtzin, the Chichimec sovereign, to\nwhom he was distantly related, told him his sorrows, and ceded in his\nfavor all rights to a land which he refused to revisit; whereupon\nAcauhtzin invested his brother Xolotl with the sovereignty of Tollan.\n\nThe date of the events recorded above is very uncertain. Veytia states\nthat the Chichimecs left their country for An\u00e1huac in 1117, one year\nafter the fall of the Toltec dynasty. _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., p.\n7. Ixtlilxochitl allows a period of four to six years to elapse before\ntheir arrival at Tollan; as usual, this writer is not consistent with\nhimself in different parts of his work, and places the arrival in\nvarious years between 962 and 1015. _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol.\nix., pp. 208, 337, 395, 451. Torquemada, always avoiding exact dates,\ngives on one page an interval of five years between the destruction of\nthe Toltec empire and the arrival of the Chichimecs, and on another\npage an interval of nine years between the former event and the\ndeparture from Amaquemecan. _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 45-6.\nClavigero places the Chichimec arrival at An\u00e1huac in 1170. _Storia\nAnt. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 132, tom. iv., pp. 40-51. Boturini, in\n_Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., p. 233, allows a lapse of\nnine years between the Toltec fall and the Chichimec arrival.\n\n[V-6] _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 44; _Boturini_, in\n_Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., pp. 231-2; _Ixtlilxochitl_,\nin _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp. 337, 375; _Veytia_,\n_Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., pp. 4, 8-9. Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del\nMessico_, tom. i., p. 134, expresses his disbelief in the numbers\ngiven. 'Rien ne justifie les millions que lui assignent les auteurs;\nils ont compris \u00e9videment sous ce chiffre exag\u00e9r\u00e9 les diverses\n\u00e9migrations qui se succ\u00e9d\u00e8rent depuis lors sans interruption dans la\nvall\u00e9e jusqu'\u00e0 la fondation du royaume d'Acolhuacan.' _Brasseur_,\n_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 202.\n\n[V-7] Brasseur gives the names of these six chiefs, as: Acatomatl,\nQuautlapal, Cozcaquauh, Mitliztac, Tecpan, and Itzaquauh, giving\nIxtlilxochitl and Torquemada as his authorities; the latter writer,\nhowever, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 44, distinctly affirms that only\none chief, Acatomatl, was sent in advance.\n\n[V-8] Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 134, states\nthat they reached Tollan in eighteen months from the time of their\ndeparture from Amaquemecan. Ixtlilxochitl gives the date as 5 Tecpatl.\n_Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., p. 395.\n\n[V-9] 'Les auteurs sont g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement d'accord pour placer la date de\ncet \u00e9tablissement de l'an 1070 \u00e0 1080. Quelques-uns le portent\nexactement \u00e0 l'an 1068. _Xoloc_, aujourd'hui _Xoloque_, village de\nfort peu d'importance, \u00e0 12 l. environ au nord de Mexico, et \u00e0 3 l. du\nlac de San-Cristoval. Une autre explication met cette localit\u00e9 au pied\nd'une colline, \u00e0 une lieue environ vers le nord de Xaltocan.'\n_Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._; tom. ii., p. 214. See\nalso, _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., pp. 8-10.\n\n[V-10] Cempoala was twelve leagues north of Mexico; Tepepulco was four\nleagues farther east. _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 42.\n\n[V-11] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 43, writes Tlatzalan\nand Coyohuacan.\n\n[V-12] Founded 1120, _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., p. 12.\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp. 338-9;\n_Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 42-4.\n\n[V-13] 'Le _Codex Xolotl_, qui fait partie de la coll. de M. Aubin,\ndonne positivement Amacui pour p\u00e8re et pour pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseur de\nNopaltzin.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p.\n224.\n\n[V-14] 'Xolotl \u00e9tant le titre du chef principal des Chichim\u00e8ques, il\nconvenait \u00e0 l'un aussi bien qu'\u00e0 l'autre. Tout concourt, d'ailleurs, \u00e0\nprouver que, dans le Xolotl des auteurs, il y a eu divers personnages;\nc'est le seul moyen d'expliquer cette longue vie de pr\u00e8s de deux cents\nans qu'ils lui accordent.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._,\ntom. ii., p. 224.\n\n[V-15] _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 46-7;\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 339-40; _Veytia_,\n_Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., p. 28; _Boturini_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._,\ns\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., p. 232; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro Mex._, pt ii., p.\n14.\n\n[V-16] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp.\n224-6.\n\n[V-17] 'Porque fu\u00e9 una de las que m\u00e9nos padecieron en el estrago\npasado.' _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., p. 18.\n\n[V-18] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 44, spells this ruler's\nname Ecitin, which, says Brasseur, 'signifie les trois li\u00e8vres, de\n_Citli_, qui est le singulier, au pluriel _Citin_. S'agit-il ici d'un\nseul individu ou de trois du nom de _Citin_, cit\u00e9 ailleurs comme celui\nd'une famille c\u00e9l\u00e8bre de laquelle pr\u00e9tendaient descendre les\nAlcohuas?' _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 209.\n\n[V-19] 'Descendants du grand Nauhyotl.' _Id._\n\n[V-20] Spelled Acxopal by Brasseur.\n\n[V-21] _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., pp. 17-19;\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 333-4, 339;\n_Carbajal Espinosa_, _Hist. Mex._, tom. i., pp. 226-8.\n\n[V-22] 'Reparti\u00f3la por las sinosidades, cuevas, y rincones de las\nserranias, proporcion\u00e1ndola \u00e1 la caza.' _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes\nAmer._, p. 18; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii.,\npp. 232-3.\n\n[V-23] For names of places peopled by the Chichimecs see\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 460, 209. See also\n_Id._, pp. 339, 395, 451; _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p.\n45; _Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 134; _Veytia_,\n_Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., pp. 14-5; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro Mex._, pt\nii., pp. 12-13.\n\n[V-24] To which his descendants added Huactlatohuani, 'lord of the\nworld.' _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 451.\n\n[V-25] The inhabitants of this province were known as Culhuas, and are\nnot to be confounded with the Acolhuas, notwithstanding many of the\nold writers make no distinction between the two peoples.\n\n[V-26] Veytia writes the names of those who governed at Culhuacan;\nXiuhtemoc, with his wife Ozolaxochitl, and son Nauhyotl; and\nCatauhtlix with his wife Ixmixuch and son Acxocuauh. _Hist. Ant.\nMej._, tom. ii., p. 18. Torquemada writes them respectively:\nXiuhthemal, Oceloxroch, Coyol; Cocauhtli, Yhuixoch, Acxoquauh.\n_Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 45. Boturini writes: Xiuchtimatl,\nOceloxochitl, Coyotl; Cocoahtli, Yhyozochtl, Acxoquauhtli. _Doc. Hist.\nMex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., p. 232; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 333.\n\n[V-27] Brasseur states that according to the _Codex Chimalpopoca_,\nAcxoquauh was a younger brother of Nauhyotl; we have already seen this\nprince spoken of, however, as the son of Cocauhtli, Xiuhtemoc's\nassociate; see note 26. Nonohualcatl, says Brasseur, was, without\ndoubt, Nauhyotl's eldest son. 'C'est ce qui parait d'apr\u00e8s la mani\u00e8re\ndont ce prince succ\u00e9da au tr\u00f4ne apr\u00e8s Huetzin, avant Achitometl ou\nAmeyal.' _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 222.\n\n[V-28] Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 222, objecting to the\nterm usurpation in this connection, writes: 'La loi tolt\u00e8que excluait\ndu sang supr\u00eame tout prince qui se montrait d'avance incapable de\nl'occuper. C'\u00e9tait probablement le cas o\u00f9 se trouvait Pochotl.\nIxtlilxochitl et Veytia, qui accusent Nauhyotl d'usurpation, avaient\noubli\u00e9 ou ignoraient la loi de succession tolt\u00e8que.' It is not\nprobable, however, that Topiltzin either forgot or was ignorant of the\nToltec law of succession, when he directed that his son should be\nassociated with Xiuhtemoc when he came of suitable age.\n\n[V-29] Also called Texochipantzin. Torquemada gives the name of\nPochotl's wife Huitzitzilin, though whether he refers to the same lady\nis not certain. _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 56.\n\n[V-30] _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., pp. 18-23;\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., p. 340;\n_Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp. 220-3.\n\n[V-31] The reader will recollect that Veytia affirms that Topiltzin\nAcxitl fled to his relative Acauhtzin, brother of Xolotl I., and ceded\nto him his right to An\u00e1huac.\n\n[V-32] According to Brasseur, these or similar overtures occurred in\nthe reign of Xolotl I. Xolotl's ambassadors, he says, 'avaient plus\nd'une fois pressenti Xiuhtemal \u00e0 ce sujet, mais celui-ci, trop prudent\net trop ami de sa patrie, appr\u00e9hendant, sans doute, de rendre les\nChichim\u00e8ques trop puissants, avait constamment \u00e9lud\u00e9 ses propositions\nen faisant valoir les droits de Pochotl, \u00e0 qui seul il appartiendrait\nde prendre une d\u00e9cision dans cette mati\u00e8re d\u00e9licate, une fois qu'il\naurait \u00e9t\u00e9 mis en possession du tr\u00f4ne.' _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii.,\np. 221.\n\n[V-33] Year 1141. _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., pp. 30-5. 984\nto 1190. _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix.,\npp. 209, 342-3, 396, 452.\n\n[V-34] _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., pp. 45-6. According to\nBrasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 238, this lady was the\neldest daughter of Pochotl. Tzontecoma was one of the Acolhua chiefs,\nas will be seen hereafter.\n\n[V-35] The meaning of this request is not clear. It was probably\nXolotl's design to get Huetzin into Culhuacan under pretense of\nlearning the art of government--though it would seem he might have\ndone this at his father's court--and then by some strategem place him\nupon the throne.\n\n[V-36] _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 57-8. Ixtlilxochitl\nand Veytia give a different version of this affair of Huetzin's.\nItzmitl, or Ixmitl, (known also as Tlacoxin, or Tlacoxinqui) proceeded\nto Tezcuco, where Xolotl was superintending the construction of a\npalace and garden, and reminded him of a promise of extra favors made\nto Tzontecoma, by way of compensation for the inferior bride which he\nhad been compelled to accept; whereupon Xolotl gave the lordship of\nTepetlaoztoc to his son Huetzin. This occurred, says Veytia, in 1207,\nmore than 60 years after the Culhuacan war. _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom.\nii., pp. 46-7; _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp. 341-2.\n\n[V-37] See note 34.\n\n[V-38] _Brasseur_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp. 237-51.\n\n[V-39] Aztlan '\u00e9tait situ\u00e9e au nord-ouest de la Californie.... C'est\nl'opinion d'un grand nombre d'\u00e9crivains. M. Aubin croit qu'ils\nhabitaient la p\u00e9ninsule appel\u00e9e aujourd'hui la basse Californie, et\nque l\u00e0 \u00e9tait Aztlan.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom.\nii., p. 292. Humboldt, _Vues_, tom. ii., p. 179, and _Essai Pol._,\ntom. i., p. 53, followed by Gondra, in _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._,\ntom. iii., pp. 6-7, 19, place Aztlan north of 42\u00b0 N. lat.; Foster,\n_Pre-Hist. Races_, pp. 340-1, Vetancvrt, _Teatro Mex._, pt ii., p. 20,\nrefer to the account of O\u00f1ate's explorations in New Mexico, _Doc.\nHist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., pp. 32, 47-8, 111-12, 625, and\npoint to the golden Copalla, with its rumored Aztec-speaking people.\nSee also, _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 454; _Schoolcraft's\nArch._, vol. i., p. 68; _Ruxton_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._,\n1850, tom. cxxvi., pp. 40-9. Fontaine, _How the World was Peopled_,\npp. 149-50, reminds us that the Aztec _tl_ sound is found in the N.W.,\nand considers the mounds in the N.E. to be evidences of Aztec\nwanderings. _Pickering's Races_, in _U. S. Ex. Ex._, vol. ix., p. 41;\n_Chevalier_, _Mexique_, pp. 54-5. Prichard, _Nat. Hist. Man_, vol.\nii., pp. 514-16, regards the Moquis in Arizona as the most northern\nAztec remnants. Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., pp.\n156-9, places Aztlan north of the Colorado River, in accordance with\nsome maps of the 16th century, and regards this stream as the water\nsaid to have been crossed on the migration, whilst Boturini, _Idea_,\npp. 126-8, holds this to be the Gulf of California. _Carbajal\nEspinosa_, _Hist. Mex._, tom. i., pp. 298, 301; _Rios_, _Compend.\nHist. Mex._, p. 11. Orozco y Berra, _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 79-82, 134-5,\ntraces Nahuatlaca routes north of Mexico. Duran, _Hist. Indias_, MS.,\ntom. i., cap. 1, looks to Florida for the ancient home. Mendieta,\n_Hist. Ecles._, p. 144, identifies Aztlan with the later Chicomoztoc,\nlike Acosta and Duran, but locates it in the Jalisco region.\n_Bartlett's Pers. Nar._, vol. ii., p. 283. Veytia, _Hist. Ant. Mej._,\ntom. ii., p. 91, ventures a little farther north, to Sonora; see also,\n_M\u00f6llhausen_, _Reisen_, tom. ii., pp. 143-55. Gallatin, in _Amer.\nEthno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 128, considers Aztlan to have\nbeen near Culiacan, but on p. 205, and in _Nouvelles Annales des\nVoy._, 1851, tom. cxxxi., p. 281, he seems to favor the more direct\nnorth. Cabrera, _Teatro_, pp. 94-6, advances some argument for its\nlocation in Chiapas. See also, _M\u00fcller_, _Amerikanische Urreligionen_,\npp. 532-3. Waldeck, _Voy. Pitt._, p. 45, remarks that the palm-tree on\nthe migration-map indicates a southern origin, but Gondra, in\n_Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., p. 7, considers that this\nmay be a thoughtless insertion of the painter. See remarks on pp.\n216-18 of this volume, and pp. 681-4, 788-9 of vol. iv. For further\nremarks on position of Aztlan, and origin of Nahuatlacas, see:\n_Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, pp. 266-7; _Buschmann_, _Ortsnamen_, p.\n54, et seq., _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Esquisses_, pp. 27-8; _Id._,\n_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp. 191-7; _Id._, _Popol Vuh_, pp.\nclxxxiii.-cxcvi.; _Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 203-5; _Ruxton's\nAdven. Mex._, pp. 192-4; _Cremony's Apaches_, pp. 89-90; _Gregg's Com.\nPrairies_, vol. i., p. 284; _Smith's Human Species_, pp. 252-3;\n_Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc._, vol. ii., p. 323.\n\n[V-40] Gallatin, _Amer. Ethno. Soc._, _Transact._, vol. i., p. 205,\nthinks they may have had a share in the dismemberment of the Toltec\nempire, or may have seized the opportunity offered by the Toltec\nemigration to enter into the deserted lands. Cabrera states that they\nwere driven from Aztlan. _Teatro_, p. 94.\n\n[V-41] Duran gives the description of Aztlan given by Cueuhcoatl to\nMontezuma the elder: 'Nuestros Padres moraron en equel felice y\ndichoso Lugar que llam\u00e1ron Aztl\u00e1n, que quiere decir \"Blancura.\" En\neste Lugar hay un gran Cerro en medio del agua, que llamaban\nCulhuacan, por que tiene la punta algo retuerta h\u00e1cia abajo, y \u00e0 esta\ncausa se llama Culhuacan, que quiere decir \"Cerro tuerto.\" En este\nCerro habia unas bocas \u00f3 cuebas \u00f3 concavidados donde habit\u00e1ron\nnuestros Padres y Abuelos por muchos a\u00f1os: alli tubi\u00e9ron mucho\ndescanso debajo de este Nombre Mexitin y Azteca: alli gozaban de mucho\ncantidad de Patos, de todo g\u00e9nero de gazzas; de cuerbos marinos, y\nGallinas de agua, y de Gallaretas; gozaban del canto y melodia de los\nP\u00e1jaros de las cabezas coloradas y amarillas; goz\u00e1ron de muchas\ndiferencias de grandes y hermosos Pescados; goz\u00e1ron de gran frescura\nde arboledas, que habia por aquellas riberas, y de Fuentes cercadas de\nsauces y de Sabinas y de Alisos grandes y hermosos; andaban en canoas,\ny hacian camellones en que sembraban maiz, chile, tomates, huauhtli,\nfrisoles, y de todo genero de semillas de las que comemos,' &c. _Hist.\nIndias_, MS., tom. i., cap. 27.\n\n[V-42] _Ramirez_, in _Garc\u00eda y Cubas_, _Atlas_; _Torquemada_, _Monarq.\nInd._, tom., i., p. 78; _Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom.\ni., pp. 157-8; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro Mex._, pt ii., p. 17; _Villa-Se\u00f1or\ny Sanchez_, _Theatro_, tom. i., p. 3; _Carbajal Espinosa_, _Hist.\nMex._, tom. i., pp. 399-300. The date of the departure is shown by the\nmaps to be Ce Tecpatl, which is calculated by Chimalpain, Gallatin,\nGama, and Veytia to be 1064, based on the hypothesis that the\nadjustment of the calendar in the year Ce Tochtli, which took place\nduring the journey, corresponds to 1090. Brasseur would probably\nassign a later date, since he writes: 'Les annales mexicaines nous\nmontrent g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement les premi\u00e8res tribus de cette nation \u00e0 Aztlan en\nl'an 1 Tecpatl, 1064.' _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 292.\n\n[V-43] Chicomoztoc is placed by Clavigero about twenty miles south of\nZacatecas, but is regarded by Duran, Acosta, and others, as identical\nwith, or within the region of Aztlan. According to Brasseur, _Hist.\nNat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 293, they arrived here 1116. Hellwald, in\n_Smithsonian Rept._, 1866, p. 339, agrees with this date, by making\nthem arrive at Chicomoztoc 26 years after their departure from Aztlan,\nwhich, he says, took place in 1090. Veytia, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom.\nii., p. 92, states that they arrived 104 years after their departure.\nOn the Gemelli map Oztotlan, 'place of grottoes,' is given as a place\nwhere they halted for a long time, from 160 to 200 years after leaving\nAztlan, and may be the same as Chicomoztoc. Camargo, in _Nouvelles\nAnnales des Voy._, 1843, tom. xcviii., p. 145, says that the\nTlascaltecs, who according to most authors were one of the Nahuatlaca\ntribes, arrived at Chicomoztoc in the year 5 Tochtli.\n\n[V-44] See _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 455-6; _Herrera_, _Hist.\nGen._, dec. ii., lib. ii., cap. x.; _Duran_, _Hist. Indias_, MS., tom.\ni., cap. 2; _Carbajal Espinosa_, _Hist. Mex._, tom. i., pp. 228, 247;\n_Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 151; _Hellwald_,\nin _Smithsonian Rept._, 1866, p. 339; _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._,\ntom. i., p. 78; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro Mex._, pt ii., p. 17;\n_Motolinia_, _Hist. Indios_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom.\ni., pp. 7-9; _Pimentel_, _Cuadro_, tom. i., p. 154; _Purchas his\nPilgrimes,_ vol. v., p. 864; _Gemelli Careri_, in _Churchill's Col.\nVoyages_, vol. iv., p. 482; _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. ii., pp. 168-71;\n_Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii., lib. x., p. 145. Brasseur de\nBourbourg gives as the tribes that left Aztlan: the Huexotzincas,\nChalcas, Xochimilcas, Quitlahuacas, Malinalcas, Chichimecas,\nT\u00e9panecas, and Matlaltzincas. _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 292.\n\n[V-45] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 78-9; _Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 454;\n_Hist. Indias_, MS., tom. i., cap. 2. On Boturini's map the\nhieroglyphs of the eight tribes are seen at Chicomoztoc for the last\ntime; the priests or leaders of the Aztecs alone pursue the remainder\nof the course. As the Aztec hieroglyph does not appear to be included\namong these eight, it might be assumed that the Aztecs were composed\nof certain families belonging to one or more of the eight tribes, but\nthis does not appear to be the view taken by the authorities. Gondra,\nin _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., pp. 25-6, remarks that\nthe map indicates a consultation of six of the families with their\ngod, and the departure of two. The non-recurrence of the tribal\nhieroglyphs he explains by saying that the families are henceforth\ndesignated only by the chiefs who lead them. This map cannot, however,\nbe expected to be more accurate than the sources from which\nTorquemada, Acosta, and others, derived their information.\n\n[V-46] Quetzalin according to Brasseur, who adds: 'Dans le texte, il y\na _Huetzalin_, ce qui est probablement une faute du copiste.' _Hist.\nNat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 263. This chief may possibly be the same as\nHuitziton.\n\n[V-47] Veytia names this chief Xochimilco, which Brasseur says 'ne\npeut \u00eatre qu'une erreur.' _Id._, p. 264.\n\n[V-48] _Id._ Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia place the arrival of the\nXochimilcas in Tlotzin's reign. _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol.\nix., p. 458; _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., p. 88. Duran says they were\nthe first to leave Chicomoztoc, and the third to arrive in An\u00e1huac.\nThis writer gives a number of places founded by them besides\nXochimilco. _Hist. Indias_, MS., tom. i., cap. 2., 13. Acosta says\nthey were the first to arrive. _Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 488.\n\n[V-49] _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., pp. 88-9;\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., p. 458;\n_Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp. 263-4.\n\n[V-50] Now Cuernavaca.\n\n[V-51] _Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 92-3, 141-3.\n\n[V-52] Many writers who do not directly connect the Acolhuas with the\nNahuatlacas, assert that they came from the same region, and were of\nthe same race. Clavigero places the ancient home in Teoacolhuacan,\nnear Amaquemecan. Veytia considers them to be the descendants of\nToltec colonists who were settled along the Pacific coast.\nIxtlilxochitl affirms that they were neighbors of the Huehue Tlapallan\nToltecs and of Chichimec stock.\n\n[V-53] '_Citin_, pluriel de _Citli_, li\u00e8vre, nom apparemment d'une\ntribu du Nord, comme les Pied-Noir, les Serpents, etc.' _Brasseur de\nBourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 232. Rios, _Compend. Hist.\nMex._, p. 7, says they derived their origin from the family of Citin\nor Ulcua. Motolinia says of the Acolhuas: 'Este nombre los qued\u00f3 de un\nvaliente capitan que tuvieron ... Acoli, que as\u00ed se llama aquel hueso\nque v\u00e1 desde el codo hasta el hombro, y del mismo hueso llaman al\nhombro Acoli.' He was very brave, and taller than other men. _Hist.\nIndios_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 11. Gomara,\n_Conq. Mex._, fol. 301, says that they claimed descent from a valiant\nchief named Chichimecatlh, who once tied a strap round the arm of\nQuetzalcoatl, near the shoulder. This was regarded as a great feat,\nfor it was said that he that could bind a god could bind all men.\n\n[V-54] Brasseur de Bourbourg says nothing about the Otom\u00eds coming in\nwith the Acolhuas and Tepanecs at this time.\n\n[V-55] This, according to Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp.\n51-4, who is followed by Brasseur, was Coatetl, daughter of\nChalchiuhtlatonac, or Chalchiuhtlanetzin, lord of Chalco, who, says\nBrasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 231, 'para\u00eet avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 l'un\ndes fr\u00e8res ou des fils de Nauhyotl II.' According to other authors,\nTzontecoma's bride was named Cihuatetzin, and her father was a Toltec,\nlord of Tlalmanalco. Each of these names is spelled in a great variety\nof ways. See _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol.\nix., pp. 341, 395, 452; _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., pp.\n39-43; _Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., pp. 136-7;\n_Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, pp. 19, 142-3; _M\u00fcller_,\n_Reisen_, tom. iii., p. 45; _M\u00fcller_, _Amerikanische Urreligionen_, p.\n526; _Villa-Se\u00f1or y Sanchez_, _Theatro_, tom. i., p. 3; _Orozco y\nBerra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, p. 92.\n\n[V-56] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp.\n233-4.\n\n[V-57] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp.\n236-7.\n\n[V-58] See note 27.\n\n[V-59] Named also Huetzin, says Brasseur.\n\n[V-60] Veytia, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., p. 47, writes the names\nTlotzin Pocothl, Toxtequihuatzin, and Atencatzin. Ixtlilxochitl, in\n_Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., p. 210, Tlotzinpochotl,\nHuixaquentochintecuhtli, Coxanatzin Atencatl; on p. 342 he differs in\nthe following: Toltzin, Toxtequihuatzin, Atencatzin Apotzoetzin; on p.\n395, Tloxtequihuatzin; on p. 461, Tlotzinpochotl, Atzotgocoltzin,\nTotzin. _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 62, Tlotzin,\nQuauhtequihua, or Tochintecuhtli, Popozoc. _Clavigero_, _Storia Ant.\ndel Messico_, tom. i., p. 141, Apopozoc. Nopaltzin had also another\nson, named Tenancacaltzin, who in later years gave much trouble to the\nemperor Quinantzin, and who, according to the Spanish authorities, was\na bastard. Brasseur, however, finds reason to believe that this prince\nwas Nopaltzin's legitimate son by a former marriage. _Hist. Nat.\nCiv._, tom. ii., p. 254.\n\n[V-61] _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., pp.\n342, 395, 452; _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., pp. 47-9;\n_Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 63; _Clavigero_, _Storia\nAnt. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 141.\n\n[V-62] Commenting upon the statement of Ixtlilxochitl, _Hist. Chich._,\nin _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., p. 211, that Xolotl\nabandoned to Tlotzin not only the revenues of the province of Chalco,\nbut also of several other provinces as far as Mizteca, Brasseur\nwrites: 'Il y a \u00e9videmment exag\u00e9ration; jamais les armes de Xolotl\nn'all\u00e8rent aussi loin, et il est douteux m\u00eame que les provinces\nrenferm\u00e9es dans la vall\u00e9e lui fussent toutes tributaires.' _Hist. Nat.\nCiv._, tom. ii., p. 258.\n\n[V-63] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 262.\n\n[V-64] See _Id._, tom. ii., pp. 266-71.\n\n[V-65] _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 59-60;\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix., p. 343;\n_Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., pp. 138-9.\n\n[V-66] See _Brasseur_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 265. This\nwriter and Torquemada are the only authorities who use the name Ameyal\nat any time.\n\n[V-67] See note 27.\n\n[V-68] Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 272, writes: 'C'\u00e9tait\nprobablement sur la promesse de recevoir la main de sa (Achitometl's)\nfille que Huetzin avait renonc\u00e9 au tr\u00f4ne de Culhuacan.'\n\n[V-69] Spelt also Yanex, Yacazozolotl, Yacatzotzoloc, and\nIxcazozolot.\n\n[V-70] Among these were Ocotox, or Acotoch, and Coacuech, who,\naccording to _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol.\nix., p. 212, were disaffected towards the empire because agriculture\nhad been forced upon them and tribute exacted in field produce;\nQuauhtla, lord of Oztoticpac, and Tochin Tecuhtli, lord of Coyuhuacan,\nwho had fallen into disgrace in the following manner: Chiconquauhtli,\nXolotl's son-in-law, died suddenly, and was buried without notice\nbeing sent to the emperor. Xolotl thereupon dispatched Tochin\nTecuhtli, to offer condolence to the widow, his daughter, and to\nappoint Omicxipan, a noted noble of that province, governor. Tochin\nTecuhtli did as he was ordered, but instead of returning to Xolotl\nwith a report of his mission, he went to Huetzin of Coatlichan. To\npunish this disrespect, or treason, as Torquemada calls it, Xolotl\ndeprived Tochin Tecuhtli of his lordship of Coyuhuacan and exiled him\nto Tepetlaoztoc. _Torquemada_, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 58, 65;\n_Clavigero_, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 142; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro Mex._, pt ii., p. 15; _Brasseur_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii.,\npp. 267-9.\n\n[V-71] This is the account given by Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom.\nii., p. 274. Most writers do not mention this expedition to\nCulhuacan.\n\n[V-72] See note 70.\n\n[V-73] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 212, says he fled toward P\u00e1nuco, and\nafterwards, p. 343, states that he was pardoned and re-instated.\nTorquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 65, affirms that the rebel\nchief was slain in battle, and that his allies fled to Huexotzinco,\nwhere they died in misery. Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom.\ni., pp. 142-3, follows Torquemada. We must accept the former version,\nhowever, as Yacanex subsequently re-appears upon the scene.\n\n[V-74] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 277.\n\n[V-75] 'Para que en ella y su contorno mandase en calidad de\nsoberano.' _Veytia_, tom. ii., p. 56. He could scarcely have been sole\nlord of Tezcuco, for Veytia himself says that Tlotzin reigned there.\n\n[V-76] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 212, 396-7; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 50-8;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 65; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 278;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 271-7.\n\n[V-77] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 277.\n\n[V-78] The exact year in which Xolotl II. died is uncertain. Brasseur,\nwhose chronology I have followed, does not give the date, though he\nsays it occurred some years after the death of Huetzin, which occurred\nin 1154. Xolotl, says this author, at his death, 'ne pouvait gu\u00e8re\navoir plus de cent ou cent dix ans, et, en calculant les ann\u00e9es de son\nr\u00e8gne, \u00e0 commencer de son arriv\u00e9e dans l'Anahuac, il aurait pu durer\ntout au plus de soixante \u00e0 soixante-cinq ans.' _Hist._, tom. ii., pp.\n277-8. Veytia, tom. ii., p. 69, writes that Xolotl died in 1232.\nTorquemada, tom. i., p. 60, says that he was nearly 200 years of age\nwhen he died. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 212, 343, 397, 452, says, 117 years\nafter his departure from Amaquemecan, in the 112th year of his reign\nin Anahuac, and gives, as usual, several dates for Xolotl's death,\nnamely: 1075, 1127, 1074, and 1121. _Rios_, _Compend. Hist. Mex._, p.\n7, says that he died at the age of 160, after a reign of 99 years.\n\n[V-79] Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 61-2, gives the speeches delivered on\nthe occasion.\n\n[V-80] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 66; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 212-13;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 140-2; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 71-3, 78;\n_Rios_, _Compend. Hist. Mex._, p. 8; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii.,\npp. 281-8.\n\n[V-81] We have seen that according to the account given by Veytia, and\nothers, of the events which led to the first trouble between the\nChichimecs and the people of Culhuacan, Achitometl succeeded to the\nthrone immediately after the death of Nauhyotl, no mention being made\nof the reigns of Huetzin or Nonohualcatl. See pp. 303-4.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.--CONTINUED.\n\n     Migration of the Aztecs -- Nations of An\u00e1huac at Beginning of\n     the Thirteenth Century -- The Aztecs submit to the Tepanecs\n     -- Reign of the Emperor Tlotzin -- Quinantzin, King of\n     Tezcuco and Chichimec Emperor -- Transfer of the Capital --\n     Tenancacaltzin usurps the Imperial Throne at Tenayocan -- The\n     Usurper defeated by Tepanecs and Mexicans -- Acolnahuacatl\n     proclaimed Emperor -- Quinantzin's Victories -- Battle at\n     Poyauhtlan -- Quinantzin again Emperor -- Toltec Institutions\n     at Tezcuco -- Events at Culhuacan -- Mexicans driven from\n     Chapultepec -- Alliance between Mexicans and Culhuas --\n     Religious Strife -- Foundation of Mexico -- Reign of the\n     Emperor Techotl -- Political Changes -- Ruin of the Culhua\n     Power -- Tezozomoc, King of Azcapuzalco -- Separation of\n     Mexicans and Tlatelulcas -- Acamapichtli II., King of Mexico\n     -- Quaquauhpitzahuac, King of Tlatelulco.\n\n\nThe last of the so-called foreign tribes that came into notice in\nAn\u00e1huac, from out the confusion that followed the downfall of the\nToltecs, was the Aztec, or Mexican, which settled at Chapultepec\nin the last years of the twelfth century.[VI-1] According to their\ntraditions they set out on their migration from Aztlan together\nwith the Nahuatlaca tribes, whose arrival has already been noticed;\nbut were left behind by those tribes at Chicomoztoc, one of their\nfirst stopping-places. The migration of the Aztecs from Chicomoztoc\nis described much more fully than that of the tribes that preceded\nthem; but in the details of this journey, so far as dates, names, and\nevents are concerned, the traditions are inextricably confused. I have\nalready expressed my opinion that some of these traditions may refer\nvery vaguely to the pre-Toltec events in Nahua history, but that they\nchiefly refer to the movements of the Nahua, or Chichimec, tribes which\noccupied the Toltec provinces during the continuance of the empire,\nand which after a long struggle became powerful in and about the\nValley of Mexico. We have no means of determining in a manner at all\nsatisfactory whether Aztlan and Chicomoztoc were in Central America or\nin the region of Zacatecas and Jalisco; nor indeed of proving that they\nwere not in Alaska, New Mexico, or on the Mississippi, although there\nis absolutely no evidence in favor of the latter locations; but we\nknow at least that all the halting-places of the migrating tribes after\nChicomoztoc were in the immediate vicinity of An\u00e1huac. The record as a\nwhole is exactly what might be expected, were the traditions of half\na dozen kindred bands respecting their wanderings about the central\nplateau, and efforts to establish themselves in permanent homes, united\nin one consecutive narrative; and I have little doubt that such was\nsubstantially the process by which the Spanish version of the Aztec\nmigration was formed. Whatever the cause of the confusion that reigns\nin that version, it is utterly useless to attempt its clearing-up;\nand I dispose of the whole matter by simply presenting in a note the\ndates and successive halting-places attributed to this migration by the\nprincipal authorities; the opinions of these authorities respecting the\nlocation of Aztlan and Chicomoztoc have been previously given.[VI-2]\n\n[Sidenote: THE AZTEC MIGRATION.]\n\nSome of the events and circumstances connected with the migration,\nhowever, must be noticed, although there is little agreement as to the\nplace or date of their occurrence. At Aztlan the Aztecs are said to\nhave crossed each year a great river or channel to Teo-Culhuacan, to\nmake sacrifices in honor of the god Tetzauh. Prompted by the cry of a\nbird, as has already been related, they left their home under command\nof Huitziton, or Huitzilopochtli, probably identical with Mecitl, or\nMexi, whence was derived their name of Mexicas, or Mexicans. They seem\nto have left Aztlan about 1090, and to have settled in Chicomoztoc,\nafter several halts, in 1116.[VI-3] Chicomoztoc, to which Brasseur adds\nthe name Quinehuayan, was also on the bank of a river, and the Aztecs\ncontinued the profession of boatmen which they had practiced at Aztlan,\nbeing subject to a tyrannical monarch to whom the name of Montezuma\nis applied by some of the traditions. After the other Nahuatlaca\ntribes had separated themselves from the Aztecs by divine command, the\nleader, or high-priest, or god,--Huitzilopochtli--for the exact epoch\nof his death and deification it is impossible to determine--informed\nthe latter that he had selected them as his peculiar people, for whom\nhe destined a glorious future. He ordered them to abandon the name\nof Aztecs and adopt that of Mexicas, and to wear upon their forehead\nand ears a patch of gum and feathers, as a distinguishing mark,\npresenting them at the same time with arrows and a net as insignia.[VI-4]\nThis separation at Chicomoztoc, or the Seven Caves, presents strong\nanalogies to that which took place in Tulan Zuiva; it is not impossible\nthat the events related are identical, the earlier portions of this\ntradition referring vaguely back to the primitive epochs of Nahua\nhistory, while the later portions relate the events which followed the\nToltec destruction. After the separation, and while the Aztecs were yet\nat Chicomoztoc,[VI-5] an event occurred to which is traditionally referred\nthe origin of the differences that in later years divided this people\ninto two rival parties, the Mexicans and Tlatelulcas. Two small bundles\nmysteriously appeared among them one day when all were assembled; the\nfirst opened contained an emerald of extraordinary size and beauty,\nfor the possession of which a quarrel ensued. The second bundle proved\nto contain nothing more attractive than a few common sticks, and the\nparty into whose possession it fell deemed themselves most unfortunate,\nuntil Huitziton made known to them a novel process of producing fire\nby rubbing two sticks together.[VI-6] According to Brasseur's authorities\none of the princes of Chicomoztoc, named Chalchiuh Tlatonac, was\ninduced to depart with the Aztecs, assuming a rank second only to that\nof the high-priest Huitziton. It is also claimed that certain Toltec\nnobles with their followers, who had been driven from Chapultepec by\nthe Chichimecs, joined their fortunes with those of the Aztecs at an\nearly period of their migration, perhaps, however, before they left\nAztlan.[VI-7]\n\n[Sidenote: DEATH OF HUITZITON.]\n\nAfter leaving Chicomoztoc, and while in Michoacan according to most\nauthorities, although by some of them Huitzilopochtli is spoken of as\na god long before, the aged high-priest Huitziton died or disappeared\nsuddenly during the night. It is hinted that he was foully disposed of\nby the priesthood, through jealousy of his popularity and power; but\nwhether responsible or not for his death, the priests resolved to take\nadvantage of it to advance their own interests. Consequently the next\nmorning a report was circulated that Huitziton had been called to take\nhis place among the gods with the great Tetzauh, or Tezcatlipoca, who\non his arrival had addressed to him the following craftily prepared\nspeech: \"Welcome brave warrior, and thanks for having so well served\nme and governed my people. It is time that thou take thy rest among\nthe gods; return, then, to thy sons the priests and tell them not to be\nafflicted at thy absence; for although they may no longer behold thee,\nthou wilt not cease to be in their midst to guide and rule them from\non high. For I will cause thy flesh to be consumed, that thy skull and\nbones may remain to thy sons as a consolation, that they may consult\nthee respecting the routes they have to follow and in all the affairs\nof government, and that thou mayest direct them and show unto them\nthe land which I have chosen for them, where they will have a long and\nprosperous empire.\" Brasseur adds to the speech, \"where they shall find\na nopal growing alone on a rock in the midst of the waters, and on this\nnopal an eagle holding a serpent in his claws, there they are to halt,\nthere will be the seat of their empire, there will my temple be built,\"\nalthough this is not given by Veytia or Torquemada, the authorities\nreferred to by the abb\u00e9. The god also gave directions that the bones\nof Huitzilopochtli should be carried in an urn by the priests on\ntheir migration, or according to some authorities that an idol should\nbe made and carried in an ark on the shoulders of four priests. The\nfour priests were of course designated for the important position of\n_teomama_, or 'god-bearers,' who were to constitute the medium through\nwhich the idol should make known his commands to the people. The people\ndared make no opposition to the will of their god, and the plans of the\ncrafty priests were most successfully carried out.\n\nBut an episode that is related of this period, indicates that the plots\nof the priests were perfectly comprehended by at least one person.\nThis was Malinalxochitl, the sister, friend, or mistress of Huitziton,\na brave princess who rendered great aid to the high-priest against\nthe machinations of his foes. She was charged, however, probably by\nthe hostile priests, with the possession of the black art. She could\nkill with a glance, turn the course of rivers, and transform herself\ninto any form at will. After the death of Huitziton the priests, whose\ntricks she very likely tried to expose, resorted to their new divinity\nto rid themselves of Malinalxochitl. The idol from its ark was made to\nissue an order that the sorceress should be abandoned while asleep.\nWith her followers she went to Mt Texcaltepec, where she afterwards\nfounded the town of Malinalco, and bore a son named Copil, or Cohuitl,\nto whom she entrusted her revenge on the Mexicans.[VI-8]\n\nWhile they were yet in Michoacan, on the banks of Lake Patzcuaro, a\ntrouble is said to have occurred which resulted in the separation of\nthe Tarascos from the Aztecs, and their settlement in this region. The\ntale, to which very little importance is to be attached, from the fact\nthat the Tarascan language was different from the Aztec, is as follows:\nA number of men and women were bathing together, when the rest, at\nthe instigation of the priests, took their clothing and departed. The\nbathers were obliged to improvise a dress, which pleased them so much\nthat they retained it ever after in preference to the maxtli; but they\nnever forgave the Aztecs, resolved to remain where they were, and even\nchanged their language that they might have nothing in common with\nthat people. Camargo's version is that in crossing a river a part of\nthe travelers used their maxtlis to fasten together their rafts, and\nwere forced to borrow the women's huipiles to cover their nakedness;\nand Veytia adds that so imperfectly did these garments perform their\noffice that the rest of the tribe, shocked at the appearance of their\ncompanions, abandoned them in disgust, calling them Tarascos from a\ncircumstance that has been already given.[VI-9]\n\n[Sidenote: AZTECS AT TOLLAN AND ZUMPANGO.]\n\nQuauhtlequetzqui seems to have been the priest who of the four assumed\nthe highest rank after the death of Huitziton; and coming under his\ncommand or that of their idol through him expressed, to Coatepec in the\nvicinity of Tollan, the Mexicans, at the order of their god, stopped\nthe current of the river so as to form a kind of lake surrounding the\nmountain. Their stay in this place was one of great prosperity and\nincrease in population and wealth; here they placed the sacred ark in a\ngrand temple; and here they were taught to make balls of india-rubber\nand initiated by the gods into the mysteries of the _tlachtli_, or\ngame of ball, which afterward became their national diversion.[VI-10]\nBut the will of Huitzilopochtli was made known that this fair land\nmust be abandoned, and their wanderings recommenced. The people\nmurmured and showed signs of revolt, but the god appeared before them\nin so frightful an aspect as to fill them with terror; some of the\nmalcontents were found dead near the temple with their hearts cut out;\nthe dam was broken, thus destroying the great charm of their new home;\nand finally the will of the leader was obeyed, though not apparently\nuntil several revolting chiefs with their followers had separated\nthemselves from the main body.[VI-11]\n\nAt Tzompanco, now Zumpango on the northern lake, the Mexicans--not\nperhaps the main body, judging from the names given to the\nleaders--were most kindly received, possibly as allies in the wars\nwaged by Tochpanecatl, the lord of that city. This lord's son Ilhuicatl\nmarried Tlacapantzin, a Mexican girl, and, as Brasseur states, the\nsame lord gave his daughter Tlaquilxochitl as a wife to Tozcuecuex, the\nAztec leader, at the same time giving to the Mexicans through her the\npossession of Tizayocan their next halting-place. From one of these\nmarriages sprung Huitzilihuitl, who afterwards became, according to\nmany authors, the first king, or ruler, of the Mexicans.[VI-12]\n\nSeveral other intermarriages with tribes in An\u00e1huac are reported,\nand also some hostilities during the subsequent frequent changes of\nresidence, but no important events are definitely reported before\nthe arrival and settlement at Chapultepec in 1194 as already stated,\nalthough there is but little agreement in the dates, many traditions\nassigning the arrival to a much later period. As has been before\nstated, these traditions refer to different bands, and the disagreement\nin dates would be natural even if the chronology of the records\nhad been correctly interpreted by the Spanish writers, which is not\nprobable. There can be little doubt of the comparative accuracy of\nBrasseur's dates.\n\n[Sidenote: THE AZTECS AT CHAPULTEPEC.]\n\nAt this period Nopaltzin was still on the throne of Tenayocan, but was\nsucceeded in 1211 by Tlotzin Pochotl.[VI-13] Acolnahuacatl, called by the\nSpanish writers Acolhua II., reigned over the Tepanecs at Azcapuzalco;\nCulhuacan was governed successively after Achitometl by Icxochitlanex,\nQuahuitonal, Mazatzin, Cuetzal, Chalchiuh Tlatonac II., Tziuhtecatl,\nXihuiltemoc, and Coxcoxtli, down to about the end of the thirteenth\ncentury; the Teo-Chichimecs, one of the invading bands that have so\nvaguely appeared in preceding annals together with the Nahuatlaca\ntribes, were settled at Poyauhtlan in the vicinity of Tezcuco, a\nsource of great uneasiness to all the nations, although nominally\nfriends of the emperor Tlotzin; and Quinantzin, the son of Tlotzin, was\nchief lord at Tezcuco and heir to the imperial throne.[VI-14] The Aztecs\nmeantime fortified their naturally strong position at Chapultepec,\nand in 2 Acatl, 1195, celebrated the completion of their cycle.[VI-15]\nHuitzilihuitl, in spite of the sacerdotal opposition was made chief,\nor as some say, king; the scattered Mexican bands, and even the main\nbody of the Mexicans under the high priest Quauhtlequetzqui, or his\nsuccessor of the same name, came to join those of Chapultepec; and the\ncolony began to assume some importance in the eyes of the surrounding\nmonarchs. The king of Azcapuzalco sought to make the Mexicans his\nvassals, desiring their aid as warriors, but Huitzilihuitl proudly\nrefused to pay tribute. Their first war, something over thirty years\nafter their arrival, was with Xaltocan, against which province they\nhad aided the lord of Zumpango when first they entered the valley. The\narmies of Xaltocan, under Huixton, attacked and defeated the Aztecs\nnear Chapultepec, forcing them to retreat within their fortifications,\nacting probably by the encouragement of the Tepanecs.[VI-16] According\nto Brasseur's authorities, the Tepanecs again proposed an alliance,\nand on refusal, marched with their own army, and soldiers from other\nnations, against Chapultepec, and at last forced Huitzilihuitl to\nsubmit to the payment of tribute.[VI-17] Before yielding, however, the\nMexican chief sent ambassadors to Quinantzin at Tezcuco, offering him\nthe allegiance of his people and asking aid; but the Tezcucan lord was\nnot in condition to help them, and advised them to submit temporarily\nto Acolnahuacatl,[VI-18] which they did about 1240.\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF THE EMPEROR QUINANTZIN.]\n\nThe reign of Tlotzin, the Chichimec emperor, was, for the most part,\none of great prosperity, although his enemies were constantly on the\nwatch for an opportunity to overthrow his power. He seems to have\nused his influence against a tendency exhibited by the Chichimecs\nto a rudeness of manners, and independence of all control, which\nthreatened, in his opinion, a relapse into comparative barbarism.\nHe favored rather the elegance of Toltec manners, and the strictness\nof Toltec discipline. In his efforts for reform he was seconded, or\neven excelled, by his son, Quinantzin, lord of Tezcuco. Ixtlilxochitl\ntells us that Tlotzin, soon after his ascension, made a long tour of\ninspection through his territory, correcting abuses and enforcing the\nlaws, but exciting thereby the enmity of some vassal lords. Tenayocan\nwas properly the Chichimec capital, but the emperor spent much of\nhis time at Tezcuco, which had become one of the finest cities in\nAn\u00e1huac. For the embellishment of this city, many Toltecs are said to\nhave been called in from various towns, by the orders of Quinantzin.\nSome of the officers placed in charge of the parks and public works\nof Tezcuco, particularly Icuex and Ocotox, abused their trust, were\nbanished, headed revolts, and were defeated by Quinantzin. About this\ntime Tlotzin formed a new monarchy at Tezcuco, abdicating his own\nrights there and giving the crown to his son, Quinantzin. Another son,\nTlacateotzin, was given the province of Tlazalan, subject to the crown\nof Tezcuco, and still other sons, Tochintecuhtli and Xiuhquetzaltzin,\nwere made by Tlotzin, rulers of Huexotzinco and Tlascala, indicating\nthat the eastern plateau was at this time a part of the empire, though\nit is not probable that a very strict allegiance was enforced. As\nmonarch, Quinantzin, from his royal palace of Oztoticpac, labored more\nearnestly and successfully than before for a return to the old Toltec\ncivilization, thus exciting the opposition of many Chichimec nobles,\nand preparing the way for future disasters. Tlotzin became, at last,\nso fond of his son's beautiful home, that he practically abandoned\nTenayocan, appointing Tenancacaltzin, probably his brother, to rule in\nhis stead. The newly appointed lieutenant had no fondness for Toltec\nreform, became secretly the chief of the opposition to the emperor,\nand only awaited an opportunity to declare his independence. Tlotzin\nPochotl, at last, after an illness whose chief feature is said to have\nbeen a profound melancholy, was carried, at his request, to Tenayocan,\nwhere he died in 1246, after appointing Quinantzin as his heir. His\nfuneral was accompanied with great pomp and display; all the kings\nof An\u00e1huac, both friends and foes, assisting in the ceremonies, and\neulogizing his character.[VI-19]\n\nTaking the title of Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, or Emperor of the\nChichimecs, Quinantzin transferred the capital to Tezcuco,\nre-appointing, it would seem, Tenancacaltzin as ruler of Tenayocan.\nHe immediately annexed the powers of Huexotla and Coatlichan to his\ndominion, forcing the princes of those cities, Tochintecuhtli, or\nIhuimatzal, and Huetzin II., to reside in his capital, and forming\nfrom the three kingdoms that of Acolhuacan. As emperor, he gave freer\nvent than ever to his old inclinations to pomp and ceremony. Whenever\nhe appeared in public he caused himself to be borne in a magnificent\nroyal palanquin on the shoulders of four Chichimec nobles. The ill-will\nwhich Quinantzin's strict discipline and Toltec inclinations had\npreviously excited; the fears aroused by his annexation of Huexotla\nand Coatlichan, and other decided political measures; displeasure of\nthose of Tenayocan at the change of capital; and the humiliation of\nthe Chichimec nobles, in being obliged to bear the royal palanquin,\nsoon resulted in a revolution. By the support of the Tepanec king\nat Azcapulzalco, Tenancacaltzin was proclaimed emperor at Tenayocan,\nand all An\u00e1huac, save Culhuacan, Coatlichan, Xaltocan, and Huexotla,\nwere arrayed against the Tezcucan monarch, many of his own relatives\njoining in the movement against him, and his brother, Tlacateotzin,\nbeing driven from the dominion of Tlazalan. In so unequal a struggle\nQuinantzin seems to have made no effort to overthrow the usurper,\nbut rather to have employed all the force that could be furnished by\nhis remaining vassals in fortifying his position at Tezcuco, where he\npatiently awaited future opportunities for revenge and recovery of his\nimperial throne.[VI-20]\n\n[Sidenote: TENANCACALTZIN USURPS THE THRONE.]\n\nAcolnahuacatl, the Tepanec king, seems to have supported the usurpation\nof Tenancacaltzin not from any feelings of friendship, but from\nambitious motives for his own interests. He took no steps to accomplish\nthe conquest of Tezcuco, but on the contrary soon began to plot against\nthe usurping emperor. He made use of the Mexicans, who had suffered\nmuch from the people of Tenayocan and were eager for vengeance, to\naccomplish his purpose. Reinforced by some Tepanec troops in Aztec\ndress, they made several raids for plunder against Tenayocan and the\nadjoining towns. Thus provoked, Tenancacaltzin marched with an army to\npunish the robbers, but was met at Tepeyacac, where now the church of\nGuadalupe stands, by the Mexicans and Tepanecs combined, and utterly\ndefeated. The conquered emperor fled to Xaltocan, expecting aid from\nthe enemies of the Mexicans, but the princes of Xaltocan were also\nfriends of Quinantzin, to whom they delivered Tenancacaltzin, but\nwho refused to revenge his wrongs upon his uncle, and permitted him\nto leave the country. The Tepanec king took possession of Tenayocan\nand had himself declared emperor of the Chichimecs, Quinantzin\napparently making at first no opposition, but awaiting a more favorable\nopportunity to regain his power.[VI-21]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: QUINANTZIN CHICHIMEC EMPEROR.]\n\nI now come to the chain of events by which Quinantzin regained the\nimperial throne and a power surpassing that of any preceding monarch.\nThe northern provinces of Meztitlan, Tulancingo, and Totoltepec,\nexcited by the rebels Icuex and Ocotox, formerly banished by\nQuinantzin, raised the standard of revolt and marched to attack the\ncapital. They were even joined by the four eldest sons of the king,\naccording to Brasseur and Ixtlilxochitl, although other authorities\nmake this rebellion a distinct and later affair, and disagree somewhat\nas to the time of the northern rebellion. Dividing his available\nforce into four divisions, Quinantzin took command of one division,\nentrusting the others to his brothers Tochintzin, or Tochintecuhtli,\nand Nopaltzin, and to Huetzin II. of Coatlichan, while his son\nTechotl remained in command at Tezcuco. All the divisions were equally\nsuccessful and the rebels were driven back with great loss. Nopaltzin\nkilled Ocotox in personal combat but was himself killed later in the\nbattle. The king's rebel sons had not actually taken part in the fight,\nand on offering their submission were, at the intercession of their\nmother, pardoned, on condition of leaving An\u00e1huac and joining the\nTeo-Chichimecs on the eastern plateau. This success in the north was\nnot without its effect in the valley. Many cities that had declared\ntheir independence, or had become subjects of Acolnahuacatl, now\noffered anew their allegiance to the monarch of Acolhuacan at Tezcuco.\nCongratulations flowed in from Culhuacan and other friendly powers,\nwith various plausible excuses for not having aided Quinantzin in his\ntime of trouble. Prisoners taken during the war were released, and\nsome of the lords of the northern provinces were even restored to\ntheir former positions on promise of future loyalty. Thus the wise\nking laid the foundations of future success. The pardoned sons of\nQuinantzin, before proceeding to Tlascala and Huexotzinco, joined the\nTeo-Chichimecs at Poyauhtlan. This people, by their encroachments, had\nmade enemies of all the nations of An\u00e1huac; it is even said that they\nhad instigated the northern revolt in the hope that the formation of a\nleague against themselves might be prevented. But this hope was vain,\nand soon after Quinantzin's victory, they were attacked before their\ncity by the united forces of the Tepanecs, Culhuas, Xochimilcas, and\nMexicans. A battle ensued described as the most terrible ever fought in\nthe valley, in which the Teo-Chichimecs held their ground, but which so\nexhausted the forces on both sides that it was long before any nation\nconcerned was in condition to renew hostilities. The king of Acolhuacan\nseems not to have taken part in this struggle, perhaps because of the\npresence of his sons at Poyauhtlan and the fact that his relatives\nwere ruling the Teo-Chichimecs in Tlascala. The state of affairs was\nnow altogether favorable to Quinantzin, and after, as some authors\nstate, another campaign against the northern provinces, he began to\nturn his attention toward his lost dominions about the lakes. The\nemperor Acolnahuacatl, at Tenayocan, seems to have clearly perceived\nthat fortune favored his rival, and that in his exhausted condition\nsince the battle at Poyauhtlan, he could not possibly defend either the\nimperial crown or even that of Azcapuzalco, and craftily resolved to\nvoluntarily abandon his claims to the former in the hope of retaining\nthe latter. His plans, as usual, were successful; Quinantzin accepted\nhis proposition without any manifestation of ill-will, and was crowned\nemperor with the most imposing ceremonies in 1272, forming a friendly\nalliance with the kings of Culhuacan and Azcapuzalco, and becoming\npractically the master of An\u00e1huac. The Teo-Chichimecs soon after, by\nthe advice of their god, and with the consent of the emperor, migrated\neastward to Tlascala.[VI-22]\n\nIn his efforts to embellish his capital, and to restore his empire to\nthe glory and his subjects to the culture of the ancient times, it\nhas been stated that Quinantzin called in the aid of many Toltecs,\nshowing them great favor. A few years after his accession, two of\nthe Toltec tribes that had left the valley at the fall of the empire\nand settled on the coast of the Pacific in Oajaca, the Tailotlacs and\nChimalpanecs, are said to have returned and to have been received by\nthe emperor and granted lands in Tezcuco, after having stayed some\ntime in Chalco. The new chiefs were even allowed to become allied by\nmarriage to the royal family. The new-comers seem to have belonged\nto the partisans of Tezcatlipoca. Additional bands of Huitznahuacs,\nTepanecs, Culhuas, and Mexicans, from distant lands, are also vaguely\nalluded to as having settled in Tezcuco, Azcapuzalco, and Mexico.[VI-23]\nAbout the same time the northern province of Tepepulco revolted,\naccording to Torquemada,[VI-24] and was conquered by Quinantzin, spoken\nof as Tlaltecatzin by this and several other writers. The province was\njoined to the dominions of Tezcuco under a royal governor, its lord\nhaving been put to death. Another source of prosperity for Tezcuco\nseems to have been a fresh out-burst in Culhuacan of the old religious\ndissensions between the partisans of Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca,\ncausing many of the inhabitants to make their homes in the Acolhua\ncapital where they were gladly received; although Ixtlilxochitl tells\nus that Quinantzin erected no temples in his capital, and permitted\nthe erection of none, being content, and obliging all the citizens to\nbe so, with the simple religious rites of his Chichimec ancestors.[VI-25]\nXihuiltemoc, a descendant of Acxitl, the last king of Tollan, was on\nthe throne of Culhuacan at this time, and seems to have formed some\nkind of an alliance with the Mexicans at Chapultepec, and to have\nadmitted to his city the worship of Huitzilopochtli--a fact that leads\nBrasseur to think that the Culhua king was a partisan of Tezcatlipoca,\nalmost identical with Huitzilopochtli so far as the bloody rites in\nhis honor are concerned.[VI-26] In the last years of the thirteenth\ncentury, about 1281, Xihuiltemoc was succeeded by Coxcoxtli whose\nmother is said to have been a Mexican, but who was a devoted partisan\nof Quetzalcoatl.[VI-27]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THE AZTECS LEAVE CHAPULTEPEC.]\n\nThe Aztecs had, in the meantime, gained much in power, and although\nfew in numbers, compared with the other nations, had, by their skill\nas warriors and the ferocity of their character, made themselves hated\nby all, becoming, indeed, the pests of An\u00e1huac, although nominally\nthe allies of the Culhuas and Tepanecs. The story of their overthrow\nat Chapultepec is a brief one, as told by the Spanish writers. Copil,\nson of Huitziton's sister, the sorceress Malinalxochitl, had, as has\nbeen already related,[VI-28] been sworn by his mother to vengeance on the\nMexicans. He now came to the lake region and used all his influence to\nexcite the surrounding nations against his enemies, denouncing them as\neverything that is bad, and urging their extermination. Hearing of his\nplots, the priest Quauhtlequetzqui went with a party to Tepetzingo,\nwhere Copil was, killed him, tore out his heart and threw it into\nthe lake. The place was known as Tlalcocomocco, and here afterwards\nsprang up the tunal which guided the Aztecs in founding their city;\nhere was also a hot spring, called Acopilco. Immediately after this\nthe Aztecs were attacked by many nations, chiefly the Culhuas and\nChalcas, driven to Acoculco, amid the reeds of the lake, and many of\ntheir number carried captives to Culhuacan, among whom was their chief,\nHuitzilihuitl, who was sacrificed. Afterwards they were given, by the\nCulhuas, the district of Tizaapan, which abounded in snakes, lizards,\netc., on which chiefly they lived, paying heavy tribute to the king of\nCulhuacan, and leading a very hard life for many years.[VI-29]\n\nBrasseur throws much light upon the events of this period. It seems\nthat the Aztecs provoked Copil's efforts for their destruction by two\nraids against Malinalco, which belonged to Culhuacan, and that the\nMexicans treacherously drew the son of Malinalxochitl into their power\nby offering him the position of high-priest, according to a pretended\nrevelation of Huitzilopochtli's will. His daughter, Azcaxochitl, was\nforced to become the mistress of Quauhtlequetzqui; all his nobles were\ntaken prisoners, and a band of Culhuas who came to Tlalcocomocco soon\nafter, were massacred. All the rulers of the valley, save, perhaps,\nQuinantzin, were soon leagued together for the destruction of these\nmarauders and butchers. Huitzilihuitl made a valiant and long-continued\ndefence, defeating the Tepanecs in a fierce battle, but exciting\nrenewed horror by murdering and cutting in pieces Acolnahuacatl, king\nof Azcapuzalco, and formerly emperor. They were at last conquered\nthrough their rash bravery, since, while their army was fighting\nthe Culhuas whom they had been challenged to meet, another body of\nthe enemy took and burned Chapultepec, carrying off the surviving\ninhabitants as prisoners. The Mexican army was then defeated, nearly\nexterminated, and the remnants scattered in the lake marshes, while\nHuitzilihuitl was taken, and, with his daughter and sister, put to\ndeath in revenge for the murder of Copil and the Tepanec king. These\nevents occurred about 1297. For two years the scattered Mexican\nremnants were subjected to every indignity, but in 1299, perhaps\nthrough the influence of Acamapichtli, his son and heir, Coxcoxtli\nwas induced to grant this unfortunate people the small, barren, and\nserpent-infested isle of Tizaapan.[VI-30]\n\n[Sidenote: WAR WITH THE XOCHIMILCAS.]\n\nThe Spanish writers do not imply that Acolnahuacatl, king of the\nTepanecs, was killed by the Aztecs, or that he even fell in battle.\nHis son, Tezozomoc, was heir to the throne, but as he was very young,\nhis mother seems to have ruled as regent during his minority, and as\nshe was the wife of Coxcoxtli, the power was practically in the hands\nof the Culhua monarch.[VI-31] Coxcoxtli thus saw his power in An\u00e1huac\nlargely increased, but he was continually annoyed with petitions\nfrom the Mexicans for larger territory and permission to settle at\nvarious points in his dominions, and at the same time harassed by the\nencroachments of the Xochimilcas, particularly in the lake fisheries.\nHe at last proposed to grant the requests of the Aztecs on condition\nthat they would aid him in chastising the insolent and powerful\nXochimilcas. The services of the followers of Huitzilopochtli were\nalways in demand when there was fighting to be done. The secret plan of\nthe king was to place the new allies in the front to receive the force\nof the attack; the heavier their loss the better, for his troops would\nhave an easy victory, and a dead Aztec was a much less troublesome\nneighbor or subject than a live one. No arms were supplied to the\nallies, but their priests taught them to make shields of reeds, and arm\nthemselves with clubs and obsidian knives. By a strange freak of fancy\nthey resolved to retain no captives, though a reward was offered for\nthem, but to disarm and release all they captured after having marked\nthem by cutting off the right ear of each. The fury of their attack\nand their novel method of warfare struck terror into the hearts of the\nenemy, who were defeated and driven back to their capital in confusion,\nthe Mexicans obtaining much plunder, and the Culhuas an extraordinary\nnumber of prisoners. Returning to Culhuacan, the Culhua braves proudly\ndisplayed their captives, ridiculing their allies, until the latter\npointed out the lack of ears among the victims of Culhua valor, and\ncalmly produced the missing features from their sacks; the effect was\ncomplete, and they carried off the honors of the day. Coxcoxtli was\nproud of such allies, their petitions were granted, and the two nations\nwere also connected by intermarriage.[VI-32]\n\n[Sidenote: THE MOTHER OF THE GODS.]\n\nThe history of the Mexicans and Culhuas, during the early part of the\nfourteenth century, down to the founding of the city of Tenochtitlan\nin 1325, presents a confusion unequaled, perhaps, in any other period\nof the aboriginal annals. A civil war on the eastern plateau at\nCholula, in which king Coxcoxtli was involved to a certain extent,\nwill be mentioned elsewhere, as it only slightly concerns the general\nhistory of An\u00e1huac. Torquemada, Clavigero, and others, relate that\nafter the battle with the Xochimilcas, the Aztecs had secreted four\ncaptives destined for sacrifice, and had, besides, asked the Culhua\nking to provide them with a suitable offering and to be present at\nthe ceremonies. They were sent a dead body and a mass of filth which\nthe Mexicans, restraining their anger at the insult, placed upon the\naltar and said nothing. When Coxcoxtli and his suite appeared, the\npriests, after a religious dance, brought out the four captives and\nperformed the bloody rites of sacrifice before the guests. The Culhuas\nleft the place in disgust, and orders were immediately given that\nthe Mexicans should be driven from the territories of Culhuacan.[VI-33]\nAs Acosta and Duran tell the story, the Aztecs sent from Tizaapan,\nwhere it seems many of them were still living, to the Culhua king,\nrequesting him to give them his daughter to rule over them and be\nthe mother of their god. The request was cheerfully granted and the\nyoung princess conducted with great pomp to the town of her future\nsubjects. A great festival was prepared, the princess was privately\nsacrificed to Huitzilopochtli, who, it seems, had signified his\nintention of adopting her as his mother; her body was flayed, and\nher skin placed as a garment on a youth, or an idol, which was set up\nin the temple to receive the offerings of visitors. Among those who\ncame to make such offerings, as a compliment to their allies, were\nCoxcoxtli and his nobles. Their rage at the sight that met their eyes\nmay be imagined. The bloody followers of Huitzilopochtli were driven\nfrom their homes, and the allies their bravery had gained were lost\nto them.[VI-34] Ixtlilxochitl, without mentioning their return to Culhua\nfavor by the Xochimilco war, says that the Aztecs escaped from their\nbondage at Culhuacan on hearing that king Calquiyauhtzin intended to\nmassacre them, and resided, for a time, at Iztacalco, whence they made\ninroads upon Culhua territory, but finally retreated to the island\nwhere Tenochtitlan was founded.[VI-35] I append in a note an abstract\nof Veytia's version of Nahua history during this and the immediately\npreceding period, since this version agrees with others at but few\npoints.[VI-36]\n\nHardly more can be gathered from the preceding records than that the\nMexicans, after living for a time in Culhuacan, were forced, on account\nof their bloody religious rites and of their turbulent disposition,\nto leave that city, and to wander for several years about the lake\nbefore settling where the city of Mexico afterwards stood. Coxcoxtli\nis said to have been a devoted follower of Quetzalcoatl, and a zealous\npersecutor of all other sects, so much so, that many families were\nforced to abandon Culhuacan, and were gladly received at Tezcuco, as\nhas been stated. It seems to have been an ineradicable Toltec tendency\nto indulge in religious controversy to the prejudice of their national\nprosperity. Brasseur[VI-37] finds in his documents many additional\ndetails of some importance respecting the period in question. The\nreligious strife in Culhuacan broke out into open war between the\nsects of Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca, the former headed by the king\nand his son Achitometl, the latter under another son, Acamapichtli,\nand seconded by the Mexicans, who had been driven by persecution from\nthe city. This is the alliance alluded to by Veytia, when he states\nthat Acamapichtli, of Culhuacan, was chosen king of the Mexicans.\nThe rebellious son, at the head of the Mexicans, was victorious, and\ncompelled his father to flee from his capital, but did not at once\nassume the title of king, and was, not long after, in his turn defeated\nand driven from the city. This was the final departure of the Mexicans,\nmost of whom gathered at Iztacalco, where a band of their nation had\nbeen for some years residing, under the chief Tenuch. Many, however,\nsettled at other points near at hand on the lake shores and islands,\nand to this period is attributed also their invention of the Chinampas,\nor floating gardens.\n\n[Sidenote: FOUNDATION OF MEXICO.]\n\nThe localities thus occupied at this period, simultaneously or\nsuccessively, besides Iztacalco, were Mexicaltzinco, Acatzintitlan,\nMixiuhtlan, and Temazcaltitlan. At last the priests selected what they\ndeemed a suitable place for permanent settlement, the same spot where\nCopil had been sacrificed, an island, or raised tract in the lake\nmarshes, and pretended to find there the nopal, eagle, and serpent\nwhich had been promised by their god as a token that the proper\nlocation had been found. The nopal grew on a rock in the midst of a\nbeautiful pool, into which one of the two discoverers was instantly\ndrawn, and admitted to an interview with the Tlalocs, who confirmed\nthe belief that here was to be their permanent home. According to\nsome authorities, a title to this site was obtained from the king of\nAzcapuzalco. The first task was to erect a rude temple of rushes for\nthe ark of the idol Huitzilopochtli, which was located exactly over the\nstone which bore the famous nopal; the huts of the people were built\naround this as a centre, divided by divine command into four wards, or\ndistricts. Then all set industriously to work, the men leveling and\nfilling in the site of their town, or fishing and killing wild ducks\non the lakes, the products being mostly bartered by the women in the\ncities of the main land, for stone and wood for building material.\nThe first victim sacrificed to the god in his new temple was a Culhua\nnoble, of hostile sect, opportunely captured.[VI-38] Thus was founded,\nin 1325,[VI-39] the city named--probably from Mexi, the original name\nof Huitziton, and Tenuch, their chief leader at the time the city was\nformed--Mexico Tenochtitlan.[VI-40]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: DEATH OF QUINANTZIN.]\n\nQuinantzin continued in his glorious career at Tezcuco, allowing\nthe surrounding kings to weaken their power by their intrigues and\ncontentions one with another, while he devoted all his energies as a\ndiplomatist, and all the strength of his armies to the strengthening of\nhis imperial power, the enlargement and embellishment of his capital,\nwhere refugees from all directions were kindly welcomed, the quelling\nof rebellion in various provinces, and the conquest of new lands.\nNot only did he promptly put down every attempt at revolt in his own\ndominions, but insisted that the kings of Culhuacan and Azcapuzalco\nshould check the attempts of their revolting vassals. Huehuetlan,\nMizquic, Cuitlahuac, Zayollan, Temimiltepec, and Totolapan, are named\nas the rebellious provinces thus subdued during the last years of this\nemperor's reign. No monarch in An\u00e1huac could have resisted Quinantzin's\npower, but he seems to have had no disposition to encroach on what he\ndeemed the legitimate domains of his brother sovereigns. In spite of\nthe opposition of the Chichimec nobles to his reforms, his tendency\nto Toltec usages, and his fondness for display, the emperor after\nhis power had become firmly established enjoyed the love and respect\nof all his subjects. His surname, Tlaltecatzin, 'he who lords the\nearth,' is said to have been given him in consideration of his success\nin subduing so many provinces. He died in 8 Calli, 1305,[VI-41] at an\nadvanced age, and his funeral ceremonies were conducted with all the\npomp that had been characteristic of him in life. Seventy rulers of\nprovinces are said to have assisted. His body, embalmed, was seated\nin full royal apparel on the throne, an eagle at the feet, a tiger at\nthe back, and the bow and arrows in his hands. All the people crowded\nto the palace to take a last look upon their emperor, and after eighty\ndays, according to Torquemada, his body was burned, and the ashes, in\nan emerald urn with a golden cover, placed in a cave near Tezcuco; or,\nas Veytia and Ixtlilxochitl say, buried in a temple of the Sun in the\nTezcocingo forest.[VI-42]\n\n[Sidenote: LIMITS OF THE CHICHIMEC EMPIRE.]\n\nQuinantzin's elder sons having proved rebellious during their father's\nreign, and having, therefore, been banished, his youngest son, Techotl,\nTechotlalatzin, or Techotlala, was chosen as his successor. Techotl\nreigned from 1305 to 1357, a period during which the dominions attached\nto the crown of Tezcuco were almost entirely undisturbed by civil\nor foreign wars. Only one war is recorded, by which the province of\nXaltocan, peopled chiefly by Otom\u00eds, with the aid of the chiefs of\nOtompan, Quahuacan, and Tecomic, attempted to regain her independence\nof Chichimec imperial authority. The revolt was, however, promptly\nrepressed by the emperor and his allies after a campaign of two months.\nTezozomoc had now succeeded to the throne of Azcapuzalco, and with\nhis Tepanec forces, took a very prominent part in this war against\nXaltocan and the northern provinces. The Mexicans also sent an army\nto this war, and received some territory as a result, the rest of the\nprovinces being joined to the domains of Tezcuco and Azcapuzalco.[VI-43]\nTechotl's tastes and ambitions were similar to those of his father,\nand his fifty-two years of peaceful and prosperous reign enabled him\nto successfully carry out his projects. To him, as emperor, belonged\nthe allegiance of the kings of Culhuacan, Azcapuzalco, and Mexico\nin the latter part of his rule, when the latter power had risen to\nsome prominence; but no tribute was paid by these kings, and their\nallegiance was probably only nominal.[VI-44] Over the provinces that\nbelonged to Tezcuco, or rather the kingdom of Acolhuacan, Techotl ruled\nin precisely the same manner as the other kings over their respective\nterritories. The lord of each province acknowledged his allegiance to\nhis king, paid tribute according to the wealth of his people, and was\nbound to aid his sovereign, if so requested, in time of war; in other\nrespects he was perfectly independent, and governed his dominion with\nalmost absolute sway. The long list of vassal provinces and lords given\nby the records[VI-45] show that the authority of the Chichimec emperor\nextended far beyond An\u00e1huac, but do not enable us to fix definitely\nits limits; it probably was but little less extensive than that of the\nemperor at Culhuacan, in Toltec times, and was very similar to the\nToltec rule in its nature.[VI-46] Techotl's efforts seem to have been\ndirected to the complete re-establishment of Toltec culture; to the\nbuilding-up and embellishment of his capital; to the enacting of just\nlaws and their strict enforcement by the appointment of the necessary\ncourts and officials; to the work of attracting new settlers into\nhis kingdom and capital, by kind treatment of all new-comers, and a\ntoleration of all their religious beliefs and rites; and above all, to\nthe centralization of his imperial power, and the gradual lessening\nof the prerogatives of his vassal lords. The refugees from different\nnations were given separate wards of Tezcuco for a residence, and\nwere permitted to erect temples, and to perform all their various\nrites. Human sacrifice and religious strife were alone prohibited.\nThe different creeds and ceremonials of Toltec times became almost\nuniversal in his kingdom,[VI-47] although the emperor himself is said\nto have ridiculed all these creeds and sacrifices, contenting himself\nwith the worship of one god, of whom he deemed the sun a symbol. He is\ncredited with having entertained sentiments on religious topics several\ncenturies in advance of his time.\n\nIn his efforts for the centralization of the Chichimec power, he\nfirst summoned the chief lords of his provinces, some twenty-six in\nnumber, to Tezcuco, and practically compelled them to live there,\nalthough heaping upon them honors and titles which made it impossible\nfor them to refuse obedience to his wishes. All together constituted\na royal council, consulted on matters of national import; and from\nthem were selected sub-councils, to whose management were entrusted\nthe superintendence of various branches, such as the administration\nof justice, military regulations, art and science, agriculture, etc.\nFive of the leading lords were entrusted with the most important\nand honorable positions, and placed at the head of the chief\ncouncils.[VI-48] As an offset to the favors granted these lords at the\ncapital and in the general government, their prerogatives at home\nwere greatly diminished. The twenty-six provinces were subdivided\ninto sixty-five departments; the lords retained their original titles\nand the absolute command of twenty-six of the departments, but over\nthe other thirty-nine governors were placed who were supposed to\nbe wholly devoted to the interests of the emperor. Techotl is even\nsaid to have gone so far as to transfer the inhabitants belonging to\ndifferent tribes from one province to another, so that the subjects of\neach chief, although the same in number as before, were of different\ntribes, and, as the emperor craftily imagined, much less easily incited\nto revolt in the interests of ambitious chieftains, who were ever\nready to take advantage of favorable circumstances to declare their\nindependence. If the Chichimec nobles objected to these extraordinary\nmeasures, their opposition is not recorded.\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF TECHOTL.]\n\nAt one of the grand assemblies of kings and lords, held at Tezcuco,\nto deliberate on the general interests of the empire, in 1342,\nTechotl announced his intention to leave his crown to his eldest son,\nIxtlilxochitl, and caused that prince to be formally acknowledged\nas heir apparent to the imperial throne. It does not appear that any\nopposition to his succession was made at the time,[VI-49] although as we\nshall see, his right was not undisputed at the death of his father. At\none of these assemblies, as all the authorities agree, it was ordered\nthat the Nahua language should be employed exclusively at court, in\nthe tribunals, and in the transaction of all public affairs. It has\nbeen inferred from this, by many writers, that the language of the\nChichimec nations was different from that of the Toltecs;[VI-50] but\nsuch a supposition would be inconsistent with the whole tenor of the\naboriginal annals, and cannot be admitted. Among the new tribes that\noccupied An\u00e1huac after the Toltecs, there were doubtless some that\nspoke another tongue; the enforced use of the Nahua at court was\naimed at the chiefs of such tribes, and was a part of the emperor's\ngeneral policy. Of course it is just possible that one of the tribes\nof foreign tongue had become powerful and constituted a large part of\nthe population of Tezcuco, but such a state of affairs is not probable,\nand the statement of some writers that the many learned Culhuas and\nMexicans gathered at the Chichimec capital during this period, came\nas teachers of the Nahua language at the court of Techotl, cannot\nbe accepted. Brasseur's idea, as implied throughout this period of\naboriginal history, that the Chichimecs were barbarians, gradually\ncivilized by the few Toltecs that remained in the country, and forced\nby their kings to adopt Nahua language and institutions, I regard\nas wholly imaginary. The struggles of Quinantzin and his successors\nwere directed, not to the introduction of Toltec usages, but to the\npreservation of their culture, threatened by the spirit of anarchy and\nindependence that followed the downfall of the Toltec empire.\n\n[Sidenote: DEATH OF TECHOTL.]\n\nFeeling, at last, that his end was drawing near, and that the work to\nwhich he had devoted his energies must be committed to other hands, the\naged monarch is reported to have held a long interview with his son and\nheir, Ixtlilxochitl. Most earnestly he instructed his son concerning\nhis future duties, and warned him against dangers whose occurrence he\nalready foresaw. He feared, above all, the projects of Tezozomoc, the\nTepanec king, who had already, although nominally loyal to Techotl,\nshown tokens of far-reaching ambition and the possession of great\nexecutive ability, and who evidently remembered that Acolnahuacatl,\nhis predecessor, had once been emperor. Special advice was given to\nIxtlilxochitl, who was probably a very young man, although there is\nsome disagreement about the date of his birth,[VI-51] as to the best\npolicy to be followed with the king of Azcapuzalco, and after jealously\nstriving to imbue his successor with the spirit that had made his own\nreign so glorious, the emperor died, as has been stated, in 8 Calli,\n1357.[VI-52]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: AZTECS AT MEXICO TENOCHTITLAN.]\n\nHaving traced the glorious, though peaceful career of the emperor\nTechotl, I have to close this chapter by narrating the events of Culhua\nand Mexican history during a corresponding period; a period most fatal\nto Culhuacan, the metropolis of An\u00e1huac in Toltec times, and the only\nToltec city that had retained its prominence through the dark days of\nChichimec invasion. We have seen the Mexicans expelled from Culhuacan\nat the triumph of Achitometl over his brother Acamapichtli; and, after\na series of wanderings about the lake, founding their city of Mexico\nTenochtitlan in 1325. One year before the city was founded, however,\nAcamapichtli seems to have regained his power, and this time, his\nfather Coxcoxtli having died, he assumed the title of king. His rule\nwas probably very advantageous to the Mexicans, his friends, during\ntheir first years in their new city, while they were strengthening\ntheir position; but in 1336 he died, murdered, as some of the records\nimply, and was succeeded by his brother Achitometl II., the avowed\nenemy of the Mexicans and their religious rites. His accession drove\nmany of the rival sect to Mexico, and he thus aided, involuntarily,\nin building up the new power. The infant son of the dead king, also\nnamed Acamapichtli, was saved either by his mother, or, as others say,\nby the princess Ilancueitl.[VI-53] During the troubles between the rival\nsects headed by Acamapichtli and Achitometl, large numbers of Culhuas\nhad left their city and either taken refuge in Tezcuco, or had joined\nkindred tribes in different localities. On the final accession of\nAchitometl this depopulating movement was continued to a greater extent\nthan ever before. According to Brasseur's documents, a war with Chalco\nin 1339, fomented by Tezozomoc, who had succeeded to the Tepanec throne\neight years before, gave the finishing blow to the power of Culhuacan,\nwhich was practically abandoned by king and people about 1347, her\nweaker tributary provinces being in part appropriated by the stronger,\nwhich now became independent of all save imperial power, although\na large portion fell into the hands of the kings of Azcapuzalco and\nAcolhuacan. The larger part of the Culhuas proper were divided between\nQuauhtitlan,--which soon became practically a Culhua, or Toltec, city,\nunder Iztactototl, grandson of Coxcoxtli, who succeeded in 1348,--and\nMexico.[VI-54]\n\nThe territory on which Mexico Tenochtitlan was built seems to have\nbelonged to the domain of Azcapuzalco, and the Mexicans were obliged to\npay to the Tepanec king a certain amount of tribute in fish and other\nproductions of the lake. Their prosperity, the improvements they were\nconstantly making in their city, and their strong position in the lake,\ntaken in connection with their well-known valor and ambition, excited\nmuch jealousy among the surrounding nations. Possibly this jealousy\nis alluded to in the fable of a fatal epidemic which prevailed at this\ntime, ascribed in the popular tradition to the fumes of fried fish and\nother delicacies, wafted from the island town, which created so violent\na longing as to occasion illness.[VI-55] The Tepanecs were the only people\nthat had the power to oppress the Aztecs, which they are said to have\ndone, not only by the exaction of the regular tribute due them, but\nby imposing special taxes, to be paid in articles of no value to the\nreceivers, but which could be obtained by the Mexicans only with great\ndifficulty or danger.[VI-56] Brasseur says that Tezozomoc even went so far\nas to send his son Tlacotin to rule in Mexico after Tenuch's death,\nand he dying after a short time, another son, Teuhtlehuac, became\ngovernor.[VI-57] I find nothing in the Spanish writers respecting Tepanec\ngovernors in Mexico, although none of them give any very definite idea\nhow the city was governed in the early period of its existence. Some\nauthors mention Tenuch as one of the chiefs that directed the original\nAztec migration; others, as we have seen, make him the chief of an\nAztec band at Iztacalco, just before the founding of the city, and\nimply that he was the leader under the priesthood at the time of its\nfoundation, and for some time after; while still other writers state\nthat he was elected chief three years after the foundation.[VI-58]\n\nAt this period took place the division of the Aztecs into Mexicans\nand Tlatelulcas, although Veytia dates it back before the foundation\nof the city, and before many of the events already related. It was\ncaused by a quarrel between the priests and nobles, and was a secession\nof the latter when unable to check the growing power of the former.\nTorquemada attributes the separation merely to the overcrowded state\nof the city; and the fable of the two bundles which originated the\ndissension in early times has already been related.[VI-59] Brasseur sees\nin this division the inevitable Nahua tendency to struggle bravely\nand unitedly against misfortune, but at the first dawn of prosperity\nto indulge in internal strife. The priesthood used their influence\nto excite the lower classes against the nobility, and particularly\nagainst their Tepanec governor, whom they denounced as a tyrant.\nThey finally succeeded in raising such a storm that Teuhtlehuac was\ndriven out, and his party, including most of the nobility, determined\nto seek a new home. The connection of a Tepanec governor with the\nmatter, removes some of the difficulties involved in other versions,\nbut it is not easy to understand why Tezozomoc permitted his son to\nbe driven from Tenochtitlan. Whatever the circumstances which led to\nthe secession, the location of the new establishment was miraculously\npointed out. The nobles were attracted by a whirlwind to a sandy spot\namong the reeds of the lake, about two miles from Tenochtitlan, and\nfound there the shield, arrow, and coiled serpent, which they deemed a\nmost happy augury. They obtained a title of the land from the Tepanec\nking, on condition of a yearly tribute,[VI-60] and called their new home\nXaltelulco, afterwards, Tlatelulco.[VI-61]\n\n[Sidenote: GROWTH OF MEXICO AND TLATELULCO.]\n\nBoth cities grew rapidly, and acquired much prosperity and power,\nnotwithstanding the separation, by reason of the large immigration\nthat they received, and of the rivalry that sprang up between the two\ndivisions. The additions to the population in Tenochtitlan were chiefly\nCulhuas, who came in so large numbers as to outnumber, perhaps, the\noriginal Mexicans; while Tlatelulco received a corresponding influx of\nTepanecs, and many from other neighboring nations. We have no further\ndetails of their history down to the death of the emperor Techotl,\nat Tezcuco, except that the establishment of a monarchy in each of\nthe two cities. The Mexicans were at first ruled by the priests, with\ncertain chiefs not definitely named; although by some Tenuch is still\nspoken of as alive and ruling down to 1357. It was finally decided,\nin an assembly of priests and wise men of the nation, to choose a\nking, and the choice fell upon Acamapichtli II., son of Acamapichtli\nof Culhuacan. The large Culhua element in Tenochtitlan doubtless had a\ngreat influence in this choice; and other motives were the friendship\nof the candidate's father for the Mexicans in past times, the\npossibility of reconquering the old Culhua possessions and joining them\nto the Aztec domain, and possibly the extreme youth of Acamapichtli,\nwhich offered to the priesthood a prospect of easily controlling his\nactions. The young candidate was summoned from Tezcuco, where he had\ntaken refuge, together with the princess Ilancueitl, who had rescued\nhim, who seems to have been regent during his minority, and who is\neven said to have become his wife. 1350 was the date of the accession\nof Acamapichtli II., the first king of Mexico Tenochtitlan.[VI-62]\nSoon after, probably the following year, 1351, the Tlatelulcas also\ndetermined to establish a monarchical form of government. They also\nsent abroad for a king, and received a son of the Tepanec king,\nTezozomoc, named Quaquauhpitzahuac.[VI-63]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[VI-1] 1194, _Codex Chimalpopoca_; 1140 or 1189, _Ixtlilxochitl_;\n1245, _Clavigero_; 1331, _Gondra_; 1298, _Veytia_, _Gama_, and\n_Gallatin_.\n\n[VI-2] I give here as compactly as possible the course of the Aztec\nmigration as given by the leading authorities:--Leave Aztlan 1\nTecpatl, 1064 A.D., and travel 104 years to Chicomoztoc, where they\nremain 9 years; thence to Cohuatlicamac, 3 years, Matlahuacallan, 6,\nApanco, 5, Chimalco, 6, Pipiolcomic, 3, Tollan, 6, Cohuactepec\n(Coatepec), 3, Atlitlalacayan, 2, Atotonilco, 1, Tepexic, 5, Apasco,\n3, Tzonpanco, 7, Tizayocan, 1, Ecatepec, 1, Tolpetlac, 3, Chimalpan,\n4, Cohuatitlan, 2, Huexachtitlan, 3, Tecpayocan, 3, Tepeyacac\n(Guadalupe), 3, Pantitlan, 2 years, and thence to Chapultepec,\narriving in 1298, after a migration of 185 years, which necessitates\nan addition of 49 years for their stay in Michoacan. _Veytia_, tom.\nii., pp. 91-8. According to Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 77-82, they\nreached Huey Culhuacan one year after their start; the time consumed\nin reaching Chicomoztoc is not given, and no dates are mentioned.\nOtherwise the account agrees exactly with Veytia's, except that an\nunnamed station is represented as having occupied 3 of the 6 years'\nstay at Matlahuacallan; there are also a few slight differences in\northography. Tezozomoc's account is as follows:--Aztlan, Culhuacan,\nJalisco, Mechoacan, Malinalco (Lake Patzcuaro), Ocopipilla,\nAcahualcingo, Coatepec (in Tonalan), Atlitlanquian or Atitalaquia,\nTequisquiac, Atengo, Tzompan, Cuachilgo, Xaltocan and Lake Chinamitl,\nEycoac, Ecatepc, Aculhuacan, Tultepetlac, Huixachtitlan, Tecpayuca (in\n2 Calli), Atepetlac, Coatlayauhcan, Tetepanco, Acolnahuac, Popotla\n(Tacuba), Chapultepec (Techcatepec and Techcatitlan) in 2 Tochtli.\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 5-8. Following Clavigero, tom. i., pp.\n156-63, the Aztecs left Aztlan in 1160, crossed the Colorado River,\nstayed 3 years at Hueicolhuacan, went east to Chicomoztoc, where they\nseparated from the Nahuatlaca tribes, then to Coatlicamac, and reached\nTula in 1196, remaining 9 years; then spent 11 years in different\nplaces, reached Zumpanco in 1216, remaining 7 years, then Tizajocan,\nTolpetlac, Tepejacac, and Chapultepec in 1245 during Nopaltzin's\nreign. Gallatin, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., pp.\n124-9, merely makes some remarks on Clavigero's account, fixing the\ndeparture, however, in 1064, and noting the completion of the first\ncycle in 1090 at Tlalixco. Gama, _Dos Piedras_, pt i., pp. 19-20,\nmakes them leave Aztlan in 1 Tecpatl, 1064, and arrive at Tlalixco, or\nAcahualtzinco, in 1087, where they completed their first cycle in\n1091, and remained 9 years. Acosta, pp. 454-62, says that 6 Nahuatlaca\ntribes left Aztlan in 820, and were 80 years in reaching Mexico. The\nAztecs started in 1122, passed through Michoacan, and halted at\nMalinalco and Coatepec before reaching Chapultepec. Herrera, dec.\niii., lib. ii., cap. x-xi, agrees with Acosta. Duran, MS., tom. i.,\ncap. i, ii, iii, says they left Aztlan in Chicomoztoc, giving dates as\nby Acosta; but he also gives as stations, Patzcuaro, Malinalco,\nOcipila, Acahualcingo, Coatepec, Tulla, Atlitlalacpan, Tequixquiac,\nTzumpanco, Xaltocan, Ecatepec, Tulpetlac, Tepaneca, and Chapultepec.\nSahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 145-6, vaguely states that the\nMexicans went westward from the Seven Caves to a province called\nCulhuacan Mexico, whence they were ordered by their god to return, and\npassed through Tulla, Ichpuchco, Chiquiuhio near Ecatepec, to\nChapultepec. According to _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 290-308,\nthe other Nahuatlaca tribes left Aztlan from 1062 to 1068, but the\nAztecs in 1 Tochtli, 1090. They pass through T\u00e9o-Culhuacan,\nQuahuitl-Icacan, 1091, Quinehuayan-Oztotl or Quinehuayan-Chicomoztoc,\n1116, stay 11 years, Acahualtzinco or Tlalixco (now S. Juan del Rio),\n1st cycle in 1143, stay 9 years, Tonalan, Lake Patzcuaro, Malinalco,\nCohuatlycamac or Coatepec, 1174, stay 9 years, Apazco, Tzompanco,\nTizayocan, Tepeyacac, Pantitlan, Popotlan, and arrive at Chapultepec\nin 1194, having been several times broken up into different bands on\nthe way. Humboldt's--_Vues_, tom. ii., p. 176, et seq.--interpretation\nof Gemelli Careri's map--see vol. ii., pp. 543-7, of this work--gives\nthe stations in the following order: From Colhuacan, the Mexican\nArarat, 15 chiefs or tribes reach Aztlan, 'land of flamingoes,' north\nof 42\u00b0, which they leave in 1038, passing through Tocolco,\n'humiliation,' Oztotlan, 'place of grottoes,' Mizquiahuala,\nTeotzapotlan, 'place of divine fruit,' Ilhuicatepec, Papantla,\n'large-leaved grass,' Tzompanco, 'place of human bones,' Apazco, 'clay\nvessel,' Atlicalaguian, 'crevice in which rivulet escapes,'\nQuauhtitlan, 'eagle grove,' Atzcapotzalco, 'ant-hill,' Chalco, 'place\nof precious stones,' Pantitlan, 'spinning-place,' Tolpetlac, 'rush\nmat,' Quauhtepec, 'eagle mountain,' Tetepanco, 'wall of many small\nstones,' Chicomoztoc, 'seven caves,' Huitzquilocan, 'place of\nthistles,' Xaltepozauhcan, 'place where the sand issues,'\nCozcaquauhco, 'a vulture', Techcatitlan, 'place of obsidian mirrors,'\nAzcaxochitl, 'ant flower,' Tepetlapan, 'place of tepetate,' Apan,\n'place of water,' Teozomaco, 'place of divine apes,' Chapoltepec,\n'grasshopper hill.' Gondra, in _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom.\niii., pp. 5-7, repeats this interpretation. Ramirez, in _Garc\u00eda y\nCubas_, _Atlas_, justly ridicules the 'Ararat' or deluge theory, and\nconfines the wanderings of the Aztecs to the regions about the lakes;\n15 chiefs leave their home in Chalco Lake after tying 1st cycle. The\nstations are mostly adopted from Humboldt, without any opinion\nexpressed of their accuracy, but there are a few additions and\ncorrections in definitions, as follows:--Aztlan, where 2d and 3d cycle\nare tied, _Cincotlan_, 10 years, Tocolco, 4th cycle, Oztotlan, 5\nyears, Mizquiahuala, 5th cycle, _Xalpan_, 15 years, Tetepanco, 'wall\nof many stones,' 5 years, _Oxitlipan_, 10 years, Teotzapatlan, 4\nyears, Ilhuicatepec, 4 years, Papantla, meaning doubtful, 2 years,\nTzonpanco, 'place of skulls or bones,' 5 years, Apazco, 4 years,\nAtlicalaquian, 'where water collects,' 2 years, Cauhtitlan, 'near the\neagle,' 3 years, Azcapotzalco, 'in the ant-hill,' 6th cycle, 7 years,\n1 year to Chalco, Pantitlan, 'place of tiers,' 'place of departure,'\nneither quite correct; Tolpetlac, 2 years, _Epcohuac_, 'serpent,'\nCuauhtepec, 2 years, Chicomoztoc, 8 years, Huitzquilocal, 3 years,\nXaltepozauhcan, doubtful, 4 years, Cozcacuauhco, 4 years,\nTechcatitlan, 5 years, Azcaxochic, 4 years, Tepetlapa, 5 years, Apan,\n'on the water,' Teozomaco, 'in the monkey of stone,' 6 years,\nChapoltepec, 4 years. The same author from the Boturini map--see vol.\nii., pp. 547-50--derives the following: Left their island home, passed\nthrough Coloacan, stayed 5 days in a place not named, thence to\nCuextecatlichocayan, Coatlicamac, 28 years, Tollan, 19, Atlicalaquiam,\n10, Tlemaco, 5, Atotonilco, 5, Apazco, 12, Tzonpanco, 4, Xaltocan, 4,\nAcalhuacan, 4, Ehecatepec, 4, Tolpetlac, 8, Coatitlan, 20,\nHuixachtitlan, 4, Tecpayocan, 4, ----, Amalinalpan, 8, Pantitlan, 4,\nAcolnahuac, 4, Popotla, 4, ----, Atlacuihuayan or Tacubaya, 4,\nChapoltepec, 20 years. Gondra, in _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom.\niii., pp. 23-30, interprets the Boturini map as follows:--Leave Aztlan\n1168, pass through Colhuacan, Cuatlicamaca, 1216-25, Apanco, 1226-9,\nTlamaco, 1230-4, Tzompango, 1246, Azcapotzalco, 1250, Jaltocan,\n1251-4, Colhuacan, 1258, Tolpetlac, 1262, Ecatepetl, 1270, Cuautitlan,\nChalco, Tecpayocan, 1295, Pantitlan, Atotonilco, 1303, Azcapotzalco,\n1311, Apan, 1315, Acaxochitl, 1319, Tlacuihuallan, 1327, Chapoltepetl,\n1331-51.\n\n[VI-3] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 292-5, on the authority of\nthe _Mem. de Culhuacan_ and other original documents.\n\n[VI-4] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 135-6.\n\n[VI-5] _Id._, pp. 136-8. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 79-80, followed by\nClavigero and Vetancvrt, represents this event as having occurred at a\nsubsequent halting-place.\n\n[VI-6] Veytia conjectures the emerald to typify the nobility of the\nTlatelulcas, a useless attribute when compared with Aztec science and\nindustry.\n\n[VI-7] _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 293-6; _Ixtlilxochitl_, vol. ix., p.\n214. Veytia, tom. ii., p. 95, makes Chalchiuh Tlatonac another name of\nHuitziton.\n\n[VI-8] On Huitzilopochtli see vol. iii., pp. 288-324. Some of the\nauthorities imply that Huitzilopochtli died or at least appeared as an\nidol long before this period, soon after their departure from Aztlan.\nBoturini, _Idea_, pp. 60-1, states that Huitziton was taken up to\nheaven in sight of the people. See also on his death and the\nabandonment of Malinalxochitl; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 93-101;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 78, 80-1; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_,\nvol. ix., pp. 6-8; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. ii.-iv.; _Acosta_, pp.\n459-61, 468; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 160-1; _Brasseur_, _Hist._,\ntom. ii., pp. 299-302; _Sig\u00fcenza_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii.,\ntom. i., pp. 39-43; _Ramirez_, in _Garc\u00eda y Cubas_, _Atlas_; _Gondra_,\nin _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., p. 25.\n\n[VI-9] See vol. ii., p. 130; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix.,\np. 6; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. iii.; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 103-5;\n_Pimentel_, _Cuadro_, tom. i., p. 272; _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles\nAnnales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 131-2.\n\n[VI-10] See vol. ii., pp. 297-9; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 106-8;\n_Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 7-8.\n\n[VI-11] See besides references in preceding notes, _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 18-19; _Herrera_, _Hist. Gen._, dec. iii., lib.\nii., cap. xi.; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i.,\npp. 125-6; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 302-5.\n\n[VI-12] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 96-7, calls the bride of Ilhuicatl,\nTiacapapantzin; and Torquemada, tom. i., p. 82, Tiacapantzin. See also\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 163; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. iii.;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 306-8.\n\n[VI-13] Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 213, 346, 397,\ngives the dates 1107, 1158, and 1105; the first date is 5 Acatl which\nagrees with Brasseur's documents, but is interpreted as 1211 or one\ncycle later than Ixtlilxochitl's interpretation. Veytia, tom. ii., pp.\n79-80, gives the date 1263.\n\n[VI-14] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 323, 378; _Torquemada_,\ntom. i., p. 254. This author gives the succession of kings at\nCulhuacan as Achitometl, Mazatzin, Quetzal, Chalchiuhtona, Quauhtlix,\nYohuallatonac, Tziuhtecatl, Xuihtemoctzin, and Coxcotzin. Veytia gives\nthe succession as follows: Achitometl, Xohualatonac, Calquiyauhtzin,\nand Coxcox. It is impossible to reconcile this matter; but no events\nof great importance in which the Culhuas were engaged seem to have\ntaken place until the reign of Coxcoxtli.\n\n[VI-15] _Leon y Gama_, _Dos Piedras_, pt i., p. 20, and _Codex\nChimalpopoca_. Gallatin makes the date one cycle later or 1298.\n\n[VI-16] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 83-4. This author represents the\nAztecs as having been driven from Chapultepec at this time. There is\nbut little agreement respecting the order of events in Aztec history\nprevious to the foundation of Mexico.\n\n[VI-17] _Codex Chimalpopoca_, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp.\n319-23.\n\n[VI-18] Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 348, and\nVeytia, tom. ii., pp. 140-1, mention this application to Quinantzin,\nbut refer it to a much later period after the city of Mexico was\nfounded.\n\n[VI-19] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 81-8, 110-13, gives the date of\nTlotzin's death as 1298. Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix.,\npp. 213, 346, 3981, 461, gives as dates, 1141, 1194, and 1140. See\nalso on his reign; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 68-72; _Clavigero_, tom.\ni., pp. 143-4; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 16; _Brasseur_,\n_Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 324-33.\n\n[VI-20] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 73-4, 85; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp.\n114-15; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 347-8, 399,\n452-3; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 144-5; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii.,\np. 16; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 333-8; _M\u00fcller_, _Reisen_,\ntom. iii., p. 48.\n\n[VI-21] Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 215, 347-8,\n399, 452-3; Veytia, tom. i., pp. 116-17, 122-25, refers these events\nto a considerably later period, and states that Huitzilihuitl\npreviously married a niece of Acolnahuacatl. _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\nii., pp. 338-44.\n\n[VI-22] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 143-54, relates this rebellion and\ndefeat of the northern provinces, and the consequent abdication of\nAcolnahuacatl, attributing these events, however, to a much later\nperiod, after the separation of the Tlatelulcas from the Mexicans,\ngiving the date as 1325. Most of the authorities do not definitely fix\nthe date, but Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 344-55, gives\nsatisfactory reasons, supported by Camargo and Ixtlilxochitl, for\nreferring both this war and the battle at Poyauhtlan to the time when\nthe Mexicans were yet living under Huitzilihuitl at Chapultepec.\nVeytia, tom. ii., pp. 162-73, unites the rebellion of the king's sons\nand the fight against the Teo-Chichimecs, referring this latter war to\n1350, and including the provinces of Huastepec, Huehuetlan, and\nCuitlahuac in the revolt. He represents the allied forces of An\u00e1huac,\n100,000 strong, as serving in six divisions under the general command\nof Quinantzin, already emperor. He also states that Quinantzin's queen\naccompanied her sons in their exile. Of course there is great\ndiversity among the authorities in respect to names of leaders, and\ndetails of the battles; but the general account given in my text is\nthe only consistent one that can be formed, since there is much even\nin Veytia's account to support it. It is probable, in the light of\nlater events, that Quinantzin took no part in the war against the\nTeo-Chichimecs, and quite possible that Camargo's statement that the\nTeo-Chichimecs were victorious, though much exhausted, in the battle\nat Poyauhtlan, results to a great extent from national pride in the\nrecord of the Tlascaltecs. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 84-6, 259-60,\nseems to be the authority for the second campaign of Quinantzin in the\nnorth, which was decided by a great battle at Tlaximalco in the region\nof Monte Real. Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 215-16,\n349-52, 398-400, 461-2, as usual favors in different places nearly all\nthe views of other authorities. See also _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles\nAnnales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 142-3; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 144-5,\n154.\n\n[VI-23] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 160, 228; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 216-17, 351, 399, 401, 453. The chief of\nthe Tailotlacs was Tempantzin, or Aztatlitexcan; and the Chimalpanecs\nwere under Xiloquetzin and Tlacateotzin. In this, as in other cases I\nhave not entered minutely into the names, marriages, and genealogies\nof the nobles of An\u00e1huac, since my space does not permit a full\ntreatment of the subject, and a superficial treatment would be without\nvalue.\n\n[VI-24] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 86. It is not quite certain that\nthis revolt, and that of some southern provinces, which occurred two\nyears later, were not connected with those that have been already\nnarrated. Torquemada rarely pays any attention to chronology.\n\n[VI-25] _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 217. It seems that Quinantzin's\nsuccessor granted permission to build temples.\n\n[VI-26] _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 377-80.\n\n[VI-27] _Id._, p. 382; dates 1281, or 1300. According to Veytia, tom.\nii., pp. 160-1, and Ixtlilxochitl, p. 462, Xiuhtemoc, king of\nCulhuacan, died in 1340, and was succeeded by Acamapichtli.\n\n[VI-28] See pp. 327-8.\n\n[VI-29] _Duran_, MS. tom. i., cap. iv.; _Acosta_, pp. 462-4;\n_Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi. Torquemada, tom. i., pp.\n83-4, 89, says the Aztecs were either brought as slaves from Ocolco to\nTizaapan, or were invited to Culhuacan and then enslaved. See also,\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 164-5; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp.\n20-1; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 127-9. I make no effort to follow\nVeytia's chronologic order which, in this part of the history, is\nhopelessly confused and different from the other authorities.\n\n[VI-30] _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 380-98.\n\n[VI-31] There is some confusion about the parentage of Tezozomoc and\nAcamapichtli: 'Coxcoxtli \u00e9pousa une fille d'Acolnahuacatl dont il eut\nTezozomoc, ou Acolnahuacatl \u00e9pousa une fille de Coxcoxtli dont ce\nprince serait issu. Quoique le MS. de 1528 donne Acolnahuacatl pour\np\u00e8re \u00e0 Tezozomoc, le M\u00e9morial de Culhuacan le donne pour le fils de\nCoxcoxtli et fr\u00e8re d'Acamapichtli. Ixtlilxochitl dit \u00e9galement\nqu'Acamapichtli \u00e9tait son fr\u00e8re.' _Id._, pp. 394-5. See _Ixtlilxochitl_,\nin _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 349, 397, 401. He, however, seems to\nmake Acamapichtli also the son of Acolnahuacatl. Veytia, tom. ii., pp.\n73, 161-2, fixes the date of the king's death at 1343. _Torquemada_,\ntom. i., p. 68; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, pp. 142-3.\n\n[VI-32] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 119-22. This author places this event\nin the lifetime of Huitzilihuitl and of Acolnahuacatl. _Torquemada_,\ntom. i., pp. 90-1; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 165-7.\n\n[VI-33] See references in last note; also _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i.,\npp. 260-1; _Gondra_, in _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., pp.\n80-1, 260-1.\n\n[VI-34] _Acosta_, p. 464; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. iv. He calls the\nCulhua king Achitometl. _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi.\n\n[VI-35] In _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 398.\n\n[VI-36] Quinantzin succeeded to the empire, and appointed his uncle,\nTenancacaltzin, governor in Tenayocan, who usurped the throne in 1299;\nHuitzilihuitl, of Mexicans, obtained in marriage a niece of king\nAcolhua II. of Azcapuzalco; Coxcox succeeded Calquiyauhtzin as king of\nCulhuacan; the Xochimilcas were defeated by the aid of the Mexicans,\nand Acolhua II. became emperor in 1299; next, Acamapichtli used the\nMexicans to conquer Coxcox, and made himself king of Culhuacan in\n1301, but died in 1303 and was succeeded by Xiuhtemoc; Huitzilihuitl\ndied in 1318, and the Mexicans chose as their king also, Xiuhtemoc of\nCulhuacan, where many of them had settled, under the rule of\nAcamapichtli, and where all now removed from Chapultepec, although\nagainst the wishes of the Culhua people; at last, in 1325, for no very\ndefinite reason, they were driven from Culhuacan and went to\nAcatzintitlan, or Mexicaltzinco; then they applied to the emperor\nAcolhua II. and were allowed to live for a time near Azcapuzalco,\nwhile their priests were searching for the predestined location of\ntheir future city; then took place the separation between the Mexicans\nand Tlatelulcas; the Tlatelulcas obtain a King from the emperor after\nhaving applied to Quinantzin in vain; Quinantzin regains the imperial\nthrone from Acolhua II.; and finally, Tenochtitlan was founded in\n1327. _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 114-57.\n\n[VI-37] _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 402-3, 432-50.\n\n[VI-38] On the foundation of Mexico, its date, and name, see--_Duran_,\nMS., tom. i., cap. iv.-vi.; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 92-3, 288-91;\n_Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 156-60; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_,\nvol. ix., p. 461; _Tezozomoc_, in _Id._, pp. 5, 8-9; _Oviedo_, _Hist.\nGen._, tom. iii., p. 531; _Acosta_, pp. 465-6; _Clavigero_, tom. i.,\npp. 167-9; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 21; _Codex Mendoza_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 40; _Arlegui_, _Chr\u00f3n. Zacatecas_, pp.\n8-9; _Cavo_, _Tres Siglos_, tom. i., p. 2; _Purchas his Pilgrimes_,\nvol. iv., pp. 1066-7; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc._, _Transact._,\nvol. i., pp. 144, 204-5; _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. viii., pp.\n405, 415; _M\u00fcller_, _Amer. Urrel._, p. 534; _Gondra_, in _Prescott_,\n_Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., p. 356.\n\n[VI-39] Date 1325, according to Clavigero, Gama, Chimalpain, Brasseur,\nand Prescott; 1327, Veytia, following Sig\u00fcenza y G\u00f3ngora; 1318, Duran;\n1324, _Codex Mendoza_; 1140, 1141, or about 1200, Ixtlilxochitl; 1131,\nCamargo; 1326, Tezozomoc, in _Veytia_; 1316, _Id._, in _Gondra_; 1225,\nChimalpain, in _Id._; 1317, Sig\u00fcenza, in _Id._; 1341, Torquemada, in\n_Id._; 1321, Zapata, in _Veytia_; 1357, Martinez, in _Veytia_ and\n_Gondra_.\n\n[VI-40] On derivation of the name, see vol. ii., p. 559; also\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 92-3; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol.\nix., p. 5; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Id._, p. 461. These authors derive\nTenochtitlan from the Aztec name of the nopal. Cavo, _Tres Siglos_,\ntom. i., p. 2, M\u00fcller, _Amer. Urrel._, p. 534, and Carbajal Espinosa,\n_Hist. Mex._, tom. i., p. 315, derive Mexico from _Metl-ico_ 'place\namid the magueys.'\n\n[VI-41] 1357, Veytia; 1213, 1249, or 1253, Ixtlilxochitl; 1305,\nBrasseur.\n\n[VI-42] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 86-7; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.\n144-6; _Veytia_, tom. i., pp. 171, 176, 181; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 215-16, 352, 400, 453; _Sahagun_, tom.\nii., lib. viii., p. 275; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 422-5;\n_Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, p. 39.\n\n[VI-43] Xaltocan is spoken of by Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia as having\nbeen at this time subjected for the first time to the emperor. Its\ninhabitants were Otom\u00eds, and the refugees are said to have built, or\nrebuilt, the city of Otompan. Tezozomoc is represented as having borne\nthe principal part in the war, while the emperor Techotl joined in it\nmore to watch and restrain the allies than for anything else. Another\nwar in Tlascala, in which forces sent by Techotl, are said by\nTorquemada, tom. i., pp. 265-8, to have participated, was, perhaps,\nthe same already mentioned in connection with the king of Culhuacan.\n\n[VI-44] Azcapuzalco, Mexico, Coatlichan, Huexotla, Coatepec, and four\nor five others are mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol.\nix., p. 355, as paying no tribute; but some of these, according to\nother authorities, were actually joined to the kingdom of Acolhuacan,\nand had not even the honor of a tributary lord.\n\n[VI-45] The list of those lords present at the funeral of Quinantzin\nand the coronation of Techotl, is as follows: Tezozomoc, king of\nAzcapuzalco; Paintzin, king of Xaltocan, lord of the Otom\u00eds;\nMocomatzin, Moteuhzomatzin, or Montezuma, king of Coatlichan;\nAcamapichtli, king of Culhuacan and Mexico (this could not be, as\nMexico was not yet founded; Coxcoxtli was king of Culhuacan, but\nAcamapichtli was, in one sense, chief of the Mexicans, and heir to the\nthrone of Culhuacan); Mixcohuatl, or Mixcohuatzin, king of Tlatelulco\n(the Aztec Tlatelulco was not yet founded; Brasseur believes this to\nrefer to an ancient city of this name); Quetzalteuhtli, or\nQuetzalatecuhtli, lord of Xochimilco; Izmatletlopac, lord of\nCuitlahuac; Chiquauhtli, lord of Mizquic (Chalco Atenco, according to\nBrasseur); Pochotl, lord of Chalco Atenco (_Ixtlilxochitl_); Omaca, or\nOmeacatl, lord of Tlalmanalco; Cacamaca, lord of Chalco; Temacatzin,\nlord of Huexotzinco, (or as Brasseur has it, of Quauhquechollan);\nTematzin, prince of Huexotzinco (_Brasseur_); Cocaztzin, lord of\nQuauhquelchula (_Ixtlilxochitl_); Teocuitlapopocatzin, lord of\nCuetlaxcohuapan, or Cuetlachcoapan; Chichimecatlalpayatzin,\nhigh-priest of Cholula; Chichitzin, lord of Tepeaca; Mitl, prince of\nTlascala; Xihuilpopoca, lord of Zacatlan; Quauhquetzal, lord of\nTenamitec; Chichihuatzin, lord of Tulancingo; Tlaltecatzin, lord of\nQuauhchinanco; Tecpatl, lord of Atotonilco; Iztaquauhtzin, lord of the\nMazahuas; Chalchiuhtlanetzin, lord of Coyuhuacan; Yohuatl\nChichimecatzin, lord of Coatepec; Quiyauhtzin, lord of Huexotla;\nTecuhtlacuiloltzin, lord of Acolman. _Ixtlilxochitl_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 353; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., p.\n428. Ixtlilxochitl says that these were not all, but merely the\nleading vassals, all related to the emperor. A list of 46 is given in\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 355, and _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 214-15. 73 are\nsaid to have attended one assembly, 66 another, and 30 another.\n\n[VI-46] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 182-3, and Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. ii.,\np. 427, state that the distant provinces of Quauhtemalan (Guatemala),\nTecolotlan (Vera Paz), Centizonac, Teoquantepec (Tehuantepec), and\nJalisco, were represented in the crowd that gathered at Techotl's\ncoronation, offering their homage and allegiance; but Ixtlilxochitl,\np. 353, says that these provinces would not recognize the emperor.\nThere is very little probability that the Chichimec power ever reached\nso far, but not unlikely that communication took place between Mexico\nand Central America at this period.\n\n[VI-47] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 195-6, implies that the new rites and\nideas came rather from Mexican than Toltec influence.\n\n[VI-48] The general Council of State, composed of all the highest\nlords, men of learning, ability, and character, was presided over by\nthe emperor himself. Of the five special councils the first was that\nof war, under a lord who received the title of Tetlahto, and composed,\naccording to Brasseur, of lords of the Acolhua nation. The second was\nthe Council of the Exchequer, under a superintendent of finance, with\nthe title Tlami, or Calpixcontli, having charge of the collection of\ntribute, and composed of men well acquainted with the resources of\nevery part of the country, chiefly as is said Chichimecs, Otom\u00eds, and\nlords of Meztitlan. The third was the Diplomatic Council, whose\npresident had the title of Yolqui, and was a kind of Grand Master of\nCeremonies, whose duty it was to receive, present, entertain and\ndispatch ambassadors. Many of this council were Culhuas. The fourth\nwas the council of the royal household, under the Amechichi, or High\nChamberlain. This council was composed largely of Tepanecs. A fifth\nofficial, with the title of Cohuatl, superintended the work of the\nroyal gold and silver smiths and feather-workers at Ocolco, a suburb\nof Tezcuco. The Spanish writers state that the president of each of\nthe councils must be a relation of the emperor, or at least a Tezcucan\nnobleman. _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 88; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 181;\n_Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 182-5; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp.\n430-1.\n\n[VI-49] There seems to have been some trouble between Ixtlilxochitl\nand the Tepanec king Tezozomoc, even before Techotl's death.\nIxtlilxochitl was unmarried, although by his concubines he had many\nchildren; and, as Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 217-18, has it, he took\nTezozomoc's daughter as a wife at his father's request, but sent her\nback before consummating the marriage; or, according to Ixtlilxochitl,\np. 218, he refused to take Tezozomoc's daughter, who had already been\nrepudiated by some one, except as a concubine. The same author, p.\n356, says this occurred after his father's death. He finally married a\nMexican princess. Tezozomoc was very much offended.\n\n[VI-50] The emperor is said to have learned the Nahua language from\nhis Culhua nurse Papaloxochitl, and to have become so convinced of its\nsuperiority that he ordered its adoption. _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 217;\n_Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 194-5.\n\n[VI-51] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 217-8, says he was over sixty years old;\nIxtlilxochitl gives 1338 as the date of his birth, which would make\nhim less than twenty. The method of arriving at his age seems to be by\nfixing the date of his son's birth, noting that his father's wife was\neight years old at her marriage, and taking into consideration the\nreported Chichimec custom which required the husband to wait until his\nwife was forty before consummating the marriage. Ixtlilxochitl was\nendowed, at birth, with thirteen towns or provinces; his mother is\nsaid to have been the sister of Coxcoxtli, king of Culhuacan.\n\n[VI-52] 1353, or 1357, _Ixtlilxochitl_; 1409, _Veytia_. On Techotl's\nreign see: _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 217-18,\n353-6, 400-1, 453, 462; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 178-231; _Torquemada_,\ntom. i., pp. 87-9, 108; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 180-1, 184;\n_Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 276; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 16-17, 24; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp.\n425-32, 457-61, 472-3.\n\n[VI-53] _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 302; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\nii., p. 451. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 127-30, agrees, except in dates, so\nfar as the succession of Acamapichtli is concerned, and his friendship\nfor the Mexicans. He, however, says nothing of Achitometl II., dates\nAcamapichtli's death in 1303, and states that he was succeeded by his\neldest son Xiuhtemoc. The _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v.,\np. 42, implies that Acamapichtli transferred his court in 1370 to\nMexico, giving, as Motolinia, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom.\ni., p. 6, says, the lordship of Culhuacan to one of his sons. See also\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 218, 343, 349. Much of the confusion in the\nCulhua succession is caused by the fact that there were two\nAcamapichtlis, one, king of Culhuacan and in a certain sense the\nleader of the Mexicans, and the other, king of Mexico at a later\ndate.\n\n[VI-54] Gomara and Brasseur as above; also _Brasseur_, p. 465.\n\n[VI-55] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 93; _Duran_, MS. tom. i., cap. x.\n\n[VI-56] _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. vi.; _Tezozomoc_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 9-10; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii.,\ncap. xii; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 471-3; _Torquemada_, tom.\ni., pp. 99-101; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 176; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_,\npt ii., pp. 22-3.\n\n[VI-57] _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 454.\n\n[VI-58] _Veytia_, tom. ii., p. 159, writes the name Tenuhctzin, and\ndates his election 1330. In the _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_,\nvol. v., p. 40, it is stated that the other chiefs still continued to\ngovern their clans. See also, _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 173-4;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 289-91; _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, p.\n148.\n\n[VI-59] See pp. 325-6, of this volume.\n\n[VI-60] Veytia says they first applied to Quinantzin, placing this\nevent in the reign of Alconahuacatl, as emperor.\n\n[VI-61] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 135, 138, 140-1; _Torquemada_, tom.\ni., pp. 93, 99, 291. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. v., names four chiefs\nwho were at the head of the secessionists. Ixtlilxochitl, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 398, mentions two chiefs with their\nadherents. Others speak of eight. Acosta, p. 468, writes Tlatelulco,\n'place of terraces.' Gomara, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 113, defines the name\n'islet.' Vetancvrt, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 22, derives it from\n_tlatelli_, 'booth,' because the market was located here. Brasseur,\n_Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 467-8, says the original name was Xalliyacac,\n'point of land,' which was in the territory belonging to Tlatelulco,\nat the time a small village, but in the Toltec period a flourishing\ncity. See also, _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 170.\n\n[VI-62] There is great diversity among the authorities respecting the\nparentage of Acamapichtli II., some of which may probably be\nattributed to the confounding of two of the same name. Veytia, tom.\nii., pp. 186-8, 161, dates his accession 1361, says a political\ncontest of four years preceded his election, and calls him the son of\nHuitzilihuitl by Atotoztli, daughter of Acamapichtli. Clavigero, tom.\ni., pp. 173-4, Acosta, pp. 469-71, and Duran, MS., tom. i., cap.\nv-vi., represent the new king as son of Opochtli, an Aztec chief, by\nAtotoztli, a Culhua princess. Clavigero makes the date 1352;\nTorquemada, tom. i., pp. 94-97, refers to him as a noble Aztec, son of\nCohuatzontli by the daughter of a Culhua chieftain. Ixtlilxochitl, pp.\n344, 348-9, 456, gives as usual two or three versions of the matter,\nsaying in one place that the new king was the third son of the king of\nAzcapuzalco. Gomara, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 302, brings him from\nCoatlichan, whither he had escaped with his mother after the death of\nher husband the Culhua king. 'Acamapichtli, king of Culhuacan, father\nof the second Acamapichtli spoken of here, was a grandson of\nAcxoquauhtli, son of Achitometl I., by Azcaxochitl, daughter of the\nMexican Huitzilatl. Acamapichtli I. had also married Ixxochitl,\ndaughter of Teotlehuac, who was a brother of Azcaxochitl and son of\nthe same Huitzilatl, and had had by her Acamapichtli II.' _Brasseur_,\n_Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 469-70. See also: _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt\nii., p. 22; _Motolinia_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p.\n6; _Herrera_, _Hist. Gen._, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; _Purchas\nhis Pilgrimes_, vol. iv., pp. 1005-6. The question of the new king's\nmarriage is even more deeply involved. See same authorities.\n\n[VI-63] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 94-5; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.\n174-5; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 471. Date according to\nClavigero, 1353. Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 213,\n348-9, 398, 453, and Veytia, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., p. 141, say\nthat the king's name was Mixcohuatl, or Epcoatzin, or Cohuatlecatl.\nSee also _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 22; _Sahagun_, _Hist.\nGen._, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 273; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes\nAmer._, pp. 174-5; _M\u00fcller_, _Reisen_, tom. iii., p. 49; and _Carbajal\nEspinosa_, _Hist. Mex._, tom. i., pp. 317-9, with portrait.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.--CONCLUDED.\n\n     Aztec History -- Reigns of Acamapichtli II. and\n     Quaquauhpitzahuac -- Rebuilding of Culhuacan -- Huitzilihuitl\n     II., King of Mexico -- Tlacateotzin, King of Tlatelulco\n     -- Chimalpopoca Succeeds in Mexico -- Funeral of Techotl\n     -- Ixtlilxochitl, Emperor of the Chichimecs -- Symptoms\n     of Discontent -- Plans of Tezozomoc, the Tepanec King\n     -- Secret council of Rebels -- Religious Toleration in\n     Tezcuco -- Conquest of Xaltocan and Cuitlahuac -- Birth of\n     Nezahualcoyotl -- War between Tezcuco and Azcapuzalco --\n     Victories of Ixtlilxochitl -- Siege and Fall of Azcapuzalco\n     -- Treachery of Tezozomoc -- Fall of Tezcuco -- Flight and\n     Death of Ixtlilxochitl -- Tezozomoc proclaimed Emperor --\n     Reorganization of the Empire -- Adventures of Nezahualcoyotl\n     -- Death of Tezozomoc -- Maxtla usurps the Imperial Throne\n     -- Murder of the Mexican Kings -- Nezahualcoyotl's Victory\n     -- Itzcoatl, King of Mexico -- Acolhua and Aztec Alliance --\n     Fall of Azcapuzalco -- The Tri-partite Alliance, or the New\n     Empire.\n\n\nThe next and final chapter of the Chichimec annals covers a period of\nthree quarters of a century, extending from the death of the emperor\nTechotl in 1357, to the formation of the tri-partite alliance between\nthe Acolhuas, Aztecs, and Tepanecs, in 1431. It embraces the reigns of\nthree emperors, Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, and Maxtla; and is a record\nof continued struggles for the imperial power between the Acolhuas and\nTepanecs, resulting in the humiliation of the latter and the triumph\nof the former, through the aid of a third power, which is admitted as\nan equal to the victor in the final reconstruction of the empire. The\nr\u00f4le of the other nations of An\u00e1huac during this period, is that of\nallies to one or the other of the powers mentioned, or, occasionally,\nof rebels who take advantage of the dissensions of the ruling powers\nto declare their independence, enjoyed as a rule only until such time\nas the masters may have an opportunity to reduce them to their old\nallegiance. We find the aboriginal record more and more complete as\nwe approach the epoch of the conquest, with much less confusion in\nchronology, so far as leading events are concerned, although perfect\nagreement among the authorities is yet far from being attained in the\nminor details with which the narrative is crowded. A new source of\ndisagreement is, moreover, reached as we approach the final century\nof the native annals--national prejudices on the part of the native\nhistorians through whom those annals have been handed down, and a\nconstant tendency among such writers as Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc,\nChimalpain, and Camargo, to exhibit in their highest colors the actions\nof the nations from which they have descended, while ever disposed\nto cloud the fame of rival powers. Fortunately, one authority serves,\ngenerally, as an efficient check upon another in such cases.\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF ACAMAPICHTLI II.]\n\n[Sidenote: THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.]\n\nBefore relating the general history of An\u00e1huac during the successive\nreigns of the emperors Ixtlilxochitl and Tezozomoc, in which history\nthe Mexicans took a prominent part as allies of the latter, it\nwill be well to glance, briefly--for there is little to say on the\nsubject--at the course of events in the new cities on the lake marshes.\nWe left Tenochtitlan under the rule of its Culhua king, Acamapichtli\nII., or rather under the regency of his queen, Ilancueitl; while\nQuaquauhpitzahuac, son of the Tepanec king Tezozomoc, was on the throne\nof Tlatelulco, both kingdoms being tributary to that of Azcapuzalco.\nOne of the last acts of the queen was the re-settlement of Culhuacan\nin 1378, by means of a colony sent from Mexico under Nauhyotl, the\nfourth of that name who had ruled in the Culhua city. This was done\npartly from motives of pride in restoring the capital of her own\nand her husband's ancestors, and partly to serve as a check on the\nencroachments of the Chalcas in the south.[VII-1] In 1383 the queen died.\nIxtlilxochitl states that she bore her husband three sons, one of\nwhom was Huitzilihuitl; Clavigero tells us she was barren, but took\ncharge of the education of two of her husband's sons, Huitzilihuitl\nand Chimalpopoca, by another wife; Torquemada confounds the two\nAcamapichtlis, and is, consequently, greatly puzzled about Ilancueitl's\nchildren; and finally, Brasseur shows that she was espoused at an\nadvanced age by the king solely for political motives, and that she\nlived harmoniously with his other two wives, one of whom bore him\nHuitzilihuitl, and the other Chimalpopoca.[VII-2] The reign of Acamapichtli\nII. dates, in a certain sense, from the death of his queen, who for\nmany years had, at least, ruled jointly with him. The beginning of the\nwars between the Mexicans and Chalcas, which were waged so bitterly\nfor many years, is attributed to Acamapichtli's reign, as are the\nconquests of Quauhnahuac, Mizquic, and Xochimilco; but it must be\nunderstood that it was only as the allies of the Tepanec king that\nthe Mexicans engaged in these wars. Torquemada and Acosta assert that\nAcamapichtli's reign was a very peaceful one.[VII-3] It was after the\nconquest of Quauhnahuac, later Cuernavaca, that the first gold-workers\ncame to ply their art in Tenochtitlan.[VII-4] After having ruled wisely and\njustly, greatly enlarging and improving his capital, he died in 1403,\nleaving the choice of a successor wholly to his nobles and priests.[VII-5]\nThere is great disagreement among the authorities respecting the length\nof his reign, some dating it from his first call to the throne, and\nothers from the death of the queen. Immediately after the funeral of\nAcamapichtli, an assembly of the wise men of the nation was held to\ndeliberate on the choice of a successor. The priests made an effort\nto acquire the control by discontinuing the monarchy. They wished the\ntemporal affairs of the state to be managed by a senate or council,\nwith a military chieftain to lead their armies in war; but the majority\nbelieved that their only hope of national safety and future power\nwas in a monarchy, and Huitzilihuitl II., the eldest son of the late\nking was called to the throne during the same or the following year.\nThe speeches by which the old men convinced the assembly that their\nyet precarious condition, considering their isolated position and the\npowerful nations surrounding them, made it necessary to call to their\nthrone a wise, prudent, and powerful king, are recorded by Duran,\nTezozomoc, and Torquemada; as are the addresses of advice to the new\nking at his coronation, in which he was reminded that his position\nwas no sinecure, but that on him depended the future greatness of the\nMexicans foretold by the gods. The choice of the people was ratified\nby king Tezozomoc of Azcapuzalco; and at the same time it is reported\nthat Itzcoatl, a natural son of the late king, by a woman of rank, was\nappointed commander of the Mexican armies. One of the means by which\nthe Aztecs struggled to attain to their predestined greatness, was by\ncontracting foreign matrimonial alliances with powerful nations; and\nas Huitzilihuitl had yet no wife, an embassy was sent to Tezozomoc\nwith a most humble and flattering petition, begging that all-powerful\nsovereign to favor his most obedient vassal by sending one of his\ndaughters, \"one of his pearls, emeralds, or precious feathers,\" as\nTorquemada expresses it, to share with the new king his poor home in\nthe marshes. The petition was granted, the princess Ayauhcihuatl was\ngiven to Huitzilihuitl, and the following year his brother Chimalpopoca\nwon the hand of the beautiful princess Miahuaxochitl, daughter of the\nlord of Quauhnahuac, who became the mother of Montezuma.[VII-6] By the\nalliance with Quauhnahuac, the city of Tenochtitlan received a large\naccession of artists and skilled workmen; while from Tezozomoc, who\nis said by Veytia to have personally visited the city at the birth of\nhis grandson, the Mexicans obtained the removal of the tribute which\nthey had so long been obliged to pay, or, at least, its reduction to\na merely nominal amount, including a few wild fowl and fishes for the\nroyal table. From this time the Mexicans are said to have felt more at\ntheir ease, to have paid more attention to the arts and sciences, and\nto have abandoned their coarse garments of _nequen_ for more sumptuous\napparel.[VII-7]\n\n[Sidenote: AZTEC ALLIANCES.]\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF HUITZILIHUITL II.]\n\nVery soon after Huitzilihuitl's accession to the throne, the\nTlatetulcan king Quaquauhpitzahuac died, and was succeeded by his\nson Tlacateotzin, according to Brasseur's authorities; although\nVeytia places at about this date the succession and marriage of\nQuaquauhpitzahuac, soon followed by Tlacateotzin's birth, the latter\nbecoming king only in 1414. This subject of the Tlatetulcan succession\nis inextricably confused, since some authors make Mixcohuatl precede\nQuaquauhpitzahuac as first king; and Ixtlilxochitl, in one of his\nrelations, even puts another king, Amatzin, between the two. The matter\nis not one of great importance, since it is certain that Tlacateotzin\nreigned after 1414 during a most exciting period, being one of the\nchief military leaders in Tezozomoc's army.[VII-8] The two cities had\nby this time been extended greatly beyond their original limits, and\nwere separated only by a narrow tract of marsh, which was dry at low\nwater. Notwithstanding the fair promises made by the Tepanec king\nto his vassals and allies on the lake, some of his tyrannical acts\nseem to have been directed at them even at this early time, if we may\ncredit the statement that Nauhyotl IV., in command of the Aztec-Culhua\ncolony at Culhuacan for the past thirty-five years, was murdered by\nTezozomoc's orders in 1413.[VII-9] Tlatelulco was yet in its buildings and\nsome other respects superior to its rival, perhaps by reason of being\nless under priestly control, or through the greater favor shown its\npeople by the Tepanecs. But Huitzilihuitl had done much to build up\nand embellish Tenochtitlan, and particularly to promote her commercial\nindustries, by digging canals, multiplying the number of chinampas,\nand by a wise system of trade regulations. He is also accredited\nwith a new code of laws, and with the introduction of war canoes\nand the training of his soldiers in their skillful management.[VII-10]\nMendieta states that this king conquered Tultitlan, Quauhtitlan,\nChalco, Tulancingo, Xaltocan, Otompan, Tezcuco, and Acolman, during\nhis reign, but the reference is of course to the wars of the Tepanec\nking by the aid of his Mexican allies; and Sahagun says he fought\nagainst Culhuacan, referring doubtless to a former ruler of the same\nname.[VII-11] Huitzilihuitl II. died in 1417,[VII-12] and his half brother,\nChimalpopoca, was immediately chosen to succeed him, in the absence\nof any legitimate son. We have seen that there is much disagreement\nrespecting Huitzilihuitl's marriage and his children; some authors\neven state that Chimalpopoca was his son, but the majority of the\nbest authorities agree that the new king was the son of Acamapichtli\nII., and a brother of Huitzilihuitl. The latter's only legitimate son,\nAcolnahuacatl, was killed, in childhood, by Maxtla, son of Tezozomoc,\nin 1399, through fear that he might inherit the crown of Azcapuzalco,\nas Clavigero states. Acosta, confounding this tradition with the fact\nthat king Chimalpopoca was long after killed by Maxtla's orders, tells\nus Chimalpopoca was killed in childhood. Torquemada adds to the fact\nof the young Acolnahuacatl's murder, another motive for the crime, in\na tale to the effect that Tezozomoc had given Maxtla's wife to the\nMexicans for a queen, hence the wrath and vengeance of the Tepanec\nprince. The choice of the Mexicans is said to have been approved both\nby the emperor Ixtlilxochitl and by Tezozomoc. Chimalpopoca's marriage\nhas already been noted, and the birth of his son Montezuma Ilhuicamina;\nVeytia states that his wife, by whom he had seven children, was the\nprincess Matlalatzin, a daughter of the king of Tlatelulco. I shall\nhave occasion to speak again of this king.[VII-13]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: SUCCESSION OF IXTLILXOCHITL.]\n\nTo return to the general history of the Chichimec empire, the kings and\nlords were assembled at Tezcuco to perform the last honors to the dead\nemperor Techotl, and to celebrate the accession of his son and chosen\nheir Ixtlilxochitl. We have seen that Techotl had by his great ability\nand by a series of most extraordinary political measures checked the\nindependent spirit of his vassal lords, avoided all internal strife,\ncentralized the imperial power, and made himself almost absolute\nmaster of An\u00e1huac. Another Techotl might perhaps have retained the\nmastery; but we have seen that many of his acts were calculated to\nexcite the opposition of the Chichimec lords, that on his death-bed he\nexpressed his misgivings respecting future events, and that his son\nhad already made of the Tepanec king an enemy. It is quite possible\nthat the last years of Techotl's reign were marked with troubles\nwhich have not been recorded, and that there were causes of enmity\ntowards Ixtlilxochitl which are unknown to us. Brasseur attributes\nthe misfortunes that ensued to Ixtlilxochitl's vacillating spirit and\nlove of ease; but his acts as recorded by the Spanish writers indicate\nrather a peaceful and forgiving disposition, joined to marked and\nbrilliant abilities as a warrior. However this may be, trouble ahead\nwas indicated at the very funeral of his mighty and popular father.\nMany lords invited to participate in the ceremonies were not present.\nVeytia, and Ixtlilxochitl in one of his relations, say that only four\nlords attended the obsequies; but the latter author elsewhere, and\nalso Boturini, make the number present over sixty, which is much more\nprobable. The absentees sent in various pretexts for not attending;\nif they had come they would have been obliged to swear allegiance to\nthe new emperor or to openly rebel, an act for which they were not yet\nready. Torquemada and Clavigero tell us that Tezozomoc was present\nat the funeral, but departed immediately after without giving his\nadhesion to the new emperor. Ixtlilxochitl, however, was crowned king\nof Acolhuacan by the princes present at Tezcuco, and in all probability\nassumed at that time the title of Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, or emperor,\nthat was his due, although no author states this directly, and both\nIxtlilxochitl and Veytia state expressly that he was not crowned as\nemperor for many years. Ixtlilxochitl says, however, in one place that\nhe was proclaimed 'lord paramount' by the assembled princes, and there\nwas no apparent motive for delay in this respect.[VII-14] Ixtlilxochitl was\nat first disposed to resort to force and to avenge the insult offered\nhim. Putting his army in order and stationing his forces in and about\nthe capital, he sent a summons to Azcapuzalco, ordering the Tepanec\nking to appear forthwith at court to pay allegiance to his emperor.\nTezozomoc, not yet ready for open revolt, pleaded illness, assured\nIxtlilxochitl of his good intentions and loyalty, and promised to come\nas soon as his health would permit. The emperor understood that this\nwas but a pretext, but he was unwilling to resort to harsh measures if\nthey could be avoided, and was induced by his counselors, many of them\nperhaps in full sympathy with Tezozomoc, to await the better health of\nhis opponent.[VII-15]\n\n[Sidenote: PLOTS OF TEZOZOMOC.]\n\nIn the meantime Tezozomoc called a secret meeting of the disaffected\nlords, with many of whom he may be supposed to have been already\nin communication. The kings of Mexico and Tlatelulco were among\nthe allies on whom he counted most, and to whom he made the most\nflattering promises in case of future success. In a long speech before\nthe assembly he expatiated upon the acts of the late emperor which\nhad been most calculated to offend the lords before him. He spoke of\ntheir rights as independent Chichimec rulers, of which they had been\ndeprived and only repaid by empty honors at the imperial court; urged\nupon them the necessity of making an effort to shake off the tyranny\nthat oppressed them while they retained the power to act; reminded them\nof Ixtlilxochitl's youth and general unfitness to direct the affairs\nof a mighty empire. He boasted of having himself already shown his\nindependence by absenting himself from the new emperor's coronation.\nAccording to most authorities, he disclaimed any ambitious aims of\nhis own, or any intention to despoil Ixtlilxochitl of his domains as\nking of Acolhuacan, his only avowed design being to restore to all\nChichimec lords their ancient independence; but others state that\nhe openly expressed his intention to wear the imperial crown. At any\nrate, the assembled princes signified their approval of his views, and\nlooked to him for directions; pledged to secrecy for the present, they\nwere dismissed, and Tezozomoc began his preparations for the coming\nstruggle. But he proceeded slowly, for he knew that Ixtlilxochitl was\nnot a foe to be easily overcome.[VII-16] Ixtlilxochitl probably knew of\nthe meeting, but still took no active steps against the Tepanec king,\nalthough, as the Spanish writers say, he was constantly arming and\ndisciplining his forces. It is said that immediately upon his accession\nhe removed all restrictions upon religious rites among the many\nnationalities and sects which composed the population of Tezcuco, even\npermitting human sacrifice, so strictly prohibited by his ancestors.\nHe thus laid the foundation for troubles analogous to those that had\ndestroyed Tollan and Culhuacan.[VII-17]\n\nTezozomoc carefully prepared his way to future power by establishing\nTepanec colonies in different localities. One of them was at Tultitlan,\nnear Quauhtitlan. We have seen the latter city pass under Culhua\ncontrol at the fall of Culhuacan; but after the reigns of king\nIztactototl and queen Ehuatlycue, the Chichimecs had regained control\nin 1372. In 1395 an army, composed chiefly of Tepanecs and Mexicans,\nunder Xaltemoc, lord of Quauhtitlan, conquered and burned the Otom\u00ed\ncity of Xaltocan, and a large extent of territory between that city and\nTollan, of which Tezozomoc took for himself the larger share, giving\nalso portions to his allies for their services. In 1392 the Cuitlahuacs\nhad been conquered by the Mexicans and entrusted to a governor devoted\nto the interests of Tezozomoc, who embraced every opportunity to place\nhis sons or his friends in positions where they might be of use to\nhim in the future.[VII-18] Ixtlilxochitl watched the aggressive movements\nwithout interfering, from cowardice or weakness as one would think\nwere it not for subsequent events, and at last Tezozomoc proceeded\nto test his adversary's feelings towards him, by sending, for three\nyears successively, a quantity of cotton to Tezcuco, at first with the\nrequest, but finally with the order, that it should be woven into fine\nfabrics and returned to Azcapuzalco. Twice the request was granted and\nthe cloths sent back with a polite message, still, as is said, at the\nadvice of the Acolhua counselors; and the Tepanec king evidently began\nto think he had overrated his emperor's courage. He was disposed to\nbegin hostilities at once, but was induced by his allied counselors\nrather to increase year by year the quantity of cotton sent to Tezcuco,\nand thus to gradually accustom the Acolhua king to a payment of\ntribute, while he was also constantly winning over to his side lords\nthat yet wavered. On the third year a very large amount of cotton was\nsent, without any formal request, but with a mere message directing\nthat the staple be forthwith woven into the finest cloths, and to\nensure dispatch that it be divided among the Acolhua lords.\n\n[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR WAR.]\n\nIxtlilxochitl was at last fully aroused, refused to be controlled by\nhis advisers, and returned to Tezozomoc's message a reply substantially\nas follows: \"I have received the cotton kindly furnished by you,\nand thank you for it. It will serve to make quilted garments to be\nworn by my soldiers who go to chastise a pack of rebels who not only\nrefuse allegiance to their emperor, but relying on my forbearance,\nhave the impudence to ask for tribute. If you have more cotton send\nit also; my soldiers do not need armor to fight against such foes,\nbut these quilted garments will give my armies a finer appearance in\ntheir triumphal march.\" With this reply, or soon after, according to\nBrasseur, a formal challenge was sent to Tezozomoc, whose gray hairs\nand near relationship, as Ixtlilxochitl said, could no longer protect\nhim. The other authorities speak of no formal challenge, but of long\npreparation on both sides for the approaching conflict. The Tepanec\nking summoned his allies, chief among whom were the Mexicans and\nTlatelulcas, promised to divide the conquered domain of Acolhuacan\namong them, and prepared to march on Tezcuco. Ixtlilxochitl also\ncalled upon his vassal lords, including those of Coatlichan, Huexotla,\nCoatepec, Iztapalocan, Tepepulco, Chalco, and others, explained to them\nthe ambitious plans of Tezozomoc, recalled to them the favors they had\nreceived from his ancestors, and ordered them to aid him immediately\nwith all their resources. Many of the authors state that he wished\nat this time to be crowned as emperor, but postponed the ceremonies\nat the wish of his lords, until after the defeat of his enemy, when\nthey might be performed with fitting pomp. All the lords promised\ntheir assistance, although some of them are supposed to have been in\nsympathy with Tezozomoc. The Spanish writers represent these events as\nhaving occurred from 1410 to 1412, but it is evident from what follows\nthat they are to be attributed to the last years of the fourteenth\ncentury.[VII-19]\n\nBrasseur, relying on a chapter of Torquemada's work,[VII-20] states that in\nthe challenge mentioned above, the region of Quauhtitlan was mentioned\nas a battle-ground, and that it was followed by a three years' war,\nin which Ixtlilxochitl succeeded, at least, in holding his ground, and\nthereby greatly increased his strength by inspiring confidence in the\nminds of his wavering vassals. Other authorities, however, state that\nopen hostilities were not engaged in for a long time after the affair\nof the cotton, although preparations were made on both sides; and this\nwas probably the case, since I find nothing in Torquemada's account to\nindicate that he intended to make this war distinct from that which,\naccording to all the authorities, took place some years later.\n\nIxtlilxochitl had married a sister of prince Chimalpopoca of\nMexico--half-sister to king Huitzilihuitl II.--by whom he had two\nchildren, the princess Atototzin and prince Nezahualcoyotl, 'the\nfasting coyote.'[VII-21] All the authorities agree on 1402 as the date of\nhis birth, although disagreeing somewhat respecting the month, day,\nand hour, these variations being, perhaps, not worth discussion from\na historical point of view. The predictions of the astrologers at his\nbirth were most flattering for his future career, and he was entrusted\nfor education and training to a Toltec gentleman of high culture.[VII-22]\nXaltemoc of Quauhtitlan, who in 1395 had commanded the allied forces in\nthe conquest of Xaltocan, had, it seems, gained the good-will of both\nthe Chichimec and Culhua branches of the population of that city, the\npower of which had been greatly increased; but this ruler, not lending\nhimself readily to the plans of Tezozomoc, is reported to have been\nassassinated by the latter's orders in 1408, and his domain to have\nbeen divided and put under sons or friends of the Tepanec tyrant, as\ngovernors.[VII-23]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: WAR BETWEEN ACOLHUAS AND TEPANECS.]\n\nThe first act of open hostility took place in 1415, when Tezozomoc sent\nan army in several divisions round the lake southward to devastate\nthe country, destroy the minor towns belonging to the emperor, to\njoin forces at Aztahuacan, take and fortify Iztapalocan, an important\ncity near by, and from that place to march on Tezcuco and capture the\nemperor. The plan succeeded at first and many towns were pillaged. A\ntraitor led them by the best routes and gave them instructions as to\nmanner of assaulting, or, as Brasseur says, admitted them into the\ncity of Iztapalocan; but the inhabitants under the brave governor,\nQuauhxilotzin, succeed in repulsing the Tepanec forces although not\nwithout considerable loss of prisoners, to which misfortune was joined\nthe death of the brave governor, murdered by the hands of the same\ntraitor mentioned above. Ixtlilxochitl, hearing of the march of his\nenemy, came to Iztapalocan from Tezcuco soon after the battle, with\na small army hastily gathered; but the Tepanecs finding that their\nplan had failed in its main object, had retreated to Azcapuzalco,\nand the emperor's force was too small to attack Tezozomoc in his\nintrenchments.[VII-24]\n\nBefore beginning a campaign against Tezozomoc, Ixtlilxochitl called\na meeting of such vassal lords as were accessible, and had his son\nNezahualcoyotl proclaimed, with all the pomp of the old Toltec rites,\nas his successor on the imperial throne. The high-priests of Huexotla\nand Cholula assisted at the ceremonies, and the only lords present were\nthose of Huexotla,[VII-25] Coatlichan, and Iztapalocan; others who were\nfaithful were busy preparing their forces for war. The authorities do\nnot agree whether this meeting took place in Tezcuco or Huexotla, and\nsome imply that Ixtlilxochitl was crowned at the same time.[VII-26]\n\nTezozomoc, too old to lead his armies in person, gave his son\nMaxtla and the kings of Mexico and Tlatelulco, the highest places\nin command, making the latter, Tlacateotzin, commander-in-chief. He\nalso took especial care in strengthening his fortifications on the\nfrontier. Ixtlilxochitl divided his forces in three divisions; the\nfirst, commanded by Tochintzin, grandson of the lord of Coatlichan,\nwas stationed in towns just north of the capital; the second, under\nIxcontzin, lord of Iztapalocan, was to protect the southern provinces;\nwhile the third, under the emperor himself, remained near Tezcuco,\nready to render aid to his officers where it should be most needed.\nThey were ordered to remain within their intrenchments and await\nthe enemy's movements. The Tepanecs and their allies crossed the\nlake in canoes, landed in the region of Huexotla, carried some small\nsettlements on the lake shores, and assaulted the Acolhuas in their\nintrenched positions. Day after day they repeated the assault, and\nwere driven back each time with heavy loss, both sides in the meantime\nreceiving strong reinforcements. Finally Tochintzin feigned a retreat\ntowards Chiuhnauhtlan, drew the Tepanecs in pursuit, faced about\nsuddenly and utterly routed the forces of Tlacateotzin. The lake shore\nwas covered with the dead, and the defeated army retired in confusion\nto Azcapuzalco. The good-natured emperor gave orders to discontinue\noffensive operations, and sent an embassy proffering peace on condition\nof submission to him as emperor, and offering to forget the past.\nTezozomoc haughtily declined the overtures, claimed a right, as the\nnearest relative of the great Xolotl, to the title of Chichimecatl\nTecuhtli, and announced his intention to enforce his claims, naming\na day when his armies would again meet the Acolhuas on the field\nof Chiuhnauhtlan. This may be the challenge already referred to as\nrecorded by Torquemada. At any rate, it was accepted, a large army was\nconcentrated at the point indicated, and another at Huexotla, which\nplace, as was ascertained, Tezozomoc really intended treacherously\nto attack, and which he expected to find comparatively undefended.\nTlacateotzin crossed the lake as before in canoes with an immense army,\nbut as before was defeated in a succession of battles, and after some\ndays forced to retreat to the Tepanec capital, branches of the Acolhua\narmy in the meantime sacking several towns in the enemy's domain,\nand punishing several lords who had deserted the emperor to join\nTezozomoc.[VII-27]\n\n[Sidenote: IXTLILXOCHITL'S VICTORIES.]\n\nIxtlilxochitl's star was now in the ascendant; his valor and success\nin war inspired new confidence; and many lords who had hitherto held\naloof, now declared their allegiance to the emperor. As usual, the\nTezcucan monarch was disposed to suspend his military operations, and\nreceive the allegiance which he supposed Tezozomoc would now be ready\nto offer; but he soon learned that his adversary, far from abandoning\nhis projects, had succeeded, by new promises of a future division of\nterritory and spoils, in gaining over to his side the lords of two\npowerful provinces, one of which was Chalco, adjoining the Acolhuan\ndomain on the north and south. Exasperated at his foe's persistence,\nand having a larger army than ever before at his command, Ixtlilxochitl\ndetermined to punish Tezozomoc and his allies in their own territory.\nLeaving at and about Iztapalocan, and under the lord of that city, a\nsufficient army to keep the Chalcas in check, he marched at the head\nof a large army northward and round the lakes, taking in his course\nOtompan and Tollan with many towns of minor importance. Now without\nopposition, now after a bloody combat, town after town fell before the\nadvancing conqueror, whose fury was directed against Tepanec soldiers\nand treacherous vassals, women and children being in all cases spared.\nIn the province of Tepotzotlan he was met by the regular Tepanec army\nof 200,000 men under the Tlatelulcan king Tlacateotzin, who attempted\nto stay the tide of invasion, but after a desperate conflict, was\nforced back to Quauhtitlan, and then to Tepatec, where a second great\nbattle was fought. Defeated at every step, the allied rebels were at\nlast forced to retreat within the fortifications of Temalpalco, which\ndefended Tezozomoc's capital, Azcapuzalco. For four months, as some\nauthorities state, the siege of the city was prolonged, Ixtlilxochitl\nendeavoring rather to harass the pent-up enemy, and gradually reduce\ntheir number, than to bring about a general engagement. Finally, when\nhe could hold out no longer, Tezozomoc sent an embassy to the emperor,\nthrowing himself entirely upon his mercy, but pleading most humbly for\npardon, reminding Ixtlilxochitl of their near relationship, pledging\nthe submission of all his allies, and promising to come personally\nto Tezcuco, on an appointed day, to swear the allegiance he had so\nlong and unjustly withheld. The too lenient emperor, tired of war and\nbloodshed, granted the petition, raised the siege against the advice of\nall his lords, returned to Tezcuco, and disbanded his armies. Brasseur\nmakes this campaign end in 1416; others in 1417. Ixtlilxochitl states\nthat the campaign lasted four years, and that Tezozomoc had under his\ncommand 500,000 men.[VII-28]\n\n[Sidenote: TREACHERY OF TEZOZOMOC.]\n\nBy this act Ixtlilxochitl sealed his fate. Some of his truest allies\nwho had fought for glory and loyalty, understanding Tezozomoc's\nhypocrisy and deeming their labors thrown away, were disgusted at\ntheir emperor's ill-timed clemency and withdrew their support. Many\nmore lords had undertaken the war with the expectation, in case\nof victory, of sharing among themselves the Tepanec dominions. The\nrank and file, with the lesser chieftains, had borne the toil and\ndanger of a long campaign, and now that it was ended, were denied the\nspoils that belonged to them as victors. The discontent was loud and\nwide-spread, and Ixtlilxochitl's prestige outside of Tezcuco and one or\ntwo adjoining cities, was lost forever. The Tepanec king, without the\nslightest idea of fulfilling his pledges, fomented the spirit of mutiny\nby promising the lords as a reward of rebellion, what they had failed\nto obtain in loyal combat, new domains from the Tezcucan possessions,\ntogether with independence of imperial power. Another motive of\nhatred on the part of Tezozomoc toward Ixtlilxochitl is mentioned by\nBrasseur's documents as having come to the knowledge of the former\nking about this time. His son's wife, a near relative of the Tezcucan\nking, who had left her husband and Azcapuzalco for good reasons, was\nnow found to be living in or near Tezcuco as the mistress of an Acolhua\nchief, thus degrading the honor of the Tepanec royal family.[VII-29]\n\n[Sidenote: DEATH OF IXTLILXOCHITL.]\n\nHaving completed as secretly as possible his preparations for a\nrenewal of the war, Tezozomoc announced his readiness to swear\nallegiance to his sovereign, and his intention to celebrate that\nact and the return of peace by grand festivities. As his age and the\nstate of his health would not permit him, he said, to go to Tezcuco,\nhe appointed a suitable location[VII-30] for the ceremonies and invited\nIxtlilxochitl to be present with his son Nezahualcoyotl, accompanied\nonly by unarmed attendants, for the Tepanecs had not yet recovered,\nhe said, from their terror of the Acolhua soldiers. The emperor\nat first consented, although by this time he had no faith in the\nTepanec monarch, and, abandoned in his capital by all his leading\nnobles, bitterly repented of his unwise course; but at the last\nmoment he sent Prince Tecuiltecatl, his brother, or as some say his\nnatural son, in his stead to make excuses for his absence, and try\nto have the ceremony postponed. The substitute was flayed alive on\nhis arrival at Tenamatlac, and Tezozomoc, finding that the prey had\ntemporarily escaped his trap, ordered his troops to march immediately\non Tezcuco, entered the Acolhua domains on the day after the murder,\nand the following day surrounded the capital. The lords of Huexotla,\nIztapalocan, and Coatepec,[VII-31] were the only ones to render aid to the\nemperor in this emergency. The city was gallantly defended by the small\ngarrison for many days,[VII-32] but at last the emperor with Nezahualcoyotl\nand a few companions, by the advice of his lords, left the city at\nnight and took refuge in the forest of Tzincanoztoc, where he soon\nlearned that Toxpilli, chief of the Chimalpanec ward, had pronounced\nfor Tezozomoc and opened the city to the enemy. A scene of carnage and\nplunder ensued, such of Ixtlilxochitl's partizans as survived fleeing\nto Huexotzinco and Tlascala. From his retreat at Tzincanoztoc the\nemperor sent to demand protection of the lord of Otompan, a man deeply\nindebted to him for honors in the last campaign; but his petition was\ndenied, and his messenger, who was also his son or nephew, a famous\ngeneral, was murdered, his body torn in pieces, and his nails strung\non a cord for a necklace. By this time quite a company had gathered\nabout the emperor, and the enemy had also ascertained his whereabouts.\nAided by the natural strength of his position, he defended himself for\nmany days, until, without food or hope of succor, he decided to strive\nfor life no longer. The authorities differ widely in the details of\nhis death, and the matter is not sufficiently important to warrant a\nrepetition of all that has been said about it. Torquemada and Clavigero\nstate that he was drawn out of his last retreat by promised favorable\nconditions of surrender, and was treacherously murdered; but most agree\nthat at the last approach of the foe, a band of Chalcas and men of\nOtompan, he induced his son to conceal himself in a tree, turned alone\nupon the enemy, and fell covered with wounds. At the close of his last\nconversation with Nezahualcoyotl, he urged him to escape to his friends\nin Tlascala, always to deal leniently with his enemies, for he did not\nrepent of his own mercy, though it had cost him so dear; he concluded\nby saying: \"I leave to thee, my son, no other inheritance than thy bow\nand arrow; strive to acquire skill in their use, and let thy strong\narm restore the kingdom of thy Chichimec ancestors.\"[VII-33] The emperor's\ndeath took place probably in 1419.[VII-34]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nRespecting Tezozomoc's short reign of eight years, we find in the\nrecords a general account of the leading events, but learn very little\nabout the order of their occurrence. Of the lords that had remained\nfaithful to Ixtlilxochitl to the last, those in An\u00e1huac were forced to\nsubmit for a time to Tezozomoc or flee for protection to the eastern\nplateau; but the ruler of more distant provinces, like those in the\neast about Huexotzinco and Tlascala, and those in the north in the\nTulancingo region, beyond the reach of Tepanec power, utterly refused\nallegiance to the new sovereign. Of the powers that had supported\nTezozomoc, few or none seem to have done so from any friendship to him,\nor respect for his claims, but for the direct benefit which they hoped\nto gain from the change. Some fought simply to gain their independence,\nor re-establish the old Chichimec feudal system broken up by Techotl,\nand such, at the close of the war, simply assumed their independence,\nthe stronger provinces retaining it, and the weaker being kept in\nsubjection by force of arms only, and keeping the Tepanec king so busy\nduring his short term that he had hardly leisure to consolidate his\nempire. The other class of Tepanec allies had been drawn into the war\nby Tezozomoc's extravagant promises of new honors, domains, and other\nspoils; these awaited the complete establishment and re-organization of\nthe empire, and the fulfillment of the emperor's promises.\n\nTezozomoc proposed as a basis of reconstruction of the empire, the\ndivision of power in An\u00e1huac among seven kings according to the old\nfeudal system, the conquered Acolhua domains to be divided among\nthe seven--himself, of course, taking the largest share, and each of\nthe other six to be independent in the government of their realms,\nbut to acknowledge him as emperor and to pay a regular tribute. The\nseven kingdoms were to be Azcapuzalco, Mexico, Tlatelulco, Chalco,\nAcolman, Coatlichan, and Huexotla, the last two being given to the\nlord of Otompan and his son.[VII-35] King Chimalpopoca of Mexico was to\nreceive the province of Tezcuco and certain Cuitlahuac districts; to\nking Tlacateotzin of Tlatelulco, was to be given portions of Huexotla\nand Cuitlahuac. Some minor rewards were also awarded to the lesser\nallied chiefs. The conditions were accepted, although not without some\ndissatisfaction on the part of the Mexicans, who had expected much\nmore, and of such chiefs as were not among the seven chosen kings.\nAmid grand ceremonies and festivities in an assembly of the allied\nlords, Tezozomoc proclaimed himself emperor, and the six kings as\nhis colleagues, to be consulted in all matters of general government;\nannounced the transfer of his capital to Azcapuzalco; offered a general\namnesty to the followers of Ixtlilxochitl on condition of submission\nto the new political arrangement; offered a reward for the capture of\nNezahualcoyotl, dead or alive, proclaiming that all should be treated\nas traitors and punished with death who should dare to give aid or\nshelter to the fugitive prince; and appointed officers to publicly\nproclaim his accession and the new measures that accompanied it, in\nevery city in the empire.[VII-36]\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF TEZOZOMOC.]\n\nSome authorities state that the amnesty proclaimed by Tezozomoc in\nfavor of the Acolhua provinces, included freedom from tribute for\none year; however this may have been, the matter of tribute was not\narranged until after the grand assembly and the swearing of allegiance\nto the new emperor, but was reserved by the crafty Tepanec as a means\nof practically retaining for himself what he had apparently given to\nthe six kings, and what had in most cases proved satisfactory to them.\nFinally the system of tribute was announced. The amount of tribute and\nof personal service required was made much more burdensome than it had\never been, greatly to the dissatisfaction of the people and subordinate\nchiefs; then each king was to collect the tribute from his dominions,\nto retain one third for himself, and to pay over at Azcapuzalco the\nremaining two thirds into the imperial treasury. Thus the allied powers\ndiscovered that Tezozomoc had outwitted them; that he had taken for\nhimself in the division of territory the lion's share; that he had\ngreatly increased the burden of taxation throughout the country; that,\nnot content with the revenues of his own states, and a nominal tribute\nfrom his colleagues as a token of their allegiance, he claimed two\nthirds of that from other states; and that while they had gained the\nempty titles of kings and associates in the imperial power, they were\nin reality only governors, poorly paid for the labor of collecting\ntaxes and administering the government. The Mexicans and Tlatelulcas\nhad been promised, moreover, or at least had expected, an establishment\non the basis of the old Toltec alliance, with their own kings as the\ntwo allies of Tezozomoc, owing him only a nominal allegiance. Moreover\nChimalpopoca had now succeeded to the throne of Mexico, and he was a\nfriend of Nezahualcoyotl and had never been favorably disposed toward\nthe Tepanec monarch. The Mexicans, however, masked their discontent,\nuntil such time as they should see an opportunity for revenge; the\nother powers made open and loud complaint, so far as they dared to do\nso. The final establishment of Tezozomoc's empire, so far as it was\never established, is placed by the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur in 1425.[VII-37]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: ADVENTURES OF NEZAHUALCOYOTL.]\n\nPrince Nezahualcoyotl, after the death of his father, had been joined\nby a few faithful friends and had succeeded in making his escape to\nTlascala and Huexotzinco, where he found the people and lords true\nto him, and confident of their ability to repel any force the Tepanec\nusurper could send against them, but not strong enough at this time to\nwarrant them in undertaking an offensive war against the allied forces\nof An\u00e1huac for the restoration of Nezahualcoyotl to his ancestral\nthrone. They advised him to put himself in communication with the many\ndisaffected chieftains of the valley, and to await his opportunity,\nwhich was sure to come, and that soon, promising him their aid in such\nan emergency. The prince thereupon turned boldly about and returned\nto An\u00e1huac in disguise. His adventures and hair-breadth escapes during\nhis wanderings are related in detail by the Spanish writers, but must\nbe omitted here as having no special importance in connection with the\ngeneral history of the country. He found friends in every direction,\nand was especially protected by Chimalpopoca of Mexico. It is said that\nhe was present in disguise at the assembly when Tezozomoc was crowned,\nand when he heard a reward offered for his murder, was with difficulty\nprevented by his friends from making himself known, so great was his\nrage. Finally his aunts, the queens of Mexico and Tlatelulco, went with\na large company of ladies to the palace of Tezozomoc, and interceded\nfor their nephew with so much earnestness that the king countermanded\nhis previous orders, and granted him permission to reside, in a private\ncapacity, at Mexico; and soon after he was even allowed to live at\nTezcuco in a palace that had belonged to him personally from his\nbirth.[VII-38]\n\nTezozomoc was now very old and infirm; for several years he had been\nkept alive only by means of artificial warmth and the most careful\nattentions. By a temperate life and freedom from all excess, in\naddition to a robust constitution, he had prolonged his life even\nbeyond the usual limit in those days of great longevity, and retained\nthe use of all his mental faculties to the last. In his last days he\nrepented of the pardon that he had extended to Nezahualcoyotl; for\nhe dreamed that an eagle tore his head in pieces and consumed his\nvitals, while a tiger tore his feet. The astrologers informed him\nthat the eagle and the tiger were Nezahualcoyotl, who would surely\noverthrow the Tepanec power, punish the people of Azcapuzalco, and\nregain his father's imperial power, unless he could be put to death.\nThe old monarch's last charge to his sons and to his nobles was that\nNezahualcoyotl should be killed, if possible, during his funeral\nexercises, when he would probably be present. He died in 1427, naming\nTayauh, one of his sons, as his successor on the Tepanec and Chichimec\nthrones, and charging him, after the Acolhua prince's death, to strive\nby every means in his power to make friends among his vassal lords,\nand to avoid all harsh measures. Maxtla, another son, seems to have had\nmore ability and experience than his brother, but his father feared the\nconsequence of his hasty temper and arbitrary manner, by which he had\nalready made a multitude of enemies.[VII-39] A large number of princes and\nlords were assembled at the royal obsequies, among them Nezahualcoyotl\nhimself, against the advice of his friends, but relying on his good\nfortune and on the assurance of a sorcerer in whom he had great faith,\nthat he could not be killed at that time. The heir to the throne was\ndisposed to have his father's recommendations carried out during the\nfuneral exercises, but Maxtla claimed that it would be bad policy--for\nhimself, probably, in consideration of his own ambitious plans--to\ndisgrace so solemn an occasion by murder. All the authorities agree\nthat Tezozomoc was the most unscrupulous and tyrannical despot that\never ruled in An\u00e1huac; the only good that is recorded of him is his own\nstrict morality, and his strict and impartial enforcement of just laws\nand punishment of crimes within his own dominions. His extraordinary\nability as a diplomatist and politician is evident from the events of\nhis career as related above.[VII-40]\n\n[Sidenote: MAXTLA USURPS THE THRONE.]\n\nMaxtla, although deprived of the succession to the imperial throne,\nhad been made king of Coyuhuacan, a province of which he had long\nbeen ruling lord. He had, however, no intention of giving up his\nclaim to his father's crown; Tayauh was of a weak and vacillating\ndisposition, having no enemies, but also no friends except the kings\nof Mexico and Tlatelulco who probably hated his brother rather than\nfavored him; Maxtla by reason of his high military rank had control of\nthe army; and only a few days after the funeral of Tezozomoc, he had\nhimself proclaimed emperor of the Chichimecs. He offered his brother\nin exchange his lordship of Coyuhuacan, but the latter seems to have\ngone to reside in Mexico. Chimalpopoca blamed the deposed sovereign\nfor having so easily relinquished his claims; and by his advice a plot\nwas formed some months later to assassinate the usurper. Tayauh was\nto have a palace erected for himself at Azcapuzalco, Maxtla was to be\ninvited to be present at the ceremonies of dedication, and was to be\nstrangled with a wreath of flowers while being shown the apartments.\nA page overheard and revealed the plot; Maxtla aided in the erection\nof the palace for his brother, and had him stabbed in the midst of\nthe festivities, instead of waiting to be shown the rooms and himself\nbecoming the victim.[VII-41]\n\nChimalpopoca and Tlacateotzin had excused themselves from attending\nthe f\u00eates, else they very likely might have shared Tayauh's fate. Now\nthat the plot was revealed and their connection with it, they well knew\nthat Maxtla, who before had reasons to be unfriendly to them,[VII-42] would\nneglect no opportunity of revenge. A strange story is here given, to\nthe effect that Chimalpopoca, overwhelmed by misfortune, resolved to\nsacrifice himself on the altar of the gods, or, as some authorities\nstate, by announcing such a resolve to test the feelings of his people\nand possibly to provoke a revolt in his favor. Maxtla, fearing the\nlatter motive, sent a force of men to Mexico and arrested the royal\nvictim just before the sacrifice was to be performed, taking him as a\nprisoner to Azcapuzalco, or as others say, confining him in his own\nprison at Mexico. Chimalpopoca died soon after this event, probably\nkilled by order of Maxtla, but there is no agreement as to the details\nof his death, or that of Tlacateotzin which took place about the same\ntime.[VII-43] The death of the Aztec kings took place in 1428, and was\nfollowed by a re-imposition, and even a doubling, of the tributes of\nearly days, accompanied by every kind of oppression and insult towards\nthe inhabitants of the lake cities.[VII-44]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: NEZAHUALCOYOTL PREPARES FOR WAR.]\n\nMaxtla had resolved that Nezahualcoyotl, as well as Chimalpopoca and\nTlacateotzin, must die. Whether he came to intercede for Chimalpopoca,\nor as other authors say was summoned by Maxtla, the Acolhua prince\nvisited Azcapuzalco at this time, and very narrowly escaped death at\nthe hands of the soldiers posted about the palace with orders to kill\nhim, by fleeing through the royal gardens and returning to Tezcuco.\nA Tepanec force was immediately dispatched to the latter city, with\ninstructions to kill or capture him at a banquet to which he was\nto be invited by the governor of the city,--a bastard brother of\nNezahualcoyotl, but his deadly foe,--but he was again fortunate enough\nto elude their pursuit, and after having received offers of aid from\nseveral lords in An\u00e1huac, escaped to Huexotzinco and Tlascala. He found\nthe provinces of the eastern plateau, including Zacatlan, Tototepec,\nCempoala, Tepepulco, Cholula, and Tepeaca, more enthusiastic than\never in his favor, and moreover convinced that the time had come for\ndecisive action with a view to restore him to the imperial throne of\nhis ancestors. Armies were raised and placed at his disposal; word\ncame that the Chalcas would join in the enterprise; the sympathy of\nthe Mexicans and Tlatelulcas he was already assured of; he consequently\nreturned to An\u00e1huac and established his headquarters at a small village\nnear Tezcuco.[VII-45] After having, according to Veytia, taken Otompan and\nsome of the adjoining towns, the allied army was divided into three\ncorps. The first, composed of the Huexotzinca and Tlascaltec forces,\nwas to move on Acolman; the second, made up chiefly of Chalca troops,\nwas to attack Coatlichan; while Nezahualcoyotl himself, with the\nremaining allied forces, was to operate against Tezcuco. The first two\ndivisions were perfectly successful, capturing the capitals, Acolman\nand Coatlichan, and laying waste the surrounding territory. According\nto Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia, Nezahualcoyotl was equally fortunate, took\npossession of the Acolhua capital, and disbanded a large part of his\narmy; but the author of the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, partially confirmed\nby Torquemada, and followed by the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur, states that the\nprince imperial failed at this time in his assault on the city, and\nonly succeeded in fortifying himself advantageously in the suburb of\nChiauhtla. Subsequent events make this the more probable version of the\nmatter.[VII-46]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: ITZCOATL, KING OF MEXICO.]\n\nThe murder of Chimalpopoca and Tlacateotzin caused the wildest\nexcitement in Tenochtitlan and Tlatelulco. From these acts, together\nwith the burden of tribute and the many insults heaped upon them, the\npeople well knew Maxtla's intention to destroy forever their kingdoms\nand reduce them to their former condition of abject vassalage. A mass\nmeeting composed of all classes was held in Mexico, which anxiously\nawaited the decision of the senate, where the question of their future\ncondition and policy was long and hotly discussed. The old and the\ntimid members were in favor of yielding to the demands of an emperor\nwhose power they could not hope successfully to resist; they implored\ntheir colleagues not to plunge the people into war and the horrors\nof future slavery by their rash spirit of independence. But the young\nmen of all classes, seconded by most of the nobility, were in favor of\nwar, chiding the cowardice of the rest, and boldly proclaiming their\nchoice of death rather than a dishonorable submission to the tyrant's\ncommands. Moreover, the gods had foretold their future greatness,\nand should they render themselves unworthy of divine favor, and bring\ndisgrace on the memory of their valiant ancestors?[VII-47] It was decided\nby a large majority to proceed to the election of a king who should\nlead them to victory. According to the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, the first\nchoice of the assembly was Montezuma, eldest son of Chimalpopoca, but\nhe declined to accept the crown, pleading youth and inexperience, and\nurged the claims of his uncle Itzcoatl, for many years commander of the\narmies. The other authorities do not mention the choice of Montezuma.\nHowever this may have been, Itzcoatl was unanimously elected, and\nwas crowned with the usual ceremonies and with something more than\nthe usual amount of speeches and advice, in view of the gigantic task\nassumed by the new king, of shaking off the Tepanec yoke. Tempanecatl,\nor Tlacaeleltzin, was sent to demand a confirmation of the people's\nchoice at the hands of the emperor Maxtla. But he found that the news\nhad preceded him and had been ill-received, war had practically begun,\nand a blockade was established. The embassador succeeded in reaching\nthe royal presence; but though assured of Itzcoatl's loyalty, Maxtla\nhaughtily replied that Mexico must have no king, must be ruled by\nTepanec governors, or take the consequences of a fruitless revolt.\nTlacaeleltzin's return with these tidings caused a new panic among the\nmore timid of the Mexicans, but by renewed exhortations, by promises\nof honors and booty in case of victory, their courage was brought to\nthe sticking point, and the same embassador was sent to Azcapuzalco\nwith a formal declaration of war.[VII-48] Only a few days after Itzcoatl's\ncoronation the Tlatelulcas also chose a king and joined the Mexicans\nin their fight for national existence. There was some jealousy between\nthe two powers, but their interests were now identical. The choice of\nthe Tlatelulcas fell upon Quauhtlatohuatzin, a celebrated warrior, but\nnot of royal blood; and to this inferiority in the rank of her ruler is\nattributed, by some authors, the inferior position thereafter occupied\nby Tlatelulco, previously equal, if not superior, in power to her\nsister city.[VII-49]\n\n[Sidenote: SIEGE OF MEXICO.]\n\nSuch was the state of affairs in the early part of 1429, when the\nnews of Nezahualcoyotl's success reached Azcapuzalco and Mexico. All\ncommunication had been cut off between the cities of the lake and\nthe mainland; many sharp attacks had been made by Itzcoatl on the\nenemy's lines; but no general engagement had taken place. The Mexicans\nbegan to find their condition critical; Maxtla expected to be at an\nearly date in possession of the Aztec strongholds, and deferred until\nafter such success all offensive operations against Nezahualcoyotl;\nthe besieged Aztecs naturally looked towards the Acolhua prince for\nassistance against their common foe. Here the national prejudices of\nthe original native authorities, followed by Spanish writers, begin\nto appear in the historic annals. Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia favoring\nthe Acolhua interests, represent the Aztecs, hard pressed by the\nTepanecs, as having humbly implored the aid of Nezahualcoyotl, who\ngraciously came to their relief; Tezozomoc, Duran, and Acosta make\nthe Mexicans conquer the Tepanec king unaided, and render assistance\nto the Acolhua prince afterwards; while Torquemada, Clavigero, and\nthe authorities followed by Brasseur state, what in the light of\nfuture events is much more probable, that the two powers formed an\nalliance on equal terms, and for mutual advantage against the usurping\nemperor. At any rate Montezuma[VII-50]--identical, as Clavigero and\nBrasseur think, with Tlacaeleltzin--was sent to Nezahualcoyotl, in\ncompany with two other lords. The ambassador succeeded in penetrating\nthe enemy's lines, although one of his companions was captured, made\nknown to Nezahualcoyotl the wishes and condition of the Mexicans, and\nreceived assurances of sympathy, with promises to consult with his\nallies, render aid if possible, and at least to have an interview with\nItzcoatl. His chief difficulty would seem to have been that most of\nhis allies not without reason detested and feared the Mexicans more\nthan the Tepanecs, and by too hastily following his own inclinations\nand espousing the Aztec cause, he might risk his own success. The\nfact that an alliance was finally concluded between these powers shows\nclearly that neither alone could overthrow the formidable Maxtla, and\nthat it was no act of condescension or pity on the part of either, but\nrather of necessity, to join their forces. On his return Montezuma was\ncaptured by the Chalcas, or being sent, as some authorities state,\nto Chalco for aid was retained for a time as a prisoner, but set at\nliberty by his jailer, and reached Mexico in safety.[VII-51] This action\nof the Chalcas is said to have so displeased the surrounding nations\nthat neither party would accept their alliance, but this may well\nbe doubted, considering the strength of that people. The Huexotlas,\naccording to Torquemada, withdrew their allegiance on hearing that the\nAztecs were to be aided. Nezahualcoyotl and Itzcoatl had an interview\nsoon after at Mexico,[VII-52] where the former was received with great\nrejoicing, and a plan settled for the campaign against Maxtla, whose\nterritory was to be invaded by the allied armies. At about this time,\naccording to the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, the province of Quauhtitlan\nsucceeded after a succession of reverses and victories in shaking\noff the Tepanec yoke and announced their friendship to the Mexicans,\nalthough they were unable to render any open assistance in the early\npart of the campaign.[VII-53]\n\n[Sidenote: SIEGE OF AZCAPULZALCO.]\n\nThe campaign by which Maxtla was overthrown and the imperial power\nwrested from the hands of the Tepanecs, lasted over a hundred\ndays. To relate in detail all that the authorities record of this\ncampaign, the marches and counter-marches, the attacks and repulses,\nthe exploits of the leaders and lesser chieftains, noting all the\nminute variations in statement respecting the names of chiefs, places\nattacked, number of troops engaged, and the chronological order of\nevents, would require a chapter much longer than my space will allow,\nwould be monotonous to the general reader, and could not probably\nbe made sufficiently accurate to be of great value to the student\nof aboriginal military tactics. The general nature of the war and\nthe results of the victory may be told in a few lines. The allied\nAcolhua, Tlascaltec, Cholultec, Mexican, and Tlatelulcan forces, under\nNezahualcoyotl, Itzcoatl, Montezuma, and other leaders, amounted to\nthree or four hundred thousand men. Most entered Mexico in canoes from\nthe east; but some divisions marched round the lake. At a preconcerted\nsignal, the lighting of a fire on Mt Quauhtepec, all the forces\nadvanced--probably in canoes, for it is not certain that causeways had\nyet been constructed--on the Tepanec territory. The lord of Tlacopan,\nby a previous understanding with the allies, opened that city to the\ninvaders, thus giving them a sure footing in the country of their foe,\nand in a few days Azcapuzalco was closely besieged. Maxtla had an army\nsomewhat smaller than that of his opponents but they fought for the\nmost part behind intrenchments. The emperor personally took no part\nin the battles that ensued, but placed his greatest general, Mazatl,\nat the head of his armies. Day after day the conflict was waged at\ndifferent points about the doomed capital without decisive result,\nalthough many local victories were won by both sides. At last, by a\ndesperate effort, Mazatl succeeded in driving the Mexicans back to\nthe lake shore; in the panic that ensued many Mexican soldiers threw\ndown their arms and begged for quarter; Itzcoatl deemed the battle\nand his cause lost. Cursing the cowardice of his troops, he called\nupon his nobles and chieftains to rush upon the foe and die bravely;\nhis call was responded to by large numbers, the troops followed with\nnew courage, and, re-inforcements having arrived opportunely, the\ntide of battle was turned, Mazatl was slain in hand-to-hand combat by\nMontezuma, and the Tepanec capital carried by assault. Large numbers of\nthe soldiers were put to the sword, a few bands escaped to the marshes\nand mountains, the city was plundered and burned, and the emperor\nwas found in a bath and slain. Azcapuzalco never regained a prominent\nplace among the cities of An\u00e1huac; it was chiefly noted in later times\nas a slave mart, and the disgraceful traffic is said to have been\ninaugurated by the sale of the Tepanec inhabitants after the Acolhua\nand Aztec victory. For a short time the victorious armies ravaged the\nterritories on the west of the lakes, which still remained faithful to\nMaxtla, and were then recalled, and the allied troops dismissed, laden\nwith spoils, to their own provinces. Itzcoatl and Nezahualcoyotl had\nno doubt of their ability to keep their foes in check and complete the\nconquest by the aid of their own troops; they consequently returned to\nMexico to celebrate their victory.[VII-54]\n\nThe f\u00eates in honor of the victory and victors were long continued,\nand conducted on a scale unprecedented in the Mexican capital. After\nItzcoatl and Nezahualcoyotl, Montezuma seems to have carried off the\nhighest honors. The altars ran with the blood of sacrificed human\nvictims, rites most repulsive, as is stated, to the Acolhua king, but\nwhich he could not prevent on such an occasion. A prominent feature\nof the ceremonies was the rewarding by lands and honors of the chiefs\nwho had distinguished themselves for bravery in the war, and, as\nsome authorities say, the punishment by exile of such as had shown\ncowardice. The f\u00eates were immediately followed, perhaps interrupted,\nby the tidings that Huexotla, Coatlichan, Acolman, and the adjoining\ntowns, had revolted; and the Mexican, Acolhua, and Tlatelulca forces,\nwith some assistance from the eastern plateau, marched through the\neastern part of the valley, and after a series of hard-fought battles\nconquered the cities mentioned, together with Teotihuacan and in\nfact nearly all the towns from Iztapalocan to the northern mountains,\nexcepting probably Tezcuco, although some authors include the conquest\nof that capital in this campaign. In some of the cities no mercy was\nshown to any class, but all were slain. Veytia moreover divides this\ncampaign into two, and places in the interval between them the final\nestablishment of the empire to be given later. Torquemada and Clavigero\nconnect the latter part of this campaign with a subsequent one against\nCoyuhuacan.[VII-55]\n\n[Sidenote: THE TRI-PARTITE ALLIANCE.]\n\nAt this time, in the year 1431, and before Nezahualcoyotl had regained\nthe capital of his father's empire, as Brasseur insists, took place\nthe events which closed the Chichimec period of aboriginal history,\nthe division of An\u00e1huac between the victors, the re-establishment of\nthe empire on a new basis. The result is well known, but respecting\nthe motives that led to it there is great confusion. It was decided to\nre-establish with slight modifications the ancient Toltec confederacy\nof three kingdoms, independent so far as the direction of internal\naffairs was concerned, but allied in the management of foreign affairs\nand in all matters affecting the general interests of the empire,\nin which matters neither king could act without the consent of his\ntwo colleagues. The three kingdoms were Acolhua with its capital at\nTezcuco, under Nezahualcoyotl with the title of Chichimecatl Tecuhtli;\nthe Aztec with Mexico for its capital, under Itzcoatl bearing the\ntitle of Culhua Tecuhtli; and the Tepanec capital Tlacopan, under\nTotoquihuatzin with the title Tepaneca Tecuhtli. A line drawn in a\ngeneral north and south direction through the valley and lake just east\nof the city of Tenochtitlan, divided the Acolhua domains on the east\nfrom those of Mexico on the west. The capital Tlacopan, with a few\nsurrounding towns, and as some say the Otom\u00ed province of Mazahuacan\nin the northwest, made up the limited Tepanec domain.[VII-56] Tezcuco and\nMexico seem to have been in all respects equal in power, while Tlacopan\nwas far inferior to either. As a descendant and heir of the Chichimec\nemperors, Nezahualcoyotl nominally took precedence in rank, presiding\nat meetings, occupying the place of honor at public ceremonies with his\ncolleagues on his right and left, but had no authority whatever over\nthem, and was probably in respect to actual military power somewhat\ninferior to Mexico. Provinces conquered by the allied forces, together\nwith all the spoils of war, were to be divided equally between Mexico\nand Tezcuco after deducting one fifth for Tlacopan.[VII-57]\n\n[Sidenote: TERMS OF THE ALLIANCE.]\n\n[Sidenote: CLOSE OF THE PERIOD.]\n\nThe confusion among the authorities about the circumstances and motives\nthat led to the tri-partite alliance on the above basis, arises chiefly\nfrom the patriotism of the native authors. The narrative as given by\nIxtlilxochitl and Veytia, to the effect that Nezahualcoyotl suspended\nhis triumphal march through his old dominion of Acolhuacan to assist\nhis friend and relative in overthrowing Maxtla, dismissed his allies,\nand then, out of kindness, admitted Itzcoatl to an equal share with\nhimself in the empire, before completing the conquest of Tezcuco,\nmust evidently be accepted with many allowances. There is still more\nevident exaggeration in the tale of Clavigero, Tezozomoc, and Duran,\nthat Itzcoatl overthrew the Tepanecs, held the power in his own hands,\nand graciously put the Acolhua prince on the throne of Tezcuco in\nconsideration of his friendship and assistance. It is evident, as\nalready stated, that the alliance between Itzcoatl and Nezahualcoyotl\nwas formed for the protection of mutual interests; that no allied\ntroops were disbanded which could be retained; that if the conquest of\nTezcuco was postponed after the fall of Azcapuzalco, it was because the\nallies had their hands full in other directions; and that in the final\ndivision and establishment of the empire necessity and policy played a\nmuch more prominent part than friendship or condescension. On the one\nhand, if we suppose that the Aztec military force, as is very probable,\nwas at the time superior to that of the Acolhuas, it must be remembered\nthat Nezahualcoyotl had the prestige of being the legitimate heir to\nthe imperial throne of the Chichimecs, that he was popular in An\u00e1huac\nand had the support of the eastern cities; while the Aztecs were\nuniversally hated and could depend only on the valor of their chiefs\nand the numbers of their army. It is not impossible that the delay\nin taking possession of the Acolhua capital, was because the allies\nof Nezahualcoyotl refused to complete the conquest until their prince\nhad some guaranty against the ambition of the Mexicans. On the other\nhand, if we credit the statements of those who represent Nezahualcoyotl\nas holding the balance of power in the first alliance, it is to be\nnoted that the struggle had been a desperate one, even with the aid of\nMexico; that it was yet far from ended, that revolts were occurring\nin every direction, and that with the Aztecs as foes, the success of\nNezahualcoyotl was more than doubtful. On this supposition the delay\nin taking Tezcuco is to be attributed, as indeed some authors claim,\nto the fear of Itzcoatl that if he contributed further to increase\nhis ally's power he would soon be in a position to dictate terms.\nNeither power could stand alone, Mexico against all An\u00e1huac, Tezcuco\nagainst Mexico and her own independent and revolting vassals; hence the\nfoundation of the alliance on equal terms is perfectly comprehensible.\nTo account for the admission of Tlacopan to the alliance, we have the\nfacts that that city had rendered important service in the defeat of\nMaxtla at Azcapuzalco; that she may very likely have been promised\na place in the empire in case of success; that in any event it was\npolicy to concentrate the yet powerful Tepanec element in a friendly\nkingdom; and finally, as several authors state, that the families of\nTotoquihuatzin and Nezahualcoyotl were closely related by marriage.\nSome authorities state that Tlacopan was admitted through the influence\nof Itzcoatl, others insist that it was Nezahualcoyotl's idea. The\ninauguration of the new order of things, including the crowning of\nNezahualcoyotl, king of Acolhuacan, and the conferring of the proper\ntitles upon each of the colleagues, was celebrated in Mexico with great\npomp in 1431. Thus ends the Chichimec period, during which a small band\nof turbulent marauders had passed through oppression and misfortune\nto a leading place among the American nations. Many strong tribes were\nyet to be persuaded or forced to submit to the new order of political\naffairs; the measures by which this was accomplished, and the Aztec\npower spread far and wide from An\u00e1huac as a centre, until it came\nin contact with a greater power from beyond the ocean, will form the\nsubject of the following chapters.[VII-58]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[VII-1] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 99. In\nthe explanation of the _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v.,\np. 148, vol. vi., p. 134, it is stated that king Acamapichtli burned\nthe temple of Culhuacan in 1399, probably referring to the quarrels of\nAcamapichtli I. with Coxcoxtli, or Achitometl, at an earlier period.\n\n[VII-2] _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 213;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 176-7; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 95-8;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 100; _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol.\n302; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; _Acosta_, _Hist. de\nlas Ynd._, pp. 470-3; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xiii; _Mendieta_,\n_Hist. Ecles._, pp. 148-9; _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol.\nv., p. 43.\n\n[VII-3] _Codex Mendoza_, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 92; _Mendieta_,\n_Torquemada_, _Acosta_, _Brasseur_, and _Clavigero_, as in preceding\nnote.\n\n[VII-4] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 111.\n\n[VII-5] Date, 1404, _Duran_; 1402, after reigning 41 years, _Veytia_;\n1405, _Boturini_; 1389, 37 years, _Clavigero_; 1406, 7 years, _Codex\nTell. Rem._; 1396, _Mendieta_; reigned 21 years, _Torquemada_,\n_Sahagun_, _Codex Mendoza_; 1271, 51 years, _Ixtlilxochitl_; 46 years,\n_Gomara_ and _Motolinia_; 40 years, _Acosta_ and _Herrera_; 1403, 53\nor 21 years, _Brasseur_.\n\n[VII-6] Acosta and Herrera write the name of Huitzilihuitl's wife\nAyauchigual. Veytia says her name was Miahuaxochitl, and that she was\nthe daughter of Tezozomoc. Torquemada, Clavigero, and Gomara make him\nmarry, first, Ayauhcihuatl, daughter of Tezozomoc, and afterwards,\nMiahuaxochitl, princess of Quauhnahuac, the latter of whom bore\nMontezuma I. Ixtlilxochitl says the king married his niece,\nTetzihuatzin, grand-daughter of Tezozomoc, one of whose children was\nChimalpopoca. Brasseur, relying on the _Codex Chimalp._ and _Mem. de\nCulhuacan_, gives the account I have presented in the text. The _Codex\nTell. Rem._ says Huitzilihuitl married a daughter of the princess of\nCoatlichan, and a grand-daughter of Acamapichtli, having by her no\nsons. Tezozomoc and Duran name Chimalpopoca as Huitzilihuitl's first\nson; Veytia says it was Montezuma I., and Torquemada, Clavigero, and\nBrasseur name the first son Acolnahuacatl.\n\n[VII-7] On the death of Acamapichtli II., and the succession and\nmarriage of Huitzilihuitl II., see _Duran_, MS. tom. i., cap. vi, vii;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 176-80; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 98-106;\n_Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 218,\n353, 456-7; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 219-26; _Tezozomoc_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 10-11; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Id._,\nvol. v., pp. 148-9; _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 302; _Motolinia_, in\n_Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 6; _Herrera_, dec. iii.,\nlib. ii., cap. xii.; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 473-5;\n_Sig\u00fcenza_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. i., p. 50;\n_Boturini_, in _Id._, p. 239; _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 149;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 110-17.\n\n[VII-8] According to Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 216-7, 246, 249-51,\nMixcohuatl reigned 75 years, was succeeded by Quaquauhpitzahuac in\n1400, and he by Tlacateotzin in 1414. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 213, 218,\n353, 356, 453, 462, says Mixcohuatl died in 1271, reigned 51 years,\nand was succeeded by his son Quaquauhpitzahuac; or that he died in\nTechotl's reign and was followed by Tlacateotzin; or that\nQuaquauhpitzahuac died in 1353; or was succeeded by Amatzin; or again,\nthat Tlacateotzin succeeded his father; and that he married a daughter\nof Tezozomoc. Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 273, ignores\nMixcohuatl, as do Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 94-5, 99, 127-8, and\nClavigero, tom. i., pp. 175, 184. Both the latter authors make the\nfirst king a son of Tezozomoc. Clavigero places his accession in 1353,\nand that of Tlacateotzin, his successor, in 1399. Torquemada says the\nfirst king reigned 35 years, and was followed by Tlacateotzin in the\ntenth year of Huitzilihuitl's rule. Both Mexicans and Tlatelulcas seem\nto have claimed the honor of having had the first king. See also\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 123.\n\n[VII-9] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 120.\n\n[VII-10] _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. vii.; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp.\n106; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 226-8, 246; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 127-8.\n\n[VII-11] _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 149; _Codex Mendoza_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 43; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p.\n268.\n\n[VII-12] Date 1414, _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 246-7; _Boturini_, in\n_Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., p. 239; _Codex Tell. Rem._,\nin _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 149; 1353, _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Id._,\nvol. ix., pp. 218, 356, 457; 1409, _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 186; 1417,\n_Codex Chimalp._ in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 129, and _Codex\nMendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 43.\n\n[VII-13] On death of Huitzilihuitl II. and succession of Chimalpopoca,\nsee _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 246-9; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 105-7;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 182-7; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 218, 355-6, 457;\n_Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 475-8; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib.\nviii., p. 268; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. vii, viii; _Mendieta_,\n_Hist. Ecles._, p. 149; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 129-31;\n_Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 43; _Codex Tell.\nRem._, in _Id._, p. 149.\n\n[VII-14] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 231-3, 236, 245; _Torquemada_, tom.\ni., pp. 108-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 185; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp.\n218-19, 356, 358-9, 401; _Boturini_, _Idea_, p. 142; _Brasseur_,\n_Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 87-92.\n\n[VII-15] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 234-7; _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 356.\n\n[VII-16] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 219, 356-7; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp.\n108-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 185; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii.,\npp. 93-5.\n\n[VII-17] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 95-6.\n\n[VII-18] _Id._, pp. 97-106.\n\n[VII-19] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 219, 357, 401-2; _Torquemada_, tom. i.,\npp. 108-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 185-6; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp.\n234-45; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 106-8.\n\n[VII-20] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 108-9.\n\n[VII-21] The former also called Tozquentzin and Atotoztli; and the\nlatter, Acolmiztli and Yoyontzin.\n\n[VII-22] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 218, 359, 401, 405, 453; _Duran_, MS.,\ntom. i., cap. vi.; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 110; _Leon y Gama_, _Dos\nPiedras_, pt ii., pp. 41-2; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n109-10; _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., p. 146.\n\n[VII-23] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n117-18.\n\n[VII-24] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 219, 358-9, 402. Dates according to this\nauthor, April 15, 1359; Dec. 30, 1363; 1415. _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp.\n255-6; date, Aug. 6, 1415. _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 109; _Clavigero_,\ntom. i., pp. 185-6; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 120-1.\n\n[VII-25] Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 277-8, gives a list of the\nsuccession of lords at Huexotla from the earliest Chichimec times.\n\n[VII-26] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 219-20, 359, 402. He states that in this\nmeeting, or another held about the same time, there were many other\nlords present, including those of Acolman and Tepechpan, who, although\npretending to be faithful, kept Tezozomoc posted as to the course\nevents were taking. See also _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 257-8;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 110; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n121-2.\n\n[VII-27] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 359-60, 402-3; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp.\n257-68; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 108-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p.\n186; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 122-5.\n\n[VII-28] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 186, states that Ixtlilxochitl granted\nthis peace, not because he had any faith in Tezozomoc or was disposed\nto be lenient to his allies, but because his army was equally\nexhausted with that of the enemy, and he was unable to continue\nhostilities. This is hardly probable, although he had doubtless\nsuffered more than the records indicate. See also _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp.\n220, 360-2, 403, 453; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 268-76; _Torquemada_,\ntom. i., pp. 108-10; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 122-7.\n\n[VII-29] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n129-30.\n\n[VII-30] Chiuhnauhtlan, as the Spanish writers say; Brasseur says it\nwas at Tenamatlac, a Tepanec pleasure-resort in the mountains of\nChiucnauhtecatl.\n\n[VII-31] Brasseur says Coatlichan, which is more likely.\n\n[VII-32] 50, and 16, are Ixtlilxochitl's figures in different places;\nVeytia says 10, and Brasseur 40.\n\n[VII-33] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 220-3, 362-4, 403-4, 453-4, 462-3;\n_Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 278-99; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 110-13;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 187-9; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n129-38.\n\n[VII-34] Oct. 29, 1418, _Veytia_; 1410, _Clavigero_; 1410,\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 463; April 22, 1415, _Id._, p. 454; Sept. 21,\n1418, _Id._, p. 404; 1419, _Brasseur_. Torquemada implies that\nIxtlilxochitl's reign lasted only seven years. Sahagun, tom. ii., lib.\nviii., p. 276, says he ruled 61 years, during which time nothing\nworthy of mention occurred. Ixtlilxochitl in one place, p. 223, says\nthat the last Tepanec wars lasted 3 years and 273 days; elsewhere, p.\n364, that they lasted 50 consecutive years, and that millions of\npeople perished.\n\n[VII-35] Torquemada states that Tezozomoc reserved Coatlichan for\nhimself.\n\n[VII-36] Ixtlilxochitl tells a strange story, to the effect that\nTezozomoc's officers were directed to ask the children in each\nprovince, who was their king; such as replied 'Tezozomoc,' were to be\ncaressed and their parents rewarded; but those that answered\n'Ixtlilxochitl,' or 'Nezahualcoyotl,' were put to death without mercy.\nThus perished thousands of innocent children. In _Kingsborough_, vol.\nix., pp. 223, 463.\n\n[VII-37] _Veytia_, tom. i., pp. 300-6, 315-17; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp.\n224-5, 365-8, 404, 454, 463; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 113-16;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 190-3; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n138-48; _Boturini_, _Idea_, pp. 143-4; _Motolinia_, in _Icazbalceta_,\n_Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 254.\n\n[VII-38] On Nezahualcoyotl's adventures during this period, down to\nabout 1426, see _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 224-5, 366-9, 404-5, 463-4;\n_Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 304, 311-14, 317-19; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.\n190-1, 193-4; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 116-7; _Brasseur_, _Hist._,\ntom. iii., pp. 148-50.\n\n[VII-39] There is much confusion respecting these sons of Tezozomoc.\nIxtlilxochitl in one place, pp. 368-9, names Maxtla, Tayauh, and\nAtlatota Icpaltzin, or Tlatecaypaltzin, as the sons summoned to his\ndeath-bed. In another place, p. 464, he calls two of them Tiatzi, or\nTayatzi, and Tlacayapaltzin. Torquemada names them Maxtla, Tayatzin,\nand Tecuhtzintli. All imply that Maxtla was the eldest son. Brasseur,\nfollowing the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, states that Tezozomoc had eight\nlegitimate sons, of whom Maxtlaton was the seventh and Quetzalayatzin\n(Tayauh, or Tayatzin), the sixth.\n\n[VII-40] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 321-9, tom. iii., pp. 3-11; date,\nFeb. 2, 1427. _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 217, 225-7, 368-70, 405, 454, 464;\ndates, March 20, 1427, March 24, 1427, 1424. _Torquemada_, tom. i.,\npp. 68, 117-21, 253; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 194-6; date, 1422.\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 148-54; date, March 24, 1427.\n\n[VII-41] See on the usurpation of Maxtla and the death of his brother,\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 226, 371, 464-5; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 11-18;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 119-21; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 196-8;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 155-7; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt\nii., p. 26.\n\n[VII-42] On account of their friendship for Nezahualcoyotl and Tayauh.\nAnother cause of enmity between Chimalpopoca and Maxtla, is said to\nhave been the dishonor of the former's wife by the latter, she having\nbeen enticed to Azcapuzalco by the aid of two Tepanec ladies.\n\n[VII-43] Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 18-32, says that immediately after the\nassassination of Tayauh, a posse of men was sent to seize\nChimalpopoca, whom they found engaged in some religious rites in the\ntemple. Several authors state that the king died in prison, having\nbeen previously visited by Nezahualcoyotl, who risked his own life to\nsave him. Veytia says Nezahualcoyotl found him much reduced from\nstarvation, went for food, and found him dead on his return.\nTorquemada, tom. i., pp. 122-8, following Sig\u00fcenza, says he hung\nhimself to avoid starvation. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 226-8, 371-3, 457,\n464-5, in one place states that he died in Nezahualcoyotl's arms. In\nanother relation he says that Maxtla in his rage at Nezahualcoyotl's\nescape sent to Mexico and had Chimalpopoca killed in his stead, the\nassassins finding him in the temple carving an idol. Acosta, _Hist. de\nlas Ynd._, pp. 475-9; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.;\nTezozomoc, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 11-12, and Duran, MS.,\ntom. i., pp. 129-37--state that during Tezozomoc's reign the Tepanec\nnobles, fearful that Chimalpopoca, as the grandson of Tezozomoc would\nsucceed to the Tepanec throne, sent to Mexico and had him assassinated\nwhile asleep; adding that the grandfather Tezozomoc, died of grief at\nthis act! Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 158-9, 164, implies that\nMaxtla only arrested the proposed sacrifice, and agrees with\nIxtlilxochitl's statement that the king was murdered at Mexico while\nat work in the temple.\n\nThe Tlatelulcan king was killed by the same party. He at first escaped\nfrom his palace, but was overtaken on the lake while striving to reach\nTezcuco, and his body was sunk. Such is the account given by most\nauthors; Ixtlilxochitl says he drowned himself; while Torquemada\nrecords two versions--one that he was killed for treason against\nNezahualcoyotl; and the other, that he was killed by Montezuma I. of\nMexico. See also on the death of the Aztec kings--_Clavigero_, tom.\ni., pp. 200-3; _Motolinia_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i.,\np. 6; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, p. 154; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 26-7; _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol.\nv., p. 44; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Id._, vol. vi., p. 135.\n\n[VII-44] Date, July 23, 1427, or 1424, _Ixtlilxochitl_; May 31, 1427,\n_Sig\u00fcenza_; March 31, 1427, _Vetancvrt_; July 19, 1427, _Veytia_;\n1423, _Clavigero_; 1427, _Codex Mendoza_; 1426, _Codex Tell. Rem._;\n1428, _Codex Chimalpopoca_.\n\n[VII-45] The Spanish writers state that about this time the king of\nChalco became disaffected, and a messenger, Xolotecuhtli, was sent to\nwin him over through the influence of his wife, who was a sister of\nHuitzilihuitzin, Nezahualcoyotl's chief counselor. The Chalca king\nsaid his change of allegiance was on account of his hatred and fear of\nthe Mexican king, but consented at last to leave the matter to his\npeople, who decided unanimously in favor of Nezahualcoyotl.\n\n[VII-46] I have omitted in this account of Nezahualcoyotl's flight,\nreturn, and victorious campaign, the numerous details of the prince's\nadventures and escapes, the names of lords to whom he applied and the\ntenor of each reply, the wonderful omens that on many occasions\nforetold success to his plans, told at so great length by the\nauthorities, but comparatively unimportant, and altogether too bulky\nfor my space. See on this period of history: _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp.\n14, 33-79, 92-107; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 228-35, 373-81, 405-6, 465-7;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 125-40; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 202-10;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 171-3; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt\nii., pp. 26-7.\n\n[VII-47] This discussion is placed by different authorities before or\nafter the choice of a king. This is a matter of no great importance;\nthe opposition to war probably continued down to the commencement of\nhostilities, but the election of a warlike king was of itself\nequivalent to a declaration of war, in view of Maxtla's well-known\ndesigns; consequently, I have placed it before the election.\n\n[VII-48] An extraordinary treaty is spoken of by Tezozomoc, Duran,\nAcosta, and Clavigero, by the terms of which the nobles bound\nthemselves in case of defeat to give up their bodies to be sacrificed\nto the gods; while the people bound themselves and their descendants\nin case of victory to become the servants of the nobles for all future\ntime. Veytia states that titles of nobility, and permission to have\nmany wives, were among the inducements to bravery held out to the\nplebeians. It is not impossible that the contract alluded to may have\nbeen invented or exaggerated in later times by the nobles to support\ntheir extravagant claims upon the people. Torquemada and Ixtlilxochitl\nrefer to no such contract, and to no claim for the Tepanec recognition\nof their king; but state that the election of Itzcoatl on the one\nside, and the heavy tributes with the dishonor of Itzcoatl's wife on\nthe other, led to the establishment of the blockade.\n\n[VII-49] On the succession and declaration of war in Mexico,\nsee--_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 128-34. This author says nothing of\nthe succession of a new king in Tlatelulco. _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.\n206-13; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 78-91, 137; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las\nYnd._, pp. 479-83; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. viii., ix.,\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 235-6, 381, 383, 406, 465; _Tezozomoc_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 11-15; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii.,\npp. 165-8; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 27; _Granados y Galvez_,\n_Tardes Amer._, p. 154.\n\n[VII-50] This name is written in many ways; Moteuhzoma or Moteuczoma\nbeing probably more correct than the familiar form of Montezuma.\n\n[VII-51] Totzintecuhtli, king of Chalco, is said to have sent the\nprisoner first to Huexotzinca and then offered him to Maxtla to be\nsacrificed; but the kings sent him back and refused to do so\ndishonorable a deed.\n\n[VII-52] Brasseur says the first interview was at Tenayocan.\n\n[VII-53] See _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 91-2, 108-22; _Clavigero_, tom.\ni., pp. 209-11; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 236, 381-2, 406-7, 464-6;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 136-40; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n173-9; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. ix.\n\n[VII-54] The chief point of difference between the authorities on this\ncampaign, is the relative honor due to the different allies and\nleaders, and especially the share which the Mexicans and Acolhuas\nrespectively had in the overthrow of the Tepanec tyrant. Clavigero\nplaces this war in 1425, and thinks that causeways were already built.\nVeytia gives the date 1428, notes that the Mexican troops were richly\nclad, while the forces of Nezahualcoyotl wore plain, white garments,\nand makes the siege last 140 days. Ixtlilxochitl also gives the date\n1428, and the length of the war 100 and 115 days. According to\nBrasseur, Nezahualcoyotl found time during the siege of Azcapuzalco to\nreconquer Acolman and Coatlichan, which had revolted. He calls the\nTepanec leader Mazatzin, and gives the date as 1430. See\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 236-7, 382-4, 407, 466; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp.\n120-39; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. ix.; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.\n214-20; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 140-3; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 180-5; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 483-5.\n\n[VII-55] See _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 221-3; _Torquemada_, tom. i.,\npp. 142-6; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 136-47, 155-60; _Ixtlilxochitl_,\npp. 237-8, 383-5, 407, 466-7; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol.\nix., pp. 16-17; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. ix.; _Acosta_, _Hist. de\nlas Ynd._, pp. 484-5; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt. ii., p. 28;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 187-9.\n\n[VII-56] The line is said to have extended from Totoltepec in the\nnorth to a point in the lake near Mexico, which would be in a S.W.\ncourse. Thence it extended to mount Cuexcomatl probably towards the\nS.E. Subsequent events seem often to indicate that these lines were\nintended to be indefinitely prolonged, and to bound future conquests.\nBrasseur, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 266, takes this view of the matter,\nalthough on p. 191 he implies the contrary.\n\n[VII-57] Such was the basis of the alliance according to\nIxtlilxochitl, Veytia, Zurita, and Brasseur. All agree respecting the\ninferior position of Tlacopan and her share of the spoils, but\nIxtlilxochitl, p. 455, makes both pay a small tribute to Tezcuco.\nVeytia makes Nezahualcoyotl superior in nominal rank as above;\nIxtlilxochitl in most of his relations makes him and Itzcoatl equal in\nthis respect; while Torquemada, Clavigero, Gomara, and Duran make\nItzcoatl supreme, and give to Mexico two thirds instead of one half of\nthe spoils after deducting the share of Tlacopan. The chief support of\nthe latter opinion is the great proportional growth of the Mexican\ndomains in later times; but practically Mexico received much more even\nthan the two thirds allotted to her by these authors. I think it more\nlikely that Mexico in her great military power and love of conquest\ntook much more than her proper share, at first with the consent of her\ncolleagues and later without such consent; and it is also possible\nthat the division agreed upon referred only to conquests accomplished\nunder certain conditions not recorded, or, a supposition which agrees\nvery nearly with the actual division in later times, that each of the\nthree kingdoms was to have the conquered provinces that adjoined its\nterritory, and that Mexico obtained the largest share, not only on\naccount of her ambition, but because the most desirable field for\nconquest proved to be in the south-east and south-west. See preceding\nnote.\n\n[VII-58] Totoquihuatzin was the grandson of Tezozomoc, and his\ndaughter was either concubine or wife of Nezahualcoyotl. Torquemada\nand Clavigero state that the people of the region about Tezcuco\npetitioned Itzcoatl to allow Nezahualcoyotl to rule over them,\nbecause, as the latter suggests, this territory had been given to\nChimalpopoca by Tezozomoc. To Nezahualcoyotl, during his stay in\nMexico, are attributed a palace and hunting-park at Chapultepec,\ntogether with several reservoirs and the idea of an aqueduct to supply\nwater to the city. Veytia claims to have seen traces of the boundary\nline between the Aztec and Acolhua domains. It extended from Mount\nCuexcomatl in the south, between Iztapalapan and Culhuacan, through\nthe northern lake at Zumpango to Totoltepec. This would, however, be\nfar from a straight line. See respecting the establishment of the new\nalliance:--_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 237-8, 383, 407, 454, 467; _Veytia_,\ntom. iii., pp. 155-68; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 143-4, 154-6;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 221-5; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. ix., x.,\nxiv.; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 187-93; _Gomara_, _Conq.\nMex._, fol. 303; _Prescott's Mex._, vol. i., p. 19; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., p. 28.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE AZTEC PERIOD.\n\n     Outline of the Period -- Revolt of Coyuhuacan --\n     Nezahualcoyotl on the Throne of Tezcuco -- Conquest of\n     Quauhtitlan, Tultitlan, Xochimilco, and Cuitlahuac --\n     Conquest of Quauhtitlan -- Destruction of the Records --\n     Death of Itzcoatl and Accession of Montezuma I. -- New\n     Temples at Mexico -- Defeat of the Chalcas -- Troubles with\n     Tlatelulco -- Conquest of Cohuixco and Mazatlan -- Flood and\n     Six Years' Famine -- Conquest of Miztecapan -- The Aztecs\n     Conquer the Province of Cuetlachtlan and reach the Gulf Coast\n     -- Final Defeat of the Chalcas -- Campaign in Cuextlan --\n     Birth of Nezahualpilli -- Improvements in Tenochtitlan --\n     Embassy to Chicomoztoc -- Death of Montezuma I. and Accession\n     of Axayacatl -- Raid in Tehuantepec -- Chimalpopoca succeeds\n     Totoquihuatzin on the Throne of Tlacopan -- Nezahualpilli\n     succeeds Nezahualcoyotl at Tezcuco -- Revolt of Tlatelulco --\n     Conquest of Matlaltzinco -- Defeat by the Tarascos -- Death\n     of Axayacatl.\n\n\n[Sidenote: OUTLINE OF AZTEC HISTORY.]\n\nThe annals of the Aztec period constitute a record of successive\nconquests by the allied Tepanec, Acolhua, and Mexican forces, in which\nthe latter play the leading r\u00f4le, and by which they became practically\nmasters of the whole country, and were on the point of subjugating\neven their allies, or of falling before a combination of their foes,\nwhen they fell before a foe from across the sea. Besides the frequently\nrecurring campaigns against coveted provinces or revolted chieftains,\nwe have the constant growth of Tenochtitlan and Tezcuco; the\nconstruction of causeways, canals, aqueducts, and other public works;\nthe erection of magnificent temples in honor of blood-thirsty gods; and\nnothing more, save the inhuman sacrifice of countless victims by which\nthis fanatic people celebrated each victory, each coronation of a new\nking, each dedication of a new temple, strove to avert each impending\ndisaster, rendered thanks for every escape, and feasted their deities\nfor every mark of divine favor. From two sources there is introduced\ninto this record a confusion unequaled in that of all preceding\nperiods. The national prejudices of the original authorities have\nproduced two almost distinct versions of each event, one attributing\nthe leading r\u00f4le and all the glory to Tezcuco, the other to Mexico.\nThe other source of confusion is in the successive campaigns against\nor conquests of the same province, as of Chalco for example. This\nprovince, like others, was almost continually in a state of revolt;\nand there was no king of Mexico who had not to engage in one or more\nwars against its people. In the aggregate about the same events are\nattributed to the Chalca wars, but hardly two authorities group these\nevents in the same manner. Some group them in two or three wars, others\nin many, and as few attempt to give any exact chronology, the resulting\ncomplication may easily be understood. To reconcile these differences\nis impossible; to give in full the statement of all the authorities\non each point would amount to printing the whole history of the period\nthree or four times over, and would prove most monotonous to the reader\nwithout serving any good purpose; the choice is therefore between an\narbitrary grouping of the events in question and the adoption of that\ngiven by Brasseur de Bourbourg. As the latter has the claimed advantage\nof resting on original documents in addition to the Spanish writers, I\nprefer to follow it. In respect to the difficulty arising from a spirit\nof rivalry between Mexico and Tezcuco, I shall continue the assumption\nalready made that the two powers entered into the alliance on terms of\nequality, carefully noting, however, the views of the authorities on\nboth sides respecting all important points.\n\nWhile Nezahualcoyotl was still residing in Mexico, a desperate attempt\nwas made to retrieve the defeat at Azcapuzalco, by Coyuhuacan, the\nstrongest of the remaining Tepanec provinces. The rulers of this\nprovince applied for aid to all the lords in the region, picturing the\ndanger that hung over all from the Aztec power and ambition; but for\nsome reason, probably fear of the new alliance, all refused to take\npart in the war, and the Tepanecs were left to fight their own battles.\nThey began by robbing and insulting Mexican market-women visiting their\ncity for purposes of trade; afterwards invited the Mexican nobles to a\nfeast and sent them back clad in women's garments; and finally openly\ndeclared war. Their strong towns of Coyuhuacan and Atlacohuayan soon\nfell, however, before the allied armies under Itzcoatl and Montezuma,\nand the whole south-western section as far as Xochimilco was brought\nunder subjection,[VIII-1] Itzcoatl making a triumphal return into his\ncapital in 1432.\n\n[Sidenote: OCCUPATION OF TEZCUCO.]\n\nIt was determined in the following year that Nezahualcoyotl should\nreturn to Tezcuco and take possession of his ancestral throne of\nAcolhuacan. A large army was fitted out for the conquest, but its\naid was not required; for the lords that had thus far held out in\nthe capital, realized that their cause was hopeless, fled to Tlascala\nand in other directions, allowing the king to enter Tezcuco without\nresistance, where he was gladly received by the people, was publicly\ncrowned by Itzcoatl, and proclaimed a general amnesty, which course\nsoon brought back many even of the rebel lords.[VIII-2] Soon after his\nreturn he made a visit to Tlascala, concluding with that power a\ntreaty of alliance, and afterwards ruling in great harmony with all\nhis allies; at least, such is the version of the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur, and\nClavigero speaks of no trouble at that period; but other Spanish\nwriters, although not agreeing among themselves, give a very different\nversion of the events that occurred immediately after the occupation of\nTezcuco. According to the statements of Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia,[VIII-3]\nItzcoatl soon repented of having allowed Nezahualcoyotl the supreme\nrank of Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, and made some disparaging remarks about\nhis colleague. Nezahualcoyotl, enraged, announced his intention to\nmarch on Mexico within ten days; Itzcoatl, frightened, made excuses,\nand sent twenty-five virgins as a conciliatory gift, who were returned\nuntouched; a bloody battle ensued, and the Mexican king was obliged to\nsue for peace, and submit to the payment of a tribute. Ixtlilxochitl\neven says that the Acolhuas entered Mexico, plundering the city and\nburning temples. Torquemada[VIII-4] mentions a difficulty between the two\nmonarchs, and Nezahualcoyotl's challenge, but states that Itzcoatl's\nexcuses were accepted and an amicable arrangement effected. Boturini\nrefers the quarrel and challenge to the later reign of Axayacatl.\nOrtega, Veytia's editor, denies that any difficulties occurred;[VIII-5]\nand, indeed, the story is not a very reasonable one, which is perhaps\nBrasseur's reason for ignoring it altogether.\n\nOnce seated on the throne of Acolhuacan, Nezahualcoyotl devoted himself\nzealously to the reconstruction of his kingdom, following for the most\npart the plan marked out by his grandfather Techotl, and establishing\nthe forms of government that endured to the time of the conquest, and\nthat have been fully described in a preceding volume. Unlike the king\nof Mexico, and against his advice, he restored to a certain extent the\nfeudal system, and left many of his vassal lords independent in their\nown domains, instead of appointing royal governors. He was prompted\nto this course by a sense of justice, and by it his popularity was\ngreatly increased; the plan was very successful; but whether it would\nhave succeeded in later years without the support of the Mexican and\nTepanec armies, may perhaps be doubted. Many however, of the strongest,\nthe most troublesome, and especially the frontier provinces, or cities,\nwere placed under the king's sons or friends. Full details of the\ngovernmental system introduced by this monarch, of the many councils\nwhich he established, are given by the authorities but need not be\nrepeated here. Particular attention was given to science and arts, and\nto educational institutions, which continued to flourish under his son,\nand for which Tezcuco was noted at the arrival of the Spaniards. The\ncity was definitely divided into six wards called after the inhabitants\nof different nationalities, Tlailotlacan, Chimalpanecan, Huitznahuac,\nTepanecapan, Culhuacan, and Mexicapan, and was enlarged and embellished\nin every direction with new palaces, temples, and both public and royal\nparks and pleasure-grounds.[VIII-6]\n\n[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF XOCHIMILCO.]\n\nIn 1434 the Chichimec-Culhua city of Quauhtitlan was brought under\nsubjection to Mexico, or at least entrusted to governors appointed by\nItzcoatl, who made certain troubles among the people in the choice of\na ruler an excuse for marching an army into that part of the country.\nTultitlan was also conquered, probably in the same expedition.[VIII-7]\nXochimilco was now one of the largest cities in An\u00e1huac, and by reason\nof its location partially on the lake, and of a deep moat which guarded\nthe land side, was also one of the strongest. Cuitlahuac was even more\nstrongly defended; but both cities were forced to yield to the Mexicans\nand their allies during this year and the following. Many Tepanecs had\ntaken refuge in these towns after the fall of Azcapuzalco, and their\nrulers, trusting to their increased force and the strength of their\ndefences, were disposed to regard the Aztecs without fear. Some authors\naccuse the Xochimilcas of having provoked a war by encroachments;\nothers state that they were formally summoned by Itzcoatl to submit\nand pay tribute or resort to the lot of battle. They made a brave\nresistance, but Itzcoatl's forces crossed their moat by filling it with\nbundles of sticks and brambles, and entered the town, driving the army\nto the mountains, where they soon surrendered. Authorities differ as to\nthe treatment of the people and the government imposed, as they do in\nthe case of most of the conquered cities; but Xochimilco was certainly\nmade tributary to the Mexican king. The Cuitlahuacs were conquered in a\nlater expedition. The cause of the war, as Tezozomoc tells us, was the\nrefusal to send their young girls to take part in a festival at Mexico.\nThe battle was fought for the most part in canoes, the city was taken,\nas is said, by a detachment of students under the command of Montezuma,\nand many prisoners were brought back to be sacrificed in honor of the\ngod of war. According to Tezozomoc and Duran, the people of Xochimilco\nwith those of Coyuhuacan were ordered to furnish material and build a\ncauseway, the first, it is said, which led from Mexico to the mainland.\nHerrera and Acosta tells us that after the conquest of Cuitlahuac,\nNezahualcoyotl, seeing that it was useless to resist the destiny of the\nMexicans, voluntarily offered his allegiance to Itzcoatl and retired to\nthe second rank in the alliance. The latter adds that to content the\nmonarch's subjects with such a measure, a sham battle was fought, in\nwhich the Acolhua armies pretended to be defeated.[VIII-8]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: AFFAIRS IN QUAUHTITLAN.]\n\nAn opportunity was soon offered the allied powers to test their\nstrength outside the limits of the valley, where reports of their\nvalor and rapidly growing power had preceded them. The rich city of\nQuauhnahuac in the south-west, had once, as we have seen, formed an\nalliance by marriage with the Mexicans, but friendly relations seem to\nhave ceased. In a difficulty between the lords of Quauhnahuac and\nXiuhtepec, a neighboring city, about the hand of the former's\ndaughter, the latter called upon the Mexicans for aid, which they were\nonly too ready to grant. The three kings, together with the Tlahuica\nforces of Cohuatzin, lord of Xiuhtepec, marched against the fated\ntown, entered it after hard fighting, burned its temple, imposed a\nheavy tribute of cotton, rich cloths, and fine garments, thus taking\nthe first step in their victorious march toward the South Sea.[VIII-9]\nThe re-building and re-peopling of Xaltocan, by colonies of Mexicans,\nAcolhuas, and Tepanecs, and by a gathering of scattered Otom\u00eds, is\nattributed by the _Codex Chimalpopoca_ to the year 1435. At the same\ntime were laid the foundations of a new temple in honor of Cihuacoatl,\nand work on the grand temple of Huitzilopochtli, begun long before,\nwas actively prosecuted. So zealous was king Itzcoatl in advancing the\nglory of his people that he is reported by Sahagun[VIII-10] to have\ndestroyed the ancient records which related the glorious deeds of more\nancient peoples. Nothing further is recorded during Itzcoatl's reign\nsave the execution of the death penalty on certain Chichimec families\nof Quauhtitlan, who refused to participate in some of the religious\nrites in honor of the Aztec gods, a short campaign against the\nprovince of Ecatepec, and a vaguely mentioned renewal of hostilities\nwith Chalco.[VIII-11]\n\nI have already noticed the statements of Acosta and Herrera, that after\nthe conquest of Cuitlahuac Nezahualcoyotl resigned his supremacy in\nfavor of the Mexican king. Other authors, as Tezozomoc, Duran, Gomara,\nand Sig\u00fcenza y G\u00f3ngora, also imply that from the end of Itzcoatl's\nreign, the Mexican king was supreme in the alliance; but their\nstatements disagree among themselves, and with previous statements\nby the same authors to the effect that the Mexican king was supreme\nmonarch at the foundation of the alliance. Although Itzcoatl and his\nsuccessors, by their valor and desire of conquest, took a leading\npart in all wars, and were in a sense masters of An\u00e1huac, there is\nno sufficient evidence that they ever claimed any superiority in rank\nover the Acolhua monarch, or that any important difficulties occurred\nbetween the two powers until the last years of the Aztec period.[VIII-12]\nThe king died in 1440, recommending the allies above all things to live\nat peace with each other, ordering work to be continued on the temple\nof Huitzilopochtli, and making provision for statues of himself and his\npredecessors on the throne of Mexico. He was succeeded by his nephew,\nMontezuma Ilhuicamina, or the elder, who was already commander of the\narmies and high-priest of Huitzilopochtli.[VIII-13]\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF MONTEZUMA I.]\n\nHis election having been confirmed by the kings of Tezcuco and\nTlacopan, Montezuma I. was crowned with something more than the\nusual ceremonies, both because of his high ecclesiastical position\nand because he was the first monarch crowned by the Mexicans as a\nperfectly independent nation. According to several authors this king\nmade an expedition against the Chalcas before his coronation to obtain\nthe necessary prisoners for sacrifice.[VIII-14] From the first days of his\nreign Montezuma gave great attention to the building of temples in his\ncapital, obtaining many of his workmen from Tlacopan, and his plans\nfrom the skilled architects of Tezcuco. He seems to have instituted\nthe custom so extensively practiced in later years, of erecting in\nMexico temples in honor of the gods of foreign provinces conquered or\nabout to be conquered, making these gods subordinate to Huitzilopochtli\nas their worshipers were subject to the Mexicans. Two temples are\nespecially mentioned by the documents which Brasseur follows; one\ncalled Huitznahuateocalli, and the other that of Mixcohuatepec.\nThe latter was built to receive the relics of the ancient chief\nMixcohuatl,[VIII-15] which had been preserved for centuries in their temple\nat Cuitlahuac, an object of veneration to all of Toltec descent. A\nquarrel between Tezozomoc and Acolmiztli, rival lords of that city,\nafforded a sufficient pretext for sending thither a Mexican army;\nthe temple caught fire, by accident as was claimed, and the lord who\nhad received aid could not refuse Montezuma's request for the now\nshelterless relics, which were transferred to their new resting-place\nin Tenochtitlan. This was in 1441.[VIII-16]\n\nThe Chalcas whom we have often found fighting, now on the side of\nthe Acolhuas, now on the side of the Tepanecs, but always hating\nthe Mexicans most bitterly, seem to have managed their alliances so\nshrewdly up to this time, as to have avoided becoming involved in the\nruin that at different times had overwhelmed the leading powers of\nAn\u00e1huac. Since the formation of the new alliance, in which they had\nno part, their soldiers had fought many skirmishes with the allied\nforces, but the latter had made no united effort to conquer them.\nHaving become numerous and powerful, the Chalcas now dared, in 1443, to\nmeasure their strength against the allies, their chief purpose being\nto humble Mexico. They provoked hostilities by seizing and putting to\ndeath a party of noble young men who were hunting near their frontier.\nThe party included some members of the Mexican royal family, and two\nsons of Nezahualcoyotl. The dead bodies of the latter were embalmed\nand made to do service in the palace of Toteotzin, lord of Chalco,\nas torch-bearers. The effect of such an indignity was immediate, and\nbrought upon the perpetrators the whole strength of the allied kings.\nThe Mexicans and Tepanecs approached by water, the Acolhuas by land;\nthey were met by the Chalca army, and for several weeks the conflict\nraged fiercely without decisive advantage on either side. Kings\nMontezuma and Totoquihuatzin commanded in person; Nezahualcoyotl's\nforces were under his two eldest sons. Another son, Axoquentzin, only\nabout seventeen years old, performed prodigies of valor and turned the\ntide of victory. Visiting his brothers in camp, he was about to eat\nwith them, when they ridiculed his youth and told him that was no place\nfor a boy who had done no deed of valor. Ashamed and angry, he seized\narms and rushed alone against the enemy, taking captive one of their\nmightiest warriors--their aged lord Toteotzin himself, Ixtlilxochitl\nsays--and creating a panic which caused ultimate defeat. The victory\nwas complete, the Chalca army was scattered, the city taken and made\ntributary to the central powers, although these people were able\nsubsequently to cause the victors much trouble. Nezahualcoyotl was so\nangry at the murder of his sons that for once he shared to some extent\nthe bloodthirsty spirit of the Aztecs, and gladly gave up the Chalca\ncaptives, among whom was their chief, to the sacrificial block.[VIII-17]\n\n[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF TLATELULCO.]\n\nThe exact status of Tlatelulco under the tri-partite alliance is not\nclearly recorded; but the inferior position accorded that city had\ndoubtless caused much jealousy and dissatisfaction, which had already\nproduced some trouble, though not open rupture, between the two\nkings, if we may suppose Quauhtlatohuatzin to have been at this date\nconsidered as a king. During Montezuma's absence in the Chalca war,\nthe Tlatelulca chief ventured so far as to engage in plots against\nthe existing state of things; Montezuma, on his return declared war;\nthe people were reduced to submission, their ruler was killed, and\nMoquihuix, supposed to be in the interests of the Mexicans, was put in\nhis place.[VIII-18] On his return from the Chalca war, and while Montezuma\nwas punishing the treason of the Tlatelulca chief, Nezahualcoyotl was\nengaged in quelling a revolt in the northern province of Tulancingo,\nwhere the rebels had burned some towns and driven out the Acolhua\ngarrisons. The province was now finally conquered and joined to the\ndomain of Acolhuacan under royal governors. Nezahualcoyotl is also\nsaid to have founded a new town in this region, and sent colonists from\nTezcuco to dwell in it.[VIII-19]\n\nThe rich provinces of Cohuixco and Mazatlan, just south of An\u00e1huac\nand of the province of Quauhnahuac, at the time the southern limit\nof Mexican conquest, had long been coveted by the Aztec kings; and\nin 1448 the desired opportunity presented itself. The Cohuixcas\nattacked and put to death a large number of traveling merchants from\nMexico, provoked to the outrage doubtless by the arbitrary conduct\nof the latter, who deemed that the great power of their own nation\nfreed them from all obligation to obey the laws of nations which\nthey visited. The murder of the traders was more than a sufficient\ncause of war to the belligerent allies, and by a campaign concerning\nwhich no details are recorded, the two provinces, or at least most of\ntheir towns, were conquered and annexed as tributaries to the Aztec\ndomains.[VIII-20] During the following years the Aztecs were called upon\nto suspend their foreign conquests and to struggle at home against\nwater and snow and frost and drought and famine, foes that well nigh\ngained the mastery over these hitherto invincible warriors. In 1449\nheavy and continuous rains so raised the waters of the lake as to\ninundate the streets of Tenochtitlan, destroying many buildings and\neven causing considerable loss of life. The misfortune was bravely\nmet; the genius of Nezahualcoyotl, the engineering skill of the\nvalley, and the whole available laboring force of the three kingdoms\nwere called into requisition to guard against a recurrence of the\nflood. A dike, stretching from north to south in crescent form, was\nconstructed for a distance of seven or eight miles, separating the\nwaters of the lake into two portions, that on the Mexican side being\ncomparatively independent of the fresh water flowing into the lake\nin the rainy season. The dike was built by driving a double line of\npiles, the interior space being filled with stones and earth, the whole\nover thirty, or, as many authors say, sixty feet wide, and forming a\nmuch-frequented promenade. This work may be considered a great triumph\nof aboriginal engineering, especially when we consider the millions\nspent by the Spaniards under the best European engineers in protecting\nthe city, hardly more effectually, against similar inundations. The\nChalcas seem to have taken advantage of the troubles in Mexico to\nrevolt, but were easily brought into subjection by an army under\nMontezuma.[VIII-21]\n\n[Sidenote: FAMINE AND PLAGUES.]\n\nThe famine and other plagues already alluded to began two years later,\nand continued for a period of six years.[VIII-22] The authorities do not\naltogether agree respecting the exact order of the visitations, but\nsevere frosts, a heavy fall of snow, long-continued drought, consequent\nfailure of all crops, famine, and epidemic pestilence are mentioned\nby all. All the valley and many provinces without its limits were\nvisited by the famine; indeed, Totonacapan, or northern Vera Cruz,\nis reported to have been the only part of the country that entirely\nescaped its effects. The suffering and mortality among the lower\nclasses were terrible; the royal granaries were thrown open by order\nof Nezahualcoyotl and Montezuma, but the supply of maize was soon\nexhausted, and the fish, reptiles, birds, and insects of the lakes were\nthe only sources of food. Thousands of the poor sold themselves into\nslavery, some at home, others in foreign provinces, to obtain barely\nfood enough to sustain life. Several Mexican colonies attribute their\norigin to this period of want. The rulers could not prevent the sale\nof slaves, but they forbade children to be sold at less rates than\nfour or five hundred ears of corn each, according as they were boys or\ngirls. This national disaster was, of course, attributed to the anger\nof the gods, and the utmost efforts were made to conciliate their irate\ndivinities by the only efficacious means known, the sacrifice of human\nvictims. But since fighting and conquest had ceased, such victims were\nexceedingly scarce. Nezahualcoyotl would allow none but prisoners of\nwar to be sacrificed in his dominions, arguing that such forfeited\ntheir lives by being defeated, and that it made but little difference\nto them whether they died on the field of battle or on the sacrificial\naltar. Moreover, only strong soldiers were believed to be acceptable to\nthe gods in such an emergency; the sickly and famishing plebeians and\nslaves could not by their worthless lives avert the divine wrath. The\nresult of this difficulty was one of the most extraordinary compacts\nknown in the world's history. It was agreed in a solemn treaty that\nbetween the Mexicans, Tepanecs, and Acolhuas in the valley, and the\nCholultecs, Tlascaltecs, and Huexotzincas of the eastern plateaux,\nbattles should take place at regular intervals, on battle-grounds set\napart for this purpose, between foes equal in number, for the sole\npurpose of obtaining captives for sacrifice. Such battles were actually\nfought during the years of famine, and perhaps in later years, although\nthe almost constant wars rendered such a resort rarely necessary. In\nthe last years of the famine Nezahualcoyotl laid the foundations of a\ngreat teocalli at Tezcuco, in 1455 the tying-up of the cycle and the\nrenewal of the sacred fire were celebrated, and the following year of\n1456 was one of great abundance. The time of want and disaster was at\nlast completed; a period of plenty and prosperity ensued.[VIII-23]\n\n[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF MIZTECAPAN.]\n\nWith returning plenty and prosperity at home, came back the spirit\nof foreign conquest. The first to fall before the allied forces was\nthe province of Cohuaixtlahuacan, or Upper Miztecapan, lying in the\nsouth-west, in what is now Oajaca, and adjoining that of Mazatlan,\nwhich had already been added to the Aztec domain. As in the case\nof the last-mentioned province and of many others, ill-treatment of\nMexican traders was the alleged motive of the war. The Miztec king,\ncalled Dzawindanda in his own country and Atonaltzin by the Mexicans,\nhad caused many of the traveling merchants to be put to death and had\nfinally forbidden the whole fraternity to trade in or to pass through\nhis territory. There is every reason to believe that this prohibition\nwas merited by the conduct of the Mexicans. At this time, and still\nmore so in later years, the monarchs of An\u00e1huac made use of their\nmerchants as spies to report upon the wealth and power of different\nprovinces, to ascertain the best methods of attack, and to provoke a\nquarrel when the conquest had once been determined upon. The province\nof Miztecapan was a rich field of traffic and was moreover on the\nroute to the rich commercial towns on the southern coast of An\u00e1huac\nAyotlan, where the products of the countries both north and south of\nthe isthmus were offered for sale at the great fairs. The Mexicans\nattended these fairs in companies which were well armed and were\nlittle less than small armies, trusting in their own strength and that\nof their sovereign, and showing but little respect for the laws of\nprovinces traversed. Atonaltzin was a proud and powerful ruler, and\nwas not at all unwilling to measure his strength against that of the\ncentral nations. Montezuma sent an embassy to hear his complaints;\nAtonaltzin sent back by the same embassy a great quantity of valuable\ngifts, samples, as he said, of the tribute the Mexicans might expect\nif they should succeed in conquering his armies in the war which must\ndecide which king was to pay tribute to the other. Montezuma's reply\nwas to march at the head of a large army towards Tilantongo, the\ncapital of Cohuaixtlahuacan. The result was that the allied forces were\nutterly routed and driven back with great loss to their home. Montezuma\nhad underrated the strength of his adversary and had undertaken the\nconquest without sufficient preparation.\n\nA few months were now spent in new preparations on both sides for\na renewal of the struggle. The Aztecs in some way formed a secret\nalliance with the lord of Tlachquiauhco, near Tilantongo, who was an\nenemy to Atonaltzin. The Miztecs on the other hand obtained aid from\nthe Tlascaltecs and Huexotzincas, who before the Aztec alliance had\nbeen the leading traders of the country, and who were jealous of the\ncommercial enterprise shown and success achieved by their rivals.\nThe war began with an assault by the Miztec leader and his eastern\nallies on Tlachquiauhco; but the Mexicans, Acolhuas, and Tepanecs,\nunder Montezuma, inflicted this time as severe a defeat as they had\nsuffered before; Atonaltzin was forced to surrender, and the whole\nprovince was annexed to the domain of the victors, as were Tochtepec,\nZapotlan, Tototlan, and Chinantla, soon after. The auxiliary army of\nthe Tlascaltecs and Huexotzincas was almost annihilated. The record\ncloses with a romantic episode of Montezuma's love for Atonaltzin's\nqueen; the Miztec king was killed shortly after by his own subjects,\nnot improbably at the instigation of the Aztecs, and the assassins\nbrought his queen with the news of his death to Mexico. A palace was\nbuilt for her, but she is said to have resisted the Aztec monarch's\nardor, and to have remained faithful to her first husband. The conquest\nof Cozamaloapan and Quauhtochco, also in the Miztec region, followed\nduring the same year and the following, provoked as before by the\npretended murder of traveling merchants.[VIII-24]\n\n[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF CUETLACHTLAN.]\n\nElated by their success in the south-west, the allied kings next turned\ntheir attention toward the south-eastern province of Cuetlachtlan, in\nwhat is now central Vera Cruz, lying between the Aztec possessions\nand the thriving commercial towns of the Xicalancas on the gulf\ncoast in the Goazacoalco region. According to Veytia, Torquemada,\nand Clavigero, the chiefs of the province, incited by the Tlascaltecs\nand promised aid by them and the other cities of the eastern plateau,\ndeclared or adopted measures to provoke the war. Duran and Tezozomoc,\non the contrary, represent the Mexicans as having sent an embassy to\nthe south-eastern provinces, demanding a tribute of rare shells, or\neven of live shell-fish, and threatening war as an alternative. The\nambassadors were to include the Totonac territory in their demands,\nbut were seized and murdered in Cuetlachtlan, their dead bodies being\nsubjected to great indignities, at the instigation of the Tlascaltecs.\nThe army immediately dispatched from the lake cities was one of the\nstrongest which had yet fought for the glory of the Aztec alliance,\nand numbered among its leaders three Mexican princes, Ahuitzotl,\nAxayacatl, and Tizoc, who afterwards occupied the throne, and Moquihuix\nthe ruler of Tlatelulco. The alliance of the Olmec province with\nTlascala and the other cities seems not to have been known at Mexico\nwhen the army began its march, and when it became known excited so\nmuch apprehension that orders were sent to the generals in command to\nfall back and postpone the conflict until further preparations could be\nmade. All were disposed to obey the royal command, save Moquihuix, who\nbravely announced his purpose to attack and defeat the enemy with his\nTlatelulca soldiers unaided. His enthusiasm had an electric effect on\nthe whole army; there was no longer any thought of retreat; the battle\nwas fought in disobedience of orders, near Ahuilizapan, now Orizava;\nthe army of the enemy was defeated; the Aztecs were masters of a broad\ntract, extending from An\u00e1huac south-eastward to the sea; and over six\nthousand captives were brought back to die on the sacrificial block.\nDuran and Tezozomoc state that the nations of the eastern plateau did\nnot give the aid they had promised, treacherously leaving the province\nof Cuetlachtlan to its fate; but this is consistent neither with the\ncharacter nor interests of the Tlascaltecs, and it is more likely\nthat their army shared the defeat. The victors were received at Mexico\nwith the highest honors, the kings, priests, and nobles marching out\nto meet them; the leaders were rewarded for their bravery with lands\nand honors, particularly Moquihuix, who received besides the hand of a\nMexican princess nearly related to the royal family; and the blood of\nthe six thousand captives furnished an offering most acceptable to the\ngods at the dedication of a temple that had just been completed.\n\nA revolt of the province of Cuetlachtlan is recorded by Duran and\nTezozomoc at a later date not definitely fixed, when the Mexican\ngovernor was murdered, the payment of tribute suspended, and the\nambassadors sent to ascertain the cause of such suspension, shut up\nin a tight room and suffocated with burning chile. The Tlascaltecs, as\nbefore, offered aid which was not forthcoming; the guilty parties were\nput to death by order of the Aztec monarchs, and the tributes of the\nprovince were doubled.[VIII-25]\n\n[Sidenote: REVOLT OF THE CHALCAS.]\n\nThe Chalcas never missed an opportunity for revolt, and did not fail\nto take advantage of the events which obliged the hated Aztecs to give\ntheir whole attention to foreign wars. During the war in Cuetlachtlan,\nthey are said to have defied the Aztec power by refusing certain\nblocks of stone from their quarries needed for building-purposes in\nthe capital, and also to have seized and imprisoned several Mexicans\nof high rank. Among the latter was a brother of Montezuma, whom,\naccording to several authorities, they offered to make king of Chalco;\nhe refused to betray his country, but at last, influenced by entreaties\nand threats, pretended to consent. At his request a high platform was\nerected for the performance of certain ceremonies designed to fire\nthe hearts of the Chalcas in the new cause; but from its summit the\ncaptive prince denounced the treachery of his captors, called upon\nthe Mexicans to avenge him, predicted the defeat and slavery of the\npeople of Chalco, and threw himself headlong to the earth below. The\ntotal annihilation of this uncontrollable people was determined upon\nby the kings of Mexico, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan; and a peculiar air of\nmystery enshrouds the war which followed. During the whole period of\npreparation, of conflict, and of victory, the people of the capital\nengaged in solemn processions, chants, prayers, sacrifices, and other\nrites in honor of the Aztecs who had perished in past Chalca wars.\nSignal fires blazed on the hills and in the watch-towers; and it is\neven said that the gods sent an earthquake to warn the Chalcas of their\nimpending doom. The battle raged for a whole day before the fated city\nand the Aztecs were at last victorious, as they had been in a previous\nwar against the same city. Great numbers of the enemy fell in battle\nor were put to the sword during the pursuit; the almost deserted town\nwas entered by the Aztec army; surviving Chalcas were scattered in\nall directions; many took refuge in the cities of the eastern plateau,\nothers perished in the mountains rather than to submit to their hated\nfoe; but enough were finally pardoned by Montezuma and allowed to\nreturn to their city to cause not a little trouble in later years.[VIII-26]\n\nOther events recorded as having occurred before 1460 are few in number.\nThe most important was the conquest and annexation to the Tezcucan\ndomain of many towns in the north-eastern provinces of Tziauhcohuac,\nAtochpan, and Cuextlan, the home of the Huastecs in the P\u00e1nuco region\non the gulf coast. In this campaign the allied troops were under two\nof Nezahualcoyotl's sons, and this was the only important addition to\nthe Acolhua possessions since the date of the tri-partite alliance;\nyet there is no evidence that Nezahualcoyotl expressed or felt any\ndissatisfaction at the rapid growth of the Mexican domain; he was not\nambitious of conquest, and doubtless received his full share of other\nspoils and of tribute. At about the same time the Mexicans conquered\nseveral strong cities on the southern edge of the Cholultec plateau,\nsuch as Tepeaca, Quauhtinchan, and Acatzingo, thus threatening the\nindependence of the eastern republics; outrages on traveling merchants\nwere as usual the real or pretended excuse for these conquests.\nTenochtitlan and Tlatelulco had now grown so far beyond their original\nlimits as to form really but one city, the boundary line being a narrow\nand shallow ditch. This ditch was now deepened and widened at the joint\nexpense of the two powers, and formed into a navigable canal. Great\nimprovements were also made, particularly in the market buildings of\nTlatelulco, which had now become the commercial headquarters of the\nwhole country north of Tehuantepec. The commercial interests of the\nempire had been most jealously promoted by the reigning monarchs, and\nthe Aztec merchants had contributed no less than the Aztec armies to\nthe glory and prosperity of their nation.[VIII-27]\n\n[Sidenote: BIRTH OF NEZAHUALPILLI.]\n\nIn 1463 Nezahaulcoyotl married a daughter of the king of Tlacopan,\nobtaining her hand, if we may credit Ixtlilxochitl and Torquemada,\nin a manner that reflected no credit on his honor. She had been from\nan early age the wife of Temictzin, a Tlatelulca general, somewhat\nadvanced in years, but the marriage had not yet been consummated on\naccount of her youth. The Acolhua monarch desiring by marriage to leave\na legitimate heir to the throne, and becoming enamored of the young\nAzcaxochitl's charms, sent her husband away to the wars, and managed\nto have him killed. After her period of mourning was past, the fair\nAzcaxochitl was made queen of Tezcuco; the nuptial feasts lasted eighty\ndays among great rejoicings of nobles and people; and within a year the\nqueen gave birth to Nezahualpilli, the emperor's only legitimate son\nand his successor.[VIII-28] The year 1465 is given as the date of the final\nsubmission of the Chalcas; that is the surrender and return to the city\nof the last bands that had since their defeat lived under chieftains\nof their own choice in the mountains, and kept up some show of\nhostility to Mexico.[VIII-29] In 1466, the causeway and aqueduct extending\nfrom Chapultepec to Mexico, and supplying the capital with pure water\nthrough a pipe of burned clay, were completed. This work had been\nplanned by Nezahualcoyotl during his residence at Mexico, and had been\ncommenced by Itzcoatl. Work was continually pushed forward on the grand\ntemple of Huitzilopochtli, and many teocallis were built at this period\nin each of the three allied capitals. One in Tezcuco is particularly\nmentioned, which was very richly decorated with gold and precious\nstones, and was dedicated by Nezahualcoyotl to the invisible god of\nthe universe. This pyramid was completed in 1467, but, according to\nthe _Codex Chimalpopoca_, fell as soon as finished. It was necessary to\nrebuild the structure, and that it might be done rapidly, the Tezcucan\nmonarch called upon Montezuma for laborers from his tributary city of\nZumpango and other northern towns. The permission was given, but the\npeople of Zumpango refused to send workmen, and raised a revolt, which\nwas, however, quelled by the Acolhua forces in a short campaign.[VIII-30]\n\n[Sidenote: MISSION TO CHICOMOZTOC.]\n\nA remarkable story told by Duran and attributed to the reign of\nMontezuma I., may be introduced here as well as anywhere, although\nit is more than doubtful whether it should receive any credit as a\nhistoric record. In the midst of the glory acquired by his valor,\nMontezuma determined to send an armed force to the region of the Seven\nCaves whence his people came. Though armed they were to bear rich\npresents, with orders to explore the country and search for the mother\nof Huitzilopochtli, who if yet alive would be pleased to know of her\nson's prosperity and glory, and would gladly receive the gifts of his\nchosen people. The intention was made known to Tlacaeleltzin--a famous\nprince who seems to be identical with Montezuma before the latter\nbecame king, but of whom many wondrous tales are told even after the\nlatter ascended the throne--who gave his approval, but recommended that\na peaceful embassy of wise men and sorcerers be sent on this mission.\nAt Coatepec in the region of Tollan, after performing various religious\nrites, the sixty sorcerers chosen for the expedition were transformed\ninto different animal forms and transported with their treasure to\nthe land of their fathers, to the lake-surrounded hill of Culhuacan.\nHere they found certain people who spoke their language and to them\nannounced their purpose. The priests of this people remembered well\nthe departure of the Aztec tribes, and were surprised to learn that\ntheir original leaders were dead, for their companions left behind were\nyet alive. The messengers were promised an interview with Coatlicue,\nmother of their god, and had a most tiresome journey up the sandy\nhill with their gifts, much to the wonder of the guiding priests, who\nwondered what they could live upon in their new home to have become\nso effeminate. At last they found the aged mother of Huitzilopochtli\nweeping bitterly, and stating that since her son's departure she had\nneither washed her body and face, combed her hair, nor changed her\ngarments; neither did she propose to attend to her toilet until his\nreturn. The old woman expressed, however, considerable interest in the\naffairs of Mexico, and made known some prophecies of her son about\nthe coming of a strange people to take the land from the Mexicans.\nThe messengers were finally dismissed with presents of fowls, fish,\nflowers, and clothing, for Montezuma; and, re-adopting their disguises,\nwere brought back in eight days to Coatepec, where they discovered that\ntwenty of their number were missing. These lost members of the company\nwere never heard of more.[VIII-31]\n\nMontezuma died in 1469,[VIII-32] leaving his country in a more flourishing\ncondition than it had ever known, notwithstanding the six years' famine\nthat had occurred during his reign. He left to his people or to his\nnobles the choice of his successor from among his three grandsons--by\nhis daughter Atotoztli and Tezozomoc, son of Itzcoatl--Tizoc,\nAxayacatl, and Ahuitzotl, expressing, however, a preference for the\nsecond, who was now commander of the Mexican armies. His remains were\nenclosed in an urn and deposited in the walls of the grand temple now\napproaching completion, and his wishes were followed in the choice of\na successor.[VIII-33]\n\n[Sidenote: RAID IN TEHUANTEPEC.]\n\nBefore the coronation of the new monarch could be celebrated with\nfitting solemnity, and in a manner worthy of his predecessors, victims\nfor sacrifice must be captured in large numbers; and it had now\nbecome an established custom for each newly elected king to undertake\nin person a campaign with the sole object of procuring captives.\nAxayacatl, in complying with the usage, distinguished himself by\nthe most daring raid yet undertaken by Aztec valor. Passing rapidly\nsouthward by mountain routes at the head of a large force, and avoiding\nthe Miztec and Zapotec towns of Oajaca, he suddenly presented himself\nbefore the city of Tehuantepec, routed the defending army, drawing them\ninto an ambush by a pretended retreat, entered and pillaged the city,\ncaptured the rich commercial city of Guatulco some distance above on\nthe coast, left a strong garrison in each stronghold, and returned\nto Mexico laden with plunder and with thousands of captives in his\ntrain, almost before his departure was known throughout the country.\nBrasseur tells us that he crossed the isthmus in this campaign, and\nfor the time subjected to Aztec rule the province of Soconusco, even\nreaching the frontiers of Guatemala; but Torquemada is given as the\nauthority for this statement, and this author implies nothing of the\nkind, consequently we may doubt it. The sacrifice of captives from\ndistant and strange lands, together with the rich spoils brought back\nfrom the south-sea provinces, imparted unusual \u00e9clat to the coronation\nceremonies; the successful warrior was congratulated by his colleagues\nat Tezcuco and Tlacopan; and the people felt assured that in Axayacatl\nthey had a monarch worthy of his subjects' admiration.[VIII-34]\n\nDuring the same year, perhaps, a battle was fought against Huexotzinco\nand Atlixco on the frontier, in which the three kings took part\npersonally; and it is recorded that in the midst of the conflict\nTezcatlipoca appeared to the Aztec armies, cheering them on to victory.\nOn the return of the victors, Axayacatl and Moquihuix of Tlatelulco\neach erected a new temple to the gods of Huexotzinco to propitiate\nthose divinities in case of the war being resumed, which was foretold\nby the oracles. The Mexican temple was called Coatlan, and that in\nTlatelulco Coaxolotl; the latter was a grander structure than the\nformer and its erection in a spirit of rivalry excited some ill-feeling\non the part of the Mexicans, and was not without an influence in\nfomenting the troubles that broke out between the cities a few years\nlater.[VIII-35] An eclipse of the sun which took place about the time\nthe temples were completed, was thought to portend disaster, and was\nfollowed within a period of two years by the death of the Tepanec and\nAcolhua monarchs. Totoquihuatzin, king of Tlacopan, died in 1470 at an\nadvanced age and after a long and prosperous reign, during which he had\ngained the respect of his subjects and colleagues, fighting bravely in\nthe wars of the empire and accepting without complaint his small share\nof the spoils as awarded by the terms of the alliance. He was succeeded\nby his son Chimalpopoca.[VIII-36]\n\n[Sidenote: DEATH OF NEZAHUALCOYOTL.]\n\nThe burning of an immense tract of forest lying to the west of\nAzcapuzalco toward the Matlaltzinco region, is recorded by one\nauthority as having occurred in 1471;[VIII-37] and in the next year\ntook place the death of Nezahualcoyotl, the king of Acolhuacan, and\nconsidered as the greatest and wisest of the Chichimec monarchs. His\nadventures in early life while deprived of his ancestral throne have\ncast a glamour of romance about his name; and the fortitude with which\nhe supported his misfortunes, his valor in regaining the Tezcucan\nthrone, and the prominent part taken by him in the wars of the allies,\nare enthusiastically praised by his biographers. His chief glory,\nhowever, depends not on his valor as a warrior, but on his wisdom and\njustice as a ruler. During his reign his domain had been increased\nin extent far less than that of Mexico; but he had made the city of\nTezcuco the centre of art, science, and all high culture--the Athens\nof America, as Clavigero expresses it, of which he was the Solon--and\nhis kingdom of Acolhuacan a model of good government. Such was his\ninflexibility in the administration of justice and enforcement of the\nlaws, that several of his own sons, although much beloved, were put to\ndeath for offenses against law and morality. Official corruption met no\nmercy at his hands, but toward the poor, the aged, and the unfortunate,\nhis kindness was unbounded. He was in the habit of traveling incognito\namong his subjects, visiting the lower classes, relieving misfortune,\nand obtaining useful hints for the perfection of his code of laws,\nin which he took especial pride. Ever the promoter of education and\nculture, he was himself a man of learning in various branches, and a\npoet of no mean talent.[VIII-38] His religious views, if correctly reported\nby the historians, were far in advance of those of his contemporaries\nor of the Europeans who in the cause of religion overthrew Tezcucan\nculture; he seems to have been unable to resist the Aztec influence in\nfavor of human sacrifices, but he deserves the credit of having opposed\nthe shedding of blood and ridiculed the deities that demanded it. The\nonly dishonorable action of his life is the method by which he obtained\nhis queen, and that may have received a false coloring at the hands\nof unfriendly annalists. Some of his poems were afterwards regarded as\nprophecies, in which was vaguely announced the coming of the Spaniards.\nHe died in 1472, leaving over a hundred children by his concubines, but\nonly one legitimate son.[VIII-39]\n\nFeeling that his death was near, Nezahualcoyotl had assembled his\nfamily and announced Nezahualpilli as heir to the throne. He informed\nhis older natural sons that only by leaving the throne to a legitimate\nsuccessor could he hope to secure a peaceful succession and future\nprosperity. He expressed great esteem for his oldest son Acapipioltzin,\nwho was now at the head of his armies, and great confidence in\nhis ability, calling upon him to serve as guardian and adviser of\nNezahualpilli, at the time only eight years old, during his minority,\nand to protect his interests against possible attempts of his other\nbrothers to usurp the crown. Acapipioltzin promised to obey his wishes,\nand was ever after faithful to his promise. Several authors say that\nthe king gave orders that his death should not be announced until\nafter his son was firmly seated on the throne; others state that it\nwas a popular belief among the common people that Nezahualcoyotl had\nnot died, but had been called to a place among the gods. After the\nfuneral of the dead king, at which assisted an immense crowd of nobles,\neven from foreign and hostile provinces, such as Tlascala, Cholula,\nTehuantepec, P\u00e1nuco, and Michoacan, three of his sons showed such\nevident designs of disloyalty to the appointed successor, that the\nyoung prince was removed to Mexico by his Aztec and Tepanec colleagues,\nand the ceremony of coronation was performed there. Axayacatl is said\nto have spent most of his time in Tezcuco during Nezahualpilli's\nminority, and it is not improbable that he took advantage of his\ncolleague's youth to strengthen his own position as practically head of\nthe empire.[VIII-40]\n\n[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF TLATELULCO.]\n\nIn the year of Axayacatl's accession three hills trembled in\nXuchitepec, that is, there was an earthquake foreboding disaster,\nwhich came upon the people in 1472, in the shape of an Aztec army under\nAxayacatl. During a raid of a few days, the province was ravaged and a\ncrowd of captives brought back to die on the altars of Huitzilopochtli.\nSuch is Torquemada's account, which is interpreted by Brasseur as\nreferring to a raid across the isthmus into the Guatemalan province of\nXuchiltepec, or Sochitepeques, but there seems to be very little reason\nfor such an interpretation when we consider that there were two towns\nnamed Xuchitepec in the immediate vicinity of An\u00e1huac.[VIII-41]\n\n[Sidenote: DEATH OF MOQUIHUIX.]\n\nAll the authorities relate with very little disagreement that in 1473\nTlatelulco lost her independence, and was annexed to Mexico under\na royal governor. Hitherto this city, notwithstanding the troubles\nduring the reign of Montezuma resulting in the death of her king and\nthe elevation of Moquihuix, had been more independent and enjoyed\ngreater privileges than any of the other cities tributary to the\nMexican throne. But the Tlatelulcas viewed the rapid advance of Mexican\npower with much jealousy; they could not forget that for many years\ntheir city had been superior to her neighbor; they were proud of\ntheir wealth and commercial reputation, and of the well-known valor of\ntheir prince Moquihuix. We have seen that there had been considerable\ndissatisfaction about the building of the temples a few years earlier;\nand frequent quarrels had taken place in the market-places between\nthe men and women of the two cities. Duran and Tezozomoc relate\ncertain outrages on both sides at the beginning of the final struggle.\nMoquihuix at last, counting on the well-known hatred and jealousy of\nthe different nations in and about the valley toward the Aztec king,\nformed a conspiracy to shake off the power of Axayacatl, and invited\nall the surrounding nations except Tlascala, whose commercial rivalry\nhe feared, to join it. Except Tlacopan, Tezcuco, and Tlascala, nearly\nall the cities of the central plateaux seem to have promised aid,\nand the plot began to assume most serious proportions, threatening\nthe overthrow of the allied kings by a still stronger alliance.\nBut, fortunately for his own safety, Axayacatl was made aware of the\nconspiracy almost at the beginning. It will be remembered that a near\nrelative of his--his sister, as most authorities state--had been given\nto Moquihuix for a wife in reward for his bravery in the south-eastern\ncampaign. She had been most grossly abused by her husband, and learning\nin some way his intentions, had revealed the plot to her brother, who\nwas thus enabled to obtain from his allies all needed assistance,\nand to be on his guard at every point. I shall not attempt to form\nfrom the confused narratives of the authorities a detailed account\nof the battles by which Tlatelulco was conquered. At the beginning of\nopen hostilities the wife of Moquihuix fled to Mexico. A simultaneous\nattack by all the rebel forces had been planned; but none of the rebel\nallies actually took part in the struggle, approaching the city only\nafter the battle was over and devoting their whole energy to keep from\nAxayacatl the knowledge of their complicity. Moquihuix, confident of\nhis ability to defeat the unprepared Mexicans without the aid of his\nallies, having excited the valor of his chieftains and soldiers by\nsacrificial and religious rites, giving them to drink the water in\nwhich the stone of sacrifice had been washed, began the conflict before\nthe appointed time. For several days the conflict raged, first in one\ncity, then in the other; but at last the Mexicans invaded Tlatelulco,\nsweeping everything before them. The surviving inhabitants fled to the\nlake marshes; the remnants of the army were driven in confusion to the\nmarket-place; and Moquihuix amid the imprecations of his own people for\nthe rashness that had reduced them to such straits, was at last thrown\ndown the steps of the grand temple, and his heart torn from his breast\nby the hand of Axayacatl himself. The city was for a time devoted to\nplunder; then the inhabitants were gathered from their retreats, after\nhaving been compelled--as Tezozomoc, Acosta, and Herrera tell us--to\ncroak and cackle like the frogs and birds of the marshes in token\nof their perfect submission; heavy tributes were imposed, including\nmany special taxes and menial duties of a humiliating nature; and\nfinally the town was made a ward of Tenochtitlan under the rule of a\ngovernor appointed by the Mexican king. The re-establishment of peace\nwas followed by the punishment of the conspirators. The Tlatelulca\nleaders had for the most part perished in the war, but two of them,\none being the priest Poyahuitl who had performed the religious rites\nat the beginning of hostilities, were condemned to death. The same\nfate overtook all the nobles in other provinces whose share in the\nconspiracy could be proven. So terrible was the vengeance of Axayacatl\nand so long the list of its victims, that the lords of An\u00e1huac were\nfilled with fear, and it was long before they dared again to seek the\noverthrow of the hated Aztec power.[VIII-42]\n\nA strange anecdote is told respecting the fate of Xihuiltemoc, lord\nof Xochimilco, who had either taken part in the Tlatelulca war on the\nrebel side, or more probably had failed to aid the Mexican king in\na satisfactory manner. Both Axayacatl and Xihuiltemoc were skilled\nin the national game of _tlachtli_, or the ball game, and at the\nfestivals in honor of his victory, the former challenged the latter to\na trial of skill. The Xochimilca lord, the better player of the two,\nwas much embarrassed, fearing either to win or to allow himself to be\nbeaten, but the king insisted, and wagered the revenues of the Mexican\nmarket and lake for a year, together with the rule of certain towns,\nagainst the city of Xochimilco, on the result. Xihuiltemoc won the\ngame, and Axayacatl, much crest-fallen, proclaimed his readiness to\npay his wager; but either by his directions, or at least according to\nhis expectation, his opponent was strangled with a wreath of flowers\nconcealing a slip-noose, by the people of the towns he had won, or as\nsome say by the messengers charged to deliver the stakes.[VIII-43]\n\n[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF MATLALTZINCO.]\n\nThus far the Aztec conquests had been directed toward the south-east\nand south-west, while the fertile valleys of the Matlaltzincas,\nimmediately adjoining An\u00e1huac on the west, had for some not very clear\nreason escaped their ambitious views. A very favorable opportunity,\nhowever, for conquest in this direction presented itself in 1474, when\nthe Matlaltzincas were on bad terms with the Tarascos of Michoacan,\ntheir usual allies, and when the lord of Tenantzinco asked the aid\nof the Mexicans in a quarrel with Chimaltecuhtli the king. Axayacatl\nwas only too glad to engage in an undertaking of this nature, but, in\norder to have a more just cause of interference--for, as Duran says,\nthe Aztecs never picked quarrels with other nations!--he peremptorily\nordered the Matlaltzincas to furnish certain building-material and a\nstone font for sacrificial purposes, and on their refusal to comply\nwith his commands, marched against their province at the head of the\nallied troops, and accompanied, as Torquemada says, by his colleagues.\nTown after town in the southern part of the province fell before his\narms, and were placed under Mexican governors. Such were Xalatlauhco,\nAtlapolco, Tetenanco, Tepemaxalco, Tlacotempan, Metepec, Tzinacantepec,\nand Calimaya. Some Aztec colonists were left in each conquered town,\nand Torquemada tells us that people were taken from the other towns\nto settle in the first, Xalatlauhco. Tezozomoc relates that the king\nat one time in this campaign concealed himself in a ditch with eight\nwarriors, and fell upon the rear of the enemy who had been drawn on by\na feigned retreat of the Aztecs, causing great panic and slaughter.\nFlushed with victory, the allies pressed on to attack Xiquipilco\nin the north, the strongest town in the province, and Toluca, the\ncapital. Xiquipilco is spoken of as an Otom\u00ed town under the command\nof Tlilcuetzpalin, with whom Axayacatl had a personal combat during\nthis battle, being wounded so severely in the thigh that he was lame\nfor life, and narrowly escaped death. Tezozomoc claims that the Otom\u00ed\nchieftain was hidden in a bush and treacherously wounded the Mexican\nking, who was in advance of his troops; Ixtlilxochitl, ever ready\nto claim honor for his ancestors, tells us that it was the Acolhua\ncommander who saved Axayacatl's life; while Clavigero and Ortega\nimply that a duel was arranged between the two leaders. The enemy\nwas defeated, their leader and over eleven thousand of his men were\ntaken captives, and the town surrendered, as did Toluca a little\nlater, and other towns in the vicinity. The news of the conquest was\nreceived with great joy at the capital; the senate marched out to meet\nand receive the victorious army on its return; triumphal arches were\nerected at frequent intervals, and flowers were strewn in the path of\nthe victors. The captives were sacrificed in honor of the god of war,\nor as Tezozomoc says, at the dedication of a new altar in his temple,\nexcept the brave Tlilcuetzpalin and a few comrades who were reserved\nto grace by their death another festival, which took place somewhat\nlater. During this Matlaltzinca war a very severe earthquake was\nexperienced.[VIII-44]\n\nA year or two later the Matlaltzincas revolted and obtained the promise\nof assistance from the Tarascos, who were anxious to measure their\nstrength against that of the far-famed Aztecs. But the Tarasco monarch\nwas unused to the celerity of Mexican tactics, and Axayacatl's army,\nthirty-two thousand strong, had entered Matlaltzinco, re-captured\nXiquipilco and other principal towns, crossed the frontiers of\nMichoacan, and captured and burned several cities, including\nTangimaroa, or Tlaximaloyan, an important and strongly fortified place,\nbefore the news of their departure reached Tzintzuntzan, the Tarasco\ncapital. But the Tarasco army, superior to that of the Aztecs, and\nconstantly re-inforced, soon reached the seat of war, attacked the\ninvaders with such fury that they were driven back, with great loss, to\nToluca. This was doubtless the disaster indicated by an eclipse during\nthe same year. After thus showing their power by defeating the proud\nwarriors of the valley, the Tarascos did not follow up their advantage,\nbut returned to their own country, leaving the Mexicans still masters\nof Matlaltzinco. Another attempt at revolt is vaguely recorded some\nyears later, but in 1478 the Matlaltzinca cities were permanently\njoined to the Mexican domain, and the leading Matlaltzinca divinities\ntransferred to the temples of Tenochtitlan.[VIII-45]\n\n[Sidenote: DEATH OF AXAYACATL.]\n\nAxayacatl died in 1481, just after his return, as Duran informs us,\nfrom Chapultepec whither he had gone to inspect his image carved on\nthe cliff by the side of that of Montezuma I. Brasseur states that\nhis days were shortened by the excessive number of his concubines.\nHe was succeeded, according to the wish of his predecessor, by Tizoc,\nTizocicatzin, or Chalchiuhtona, his brother, who was succeeded in his\noffice of commander of the army by Ahuitzotl. Duran insists that the\nthrone was again offered to the mythical Tlacaeleltzin, who declined\nthe honor but offered to continue to be the actual ruler during Tizoc's\nreign.[VIII-46]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[VIII-1] _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. x.; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.\n222-3; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 18-25;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 194-5; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las\nYnd._, pp. 486-7; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 145. Duran and Clavigero\nplace these events after Nezahualcoyotl had gone to Tezcuco. The\nformer states that Tezcuco was one of the cities applied to for aid\nagainst the Mexicans, and introduces here the story of the people on\nthe lake shore having been made ill by the smell of fish in\nTenochtitlan; and the latter states that Huexotla aided Coyuhuacan in\nthis war. Torquemada places the war in the second year of Itzcoatl's\nreign, and implies that the Mexicans were forced to make several\nexpeditions before they were completely successful.\n\n[VIII-2] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 145-6; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 196-8.\n\n[VIII-3] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 239-40, 407-8; the alliance with\nTlascala is spoken of on pp. 247-8. _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 168-82.\n\n[VIII-4] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 175.\n\n[VIII-5] _Boturini_, _Idea_, p. 26; _Ortega_, in _Veytia_, tom. iii.,\np. 178.\n\n[VIII-6] See _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 239-47, 258-61, 386-8, 407-9, 454-5,\n467-8; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 182-209, 223-9; _Torquemada_, tom. i.,\npp. 146-7, 167-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 225-6, 242-7; _Brasseur_,\n_Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 197-202. Coatlichan, Tepetlaoztoc, Tepechpan,\nChiuhnauhtla, Tulancingo, Quauchinanco, Xicotepec, and Teotihuacan are\nmentioned among the provinces whose lords were restored. Ixtlilxochitl\nand Veytia say that the same system of provincial government was\nforced on Mexico by Nezahualcoyotl.\n\n[VIII-7] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 202-3; _Veytia_, tom.\niii., p. 236; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 150; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p.\n228; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 28.\n\n[VIII-8] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 384, 458, and Veytia, tom. iii., pp.\n149-52, 234-5, state that Nezahualcoyotl accomplished the conquest of\nXochimilco with the aid of a few Tlascaltecs, leaving Itzcoatl\nentirely out of the affair. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 226-7, tells us\nthat the Xochimilcas determined to make war on the Mexicans before\nthey became too strong. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xii., xiii., relates\nan evil omen for the Xochimilcas, in the transformation of a dish of\nviands, round which they were seated in deliberation, into arms, legs,\nhearts, and other human parts. See also _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 203-5; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 25-30;\n_Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las\nYnd._, pp. 488-90; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 140, 148-9; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., p. 28; _Herrera_, _Hist. Gen._, dec. iii., lib. ii.,\ncap. xiii.\n\n[VIII-9] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 248-9, says that Quauhnahuac and eight\nother towns were awarded to Nezahualcoyotl, Tepozotlan, Huastepec and\nothers to Itzcoatl, besides the share of Tlacopan not specified. The\nsame author gives here without details of chronology, a list of\nsubsequent conquests by the allies at this period, which we shall find\nscattered throughout this and the following reigns; such are:--Chalco,\nItzucan, Tepeaca, Tecalco, Teohuacan, Cohuaixtlahuacan, Hualtepec,\nQuauhtochco, Atochpan, Tizauhcoac, Tochtepec, Mazahuacan, Tlapacoia,\nTlauhcocauhtitlan, and Tulancingo. See also on conquest of\nQuauhnahuac, _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 227-8; _Torquemada_, tom. i.,\npp. 149-50; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 235-6; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt\nii., p. 28; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 205-7.\n\n[VIII-10] _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 139-41; see p. 190, of\nthis volume, and vol. ii., p. 528.\n\n[VIII-11] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n208-11; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 150.\n\n[VIII-12] _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 30-2; _Duran_,\nMS., tom. i., cap. xv.; _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 303; _Sig\u00fcenza_,\nin _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. i., p. 59; Torquemada, tom. i.,\npp. 149-50, denies the story that Nezahualcoyotl submitted to\nItzcoatl. Vetancvrt, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 33-4, makes them still of\nequal rank. Tezozomoc makes no mention of any events in Itzcoatl's\nreign after the conquest of Cuitlahuac. Duran, cap. xiv, states that\nhis conquests included Chalco, Quauhnahuac, Huexotzinco, and\nCoatlichan. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 228-9, 232-3; Torquemada, tom. i.,\np. 157, and Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 236-7, place in Itzcoatl's reign\nthe origin of the troubles with Tlatelulco which will be spoken of\nhereafter. According to the _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol.\nv., p. 44, Itzcoatl, or Izcoaci, conquered 24 cities.\n\n[VIII-13] Date, 1440. _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xiv-xv.; _Codex\nMendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 45; _Mendieta_, _Hist.\nEcles._, p. 150; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 249, 457; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_,\npt ii., p. 28; _Boturini_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv.,\np. 239; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 211-12. Duran also gives\n1445 and Ixtlilxochitl 1441. 1436, _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 237-8;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 229; _Bustamante_, _Ma\u00f1adas de la Alameda_,\ntom. ii., p. 174. See also on the succession; _Herrera_, _Hist. Gen._,\ndec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp.\n490-3; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; _Torquemada_, tom. i.,\npp. 150, 171; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 30;\n_Motolinia_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 6;\n_Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 303.\n\n[VIII-14] _Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 239; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._,\np. 491; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., p. 29.\n\n[VIII-15] See pp. 241-2, 250, 255, of this volume.\n\n[VIII-16] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 213-17; _Veytia_, tom.\niii., pp. 239-40; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 230; _Torquemada_, tom. i.,\npp. 150-1; _Duran_, MS. tom. i., cap. xvi. The latter author is\ncareful to state that Montezuma did not request, but simply ordered\naid in building his temples from Tlacopan and Tezcuco.\n\n[VIII-17] _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 240-2; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp.\n150-4; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 230-1; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 255-7,\n467-8; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 217-24; _Sahagun_, tom.\nii., lib. viii., p. 268; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 29.\n\n[VIII-18] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 156-7; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.\n232-3; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 242-3; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii.,\npp. 224-5; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, p. 176; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., p. 30; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 273-4.\n\n[VIII-19] _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 248; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p.\n225. The former author says that this conquest extended to\nQuauhchinanco and Xilotepec, but implies that it took place\nimmediately after the treaty with Tlascala, which followed\nNezahualcoyotl's accession to the Tezcucan throne.\n\n[VIII-20] The towns mentioned as included in this conquest are\nCohuixco, Oztoman, Quetzaltepec, Ixcateopan, Teoxcahualco, Poctepec,\nYauhtepec, Yacapichtla, Totolapan, Tlachmalacac, Tlachco, Chilapan,\nTomazolapan, Quauhtepec, Ohuapan, Tzompahuacan, and Cozamaloapan. See\n_Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 243; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 233;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 157; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n225-7; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 30; _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 249.\n\n[VIII-21] Several authors give the dates as 1446. _Veytia_, tom. iii.,\npp. 247-8; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 233-4; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp.\n157-8; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 228-32. This author gives\nthe width of the dike as about 30 feet. _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii.,\np. 30.\n\n[VIII-22] 1448-54, _Veytia_; 1451-6, _Brasseur_; 1447-54, _Codex Tell.\nRem._; 1404-7 (1444-7?) 11 years after accession of Montezuma,\n_Duran_.\n\n[VIII-23] _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xviii., xix., xxx., says the\nsnow fell knee-deep in the valley. He also tells us that very many\nsold as slaves during the famine were ransomed and returned\nafterwards; this, however, does not apply to such as went to\nTotonacapan, since these remained in that province. _Ixtlilxochitl_,\npp. 250-1, 257, says that the slaves sold to the Totonacs were all\nsacrificed to secure a continuance of productiveness in the province.\nThis author also names Xicotencatl, a Tlascaltec noble, as the person\nwho suggested the battles for captives. _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 232-6, implies that the name Totonacapan, 'region of our\nsubsistence,' was given on account of the events described, although\nthe same author has spoken frequently of the Totonacs at a period many\ncenturies earlier. See also, _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix,\npp. 63-6; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 158, 171; _Clavigero_, tom. i.,\npp. 233-5; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 269; _Veytia_, tom.\niii., pp. 248-9; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p.\n150. Acosta, _Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 493, and Herrera, dec. iii., lib.\nii., cap. xiii, merely state that it was agreed to reserve Tlascala as\na battle-field whereon to exercise the armies, and to obtain captives.\nTorquemada throws some doubt on this agreement.\n\n[VIII-24] Date, 1458-9, according to Brasseur; 1456 according to the\nother authors. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxii., xxiii., and Tezozomoc,\nin _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 51-3, say nothing of the aid rendered\nby the Tlascaltecs and Huexotzincas. See also _Clavigero_, tom. i.,\npp. 236-7; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 249-51; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 237-52; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 159-61; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 30-1.\n\n[VIII-25] According to Veytia's chronology, this conquest took place\nin 1457; Brasseur puts this and the following events in 1458-9. See\n_Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 251-3; _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 467; _Clavigero_,\ntom. i., pp. 237-8; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 161-2; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., p. 31; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 252-7;\n_Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xxi., xxiv.; _Tezozomoc_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 48-51, 53-6.\n\n[VIII-26] On the conquest of Chalco, see _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap.\nxvi., xvii.; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 33-40;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 238-40; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n258-61; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 492-3; _Herrera_, dec.\niii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 253-4.\n\n[VIII-27] According to the _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol.\nv., pp. 150-1, the conquest of Goazacoalco took place about this time,\nin 1461. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 249-50, implies that the Tlascaltecs\nfought on the side of Nezahualcoyotl in the conquest of Cuextlan. See\n_Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 254; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 493;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 240; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 164;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 261-2, 267-9; _Tezozomoc_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 40-6; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p.\n32; on the commerce of the Aztecs, see vol. ii., pp. 378-99.\n\n[VIII-28] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 232, states that the Tepanec princess\nwas the emperor's second wife; and Ixtlilxochitl implies that\nNezahualpilli was her second son. There is also no agreement\nrespecting her name or that of her father and husband. All agree that\nthis child was born in 1464 or 1465. See _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 253-4,\n257, 467; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 244-6; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 271-3; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 154-6; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 29-30.\n\n[VIII-29] _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 151;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 277.\n\n[VIII-30] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 277-80; _Ixtlilxochitl_,\np. 257.\n\n[VIII-31] _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xxvii.\n\n[VIII-32] 1464, _Veytia_; 1468, _Vetancvrt_, _Ixtlilxochitl_, _and\nBoturini_; 1469, _Ixtlilxochitl_, _Brasseur_, _Codex Chimalp._, _Codex\nTell. Rem._, _Codex Mendoza_.\n\n[VIII-33] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxviii-xxix., xxxi-ii., and\nTezozomoc, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 58-63, 66, attribute to\nMontezuma I. the conquest of Oajaca, and the establishment there of a\nMexican colony. They may refer to the conquest of the land of the\nMiztecs already related, or to that of more southern parts of Oajaca\nat a later period. They also state that Axayacatl was the son of\nMontezuma. Duran tells us that Montezuma before his death had his\nimage sculptured on the cliff at Chapultepec; and that Axayacatl was\nnominated king by Tlacaeleltzin, who declined the throne. The _Codex\nMendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., pp. 45-6, followed by Mendieta,\n_Hist. Ecles._, p. 150, give the number of provinces conquered by\nMontezuma as thirty-three. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 257, 457, says Montezuma\nleft several sons. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 169, 172, says he left\none, not named, but that he disinherited him for the good of the\nnation. Acosta, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 493, 495, and Herrera, dec.\niii., lib. ii., cap. xiii., make Tizoc precede Axayacatl, both being\nsons of Montezuma. Camargo, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., p.\n178, makes Ahuitzotl precede Axayacatl. Vetancvrt, _Teatro_, pt ii.,\np. 32, says that Axayacatl, Tizoc, and Ahuitzotl were sons of\nMontezuma's uncle by a daughter of Itzcoatl. Motolinia, in\n_Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 6, and Gomara, _Conq.\nMex._, fol. 303, represent Montezuma as having been succeeded by his\ndaughter. See also on the death and character of Montezuma I., and the\naccession of Axayacatl:--_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 280-2;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 241; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 254-5;\n_Boturini_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., p. 240; _Codex\nTell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., pp. 149, 151; _Sahagun_, tom.\nii., lib. viii., pp. 268-9.\n\n[VIII-34] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxii., says that the first five\nyears of Axayacatl's reign were undisturbed by war. See on the\nTehuantepec raid and the Coronation: _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 172;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 283-7; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt\nii., p. 32; _Clavigero_, tom., i. pp. 241-2; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las\nYnd._, pp. 496-7. Veytia, tom. iii., p. 256, and Clavigero speak of\nwars in the first years of his reign against the revolting provinces\nof Cuetlachtlan and Tochtepec.\n\n[VIII-35] Date according to the Spanish writers, 1468. According to\nthe _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 150,\nHuexotzinco had seized upon the province of Atlixco in 1456, driving\naway the people of Guacachula, the former possessors. Only Torquemada,\ntom. i., pp. 172-3, and Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 287-8,\nmention the apparition of Tezcatlipoca. See also _Clavigero_, tom. i.,\npp. 242, 248; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 256-7; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_,\npt ii., pp. 32-3.\n\n[VIII-36] Date 1469 according to Spanish writers; 1470 according to\n_Codex Chimalpopoca_. _Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 261; _Brasseur_,\n_Hist._, tom. iii., p. 288; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 242;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 173; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 32.\n\n[VIII-37] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p.\n288.\n\n[VIII-38] See vol. ii., pp. 246-7, 294, 471-2, 491-7.\n\n[VIII-39] Date 1470, _Ortega_ and _Clavigero_; 1462 or 1472,\n_Ixtlilxochitl_; 1472, _Codex Chimalpopoca_.\n\n[VIII-40] On the character and death of Nezahualcoyotl, and the\nsuccession of Nezahualpilli, see: _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 254-62, 408-9,\n467-8; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 156, 164-9, 173-4; _Clavigero_, tom.\ni., pp. 232, 242-8; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 288-301;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 33-4; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 247,\n261-7.\n\n[VIII-41] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 176. The author says, however,\nthat the province was 'on the coast of An\u00e1huac.' _Brasseur_, _Hist._,\ntom. iii., pp. 301-2.\n\n[VIII-42] Authorities on the Tlatelulca war:--_Duran_, MS., tom. i.,\ncap. xxxii-xxxiv.; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp.\n66-76; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 176-80; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib.\nviii., pp. 269, 274; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 256-61; _Brasseur_,\n_Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 302-15; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 248-52;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 34-5; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes\nAmer._, pp. 176-8; _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 150; _Acosta_,\n_Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 498; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap.\nxiv.; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 262-3; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc.,\nTransact._, vol. i., p. 120.\n\n[VIII-43] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 180-1; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp.\n263-4, 458; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 35; _Brasseur_, _Hist._,\ntom. iii., pp. 316-17.\n\n[VIII-44] According to the _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol.\nv., p. 151, this war and earthquake took place in 1462. Torquemada,\ntom. i., pp. 181-2, places them in the sixth year of Axayacatl's\nreign. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxv.-xxxvi., and Tezozomoc, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 76-82, state that Tlilcuetzpalin\nescaped. See also, _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 264; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.\n252-3; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 317-22; _Veytia_, tom.\niii., pp. 267-8; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. iv., cap. xviii.;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 35.\n\n[VIII-45] Most of the details of this war are from _Brasseur_,\n_Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 322-5. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap.\nxxxvii.-viii., and Tezozomoc, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 82-7,\nstate simply that to procure victims for the dedication of a new\nsacrificial stone, the Aztecs marched to the borders of Michoacan and\nwere defeated by superior numbers, returning to Mexico. The victims\nwere finally obtained at Tliliuquitepec. Other authors represent the\nAztecs as victorious, they having added to their possessions Tochpan,\nTototlan, Tlaximaloyan, Ocuillan, and Malacatepec. See _Torquemada_,\ntom. i., p. 182; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 253; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_,\npt ii., pp. 35-6; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p.\n151.\n\n[VIII-46] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 253, gives the date 1477. According\nto the _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 47, it was\n1482. All the other authorities agree on 1481. See on family,\ncharacter, and death of Axayacatl, and succession of Tizoc: _Veytia_,\ntom. iii., pp. 269-71; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxviii-ix.;\n_Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 88-91, 143;\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 264-5; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 182;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 36; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._,\npp. 494-5; _Sig\u00fcenza_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. i., p.\n70; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; _Gallatin_, in _Amer.\nEthno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 164.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE AZTEC PERIOD--CONCLUDED.\n\n     Reign of Tizoc -- Nezahualpilli defeats the Huexotzincas\n     -- Ahuitzotl, King of Mexico -- Campaigns for Captives --\n     Dedication of Huitzilopochtli's Temple -- Seventy Thousand\n     Victims -- Totoquihuatzin II., King of Tlacopan -- Mexican\n     Conquests -- Conquest of Totonacapan -- Aztec Reverses\n     -- Successful Revolt of Tehuantepec and Zapotecapan --\n     Conquest of Zacatollan -- Anecdotes of Nezahualpilli -- New\n     Aqueduct, and Inundation of Mexico -- Montezuma II. on the\n     Throne -- Condition of the Empire -- Montezuma's Policy --\n     Unsuccessful Invasion of Tlascala -- Famine -- Conquest of\n     Miztecapan -- Tying-up of the Cycle in 1507 -- Omens of\n     coming Disaster -- The Spaniards on the Coast of Central\n     America -- Trouble between Mexico and Tezcuco -- Retirement\n     and Death of Nezahualpilli -- Cacama, King of Acolhuacan --\n     Revolt of Ixtlilxochitl -- Final Campaigns of the Aztecs --\n     The Spaniards on the Gulf Coast -- Arrival of Hernan Cort\u00e9s.\n\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF TIZOC.]\n\nTizoc's coronation was preceded by a campaign in the north-east, where\nthe provinces stretching from Meztitlan to the gulf had taken advantage\nof the Tlatelulca and Matlaltzinca wars to shake off the yoke of their\nconquerors. Tezozomoc and Duran represent this campaign as having\nbeen undertaken by Tizoc, after most extensive preparations, for the\npurpose of obtaining captives, but attended with little success, only\nabout forty prisoners having been secured. The former author tells us\nthat this war took place during Nezahualcoyotl's reign. Acosta implies\nthat the failure resulted from Tizoc's cowardice or bad generalship.\nIxtlilxochitl, followed by Brasseur, makes Nezahualpilli the leader\nin this his first war, accompanied by both his colleagues. He seems\nto have felt, notwithstanding his extreme youth, much shame at not\nhaving performed any glorious deed of arms, ruling as he did over so\nvalorous a people as the Acolhuas, and even to have been ridiculed\non the subject by his elder brothers; but in this war he made for\nhimself a lasting reputation worthy of his ancestors and his rank.\nThe war is represented by these authors as a succession of victories\nby which Cuextlan and the surrounding provinces were brought back\nto their allegiance. No reverses are alluded to. The captives taken\nwere sacrificed at Tizoc's coronation, the new king attempting to\nsurpass his predecessors by giving a series of magnificent festivals\nwhich continued for forty days.[IX-1] An expedition against Tlacotepec,\nmentioned by Torquemada without details, seems to be the only other war\nin which Tizoc engaged during his reign.[IX-2] He either lacked the valor\nand skill in war which distinguished his predecessors, or like the\nTezcucan monarchs believed he could best promote his nation's welfare\nby attention to peaceful arts. Very little is recorded of this king;\nhis reign was very short, and was marked by no very important events.\nDuring this period, however, occurred a war between Nezahualpilli and\nHuehuetzin, the lord of Huexotzinco. This war seems to have been caused\nby the plots of Nezahualpilli's brothers who had obtained the aid of\nHuexotzinco. According to Brasseur the Acolhua king and Huehuetzin\nwere born in the same day and hour, and the astrologers had predicted\nthat the former would one day be conquered by the latter, whose defeat\nwould, however, be celebrated by the Acolhuas. Huehuetzin ascertained\nfrom the malcontent Acolhua princes a statement of the forces that were\nto march against him, with a description of Nezahualpilli's armor,\nand directed all his men to make it their chief object to kill the\nking. But Nezahualpilli learned the intention of his opponent, clad a\ncaptain with his armor, placed him at the head of one division of his\narmy, while he himself in disguise took command of the other division.\nSo furious was the attack upon the mock king that he was killed,\nhis soldiers driven back, and the Huexotzincas elated with victory;\nbut in the meantime the main body of the Tezcucan army came up and\nattacked the foe as they were chanting their song of victory. The real\nNezahualpilli killed Huehuetzin in personal combat, after receiving\na serious wound in the foot; the Huexotzincas were utterly routed\nand their city was sacked, the Acolhua king returning to his capital\nladen with honors and spoils. At his return to Tezcuco Nezahualpilli\nenclosed an area of land equal to the space that had separated him from\nhis army during the battle, or, as some say, equal to that occupied\nby the Huexotzinca army, erecting within the enclosure a grand palace\nwith magnificent gardens and immense granaries. He also completed the\ntemple of Huitzilopochtli commenced by his father, and sacrificed at\nits dedication the captives brought from the last war; for although\nhe is said to have inherited to some extent his father's repugnance\nto human sacrifice, he certainly consented to such sacrifices on\nseveral occasions. Tizoc also completed in 1483 the grand temple of\nHuitzilopochtli at Mexico, on which his predecessors had expended so\nmuch labor.[IX-3] The Mexican king, however, died in 1486, after a reign\nof six years. His death is reported to have occurred from the effects\nof poison, or, as the records have it, of magic spells, administered\nby certain sorceresses at the command of Techotl, lord of Iztapalapan,\nwith the connivance of Maxtla, lord of Tlachco, probably from motives\nof personal spite. Some authors, as Duran, Acosta, and Herrera, assert\nthat he was poisoned by his own subjects, who were disgusted with\nhis cowardice and inferiority to his predecessors; but his former\nposition as commander of the Mexican armies is opposed to the charge\nof cowardice, as is the indignation of the people at his murder and the\nsummary execution of all connected with the crime.[IX-4]\n\n[Sidenote: ACCESSION OF AHUITZOTL.]\n\nAhuitzotl, the last of the three brothers, was now called to the\nthrone, the famous Tlacaeleltzin still refusing the crown, if we may\ncredit Duran and Tezozomoc. During the first year of the new king's\nreign successful campaigns are vaguely recorded against the Mazahua\nregion adjoining the city of Xiquipilco, against the towns of the\nTziuhcoacas and Tochpanecas, subject to the kingdom of Jalisco, against\nthe south-eastern provinces of the Miztecs and Zapotecs, and even\nagainst the Chiapanec frontiers, while Nezahualpilli in the meantime\nconquered Nauhtlan on the gulf coast. No details of these campaigns are\ngiven save that the fortress of Huaxyacac, in Oajaca, since known as\nMonte Alban,[IX-5] was built and garrisoned by the Aztecs; but the object\nof these wars was to procure captives for the coronation of Ahuitzotl\nand for the dedication of the grand temple of Huitzilopochtli, which\ntook place in 1486 or 1487.[IX-6] This dedication was witnessed by\nmillions of visitors, including representatives from all parts of\nthe country, from hostile as well as friendly provinces, the former\nbeing given the best positions to view the festivities, and being\nloaded with rich presents at their departure. The chief feature of the\nexercises was the sacrifice of captives, of whom from seventy to eighty\nthousand perished on the altar. The victims were arranged in two lines,\nstretching from the temple far out on the causeways; the kings began\nthe bloody work with their own hands, and the priests followed, each\ncontinuing the slaughter until exhausted, when another took his place.\nThis was the most extensive sacrifice that ever took place in An\u00e1huac,\nand it was followed by others on a somewhat smaller scale in the lesser\ncities, among which one at Xalatlauhco in the Matlaltzinca region is\nparticularly mentioned.[IX-7]\n\n[Sidenote: AHUITZOTL'S CONQUESTS.]\n\nThe campaign against the frontiers of Chiapas, during which some\nstrongholds were taken by the Mexicans, as Chinantla and Cinacantlan,\nbut which was altogether unsuccessful in the conquest of the\nChiapanecs, is placed by Brasseur in 1488, the year after the\ndedication of the temple.[IX-8] In 1489 Chimalpopoca, king of Tlacopan,\nmade a brilliant campaign against Cuextlan, although leaving many\nslain on the battle-field of Huexotla; but he died soon after his\nreturn, and was succeeded by his son Totoquihuatzin II. Earthquakes\nand the appearance of phantoms in the air had indicated approaching\ndisasters. Sahagun also mentions an eclipse about this time.[IX-9] In\nthe same year the allied troops conquered the southern provinces of\nCozcaquauhtenanco, Quapilollan, Quauhpanco, and Quetzalcuitlapillan\naccording to the Spanish authors, although Brasseur makes that place\nretain its independence down to the coming of the Spaniards. In 1490\nQuauhtla, one of the strongest towns of Cuextlan on the gulf coast, was\ntaken, giving Montezuma, afterwards king, an opportunity to display his\nvalor and form a reputation, which he sustained in an engagement with\nthe Huexotzincas a little later. A battle at Xonacatepec also against\nthe Huexotzincas, aided by the forces of Totolpanco, is attributed to\nthe same year. The captives obtained in these battles were sacrificed\nat the dedication of the temple of Tlacatecco, and during the\nceremonies another temple in the ward called Tlillan was discovered to\nbe on fire, and burned to the ground. The conflagration was popularly\nregarded as a visitation from the gods, and excited much superstitious\nfear.[IX-10]\n\nNext in the catalogue of Aztec expeditions against revolting provinces\nwas that in 1491, against the Huastecs of the north-east, who were\nthis time assisted by the Totonacs. Something has been said of this\nancient people in a preceding chapter on the pre-Toltec period. Of\ntheir history since they left, as their traditions claim, the central\nplateaux for the region of Zacatlan, and afterward for the gulf coast,\nnothing is recorded save some troubles with the Teo-Chichimecs on the\nfirst appearance of that people, a subsequent alliance with them, and\na list of eight Totonac kings given by Torquemada. Their home was now\nthe coast region of central and northern Vera Cruz, where, divided\ninto thirty seigniories tributary to their monarch, and allied with the\nTlascaltecs, they had thus far escaped the power, if not the attention,\nof the Aztecs. But in an evil hour they consented to help the revolting\nHuastecs on their northern frontier. Glad of an excuse to annex to\nhis empire the fertile lands and flourishing towns of the Totonac\ncoast, Ahuitzotl marched through Cuextlan, easily reducing the rebel\nchiefs to submission, and then directed his course southward, taking\ntown after town until the whole province in terror gave up all hope of\nresistance and became subjects of the Aztec monarchs, paying tribute\nregularly down to the coming of the Spaniards, who landed and began\ntheir march towards Mexico in Totonac territory.[IX-11] On his return\nfrom the north-east, the south-western provinces demanded the warlike\nking's attention. The usual murder of traders had taken place, and the\nlords, as one author tells us, had refused to attend the dedication of\nHuitzilopochtli's temple at the capital. Oztoman was the centre of the\nrevolting district, and with the neighboring cities of Teloloapan and\nAlahuiztlan was taken by assault. The inhabitants of the three towns,\nexcept the captives taken for sacrifice and the thousands massacred in\nthe assault, were mostly brought to the valley and distributed among\nthe towns about the lake; while the conquered districts were given\nto Aztec colonies, composed of poor families selected from Mexico,\nTlacopan, and Tezcuco, under the command of the warriors who had\ndistinguished themselves in the war.[IX-12]\n\n[Sidenote: REVERSES TO AZTEC ARMS.]\n\nA series of reverses to Aztec arms has next to be recorded. In 1494,\nas Ixtlilxochitl states, in a battle at Atlixco, Tlacahuepatzin, a\nson of the former king Axayacatl, was taken prisoner and sacrificed\nto Camaxtli the war god of the eastern plateau. The following year\nthe Acolhua army was defeated in a battle at Tliltepec.[IX-13] But the\nmost important events of these and the following years were the\ncampaigns in Miztecapan, Zapotecapan, and Tehuantepec. Under the\nZapotec king Cociyoeza a general revolt of all these provinces took\nplace, accompanied by a suspension of tribute and a general plunder and\nmurder of Aztec merchants throughout the whole country. At this time\nprobably took place the exploit of the Tlatelulca merchants recorded\nby Sahagun.[IX-14] Traveling in a large company through the southern\nregions, they were at Quauhtenanco in Miztecapan when the persecution\nagainst their class began. As the only means of saving their lives\nand property, by a bold move they took possession of the town, which\nhad unusual facilities for defence, seizing the lord and prominent men\nof the city, and holding them as hostages for the good conduct of the\ninhabitants. Here they maintained their position against all attacks\nduring a period of four years, and even were able by occasional sorties\nto capture many officers and soldiers from the armies sent against\nthem, whom they kept and fattened for the altars of their god at\nhome. Their valor won great honors for themselves and for their class\nafter their return to Mexico. Meanwhile all the territory and towns\npreviously conquered by the Aztecs in Tehuantepec were retaken; most\nof the Mexican garrisons in the country of the Zapotecs and Miztecs\nfarther north were forced to surrender; and besides the merchant\ngarrison of Quauhtenanco, and the strong fortresses of Huaxyacac and\nTeotitlan near where the capital city of Oajaca now stands, the Aztec\npower was completely overthrown. Other wars nearer home, which have\nbeen alluded to above, at the time that they heard of these events,\nclaimed the attention of the allied monarchs to such an extent that\nthey could not direct their united force against the rebellious\nprovinces; but soon an army of sixty thousand men, under the command\nof an able officer, was dispatched southward to quell the revolt and\nto capture Cociyoeza dead or alive. This army seems to have carried\nall before it in its march through the upper Zapotec regions; but\nno details are recorded, except that they took the sacred city of\nMitla in their course, and sent her priests to die on the altars of\nHuitzilopochtli.[IX-15]\n\n[Sidenote: DEFEAT IN TEHUANTEPEC.]\n\nThe march of the Aztec general was directed towards Tehuantepec, and\nnear that city on a series of ravine-guarded plateaux the Zapotec king\nand his allies had fortified an immense area supposed to be sufficient\nto support his army by cultivation, and awaited the approach of the\ninvaders. The ruins of Guiengola[IX-16] are supposed to be the remains\nof this extensive system of defensive works. Burgoa even claims that\nthe king went so far as to form artificial ponds and to stock them\nwith fish as a further provision against future want. The wily monarch\nseems to have purposely refrained from making any effort to defeat the\nAztecs on their march through the upper country, simply giving orders\nto such chieftains as remained to guard their homes, to harass the\nenemy continually, and reduce their numbers as much as possible without\nbringing on a general engagement. As soon as the invaders, wearied with\ntheir long march and constant skirmishing, had entered the labyrinth\nof ravines through which lay their road to Tehuantepec, the brave\ndefenders rushed down from their mountain forts, and in a series of\nbloody battles almost annihilated the invading force. The Aztecs could\nneither retreat nor advance, and day by day the leader saw his army\nmelting away, by death and capture, prisoners being put to death by\ntorture, except a few that were sent back to tell their comrades of the\nstrength and ferocity of their foes. When the situation became known in\nMexico, Ahuitzotl is said to have sent a second army larger than the\nfirst to relieve the blockaded force; and this re-inforcing movement\nwas repeated three times within a year, but the Aztecs could not force\nthe passage of Guiengola, or if allowed to pass could only comfort\ntheir brothers in arms by dying with them. The allied Aztec monarchs\nwere at last fairly defeated, and sent an embassy with propositions of\npeace and alliance, professing great admiration for Cociyoeza's valor\nand genius.[IX-17]\n\nSuch is the version given by Burgoa. Nothing is known of the\nnegotiations which ensued, but Brasseur deduces from subsequent\nevents that by the terms of the treaty formed, the Zapotec king was\nto retain possession of Tehuantepec; Soconusco was to be given up to\nMexico; free passage was to be accorded to Mexican travelers, and the\nfortress of Huaxyacac was to remain in the hands of the Aztecs. It is\nalso stated by Burgoa that Cociyoeza was to marry a Mexican princess.\nThese conditions would indicate that the condition of affairs was not\nafter all so desperate for the Aztecs in the south as the preceding\naccount implies. Nothing is said of the fate of the Miztec provinces\naccording to the terms of the treaty;[IX-18] but we know that after the\nratification of the alliance, the merchant garrison of Quauhtenanco was\nrelieved from its state of siege, and with the aid of re-inforcements,\nconquered the whole adjoining province of Ayotlan on the South Sea, and\nthen returned to their homes, where they were received with the highest\nhonors at the hands of the monarchs and of the people, who greeted them\nwith festivities, the details of which are given by Sahagun.[IX-19]\n\n[Sidenote: MARRIAGE OF PELAXILLA.]\n\nIt seems not to have been stipulated which one of the Mexican\nprincesses should be given to the Zapotec king; and a strange version\nis given of the manner in which this matter was settled. Cociyoeza was\nbathing one evening in one of the miniature lakes connected with his\nroyal gardens. After he had removed his clothing, a beautiful female\nform appeared by his side in the moonlight, and announced herself as\nthe sister of Montezuma of Mexico, who had heard of his valor, and\nhad caused herself to be miraculously transported to his side by the\nmagic arts of the Aztec enchanters. She assisted him in his bath, left\nwith him the bathing utensils of her brother which she had brought,\nshowed a peculiar mark on the palm of her hand, by which she might be\nidentified, and disappeared as mysteriously as she had come. Cociyoeza\nhad before looked forward to his marriage with some misgivings, but\nnow, violently enamored with the charms of his nocturnal visitor, he\nmade haste to send an embassy with the richest gifts his kingdom could\nafford to bring back his Aztec bride. A grand display was made in\nMexico at the reception of this embassy, doubtless intended to impress\nupon its members an idea of Mexican power and wealth. The Zapotec\nnobles were brought into the presence of the assembled court beauties,\nand noticed that one princess had frequent occasion to arrange her\ntresses in such a manner as to show her palm and its peculiar mark.\nThey were thus enabled at once to select the fair sister of Montezuma,\nPelaxilla, or Cotton-Flake, who was borne in a litter on the shoulders\nof noblemen with great pomp to the court of Teotzapotlan the Zapotec\ncapital, where a succession of brilliant f\u00eates were given in her honor;\nand soon after the nuptial ceremonies were performed at Tehuantepec\namid great popular rejoicings.[IX-20]\n\nIt was, perhaps, not without hidden motives of future treachery that\nAhuitzotl had insisted on a matrimonial alliance between the Aztecs\nand Zapotecs; at any rate, he is reported to have made an attempt some\nyears later to assassinate Cociyoeza through the assistance of his\nwife. Ambassadors were sent to communicate with her on this matter, but\nPelaxilla revealed the plot to her husband, who immediately sent back\nthe embassy laden with gifts, and prepared his forts and his armies\nfor war. The Aztecs, however, knowing that their plot was discovered,\nmade no attack; they demanded permission to send troops through Zapotec\nterritory for the conquest of Amaxtlan and Xuchiltepec, south of the\nisthmus, which was granted; but Cociyoeza, suspecting treachery, took\nthe precaution to furnish a large army to attend the Aztecs through\nhis territory, both coming and going, under pretense of furnishing an\nescort. Ahuitzotl's forces seem to have been successful, although no\nparticulars are recorded.[IX-21]\n\nThe events related bring the history of the Aztec empire down to\nthe year 1497, and about the same time the province of Zacatollan\non the Pacific, south-west of Michoacan, was annexed to the domain\nof Tezcuco--a fact which does not seem to agree with any version of\nthe terms of the tri-partite alliance--by the exploit of an Acolhuan\nofficer named Teuhchimaltzin. It seems that some efforts had already\nbeen made by Nezahualpilli's orders for the conquest of this province,\nbut without success, when Teuhchimaltzin, stimulated perhaps by the\nachievements of the Tlatelulca merchants at Quauhtenanco, obtained\npermission to enter the country disguised as a merchant, with a few\ncompanions, promising to subdue the province by taking the king,\ndead or alive. He was, however, soon recognized and captured, and\nthe day was appointed for his sacrifice; but while the king Yopicatl\nAtonal with his nobles was drinking and dancing on the night before\nthe sacrificial festivities, Teuhchimaltzin escaped from his prison,\njoined the dancers, and at last, when all were overcome with frequent\nlibations, cut off the king's head and escaped with it to the frontier\nwhere an army seems to have been in waiting. When the nobles awoke and\nfound what had taken place, they forthwith dispatched an embassy after\nthe escaped prisoner, and for some reason that Ixtlilxochitl does not\nmake very clear, offered to surrender the province to the Tezcucan\nmonarch. Thus Zacatollan was added to Nezahualpilli's possessions,\nTeuhchimaltzin was honored as a hero, and an addition was made to the\nstock of tales by which sober Tezcucans were wont to illustrate the\nevils of intemperance.[IX-22]\n\n[Sidenote: PUNISHMENT OF CHALCHIUHNENETZIN.]\n\nIn 1498 took place in Tezcuco the public execution of one of\nNezahualpilli's wives. This monarch had a great many wives and\nconcubines--more than two thousand, if we may believe Ixtlilxochitl,\nhis descendant. Among the former were three nieces of Tizoc, one\nof them a daughter of Axayacatl, and a sister of Montezuma II., and\nvery likely all three sisters, although there is great confusion on\nthis point. Axayacatl's daughter was named Chalchiuhnenetzin; she\nwas very young, and was assigned a secluded palace while awaiting the\nconsummation of the marriage. She soon showed an extraordinary fondness\nfor decorating her apartments with richly decked statues, the king\nnoticing new ones at each visit; she said they were her gods, and her\nfuture husband was willing to humor her tastes, strange though they\nappeared. But one day he noticed a noble of the court wearing a ring\nthat he had seen in the hands of Chalchiuhnenetzin, and the following\nnight went to visit her. The maids in waiting said she had retired\nand was sleeping, but he insisted on seeing her, and found her couch\noccupied by a sort of puppet counterfeit of herself. His suspicions\nnow fully roused, he ordered all the attendants arrested, pushed his\nsearch farther, and at last found his virgin bride dancing in very\nprimitive costume with three noble lovers, one of whom was he who wore\nthe tell-tale ring. Further investigation revealed that this Aztec\nMessalina had been in the habit of giving herself up to every young man\nthat struck her fancy, and when weary of her lovers had caused them to\nbe put to death, and represented in her apartments by the statues above\nreferred to. After the parties had been tried and found guilty by the\nproper courts, the king sent to all the cities round about An\u00e1huac and\nsummoned all the people to witness the punishment of his false wife.\nWith her three surviving lovers and about two thousand persons who had\nin some way abetted the deception of the king, the amorous queen was\npublicly strangled. All acknowledged the justice of the act, but the\nMexican royal family, it is said, never forgave the public execution of\nthe sentence.[IX-23]\n\n[Sidenote: ANECDOTES OF NEZAHUALPILLI.]\n\nNezahualpilli is said to have inherited all the good qualities of his\nfather. Like Nezahualcoyotl he was a patron of the arts and sciences,\nbut is reported to have given his chief attention to astrology,\npassing many nights in reading the stars from a lofty observatory\nerected for the purpose in the grounds of his palace. Sorcerers and\nmagicians were always welcome at his court, whither they were often\nsummoned both to advise the monarch on affairs of state and to impart\nto him a knowledge of their arts. Like his father he was famed for his\ninflexibility in the administration of justice and his kindness toward\nthe poor and unfortunate. A small window in one part of his palace\noverlooked the market-place, and at this window the king was wont to\nsit frequently, watching the actions of the crowd below, noting cases\nof injustice for future punishment, and of distress and poverty that\nthey might be relieved. How he condemned to death a judge for deciding\nunjustly against a poor man and in favor of a noble, and how he had his\nfavorite son Huexotzincatzin executed for having publicly addressed\nhis concubine, the lady of Tollan, has been related in a preceding\nvolume.[IX-24] Many other anecdotes are told to illustrate the king's\nlove of what he deemed justice. One of his sons began the construction\nof a palace somewhere in the Tezcucan domains without having either\nconsulted his father or complied with the law requiring some brilliant\ndeed in battle before a prince was entitled to a palace of his own.\nThe guilty son was put to death. Members of the royal family seem to\nhave had the greatest faith in the king's judgment and to have accepted\nhis decisions without complaint. There was great rivalry between his\ntwo brothers Acapipioltzin and Xochiquetzal respecting the credit of\na certain victory in the province of Cuextlan. Each had a band of\npartisans who were accustomed on public occasions to celebrate the\ndeeds of their favorite by songs and dances. So far did the rivalry\nproceed that a resort to arms was imminent, when Nezahualpilli appeared\non the scene on the occasion of some festivity and joining the dance\non the side of his oldest brother Acapipioltzin, decided the dispute\nin his favor without complaint on the part of the younger brother.\nThe condemnation of two men, a musician and a soldier, for adultery,\nwas on one occasion brought to the king for his approval. He ordered\nthe musician to be executed, but the soldier to be sent for life to do\nduty in the frontier garrisons, declaring that such thereafter should\nbe a soldier's punishment for the fault in question. Nezahualpilli\ncould also on occasion be most indulgent towards his children; for\ninstance, his son Ixtlilxochitl early displayed an extraordinary\nfondness for having his own way. At the age of three years he expressed\nhis emphatic disapproval of his nurse's views and conduct by pushing\nthat lady into a deep well, and then amused himself by throwing stones\nupon her. When seven years old he raised a company of boy soldiers\nand skirmished about the city much to the terror of peaceful citizens.\nHearing that two members of the royal council had advised his father to\nkill so unmanageable a child, he proceeded one night with a selected\ndetachment of his juvenile veterans to the house of the counselors\nand assassinated them both. Nezahualpilli seems to have looked with\nmuch leniency upon these youthful irregularities of his son, who\nat fourteen distinguished himself in battle and at seventeen was a\ncaptain. We shall hear of him again in the last years of Aztec history.\nThe king on another occasion demanded from a brother a very excellent\nteponaztli in his possession and his daughter for a royal concubine;\non his refusal the teponaztli was taken by force, and his disobedient\nbrother's house was razed as the property of a rebel. Two sons were\nstrangled for having appropriated captives actually taken by their\nsoldiers; a daughter for having spoken to the son of a lord; and two\nconcubines for drinking pulque. A judge was hung for hearing a case in\nhis own house instead of in the appointed hall of justice; and another\nfor unduly prolonging a trial was condemned to have the front door of\nhis residence walled up. This king is accredited with having abrogated\nthe law which condemned the children of slaves to the condition of\ntheir parents, and with many other reforms calculated to ameliorate\nthe condition of his people. The possession of supernatural powers was\npopularly attributed to him, and often in infancy he astonished his\nnurses by appearing before them in the form of a bird or beast.[IX-25]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the years 1498 and 1499 it is recorded that Ahuitzotl attacked\nAtlixco without warning, and was defeated by the Huexotzincas who,\nunder a famous general Tultecatl sent re-inforcements to aid the armies\nof Atlixco; and also that, by aiding Cholula in a quarrel with Tepeaca,\nthe same king greatly increased his power on the eastern plateau. The\nfollowing year Tultecatl, before whose valor the Aztecs had been forced\nto retreat, was driven from his own country in consequence of certain\nreligious dissensions, and applied at one of the Mexican towns for\nprotection. He was put to death, however, with all his companions, by\nAhuitzotl's order, and the dead bodies were forwarded to Huexotzinco to\nshow the rebellious inhabitants of that city with what relentless zeal\nthe Aztec ruler pursued his foes.[IX-26]\n\n[Sidenote: INUNDATION OF MEXICO.]\n\nAhuitzotl, finding the water supplied by the Chapultepec aqueduct\ninsufficient for the use of the city, and moreover desirous of\naccomplishing during his reign some great work of practical utility,\ndetermined to conduct to his capital the waters of a spring called\nAcuecuexatl, near Huitzilopochco, in the province of Coyuhuacan.\nTzotzomatzin, the lord of the province, was unwilling that the spring\nshould be thus used, but his opposition was effectually overcome by\nstrangling him. Many tales are told by different writers about his\nopposition to the scheme, and his death. Some say that he wished the\nwater for the supply of his own cities; others, that he told Ahuitzotl\nthe spring was liable at any time to overflow and flood the city,\nand was killed by the latter in a fit of passion at his persistence\nin that opinion; and still others represent him as a great magician,\nwho frightened away the Mexican king's ambassadors who were sent to\nnegotiate with him in the matter, by appearing before them in the\nform of a ferocious beast, or serpent. Tezozomoc says he put the cord\nround his own neck to save his people from the wrath of the Aztecs;\nand Duran, that he did not die, but simply left Coyuhuacan at this\ntime. Difficulties being thus removed, the aqueduct was constructed of\nstone and mortar, in a very short time, owing to the number of workmen\nemployed, and its completion was celebrated with the proper ceremonies\nand sacrifices. But soon--some say in the midst of the ceremonies--so\ngreat was the volume of water introduced, that the city was inundated\nby the rising of the lake, and immense damage resulted to public and\nprivate buildings. It is, of course, impossible that the waters of any\nspring in An\u00e1huac could have caused this effect; indeed, Torquemada\nsays the catastrophe was preceded by heavy rains for a year, and Ortega\nalso tells us that the rains came down in torrents at the completion\nof the aqueduct; it is, therefore, altogether probable that the flood\nwas not caused by the waters of the canal, but was simply attributed\nto that cause from superstitious motives, perhaps resulting from the\npredictions of Tzotzomatzin, and his death. So rapid was the rise\nof the waters, that king Ahuitzotl, who was in the lower part of his\npalace, had great difficulty in escaping, and in his haste struck his\nhead against a door-post, receiving a wound which, a few years later,\nproved fatal. The engineering skill of Nezahualpilli, with the laboring\nforce of the whole empire, was at once called into requisition to\nstop the flood and repair damages. The old dike that had before saved\nthe city was strengthened and raised; the city was repaired and paved\nwith _tetzontli_, or porous amygdaloid, the use of which is said to\ndate from this period; but to stop the waters of the unruly spring\nhuman efforts were unavailing, and the aid of the gods was invoked\nwith magic rites. First the priests, whose bodies were painted blue in\nhonor of the Tlalocs, stood round the fountain and uttered prayers,\nburned incense, and scattered perfumes; then the divers plunged into\nthe waters, each with a young child whose heart was torn out, and\nwhose blood stained the waters; and finally the priests entered the\nwater, and, as some say, Nezahualpilli with them. Half an hour after\ntheir emergence the waters became so quiet that the laborers were able\nto wall up the spring and stop the overflow. Other cities about the\nlake had suffered as much, or even more, than Mexico, particularly\nCuitlahuac, which is said to have been uninhabitable for two years.\nMuch damage was also done to the crops in the valley, and the next year\nwas one almost of famine. The flood occurred in 1500, and at least two\nyears passed before An\u00e1huac had recovered from its effects.[IX-27]\n\n[Sidenote: ACCESSION OF MONTEZUMA II.]\n\nCampaigns against Cuextlan, Tlacuilollan, and Xaltepec, are vaguely\nreported during the last two years of Ahuitzotl's life, and may be\ndistinct from any of the wars that have been mentioned, but no details\nare given, save that from Tlacuilollan twelve hundred captives were\nbrought back to Mexico.[IX-28] The king died in 1503,[IX-29] as is\ngenerally supposed from the effects of the blow mentioned above;\nalthough Tezozomoc attributes his death to chagrin and remorse at the\nmisfortune of the flood, and Duran hints that he was poisoned. His\nlikeness is said to have been sculptured with those of his\npredecessors on the cliff at Chapultepec. Ahuitzotl's leading passion\nwas his love of war, so strong as to amount almost to a hatred of\npeace. He was also passionately fond of music, of display, and of\nwomen. He was cruel, vindictive, and superstitious; and the quality of\ngenerosity attributed to him was probably closely connected with his\nreputed love of display and flattery. Immediately after his death\nMontezuma II., son of Axayacatl, was called to the throne; although,\naccording to Ixtlilxochitl, his elder brother Macuilmalinatzin was the\nfirst choice of the electors, but was rejected by the advice of\nNezahualpilli, who doubted his possession of the requisite qualities\nfor the ruler of a great nation. Montezuma had already distinguished\nhimself on many occasions in battle, and was at the time of his\nelection high-priest of Huitzilopochtli. When the news of his election\nreached him he is said to have been employed in sweeping the temple,\nfrom a spirit of real or feigned humility. The usual campaign for\ncaptives was successfully directed against Atlixco, and foreign nobles\nfrom hostile as well as friendly provinces came in crowds by\ninvitation to witness the coronation ceremonies.[IX-30]\n\n[Sidenote: POLICY OF MONTEZUMA.]\n\nAhuitzotl left the Aztec empire in the height of its power and glory,\nyet even before his death the seeds of future disaster may be said\nto have been sown or even to have taken root, since the hitherto\nunparalleled sacrifice of human victims on the altars of the capital\nhad filled the whole country with terror and added much to the hatred\nof which the Aztecs had been the objects from the date of their first\nappearance in the valley; the rapid increase of the Mexican power\nand their well-known greed of conquest had added to the hatred of the\nconquered the jealous fears of such nations as still retained their\nindependence; and finally the reverses suffered in Tehuantepec, in\nMichoacan, and in several battles against the eastern nations, had\ntaught the peoples of North America that the allied armies of the\ncentral plateaux were not altogether invincible. The dangers that thus\nbegan to threaten the empire, however, were all external, and might\nperhaps have been averted or long deferred by a series of successful\nwars under brave but wise kings. Under the preceding kings, the common\ninterests of all classes in the success of the government, had been a\nprominent element of national glory. Commercial enterprise had done as\nmuch as valor in war to promote the conquests of kings and to build\nup the capitals; the common soldier might by bravery and brilliant\nachievements in battle hope to reach the highest military rank; the\nmenial service of the royal palace with many posts of honor had been\nentrusted largely to plebeian hands; and in fact Aztec policy had\nbeen strikingly analogous to that which distinguished the French\nnation under the first Napoleon. The granting of titles and honors\nto the merchants had naturally excited much opposition among those\nwho derived their titles of nobility from a long line of Chichimec or\nToltec ancestors; and what made the matter even more galling to their\npride, was the fact that these parvenu nobles by reason of their wealth\nwere able to completely outshine their confr\u00e8res of purer blood but\nslender purses, in all public displays as well as in their palaces and\nstyle of living. Montezuma II. from the first days of his reign openly\nespoused the cause of the ancient nobility against the merchants and\nplebeians. What is known of his character renders it probable that he\nwas prompted to this course chiefly by his own extremely aristocratic\ntastes; but it is not impossible that he gained his election by\ncommitting himself to such a policy. He began by dismissing all\nplebeians employed about the royal palaces and appointing youths of\nnoble blood in their places. He was warned that such a course would\nseparate the interests of the common people from those of royalty and\nprove dangerous in the future; but he replied that he wished nothing\nin common with plebeians, who must be taught to keep their place and\ngive up their absurd aspirations. His policy toward the merchants\nand the army was more cautious but equally decided. Advantage was\ntaken of every opportunity to humble and oppress the hated class, by\nconstantly clogging with new restrictions the wheels of trade, and by\nthe promotion whenever practicable of noble officers. Montezuma was,\nhowever, a valiant and skillful warrior, and sacrificed oftener his\ninclinations to his interests in the treatment of his armies than in\nother cases. His policy of course gradually alienated the classes on\nwhich the prosperity of the empire chiefly rested, and ensured the fall\nof the Aztec power whenever disaffection should have an opportunity to\nally itself with foreign foes. The bursting of the storm was averted\nfor some fifteen years by the strength of the Acolhua and Tepanec\nalliance, and by the strength of the Mexican army. Montezuma's reign\nwas a succession of campaigns against revolting provinces, interspersed\nwith the erection of magnificent temples, frequent and extensive\nimmolations of human victims, and omens of disaster sent by the gods\nto trouble the mind of the superstitious monarch. When at last the day\ndrew near when Mexico must struggle single-handed for the retention\nof her supremacy against a combination of all the Nahua powers, the\nlast chance for success in such an unequal contest disappeared with\nthe re-inforcement of the enemy by Spanish valor, Spanish armor, and\nSpanish horses; and Montezuma personally had not even the melancholy\nsatisfaction of seeing his foes fall before the same wave of foreign\ninvasion which had destroyed forever his own power.[IX-31]\n\n[Sidenote: WAR AGAINST TLASCALA.]\n\nTlascala had thus far never been the object of an invasion by the\nunited forces of the allies, although, as we have seen, frequent\nbattles had been fought on the frontier, and the Tlascaltec armies\nas allies of other nations had been several times defeated. During\nthe reigns of Montezuma I. and Axayacatl, however, the Tlascaltec\nterritory had become completely surrounded by Aztec possessions,\nthrough the conquest of Cuetlachtlan, Cuextlan, and Totonacapan. Their\ncommunication with the coast having thus been cut off, the Tlascaltec\ncommerce had been almost entirely destroyed, and for a period extending\ndown to the Conquest, this brave people were obliged to do without\nmany luxuries, and even necessities of life. Their lack of salt\nis particularly recorded; a small supply was occasionally smuggled\ninto the state by the nobles, but the common people are said to have\nabstained entirely from its use, and to have completely lost their\nrelish for this article. The other cities of the eastern plateau had\nin the meantime become either the subjects or allies of the Mexicans.\nImmediately after his accession to the throne, Montezuma II. determined\nto direct his armies against this last unsubdued territory in the\neast. The excuse was an embassy sent by the Tlascaltecs, probably to\nAxayacatl, complaining of the oppression to which their merchants\nwere subjected on the coast, the claims of the embassy having been\nreceived with insulting indifference, and threats having been freely\nuttered on both sides. Huexotzinco and Cholula seem both to have allied\nthemselves with Mexico in this affair; but, on the other hand, Tlascala\nhad received constant additions to her population and armies in the\nrefugees from all parts of An\u00e1huac, who were continually applying\nfor protection to the only nation beyond the power of the Aztecs.\nThe war was begun by the Huexotzincas and Cholultecs, who invaded\nTlascala, killed in battle one of their chief leaders, Tizatlacatzin,\nand penetrated to within one league of the capital; but they were\ndriven back, and the Huexotzinca towns were in turn ravaged by the\nTlascaltecs, sending couriers to Montezuma to hasten the march of\nhis forces. The Tlascaltecs, hearing of the approach of the Aztecs,\nfell upon them before they could effect a junction with their allies,\nand defeated them, inflicting heavy losses, and killing among others\nTlacahuepantzin, the son of the Mexican king.[IX-32] After the funeral\nceremonies in honor of his son, Montezuma made another attempt to\nsubdue the Tlascaltecs, sending against them the whole available force\nof the empire; but after a hard-fought battle the invaders were again\ndriven back, and although skirmishes, and even battles, took place\nafterwards between the two nations, yet the Aztec allies never repeated\ntheir attempt to crush Tlascala, and the brave little republic retained\nher independence until by the aid of Cort\u00e9s she was able to take her\nrevenge on the tyrannical Mexicans and treacherous Cholultecs.[IX-33]\n\nIn 1505 the crops were destroyed by the excessive heat, and although\nthe public granaries were generously opened to the public by\nNezahualpilli and Montezuma--for the latter, notwithstanding his\naristocratic tendencies, was generous towards his people so long as\nthey claimed nothing more than a right to exist--many perished of\nstarvation or sold themselves and children as slaves. Totonacapan\nwas again apparently the only province unaffected by the famine.\nAnother plague in the form of rats which over-ran the country in\nimmense numbers is recorded at about the same time; but the volcano\nof Popocatepetl ceased for twenty days to emit smoke, a good omen,\nas the wise men said and as it proved, for the next year was one of\ngreat plenty.[IX-34] During the year of the famine a campaign against\nGuatemala, or as some authors say Quauhnelhuatlan, which may have been\na Guatemalan province, is recorded as having yielded many captives\nfor the inauguration of the temple of Centeotl, built in recognition\nof her services in staying the drought and sending a year of plenty.\nThe festivities on the completion of certain repairs to the causeway\nand aqueduct of Chapultepec at about the same time were marred by\nthe burning of a temple in Mexico. It is related that the Tlatelulcas\nseeing the flames, thought the city was invaded by an enemy and rushed\nin to help protect it, but that Montezuma chose to regard this as an\nact of rebellion and temporarily removed all Tlatelulcas from their\npositions at court.[IX-35]\n\n[Sidenote: REVOLT OF THE MIZTECS.]\n\nBefore the end of 1506, two campaigns were made against the Miztecs\nby the last of which the whole province was permanently subdued.\nThe pretext of the first was the refusal of Malinalli, lord of\nTlachquiauhco, to give Montezuma for his royal gardens a very rare\nplant in his possession. An army was dispatched to bring the plant\nand punish the people; Tilantongo, Achiuhtla, and Tlachquiauhco fell\nbefore the Mexican soldiers; and the rare _tlapalizquixochitl_, or\n'red flower,' was transplanted to Mexico, although the Oajacan records\ninsist, according to Burgoa, that it died on the way. The Miztecs next\ndetermined upon a final effort to shake off the Mexican yoke, which\nwell nigh succeeded. Cetecpatl, king of Cohuaixtlahuacan, invited the\ngarrison of the impregnable Huaxyacac and other Aztec fortresses to a\ngrand banquet, and on their return they were set upon by the ambushed\ntroops of Nahuixochitl, lord of Tzotzolan, and all put to death, save\none that escaped to tell the news. The Miztecs, now thoroughly aroused,\nadopted the tactics that had proved so effective in Tehuantepec,\nfortified their positions in the mountains near Tzotzolan, and awaited\nthe attack. The first army sent by Montezuma was defeated and driven\nback with great loss. A second army representing the whole strength of\nthe Aztec allies now marched southward under Cuitlahuatzin, Montezuma's\nbrother; but the Miztec forces could not be dislodged from their\nstrong position until Cozcaquauhtli, lord of Huauhtlan and a brother\nof Cetecpatl, betraying his people, or faithful to his ruler Montezuma\nas the Mexican writers put it, opened his city to the enemy, revealed\nall Cetecpatl's plans, and led Cuitlahuatzin by secret paths to a\ncommanding position whence the attack was made and the Miztecs routed.\nNahuixochitl soon came up with a fresh army from Tututepec, but was in\nhis turn defeated. The whole province, including Tututepec and other\ncities on the shores of the Pacific, was then over-run and permanently\nsubjected to Mexican authority. The captives included the leaders,\nand were brought back to Mexico in time to grace with their blood\nthe festival of _tlacaxipehualiztli_, or 'flaying of men,' although\naccording to some authorities the leaders, Cetecpatl and Nahuixochitl,\nwere reserved for a later occasion.[IX-36]\n\n[Sidenote: TYING-UP OF THE LAST CYCLE.]\n\nAlso in 1506 the Huexotzincas and Cholultecs had a quarrel, in which\nthe former had the advantage and by a raid burned a few houses in\nthe city of the latter. Knowing that Montezuma had great veneration\nfor the city of Quetzalcoatl, the Huexotzincas thought it best to\nsend ambassadors to explain the matter. The envoys for some reason\nnot made clear greatly exaggerated the matter, representing Cholula\nas having been utterly destroyed and the inhabitants driven to the\nmountains. Greatly enraged the allied kings sent an army to chastise\nthe perpetrators of such an outrage on the holy city; but the\nHuexotzincas escaped their punishment by stating the truth of the\nmatter and delivering up for sacrifice the envoys with their ears and\nnoses cut off. An expedition at the same time against Itztitlan and\nItzcuintepec, and another according to Ortega and Torquemada against\nAtlixco, together with a war in Tecuhtepec, furnished a large number\nof captives, some of whom were sacrificed at the dedication of the\nTzompantli[IX-37] or 'place of skulls,' while the rest were reserved for\nthe tying-up of the cycle and lighting of the new fire which took\nplace the following year, accompanied by ceremonies that have been\ndescribed in a preceding volume. This was the last ceremony of the\nkind the Mexicans ever had the opportunity to perform; before another\ncycle had elapsed, the native gods had lost their power, their rites\nhad been abolished, and replaced by others that did not include human\nsacrifices. The rites of the Inquisition were as cruel as those they\nreplaced, but the number of victims in America was comparatively\nsmall.[IX-38]\n\nThe year 1507 was marked by the occurrence of an eclipse and an\nearthquake, by the drowning of eighteen hundred soldiers in the Miztec\ncountry, and according to Ixtlilxochitl, by the execution of Tezozomoc,\nlord of Azcapuzalco and father-in-law of Montezuma, for adultery.\nIn his trial it is related that the Mexican judges voted for his\nbanishment, the Tepanec added that the end of his nose should be cut\noff, but Nezahualpilli, who had the final decision, ordered him to be\nstrangled, much to the displeasure of Montezuma. During the same year\nthe allies sent an expedition to the region of Mitla, which plundered a\nfew towns and captured a small number of prisoners. The provocation of\nthis war is not recorded. Immediately after its return an army was sent\nunder Cuitlahuatzin against Quauhquelchula in the Huexotzinca region.\nThe result was a victory with a goodly array of captives, but obtained\nonly after a serious loss, including five Mexican leaders. The captives\nserved for the inauguration of the temple previously burned, as has\nbeen noted, but now rebuilt, and also for the festival of the 'flaying\nof men.' According to Tezozomoc and Duran the provocation of this war\nwas the burning of the temple of the goddess Toci in Mexico, or as\nTezozomoc understands it, the _tociquahuitl_, a wooden signal tower\non the hill of Tocitlan. Duran also informs us that a representation\nof Mexican nobles attended by invitation the festivals in honor of\nCamaxtli, at which were sacrificed the Aztec captives taken during\nthe war. A renewal of hostilities with Huexotzinco is mentioned in the\neighth year of Montezuma's reign.[IX-39]\n\n[Sidenote: OMENS OF DISASTER.]\n\nWith the new cycle began a period, during which, down to the appearance\nof the Spaniards at Vera Cruz, almost every event was invested with\na mysterious significance, every unusual phenomenon of nature, every\naccident, every illness, every defeat in battle, failure of crops,\nexcessive heat or cold, rain or snow, thunder and lightning, shooting\nstar or comet, earthquake or eclipse,--each and all portended evil\nto the Aztec empire, evil which some seem even at the time to have\nconnected with the olden predictions of Quetzalcoatl respecting\nthe coming of a foreign race to take possession of the country. The\nsuperstitious monarchs, priests, and nobles were in a constant state of\nterror. There are but two ways of accounting for this state of affairs;\nfirst by supposing that the supernatural element in the various events\nreferred to, the terror which they caused in the minds of the natives,\nand many of the events themselves, were pure inventions of the native\nhistorians formed after the coming of the Spaniards to support the\nclaims of their sages to a foreknowledge of events, or simply for\nthe sake of telling a marvelous tale; and second by supposing that\nthe terror of Montezuma and his companions, and their disposition to\ncarefully note and construe into omens of evil each unusual occurrence,\nwas caused by a knowledge more or less vague that the Spaniards were\nalready on the American coasts. While there is every reason to believe\nthat there are both inventions and exaggerations in the records written\nafter the coming of foreigners, I am disposed to attribute the effects\nreferred to above chiefly to the actual presence of Europeans. For\nabout fifteen years the Antilles had been more or less completely in\nthe possession of the Spaniards; five years before the opening of the\nnew cycle Columbus had coasted Central America and even established\na colony in Veragua. It is altogether improbable that no knowledge of\nthe white men and their wonderful winged vessels had reached Mexico,\nhowever vague and exaggerated that knowledge may have been. The Aztec\ntraders were not now such indefatigable and trustworthy spies as in\nformer times, but they would hardly have failed to bring to Mexico\nexaggerated rumors of approaching disaster. It is also quite possible\nthat various articles of European manufacture, or even human remains\nof white men, had been washed on the Totonac or Xicalanca shores.\nThat Montezuma and his companions attached considerable weight to the\ntraditional predictions of Quetzalcoatl and Hueman there is no reason\nto doubt. The predictions referred to may have been the threats of some\nexiled chieftain of ancient times, or the vain imaginings of a fanatic\npriest uttered to maintain his reputation among his followers; possibly\nthe result of some native cosmographer's theorizing respecting other\nlands across the ocean; not quite impossibly the remnant of an ancient\nknowledge of trans-oceanic peoples; and of course not the result of\nany prophetic foreknowledge; but like all other pretended prophecies\nthey became at once most valid and authentic on the occurrence of\ncircumstances which might be interpreted as their fulfillment.\n\n[Sidenote: MONTEZUMA AND NEZAHUALPILLI.]\n\nThe signs and omens that followed those already mentioned I shall\nbriefly relate without paying much attention to their chronologic\norder; very little else than these omens and the means adopted to\navert their consequences is recorded from 1508 to 1512. An army sent\nto the province of Amatlan perished with cold and by falling trees\nand rocks; and a comet with three heads, perhaps the one already\nmentioned, hung over An\u00e1huac.[IX-40] Then a wonderful pyramidal light\nappeared in the east, reaching from the earth to the sky, visible for\nforty days, or, as some say, for a whole year, in all parts of the\ncountry, from midnight till morning, very similar, according to the\ndescription, to the Aurora Borealis. Nezahualpilli was so affected\nby these signs that he gave orders to discontinue all hostilities.\nAn interview was held between him and Montezuma, although for some\ntime they had not been on speaking terms. Nezahualpilli saw clearly\nin the strange omens the approaching end of the empire and his own\ndeath, but was resigned to the decrees of fate; Montezuma, on the\ncontrary, instead of resignation felt only anger, and is even said by\nTezozomoc and Duran to have strangled many of his sorcerers for their\nunfavorable interpretation of the signs, and their failure to avert\nevil omens. At last a game of _tlachtli_ was agreed upon between the\ntwo monarchs to decide whose interpretation should be accepted; and\nto show how little importance he attached to his wealth and power,\nNezahualpilli is said to have wagered on the result his kingdom of\nAcolhuacan against three turkey cocks. He won the game, but still\nMontezuma was not disposed to yield to the fates, and still persecuted\nhis magicians in the hope to elicit a more favorable prognostication,\nbut in vain; the magicians all agreed with the Tezcucan monarch. About\nthe same time the towers of Huitzilopochtli's temple took fire in a\nclear night without apparent cause, and were reduced to ashes in spite\nof all efforts to extinguish the flames; and another temple was set\non fire by lightning. This was the temple of the god of fire, and was\nnow burned for the second time.[IX-41] In this period, in the reign of\nthe second Montezuma, Brasseur puts the story of a mysterious aerial\njourney of the two kings to the ancient home of the Aztecs, referring\nperhaps to that already taken from Duran and applied to the time of\nMontezuma I.[IX-42] Torquemada, Clavigero, and Vetancvrt, tell us of the\nresurrection of Papantzin, a sister of Montezuma, who brought back\nfrom the land of the dead to her royal brother an account of the new\npeople who were to occupy the land, and of the new religion they would\nbring. This lady is said to have been the first Mexican to receive the\nrites of Christian baptism, and the priests took pains to send a duly\nauthenticated account of her miraculous resurrection to Spain. The\nintimate connection of this tale with the religious prejudices of the\ninvaders, renders it unnecessary to seek even a foundation in truth for\nthe report. Sahagun also speaks of a resurrected woman who predicted\nthe fall of the empire, living twenty-one years thereafter and bearing\na son. Boturini attributes this return from the dead to a sister of\nthe king of Michoacan at a much later date, while the Spaniards were\nbesieging Mexico.[IX-43] In 1509, as several authors say,[IX-44] the waters\nof the lake became violently agitated, without wind, earthquake, or\nother natural cause, and in consequence the city was inundated. The\nfishermen of the lake caught a large bird like a crane, wearing a round\ntransparent crown, through which Montezuma saw the stars, though it\nwas in the daytime, and also many people that approached in squadrons,\nattired like warriors, and seeming half men, half deer. The bird\ndisappeared before the sorcerers could satisfactorily interpret this\nstrange thing. Double-bodied and double-headed men also were seen, and\non being brought before the king suddenly disappeared; and the same\nhappened with men who had no fingers and toes. In 1511 armed men were\nseen fighting in the air; and a bird appeared whose head seemed human;\nand a large stone pillar fell near the temple of Huitzilopochtli, no\none knowing whence it came. An earthquake and a deluge at Tusapan,\nare reported; at Tecualoia a most ferocious and horrible beast was\ncaptured; a female voice was several times heard bewailing the fate of\nher children. At Tlascala a bright light and a cloud of dust arising\nfrom the summit of Mount Matlalcueje to the very heavens, caused\nthe people to fear the end of the world was coming. The sorcerers of\nCuetlachtlan also saw many wonderful visions; but among the peoples\noutside of An\u00e1huac the fearful phenomena and the predicted coming of a\nforeign people were less terrible than to the Aztecs, for with their\nterror was mingled hope of relief from the Aztec yoke. A wild hare\ninvaded Nezahualpilli's garden, but the king would not allow the animal\nto be killed, for in the same manner, he said, would a strange people\npresently invade his country. Tezozomoc and Duran give a long and\ndetailed account of Montezuma's sufferings. It seems that he was not\ncontent with his own dreams and omens, but instructed his subjects to\nreport to him all their visions; at last he was so distracted that he\ndetermined to hide himself from impending calamities in a cave, but was\nprevented from such a course by a series of supernatural events more\nabsurd, if possible, than those that have been narrated. Herrera tells\nus that Montezuma had in his possession a box washed on the eastern\nshore containing wearing-apparel and a sword of a style unknown to the\nnatives.[IX-45]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: VISIONS AND OMENS.]\n\nIn the meantime military operations had not been suspended, for the\nanger of the gods could only be averted by sacrifice, and victims could\nonly be obtained by war; but the details of these campaigns and their\norder are nowhere definitely recorded. It is stated, however, that in\n1511, the Cuetlachtecas, encouraged by the visions of their magicians,\nand by the troubles that had fallen upon An\u00e1huac, refused openly to\npay their tributes, and yet remained unpunished.[IX-46] In the same or\nfollowing year, the Cakchiquel records note the arrival of a numerous\nembassy of the Yaqui, or Mexicans, at their court. Nothing whatever\nis said of the object of this mission, or its results; but the Abb\u00e9\nBrasseur has no doubt that the object sought was information respecting\nthe actions of the Spaniards on the coast of Central America.[IX-47]\nAlthough Nezahualpilli seems to have lost most of his interest in\npolitical affairs, and to have contented himself with simply awaiting\nfuture developments, no superstitious terror in Montezuma's breast\ncould overcome his ruling passion, ambition; and according to the\nauthorities he was inclined to take advantage of his colleague's\nlistlessness for his own aggrandizement. Ixtlilxochitl relates an\nact of treachery against the Tezcucan monarch, which, in view of the\nauthor's well-known prejudice against Montezuma, may be received with\nmuch doubt; according to this author, the Mexican king represented\nto Nezahualpilli that the anger of the gods was caused to some extent\nby the failure to offer captives from Tlascala, and the substitution\nof victims from distant provinces obtained not in holy battle but\nin a mere attempt to extend the imperial domain. He proposed a joint\ncampaign against Tlascala; Nezahualpilli consented, saying that his\ninaction had not been the result of cowardice, but he had ceased to\nfight simply because the year of 1 Acatl was near at hand when the\nempire must fall. He sent an army under his two sons, but Montezuma had\nsecretly notified the Tlascaltecs that the Acolhua's motive was not the\ncapture of victims, but the conquest of the republic, promising to take\nno part himself in the battle. The Tlascaltecs were very angry and the\nAztec army stood calmly by and saw the Acolhua forces led into ambush\nand massacred. The whole march of Nezahualpilli's army had been marked\nby the occurrence of many omens of evil. Immediately on his return\nMontezuma openly proclaimed his opposition to his colleague and ordered\na suspension of all Tezcucan tributes from the cities about the lake.\nWhile there are reasons to doubt this act of treachery and the openness\nof his opposition to Nezahualpilli, it is evident that the two kings\nregarded each other from this time as enemies.[IX-48]\n\n[Sidenote: MONTEZUMA, AZTEC EMPEROR.]\n\nIn 1512, with great festivities and the sacrifice of twelve thousand\ncaptives--taken it is said in a war against the revolting Miztec\nprovince of Tlachquiauhco--was dedicated a new sacrificial stone.\nIt was only after a long search that a suitable stone was found near\nCoyuhuacan, and after it was formed and sculptured with the fitting\ndevices, notwithstanding the honors paid it on the way to the capital,\nit broke through one of the causeways and carried with itself to the\nbottom of the lake the high-priest and many of his attendants. It was\nafterwards recovered and placed in its appointed place. Tezozomoc and\nothers tell many marvelous tales of this stone, how it spoke frequently\non the way, and how after sinking it found its way back to its original\nlocation. Tezozomoc also states that in connection with the ceremonies\nat this time Montezuma publicly proclaimed himself Zemanahuaca\nTlatoani, equivalent to 'emperor of the world.'[IX-49]\n\n[Sidenote: LIMITS OF THE AZTEC EMPIRE.]\n\nDuring the next few years Montezuma seems to have determined by\nbrilliant exploits in battle to defy the predictions of his magicians\nand to shake off his own superstitious fears. In 1512, according to\nTorquemada, the Xuchitepecs and Icpactepecs were subjugated; in 1513,\nthe Yopitzincas, who had attempted the destruction of the Mexican\ngarrison at Tlacotepec, were defeated; in 1514, the city of Quetzalapan\nin Cuextlan was taken with many captives, although at the cost of\nseveral Aztec leaders of high rank; and in 1515 took place the conquest\nof Cihuapohualoyan and Cuexcomaixtlahuacan, including the siege of the\nstrongholds of Quetzaltepec, Totoltepec and Iztactlalocan, narrated at\nconsiderable length by Duran, who represents this war as having been\ncaused by the refusal of the inhabitants to furnish a peculiar kind of\nsand needed by the Mexican lapidaries in polishing precious stones.[IX-50]\nTorquemada and Ortega relate that an expedition was at about this time\nsent southward to Honduras, Vera Paz, and Nicaragua, all of which were\nsubjected to the Mexican power, the two former without much opposition,\nthe latter only after a hard battle, a defeat, and subsequent treachery\non the part of the Aztecs.[IX-51] There is every reason to believe that\nthis report is unfounded, and that the countries south of the isthmus,\nsave perhaps Soconusco, were never conquered by the Mexicans. I need\nnot enter into any discussion here respecting the limits of the Aztec\nempire; since the annals recorded in the preceding pages, with a r\u00e9sum\u00e9\nof the subject in a preceding volume,[IX-52] are sufficient. In general\nterms the empire extended from the valley of Mexico westward only\nto the adjoining province of Matlaltzinco, Michoacan having always\nretained her independence; north-westward only a few leagues beyond\nthe limits of the valley; in the north-east, east, and south-east it\nembraced the whole country to the gulf coast from the Rio P\u00e1nuco in the\nnorth to the Rio Alvarado in the south, excepting the small territory\nof Tlascala; in the south-west and south it reached the Pacific coast,\nalong which it extended from Zacatollan to Tututepec; and it also\nincluded some towns and garrisons in Soconusco, and on the frontiers\nof Chiapas. Or, according to modern political geography, the empire\nembraced the states of Mexico, Puebla, Vera Cruz, Guerrero, and western\nOajaca, with small portions of Tamaulipas, San Luis Potos\u00ed, Quer\u00e9taro,\nand Chiapas. The whole of Oajaca, including Tehuantepec, was at one\ntime subjected, but the Zapotecs regained their independence, as we\nhave seen, before Montezuma's reign. Beyond these limits doubtless\nmany raids were made, and towns, with small sections of territory, were\nreduced momentarily to Mexican provinces; hence the varying statements\nof different authors on this subject.[IX-53]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe appearance of the Spaniards on the distant American coasts, the\npredictions of disaster which all the soothsayers agreed in deriving\nfrom constantly recurring omens, the approaching subjugation of\nhis people to a race of foreigners in which Nezahualpilli firmly\nbelieved, and above all the haughty and treacherous manner and deeds\nof Montezuma, who now made no secret of his intention to make himself\nsupreme monarch of the empire, had a most depressing effect on the\nTezcucan king. He retired with his favorite wife and a few attendants\nto the palace of Tezcocingo, announcing his intention of spending\nhis remaining days in retirement, but six months later he returned\nto Tezcuco, retired to his most private apartments, and refused to\nsee visitors. Some time afterwards, when his family insisted on being\nadmitted to his presence, his death was announced to them, having been\nconcealed for some time by the attendants acting under his orders.\nThe peculiar circumstances of his decease caused the invention of the\npopular tale, according to which he had not died but had gone to the\nancient Amaquemecan, the home of his Chichimec ancestors. His death\noccurred in 1515.[IX-54]\n\n[Sidenote: REVOLT OF IXTLILXOCHITL.]\n\nFor some unknown reason Nezahualpilli had not named his successor\non the throne, and the choice thus devolved upon the royal council\nin conjunction with the kings of Mexico and Tlacopan. So far as can\nbe determined from conflicting accounts the sons of the deceased\nmonarch and heirs to the throne were as follows in the order of their\nage:--Tetlahuehuetquizitzin, Cacama, Cohuanacoch, and Ixtlilxochitl.\nThe eldest son was deemed incompetent to rule the kingdom, Cacama was\nchosen by the council, and the choice warmly approved by Montezuma,\nwho was Cacama's uncle. When the decision was announced to the other\nbrothers, Cohuanacoch approved it, but Ixtlilxochitl protested against\nthe choice of Cacama, insisting that his oldest brother should be\nproclaimed king. Something has already been said about this prince's\nfiery temper in early years,[IX-55] and age seems to have had no effect\nin calming his violent character. But on this occasion he seems to\nhave been actuated not only by his own ambition to reign or to control\nthe reigning monarch, but by patriotic motives and a desire for his\ncountry's freedom. He denounced, probably not without reason, the\ncouncil as acting wholly in the interests of the treacherous Montezuma,\nwho had insulted his father, and aspired to the imperial power; and\nhe regarded Cacama as a mere man of wax to be molded at will by the\ncrafty monarch of the Mexicans. The details of the quarrel are given\nat considerable length by the authorities, but are hardly worth\nreproducing here; the trouble seems to have lasted, if the chronology\nof the records may be credited, two years, much of which time was\npassed by Cacama at Mexico with his uncle. At last, however, finding\nhis efforts unavailing, Ixtlilxochitl left Tezcuco with his partisans\nand went to the province of Meztitlan with the intention of exciting a\nrevolt in his own behalf, while Cacama in 1517 proceeded to his capital\nto receive the crown of his father.[IX-56]\n\nIxtlilxochitl was in a high degree successful in the northern\nprovinces, whose inhabitants were almost unanimous in their approval\nof his opposition to Montezuma, and gladly ranged themselves under his\nbanners. Marching southward from Meztitlan at the head of a hundred\nthousand men, he was received as king in Tepepulco and other towns\nuntil he reached Otompan, where he met considerable resistance, but at\nlast entered the city and made it thereafter his capital. He also took\npossession of all the northern towns, such as Acolman, Chiuhnauhtlan,\nZumpango, and Huehuetoca. The news of his proceedings in the north\nreached Tezcuco just after the coronation ceremonies of Cacama, or,\nas some say, during their continuance. Montezuma seems to have made\none effort to quell this northern revolt and to have sent one of his\nbravest generals against Ixtlilxochitl, but this general, Xochitl, was\ndefeated, captured, and burned alive by the fiery Chichimec prince;\nno farther attack was made by the Mexican king. During the course of\nthis year, 1517, the Totonacs secretly gave in their allegiance to\nIxtlilxochitl, and of course Tlascala, the inveterate foe of Mexico,\nsupported his cause. Montezuma's failure to renew his efforts against\nthe rebel, and the increasing spirit of revolt among the Aztec\nprovinces are in great measure accounted for, when it is remembered\nthat at this time the Spaniards, under Hernandez de C\u00f3rdova, again\nappeared on the coast of Yucatan and Tabasco,[IX-57] and the exaggerated\nreports of their appearance and deeds served to cause a renewal of\nthe old terror in Mexico, and a corresponding hope, not altogether\nunmingled with fear, in the oppressed provinces. Cacama, either\ninfluenced by the same fears, or more probably encouraged to yield to\nhis own kindly feelings towards his brother by Montezuma's failure\nto proceed against Ixtlilxochitl, sent an embassy to his brother,\nwho, from his new headquarters at Otompan, had shown no intention of\nmarching against Tezcuco, proposing an amicable settlement of their\ndifficulties. Ixtlilxochitl replied that he had none but the kindest\nfeelings towards his brother and the kingdom of Acolhuacan, but renewed\nhis denunciations of Montezuma, and his warnings against that monarch's\nambitious designs. A division of the kingdom was finally decided upon,\nIxtlilxochitl retaining the sovereign power in the northern provinces,\nCacama retaining his throne at Tezcuco and his place in the Aztec\nalliance, and Cohuanacoch receiving a large amount of revenue for his\nconstant support of the king. Ixtlilxochitl faithfully observed the\nterms of the treaty, but retained all his enmity against the Mexicans;\nhe had an opportunity to strike a decisive blow against the hated power\na little later as an ally of the Spaniards.[IX-58]\n\n[Sidenote: FINAL WARS OF MONTEZUMA.]\n\nYet wars were still waged by the allied kings as before, for the only\nhope of averting impending disaster was by drenching with human blood\nthe altars of the gods. Several campaigns are recorded as having\nyielded captives in considerable numbers, but no details are given.\nBattles against the Tlascaltecs were continued down to the very last;\nthe Mexicans fighting generally as allies of the Huexotzincas. In one\nof these battles the Huexotzinca chief Tlachpanquizqui by a valiant\nfeat of arms obtained pardon for serious crimes which he had committed,\nand great rewards besides. He captured the famous Tlascaltec warrior\nTlalhuicol and brought him to Mexico. But the honor of his capture was\nall that Montezuma desired; for he immediately offered Tlalhuicol his\nfreedom, which was refused. The Tlascaltec was then put in command\nof a Mexican army and sent against the Tarascos, whom he defeated,\ntaking their stronghold of Tangimaroa, or Tlaximaloyan, and subduing\nmany towns on his way. He returned laden with spoils to Mexico, was\nentreated to accept the permanent position of Commander-in-chief of\nthe Aztec armies, or at least to accept his release and return to his\ncountry; but the brave Tlalhuicol deemed it a dishonor to return or\neven to live after his capture, and earnestly entreated the privilege\nof dying like other prisoners of rank on the gladiatorial stone. His\nrequest was sorrowfully granted, eight of An\u00e1huac's best warriors fell\nbefore him in the conflict, but by the ninth he was subdued, and his\nheart was offered as a pleasing sacrifice to the god of war.[IX-59]\n\nIn the same year, 1517, it is related that Montezuma in his zeal to\nappease the irate deities, ordered the grand temple of Huitzilopochtli\nto be covered from top to bottom with gold, precious stones, and rare\nfeathers. His Minister of Finance, ordered to supply the cost of this\nextravagant act of piety by imposing a new tax on the people, objected\nand warned the tyrant that his subjects would endure no increase of\ntaxation. His objections were removed by putting him to death, but we\nhear nothing farther of the golden covering.[IX-60] The following year, or\n1518, took place at Mexico the last of the long series of sacrificial\nimmolations on a large scale, at the dedication of the temple of\nCoatlan, on which occasion were sacrificed the captives that the last\ncampaigns had yielded.[IX-61] But almost before the groans of the dying\nvictims had died away there came to the ears of the Aztec sovereign\nthe startling tidings that the eastern strangers had again made their\nappearance, this time on the Totonac coasts of his own empire. Juan de\nGrijalva and his companions had followed the gulf coast northward, and\nreached the spot where now stands the city of Vera Cruz.[IX-62]\n\n[Sidenote: ARRIVAL OF JUAN DE GRIJALVA.]\n\nAll Aztec officials in the coast provinces had strict orders to keep\na constant look-out for the eastern strangers, and in case of their\narrival to treat them kindly, but by pretence of traffic and by every\npossible means to ascertain who they were, whence they came, and the\nnature of their designs. In accordance with these orders Pinotl the\nAztec governor of Cuetlachtlan and his Mexican subordinates were\nforemost among the visitors to the wonderful ships of Grijalva;\npaintings were quickly but carefully prepared of the strangers,\ntheir ships, their weapons, and of every strange thing observed, and\nwith the startling news and the pictured records the royal officials\nhastened to Mexico and communicated their information to Montezuma. The\nking, concealing as well as possible his anxiety and forbidding the\nmessengers to make the news public, immediately assembled his royal\ncolleagues and his council of state, laid the matter before them and\nasked their advice. The opinion was unanimous that the strangers were\nthe children of Quetzalcoatl, returning in fulfillment of the ancient\nprophecies, and that they should be kindly received, as the only means\nof conciliating the good will of the numerous followers of the ancient\nprophet. An embassy was sent with rich presents to the coast, but they\nwere too late; the Spaniards had departed, with a promise, however, of\nreturning at an early date.\n\nThe events that followed down to the fulfillment of that promise by the\narrival of Hernan Cort\u00e9s in 1519 are not very definitely recorded, but\nthese months formed a period of the greatest anxiety on the part of the\nAztec rulers and of mingled dread and hope for their numerous enemies.\nInterest in the one absorbing topic caused all else to be forgotten;\nthere was no thought of conquest, of revolt, of tributes; even the\nbloody rites of Huitzilopochtli were much neglected and the star of\nthe peaceful Quetzalcoatl and his sect was in the ascendant. Prophets\nand old men throughout the country were closely questioned respecting\ntheir knowledge of the old traditions; old paintings and records were\ntaken from every archive and carefully compared with those relating to\nthe new-comers; the loss of the precious documents burned by Itzcoatl\nwas now seriously felt; the glass beads and other trinkets obtained\nfrom the Spaniards, and even carefully treasured fragments of ship\nbiscuit, were formally deposited with all the old Toltec ceremonies in\nthe temple of Quetzalcoatl. Many fictitious paintings were palmed off\non the credulous Montezuma as ancient records in which the children of\nQuetzalcoatl were pictured in an amusing variety of absurd forms, but\nsome of the documents agreed very closely with the late paintings of\nMontezuma's agents, showing that others had bethought them to represent\non paper Grijalva's company or some preceding band of Spaniards.[IX-63]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAt last the presence of Cort\u00e9s on the southern coasts, and his\nprogress towards the Aztec possessions, was announced, and an\nembassy was dispatched to await his arrival, and to receive him with\nevery attention and with the richest gifts the empire could afford.\nSubsequent events belong to the history of the Conquest, and must be\nnarrated in another work; the remaining chapters of this volume being\nrequired for such fragments as have been preserved respecting the\naboriginal history of other nations and tribes outside the central\nplateaux of Mexico.\n\n[Sidenote: AN\u00c1HUAC IN 1519.]\n\nI close the chapter and the annals of the Aztec period, with a brief\nglance at the general condition of affairs in and about An\u00e1huac in\n1519, and the most extraordinary combination of circumstances that\nmade it possible for Hernan Cort\u00e9s to overthrow with a handful of\nSpanish soldiers a mighty aboriginal empire. The power known as Aztec,\nsince the formation of the tri-partite alliance not quite a century\nbefore under the Acolhua, Mexican, and Tepanec kings, had gradually\nextended its iron grasp from its centre about the lakes to the shores\nof either ocean; and this it had accomplished wholly by the force of\narms, receiving no voluntary allegiance. Overburdened by taxation;\noppressed and insulted by royal governors, Aztec tribute-gatherers, and\nthe traveling armies of Tlatelulca merchants; constantly attacked on\nfrivolous pretexts by blood-thirsty hordes who ravaged their fields and\ncarried away the flower of their population to perish on the Mexican\naltars; the inhabitants of each province subjected to this degrading\nbondage entertained towards the central government of the tyrants on\nthe lakes feelings of the bitterest hatred and hostility, only awaiting\nan opportunity to free themselves, or at least to annihilate their\noppressors. Such was the condition of affairs and the state of feeling\nabroad; at home the situation was most critical. The alliance which\nhad been the strongest element of the Aztec power was now practically\nbroken up; the ambitious schemes of Montezuma had alienated his firmest\nally, and the stronger part of the Acolhua force was now openly arrayed\nagainst him under Ixtlilxochitl at Otompan, leagued with the Tlascaltec\nleaders for the overthrow of the Mexican power. It is probable that the\ncoming of the Spaniards retarded rather than precipitated the united\nattack of the Acolhuas and the outside provinces on Montezuma. But\nagain, to meet the gathering storm, the Mexican king could no longer\ncount on the undivided support of his own people; he had alienated the\nmerchants, who no longer, as in the early days, did faithful duty as\nspies, nor toiled to enrich a government from which they could expect\nno rewards; the lower classes no longer deemed their own interests\nidentical with those of their sovereign. Last but far from least among\nthe elements of approaching ruin was the religious sentiment of the\ncountry. The reader has followed the bitter contentions of earlier\ntimes in Tollan and Culhuacan, between the rival sects of Quetzalcoatl\nand Tezcatlipoca. With the growth of the Mexican influence the bloody\nrites of the latter sect had prevailed under the auspices of the god\nHuitzilopochtli, and the worship of the gentler Quetzalcoatl, though\nstill observed in many provinces and many temples, had with its priests\nbeen forced to occupy a secondary position. But the people were filled\nwith terror at the horrible extent to which the latter kings had\ncarried the immolation of human victims; they were sick of blood, and\nof the divinities that thirsted for it; a re-action was experienced\nin favor of the rival deities and priesthood. And now, just as the\noppressed subjects of ecclesiastical tyranny were learning to remember\nwith regret the peaceful teachings of the Plumed Serpent, and to look\nto that god for relief from their woes, their prayers were answered,\nQuetzalcoatl's predictions were apparently fulfilled, and his promised\nchildren made their appearance on the eastern ocean. The arrival of\nCort\u00e9s at this particular juncture was in one sense most marvelous;\nbut in his subsequent success there is little to be wondered at; nor is\nit strange that the oppressed Nahuas received almost with outstretched\narms the ministers of the new faith thus offered them by the Spaniards.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[IX-1] _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 93-8; _Duran_,\nMS., tom. i., cap. xl.; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 495;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. i., pp. 326-31; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 265-6.\n\n[IX-2] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 182.\n\n[IX-3] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 263, 269-70, 410; _Torquemada_, tom. i.,\npp. 183-4; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 254-5; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 331-4; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 272-5; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., p. 36. Several authors attribute the completion of\nthe temple to Ahuitzotl.\n\n[IX-4] _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xl.; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._,\np. 495; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; _Veytia_, tom.\niii., pp. 271, 276-8; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 253-4, 256. This\nauthor gives the date as 1482. _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 182-5;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 36-7; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib.\nviii., p. 269; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 334-5; _Codex Tell.\nRem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. vi., p. 141, date 1487; _Tezozomoc_, in\n_Id._, vol. ix., pp. 98-100; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 265, 267; _Codex\nMendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., pp. 47-8. Ixtlilxochitl claims\nthat Tizoc died a natural death, and that Techotl died during his\nreign.\n\n[IX-5] See vol. iv., pp. 377-84.\n\n[IX-6] Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 337-40, tells us that the\nXiquipilco campaign furnished captives for the coronation, while the\nproducts of the other wars were reserved for the dedication.\nTezozomoc, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 99-108, speaks of the\nconquest of some city in Chiapas; while Acosta, _Hist. de las Ynd._,\np. 499, states that a place called Quaxutatlan was taken by means of\nan artificial floating island. It is impossible to form from the\nauthorities any idea of these wars and their chronological order. See,\n_Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xli.-ii.; _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 467;\n_Sig\u00fcenza_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. i., p. 72;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 37; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 257;\n_Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 278; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 186.\n\n[IX-7] On the dedication, see vol. ii., p. 577; _Ixtlilxochitl_, p.\n268; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xliii-iv.; _Motolinia_, in\n_Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 254; _Clavigero_, tom. i.,\np. 257; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 186; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii.,\np. 37; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 152;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 341-5. Considering the number of\nthe victims sacrificed, it is probably more correct to suppose that\nseveral sacrificers were occupied at the same time.\n\n[IX-8] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. iii., pp. 345-6; with reference to\n_Torquemada_, tom. i. lib. ii., cap. lxiii. which contains nothing on\nthe subject.\n\n[IX-9] Tezozomoc, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 109-12, 154, places\nthe Cuextlan war before the dedication, and calls Chimalpopoca's\nsuccessor Tlaltecatzin. See also _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp.\n269-70; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 37-8; _Torquemada_, tom.\ni., p. 187; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 294-5; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 345-7; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 258; _Ixtlilxochitl_, p.\n268.\n\n[IX-10] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 187, 191; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.\n258-9; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 348-9; _Veytia_, tom. iii.,\npp. 295-6; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xl.; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 152.\n\n[IX-11] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 278-80; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 349-52.\n\n[IX-12] _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 120-7; _Duran_,\nMS., tom. i., cap. xliv., tom. ii., cap. xlv.; _Brasseur_, _Hist._,\ntom. iii., pp. 352-5. This author also refers to Torquemada and\nIxtlilxochitl, who have nothing to say of this war and colony,\nalthough the latter, p. 271, speaks of the conquest of Zapotlan and\nXaltepec, which may have been in the same campaign.\n\n[IX-13] _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 271.\n\n[IX-14] _Hist. Gen._, tom. ii., lib. ix., pp. 337-8.\n\n[IX-15] _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 151. The\ndate is put at 1494 by this document.\n\n[IX-16] See vol. iv., pp. 368-71.\n\n[IX-17] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 367,\net seq.\n\n[IX-18] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 355-62.\n\n[IX-19] _Hist. Gen._, tom. ii., lib. ix., p. 337, et seq.\n\n[IX-20] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt ii., fol.\n367-76.\n\n[IX-21] _Burgoa_, as in note 20; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n362-9. A full account, mostly from Burgoa, is given in the _Soc. Mex.\nGeog., Boletin_, tom. vii., pp. 167, 175-7, 183-7. Other authorities\ntouch very vaguely upon the events related above; most of them utterly\nignoring the defeat of the Aztecs. Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap.\nxlvi-vii., liv-v., puts the marriage in Montezuma's reign, and says\nthat the Tehuantepec king was told by his wife of the plot against his\nlife by 10,000 soldiers who had entered the capital in small groups as\nguests; he caused the whole 10,000 to be put to death. According to\nthe _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 153, the king\nof Tehuantepec never afterwards allowed a Mexican to set foot in his\ncountry. This document makes Pelaxilla a daughter of Montezuma.\nClavigero, tom. i., p. 262, says that the Aztec forces penetrated\nGuatemala at this time, referring to the Xuchiltepec campaign.\nIxtlilxochitl, pp. 268, 271-2, states that the allies took 17,400\ncaptives from the Zapotecs in 1499. According to Remesal, _Hist.\nChyapa_, p. 2, Chiapas was made tributary to Mexico about 1498. See\nalso for slight references to events that may be connected with these\ncampaigns in the south-west. _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix.,\npp. 127-37; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 193; _Pi\u00f1eda_, in _Soc. Mex.\nGeog., Boletin_, tom. iii., p. 347.\n\n[IX-22] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 270-1.\n\n[IX-23] On the family affairs of Nezahualpilli, see _Torquemada_, tom.\ni., p. 184; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 255-6; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 372-5; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 265, 267, 271-2; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 36-7; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 275-6.\n\n[IX-24] Vol. ii., pp. 446-50.\n\n[IX-25] For these and other anecdotes of Nezahualpilli,\nsee:--_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 267, 273-7; _Duran_, MS., tom. ii., cap.\n1.; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 180-90; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii.,\npp. 385-92; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, pp. 48-9.\n\n[IX-26] _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 259-60; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p.\n191; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 375-7; _Veytia_, tom. iii.,\npp. 296-9; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 38.\n\n[IX-27] Respecting this flood, see: _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 272-3;\n_Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 137-41; _Torquemada_,\ntom. i., pp. 192-3, 293; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 377-82;\n_Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xlviii.-ix.; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp.\n299-302; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 260-2; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib.\nviii., p. 269; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 38-9; _Acosta_,\n_Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 500-1; _Bustamante_, _Ma\u00f1anas_, tom. ii., pp.\n208-9; vol. ii., p. 566 of this work.\n\n[IX-28] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 193; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 262.\nIn the _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 48, is given a\nlist of forty-five towns conquered by Ahuitzotl.\n\n[IX-29] Clavigero and Vetancvrt make the date 1502. Ixtlilxochitl in\none place, p. 457, says 1505.\n\n[IX-30] Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. li-v., states that the first wars\nwere directed against Nopallan, Icpatepec, and Toltepec; and that\nduring the campaign Montezuma ordered the death of the tutors of his\nchildren and the attendants of his wives. Tezozomoc, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 141-53, adds Huitzpac and Tepeaca to the\ntowns mentioned by Duran. See also on death of Ahuitzotl and accession\nof Montezuma II.: _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 262-7; _Torquemada_, tom.\ni., pp. 193-5; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 303-9; _Brasseur_, _Hist._,\ntom. iii., pp. 382-97; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 265, 277, 457; _Acosta_,\n_Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 501-6; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap.\nxiv.; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 29; _Codex Mendoza_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. v., pp. 51-2; _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 303;\n_Sig\u00fcenza_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. i., pp. 74-6.\n\n[IX-31] See on the policy and government of Montezuma II., vol. ii. of\nthis work, passim; also, _Duran_, MS. tom., ii., cap. liii.;\n_Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 145-6; _Ixtlilxochitl_,\np. 278; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 267-75; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp.\n309-19; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 398-402; _Torquemada_,\ntom. i., pp. 196, 205-6; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 505-7;\n_Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. vi., p. 14; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., p. 39; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiv.;\n_Villa-Se\u00f1or y Sanchez_, _Theatro_, tom. i., pp. 4-5.\n\n[IX-32] Camargo says the combined armies were beaten at this battle.\nTorquemada places the event in the third year of Montezuma's reign.\nIxtlilxochitl, Duran, and Tezozomoc represent Tlacahuepantzin as the\nbrother of Montezuma, and Ixtlilxochitl implies that he was sent to\nthis war, placed in 1508, in the hope of his death. This brother is\nperhaps the same person spoken of by Ixtlilxochitl on p. 443. Duran\nand Tezozomoc seem to regard this as a war against Cholula and\nHuexotzinco.\n\n[IX-33] On the war with Tlascala, see: _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.\n275-80; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 197-203; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp.\n320-7; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 402-9; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 40-1; _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom.\nxcviii., pp. 178-86; _Duran_, MS., tom. ii., cap. lvii-lxi.;\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 271, 278; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol.\nix., pp. 160-78; _Oviedo_, tom. iii., p. 497.\n\n[IX-34] This famine occurred in the third year of Montezuma's reign,\naccording to Clavigero; in fourth year, as Torquemada says; and\nIxtlilxochitl puts it in 1505 and 1506. See _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp.\n203-4, 235. _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 278; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 282-3;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 41; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii.,\npp. 409-10; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 331-2; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib.\nviii., p. 270; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p.\n153.\n\n[IX-35] _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 283; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 332-4;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 204, 207; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p.\n41; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 410-11; _Duran_, MS., tom. i.,\ncap. lv., lix.; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 170-1.\n\n[IX-36] Ixtlilxochitl says the war was afterwards carried into\nGuatemala and Nicaragua. Brasseur tells us that the treacherous\nCozcaquauhtli was made king of Cohuaixtlahuacan; others say ruler of\nTzotzolan. According to Torquemada, the war was in the fifth year of\nthe reign, and preceded by an eclipse of the sun. Tezozomoc refers to\na campaign against Xaltepec and Cuatzonteccan in Tehuantepec.\nVetancvrt gives as the date the seventh year of the reign. Clavigero\nmakes Cozcaquauhtli the brother of Nahuixochitl. See _Torquemada_,\ntom. i., pp. 196-7, 207-9, 215; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 275, 283-4;\n_Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 166-7;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 41-2; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 411-17; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 153-6,\n162-4, 180; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 279-80; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp.\n334-7, 359; _Duran_, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxv.\n\n[IX-37] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 278, speaks of a conquest of Zocolan in\n1506, and of Totecpec in 1507. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. lv., speaks\nof the conquest, at about this time, of Quatzoutlan and Toltepec,\nwhere Montezuma ordered that all persons over fifty years of age\nshould be put to death. _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 284-6; _Veytia_,\ntom. iii., pp. 337-40; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 417-20;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 209-10.\n\n[IX-38] The lighting of the new fire took place at midnight, March\n21-2, 1507, at the beginning of the year 2 Acatl, between the days 7\nTochtli and 8 Acatl. _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., p. 423. The _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., pp.\n153-4, says that the tie of the years had usually taken place in 1\nTochtli (1506), but was changed by Montezuma to 2 Acatl (1507). Most\nother authors name 1506 as the year of the f\u00eate; but perhaps they mean\nsimply that 1 Tochtli the last of the seventh cycle corresponds for\nthe most part, although not exactly of course, to 1506. See\n_Boturini_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, s\u00e9rie iii., tom. iv., p. 240;\n_Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 340; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 210-11;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 285-6; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 41;\nsee also vol. ii., p. 341, and vol. iii., pp. 393-6.\n\n[IX-39] Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 427-8, names\nMacuilmalinatzin, the brother of Montezuma, among the killed, and\napplies, probably with some reason, to this war the suspicions of\nIxtlilxochitl, respecting foul play on the part of the Mexican king\nalready referred to--(see note 32). See also: _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp.\n343-4; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 211; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 286;\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 278-9; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix.,\npp. 171, 177; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 41-2; _Codex Tell.\nRem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 154; _Duran_, MS., tom. ii.,\ncap. lxii.\n\n[IX-40] Ixtlilxochitl dates the Amatlan war in 1514; Brasseur puts the\nwar in 1510; Torquemada denies that the comet had three heads.\n\n[IX-41] This was very likely the occasion already noted when the\nTlatelulcas rushed into the city, supposing it to be invaded.\n\n[IX-42] See pp. 422-4, of this volume; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 213.\n\n[IX-43] Clavigero throws discredit on Boturini's version; I find it\ndifficult to feel implicit faith in that of Clavigero.\n\n[IX-44] Torquemada says in 1499.\n\n[IX-45] On these evil omens, see _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 278-80;\n_Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 344-59; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 211-14,\n233-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 286-92; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt\nii., pp. 42-3, 126; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp.\n177-8, 183-9; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Id._, vol. v., p. 154;\n_Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. viii., ix.; _Brasseur_, _Hist._,\ntom. iii., pp. 428-41; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 510-14;\n_Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcix., pp. 139-40; _Duran_,\nMS., tom. ii., cap. lxiii., lxvi-ix.; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii.,\npp. 270-1; _Boturini_, _Cat\u00e1logo_, pp. 27-8.\n\n[IX-46] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 214; _Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 361;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 42.\n\n[IX-47] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. iii., pp. 442-7, reference to _Mem. de\nTecpan-Atitlan_.\n\n[IX-48] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 280-1.\n\n[IX-49] _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 168, 181-3;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 293; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 214-15;\n_Duran_, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxvi.; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii.,\npp. 448-50; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. viii.; _Acosta_,\n_Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 511; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 42-3.\n\n[IX-50] It is impossible here to distinguish between references to\nTututepec in Oajaca, and Tototepec, or Totoltepec, north-east of\nMexico. The _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 154,\nmentions in 1512 the conquest of Quimichintepec and Nopala, towards\nTototepec, and also that the stones in that year threw out smoke which\nreached the skies. The same authority records the conquest of\nTututepec on the Pacific, and an earthquake in 1513; the conquest of\nHayocingo in 1514, and that of Itzlaquetlaloca in 1515. See\n_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 278-80, 283-4. This writer also mentions the wars\nof Mictlanzinco and Xaltaianquizco as among the last waged by the\nAztec monarchs. _Duran_, MS., tom. ii., cap. lvi. _Clavigero_, tom.\ni., pp. 293-4; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 359-60; _Torquemada_, tom. i.,\npp. 214-5; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 42.\n\n[IX-51] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 218-19; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp.\n361-3.\n\n[IX-52] Vol. ii., pp. 93-5.\n\n[IX-53] Ixtlilxochitl, p. 280, gives the southern boundaries as\nHuimolan, Acalan, Vera Paz, and Nicaragua; the northern as the Gulf of\nCalifornia and P\u00e1nuco; makes the empire cover all the ancient Toltec\nterritory, and incorrectly includes besides the north-western states,\nthose of Tabasco and Guatemala. Herrera, dec. ii., lib. vii., cap.\nxiii; lib. ix., cap. i.; agrees with the limits I have given, and\nshows that Goazacoalco and Tabasco never belonged to the empire.\nAztecs never subdued the region about Zacatecas. _Arlegui_, _Chr\u00f3n.\nZacatecas_, p. 9. Clavigero, tom. iv., pp. 267-9, tells us that the\nempire stretched on the Pacific from Soconusco to Colima; that Chiapas\nwas only held by a few garrisons on the frontier; that the province of\nTollan was the north-western limit; Tusapan the north-eastern, P\u00e1nuco\nand the Huastecs never having been subdued; Goazacoalco was the\nsouth-eastern bound.\n\n[IX-54] On Nezahualpilli's death see:--_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp.\n216-17; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 282, 388, 410; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 452-5; _Duran_, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxiv.; _Veytia_, tom.\niii., pp. 363-4; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 294-5; _Tezozomoc_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 178-9. Several authors make the date\n1516; Duran says ten years before the coming of the Spaniards, or in\n1509.\n\n[IX-55] See p. 451 of this volume.\n\n[IX-56] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 282-3, 410, and Torquemada, tom. i., p.\n221, are the chief authorities on the succession of Cacama. The former\nrecords a report, which he doubts, that Nezahualpilli before his death\nindicated as his successor a younger son, Yoiontzin. He implies that\nCacama was an illegitimate son and had no claim to the throne, but was\nforced on the Acolhua nobles against their will by Montezuma.\nTorquemada, on the other hand, makes Cacama the oldest son and\nlegitimate heir, not mentioning the existence of\nTetlahuehuetquizitzin, and does not imply that Montezuma had any undue\ninfluence in the choice of a new king. Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap.\nlxiv., and Tezozomoc, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 179, give an\nentirely different version of the matter. They say that the Acolhua\nlords were summoned to Mexico and invited by Montezuma to select their\nnew king. When they told him there were five competent sons--only two\nof whose names, Cohuanacoch and Ixtlilxochitl, are identical with\nthose named by other authorities--he advised the election of\nQuetzalacxoyatl, who was therefore elected and proved a faithful\nsubject of the Mexican king. He only lived a few days, however, and\nwas succeeded by his brother Tlahuitoltzin, and he, after a few years,\nby Cohuanacoch, during whose reign the Spaniards arrived. See also,\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iv., pp. 14-21; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp.\n367-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 297-9; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii.,\npp. 43-4; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. i., cap. i.\n\n[IX-57] On the voyage of C\u00f3rdova, see: _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp.\n349-51; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 3-8; _Peter Martyr_, dec. iv.,\nlib. i-ii.; _Herrera_, dec. ii., lib. ii., cap. xvii.; _Bernal Diaz_,\n_Hist. Conq._, fol. 1-5; _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., pp. 49-52;\n_Prescott's Mex._, vol. i., pp. 222-4; _Gomara_, _Hist. Ind._, fol.\n60-1.\n\n[IX-58] On Ixtlilxochitl's revolt and the treaty with Cacama, see:\n_Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 369-75; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 299-302;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 223-7; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iv., pp.\n21-3, 36-7; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 44; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp.\n283-4.\n\n[IX-59] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 189-91;\n_Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 172-5; _Torquemada_,\ntom. i., pp. 197, 201, 228; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iv., pp. 23-7;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 280-2; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 325, 328-31,\n375-6; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 45-6.\n\n[IX-60] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp.\n34-6.\n\n[IX-61] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 228; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 376-7;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 46.\n\n[IX-62] On Grijalva's voyage, see:--_Diaz_, _Itinerario_, in\n_Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., pp. 281-307; _Bernal Diaz_,\n_Hist. Conq._, fol. 6-11; _Peter Martyr_, dec. iv., lib. iii-iv.;\n_Navarrete_, _Col. de Viages_, tom. iii., pp. 55-64; _Gomara_, _Conq.\nMex._, fol. 811, 568; _Herrera_, dec. ii., lib. iii., cap. i-ii.;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 351-8; _Prescott's Mex._, vol. i., pp.\n224-8.\n\n[IX-63] _Torquemada_, tom., i., pp. 378-80; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las\nYnd._, pp. 515-16; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 377-8; _Duran_, MS., tom.\nii., cap. lxix-lxx.; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp.\n189-94; _Herrera_, dec. ii., lib. iii., cap. ix.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nHISTORY OF THE EASTERN PLATEAU, MICHOACAN, AND OAJACA.\n\n     Early History of the Eastern Plateau -- The Chichimec-Toltecs\n     -- Arrival of the Teo-Chichimecs in An\u00e1huac -- They Conquer\n     and Settle the Eastern Plateau -- Civil Wars -- Miscellaneous\n     Events -- Wars between Tlascala and the Nations of An\u00e1huac\n     -- Early History of Michoacan -- Wars between Wanacaces and\n     Tarascos -- Founding of Tzintzuntzan -- Metamorphosis of the\n     Tarasco Princes -- Encroachments of the Wanacaces -- The King\n     of the Isles -- Murder of Pawacume and Wapeani -- Reigns of\n     Curatame, Tariacuri, Tangaxoan I., Ziziz Pandacuare, Zwanga,\n     and Tangaxoan II. -- Origin of the Miztecs and Zapotecs --\n     Wixipecocha -- Rulers of Oajaca -- The Huaves and Mijes --\n     Later Kings and History of Oajaca -- Wars with Mexico.\n\n\nAlthough all that is known of the history of the eastern plateau prior\nto the fall of the Toltec empire has been already told, it will be well\nto briefly review the events of that period before referring to the\nChichimec occupation of the region under consideration.\n\nThe earliest inhabitants of the plateau of whom we have any definite\nknowledge were the Olmecs, one of the oldest of the Nahua nations, who\nappear to have settled the country about Puebla and Cholula with the\npermission of the Quinames, or giants, the original possessors, and\nto have been so badly treated by them that at length, by a stratagem,\nthey slew their oppressors and became sole masters of the country. Next\nwe hear of the erection of the great pyramid of Cholula by Xelhua,\nan Olmec chief; then of the advent and subsequent disappearance\nof Quetzalcoatl, the culture hero and reformer, who is not to be\nconfounded with Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, king of Tollan and afterwards\nof Cholula, who appeared on the scene at a much later period and was\nalso a great reformer. After this, history is silent concerning the\nOlmecs until the founding of the Toltec empire, when we find them\nstill flourishing on the eastern plateau with Cholula for their capital\ncity. Then the king of Culhuacan, Mixcohua, better known as Camaxtli,\nunder which name he was subsequently apotheosized and worshiped on\nthe plateau, directs a military expedition towards Chalchiuhapan,\nafterwards Tlascala, which seems to have been founded about this\ntime. But the most notable event of this pre-Chichimec history of the\nplateau, and the one which most advanced its importance and prosperity,\nwas the coming of Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, son of Camaxtli, to Cholula,\nin 895, after he was forced from his throne at Tollan by the ambitious\nTezcatlipoca, or Huemac. As has been already stated, this event was the\nbeginning of a new and golden era in the eastern region, which lasted,\nif we except the conquest and temporary subjection of Cholula by\nHuemac, up to the time of the Toltec troubles, in which Cholula and her\nsister cities on the plateau doubtless shared, though to what extent is\nnot certain; at all events they were not deserted as the Toltec cities\nin the valley are traditionally reported to have been at the time of\nthe Chichimec invasion.\n\n[Sidenote: CHICHIMECS AT CHOLULA.]\n\nBrasseur has an account, drawn from one of his manuscripts,[X-1] of\nthe taking of Cholula shortly after the fall of the Toltec empire\nby a tribe which he calls the Chichimec-Toltecs, and the subsequent\nsettlement of the greater part of the plateau by this and other fierce\nbands, the original inhabitants being driven out of the country. This\nrelation is, however, of doubtful authenticity, and is, moreover,\nirreconcilable with other statements made by the same writer;[X-2] it\nseems, in short, to stand by itself, as an episode recorded in one\nobscure manuscript only, and having no connection whatever with the\nevents that precede or follow it. The account relates that among\nthe fierce hordes that contributed to the downfall of Tollan, was\none which, from the fact of its settling in the ruined capital,\nand possibly founding a temporary power there, received the name of\nChichimec-Toltec. After the death of Huemac III. this band left Tollan,\nunder the leadership of Icxicohuatl, Quetzaltehueyac, Totolohuitzil,\nand other chiefs,[X-3] and after ravaging the country about lake\nTenochtitlan, entered the mountains to the east of the valley of\nAn\u00e1huac, and there wandered about for a number of years without making\nany permanent settlement. When next heard of they were encamped near\nCholula, their numbers greatly reduced by famine or pestilence, and\nin a very wretched condition. Weary of their wandering life and not\nstrong enough to take forcible possession of one of the rich provinces\nof the plateau, or even to forage for their subsistence, they resolved\nto humble themselves before the princes of Cholula, and implore their\nprotection and assistance. Their small number and apparently broken\nspirit, caused their prayer to be granted with more readiness than they\nhad expected, and the fierce warriors, who in former times had made\nthe kings of An\u00e1huac tremble upon their thrones, were now scornfully\nadmitted into Cholula as men too weak to be feared and upon the footing\nof slaves and servants. But a few years of rest and abundance roused\nthe old spirit in the Chichimec-Toltecs, and made them burn to throw\noff their self-imposed yoke, and avenge the insults to which they\nwere constantly subjected by their masters. To obtain this end, they\nresorted to a very ingenious stratagem, suggested it is said, by their\nnational god, Tezcatlipoca. A deputation waited upon the Tlachiach\nand Aquiach, the two chief princes of Cholula, and begged permission\nto give a public entertainment, the chief feature of which should be\ntheir national ballad and dance. For the proper performance of this\nthey must, however, be supplied with their old weapons, which, since\ntheir arrival in Cholula, had been shut up in the city arsenal. Their\npetition was readily granted, great preparations were made, and on the\nappointed day all the people assembled to witness the novel spectacle.\nThe Tlachiach and Aquiach were present, surrounded by their suites and\na vast number of the nobility. The entertainment opened with certain\ncomic representations, which made the spectators roar with laughter,\nand excited them to drink freely and be merry. Then the Chichimec\nwarriors dressed in full war costume and bearing their weapons in\ntheir hands, formed themselves into a great circle, with the teponaztli\nplayer in the centre, and the solemn _mitote_ commenced. At first the\nmusic was low and sad, and the dancers moved with slow and measured\nsteps, but gradually the pace grew faster, and the deep voices of the\nwarriors as they chanted their battle song mingled with the sound of\nthe teponaztli. Higher and still higher the shouts arose, accompanied\nnow by terrible gestures and brandishing of weapons; more madly yet\nthe circle whirled, until it was impossible to distinguish one form\nfrom another; then, on a sudden, the note of the teponaztli changed\nand became low and sad once more. This was the signal for the massacre;\nin a moment the mock fury became a terrible reality, as the Chichimecs\nturned and fell upon the unarmed and half-drunk spectators. A dreadful\nslaughter ensued, and the streets of the city ran red with human blood.\nThe Tlachiach and Aquiach managed to escape, and took refuge with a few\nof their relatives and friends within the walls of Yancuitlalpan, which\nbecame for the time their residence. By night the Chichimec-Toltecs\nwere masters of Cholula. The news of this victory soon attracted\nother savage tribes; the original inhabitants were driven from place\nto place, and at the end of a few years, the entire country \"from the\nshores of the gulf of Mexico to the mountains which encircled the port\nof Acapulco,\" had changed masters.[X-4]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: TEO-CHICHIMEC ANNALS.]\n\nWith the arrival of the Teo-Chichimecs in An\u00e1huac, the history proper\nof the eastern plateau begins. This people, as has been said, was one\nof the invading bands that appear about the same time as the Nahuatlaca\ntribes, with whom they are classed by some writers. According to\nCamargo, the Tlascaltec historian, they were at Chicomoztoc in 5\nTochtli; thence they journeyed by way of Amaquetepec and Tepenec to\nTomallan, which they conquered; then with great difficulty they fought\ntheir way through Culhuacan, passed into Teotla Cochoalco, and so on to\nTeohuiznahuac, where their march was opposed by Queen Coatlicue, who,\nhowever, after a severe struggle was forced to come to terms. They next\nadvanced to Hueypuchtlan, and then to Tepozotlan, where the principal\nchiefs received certain military honors and adopted new names. After\npassing with many halts through other provinces they finally arrived\nin the vicinity of Tezcuco, in the year 2 Tecpatl, where they were\nwell received by the king, and assigned the plain of Poyauhtlan as\na place of encampment.[X-5] Veytia states that a great number of the\nTeo-Chichimecs, who did not like to settle in a locality surrounded\nby so many people, passed on into the country east of the Valley of\nMexico, where they spread over Tlascala, Huexotzinco, and Cholula,[X-6]\nwhich were probably occupied at that time by the remnants of the Olmecs\nand Xicalancas, who had formerly been subject to the Toltec empire.\n\n[Sidenote: TEO-CHICHIMEC MIGRATION.]\n\nNotwithstanding the settlers at Poyauhtlan met with no opposition\non their arrival, and even appear to have been well received,\ntheir presence soon became a source of great uneasiness to all the\nsurrounding nations. At first they behaved themselves well enough,\nand as they gave no cause for complaint, were left undisturbed in\ntheir new country for a number of years; but as time progressed, and\ntheir numbers increased, they began to encroach upon and ravage the\nadjoining territories. This led to reprisals and bloody encounters,\nuntil at length the evil grew to be unbearable, and was finally put an\nend to by the famous battle of Poyauhtlan, and the departure of the\nTeo-Chichimecs to join their countrymen upon the eastern plateau, in\nthe year 1272. Their real reason for leaving the country was doubtless\ntheir weakened condition, for though they had nominally won the battle\nof Poyauhtlan, yet it had been but a Cadmean victory for them, and\nthey knew that another such engagement must infallibly result in\ntheir annihilation. But be this as it may, their god Camaxtli spoke\nopportunely through the mouth of his priests, saying, \"arise, depart\nfrom hence, for the dawn of your greatness shall not break in this\nplace, neither shall the sun of your splendor rise here.\" But the\nstrongest proof that the Teo-Chichimecs emigrated because their enemies\nwere too strong for them, lies in the fact that they found it necessary\nto ask the king of Tezcuco for permission to leave the country, though\nCamargo gives as an excuse for their submission that they wished to be\nable to call upon him for assistance, should they meet with reverses\nin their intended journey beyond the mountains. The king of Tezcuco,\ndoubtless delighted to get rid of such troublesome neighbors, not only\ngave the desired permission, but granted them safe conduct through his\ndominions and furnished them with trusty guides who were to conduct\nthem by the safest passes to the summit of the range, and thence to\npoint them out their road toward the east. No time was lost in setting\nout, and soon the whole Teo-Chichimec nation was marching eastward.\nTheir guides led them to the peak of Tlalocan, from which elevation\nthey overlooked an immense extent of country. Behind them the Lake of\nMexico sparkled in the midst of the valley of An\u00e1huac, before them lay\nthe fertile provinces of Tlascala, Huexotzinco, and Cholula. Descending\nto the plain they gave vent to their joy in feasts and rejoicings, and\noffered thanks to their god Camaxtli, who had delivered them from their\nenemies and brought them into such a fair land. It is related, however,\nthat the entire nation did not ascend the peak. A large party under the\nleadership of Chimalcuixintecuhtli refused to climb the great eastern\nrange, and proceeded northwards to Tulancingo, Quauhchinanco, and\nother neighboring provinces which they found to be already colonized by\nMacuilacatltecuhtli, a kinsman of Chimalcuixintecuhtli, who welcomed\nthe wanderers with every mark of friendship, and as an especial token\nof his favor conferred wives upon their chiefs.[X-7]\n\nMeantime the larger portion of the emigrants pressed forward into\nthe eastern country. They seem to have kept together until they\nreached a place called Tetliyacac,[X-8] situated near Huexotzinco,\nwhere they separated into several divisions, and dispersed in various\ndirections. Most of the surrounding cities and provinces fell into\ntheir hands one after another, and before long they had gained\npossession of the best part of the country. Thus the province of\nQuauhquelchula was appropriated by Toquetzal and Yohuallatonac, and\nthe town of Coatepec was founded by Quetzalxiuhtli;[X-9] another band\nwent to Ahuayopan, where a bloody fray took place among them, which\ncaused a chief named Izcohuatl to separate from the rest and settle\nin Zacatlan. Tetzitzimitl founded, or took possession of Totollan;\nQuauhtzintecuhtli settled in Atlmayoacan; Cozcaquauh Huehue established\nhimself in the Teopan district; Tlotlitecuhtli went a little lower\ndown; Tempatlahuac settled in the Contlan district; Cacamatecuhtli in\nthe Xaltepetlapan district; Calpan surrendered to Toltecatltecuhtli;\nCimatecuhtli obtained Totomihuacan; Totomalotecuhtli gained possession\nof Tepeaca.[X-10]\n\nFor several years the Teo-Chichimecs continued to extend their\nsettlements over the entire plateau. Some of the provinces yielded\nwithout a struggle, others offered a desperate resistance, but though\nthe invaders occasionally met with a temporary repulse, their arms\nwere always victorious in the end. At Nacapahuazcan they were visited\nby certain Chichimec chiefs who are said to have preceded them on\nthe plateau, and who instructed the new-comers how to cook meat in\nearthen pots which they presented to them.[X-11] Here they conferred the\ndignity of Tecuhtli upon a number of warriors who had distinguished\nthemselves. They next proceeded towards the plain of Cholula, but their\npassage through the mountains was opposed by the Tlachiach and Aquiach,\nwho refused to let them enter their country. They met with a very\nhaughty response, however, in which the Teo-Chichimecs expressed their\ndetermination to continue their march in spite of all opposition. Upon\nthis the Cholultec princes retreated, and the invaders advanced without\nhindrance. At Tepeticpac, a city strongly fortified by art and nature,\ntheir progress was again stayed by the Olmec prince, Colopechtli,\nbut after a desperate resistance the city was taken and its brave\ndefender slain. Struck by the advantageous position of this place, the\nTeo-Chichimec leader, Quanez,[X-12] resolved to found his capital here.\nThe city was first known as Texcalticpac, then as Texcalla, and finally\nas Tlaxcallan, or Tlascala.[X-13]\n\n[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF CHOLULA.]\n\nSo far everything had gone well with the invaders. While they were\nunited and occupied themselves only in driving the rightful possessors\nfrom the soil they had experienced a succession of brilliant conquests.\nBut, as is usual in such cases, they had no sooner got possession of\nthe country than they began to quarrel among themselves. Quanez was the\nfirst to give rise to a jealous feeling. He had fortified his position\nat Tlascala more strongly than ever, and seemed disposed to aim at the\nsovereignty of the plateau. To this his brother chiefs at Huexotzinco\nand other places would not submit. Each wanted to be independent in\nthe territory he had won, and they clamored for a distinct division\nof the soil. Quanez, however, persisted in his ambitious designs\nand soon confirmed their suspicions by his acts. Upon this the other\nchiefs held a consultation which resulted in their uniting their forces\nand marching upon Tlascala. It seems that they were met by Quanez,\nwho, however, was defeated in the engagement that ensued and forced\nto retreat to his stronghold, where he was closely besieged by his\nenemies.[X-14] The Tlascaltecs did not remain shut up within their walls,\nhowever, but made frequent and furious sallies against the besiegers.\nThe horrors of these engagements, in which fathers fought against sons,\nand brothers against brothers, are dilated upon by the historians. All\nefforts were unavailing, outpost after outpost was lost to the enemy\nuntil the Tlascaltecs were finally driven within the walls of the city\nproper, without any hope of escape. In this extremity Quanez managed to\nsecretly dispatch messengers to the king of Tezcuco and to the princes\nof Xochimilco[X-15] and Xalpan, requesting assistance. The Tezcucan\nmonarch promptly responded to the call with a considerable force, under\nthe command of a valiant chief named Chinametl, and at the same time\nsent the beleaguered Quanez a valuable alabaster vase as an encouraging\ntoken of regard. This re-inforcement, together with certain prophecies\ndelivered by the oracle of Camaxtli, re-assured the Tlascaltecs, and\nthey at once set about strengthening their position.\n\nIn the meantime Xiuhtlehui, prince of Huexotzinco, who commanded the\nallied troops, seeing the aid obtained by the enemy, and fearing that\nthe victory which had seemed so certain during the earlier part of the\ncampaign, was slipping out of his hands, sent messengers to Coxcoxtli,\nking of Culhuacan,[X-16] imploring his aid, and expatiating on the\nstrongest terms on the harm wrought by the Tlascaltecs. Coxcoxtli was\nmuch puzzled how to act; he was on friendly terms with both parties,\nand perhaps, as Camargo says, he was afraid of the Tlascaltecs. At\nlength, after carefully considering the matter, he adopted a very\ncautious policy. He instructed the Huexotzinca envoys to tell their\nmaster that he would send an army as required, but no sooner had they\ndeparted than he sent a message to the Tlascaltec chief, greeting him\nin the most friendly terms, and informing him of the application he\nhad received and the promise he had given. This promise, he said, he\nwas bound to keep, but only as a matter of form; his troops should take\nno active part against the Tlascaltecs, who, he begged, in their turn,\nwould take care not to injure his soldiers.\n\n[Sidenote: WAR BETWEEN TLASCALA AND HUEXOTZINCO.]\n\nFlattered by this proof of friendship, Quanez returned his thanks to\nCoxcoxtli with assurances that the latter's troops should suffer no\nharm at his hands. The Tlascaltecs then prepared to meet the expected\nattack, and all the people attended an elaborate ceremony for the\npurpose of beseeching the protection and aid of their god Camaxtli.\nThe answer of the god was favorable; he exhorted them to take courage\nand fear nothing, for they should surely be triumphant, and directed\nthem to seek for a virgin having one breast larger than the other, and\nsacrifice her in his honor, which was done.\n\nOn the third day, when the last of the propitiatory ceremonies had been\ncompleted, the Tlascaltecs turned their attention towards the enemy;\nand, behold, the hills and plains, far and near, were swarming with\nhostile troops. Coxcoxtli's auxiliaries had arrived and were posted\nas a reserve on a neighboring mountain, where they remained inactive\nduring the combat that ensued. At this sight the hearts of the valiant\nTlascaltecs sank within them, and they sought and obtained renewed\nassurances of divine favor. Scarcely had they done so when the battle\ncommenced. At the first shock the Tlascaltecs captured a warrior, who\nwas hurried to Camaxtli's altar, and sacrificed in their horrible\nmanner. The battle soon raged furiously, the air was black with\nstones, arrows, and javelins, the rocks resounded with the war-cries\nof the combatants, blood flowed in torrents. Cheered on by their\nhigh-priest, and strong in their faith in the oracles that had promised\nthem victory, the Tlascaltecs were irresistible, and soon drove the\nenemy before them. Before long the rout became general, and a terrible\ncarnage ensued, the like of which could be found only, say the annals,\nupon the bloody plain of Poyauhtlan. In the meantime Coxcoxtli's troops\ndescended from the hill from which they had witnessed the whole battle,\nand quietly retreated to An\u00e1huac, without in any way succoring the\ndefeated army.\n\nThis great victory made the Tlascaltecs much respected, and all the\nneighboring nations hastened to congratulate Quanez upon his success\nand proffer him their alliance, while the conquered people humbly\nconfessed that they had been in the wrong and prevailed upon the elated\nvictor to pardon their presumptuous conduct. Thus Tlascala became the\nmost powerful state on the plateau, a position which it enjoyed for\nsome time in peace.[X-17]\n\n[Sidenote: EASTERN ALLIANCE.]\n\nIt was about this time, or shortly afterward, that disturbances\noccurred in Cholula, of which there is more than one account. Brasseur\nrelates that the ancient inhabitants of the city, who had groaned for\na number of years under the Teo-Chichimec yoke, and whose principal\nmen had long been in exile, resolved at length to make an effort to\nrecover their freedom. They applied to Coxcoxtli of Culhuacan for aid,\nand as a sure inducement appealed to his piety, by reminding him that\nCholula was in a spiritual sense the daughter of Quetzalcoatl, while\nin a temporal sense she was the vassal of the kings of Culhuacan, whom\nshe had never ceased to venerate as sovereigns. Coxcoxtli granted\ntheir petition and at once sent a force to their assistance. The\nTeo-Chichimecs who were in power at Cholula, had leagued themselves\nwith the Huexotzincas, against Tlascala, but since their humiliation,\nfor some reason or other, they had concentrated at Quauhquelchula,\nwhere they continued to oppress the followers of Ceacatl. The lineal\ndescendants of the high-priests of Quetzalcoatl were Iztantzin and\nNacazpipilolxochi; they managed to interest in their favor the prince\nof Tlascala, by referring to the great things he had done to the\nhonor of Camaxtli, and reminding him that this god was the father of\nQuetzalcoatl; was it not the duty of the Tlascaltecs, they added, to do\nall in their power to restore the ancient worship of the prophet and\ndeliver his ministers from their banishment. This crafty argument had\nthe desired effect. An alliance was concluded between the Cholultecs\nand the neighboring states of Tlascala, Huexotzinco, Totomihuacan,\nTepeaca, Quauhtecan, and Quauhtinchan, and the exiled ministers of\nQuetzalcoatl were solemnly conducted back to the sacred city. The\ntowns of the territory of Cholula were then subjected to the Toltec\nauthority, as of old, and the Teo-Chichimecs of Quauhquelchula,\nCuetlaxcoapan, and Ayotzinco, hitherto leagued together against\nIztantzin, were forced to recognize him as their suzerain. These\nevents occurred between the years 1280 and 1299.[X-18] Veytia's story\nof this disturbance in Cholula is that Quauhquelchula, Cuetlaxcoapan,\nAyotzinco, and some other places in the province rose in rebellion\nagainst the high-priest Iztamantzin,[X-19] who called upon Xiuhtemoc,\nking of Culhuacan, for assistance. The force furnished by this\nmonarch was divided into two parts, one led by himself, the other by\nNacazpipilolxochi. With this army the insurgents were finally humbled,\nthough not without considerable bloodshed, and after the campaign\nhad lasted nearly a year.[X-20] After the return of its priests Cholula\nquickly regained its ancient prosperity. The old laws were enforced\nand the executive authority was entrusted to a military chief, who\nwas assisted in his duties by a council of six nobles, and this form\nof government was preserved until the time of the Conquest. From this\ntime the city was rarely troubled with wars, but was respected and held\nin veneration as a sacred place of pilgrimage by all the surrounding\npeoples.[X-21]\n\nThe peace which followed the victory over the Huexotzincas and their\nallies gave the Tlascaltecs an opportunity to turn their attention\nto more peaceful pursuits. Their position as leading nation on the\nplateau was now assured, and for a time they devoted themselves to the\nfurtherance of culture and commerce, fixing boundaries and granting\nlands to those who had deserved them by their conduct in the late wars.\nAfter remaining under one head for several years the government took\nthe form of a sort of aristocratic republic. It was about this time\nthat Tlascala was divided into four wards, or districts. Quanez had a\nbrother named Teyohualminqui, to whom, in his old age, he made over the\ndistrict of Ocotelulco,[X-22] giving him at the same time a part of the\nrelics of Camaxtli, which were so highly venerated as to constitute in\nthemselves a gift no less princely than the lands.\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF QUANEZ.]\n\nThis prince so distinguished himself and enlarged his domain by his\nbravery and conquests that he eventually came to be regarded as chief\nof the whole nation. Another district, called Quiahuiztlan,[X-23] was\ngranted by Quanez to a chief named Mizquitl, who, according to Camargo,\nhad been one of the leaders of the Chichimecs who went north after the\nbattle of Poyauhtlan instead of crossing the eastern range. He had\nled his band northwards to Tepetlaoztoc, whence he had subsequently\ncome to Tlascala, arriving there in time to assist Quanez against\nthe Huexotzincas. It was for this service that the district was\nawarded him. These were three of the four wards, for the part that\nQuanez reserved for himself formed one, probably the largest at that\ntime, and was called Tepeticpac. The history of the events which led\nto the foundation of the fourth district is much confused. Camargo\nrelates that Acatentehua, grandson of Teyohualminqui, and third lord\nof Ocotelulco, after reigning mildly for some time, suddenly became\ntyrannical. Tlacomihua, one of his nobles, raised a revolt, killed\nhim, and succeeded to the throne of Ocotelulco. These events led to\nthe disaffection of one Tzompane, who went with his followers to a\npart of Tepeticpac, and there established a separate government. He was\nsucceeded by his son Xayacamachan, otherwise called Tepolohua, who was\nafterwards massacred, together with all his relations. The next rulers\nwere Aztoguihua Aquiyahuacatl and Zococ Aztahua Tlacaztalli, the latter\nof whom went with his followers to the heights of Tianazatlan, where he\nfounded Tcatlaiz. His grandson, Xicotencatl, was reigning at the time\nof Cortes' arrival.[X-24] According to Brasseur, who follows Torquemada\nprincipally, a number of the inhabitants of the two oldest quarters,\nTepeticpac and Ocotelulco, finding themselves too crowded, descended\ninto the neighboring valley of Teotlalpan, where they constituted a\nseparate government under a chief named Tepolohua.[X-25] The number of\npeople that deserted the higher districts for the pleasant valley,\nexcited the jealousy of the other chiefs. They united their forces,\ndescended upon the young settlement, and killed Tepolohua. The\nfollowers of the late chief then departed to Tizatlan where they\nfounded a seigniory which continued to thrive in peace up to the reign\nof Xicotencatl, who was ruling when the Spaniards came. At Tepeticpac\nthe descendants of Quanez continued to reign, and were regarded as\nranking first in the state. It was at this epoch that the united\ndistricts of Tlascala adopted the peculiar form of government described\nin a former volume,[X-26] and that Nezahualcoyotl paid his first visit to\nthe republic, in 1420.\n\nThe history of the plateau grows very dim and disconnected from this\ntime on, and has light thrown upon it only here and there, as it\nhappens to be connected with the more important affairs of the Aztec\nempire, which seems to have engrossed the attention of the historians.\n\n[Sidenote: MISCELLANEOUS EVENTS.]\n\nAlmost all that is known of the events that remain to be recorded has\nalready been told. We have seen that in 1428 Nezahualcoyotl, fleeing\nfor his life from Maxtla, took refuge for a second time in Huexotzinco\nand Cholula, and was aided by the people of these and other places on\nthe plateau to recover his father's throne at Tezcuco.[X-27] In 1451-6\ncame the great famine, when the terrible compact was made between\nthe people of the plateau and those of An\u00e1huac for the provision of\nhuman sacrifices.[X-28] Then followed the war between the Miztecs and\nthe allied powers, in which the Tlascaltecs and Huexotzincas espoused\nthe cause of the former.[X-29] We next find the restless Tlascaltecs\nstirring up a war between the Mexicans and the Olmecs of Cuetlachtlan,\nallying themselves with the latter and sharing in their defeat.[X-30]\nShortly before the year 1460 several important cities upon the\nsouthern part of the plateau, at the instigation of the Tlascaltecs and\nHuexotzincas, killed some Mexican merchants, were instantly attacked\nby the powers of the valley, reduced to the rank of Mexican provinces,\nand appended to Montezuma's empire.[X-31] About the year 1469 Axayacatl,\nthe Mexican monarch, having some cause of complaint against the people\nof Huexotzinco and Atlixco, invaded their country, and in the battle\nthat ensued the Mexicans, encouraged by the miraculous appearance\nof Tezcatlipoca, routed their enemies.[X-32] During the reign of\nNezahualpilli, Huexotzinco was again troubled, the reason for the war\nthis time being, as we have seen, the predictions of the astrologers\nthat Huehuetzin was fated to vanquish the Tezcucan monarch--predictions\nwhich Nezahualpilli falsified, in their literal meaning at least,\nby a stratagem.[X-33] Ahuitzotl of Mexico is said by Camargo to have\ninvaded the plateau and conquered Huexotzinco and Cholula,[X-34] and\nit would appear that this fierce king did not leave the country empty\nhanded, for of the eighty thousand human victims immolated by him at\nthe dedication of the temple of Huitzilopochtli in 1487, we read that\nsixteen thousand were Huexotzincas.[X-35] His own nephew was afterwards\ntaken captive in one of the numerous battles or skirmishes which seem\nto have been constantly occurring on the borders of the plateau,\nprincipally at Atlixco, and offered as a sacrifice on the altar of\nCamaxtli.[X-36] In 1498, an altercation arose between the lords of\nCholula and Tepeaca, which led to a series of combats between those\nstates. The Cholultecs sought and obtained the aid of Ahuitzotl, and\nwe are left to suppose that they then triumphed over their enemies. But\nthe Mexican emperor received a severe check soon afterwards at Atlixco.\nThe close proximity of that town to the valley made it desirable for\nannexation to the empire. Ahuitzotl accordingly entered its territory\nsuddenly with a considerable force. The Atlixcas gathered what troops\nthey could to oppose the Mexicans, and at once dispatched messengers to\ntheir allies at Huexotzinco for aid. One of the Huexotzinca captains,\nnamed Tultecatl, who was playing at ball when the news arrived, hurried\noff with a few followers to the scene of combat without even taking\ntime to arm himself. Without hesitation he plunged into the thick of\nthe fight, slew a warrior with his hands, seized his arms, and threw\nhimself with such fury upon the Mexicans that they were soon routed\nand forced to abandon the field. For this valorous conduct Tultecatl\nwas made ruler of a Huexotzinca town. But in little more than a year\nevents occurred which obliged him to retire from his post. For some\ntime past the priests of his town had been indulging all manner of\nexcesses with impunity; entering and pillaging houses with the greatest\neffrontery; taking away the women's clothes while they were bathing;\ninsulting the men; and, in short, taking advantage of their sacred\ncharacter to commit every conceivable species of outrage. Tultecatl\nattempted to put a stop to this disorder, and punish its authors. For\nthis purpose he armed a number of the most respectable citizens. But\nthe priests also took up arms, and excited the populace in their favor.\nIt is said that Camaxtli aided his servants by various enchantments,\nwhich so frightened the citizens that they retreated in dismay. A great\nnumber of the nobles with their followers, then betook themselves to\nItzcohuatl, lord of a neighboring province, to whom they related the\ncause of their leaving Huexotzinco. But Itzcohuatl was a creature of\nAhuitzotl, at whose hands he had received the lordship he now enjoyed;\nhe betrayed the refugees to his master, by whom they were all put to\ndeath.[X-37]\n\n[Sidenote: ADVENTURES OF TULTECATL.]\n\nImmediately after the accession of Montezuma II., Atlixco became once\nmore the seat of war. This unfortunate city seems to have been regarded\nby the kings of the valley as the proper place to attack whenever they\nrequired human victims for sacrifice. It was customary for the kings\nof An\u00e1huac before they were formally crowned to make a raid upon some\nneighboring nation for the purpose of obtaining captives that their\nblood might grace the coronation ceremonies. This was the cause of\nMontezuma's expedition against Atlixco on the occasion above referred\nto. He accomplished his end and returned with a great number of\nprisoners, though the victory seems to have been dearly gained. But the\narmies of the haughty Montezuma were not always triumphant when they\nencountered the stronger nations of the plateau, and a short time after\nthe victory at Atlixco they received a serious check at the hands of\nthe Tlascaltecs.\n\n[Sidenote: WAR BETWEEN TLASCALA AND MEXICO.]\n\nFor a long time Tlascala had been regarded with much jealousy by the\nHuexotzincas, Cholultecs, and other nations of the plateau, both\nbecause of its great commercial prosperity, and of its successful\nresistance to the conquering kings of the valley. The Tlascaltecs seem\nat this period to have given up all hopes of gaining the sovereignty\nof the entire region--so long the object of their ambition--and to\nhave confined their resources to strengthening their own position,\nand fortifying their frontiers. Almost all the neighboring states\nappear at this time to have been either allied to or conquered by the\npowers in the valley, and consequently the defensive measures adopted\nby the republic for the preservation of its independence fanned their\nsmouldering envy into flame, so that they took every opportunity to\nprovoke a quarrel between Tlascala and the kings of An\u00e1huac. They\nrepresented that the Tlascaltecs designed to possess themselves of the\neastern maritime provinces; that they hindered the merchants of the\nother nations from trading in those regions, by making secret treaties\nwith the inhabitants. Only too glad of an excuse to humble his ancient\nenemies, the Mexican monarch was easily prevailed upon to break up\nthe Tlascaltec trade in the east, and this he did so effectually that\nfor a number of years the people of the republic were deprived of the\nluxuries and even some of the necessaries they had previously enjoyed.\nAt length, weary of these privations, yet not strong enough to better\ntheir condition by force, they dispatched an embassy to the Mexican\nking to inquire the cause of an enmity which they had done nothing to\nprovoke. For answer, they were told contemptuously that the monarch\nof Mexico was lord of the entire world, and they must pay tribute to\nhim or be prepared to take the consequences. To this they returned a\nhaughty reply, saying that their nation had never payed tribute to any\nearthly king, and that before submitting to do so now they would shed\nmore blood than their ancestors had shed at Poyauhtlan. They then once\nmore turned all their attention to strengthening their position, and\nit was probably at this period, says Clavigero, that they built the\nsix-mile wall on the east side of the city. They received considerable\nassistance from the numerous Zacatec, Chalca, and Otom\u00ed refugees, of\nwhom the garrisons on the frontier were chiefly composed. But the\nprivations which they suffered by reason of the stoppage of their\nintercourse with the surrounding peoples, constantly increased, and\nfor over sixty years, says Torquemada, salt and other staples were\nunknown to the poorer classes, at least, though the nobles may have\nfared somewhat better.[X-38] The date of these events is not certain, but\nthey probably occurred during the reign of Axayacatl. From the time\nof the defiance recorded above until the accession of Montezuma II.,\nthere appear to have been no important hostilities between the Mexicans\nand Tlascaltecs, but no sooner had Montezuma ascended the throne of\nMexico than he determined to make a grand effort to humble the stout\nlittle republic, and forthwith issued a proclamation commanding all\nhis subjects and allies to assist in a general attack. At this time the\nfour lords of Tlascala were Maxixcatzin, who ruled in the district of\nOcotelulco; Xicotencatl, in Tizatlan; Teohuayacatzin, in Quiahuiztlan;\nand Tlehuexolotl, in Tepeticpac. Fifteen years afterwards these four\nprinces received Cort\u00e9s and his companions within their walls. The\nHuexotzincas and Cholultecs were the first to begin the war, which\nmay be said to have lasted until the coming of the Spaniards. Failing\nto bribe the Otom\u00ed garrison of Hueyotlipan, on the Tezcucan frontier,\nto betray their trust, they invaded the Tlascaltec territory under\nthe command of Tecayahuatzin of Huexotzinco, and advanced as far as\nXiloxuchitla, within a league of the capital. Here they were met by\nTizatlacatzin, a noble chief of Ocotelulco, who with a mere handful\nof warriors succeeded in checking their farther advance, though at the\nprice of his own life.[X-39] The Tlascaltecs hastened to avenge the death\nof their brave leader by laying waste the province of Huexotzinco.\nShortly afterwards they again encountered the Huexotzincas on the\nheights of Matlalcueje, and pressed them so hard that Tecayahuatzin\nsent off in haste to Montezuma for re-inforcements. The Mexican\nmonarch at once responded with a large force under the command of\nTlacahuepantzin, his eldest son.[X-40] After receiving re-inforcements\nat Quauhquelchula Tlacahuepantzin proceeded by way of Atlixco valley\nto effect a union with the Huexotzincas, but the Tlascaltecs, seeing\nthat this must be prevented at all hazards, bore down upon him before\nhe could join his allies with such fury that his army was scattered\nin all directions. In this battle Tlacahuepantzin was slain and a\ngreat spoil fell into the hands of the victors, who probably suffered\nseverely also, as they now returned to their capital to recuperate. But\nit seems[X-41] that they still managed to keep the Huexotzincas penned\nup on the heights of Matlalcueje, where they again attacked them with\nfresh forces the following year. But the delay had also given the\nHuexotzincas time to recuperate, and to strengthen their naturally\nadvantageous position, so that the worst the Tlascaltecs could do was\nto ravage the country, and this they did with such effect that many\nof the Huexotzincas were eventually compelled to migrate to Mexico\nin quest of food. Tezozomoc makes this a more serious affair. When\nthe Huexotzincas, he says, were hard pressed by the Tlascaltecs, the\nchildren and aged of the former people were invited to take refuge\nin Mexico while the Mexicans with their allies set out to assist the\nHuexotzincas. For twenty days Tlahuicol, the Tlascaltec general, fought\nbravely, retreating at the same time before the superior number of the\nenemy. Finally he was captured in a marsh, his army scattered, and the\nland restored to the Huexotzincas.[X-42]\n\n[Sidenote: ADVENTURES OF TLAHUICOL.]\n\nWhen Montezuma heard of the defeat of his troops by the Tlascaltecs and\nthe death of his son he was furious, and in a public speech declared\nthat he had hitherto permitted the republic to exist as a supply of\ncaptives for sacrifice and for the exercise of his armies[X-43] but\nthat now he was determined to utterly annihilate the presumptuous and\nobstinate little state now and forever. The people surrounding Tlascala\nwere ordered to renew the attack on all sides in conjunction with\nthe Aztec troops. But the Tlascaltecs were, as usual, well prepared,\nand with the aid of the Otom\u00ed frontier population, they gained a\nglorious victory, and rich spoils. At the festivities which ensued\nin Tlascala, the leaders of the Otom\u00ed auxiliaries were rewarded with\nthe title of tecuhtli, while the defeated Mexican captains were, by\nMontezuma's orders, deprived of their rank and privileges.[X-44] Thus\nthe brave Tlascaltecs preserved their independence in spite of the\nunited efforts of their enemies until the coming of Cort\u00e9s, when it was\ntheir assistance and implacable animosity to the Mexicans that made it\npossible for a handful of adventurers to conquer a world.\n\n[Sidenote: WAR BETWEEN TEZCUCO AND TLASCALA.]\n\nThe above-recorded events occurred about 1505. During the same year,\nthe Huexotzincas and Cholultecs fell out. In an engagement which ensued\nthe former put their enemies to flight and pursued them into Cholula,\nwhere they killed a few citizens and did some trifling damage to the\ntemples. Anxious to carry this version of the quarrel to Montezuma\nbefore the Cholultecs could tell him another story, they at once\ndespatched an embassy to the emperor. But the messengers mistook their\nr\u00f4le, and in their anxiety to extol the valor of their countrymen\nthey lead Montezuma to believe that the Cholultecs had been utterly\nannihilated and their city destroyed. The emperor was much disturbed at\nthis news, because he had always been accustomed to regard it as a holy\ncity, secure from destruction. Upon inquiry, however, he learned the\ntrue facts, and at once sent a powerful army to punish the Huexotzincas\nfor the deception they had practiced upon him. The Huexotzincas\nmarched out to meet the imperial troops, but an explanation ensued,\nand the lying ambassadors having been properly punished, Montezuma was\npacified.[X-45] In 1507 the Huexotzincas, as we have seen,[X-46] became\nembroiled with the Mexicans once more, on account of their burning\nthe lighthouse at Acachinanco--an offense for which they were severely\nchastised by Montezuma's troops.\n\nA war between Tezcuco and Tlascala, which took place a very few years\nbefore the conquest, is the latest recorded event in which the people\nof the plateau were concerned, prior to the coming of the Spaniards.\nOn this occasion Nezahualpilli was urged by Montezuma to join him\nin making war upon the Tlascaltecs, for the purpose of obtaining\nvictims for sacrifice. It seems that the Mexican monarch was jealous\nof the greatness of his Tezcucan rival, and planned this war for his\ndestruction.[X-47] Nezahualpilli, however, suspecting no harm from his\ncolleague, set out with his army towards Tlascala, and camped in the\nravine of Tlalpepexic. Montezuma had in the meantime sent word to\nthe Tlascaltecs of the threatened invasion, informing them at the\nsame time that though he was bound, as a matter of form, to accompany\nNezahualpilli, his troops would not aid him but rather favor the\nTlascaltecs. The latter accordingly formed an ambuscade in the ravine\nof Tlalpepexic, and in the morning, just as the Tezcucans, warned\nby certain evil omens of the impending danger, were breaking camp in\ngreat haste, they fell upon them furiously, and routed them with great\nslaughter.\n\nFrom the eastern plateau we turn now to the kingdom of Michoacan, which\nlay to the west of An\u00e1huac. The boundaries of this flourishing state,\nas they existed at the time of the Conquest, may be easily defined. On\nthe north and north-east the rivers Tololotlan, Pantla, and Coahuayana\nseparated Michoacan from Tonala and Colima; on the west the shores\nof the Pacific stretched south to Zacatollan; the winding course of\nthe river Mexcala marked the southern frontier; and on the east lay\nthe Mexican provinces of Cohuixco and Matlaltzinco. The face of the\ncountry enclosed within these limits presents a series of undulating\nplains, intersected by numerous mountain chains of varying height. The\nclimate is temperate, the land fertile, well wooded and watered, and\nwas celebrated, even in pre-Spanish times, for its mines of gold and\nsilver.\n\n[Sidenote: EARLY TARASCO ANNALS.]\n\nIt is a singular fact that the Tarascos, the representative people\nof Michoacan, though they were certainly equal, if not superior, to\ntheir Aztec neighbors in civilization, wealth, and power, have left\nno record of their history anterior to the thirteenth century, while\neven the little that is known of their later history is told chiefly\nby Aztec chroniclers. The origin of the Tarascos[X-48] is consequently\nan unsolved problem. Their civilization seems to have been of the\nNahua type, though their language was totally distinct from the Aztec,\nthe representative Nahua tongue.[X-49] It is a prevalent opinion that\nMichoacan formed part of the Toltec empire, and that though from\nits position it was the first to suffer from the invading tribes,\nyet it was not affected by the causes which overthrew the empire\nto such an extent as the valley of An\u00e1huac; thus this theory would\nmake the Tarascos the very best representatives of the oldest Nahua\nculture.[X-50] Orozco mentions the Tecos as being among the earliest\ninhabitants of Michoacan; the subsequent possessors, he says, took\nthe country from this people about the time that the Toltecs settled\nin Tollan.[X-51] Tello speaks of the Culhuas coming from Aztlan, the\nhome of the Nahuatlacas, and settling in Sonora, Jalisco, and as\nfar south as Etzatlan and Tonala. Gil, commenting on this, expresses\na belief that there was a succession of early migrations into this\nwestern and north-western region. Thus the Culhuas came from the west\nand extended along the coast to Zacatollan. They were followed by the\nCoras, who settled in Acaponeta Valley and as far as Zentipac. Then\ncame the Thorames, who conquered the previous settlers and drove them\nto Nayarit. Afterwards various Aztec tribes arrived from the north. The\nfirst immigrants appear to have been the most civilized, and occupied\nTuitlan Valley, founding the city of that name. The next comers erected\nthe Teul temple. Last of all came a ruder people, who destroyed the\nyoung culture in places.[X-52] But these accounts of the earliest\noccupation of Michoacan are very meagre and unsatisfactory. The\nauthorities nearly all tell the story of the Aztecs in their migration\nfrom the Seven Caves to the valley of An\u00e1huac, passing through this\nregion and encamping on the shores of Lake Patzcuaro, where they\nquarrel, in the manner already related,[X-53] and separate, one portion\nproceeding to An\u00e1huac, and the other, bearing the name Tarascos,\nremaining and settling the country.[X-54] As I have already remarked,\nhowever, no faith can be placed in this story. The total dissimilarity\nin language shows the Tarascos to have been a people entirely distinct\nfrom the Mexicans. It must not, however, be thought from this that\nthere was any relationship between the Toltec and Tarasco languages. We\nhave already seen that many nations adopted Nahua institutions, who did\nnot speak Nahua dialects.\n\nHerrera states that Michoacan was occupied, during its later years,\nby four peoples, each having a different origin and language, namely,\nChichimecs, Mexicans, Otom\u00eds, and Tarascos.[X-55] Of these, says\nBrasseur, the Chichimecs were savage tribes who lived on the north-east\nfrontier. Though they would not conform to the rules of civilized life,\nyet they recognized the sovereignty of the Tarasco princes, and lent\nthem their aid in time of war. Their language was the Pame, which is\nspoken at the present day by the tribes living in the mountains of\nTzichu, north-east of Guanajuato. The Mexican population was composed\nof those Nahuas who had separated from their companions on the march,\nor who had from various causes been forced to flee from An\u00e1huac. The\nOtom\u00eds were the primitive nations who dwelt in the valleys west of\nAn\u00e1huac, including the Mazahuas on the north, and the Matlaltzincas on\nthe south-west.[X-56]\n\nAn anonymous manuscript written for Don Antonio de Mendoza, viceroy\nof New Spain, formerly belonging to the Peter Force collection, in\nWashington, and quoted by Brasseur de Bourbourg, contains nearly all\nthat is known of the early history of Michoacan.\n\n[Sidenote: CHICHIMEC OCCUPATION.]\n\nAt the period when the Chichimecs first made their appearance in\nAn\u00e1huac and the surrounding regions, Michoacan was settled and its\npeople were civilized. At that time the country was divided into a\ngreat number of little states, and the people of the principal of these\ncalled themselves Betamas and Ezcomachas. The most powerful of all\nthe chiefs was the king of the isles of Patzcuaro, who bore the title\nof El Henditare, 'lord above all,' and had subjected a number of the\nsurrounding peoples, including some Chichimec tribes, to his authority.\n\nA little to the north of the lake was the independent town and\nterritory of Naranjan, which was governed by a chief named Ziranziran\nCamaro. It is in the neighborhood of this town that we first meet with\nthe wild Chichimec Wanacaces,[X-57] led by their chief Iri Ticatame, who\nbore by virtue of his office the image of their god Curicaneri. All we\nknow of the original home of this people is that, according to their\nown account, they came from a distant land called Bayameo. They were\na wandering race of daring hunters, and seem to have had no particular\nobject in coming to Michoacan other than to find good hunting-grounds.\nUpon arriving at the borders of the forest of Wiriu Quarampejo, within\nsight of the city of Naranjan, they halted and built a great altar to\ntheir gods as a token that they had found the kind of country they\nwanted and intended to settle there. The presence of the strangers\ncreated a great deal of alarm among the original inhabitants, and this\nwas increased when Iri Ticatame sent word to Ziranziran Camaro that\nhis people must bring fuel to the altar of Curicaneri. Such an insolent\ndemand showed unmistakably that their intentions were not peaceful; and\nthe priests, who in Michoacan had the greatest influence in secular\nas well as ecclesiastical affairs, at once began to propitiate the\ngods with sacrifice and prayer, without seeming to think for a moment\nof the expediency of even parleying with the invaders. But Ziranziran\nCamaro was more prudent, and calling his hot-headed ministers before\nhim he pointed out to them the hopelessness and folly of engaging in\na war with the Wanacaces. The invaders, he argued, would never have\ndared to make such a demand unless they had been confident of their\npower to enforce it; it was better to conciliate them than to risk\nthe consequences of an open rupture; finally he proposed that a noble\nlady, one of his own relations, should be given as a wife to Iri\nTicatame. His advice was taken; the people of Naranjan hastened to\ncarry provisions and clothing to the strangers; the lady was conducted\nto the wild chief's hut; and the barbarians were appeased.\n\nOf this marriage was born a son named Sicuiracha, who was destined\nto play an important part in the history of his country. When he was\nold enough to leave his mother he was entrusted to the care of the\npriests, to be instructed in all those things which it was necessary\nfor a youth of his country to know. One of his principal duties was to\nkill game in the forests and bring it to the altars for sacrifice. It\nhappened one day when he was hunting to supply a special feast with\nofferings, that the quarry escaped to the fields of Quierecuaro, but\nbeing mortally wounded it died there, and was found by some women who\nwere gathering maize for the same festival. Now, it seems that to wound\ngame without killing it instantly was thought to forebode evil to the\nhunter, so that when the news of the discovery was carried to the lord\nof Naranjan, he at once foresaw the downfall of the Wanacaces, and\nlost no time before taking council with his priests and nobles upon\nthe subject. It was not long before these things reached the ear of\nIri Ticatame, and he appears to have shared in the superstition, for he\nresolved to change his place of abode without delay. Having announced\nhis intention to his tribe, he departed with his family and the image\nof Curicaneri to a place named Quereqto, which does not seem to have\nbeen far distant; his wife also took her god, Wasoricuare, wrapped up\nin a rich cloth, to her new home.[X-58] Soon afterwards he moved again\nto Zichajucuero, three leagues from the city of Tzintzuntzan, where he\nerected a temple and altars.\n\nIn the meantime Sicuiracha had grown up and had become a brave warrior\nand skillful hunter; but his father was now old, while his followers\nhad lost their ancient fierceness and energy by long repose. The people\nof Naranjan had never forgotten the humiliation they had suffered when\nthe Wanacaces first arrived. Now the time seemed ripe for vengeance.\n\n[Sidenote: IRI TICATAME AND ORESTA.]\n\nAt that time a very powerful prince named Oresta was reigning at\nCumachen. An embassy, laden with costly presents, was sent to him from\nNaranjan, requesting his assistance to drive the Wanacaces out of the\ncountry. Oresta had as much reason as any to fear the interlopers,\nand he readily entered into the scheme. The united forces then marched\nrapidly and secretly against the place where Iri Ticatame was dwelling,\nintending to surprise him before he could call upon his warriors.\nOn the borders of the lake they met his wife, who, comprehending the\nsituation at a glance, attempted to run and warn her husband. But they\ncaught her and reproached her with wishing to betray her own people,\nand prevent them from taking a just vengeance on their enemies. She\nwas a better wife than patriot, however; and eluding the grasp of those\nwho detained her, she fled to warn Iri Ticatame. She arrived too late;\nthe allied troops reached the town before her, and at once began the\nassault. The venerable chief of the Wanacaces, attacked and surrounded\nin his own house, defended himself valiantly for some time, but at last\noverpowered by numbers, he fell dead upon a heap of slain. His wife\ncame up just at this moment, and in spite of all that could be done to\nprevent her, the devoted woman cast herself upon the body of the fierce\nold chief and refused to be removed or comforted. The victors then set\nfire to the place and retired, carrying with them the idol Curicaneri.\n\nIgnorant of the misfortune which had fallen upon his house, Sicuiracha\nwas hunting in a forest at some distance from the doomed town when the\nnews was brought to him. He at once hastened to the spot, but arrived\nonly to find his mother weeping upon the body of his father, amid the\nblazing buildings. Filled with rage at the sight, and thirsting for\nvengeance, he wasted no time in useless mourning, but calling together\nthe few warriors who had escaped the massacre, he started in pursuit of\nthe enemy. His force was so small that this seemed an act of madness;\nbut fortune favors the brave. Elated with their victory, or as the\nold chronicle has it, prompted by the god they had stolen, the allied\ntroops had given themselves up to drunkenness, and in this state the\navengers found them. The idol stood neglected at the foot of an oak;\nseizing this, the Wanacaces rushed furiously upon their fallen foes.\nA great number were massacred, and the rest were carried in triumph\nto Wayameo, where Sicuiracha dwelt. For some time they were kept in\nthe condition of slaves, but eventually they were released upon the\nunderstanding that their chiefs should recognize the supremacy of\nSicuiracha, who now formally took the title of king. The new monarch\nrapidly increased his territory by conquering and annexing the numerous\npetty states that lay around it; he built several temples, notably\none to Curicaneri, whom he regarded as the author of his greatness;\nincreased the number of priests, and erected dwellings for them about\nthe temples; enforced religious observances; and established his\ncapital at Wayameo, where, after a long and glorious reign, he died,\nleaving the kingdom to his two sons, Pawacume and Wapeani.\n\n[Sidenote: THE TARASCOS ON LAKE PATZCUARO.]\n\nShortly after the accession of these princes, events occurred in the\nflourishing region lying north of Wayameo, on the southern shore of\nLake Patzcuaro, which affected the condition of the entire country,\nand eventually added greatly to the power of the Wanacace kings.\nThe capital of this region was Tzintzuntzan. The chronicle I have\nhitherto followed gives no account of the origin of this city; but\nother authors, who in their turn make no mention of the events above\nrecorded, furnish a story of its foundation, which I will relate here,\nbefore continuing the more consecutive narrative.\n\nAfter the separation of the Tarascos from their Aztec brethren, says\nBeaumont, the former, resolving to settle, began at once to till the\nground and sow the seeds that they had brought with them. They then\nproceeded to elect a king from among their bravest warriors. So highly\nwas this quality of courage esteemed by them that even the later kings,\nwho succeeded to the throne by inheritance, were not allowed to wear\ncertain jewels and ornaments until they had earned the right to do\nso by capturing a prisoner in battle with their own hands. Under the\nadministration of such energetic men the people progressed rapidly,\nboth in wealth and power; commerce was encouraged and the arts and\nsciences flourished. But they especially excelled in feather-work,\nfor which the splendid plumage of the birds of the country furnished\nabundant material.[X-59] This curious art is said to have been suggested\nby the phenomenon which led to the founding of their capital. When\nthe Tarascos first halted on the southern shore of Lake Patzcuaro,\nthey placed their principal idol in a pleasant spot that the god\nmight repose, when, behold, a multitude of birds of gorgeous plumage\ncongregated in the air and formed a brilliant shade or canopy above\nthe sacred image. This was at once hailed as a divine indication that\nthey should found their city here, and at the same time it suggested\nthe feather mosaics for which they afterwards became so famous. In\ncommemoration of this miraculous manifestation of the divine will the\ncity was named Tzintzuntzan, 'place of celestial birds.'[X-60]\n\nLittle or nothing is known of the history of Tzintzuntzan from this\ntime until it is again brought into notice by the events to which\nI have alluded as occurring shortly after Sicuiracha was succeeded\nby his sons on the throne at Wayameo. Granados, it is true, states\nthat nineteen kings ruled over the Tarascos from the time of their\nsettlement down to the conquest, but he gives no account of any of\nthem, while Beaumont complains that he is able to find records of three\nonly, namely, Characu, 'the boy king,' Zwanga,[X-61] and the son of the\nlatter, Tangaxoan,[X-62] better known by the name of Caltzontzin, 'he\nwho is always shod,' to distinguish him from those other rulers who,\nbeing vassals of the Aztec monarch, appeared bare-footed before their\nsuzerain.[X-63] At what period the boy king lived it is impossible to\ntell, but as the other two certainly reigned at a later date than our\nstory has yet reached, they may all be referred to hereafter.\n\n[Sidenote: THE GODDESS XARATANGA.]\n\nLet us now return to the anonymous narrative. At the time of\nSicuiracha's death at Wayameo, three brothers named Tarigaran,\nPacimwane, and Sucurawe were reigning in the region of which\nTzintzuntzan was the capital. On a hill overlooking the lake stood the\ntemple of their chief divinity, the goddess Xaratanga, whose son was\nnamed Manowapa. Now, the priests of this goddess obtained the wood\nwhich they burned in the temple from the forest of Atamataho, close\nto Wayameo, and they frequently took advantage of their proximity\nto the temple of Curicaneri to carry wood there, a courtesy which\nthe Wanacace priests returned by occasionally bearing fuel to the\nsanctuary of Xaratanga. It happened one day, when the feast of the\ngoddess was approaching, that Tarigaran and his two brothers, with\ntheir attendants, went to the temple to assist the priests to decorate\nthe idol. But the princes had been drinking deeply, and the goddess,\nperceiving this, punished them for their irreverence by making them\nvery drunk. Then the brothers became alarmed, and sent their women to\nthe lake to procure fish, by eating which they hoped to dissipate the\nfumes of the liquor. But the outraged goddess had hidden the fish,\nand the women succeeded only in catching a large serpent, which they\ncarried to the priests, who cooked it and ate of it together with the\nprinces, at sunset. But no sooner had the strange food passed their\nlips than, to their horror, they all found themselves turned into\nserpents. Filled with terror and dismay they plunged into the lake and\nswam towards the mountain of Tiriacuri, amid the recesses of which they\ndisappeared upon landing.\n\nThe territory of Tzintzuntzan being now bereft of its chief priests\nand princes offered an easy prey to its Wanacace neighbors, and\nseveral chiefs, probably vassals of the kings of Wayameo, soon began\nto encroach upon its borders. Tarapecha Chanhori took possession of\nCurincuaro Achurin and established himself there, while Ipinchuari did\nthe same at Pechetaro. The royal brothers of Wayameo also took up arms\nand possessed themselves first of Capacureo, and then of Patamagua\nNacaraho. At the latter place they seem to have separated, each to make\nconquests on his own behalf.[X-64]\n\nThe Tarasco population was now thoroughly alarmed and with one\naccord the various states began to prepare for war. The kings of\nWayameo, however, assured Cuyupuri, who had succeeded to the office\nof high-priest of Xaratanga at Tzintzuntzan, that he should receive\nno injury, and at their invitation he removed to the spot where\nhis metamorphosed predecessors had disappeared. Later he removed to\nSipico, on the borders of the lake, where he erected a temple and other\nbuildings; after that he went to several other places, but finally\nestablished himself on Mount Haracotin, where Wapeani had taken up his\nabode.\n\nThe two brothers now continued their conquests in every direction,\nand before long they had gained possession of most of the places on\nthe south shore of the lake Patzcuaro, including the fertile region\nof Tzintzuntzan. Now it came to pass one day, when Wapeani had climbed\nMount Atupen, and was gazing longingly at the beautiful islands which\ndotted its surface, that his attention was attracted to a pyramidal\nstructure which rose in the centre of one of the fairest of them.\nPerceiving a fisherman casting his nets at some distance, he called him\nto him. In answer to his inquiries, the fisherman informed the prince\nthat the island upon which the temple stood was called Xaracuero,\nand was, together with the island of Pacandan, ruled by a king named\nCuricaten, who bore the title of El Henditare. He told Wapeani,\nmoreover, that there were Chichimecs on these islands, though they did\nnot speak the same language as the Wanacaces. Wapeani was astonished at\nthis, as he had believed that his people were the only Chichimecs in\nthe country. The warriors of his suite then asked the fisherman what\nhis name was, and if he had any daughters. He answered that his name\nwas Curipajan, and that he had no children. They insisted, however,\nthat he had daughters, assuring him at the same time that they intended\nno harm, but merely wanted to obtain wives from the islands. At length,\nafter repeated denials, he confessed that he had one, who was little\nand ugly, and quite unworthy of their consideration. It matters not,\nthey answered, say nothing to anybody, but bring her here to-morrow.\n\n[Sidenote: THE KING OF THE ISLES.]\n\nWhat induced the fisherman to act against his inclinations after he\nhad once got free, the chronicle does not relate, but on the next day\nhe returned at the appointed time with his daughter. Wapeani arrived\nat the rendezvous somewhat later, and finding the girl to his taste he\ntook her away with him, instructing her father to return home, and if\nquestioned concerning the absence of his daughter, to say that she had\nbeen carried off and enslaved by the Wanacaces. Wapeani afterwards gave\nthe woman to his brother, Pawacume, who married her, and got by her a\nson named Tariacuri, who subsequently became king and was the founder\nof the kingdom of Michoacan.\n\nWhen the king of the isles learned what had been done by Wapeani,\nhe was greatly enraged, and the neighboring lords having been called\ntogether a council was held to consider what action should be taken in\nthe matter. But the lords were in favor of peace, and it was finally\narranged that the brother kings should be invited to come and settle\namong them, when the office of grand sacrificer should be conferred\nupon Pawacume and that of priest of the god Cuangari Changatun upon\nWapeani. Messengers were accordingly sent to make these proposals to\nthe brothers. Flattered by such brilliant offers and dazzled by the\ncostly presents which the envoys brought with them, the princes readily\nconsented to the arrangement, and at once embarked for the islands,\nwhere they were received with great state, and immediately invested\nwith the promised dignities. But it seems that the brothers' followers\nhad not been made acquainted with the details of this arrangement, for\nafter impatiently waiting some time for the return of the princes, they\nalso set out for the islands to discover the cause of their detention.\nUpon learning the true state of the case they were furious, and\ndemanded with many threats that Pawacume and Wapeani, who, they said,\nhad been appointed by Curicaneri as their guardians, should instantly\nbe sent back to their own people. Curicaten thought it prudent to\nyield, and the brothers reluctantly returned with their followers to\nthe mainland.\n\n[Sidenote: CITY OF PATZCUARO.]\n\nBut during their brief sojourn in the islands they had seen much that\nwas new to them, and having observed the benefit to be derived from\ncivilization, they resolved to improve the condition of their country.\nKnowing, however, that their influence alone would not suffice to\nmake the people suddenly change their nomadic habits, they called to\ntheir aid the voice of the gods. One day they announced that the god\nof Hades had appeared to them in a dream, commanding them to erect\ntemples in honor of all the Chichimec divinities. The people, whose\nreligious fervor seems to have been unbounded, were at once anxious\nto begin the pious work. It only remained to choose a suitable site.\nUnder the guidance of the brothers, they repaired to a densely wooded\nhill near Tarimi Chundido, where there was a beautiful stream of water,\nknown henceforth by the name of Cuirizcatero. Here they set to work\nin earnest; hewing down the trees and clearing the ground for the\nfoundations of the temples. One after another the stately edifices\nrose, and when they were finished the chiefs began to vie with each\nother in building fine dwelling-houses, so that in an incredibly\nshort space of time the sides of the hill were covered with buildings.\nSuch was the origin of the city of Patzcuaro,[X-65] for a long time the\ncapital, and afterwards one of the principal cities of Michoacan.\n\nNow, at that time the kingdom of Curincuaro, which comprised part\nof the lake islands, was one of the most powerful states in all that\nregion, and in common with its Tarasco neighbors, it regarded the rapid\nprogress of the Wanacaces with feelings of jealousy and apprehension,\nwhich soon resulted in actual hostilities. An ambassador was sent to\nPatzcuaro to formally demand that its inhabitants should bring fuel\nto the altars at Curincuaro. The Wanacaces knew by experience what\nthis meant, and at once prepared for war. All being ready they marched\nto meet the enemy. A terrible engagement took place near the town of\nAtaquaro, in which Pawacume and his brother were seriously wounded, and\nfinally forced to retreat with their troops to Patzcuaro.\n\nSoon after this the great feast of the goddess Curincuaro, the\nprincipal divinity of the kingdom that bore her name, was celebrated.\nIt appears that it was arranged that all hostilities should cease\nduring this solemn period, that the Wanacaces might join with\ntheir late enemies in the ceremonies. The lords of Curincuaro were\nparticularly anxious that the brothers of Patzcuaro should appear at\nthe feast, and to ensure their presence they employed an old woman,\nwho had access to them, to expatiate on the grandeur of the coming\nfestivities, and the number of sacrifices to be offered. She played\nher part so well that the princes promised to be present; afterwards,\nbeing assured by certain of their priests that treachery was designed,\nthey renounced their intention of going; but emissaries from Curincuaro\nagain found means to persuade them, and when the day of the feast\narrived they set out to participate in it. On the way they fell into an\nambuscade, and Wapeani was killed on the spot. His brother escaped and\nfled to Patzcuaro, but he was pursued by his enemies and slain in the\ncity, which was deserted on account of all the people having gone to\nthe feast. The bodies of the unfortunate princes were ransomed by their\nsorrowing subjects, and after being formally burned were buried with\nmuch ceremony in a grave dug at the foot of the steps leading up to the\ntemple of Curicaneri.\n\nCuratame, Wapeani's eldest son, now ascended the throne at Patzcuaro.\nHe had two brothers named Xetaco and Aramen. Pawacume, as we have\nalready remarked, had also a son named Tariacuri, by the fisherman's\ndaughter. This prince was sent to the island of Xaracuero, to be\neducated by the Tarasco priests in the arts of civilized life. On\nhis return to Patzcuaro, Tariacuri showed himself to be a youth of an\nexcellent disposition, very pious and industrious, and withal highly\naccomplished in matters both of war and of peace. As soon as he arrived\nat a suitable age he was crowned king of the Wanacaces; whether his\ncousin Curatame continued to reign as his colleague, or what became of\nhim, is not stated.\n\nTariacuri soon began to extend his empire by conquest in every\ndirection. He carried his arms farther than any of his predecessors had\ndone, and his hostile expeditions were invariably attended by success.\nAgain the Tarasco princes were alarmed, and uniting their forces they\nmarched upon Patzcuaro. But Tariacuri was irresistible; he surprised\nand vanquished the allies at Ataro and Tupuxanchuen, conquered the\nkingdom of Zirumbo, and finally blockaded the lake islands. Meanwhile,\nhis cousins, jealous of his glory, conspired with his enemies to\nbetray him. But he escaped their plots, and having possessed himself\nof the islands he became king of the whole of Michoacan. This king\nmay be identical with Characu, the 'boy king,' to whom I have already\nreferred. My reason for thinking so is that the events above recorded,\nor those immediately succeeding them, are said to have happened in the\ntime of Montezuma I., while the founding of a city named Charo, in the\nreign of Characu, is also said by Beaumont to have taken place during\nthe life of the same Mexican monarch. The founding of Charo was in this\nwise, according to one account.\n\n[Sidenote: CHARACU, THE BOY KING.]\n\nDuring the reign of 'the boy king' the Aztecs made an inroad, aided by\nthe Tecos and other unruly tribes. Being hard pressed, the king applied\nto the Matlaltzincas of Toluca for aid. Six captains started with their\ntroops, and the Mexicans were defeated. In reward for this timely aid,\nthe Matlaltzincas were granted their choice of lands within the kingdom\nof Michoacan, and selected the region around Tiripito, where the lower\nclass founded Undameo, and the nobles, Charo, so named in honor of the\nking. This settlement being in the center of Michoacan, says Pimentel,\nthe people came to be known as the Pirindas, 'those in the middle.'[X-66]\n\nIn another place Beaumont gives Padre Larrea's version of the\nfounding of Charo. In the time of Montezuma I. the Aztecs appeared\nin conjunction with the Tecos and Matlaltzincas to attack Michoacan.\nThe Tarascos who were only one-third as strong as their enemies,\nhad recourse to strategy. Large supplies of food and drink were\nspread in the camp, and when the Aztec forces attacked, the Tarascos\nfled, abandoning the camp. The hungry Aztecs at once commenced to\ngorge themselves, and when filled with meat and drink the Tarascos\nreturned upon them making a great slaughter, and capturing a goodly\nnumber of Tecos and Matlaltzincas, who were given lands in Michoacan;\nthe Tecos as the more turbulent in Patzcuaro and the capital, and\nthe Matlaltzincas in Charo, which was founded by them.[X-67] The\nMatlaltzincas who remained in Toluca were conquered by Axayacatl, as\nhas been already related.[X-68]\n\nBefore his death, Tariacuri divided the kingdom, and generously\nprovided for the children of the cousins who had attempted his\ndestruction. To Hicipan he left Coyucan, a very important city; to\nHicucaxe, Patzcuaro and its dependencies, and to his son, Tangaxoan, he\ngave the territory of Tzintzuntzan, which comprised the lake islands.\nThese events, says Brasseur, to which the anonymous historian assigns\nno date, occurred, in all probability, during the first part of the\nfifteenth century, Tangaxoan having been a contemporary of Montezuma\nI., of Mexico.\n\nMichoacan did not remain long divided. Hicucaxe had a great number\nof sons, all of whom he put to death because they were disorderly\nand oppressed the people. Another son which was born to him later was\nkilled by lightning, and apotheosized on that account. Thus the king\nof Patzcuaro died without leaving heirs, and his division was added\nto Tangaxoan's territory. The kingdom of Coyucan, upon the death of\nHicipan, was also annexed to Tzintzuntzan, where Tangaxoan's son Ziziz\nPandacuare, was then reigning. Michoacan became thus re-united under\none head. Ziziz Pandacuare used his great power for the advancement\nand benefit of his country. He embellished the city of Tzintzuntzan,\nand made it his capital. His reign was a long and glorious one, and\nit was chiefly to his able administration that Michoacan owed its\ngreatness.[X-69]\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF ZWANGA.]\n\nZiziz Pandacuare was succeeded by his son Zwanga.[X-70] It was during the\nreign of this prince that the valiant Tlascaltec general, Tlahuicol,\ninvaded Michoacan at the head of a Mexican army, and took Tangimaroa,\nor Tlaximaloyan, and other towns, together with great spoils.[X-71]\nZwanga was still on the throne at Tzintzuntzan when Cort\u00e9s took Mexico.\nHe was appealed to for aid by Cuitlahuatl, who was elected monarch\nafter the death of Montezuma II. After some hesitation he promised his\nassistance. Ambassadors were sent to Mexico, who, when they arrived,\nfound Cuitlahuatl dead, and the small-pox raging in the city. They\nhastened back to Tzintzuntzan, but bore with them the germs of the\ndisease, which rapidly spread through the capital, and carried off the\nking and a great number of his subjects.\n\nZwanga left several sons, and the eldest of these, Tangaxoan II.,\nseized the sceptre.[X-72] He appears to have been a weak prince, and\ntotally unfit to fill the throne at such a critical period. One of\nhis first acts was to cause his brothers to be put to death, on the\npretense that they had conspired against his life, but really because\nhe was jealous of their power.[X-73] This cruel murder caused serious\ndisturbance in the capital, and the fratricide brought great odium\nupon himself. It was said that such a terrible deed portended evil\nto the country--a prediction which was verified strongly afterwards,\nby the appearance of a Spanish soldier who had been sent by Cort\u00e9s to\nreconnoitre the country.\n\nThe Tarascos, like most of the other Nahua nations, were warned\nby omens of their future subjection to a foreign power. Beaumont,\nwho makes Tangaxoan II. a contemporary of Montezuma II., relates\nthat the former was at first persuaded to assist the latter against\nthe Spaniards, but was cautioned by the spirit of his dead sister,\nwho, to prove that her utterances were not meaningless, pointed out\ncertain signs in the heavens; namely, the figure of a young man with a\nglittering hand, and a sword, fashioned like those of the Spaniards,\nwhich appeared in the east on the day of the great festival. In the\ncouncil convened to consider this warning it was decided not to resist\nthe strangers.[X-74] It is related, moreover, that in Zwanga's time there\nlived a high-priest, named Surites, who foretold the introduction of a\nnew religion, and in anticipation of it instituted two Christian-like\nfestivals.[X-75]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THE MIZTECS AND ZAPOTECS.]\n\nAmong the earliest peoples of Mexico were the Miztecs and Zapotecs,\nwhose country may be roughly described as comprising the modern state\nof Oajaca. The Miztecs occupied the western portion of this region, and\ntheir territory was divided into upper and lower Miztecapan,[X-76] the\nlatter reaching to the coast, and the former embracing the mountainous\nregion farther north, which is sometimes called Cohuaixtlahuacan.\nZapotecapan, the country of the Zapotecs, lay to the east of\nMiztecapan, and extended, at the time when we first hear of this people\nin history, to Tehuantepec.[X-77]\n\nThe records of these nations are silent as to their history before they\nsettled here; everything previous to this rests upon traditions of the\nvaguest character, one of which represents their ancestors as birds,\nbeasts, and trees--to indicate their extreme antiquity, courage, and\nstubbornness, naively adds Burgoa, the historian of Oajaca.[X-78] But\nthough their own annals do not reach back to the pre-Toltec period,\nthey are stated by some authorities to have inhabited at that time\nthe region of Puebla, together with the Olmecs and Xicalancas.[X-79]\nMost of the old writers connect them with the Nahua stock, although\ntheir language was distinct from the Nahua. Thus Torquemada derives\nthe Miztecs from Mixtecatl, the fifth son of Iztac Mixcohuatl, of the\nSeven Caves; while Sahagun states that they were of Toltec descent,\nand adds that some go so far as to regard them as descendants of\nQuetzalcoatl, because of the richness and beauty of their country, in\nwhich the famous Tlalocan, the 'terrestrial paradise,' was said to be\nsituated.[X-80] At the time when civilization was introduced into Yucatan\nand Chiapas, says Brasseur, the mountains of Miztecapan were inhabited\nby savage tribes without any particular name, but who were afterwards\nknown as Miztecs, or Wild Cats.[X-81] Civilization is said by tradition\nto have first appeared in the mountains of Apoala. At the entrance of\na gorge in this region where, says Garc\u00eda, the gods lived before man\ncame on earth, stood two majestic trees, from which sprung two youths,\nthe founders of the Miztec monarchy.[X-82] The braver of the two went to\nTilantongo, and there had a contest with the Sun for the possession of\nthe country. After a desperate combat, which lasted a whole day, the\nSun was forced to go down behind the hills, thus leaving the youth the\nvictor.[X-83]\n\nOther traditions relate that certain of the warlike tribes from the\nnorth, that invaded An\u00e1huac from the eighth to the eleventh century,\npassed from the Aztec plateau into Miztecapan, coming down from the\nmountains of Apoala to the beautiful and naturally fortified valley of\nYanguitlan, 'new land,' where they determined to settle. The Miztecs\nresisted the invaders for a long time, and their final subjection was\neffected more by religious teachings than by force of arms. On this\nplateau the immigrants from An\u00e1huac founded Tilantongo, and built a\ntemple called Achiuhtla.[X-84] The date of this event seems to coincide,\nsays Brasseur, with the sending out of missionaries from Cholula,\nthough whether the followers of Quetzalcoatl or the tribes from An\u00e1huac\narrived first is not known. But it appears certain that from the union\nof the priests of Achiuhtla and the Olmecs who fled from Cholula at\nthe time of Huemac's invasion, sprung the power which civilized these\nregions.[X-85]\n\nIt is in Zapotecapan, however, that the disciples of Quetzalcoatl\nappear most prominently. There they are said to have founded Mitla,\nor Yopaa, and to have diffused their arts and religious teachings\nthroughout the whole country, as far as Tehuantepec.[X-86]\n\nThe mysterious apostle Wixipecocha, of whom a full account has\nalready been given,[X-87] is said to have appeared in these regions.\nThe tradition, which is very vague, relates that he came from the\nsouth seas, and landed, bearing a cross, at Tehuantepec. He taught\nmorality, abstinence from women, confession, and penance. He was\ngenerally respected but was sometimes persecuted, especially in the\nMije country, whither he went after passing through the Zapotec valley.\nThe people there tried to kill him, and pursued him to the foot of\nMount Cempoaltepec, where he miraculously disappeared, but re-appeared\nshortly afterwards on the summit of the mountain. His pursuers\nfollowed him, but he again vanished, and was seen no more in that\ncountry, though he afterward showed himself on the enchanted island of\nMonapostiac, near Tehuantepec.\n\n[Sidenote: THE PRIESTS OF ACHIUHTLA.]\n\nAs I have already remarked, nothing definite is known of the early\nhistory of the Miztecs and Zapotecs. All that has been preserved is\nsome account of their spiritual rulers. Thus we are told that the\nkingdom of Tilantongo, which comprised upper Mizteca, was spiritually\ngoverned by the high-priest of Achiuhtla, who bore the title of\nTaysacaa, and whose power equaled, if it did not surpass, that of the\nking; while in Zapotecapan the Wiyatao, or sovereign pontiff, united in\nhis person the supreme sacerdotal and secular power. The origin of the\ncity of Yopaa, or Mitla, where the Wiyatao held his court, is doubtful,\nthough, as we have seen, it has been attributed to the disciples of\nQuetzalcoatl, who came from Cholula.\n\nIt is a singular fact that we hear nothing of the early Miztec and\nZapotec kings, save that there were such, until we find the latter\nsubjecting the Huaves to their authority. These Huaves are said to\nhave come originally from the south, from Nicaragua or Peru say some\nauthors. The causes that led to their migration are unknown; but the\nstory goes that after coasting northward, and attempting to disembark\nat several places, they finally effected a landing at Tehuantepec.\nHere they found the Mijes, the original possessors of the country; but\nthese they drove out, or, as some say, mingled with them, and soon\nmade themselves masters of the soil. They founded their first city\nat Arrianjianbaj, or Arriangui Umbah, but afterwards extended their\npossessions to the city of Jalapa, which they are said to have founded\nalso.[X-88]\n\nBut the easy life they led in this beautiful and fertile region\nsoon destroyed their ancient energy, and they subsequently fell an\nunresisting prey to the Zapotec kings.[X-89] Of the Mijes very little\nis known. They are believed to have been the most ancient people of\nthe Oajaca region, and Burgoa affirms that they possessed of old\nthe greater part of Tehuantepec, Soconusco, and Zapotecapan. The\nBeni-Xonos, who lived between the Mijes and Zapotecs, are said to\nhave once belonged to the former people, but their character seems\nto disprove this. They are described as a tribe of rich, shrewd\ntraders, very miserly, great liars, \"incorrigible and inveterate\nevil-doers\"--the Jews of Oajaca, Brasseur calls them. They were among\nthe first to submit to the Zapotec kings, in the hope of being allowed\nto retain their wealth.[X-90]\n\n[Sidenote: THE ZAPOTEC KINGS.]\n\nIt was to one of these Zapotec princes that the fortified city of\nZaachilla Yoho, or Teotzapotlan, as it was called by the Mexicans, owed\nits origin. At the time when history first sheds its light on these\nregions, Teotzapotlan was the capital of Zapotecapan,[X-91] and rivaled\nin power and extent of territory the Miztec kingdoms of Tututepec and\nTilantongo. It seems that during the war with the Mexicans these three\npowers united against the common enemy, though at other times they\nappear to have quarreled considerably among themselves, by reason of\nthe ambitious designs of the Zapotec monarchs, who, it is said, aimed\nat universal sovereignty.[X-92]\n\nOf the kingdom of Tututepec, which stretched for sixty leagues along\nthe shore of the Pacific, nothing is known, except that its princes\nwere among the richest in all Mexico, that its kings had many powerful\nvassals, and that its principal city, which was also called Tututepec,\nwas very populous.[X-93]\n\nOne of the earliest conquests of the Zapotec kings was that of the\nMountain of the Sun, near the town of Macuilxuchil. There dwelt on\nthis mountain a tribe of very fierce and blood-thirsty barbarians,\nwho lived by plundering the surrounding nations. At length their\ndepredations became so frequent, and were attended with such cruelty\nthat it became evident that the country about the mountain would soon\nbe abandoned by its inhabitants unless the robbers were annihilated.\nAccordingly, a large force of picked troops was sent against them\nunder the command of two renowned warriors named Baali and Baaloo. The\nexpedition was successful. After a desperate resistance the robbers\nwere overpowered and slaughtered to a man. A fortress and temple\nwere then erected on the summit of the mountain, and the charge of\nthem given to Baali and Baaloo, as a reward for their valor. After\ntheir death these heroes received divine honors, and were buried at\nthe foot of the mountain they had conquered. The veneration in which\ntheir memory was held increased with time; their tombs were visited by\nmultitudes of pilgrims, and a city called Zeetopaa, which eventually\nbecame the principal seat of learning and religion, and the nucleus of\ncivilization in these parts, soon rose upon the spot.[X-94]\n\n[Sidenote: DEATH OF CONDOY.]\n\nThe first Zapotec king of whom we have any definite information is\nOzomatli, who, it is said in the _Codex Chimalpopoca_,[X-95] reigned in\n1351. The next king, whose name or deeds are recorded, is Zaachilla,\nwho, being master of all Zapotecapan, coveted the region lying east of\nthe river Nexapa, and inhabited by the Chontales, Mijes, and Huaves.\nThe Chontales were the most powerful of these nations, and against\nthem Zaachilla proceeded first. He took from them the city of Nexapa,\nwhich he fortified and garrisoned with his own soldiers. To strengthen\nhis position in the conquered territory he also built the fortresses\nof Quiechapa and Quiyecolani.[X-96] He next entered the country of the\nMijes, took the town of Zoquitlan, and drove the inhabitants into\nthe mountains. The Mijes were now confined between the Maya tribes of\nChiapas and the Zapotecs. But, though in this difficult position, with\na territory so small that it contained only one city of importance,\nnamely Xaltepec, and numbering, says Herrera, only two thousand men,\nwomen, and children, the brave little nation seems to have gallantly\nmaintained its independence for a number of years.[X-97] It was destined\nto be subjected at last, however, and in the hour of its greatest\nglory. Condoy, the last king of the Mijes, who is said to have made\nhis first appearance from a cavern in the mountains, was a very brave\nand energetic prince. He waged war with the surrounding nations, and\nsucceeded by his valor in increasing the extent of his dominions. The\nZapotec and Miztec kings, jealous of these encroachments, formed an\nalliance against the Mije prince, while the tribes of Chiapas, from\nthe same motives, attacked him at the same time on the other side of\nhis dominions. In spite of all that the brave Condoy could do, his\ncapital was taken and burned to the ground, and he and his followers,\nhotly pursued by the enemy, were forced to take refuge in the recesses\nof the mountains. Shortly after this Condoy disappeared and was seen\nno more. The Zapotecs claimed that their king slew him with his own\nhand, but the subjects of the Mije prince insisted that, tired of war\nand bloodshed, he had entered the cavern from which he had originally\nissued, and, attended by some of his warriors, had gone to far distant\nprovinces.[X-98]\n\nAbout the year 1456 occurred the war between Dzawindanda, king of\nCohuaixtlahuacan or upper Miztecapan, with his allies the Tlascaltecs\nand Huexotzincas, and Montezuma I., with his allies of the valley of\nAn\u00e1huac. The details of this war having been already given,[X-99] it\nremains only to repeat Burgoa's account of the supernatural powers\nof Dzawindanda. This prince, says the fable, when he wished to make\nwar upon some neighboring nation, caused himself to be miraculously\ntransported to the summit of a mountain inaccessible to ordinary\nmortals. Arrived there he prostrated himself upon a knoll, and besought\nthe gods to favor his designs. Then he shook a bag which was suspended\nfrom his girdle, and immediately there issued from it a multitude\nof warriors, fully armed and equipped, who having formed in military\norder descended from the mountain in silence and marched at once to\nconquer the coveted territory.[X-100] Dzawindanda's magical powers must\nhave deserted him on the occasion above referred to, however, for, as\nwe have seen, his armies were terribly defeated, his kingdom was made\ntributary to the domain of the victors, he himself was assassinated,\nand his widowed queen was carried captive to Mexico to gratify a\npassion which Montezuma had conceived for her.\n\nIn 1469 Axayacatl of Mexico swooped suddenly upon the cities of\nTehuantepec and Guatulco, and took them; according to Brasseur he\neven carried his victorious arms into Soconusco.[X-101] At this time\nZaachilla III. was king of Zapotecapan. He was a warlike and ambitious\nprince, and succeeded in adding Jalapa and the valley of Nexapa to his\nkingdom, driving the Huave population into the less desirable region on\nthe frontiers of Chiapas and Soconusco. During the later years of his\nreign Zaachilla, with the assistance of the Miztec king of Tilantongo,\nsucceeded in regaining possession of Tehuantepec and the other places\nin that region which Axayacatl had garrisoned with Mexican troops.\nBut this brought the Mexican king, Ahuitzotl, down upon him like a\nthunderbolt, and being deserted by his Miztec allies, Zaachilla's\narmies were quickly routed; he was forced to flee for his life to the\nmountains, and Tehuantepec once more became a Mexican possession.[X-102]\n\nCociyoeza, who succeeded Zaachilla III. on the throne of Zapotecapan,\nwas no less anxious than his predecessor to rid his kingdom of the\nAztec garrisons, but being a very prudent, though brave, prince, he\nacted with greater deliberation and caution. Before proceeding to open\nhostilities he contracted a firm alliance with the neighboring nations;\nhe then chose a favorable opportunity, when the prestige of the Mexican\narms had been damaged by reverses, to declare war, massacre the Mexican\nmerchants, and retake Tehuantepec and most of the other places occupied\nby Ahuitzotl's troops. The reader has been made acquainted with the\ndetails of this war, in the course of which the sacred city of Mitla,\nor Yopaa, was taken, and of the final treaty by which it was arranged\nthat the Mexicans should keep Soconusco, and that Cociyoeza should wed\na Mexican princess and remain in possession of Tehuantepec.[X-103]\n\n[Sidenote: MONTEZUMA INVADES MIZTECAPAN.]\n\nIn 1506, Miztecapan was invaded by Montezuma's armies, and the cities\nof Tilantongo, Achiuhtla, and Tlachquiauhco were taken. In the same\nyear the Miztecs made a determined effort to regain their independence,\nbut, as has been seen, only succeeded in making their burdens heavier\nthan before.[X-104] From this time until the coming of the Spaniards\nMiztecapan may be regarded as virtually subject to the Mexican empire.\n\nBy his marriage with the faithful Pelaxilla, Cociyoeza had a son\nnamed Cociyopu. It is related that during the feasts with which the\nbirth of this prince was celebrated, fiery rays of light were seen to\ndart across the sky. Such ominous phenomena did not escape the notice\nof the soothsayers, and the downfall of the kingdom was predicted.\nWhen Cociyopu had reached the age of twenty-four years, his father\nconferred upon him the crown of Tehuantepec.[X-105] It was at this\ntime, says Brasseur, that the news of the conquests of the Spaniards\nreached Cociyoeza's court at Teotzapotlan.[X-106] Upon this the nobles\nof Tehuantepec besought Cociyopu to inquire of the gods what the\nmeaning of these things was, and if the ancient prophecies concerning\nthe introduction of a new religion and the conquest of the country by\na race of white men, were about to be fulfilled. Cociyopu did as they\ndesired, and was told by the oracle that the time had come for the\nfulfillment of the prophecies. Then an embassy was sent to Coyuhuacan,\nwhere Cort\u00e9s then was, with instructions to announce to the Spanish\nchief that according to the directions of their oracles the people of\nZapotecapan and Tehuantepec acknowledged his right of sovereignty.[X-107]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: THE PUEBLOS OF NEW MEXICO.]\n\nIn the subdivision of my present subject, given in an early chapter\nof this volume,[X-108] I named as one of its divisions the Historical\nTraditions of the Wild Tribes of the North, to which topic I intended\nto devote a short chapter. On further research, however, I find that\nthere is absolutely no material for such a chapter. Some of the wild\ntribes had vague traditions of how the world was created and peopled,\ngenerally by the agency of a bird or beast; others told wonderful\ntales of supernatural adventures of their fathers many moons ago; a\nfew named the direction, north, south, east, or west, whence their\nfathers came. Such traditions have been given in those portions of this\nwork relating to the subjects of Mythology and Origin. There is great\nconfusion among the different versions of these traditions, and even if\nwe knew in each case which was the authentic version, they would shed\nnot a ray of light on general aboriginal history; the very most that\ncould be hoped from them would be slight information respecting modern\ntribal history. All the speculations of modern travelers and writers\non primitive history in the north have been founded, so far as they\nhave had any foundation at all, on the material relics of antiquity,\nfully described in volume IV. of this work; on the traces of the Aztec\ntongue in the north, a subject fully disposed of in volume III.; and\non the theory of the Spanish writers respecting a general migration\nfrom the north, duly considered in the present volume. Consequently all\nthat could be said on the history of the northern tribes here would\nbe but a repetition of what has already been said; a collection of a\nfew valueless speculations resting on foundations already proven to be\nunsound; and a renewed argument against the theory of a migration from\nthe north, a theory that has already received more attention than it\ndeserves. It may be thought that the reported Montezuma-tradition of\nthe Pueblos in New Mexico deserves some investigation; but besides the\nfact that all the force of evidence and probability indicates that the\nmyth was an invention of white men, it is also true that if the worship\nof Montezuma and the hope of his coming from the east, were actually\nfound among the Pueblos, this would only prove what is not at all\nimprobable, that the fame of Montezuma I. and of the great Aztec power\nhad reached this northern region. It has been seen that the Nahuas a\nfew centuries after the beginning of our era were driven northward and\nestablished themselves in An\u00e1huac and the region immediately north-west\nof that valley, but that their possessions never extended farther\nnorth than Zacatecas. Yet it is altogether probable that they came\nmore or less into contact with tribes further north, and it is best to\nattribute to this contact at this period the Nahua linguistic traces\nthat have been pointed out in the north. The Pueblos, who in ancient\ntimes occupied the country as far south as northern Chihuahua, were\nnot Aztecs, as is clearly proven by their language, their monuments,\nand their institutions. The very slight Nahua analogies that have\nbeen pointed out in their manners and customs, do not necessarily\nimply any connection whatever with the civilized peoples of the\nsouth; yet I regard it as not improbable that the Pueblo tribes were\nslightly influenced by Nahua contact at the period referred to; and\nnot altogether impossible that the Nahua seed sown at this time fell\ninto good ground in some wild people of the north, and thus originated\nPueblo agriculture and later culture. In favor of any closer connection\nbetween these peoples, there is absolutely no evidence.\n\n[Sidenote: THE MOUND-BUILDERS.]\n\nWhen we come to the Mound-Builders of the Mississippi Valley, the\nmatter presents far greater difficulties. We know nothing of their\nlanguage or manners and customs, since they have become locally\nextinct; but their material monuments, and their religious rites as\nindicated by those monuments, bear a very striking resemblance to\nthose of the civilized nations of the south. I have already expressed\nan opinion that the Mound-Builders were in some way connected with\nthe civilized nations; the nature of the connection is involved in\ndifficulties, from which there is no escape save by conjecture. We have\nseen that the Aztec traces in the New Mexican region, and possibly\nthe Pueblo culture, may be attributed to the migrating Nahua tribes\nafter their overthrow in Central America; but there is little or no\nreason to attribute the establishment of the Mound-Builders of the\neastern states to the same influence and the same epoch. The few Nahuas\nthat were scattered in the north are not likely to have exerted so\nslight an influence in the Pueblo region, and so powerful a one on\nthe Mississippi; besides, the Mississippi monuments bear marks of a\nmuch greater antiquity than can be attributed to the Pueblo buildings.\nYet we have seen that it is much more reasonable to believe that the\nculture of the Mound-Builders was introduced by a colony or by teachers\nfrom the south, than to regard the Mississippi Valley as the original\nbirth-place of American civilization. The Natchez of the gulf states\nare said to have been superior at the coming of Europeans to other\naboriginal tribes of the eastern states, and presented some slight\nanalogies in their institutions to what the Mound-Builders may be\nsupposed to have been. It is also the opinion of several authorities\nentitled to considerable credit, that their language shows a very\nstrong resemblance to those of the Maya family. Without attaching\nvery great importance to the last argument, I am inclined to believe\nthat the most plausible conjecture respecting the origin of the\nMound-Builders, is that which makes them a colony of the ancient Mayas,\nwho settled in the north during the continuance of the great Maya\nempire of Xibalba in Central America, several centuries before Christ.\nWe have seen that the ancient Mayas, under the name of Quinames,\nprobably occupied eastern Mexico at that epoch, and in later times we\nfind the Huastecs in southern Tamaulipas speaking a Maya dialect. It\nis not at all unlikely that a colony of these people passed northward\nalong the coast by land or water, and introduced their institutions\nin the Mississippi Valley, building up a power which became very\nflourishing as the centuries passed, but was at last forced to yield\nto the presence of environing barbarism. I offer this not as a theory\nwhich can be fully substantiated by facts, but simply as the most\nplausible conjecture on the matter which has occurred to me.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[X-1] _Historia Tulteca, Peintures et Annales, en langue nahutl, coll.\nAubin._\n\n[X-2] See _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 361-3.\n\n[X-3] Camargo, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., p. 150, vaguely\nmentions an expedition said to have been made to Cholula under chiefs\nbearing similar names to the above, but he gives no details or dates.\n\n[X-4] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 363-70.\n\n[X-5] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 138-9,\n145-6.\n\n[X-6] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 108-9.\n\n[X-7] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 142-7;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 260-1; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 154;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 357-60.\n\n[X-8] Spelled Tetliyucatl by Camargo. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 262,\nsays that a separation took place previously at Tepapayecan. Camargo,\nin _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., p. 150, may possibly imply the\nsame, but he is very confused at this point.\n\n[X-9] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 262. Camargo says that Coatepec was\nfounded in the province of Quauhquelchula by the three last named\nchiefs; this is, however, probably a mistake of the French translator.\nBrasseur says Coatepec 'se soumettait \u00e0 Quetzalxiuhtli.' _Hist._, tom.\nii., p. 372.\n\n[X-10] Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 373, calls this chief\nQuauhtliztac.\n\n[X-11] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 151-2.\nThese chiefs were named Totolohuizil and Quetzaltehuyacixcotl, and are\nthe same as those mentioned by Camargo on p. 150, as having arrived at\nCholula in the year 1 Acatl. They are also identical with the\nChichimec-Toltec chiefs who, according to Brasseur's account, already\nrecorded, conquered Cholula by a stratagem soon after the Toltec fall.\nSee ante, pp. 485-6. Speaking of their visit to the Teo-Chichimecs at\nNecapahuazcan, Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 372, calls them the\n\"nouveaux seigneurs de Cholula.\" But it is evident from the context\nthat Camargo does not regard them as such, notwithstanding what he has\nsaid about their arrival in 1 Acatl.\n\n[X-12] Called 'Colhua-Teuctli-Quanez, le vainqueur de Poyauhtlan,' and\nCulhua-Teuctli, by Brasseur; and Culhuatecuhtli and Aculhua Tecuhtli\nby Camargo.\n\n[X-13] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 136,\n152-4, 164; _Veytia_, tom. ii., p. 175; _Herrera_, dec. ii., lib. vi.,\ncap. xii; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 263.\n\n[X-14] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., p. 154.\n\n[X-15] Brasseur writes Xicochimalco.\n\n[X-16] 'Coxcoxtli, roi de Culhuacan, qui gouvernait alors, avec ses\npropres \u00e9tats, les Mexicains \u00e9tablis dans le voisinage de sa capitale,\net les T\u00e9pan\u00e8ques d'Azcapotzalco, est le seul prince \u00e0 qui se puisse\nrapporter l'\u00e9v\u00e9nement dont il s'agit ici, Tezozomoc n'ayant r\u00e9gn\u00e9 que\nbeaucoup plus tard.' _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 409; see also\nnote on p. 410 of same work. Camargo says that Xiuhtlehui sent for aid\nto 'Matlatlihuitzin, qui r\u00e9gnait alors \u00e0 Mexico.' _Nouvelles Annales_,\ntom. xcviii., p. 156. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 197-201, states that he\nsent to Acamapichtli II, Matlatlihuitzin being probably a surname\nborne by that prince. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 264-5, and Clavigero,\ntom. i., p. 155, agree with Camargo in the name, but speak of the\nprince as being Tepanec.\n\n[X-17] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. cxviii., pp. 154-63;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 264-8; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 154-5;\n_Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 200-12; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp.\n405-18.\n\n[X-18] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 418-19.\n\n[X-19] Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 349, writes\nIztamatzin, and on p. 216, Yztacima.\n\n[X-20] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 154-5; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 216, 349.\n\n[X-21] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 419-20.\n\n[X-22] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., p. 164.\nVeytia, tom. ii., p. 213, considers this account wrong. Culhua\nTecuhtli Quanez, he says, who is Xiuhquetzaltzin, the younger brother\nof Quinantzin of Tezcuco, had no brother by that name, or, none who\nwould have joined him in Tlascala--he disregards the fact, as related\nby himself, that Xiuhquetzaltzin must have ruled over a hundred years\nalready. It is therefore much more probable, as related by other\nwriters, he continues, that Quanez left his own district of Tepeticpac\nor Texcalticpac to his eldest son, as will be seen, and Ocotelulco to\nhis second son, Cuicuetzcatl, 'swallow;' he ruled jointly with his\nbrother, and left the succession to his son Papalotl, 'butterfly,' who\nwas followed by his brother Teyohualminqui, the above-named personage.\nHe thinks the above two rulers have been omitted because of their\nbrief rule. Others, he continues, relate that Mitl divided the rule\nwith his brother. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 344, says that the Tlascaltec\nrulers descended from Xiuhguzaltzin. Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. iii., p.\n143, though he cites Camargo as his authority, states that Quanez\nassociated his brother with himself on the throne, and divided the\ntown and territory of Tlascala with him. Teyohualminqui then chose\nOcotelulco as his place of residence.\n\n[X-23] Called also Tlapitzahuacan.\n\n[X-24] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 165-72.\n\n[X-25] Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 143-4, makes Tzompane,\nXayacamachan, and Tepolohua, one and the same person. Camargo, as we\nhave seen, speaks of them as father and son. Torquemada, tom. i., p.\n275, combines two of the names, Xayacamachantzompane.\n\n[X-26] See vol. ii. of this work, p. 141.\n\n[X-27] See pp. 387-8, of this volume.\n\n[X-28] Id., p. 414.\n\n[X-29] Id., p. 416.\n\n[X-30] Id., p. 417.\n\n[X-31] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 269.\n\n[X-32] See this vol., p. 426.\n\n[X-33] Id., pp. 437-8.\n\n[X-34] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., p. 178.\n\n[X-35] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 341.\n\n[X-36] See this vol., p. 443.\n\n[X-37] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 191; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii.,\np. 38; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 259-60; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., pp. 375-7; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 297-9.\n\n[X-38] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 178-80;\n_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 197-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 275-8;\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 402-5.\n\n[X-39] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 200-1; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt\nii., p. 40. According to Camargo, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom.\nxcviii., pp. 182-3, and Clavigero, tom. i., p. 278, the Tlascaltecs\nwere beaten on this occasion.\n\n[X-40] _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., p. 183;\n_Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 279; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 200;\n_Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 40; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii.,\np. 406. These authorities say that the Mexican general was Montezuma's\neldest son. But Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 271;\nand Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lvii., Tezozomoc, in _Id._, p. 160;\nsay that he was Montezuma's brother.\n\n[X-41] _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 278-80; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp.\n201-2; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 40; _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles\nAnnales_, tom. xcviii., p. 183; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 324-5.\nTlacahuepantzin is regarded by Clavigero as a man appointed to the\ngeneralship on account of his birth, and not because he possessed any\nmilitary ability. Duran, MS., tom. ii., cap. lvii., who makes this a\nwar between Huexotzinco and Mexico, states that he performed wonders\non the battlefield, killing over fifty men, but was captured and\nkilled on the field, in accordance with his own request; the body was\npreserved as the relic of a hero. Other brothers of Montezuma were\nalso killed, and many captives carried to Huexotzinco. Tezozomoc, in\n_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 160-1, adds that the Aztecs were only\none to twenty in number, and that 40,000 warriors fell in the fight.\nShortly after, continues Tezozomoc, Ixtlilcuechahuac of Tollan, aided\nby Aztec troops under three of Montezuma's cousins attacked the\nHuexotzincas again; the three cousins were killed, with most of their\ntroops, and the lord of Tollan, who was conspicuous in his fine dress,\nwas also slain; but the Chalcas coming up, the victory turned and the\nHuexotzincas were compelled to retreat. _Id._, pp. 165-6; _Duran_,\nMS., tom. ii., cap. lviii. After this, the Cholultecs, who had never\nyet had a war with the Mexicans, says Duran, challenged that people to\nfight a battle, 'to give pleasure to the god of battle and to the\nsun.' The Mexicans and their allies who, according to Tezozomoc, were\nopposed by six times the number of Cholultecs, aided by Huexotzincas\nand Atlixcas, lost 8,200 men; whereupon the fight was discontinued,\nand the Aztecs went home to mourn. _Tezozomoc_, pp. 169-70; _Duran_,\nMS., tom. ii., cap. lix. Ixtlilxochitl, p. 278, seems to refer to this\nbattle when he says that Montezuma II. agreed with the Atlixcas to\nleave Macuilmalinatzin, the true heir to the Mexican throne, in the\nlurch. He accordingly perished with 2,800 of his warriors.\nNezahualpilli composed a scathing poem, denouncing this act as a base\nassassination.\n\n[X-42] _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 172-4; _Duran_,\nMS., tom. ii., cap. lx.; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 280; _Veytia_, tom.\niii., pp. 325-6.\n\n[X-43] The truth of this bombastic assertion the Tlascaltec historian,\nCamargo, denies, and doubtless with reason; as it would be absurd to\nsuppose that the Aztecs would have permitted the existence of such a\nformidable enemy at their very doors if they could have helped it.\nBesides, we have seen how often they did their best to subdue Tlascala\nand failed.\n\n[X-44] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 202-3; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp.\n326-7; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 407-9; _Vetancvrt_,\n_Teatro_, pt ii., p. 41; _Duran_, MS., tom. ii., cap. lxi;\n_Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 176-8; _Clavigero_, tom.\ni., p. 280; _Oviedo_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii., p. 497; _Camargo_, in\n_Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 184-6.\n\n[X-45] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 209-10; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.\n284-5; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 418-20; _Veytia_, tom.\niii., pp. 338-40.\n\n[X-46] See this vol., p. 464.\n\n[X-47] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 280-1, the Tezcucan historian, is the only\nauthority for this account, and it is probable enough that he has\nexaggerated Montezuma's treachery.\n\n[X-48] For etymology of this name, see vol. ii., p. 130.\n\n[X-49] Several names of places in the country were, however, of Aztec\norigin, and even the name Michoacan, 'place of fish,' is derived from\nthe Aztec words _michin_ and _can_. Beaumont, _Cr\u00f3n. Mechoacan_, MS.,\np. 47, says that the original name of the country was Tzintzuntzan,\nbut he translates this, 'town of green birds.' Brasseur, _Hist._, tom.\niii., p. 52, says Michoacan was 'le nom que les Mexicains donnaient \u00e0\nla r\u00e9gion des Tarasques.'\n\n[X-50] Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 214, mentions a\nToltec party that emigrated to the Michoacan region, and dwelt there\nfor a long time. Sahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 145-6, refers to a\nToltec migration as an issue from the same region. Veytia, tom. ii.,\npp. 39-40, speaks of Toltecs who founded colonies all along the\nPacific coast, and gradually changed their language and customs.\n\n[X-51] _Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 120, 141.\n\n[X-52] _Gil_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. viii., pp. 500-1.\n\n[X-53] See this vol. p. 328.\n\n[X-54] See also Tello's version of Aztec settlement given by Gil, in\n_Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. viii., p. 501.\n\n[X-55] _Hist. Gen._, dec. iii., lib. iii., cap. ix.\n\n[X-56] _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 55-6.\n\n[X-57] Called Chichimecas van\u00e1ceos by Carbajal Espinosa, _Hist. Mex._,\ntom. i., p. 266.\n\n[X-58] 'Chaque tribu, chaque famille, souvent chaque personne avait\nson dieu ou ses g\u00e9nies particuliers \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s comme les teraphim de\nLaban qu'enlevait \u00e0 l'insu sa fille Rachel.' _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.\niii., p. 61.\n\n[X-59] _Beaumont_, _Cr\u00f3n. Mechoacan_, MS., pp. 48, 63.\n\n[X-60] _Beltrami_, _Mexique_, tom. ii., p. 54. The first name given to\nthe town was Guayangareo, says Granados y Galvez, _Tardes Amer._, p.\n184. Padre Larrea translates Tzintzuntzan, 'town of green birds,' and\nthe town was so called, he says, from the form of the idol. Beaumont\ncalls it also Chincila and Huitzitzilaque. _Cr\u00f3n. Mechoacan_, MS., pp.\n43, 46-7.\n\n[X-61] Also known as Chiguangua, Chiguacua, and Tzihuanga.\n\n[X-62] Also, Sintzicha Tangajuan, 'he of the fine teeth.'\n\n[X-63] _Beaumont_, _Cr\u00f3n. Mechoacan_, MS., pp. 44-5, 68-9, 75.\nHerrera, dec. iii., lib. iii., cap. viii., translates Cazonzin by 'old\nsandals,' saying that the name was bestowed upon the king as a\nnick-name because of the shabby dress in which he appeared before\nCort\u00e9s. According to Alegre, _Hist. Comp. de Jesus_, tom. i., p. 91,\nCaltzontzin was the name given to Zintzicha by the Spaniards.\nBeltrami, _Mexique_, tom. ii., p. 44, writes the name Sinzincha.\nTorquemada, tom. i., p. 338, calls him Caczoltzin. Granados y Galvez,\n_Tardes Amer._, pp. 184-6, writes Caltzontzin or Cinzica. 'Les\nrelations et les histoires relatives au Michoacan donnent toutes au\nroi des Tarasques le titre ou le nom de Cazontzin. \u00c9tait-ce un titre?\nc'est incertain. Torquemada ne sait ce qu'il doit en penser.'\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 78. Cazonzi 'para\u00eet \u00eatre une\ncorruption tarasque du mot nahuatl Caltzontzin, Chef ou t\u00eate de la\nmaison.' _Id._, tom. iv., p. 363.\n\n[X-64] Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 66-7, renders this passage\nvery ambiguously. 'Ce fut en ce lieu (Patamagua Nacaraho) que les\ndieux, fr\u00e8res de Curicaneri, se s\u00e9par\u00e8rent; chacun des chefs\nchichim\u00e8ques, prenant le sien, alla se fixer au lieu que la victoire\nlui donna. Pour lui, continuant le cours de ses conqu\u00eates, il chassa\ntour \u00e0 tour le gibier sur les terres voisines, passant d'une montagne\n\u00e0 l'autre, et jetant la terreur dans les populations d'alentour.'\n\n[X-65] '_Patzcuaro_ veut \u00e9videmment dire le lieu de temples; _cu_ ou\n_cua_, dans la langue tarasque, comme dans la langue yucat\u00e8que.'\n_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 72.\n\n[X-66] _Pimentel_, _Cuadro_, tom. i., p. 499; _Beaumont_, _Cr\u00f3n.\nMechoacan_, MS., pp. 61-2, quoting _Basalenque_, _Hist. Mech._, lib.\ni., cap. xv.\n\n[X-67] _Beaumont_, _Cr\u00f3n. Mechoacan_, MS., pp. 60-61. Granados, p.\n185, refers to a seven years' struggle, which may be the same as the\nabove. The records indicate two great battles at Tajimaroa and Zichu.\n\n[X-68] _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 150; _Alcedo_, _Dicc._, tom. iii., p.\n461; _Pimentel_, _Cuadro_, tom. i., p. 499. See also this vol., pp.\n432-5. _Sahagun_, tom. iii., lib. x., p. 129.\n\n[X-69] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 51-78; _Carbajal Espinosa_,\n_Hist. Mex._, tom. i., pp. 264-85.\n\n[X-70] Also spelled Tzihuanga, see note 62.\n\n[X-71] See this vol., pp. 477-8. Beaumont says that Tlahuicol gained\nnothing during his six months' campaign except some booty, and he\ndoubts whether that was much, as along the frontier there was little\nto be had. _Cr\u00f3n. Mechoacan_, MS., pp. 59-60.\n\n[X-72] He bore the title of Caltzontzin. See note 63. Brasseur says he\nwas also called Gwangwa Pagua, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 78.\n\n[X-73] _Beaumont_, _Cr\u00f3n. Mechoacan_, MS., p. 68.\n\n[X-74] _Cr\u00f3n. Mechoacan_, MS., pp. 71-3.\n\n[X-75] See vol. iii. of this work, p. 446.\n\n[X-76] For boundaries of Miztecapan, see ante, vol. i., p. 678.\n\n[X-77] See vol. i., p. 679, for boundaries.\n\n[X-78] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt i., pp. 195-6;\n_Murguia_, _Estadist. Guajaca_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom.\nvii., p. 167.\n\n[X-79] _Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, p. 133; _Veytia_, tom. i., p.\n150.\n\n[X-80] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 32; _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 299;\n_Motolinia_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 8;\n_Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt i., p. 175; _Sahagun_,\ntom. iii., lib. x., p. 136; _Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, p. 120.\n\n[X-81] _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 5.\n\n[X-82] Brasseur, citing _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii.,\npt i., fol. 128-9, says they were male and female, and from them\ndescended the race that subsequently governed the country. _Hist._,\ntom. iii., p. 6; _Garc\u00eda_, _Or\u00edgen de los Ind._, pp. 327-8.\n\n[X-83] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt i., pp. 128,\n175-6; _Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, p. 80, says this story is merely\ninvented to show the great age of the Miztecs. See also ante, vol.\niii., p. 73.\n\n[X-84] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 128-9.\nOrozco y Berra, _Geograf\u00eda_, p. 126, says the Zapotecs took their\nregion by force of arms from the Huatiquimanes, or Guanitiquimanes.\n\n[X-85] _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 8-9.\n\n[X-86] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 255; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii.,\ncap. xi.; _Veytia_, tom. i., p. 164; _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip.\nOajaca_, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 297-8, 343-5.\n\n[X-87] See vol. ii. of this work, pp. 209-11.\n\n[X-88] 'De all\u00e0 de la Costa del Sur, mas cerca de la Eclyptica\nvezindad del Per\u00f9, y segun las circunstancias de su lengua, y trato de\nla Provincia \u00f2 Reyno de Nicarahua.' _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_,\ntom. ii., pt ii., fol. 396; _Murguia_, _Estadist. Guajaca_, in _Soc.\nMex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. vii., p. 183; _Orozco y Berra_,\n_Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 173-4. See also _M\u00fchlenpfordt_, _Mejico_, tom. ii.,\npt i., p. 176. Guillemot relates that some Peruvian families fled\nnorthward along the Cordilleras. On the banks of the Sarrabia they\nresorted to the fire test to find out whether the gods wished them to\nsettle there. A brand was placed in a hole, but as it was extinct in\nthe morning, they knew they must go further. Four emissaries went in\nsearch of another place. Beneath a coapinol-tree, where now stands\nHuixicovi, the brand-proof answered the test, and so they settled\nthere. The coapinol is still venerated. _Fossey_, _Mexique_, pp. 50-1;\nsee also p. 467.\n\n[X-89] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 196.\n\n[X-90] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 312,\n367-76.\n\n[X-91] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 197.\n\n[X-92] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 39.\n\n[X-93] _Id._; _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt i., fol.\n181, 188.\n\n[X-94] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 230,\n245.\n\n[X-95] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 45.\n\n[X-96] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 330;\n_Murguia_, _Estadist. Guajaca_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom.\nvii., pp. 167, 201.\n\n[X-97] _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. ix., cap. vii.; _Murguia_, _Estadist.\nGuajaca_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. vii., p. 183; _Burgoa_,\n_Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt ii., fol. 280.\n\n[X-98] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt ii., fol.\n302-3; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 48-50.\n\n[X-99] See this volume, pp. 415-17.\n\n[X-100] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt i., fol. 150.\n\n[X-101] See this volume, p. 425.\n\n[X-102] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 284-5, 338-40.\n\n[X-103] See this volume pp. 443-7.\n\n[X-104] _Id._, pp. 461-2.\n\n[X-105] _Murguia_, _Estadist. Guajaca_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_,\ntom. vii., p. 187.\n\n[X-106] _Hist._, tom. iv., p. 539.\n\n[X-107] _Burgoa_, _Geog. Descrip. Oajaca_, tom. ii., pt ii., fol.\n367-76.\n\n[X-108] See p. 158.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE QUICH\u00c9-CAKCHIQUEL EMPIRE IN GUATEMALA.\n\n     No Chronology in the South -- Outline View -- Authorities\n     -- Xbalanque at Utatlan -- The Migration from Tulan --\n     Balam-Quitz\u00e9 and his Companions -- Sacrifices to Tohil --\n     the Quich\u00e9s on Mt Hacavitz -- The Tamub and Ilocab -- First\n     Victories -- Qocavib Founds the Monarchy at Izmachi -- the\n     Toltec Theory -- Imaginary Empire of the East -- Different\n     Versions of Primitive History -- The Cakchiquel Migration --\n     Juarros and Fuentes -- Lists of Kings -- Cakchiquels under\n     Hacavitz -- Reigns of Balam-Conache, Cotuha, and Iztayul,\n     at Izmachi -- War against the Ilocab -- The Stolen Tribute\n     -- Gucumatz, Quich\u00e9 Emperor at Utatlan -- Changes in the\n     Government -- Reigns of Cotuha II., Tepepul, and Iztayul\n     II. -- Cakchiquel History -- Conquests of Quicab I. --\n     Revolt of the Achihab -- Dismemberment of the Empire --\n     Cakchiquel Conquests -- Reigns of the last Guatemalan Kings\n     -- Appearance of the Spaniards under Alvarado in 1524.\n\n\n[Sidenote: PRELIMINARY VIEW.]\n\nIn the south we have no connected history except for two centuries\nimmediately preceding the conquest, and no attempt at precise\nchronology even for that short period. The Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel empire in\nGuatemala was, at the coming of the Spaniards, the most powerful and\nfamous in North America, except that of the Aztecs in An\u00e1huac, with\nwhich it never came into direct conflict, although the fame of each\nwas well known to the other, and commercial intercourse was carried on\nalmost constantly. The southern empire, so far as may be learned from\nthe slight evidence bearing on the subject, was about three centuries\nold in the sixteenth century, and the nearest approach to chronology\nin its annals is the regular succession of monarchs who occupied the\nthrone, the achievements of each king given in what may be considered\nto be their chronologic order, and an apparent connection in a few\ncases with occurrences whose date is known from the Aztec records.\n\nIn a preceding volume of this work I have presented all that the\nauthorities have preserved respecting the manners and customs of the\nGuatemalan peoples, and their condition at the coming of the Spaniards,\nincluding their system of government and the order of royal succession.\nIn a chapter devoted to a general preliminary view of these nations,[XI-1]\nI have already presented a brief outline of their history as follows:\nGuatemala and northern Honduras were found in possession of the Mames\nin the north-west, the Pokomams in the south-east, the Quich\u00e9s in the\ninterior, and the Cakchiquels in the south.[XI-2] The two latter were the\nmost powerful, and ruled the country from their capitals of Utatlan\nand Tecpan Guatemala, where they resisted the Spaniards almost to\nthe point of annihilation, retiring for the most part after defeat to\nlive by the chase in the distant mountain gorges. Guatemalan history\nfrom the time of the Votanic empire down to an indefinite date not\nmany centuries before the conquest, is a blank. It re-commences with\nthe first traditions of the nations just mentioned. These traditions,\nas in the case of every American people, begin with the immigration\nof foreign tribes into the country, as the first in the series of\nevents leading to the establishment of the Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel empire.\nAssuming the Toltec dispersion from An\u00e1huac in the eleventh century\nas a well-authenticated fact, most writers have identified the\nGuatemalan nations, except perhaps the Mames, by some considered the\ndescendants of the original inhabitants, with the migrating Toltecs\nwho fled southward to found a new empire. I have already made known\nmy scepticism respecting national American migrations in general, and\nthe Toltec migration southward in particular, and there is nothing in\nthe annals of Guatemala to modify the views previously expressed. The\nQuich\u00e9 traditions are vague and without chronologic order, much less\ndefinite than those relating to the mythical Aztec wanderings. The\nsum and substance of the Quich\u00e9 and Toltec identity is the traditional\nstatement that the former people entered Guatemala at an unknown period\nin the past, while the latter left An\u00e1huac in the eleventh century.\nThat the Toltecs should have migrated en masse southward, taken\npossession of Guatemala, established a mighty empire, and yet have\nabandoned their language for dialects of the original Maya tongue, is\nin the highest degree improbable. It is safer to suppose that the mass\nof the Quich\u00e9s, and other nations of Guatemala, Chiapas, and Honduras,\nwere descended directly from the Maya builders of Palenque, and from\ncontemporary peoples,--that is, as has been shown in the chapter on\npre-Toltec history in this volume, from the Maya peoples after they\nhad been conquered by a new power and had become to a certain extent,\nso far as their institutions were concerned, Nahua nations.--Yet the\ndifferences between the Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel structures and the older\narchitectural remains of the Maya empire, indicate a new era of Maya\nculture, originated not improbably by the introduction of foreign\nelements. Moreover the apparent identity in name and teachings between\nthe early civilizers of the Quich\u00e9 tradition and the Nahua followers of\nQuetzalcoatl, together with reported resemblances between actual Quich\u00e9\nand Aztec institutions as observed by Europeans, indicate farther that\nthe new element was engrafted on Maya civilization by contact with the\nNahuas, a contact of which the presence of the exiled Toltec nobility\nmay have been a prominent feature. After the overthrow of the original\nempire, we may suppose the people to have been subdivided during the\ncourse of centuries by civil wars and sectarian struggles into petty\nstates, the glory of their former greatness vanished and partially\nforgotten, the spirit of progress dormant, to be roused again by the\npresence of the Nahua chiefs. These gathered and infused new life\ninto the scattered remnants; they introduced some new institutions,\nand thus aided the ancient peoples to rebuild their empire on the\nold foundations, retaining the dialects of the original language. The\npreceding paragraphs, however, gave an exaggerated idea of the Toltec\nelement in forming Quich\u00e9 institutions, as has been shown by the\ninvestigations of the present volume, since, while the Nahua element in\nthese institutions was very strong, yet the Nahua influence was exerted\nchiefly in pre-Toltec times while the two peoples were yet living\ntogether in Central America, rather than by the exiled Toltec nobles\nand priests.\n\n[Sidenote: AUTHORITIES ON GUATEMALAN HISTORY.]\n\nThe authorities for Quich\u00e9 history are not numerous. They include\nthe work of Juarros, which is chiefly founded on the manuscripts of\nFuentes; the published Spanish and French translations of the Popol\nVuh, or National Book, of which much has already been said; and a\nnumber of documents similar to the latter, written in Spanish letters,\nbut in the various Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel dialects, by native authors who\nwrote after the Conquest, of course, but relied upon the aboriginal\nrecords and traditions, never published and only known to the world\nthrough the writings of Brasseur de Bourbourg, who, in Maya as in many\nparts of Nahua history, is the chief and almost the only authority.\n\nIn the earliest annals of Central America, while the Xibalban empire\nwas yet in the height of its power, we find what is, perhaps, the first\nmention of the territory known later as Guatemala, in the mention by\nthe Popol Vuh[XI-3] of Carchah, or Nimxob Carchah, a locality in Vera\nPaz, as the place whence Hunhunahpu and Vucub Hunahpu, the first Nahua\nchiefs who conspired against the Xibalban monarchs, directed their\nfirst expedition toward the region of Palenque. Las Casas also names\nthis as one of the entrances to the road which lead to the infernal\nregions, the sense probably given to Xibalba in the traditions of the\ncountry.[XI-4] And from Utatlan, in the same region, in later centuries\nthe Quich\u00e9 capital, started Xbalanque and Hunahpu, the descendants\nof the two chieftains already named, to avenge the defeat of their\nancestors, and to overthrow the proud kings of Xibalba. The young\nprinces left behind them their mother and grand-mother, planting in\ntheir cabin two canes which were to indicate to those left at home\ntheir own fortune, to flourish with their prosperity, to wither at each\nmisfortune, and to die should they meet the fate of their predecessors;\nhence perhaps the Quich\u00e9 name of Utatlan, Gumarcaah, 'house of\nwithered canes.'[XI-5] The mention of Guatemalan localities in this\nconnection is not sufficient to prove that the opposition to Xibalba\nhad its beginning or centre in Guatemala, but simply indicates that\nthe Nahua power in those primitive times extended over that region,\nas did also the Maya power, not improbably. In other words, the long\nstruggle between the two rival powers was no local contest at and about\nPalenque, but was felt in a greater or less degree throughout the whole\ncountry, from An\u00e1huac to Guatemala, and perhaps still farther south.\n\n[Sidenote: EXPEDITION OF XBALANQUE.]\n\nXbalanque's expedition and some subsequent occurrences are related by\nTorquemada, as follows: \"After the people of the earth had multiplied\nand increased, it was made known that a god had been born in the\nprovince of Otlatla (Utatlan), now known as Vera Paz, thirty leagues\nfrom the capital called Quauhtemallan (Guatemala), which god they named\nExbalanquen. Of him it is related, among other lies and fables, that\nhe went to wage war against Hell, and fought against all the people\nof that region and conquered them, and captured the king of Hell with\nmany of his army. On his return to the earth after his victory, bearing\nwith him his spoils, the king of the Shades begged that he might not\nbe carried away. They were then in three or four grades of light, but\nExbalanquen gave the infernal monarch a kick, saying 'go back, and\nthine be in future all that is rotten, and refuse, and stinking, in\nthese infernal regions.' Exbalanquen then returned to Vera Paz whence\nhe had set out, but he was not received there with the festivities\nand songs of triumph which he thought he had deserved, and therefore\nhe went away to another kingdom, where he was kindly received. This\nconqueror of Hell is said to have introduced the custom of sacrificing\nhuman beings.\"\"[XI-6] Brasseur adds on this subject: \"Copan, the name of\nwhich ('on the vase') alludes mysteriously to the religious symbols\nof the mixed, or Mestizo, Nahua race, was it then chosen by this\nprince, whose mother (Xquiq) personified the fundamental idea of this\nsanguinary worship? However this may have been, it seems certain that\nthe latter city owed its origin to a fierce warrior named Balam,\nwho had entered the country by the way of Peten Itza about fifteen\ncenturies before the Spanish conquest. During the last period of native\nrule the province of which Copan was the capital was called Payaqui\n('in the Yaqui, or Nahuas') or the kingdom of Chiquimula.\"[XI-7] But all\nthis may be regarded as purely conjectural.\n\nFrom the time when Xbalanque and Hunahpu marched to the conquest\nof Xibalba, and succeeded in subordinating the ancient Maya to the\nNahua power, for several centuries down to the subsequent scattering\nof both Nahua and Maya tribes, which preceded the appearance of the\nToltec branches in An\u00e1huac, the history of Guatemala is a blank. That\ncivilized peoples occupied the country at that remote time; that they\nhad been more or less the subjects of the ancient empire; and that they\nhad been brought within the new influences of the Nahua institutions,\nthere can be little doubt; but they have left no record of their\ndeeds, probably not even of their names. The annals recommence with\nthe traditional migration from Tulan, by which the Toltecs established\nthemselves on the central plateaux of Mexico, while the tribes\nafterwards known as Quich\u00e9s wandered southward to the highlands of\nVera Paz; but five or six centuries were yet to pass before we find any\nrecord that may be properly termed history. I return to the traditions\nof the Popol Vuh, it being necessary to take up the thread of the story\nat a period even preceding the arrival at Tulan, and thus to repeat in\na measure certain portions already referred to in a preceding chapter.\n\n[Sidenote: RECORD OF THE POPOL VUH.]\n\nAfter the creation of the first men, Balam-Quitz\u00e9, Balam-Agab,\nMahucutah, and Iqi-Balam, wives were given them, and these were the\nparents of the Quich\u00e9 nation. Among the nations then in the East,\nthat received their names from those that were begotten, were those\nof Tepeuh, Oloman, Cohah, Quenech, and Ahau; also those of Tamub and\nIlocab who came together from the eastern land.[XI-8] Balam-Quitz\u00e9 was the\nancestor of the nine grand families of Cawek; Balam-Agab of the nine\nof Niha\u00efb; Mahucutah of the four of Ahau-Quich\u00e9. There came also the\nthirteen of Tecpan, and those of Rabinal, the Cakchiquels, those of\nTziquinaha, Zacaha, and others. All seem to have spoken one language,\nand to have lived in great peace, black men and white together. Here\nthey awaited the rising of the sun and prayed to the Heart of Heaven.\nThe tribes were already very numerous, including that of the Yaqui\n(Nahuas). At the advice of Balam-Quitz\u00e9 and his companions, they\ndeparted in search of gods to worship, and came to Tulan-Zuiva, the\nSeven Caves, where gods were given them, Tohil, Avilix, Hacavitz, and\nNicahtagah. Tohil was also the god of Tamub and Ilocab, and the three\ntribes, or families, kept together, for their god was the same.[XI-9] Here\narrived all the tribes, the Rabinals, the Cakchiquels, the Tziquinaha,\nand the Yaqui; and here their language was confounded, they could no\nlonger understand each other, and they separated, some going to the\neast and many coming hither (to Guatemala). They dressed in skins\nand were poor, but they were wonderful men, and when they reached\nTulan-Zuiva, long had been their journey, as the ancient histories tell\nus.\n\nNow there was no fire; Tohil was the first to create it, but it is\nnot known exactly how he did it, since it was already burning when\nit was discovered by Balam-Quitz\u00e9 and Balam-Agab. The fire was put\nout by a sudden shower and by a storm of hail, but the fire of the\nQuich\u00e9s was rekindled by Tohil. Then the other tribes came shivering\nwith chattering teeth to ask for fire from Balam-Quitz\u00e9, which was at\nfirst denied them; and a messenger from Xibalba appeared, a Zotzil,\nor bat, as it is said, and advised the high-priests to refuse the\npetition of the tribes until they should have learned from Tohil the\nprice to be paid for the fire. The condition finally named by the god\nwas, that they consent to \"unite themselves to me under their armpit\nand under their girdle, and that they embrace me, Tohil,\" a condition\nnot very clearly expressed, but which, as is shown by what follows,\nwas an agreement to worship the Quich\u00e9 god, and sacrifice to him their\nblood, and, if required, their children. They accepted the condition\nand received the fire. But one family stole the fire, the family of\nZotzil, of the Cakchiquels, whose god was Chamalcan, and whose symbol\nwas the bat; and they did not submit to the conditions of Tohil. Here\nthey began to fast and to watch for the sun. It was not here that they\nreceived their power and sovereignty, but there where they subdued the\ngreat and the little tribes, when they sacrificed them before the face\nof Tohil, offering him the blood, the life, the breast, and the armpit\nof all men. Thus at Tulan came to them their majesty, that great wisdom\nwhich was in them in the obscurity and in the night. They came then and\ntore themselves away from there and abandoned the regions of the rising\nsun. \"This is not our home; let us go and see where we shall establish\nit,\" said Tohil. Truly he spoke to Balam-Quitz\u00e9--and the others. \"Make\nfirst your thanksgiving, prepare the holes in your ears, pierce your\nelbows, and offer sacrifice; this will be your act of gratitude before\ngod.\" \"It is well,\" they replied, piercing their ears; and these things\nare in the song of their coming from Tulan; and their hearts groaned\nwhen they started, after they had torn themselves away from Tulan.\n\"Alas! we shall no longer behold here the dawn at the moment when the\nsun comes up to illumine the face of the earth,\" said they as they set\nout. But some were left on the road; for some remained asleep, each of\nthe tribes arising so as to see the morning star. It was the sign of\nthe morning that was in their thoughts when they came from the land of\nthe rising sun, and their hope was the same in leaving this place which\nis at a great distance, as they tell us to-day.\n\n[Sidenote: THE QUICH\u00c9S AT MT HACAVITZ.]\n\nThey arrived and assembled on the mountain now called Chipixab, the\nQuich\u00e9s, Tamub, Ilocab, Cakchiquels, Rabinals, and Tziquinaha. They\ntook counsel one with another, and were very sad, and hungry too. Then,\nat their own request, were the gods concealed in different ravines\nand forests,[XI-10] except Hacavitz, who was placed on a pyramid on Mt\nHacavitz, and there all the tribes waited in great trouble for the\ncoming of the dawn. \"Now behold lords were made, and our old men and\nour fathers had their beginning; behold we will relate the dawn and\nthe appearance of the sun, moon, and stars.\" The account of the dawn\nand its attendant ceremonies, which follows in the Popol Vuh, would\nseem, in connection with the preceding quotations, to refer vaguely to\nthe election of rulers, the establishment of temporal and spiritual\ngovernment, the birth of Quich\u00e9 institutions. Here they sang the\nsong of lamentation for their separation from their kindred in Tulan,\nalready referred to.[XI-11]\n\nUnder Balam-Quitz\u00e9, Balam-Agab, Mahucutah, and Iqi-Balam, they lived\ntogether on the mountain, and the tribes of Tamub and Ilocab lived\nnear by in the forests of Dan, under the same god Tohil, the god of\nthe people of Rabinal being the same under the name of Huntoh, while\nthe god of the Cakchiquels was different, Tzotziha Chamalcan, as was\nalso their language. Their hearts were heavy because Tohil, Avilix,\nand Hacavitz were still hidden in the grass and moss, although it has\nbeen stated before that the latter was on the pyramid of Hacavitz. They\nwent to thank Tohil for the sunrise, and to make offerings of resins\nand plants; and he spoke and made known a rule of conduct for the\nsacrificers; and they called upon him to aid them and said, \"here shall\nbe our mountains and our valleys;\" and the gods predicted their future\ngreatness. They still suffered from hunger, and the places where the\nwives abode were not clearly known.\n\nAnd now many towns had been founded, apparently by other than the\nQuich\u00e9 tribes, but as to Balam-Quitz\u00e9 and his three companions they\nwere not clearly seen, but cried like wild beasts in the mountains\nand on the roads, coming each day before Tohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz,\noffering them the blood of beasts, and blood drawn from their own\nbodies. Afterwards began the slaughter of the surrounding people who\nwere overtaken on the roads, either one by one or in small groups,\nand slain, as was supposed, by wild beasts. After many had perished,\nsuspicions were aroused of the four sacrificers and of their gods, but\nit was hard to track the pretended animals on the fog-enveloped summits\nof the Guatemalan heights. Now the gods Tohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz\nassumed the appearance of three young men, and were wont to bathe in a\ncertain river, vanishing at will whenever they were seen by the people;\nand a council was held to devise means for effecting their death, and\nto escape the destruction caused by these Quich\u00e9s of Cawek. They deemed\nthemselves a great people and those of Cawek only a handful; yet if\nthe power of the three gods was really so great that it could not be\novercome, then would they call upon Tohil also to be their god. It was\ndecided to send to meet the three young men at the bath two of the most\nbeautiful of their virgins, that the passions of the former might be\nexcited. These virgins, in obedience to the commands of their elders,\nwent to the river to wash linen, and both removed all their clothing as\nsoon as the three bathers appeared, and began to talk with them, saying\nthat their parents had sent them to speak to the young men and to bring\nsome token of having had an interview with them. But the young men did\nnot, as was expected, so far descend from their godlike dignity as to\ntake liberties with the fair Xtah and Xpuch, but after consultation\nwith Balam-Quitz\u00e9 and his brother sacrificers, gave the girls their\npainted mantles as tokens to carry to those that had sent them. One of\nthe mantles was covered with painted wasps and bees which came to life\nand stung the lord who put it on, and thus was Tohil victorious over\nthe princes, by the aid of Balam-Quitz\u00e9 and his companions. Then an\nassault was determined upon by the numerous tribes against the small\nforces of the Quich\u00e9 sacrificers on Mount Hacavitz, but Tohil knew of\nall their plans, as did Balam-Quitz\u00e9. The invaders were to make the\nattack by night, but they fell asleep on the route, and their eyebrows\nand beard were shaven and all their ornaments stolen by the valiant\nQuich\u00e9s as they slept. The Quich\u00e9 leaders fortified their position\nwith palisades and fallen trees, and stationed on them manikins of\nwood armed like soldiers and decorated with the gold and silver stolen\nfrom the sleeping foe. The sacrificers were sore afraid, but Tohil\nre-assured them. They filled the shells of gourds with hornets and\nwasps and placed them about the defences of their town. Spies came from\nthe enemy and looked upon the wooden soldiers and rejoiced that they\nwere few in number, and at the victory their countless armies were soon\nto win.\n\n[Sidenote: THE THREE TEMPTERS.]\n\nThe hostile forces, armed with bows and arrows, and bearing shields,\nascended the mountain and surrounded the Quich\u00e9 retreat, shouting and\nstriving with fearful clamor to strike terror into the hearts of their\nfoes, who meanwhile looked calmly on. At the fitting moment the winged\nallies of the Quich\u00e9s were released from the gourds and in countless\nhordes attacked the invaders right valiantly, fastening themselves\non the eyes and noses of the foe, who threw down their arms in their\nagony, threw themselves on the ground, and were slaughtered by the\nfollowers of Tohil, both men and women joining in the bloody work.\nBarely half of the invading army escaped to their homes. The tribes\nwere thus humiliated before the face of the sacrificers, begged for\nmercy, and were made subjects; the victors were filled with exultation,\nand multiplied, begetting sons and daughters on Mount Hacavitz.\n\nThe sons of the sacrificers were as follows; Balam-Quitz\u00e9 begat Qocaib\nand Qocavib, ancestor of the Cawek, or first Quich\u00e9 royal family.\nBalam-Agab begat Qoacul and Qoacutec, from whom sprang the family of\nNiha\u00efb. Mahucutah had but one son Qoahau; and Iqi-Balam had none.[XI-12]\nThe four sacrificers, the first leaders and fathers of the Quich\u00e9\npeople, were now old and ready to die, and after many words of counsel\nto their sons they disappeared suddenly, leaving to their people what\nis called the 'enveloped majesty' as a most precious relic, the form of\nwhich was not known for the envelope was not removed; and thenceforth\nthe Quich\u00e9s from their home on the mountain ruled all the surrounding\ntribes now thoroughly subjected.\n\n[Sidenote: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY.]\n\nThe three elder sons, Qocaib, Qoacutec, and Qoahau, were married long\nafter the death of their fathers, and they determined to go as their\nfathers had ordered to the East on the shore of the sea, whence their\nfathers had come, 'to receive the royalty,' bidding adieu to their\nbrothers and friends, and promising to return. \"Doubtless they passed\nover the sea when they went to the East to receive the royalty. Now\nthis is the name of the lord, of the monarch of the people of the East\nwhere they went. And when they arrived before the lord Nacxit,[XI-13] the\nname of the great lord, of the only judge, whose power was without\nlimit, behold he granted them the sign of royalty and all that\nrepresents it; hence came the sign of the rank of Ahpop and of that\nof Ahpop Camha, and Nacxit finally gave them the insignia of royalty,\n... all the things in fact which they brought on their return, and\nwhich they went to receive from the other side of the sea, the art of\npainting from Tulan, a system of writing, they said, for the things\nrecorded in the histories.\"\n\nThe three princes returned to Mount Hacavitz, assembled all the tribes,\nincluding the people of Ilocab and Tamub, the Cakchiquels, Tziquinaha,\nand the tribe of Rabinal, assuming the authority over them to the\ngreat joy of all. Then the wives of the original sacrificers died,\nand many of the people left Mount Hacavitz and founded innumerable\nother towns on the neighboring hills,[XI-14] where their numbers were\ngreatly multiplied. The three princes who went to the East to receive\nthe royalty, had grown old and died, but before their death they had\nestablished themselves in their great city of Izmachi.[XI-15]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe narrative of the Popol Vuh condenses in the preceding paragraphs,\nthe history of the Quich\u00e9s during the whole time that elapsed between\nthe scattering of the Nahuas from Tulan before the fifth century, and\nthe final establishment of the Quich\u00e9 empire, an event whose exact date\nis unknown--for we have nothing but approximate dates in the aboriginal\nhistory of Guatemala--but which, judging by the number of kings that\nare represented as having occupied the throne afterwards down to the\ncoming of the Spaniards, is thought not to have been earlier than the\nthirteenth century. The record implies, in fact, that the Quich\u00e9s lived\nlong in their new home before they acquired power among the surrounding\ntribes. All this time they were directed by their trinity, Tohil,\nAvilix, and Hacavitz, acting through their four chief sacrificers, or\nhigh-priests, Balam-Quitz\u00e9, Balam-Agab, Mahucutah, and Iqi-Balam, the\nsame who had led them in their migration from the region of Xibalba,\nand even in their migration to that region from the east. Of course\nmany generations of priests bearing these names or these titles must\nhave succeeded each other in the direction of Quich\u00e9 affairs during\nthis period; but the record admits the succession of sons to the\necclesiastical and temporal power only after the nation had risen\nto power. It has been noted, however, that another document mentions\nseveral generations between Balam-Quitz\u00e9 and Qocavib. The surrounding\npeoples are continually referred to in the Popol Vuh, but for the most\npart simply as 'the tribes,' although the tribes of Tamub and Ilocab,\nof Rabinals, of the Cakchiquels, and several others are frequently\nnamed, sometimes in a manner that would lead the reader to suppose that\nthese were 'the tribes' subdued, but oftener as if these were from the\nfirst connected with the Quich\u00e9s. From the records of other Guatemalan\nnations which have never been published, the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur attempts to\nthrow some light on the history of the tribes among which the Quich\u00e9s\nlived so long in a subordinate position, and on the period over which\nthe Popol Vuh passes so rapidly.\n\n[Sidenote: MIGRATION FROM TULAN.]\n\nThe many tribes that left the central region of Tulan did not probably\ndo so simultaneously, but migrated at irregular intervals, so that\nthe final destruction of Tulan may not have occurred before the sixth\nor seventh century. Juarros even gives a list of four kings, Tanub,\nCapichoch, Calel-Ahus, and Ahpop, who ruled in that city, although his\naccount taken from that of Fuentes is not worthy of great confidence.\nAccording to the records followed by Brasseur, the first tribes to\nmigrate southward towards Guatemala, were those of Tamub and Ilocab\ntogether with the thirteen clans of Tecpan, the ancestors of the\nPokomams. We have seen, however, that Guatemala was already more or\nless in possession of the Nahuas before the overthrow of Xibalba,\nand the vague references to the tribes of Tamub and Ilocab--the\noldest Nahua tribes in the country according to all authorities--are\ninsufficient to show clearly whether they were already in Guatemala in\nthe time of Hunahpu and Xbalanque, or like the Quich\u00e9s proper migrated\nthither after the fall of Xibalba. The chiefs of Tamub held the highest\nrank in a kind of confederacy that seems to have been established at\nthis early time. Their capital was Amag-Dan, a few leagues north of\nUtatlan. The family of Ilocab, the second in the confederacy, had its\ncapital, Uquincat, at a short distance north-west of Utatlan, and was\ndivided into two branches called Gale-Ziha and Tzununi-ha. The third\nchief of the alliance has escaped the abb\u00e9's researches. The thirteen\ntribes of Tecpan, under the names of Uxab and Pokomam, occupied Vera\nPaz and the region south of the Motagua, their capital, Nimpokom, being\nnear where the modern town of Rabinal now stands. The western country\ntowards Chiapas was held by the Mames, one of the ancient peoples of\nGuatemala who were probably found in the country by the first tribes\nfrom Tulan. This nation was divided into many bands, whose names\nand towns are given, the latter including those afterwards known as\nQuezaltenango and Huehuetenango. One document mentions a succession of\nnine sovereigns in the Tamub dynasty before the Quich\u00e9 power began.\n\nThe Quich\u00e9s entered the country at about the same time as the tribes\nof Ilocab, Tamub, and the Pokomams, but as we have seen in their own\nrecord, they had no influence for many centuries among the nations\nthat preceded them. During this period, with the Cakchiquels, the band\nof Rabinal, and the Ah-Tziquinaha, they constituted a group of small\ntribes, dwelling on the barren heights of Vera Paz, or the Lacandon\ncountry. It is not probable that they were yet known as Quich\u00e9s, or\n'men of the woods,' and all that is known of them is the names of their\ngods, Tohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz; of their chief priests, whose names,\nor titles, were Balam-Quitz\u00e9, Balam-Agab, Mahucutah, and Iqi-Balam;\nand of leaders mentioned by the _MS. Cakchiquel_, and named Xurcah and\nTotomay. According to our only authority on early events, excepting\nthe Popol Vuh, the time which was occupied by the Quich\u00e9s under\nBalam-Quitz\u00e9 and his companions in their long struggles as animals\nagainst the other tribes, is not that which elapsed between their\narrival from Tulan at Mt Hacavitz in the sixth or seventh century, and\nthe establishment of their monarchy in the thirteenth, but rather that\nbetween their first coming prominently into notice in the mountains\nof Vera Paz in the twelfth century, and the founding of their empire.\nAccording to this version, the annals of the whole preceding period are\nincluded by the author of the Popol Vuh in those of the migration to Mt\nHacavitz; Balam-Quitz\u00e9 and the other sacrificers were not their leaders\nwhen they left Tulan, but were given to them much later by their god\nTohil to guide the unfortunate people out of their difficulties; in\nfact, these sacrificers, so called, were Toltec chieftains who fled\nfrom An\u00e1huac at the fall of their empire, joined the partisans who\naccompanied their flight to the forces of the Quich\u00e9s, gathered the\nscattered tribes on the heights of Vera Paz, and were enabled after a\ncentury of contest--during which the Quich\u00e9s were regarded as a nation\nof brigands, much like the Aztecs at the same time, or a little later,\nabout the Mexican lakes--to subdue the surrounding nations, and thus\nbecome masters of Guatemala. There are probably no sufficient reasons\nto deny that the empire was founded in the twelfth or thirteenth\ncentury;--although it should be noted that this gives to the following\nkings down to the Conquest, as will be seen later, an average reign of\nonly twelve or fifteen years;--the Quich\u00e9s are known to have claimed\nrelationship with the Toltec sovereigns; and it is quite likely the\nexiled chiefs and priests of Tollan had an influence on the Quich\u00e9\ninstitutions; but that the Quich\u00e9 empire was thus founded by the Toltec\nexiles, there is, as I have repeatedly shown, every reason to deny.\n\n[Sidenote: EMBASSY TO AN\u00c1HUAC.]\n\nThe first tribes conquered by the followers of Tohil were five of\nthe thirteen Pokomam bands, which were forced to pay tribute. Ahcan\nwas now the high-priest and leader of the bands who were gathered\nabout Mt Hacavitz, and he was the great-grandson of Balam-Quitz\u00e9, and\nthe father of Qocaib and Qocavib, mentioned by the Popol Vuh as the\nfounders of the monarchy, and represented by that record as the sons of\nBalam-Quitz\u00e9. It was at his command, expressed just before his death,\nthat the three princes undertook a journey to the East, to obtain from\nthe great monarch of that region, the authority and insignia which\nshould render legitimate the power they were about to assume. Other\ndocuments differ from the Popol Vuh in stating that while one of the\nbrothers, Qocaib, thus visited the East, the other brother, Qocavib,\ndirected his course northward to An\u00e1huac to seek the royal investiture\nat the hands of the Toltec princes who had remained at Culhuacan.\nHe reached the valley, but such was the state of anarchy he found\nprevailing there, that he was forced to return without having attained\nhis object, and reached his home long before the return of his brother.\nHe even took advantage of Qocaib's absence to dishonor his wife, who\nbore him a son. Qocaib, when he came back from his successful mission\nand was congratulated by the assembled chieftains, saw the child in\nits mother's arms, and was not a little surprised at its existence,\nbut he seemed perfectly satisfied with the assurance of his wife that\nthe child was of his own blood, and taking it in his arms, he named\nit Balam Conache, who was the founder of the house of Conache and\nof Iztayul, and the first to bear the title of Ahpop Camha, or heir\napparent to the throne. It is not explained why the younger brother,\nunsuccessful in his mission, was allowed to become the head of the\ngovernment instead of the older and more successful Qocaib. A second\njourney to the East by the two princes is also recorded before their\nright to the throne was definitely established.\n\nThis subject of an eastern monarchy ruled by Nacxit is shrouded in\nimpenetrable mystery. Brasseur claims confidently that the kingdom\ncited was in Honduras with its capital probably at Copan, and ruled by\nAcxitl Quetzalcoatl, the last of the Toltec kings, or by his son; the\nsea alluded to as having been crossed in the journey, must then have\nbeen the gulf of Amatique or that of Dulce. The only authority that I\nknow of for this assumption is the vague report by Ixtlilxochitl that\nAcxitl went southward and established a great empire in Tlapallan,\nwhere he died in the twelfth century; and the slight resemblance in\nthe names Acxitl and Nacxit. I need not say that the authority is\naltogether insufficient, and that it is much safer to give the tale of\nthe mission to the East some mythologic meaning, or to admit that its\nmeaning like that of many of the traditions of this early period in\nGuatemalan history is wholly unknown.\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF QOCAVIB.]\n\nThe monarchy as thus first established seems to have included, besides\nthe Quich\u00e9s proper of the house of Cawek, the Cakchiquels, Rabinals,\nand Ah-Tziquinaha, as the principal Quich\u00e9 branches or allies. During\nthe reign of Qocavib, the territory of the kingdom was considerably\nextended by the conquest of large portions of Vera Paz, which were\ntaken from the Pokomams in the south. At the assault of Qoxbaholam, the\nstronghold of a powerful people called the Agaab, the prince of that\nnation is reported to have been captured, and to have made his nation\ntributary to the Quich\u00e9 king and worshipers of the Quich\u00e9 trinity,\nTohil, Avilix, and Hacavitz. This and succeeding events, down to the\nfoundation of Izmachi, already alluded to in the account from the\nPopol Vuh, I quote from the only writer who has had access to the other\nGuatemalan records.[XI-16]\n\n\"Already masters of Pachalum, and on the point of entering Zquina, the\nQuich\u00e9s found themselves checked by strong forces, when an unexpected\nally was offered them; this was Cotuha, prince of Cakulgi, hereditary\nguardian of the sacred stone of Tzutuha in the temple of Cahbaha, whom\nthey had just made a prisoner. Like a skillful politician, Qocavib\ntook advantage of this occurrence so providential for him. The annals\nreveal that in the midst of their conquests the Quich\u00e9s were divided by\nfamily rivalries; and it seems probable that Qocavib, whose name takes\nthe place of that of his older brother, had as enemies all the princes\nof the house of Ahcan, sprung from Qocaib. Placing little reliance\non the support of his relatives, he sought to strengthen himself by\nmaking allies among the conquered chiefs; and thus Cotuha having become\nhis captive, he offered him in the order of the Ahqib and Ahqahb the\nfourth rank, vacant at the time by the death of the incumbent who had\nno offspring; so that this prince was assured of eventually rising to\nthe command of the whole nation. Cotuha, proclaimed by the nobility,\nsoon proved his worthiness of that high honor. After having powerfully\naided the Quich\u00e9s in the conquest of Zquina, Bayal, Chamilah, Ginom,\nTocoy, and Patzima, returning to the Rio Chixoy with his new allies\nand subjects, he guided them by passes known only to himself to the\ncentre of the great city of Cawinal on the bank of the river, an event\nsoon followed by the submission of the whole Agaab nation, to which it\nbelonged. The Quich\u00e9 kings finding themselves pressed for room on Mount\nHacavitz, left this city for that of Cawinal, where they established\nthe seat of government. This was not, however, the permanent capital.\nAt the death of Qocavib, Balam Conache, his successor, crossed the\nriver southward, probably even before his coronation, and fixed his\nresidence at Izmachi; and there he had himself proclaimed Ahau Ahpop\nand consecrated with all the Toltec ceremonial, conferring the title of\nAhpop Camha on his son Iztayul.\"\n\n[Sidenote: MIGRATION FROM THE NORTH.]\n\nHere should be given such scattered items of information respecting\nthis primitive period of Guatemalan history, given by the same author\nin an earlier work,[XI-17] as are additional to or differ from those\nalready presented. The famous mythical queen Atit is said by Fuentes\nto have lived four centuries, and from her sprang all the royal and\nnoble families of Guatemala. The oldest nation, or tribe, in the\ncountry was that of Tamub, whose son Copichoch had come from the east\nwith Cochochlam, Mahquinalo, and Ahcanail, brought the black stone\nafterwards venerated at Utatlan, and reigned for a time at Tulan.\nThe tribe of Ilocab ruled after that of Tamub, or perhaps at the same\ntime, over the adjoining provinces. Brasseur seems here to favor the\nidea that the tribes of Tamub and Ilocab were the Nahuas who occupied\nGuatemala before the overthrow of Xibalba in the time of Xbalanque\nand Hunahpu, who refused to receive the former at his return from the\nconquest, yet among whom he introduced human sacrifice. A Zutugil\ndocument makes the Seven Caves an earlier station on the Quich\u00e9\nmigration than Tulan, and speaks of wars that drove the people from the\nlatter place into the mountains of Vera Paz. The worthy abb\u00e9 finds room\nin his capacious imagination for a theory that the Pokomams, Quich\u00e9s,\nCakchiquels, and other kindred peoples, originated in the regions north\nof Mexico, stayed a while with the Toltecs at Tollan, but not long\nenough to be influenced to any great extent by them, and then migrated\nto the Guatemalan highlands. It does not seem to occur to this author\nthat there are no arguments in favor of such a theory, that there is\nno necessity for such a conjecture, and that it disagrees radically\nwith nearly all that he ever wrote before or afterwards. The same\nwriter notes that the Pokomams were bitter foes of Acxitl, the last\nToltec king, while the other Quich\u00e9 tribes were friendly to him, and\nhe infers from Nu\u00f1ez de la Vega and other authorities that the kingdom\nof Xibalba was still existing, though with greatly diminished power,\nat the time when the Quich\u00e9 tribes came into notice in Guatemala and\nAcxitl established his southern empire. The Cakchiquels on their way\nare even said to have been employed to defend the Xibalban frontiers,\nand their chieftains, the Tukuches, took their name of Zotziles, or\nbats, from that of Tzinacantla, their residence at the time, which has\nthe meaning of 'city of bats.' In fact the tribes are here represented\nas having gathered in the Xibalban region before they mounted to their\nlater homes in the highlands.[XI-18]\n\nThe accounts of this gathering are chiefly from the Cakchiquel record.\nThe locality is called Deozacuancu, apparently in the tierra caliente\nof Tabasco; but war was declared against some neighboring power, and\nthe tribes went to Oloman--perhaps the Tepeu and Oliman, mentioned\nin a preceding chapter.[XI-19] The cities against which this expedition\nwas directed were Nonualcat and Xulpiti, the former suggesting the\nNonohualcas, whose home was in the Tabascan region. The leaders were\nthe Cakchiquel, or Zotzil-Tukuche, chiefs Hacavitz (Gagawitz) and\nZactecauh; the enemies were defeated in a battle fought chiefly on\nthe water; their cities were taken and their people massacred. But\neven while engaged in the massacre, their foes rallied, attacked them\nin the rear, and in their turn routed the Quich\u00e9 tribes with great\nslaughter, not without the aid of magic arts, as we are informed by\nthe record. The remnants of the vanquished were re-united on Mt Oloman,\nbut the influence of Hacavitz and Zactecauh was destroyed, the tribes\ncould be no longer kept together, and they resolved to separate and\neach for itself to seek the regions of the interior. No particulars\nare preserved of their wanderings, but Brasseur believes that the\nQuich\u00e9s proper were the first to reach the heights of Vera Paz, after\na generation at least had passed since they left the Xibalban region\nof Tabasco, and the sufferings from cold and the giving of fire by\nTohil, are by him applied to the period immediately following their\narrival. Then the other tribes arrived one by one and applied for fire,\nas has already been stated, their languages having become different\none from another during that interval. The envoy from Xibalba also\nappeared among them, a circumstance that indicates to Brasseur that the\nXibalban empire still existed in the eleventh or twelfth century; but\nwhich may, I think, be taken much more reasonably as a proof that these\nevents took place at a date as early as the fifth or sixth century. The\nCakchiquels were the last to arrive, and they stole the fire of Tohil\nwithout submitting to the required conditions, coming, as it is said,\nlike bats, another derivation of their name of Zotziles.\n\n[Sidenote: MAMES AND POKOMAMS.]\n\nThe Cakchiquels are said to have applied, on their arrival, the name\nMem, or as the Spaniards afterwards called it, Mames, or 'stutterers,'\nto the Maya-speaking aboriginal tribes whom they found in possession\nof the country, on account of their peculiar pronunciation, although\nthe Cakchiquel was also a Maya dialect. The Mames in later times\noccupied the north-western part of the country towards the Chiapan\nfrontiers, where they were never entirely conquered by the Quich\u00e9\nnations down to the time of the Conquest, their capital being Zakul\u00e9u,\nnear Huehuetenango.[XI-20] Besides the Mames, probably the most ancient of\nthe Guatemalan nations, the tribes of Tamub and Ilocab also occupied\nthe country before the later Quich\u00e9 tribes. According to Fuentes the\ncapital of the Tamub was Utatlan, or Gumarcaah, and it is stated that\nthe Ilocab were bitter enemies of the Quich\u00e9s, and were only conquered\nwhen nearly annihilated. The Pokomams and Pokonchis, kindred tribes or\ndivisions of the same tribe, are here estimated by Brasseur to have\narrived something more than a half century before the other Quich\u00e9\ntribes, and are said to have conquered or allied themselves with the\nUxab, elsewhere[XI-21] spoken of as a division of that tribe. Nothing is\nknown of Pokomam history, but some remains of their language and of\ntheir towns may yet be studied. These people, together with the Tamub\nand Ilocab, were perhaps the chief foes of the Quich\u00e9s in the earlier\ndays of their power.\n\nIn their wars against the Pokomams the Quich\u00e9 tribes made use of the\nancient chieftains who had been subjected by that people, among whom\nare mentioned Zakbim and Huntzuy on the Chiquimula frontier. The first\nbattle and the first Quich\u00e9 victory was in the valley of Rabinal and\nbrought into the possession of the Cakchiquels--for these events are\ntaken from the Cakchiquel record--the stronghold of Mount Zactzuy,\nand also made allies of Loch and Xet, chieftains of the Ahquehayi,\nwho afterwards became almost identical with the Cakchiquels. The\nnext point against which Hacavitz proceeded was Mount Cakhay; but the\nallied Quich\u00e9 forces were repulsed with great loss, and so weakened\nthat it was long before they were able again to attack the warlike\nPokomams. Then they retired from a hopeless contest, and took refuge\nin the inaccessible mountain fastnesses about Utatlan, now Santa Cruz\ndel Quich\u00e9 in the department of Totonicapan. The mountain where they\nestablished themselves is called in the Cakchiquel record Tohohil,\n'clashing of arms,' but in the Popol Vuh is known as we have seen as\nMount Hacavitz. All that is known of their stay at Mount Hacavitz, of\ntheir oppression by the neighboring tribes, their gradually increasing\npower, their final victory over those tribes, and the establishment of\nthe Quich\u00e9 monarchy with its capital at Izmachi, related by Brasseur in\nthe work from which the preceding notes have been extracted, is taken\nby him from the Popol Vuh, and is substantially the same that I have\nalready given on the same authority.\n\n[Sidenote: VERSION OF JUARROS.]\n\nTo conclude this primitive period of Guatemalan history, it only\nremains to present a few notes given on the subject by the Spanish\nwriters, chiefly by Juarros, who follows the manuscript writings of\nFuentes y Guzman, founded as is claimed on native documents, but full\nof inconsistencies, and doubtless also of errors. Juarros, or the\nauthority followed by him, was fully imbued with the belief that the\nQuich\u00e9s were the Toltecs who left An\u00e1huac after the fall of their\nempire, and his efforts to reconcile the native records to this theory\nperhaps account for many of his inconsistencies. I translate from this\nauthor that part of his work which relates to this primitive period.\n\"The Toltecs referred to were of the house of Israel, and the great\nprophet Moses freed them from the captivity in which they were held\nby Pharaoh; but, having passed the Red Sea, they gave themselves up\nto idolatry, and persisting in it notwithstanding the warnings of\nMoses, either to escape the chidings of this law-giver or for fear of\npunishment, they left him and their kindred and crossed the sea to a\nplace called the Seven Caves on the shores of the Mar Bermejo (Gulf of\nCalifornia) now a part of the Mexican kingdom,[XI-22] where they founded\nthe celebrated city of Tula. The first chief who ruled and conducted\nthis great band from one continent to the other, was Tamub, ancestor\nof the royal families of Tula and of Quich\u00e9, and first king of the\nToltecs. The second was Capichoch; the third Calel Ahus; the fourth\nAhpop; the fifth Nimaquich\u00e9,[XI-23] who, being the best beloved and most\ndistinguished of all, at the order of his oracle, led these people away\nfrom Tulan, where they had greatly increased in numbers, and guided\nthem from the Mexican kingdom to this of Guatemala. In this migration\nthey spent many years, suffered unspeakable hardships, and journeyed\nin their wanderings for many leagues over an immense tract of country,\nuntil, beholding a lake (that of Atitan), they determined to fix their\nhabitation at a certain place not far from the lake, which they named\nQuich\u00e9, in memory of the king Nimaquich\u00e9 (or, the 'great' Quich\u00e9), who\nhad died during their long wanderings. There came with Nimaquich\u00e9 three\nof his brothers, and by an agreement between the four they divided\nthe region; one founding the province, or seigniory, of the Quelenes\nand Chiapanecs; another the department of Tezulutan (Tezulutlan), or\nVera Paz; the third became the ruler of the Mames and Pokomams; while\nNimaquich\u00e9 was the father of the Quich\u00e9s, Cakchiquels, and Zutugils.\nThe latter having died on the journey, Acxopil, a son of Nimaquich\u00e9,\nentered Quich\u00e9 at the head of his nation, and was the first to reign\nat Utatlan. This prince, seeing the great increase of his monarchy in\nnumbers and influence, appointed three captains, or governors, with\nwhom he shared the burden of the administration of affairs. It is also\nadded in the manuscripts referred to, that Acxopil, at a very advanced\nage, determined to divide his empire into three kingdoms, that of the\nQuich\u00e9s, that of the Cakchiquels, and that of the Zutugils. Retaining\nfor himself the first, he gave the second to his oldest son, Jiutemal,\nand the third to his second son, Acxiquat; and this division was made\non a day when three suns were seen, which has caused some to think that\nit took place on the day of the birth of our Redeemer, a day on which\nit is commonly believed that such a meteor was observed.\"[XI-24]\n\n[Sidenote: PRIMITIVE QUICH\u00c9 PERIOD.]\n\nTorquemada[XI-25] briefly mentions a few of the points in early Quich\u00e9\nhistory, agreeing with Juarros. Orozco y Berra's reasoning from a\nlinguistic point of view respecting the primitive inhabitants of this\nregion, is not very clear, or at least it is difficult to determine\nwhat are his conclusions on the subject. In one place he says that\nUtatlan was founded at the time of the Toltec migration southward; and\nelsewhere, that the Toltecs could not have been the ancestors of the\nQuich\u00e9s, Cakchiquels, and Zutugils.[XI-26] Gallatin accepts the popular\ntheory that the Quich\u00e9s were a Toltec colony, but does not explain the\nlinguistic difficulties in the way of such a supposition.[XI-27] Waldeck\nrejects the Toltec theory on account of differences in language and\nphysique; but states that the Guatemalan tribes came originally from\nYucatan[XI-28].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have now given all the information accessible respecting Quich\u00e9\nhistory preceding the establishment of the empire, which began in the\ntwelfth or thirteenth century and endured with some modifications\ndown to the coming of the Spaniards. It has been presented in the\nform of fragments, for the reader will readily perceive that to form\nfrom the authorities a connected narrative would have been an utter\nimpossibility. I have in a preceding chapter presented the evidence\nof the existence during a few centuries before and after the beginning\nof the Christian era, of a great aboriginal empire in Central America,\nnarrating all that may be known of its decline and fall resulting from\nthe contentions of the great Maya and Nahua powers. In the sixteenth\ncentury the Spaniards found two powerful empires, the Aztec in the\nnorth, the Quich\u00e9 in the south, both of which doubtless were offshoots\nof the great primitive monarchy. The annals of the northern branch\nhave been traced more or less clearly back to the parent trunk, with\nonly a blank of one or two centuries at most, during which the Nahua\npower was transferred northward; but in the annals of the southern\nbranch, whose connection with the primitive empire was of precisely\nthe same nature, the blank is lengthened to some eight centuries at\nleast. From the Xibalban times and the tribal separation at Tulan down\nto the establishment of the Quich\u00e9 empire we have only the fragments\nof the preceding pages. These fragments represent the history of many\npeoples for many centuries; they are not necessarily contradictory,\nfor in the absence of all chronology we have no means of knowing to\nwhat epoch each refers. The apparent contradictions and inconsistencies\nresult for the most part from the efforts of authors through whose\nwritings the traditions are handed down to us to reconcile them with\nthe Toltec theory; to apply to one people the traditions of many,\nto a modern people the traditions of a remote antiquity; to compress\nthe events of eight or nine centuries into one. We shall still find\nthe Quich\u00e9 annals fragmentary and far from satisfactory, but from the\nfoundation of Izmachi I shall attempt to carry along the tale as told\nby the different authorities together. By far the most complete of\nthese are the Quich\u00e9 records as given in the Popol Vuh and that of the\nCakchiquels contained in Brasseur's works.\n\n[Sidenote: EARLY CAKCHIQUEL HISTORY.]\n\nI begin with the adventures of the Cakchiquels after the defeat of\nHacavitz and Zactecauh by the Pokomams, already mentioned.[XI-29] They\nseem not to have continued in the company with the Quich\u00e9s at Izmachi,\nbut to have retired to other localities in the country of the Mames\nsomewhat further west, among the Mames of Cholamag, as the record\nstates it. They found the people very friendly, but only remained\nlong enough among them to learn their language, which they found most\ndifficult. Leaving this place they approached the Valley of Panchoy, in\nthe region of the volcanos, and twice they penetrated the mountain of\nfire, Hunahpu, where a most wonderful and unintelligible interview with\nZakiqoxol, the phantom or guardian of the fiery abysses is related,\nall being possibly the account of a volcanic eruption. Having reached\nthe shores of Lake Atitlan the Cakchiquels wished to settle there\npermanently although the chief, Hacavitz, seems to have opposed the\nsettlement. Tolqom, a powerful chieftain and a most wonderful magician,\nlived on Mount Qakbatzulu, which extended like a promontory into the\nlake; but the bold Hacavitz took him prisoner and became master of\nhis domain. The Cakchiquels, or the Cakchiquel nobility, seem to have\nbeen divided in four families, the Zotzil-Tukuches, the Cibakihay,\nthe Baqahol, and the Gekaquchi. All united in giving to Hacavitz\nand Zactecauh, of the house of Zotzil-Tukuche, after the victory\nover Tolqom, the supreme power, the former having the first rank.\nThe conquered chieftain, Tolqom, was sacrificed at the coronation of\nHacavitz, in the midst of great festivities, and a part of his body was\nthrown from the summit of Qakbatzulu, his former home, into the waters\nof the lake. Many of the Cakchiquels decided to remain here and chose a\nsite which they named Chitulul; others built houses on a point called\nAbah, afterwards the site of the city of Atitlan. But Hacavitz was\nnot pleased, and a violent wind arose and an extraordinary white cloud\nhung over the surface of the lake; the new dwellings were destroyed and\ngreat damage was done. The Cakchiquels accepted this as a warning to\nobey the will of the gods, except the Ah-Tziquinihayi who decided to\nremain with the Zutugils.\n\nThe other tribes retired under their leaders into the mountains, and\nbecame much scattered. In passing a deep ravine Zactecauh missed his\nfooting and was dashed to death on the rocks below, the record hinting\nthat his colleague and superior was not wholly free from the suspicion\nof having caused his death. This suspicion destroyed much of the\nprestige of Hacavitz, but he regained it all and more by extinguishing\nthe fire of a volcano which by its lava and flames had hemmed in and\nthreatened with total destruction all his followers. Zakitzunun aided\nhim and was given the second place in the government. They then seem\nto have returned to the lake shores, conquering and making allies of\nseveral aboriginal tribes, including the people of Ikomag, with a lady\nof which people Hacavitz seems to have married. In the meantime the\nGekaquchi, the Cibakihay, and the Baqahol, three of the four principal\nCakchiquel families, had settled on the mountains in the region of\nIximch\u00e9, or Tecpan Guatemala, and the ambitious chief of the latter\nfamily had succeeded in obtaining the allegiance of his companions, who\ncrowned him as supreme king of the three bands.\n\nHacavitz was filled with wrath, but being unable to overthrow his\nrival, Baqahol, was obliged to be content with establishing himself\nand his own band of Zotziles on the shores of the lake, where their\ndwellings were erected and the Cakchiquel god, Chimalcan, had his\naltars. A little later Hacavitz is reported to have aided Baqahol in\novercoming certain foes that had attacked him, and as having received,\nat the end of the campaign, the voluntary allegiance of that chief,\nthus regaining the supreme power over the Cakchiquel tribes, whom he\nruled from his residence at a place known as Chigohom, where he seems\nto have settled after his new accession to power, somewhat away from\nthe shores of the lake. Here he died at a ripe old age, not long after\nhis wife gave birth to Caynoh and Caybatz, his successors in later\nyears.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF COTUHA AND IZTAYUL.]\n\nReturning to the Quich\u00e9 record as given in the Popol Vuh,[XI-30] we find\nnothing recorded of the reign of Balam Conache,[XI-31] son of Qocavib, in\nhis new capital of Izmachi. He was succeeded early in the thirteenth\ncentury, as it seems, by Cotuha, with Iztayul as Ahpop Camha, and\nunder this monarch many improvements were made in the city, including\nmany houses of stone and mortar and three royal palaces, one for the\nhouse of Cawek, one for the house of Niha\u00efb, and a third for the house\nof Ahau Quich\u00e9. \"Now all were of one heart in Izmachi; there were no\nenmities; there were no difficulties; the monarchy was in a state of\nrepose, without disputes or troubles; peace and felicity were in all\nhearts.\" But their power was yet confined to narrow limits; they had as\nyet achieved no great success. The Rabinals, the Cakchiquels, and the\nmingled Zutugils and Ah-Tziquinihayi of Atitlan are spoken of as being\nat this time allies and friends of the Quich\u00e9s; but the descendants\nof the ancient Ilocab were yet powerful, and became hostile, although\nhitherto represented as joined to the house of Cawek; their capital was\nbut a short distance from Izmachi. When Ilocab--the tribal name being\nused, as is often the case, for that of the ruling monarch--perceived\nthe prosperity of the Quich\u00e9s, \"war was kindled by Ilocab, who wished\nto kill this king Cotuha, his people being unwilling that there should\nbe any king but their own. And as to the king Iztayul, they desired\nto punish him also, to put him to death, in the cause of Ilocab. But\ntheir jealousy was not successful against the king Cotuha, who marched\nagainst them. Such was the origin of the revolt and of the war. At\nfirst they entered the city (Izmachi) by assault, spreading death\nin their way, for what they desired was the ruin of the Quich\u00e9 name,\nthat they alone might rule. But they came only to die; they were taken\ncaptives, and but few escaped. Then their sacrifices began; the people\nof Ilocab were immolated before the god, and that was the penalty of\ntheir crime, which was inflicted by the order of Cotuha. Many also were\nreduced to slavery, now that they had brought ruin upon themselves by\nkindling the flames of war against the king and against the city. What\nthey had desired was that the name of the Quich\u00e9s should be ruined\nand disgraced, but nothing could be done. Thus originated the usage of\nhuman sacrifices before the god at the declaration of war; and this was\nthe origin of the fortifications which they began to erect in Izmachi.\"\n\nAnother document[XI-32] is said to give some additional information\nrespecting the immediate cause of the war, which is reported to\nhave been connected in some way with Cotuha's marriage. He married\nHamai-Ule\u00fc, 'rose of the earth,' a daughter of one of the friendly\nZutugil princes whose territory was on Lake Atitlan, annexing that\nprince's domain to his own, and giving his father-in-law, Malah by\nname, high rank at the Quich\u00e9 court. The favor thus shown to Malah,\nwith other acts of like nature, seem to have excited the jealousy\nof other Zutugil lords, who at last marched against Cotuha and were\nutterly defeated. It was while Cotuha had this war on his hands that\nthe Ilocab engaged in the desperate effort above recorded to check\nthe Quich\u00e9 monarchs in their rapid progress to supreme power, and\nwere enabled, perhaps during the absence of Cotuha, to penetrate his\ncapital. After their final defeat, Uquincat, the Ilocab capital,\nwas taken and destroyed, and many other towns fell into Cotuha's\npossession.\n\n[Sidenote: TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL TO UTATLAN.]\n\nThe Quich\u00e9 record narrates no further historical events down to the\ntime when Izmachi was abandoned. It dwells, however, on the greatness\nof the kingdom after the overthrow of the Ilocab, and mentions the\npower and number of the surrounding princes yet unsubdued as the\nstrongest proof of Quich\u00e9 valor, since the new people even in the\nface of such environment had been able to establish and extend their\nmonarchy. After the immolation which followed the Ilocab's defeat,\nthe practice of human sacrifice was carried to such an extent that the\nsurrounding tribes were filled with terror at the number of captives\nslain by order of Cotuha and Iztayul. At this period the system of\ngovernment was perfected by measures, the exact nature of which is not\nclearly given, and magnificent festivities with complicated ceremonial\nrites were instituted. \"Long they remained in Izmachi, until they had\nfound and had seen another city, and had abandoned in its turn that\nof Izmachi. After that they departed and came to the capital called\nGumarcaah (Utatlan), which was so named by the Quich\u00e9s, when the\nkings Cotuha and Gucumatz came together with all the princes. They\nwere then in the fifth generation (of kings) from the commencement of\ncivilization and from the origin of their national existence.\"\n\nThe same document already referred to[XI-33] disagrees with the Quich\u00e9\nrecord respecting the peace and harmony that followed Cotuha's victory,\nwhile the people were yet at Izmachi. According to this authority\ndissensions arose between the heads of the government. Certain parties\ninterested in fomenting the dissatisfaction, constantly reminded\nambitious nobles that Cotuha was a foreigner,[XI-34] and Iztayul the\nson of a bastard, both occupying the places that belonged to more\nlegitimate princes. Then going to the Ahpop, Cotuha, they said, \"the\nAhpop Camha looks with scorn upon thee; he says thou art a miserable\nwretch, feeding only on the foam of the _chiquivin_ and other vile\nfood unworthy of a great king.\" Then to the Ahpop Camha, Iztayul, they\nsaid, \"the king Cotuha is filled with disdain for thee; to him thou\nart but a useless man, who livest upon dung and the eggs of flies and\nother insects, while his own table is always loaded with excellent\nfresh fish and other viands fit for a great prince.\" The perfidy of\nthese counselors was afterwards brought to light and they were driven\nin disgrace from the court after an attempt to assassinate Cotuha\nby suffocation in a steam bath. Yet the king afterwards, according\nto the same authority, fell a victim to another conspiracy. Iztayul\nsucceeded to the throne, with Gucumatz as Ahpop Camha, and continued\nthe conquests of his predecessor, but no details of his reign are given\nin the Quich\u00e9 record.\n\nIn the Cakchiquel annals,[XI-35] however, Brasseur relates certain\nevents which would seem to belong to the period of Iztayul's reign,\nalthough he is always called in the record of this nation, Tepeuh,\n'the dominator, or conqueror.' We left Caynoh and Caybatz, infant\nsons of the deceased Hacavitz, under the guardianship of Baqahol and\nGekaquch, who became practically monarchs of the whole nation, having\ntheir capitals on the mountain plateaux of Pantzic and Paraxone.[XI-36]\nThe Zotzil-Tukuche branch of the nation were naturally unwilling\nthat the sons of the great Hacavitz, the former head of their family,\nshould occupy a secondary rank, and they were not slow to urge Caynoh\nand Caybatz as soon as they reached a proper age to declare their\nindependence and resume their legitimate place at the head of the\nnation; but the aged chieftain Baqahol, who, it will be remembered, had\nbeen for a time supreme monarch, even before the death of Hacavitz,\nhaughtily refused to surrender his scepter; and the young princes\nmust perforce await a more favorable opportunity to assume their due\nposition. The Cakchiquels seem at this time to have been tributaries\nto the Quich\u00e9 throne, now occupied by Iztayul, or Tepeuh, of whom\nit is said, \"he was the first to reign with majesty; he dwelt in the\ncastle of Chixnal; his mysterious power spread abroad terror; he caused\nto tremble the place where he had his dwelling, and all people payed\ntribute before the face of Tepeuh.\"\n\n[Sidenote: THE STOLEN TRIBUTE.]\n\nThe two sons of Hacavitz were sent to present the Cakchiquel tribute\nand homage at the Quich\u00e9 court, where Iztayul received them with great\nkindness, giving them high rank and titles, and making them the royal\ntribute-gatherers of his empire. In this capacity they made a long\ntour through the Quich\u00e9 possessions, even penetrating the mysterious\nregion of the East, where the ancestors of the king had received\nthe investiture of their royalty. At last they came to Lake Atitlan,\nwhere the united Zutugils and Ah-Tziquinihayi were still living. These\nvassals paid their tributes to the envoys, but contrived a cunning plan\nto recover the treasure. Two beautiful princesses, Bubatzo and Icxiuh,\ndaughters of the ruling lords, were appointed to wait upon the royal\ntax-collectors. Caynoh and Caybatz were not proof against their charms,\nand the maidens, following the parental commands, allowed themselves to\nbe easily won; but they managed in the night to escape from the couches\nof their royal lovers and to steal back all the gold and silver which\nhad been paid as tribute. The princes complained bitterly when they\ndiscovered their loss, but as a compensation they received Bubatzo and\nIcxiuh for wives, with the promise of an honorable position at Atitlan,\nin case of Iztayul's displeasure. On their way back to Izmachi with\ntheir wives, however, the prospective anger of Tepeuh so overcome them\nthat they hid themselves in a cave for a long time; but at last the\nQuich\u00e9 king not only pardoned them for the affair of the lost tribute\nand for their marriage, but enabled them to overcome and put to death\nBaqahol and Gekaquch, and reseated them on the Cakchiquel throne as\ntributary monarchs on favorable terms to the imperial crown of Izmachi.\nCaynoh was made Ahpop Xahil, and Caybatz Ahpop Qamahay, corresponding\nexactly with the Quich\u00e9 royal titles of Ahpop and Ahpop Camha.\n\nGucumatz mounted the throne at Izmachi on the death of Iztayul, and\nCotuha II. became Ahpop Camha. This king began to reign probably\ntowards the middle of the thirteenth century.[XI-37] Internal dissensions\nbetween the rival families of the Quich\u00e9 nobility are vaguely alluded\nto in the records, but not with sufficient details to enable us to\ndetermine how they influenced Gucumatz to abandon Izmachi in favor\nof a new capital. He selected for this purpose the ancient Utatlan,\nsituated on a plateau not far distant, which had probably long been in\nruins.[XI-38]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE.]\n\nIt is now time to return to Juarros' version of Quich\u00e9 history during\nthe reigns of the first kings, although there is little hope of\nconnecting it at any point with the versions already presented. Nima\nQuich\u00e9, who directed the people in their migration to these Guatemalan\nregions, ceded to his brother the command of the Mames and Pokomams,\nand at his death left his son Acxopal, or Acxopil, king of the Quich\u00e9\ntribes. This monarch, either by the increase of his people or by his\nconquests among the aboriginal tribes soon found himself master of the\nprovinces now called Solol\u00e1, Chimaltenango, and Sacatepeques, with\na part of Quezaltenango and Totonicapan. In his old age his empire\nseemed to him too vast and the duties of government too burdensome for\nhis failing strength. He consequently divided his empire into three\ndomains, keeping for himself that of the Quich\u00e9s, giving that of the\nCakchiquels to his oldest son Xiuhtemal, or Jiutemal, and that of the\nZutugils to his second son Acxoquauh, or Acxiquat; the brother who\nruled over the Mames and Pokomams is not named here. The bounds given\nby Juarros to the three kingdoms of the empire are substantially the\nsame as those of the peoples speaking the same languages at the time\nof the Conquest, and were doubtless ascertained from the condition of\naffairs in the sixteenth century rather than from ancient records or\ntraditions.\n\nAfter the division it was not long before ambition began to produce\nwhat Juarros terms its usual results. Acxoquauh, king of the Zutugils,\nfound his domain too small and wished to extend its limits to the\ndetriment of his brother, Xiuhtemal. With this intent he marched at\nthe head of a large army to the Cakchiquel frontiers, but was forced\nto retire to his fortified stronghold on Lake Atitlan, where the\ncontest raged for many days until a truce was brought about by the aged\nAcxopal. Xiuhtemal took advantage of the peace to fortify his capital\nat Tecpan Guatemala, but during the extreme old age of his father\nhe was called to direct affairs at the Quich\u00e9 capital, and succeeded\nto the imperial throne at his father's death, putting his own eldest\nson on the Cakchiquel throne. Still fearful of his brother, his first\ncare was to fortify the Quich\u00e9 capital,--which Juarros represents as\nhaving been Utatlan from the first--building, among other extensive\nworks, the castle of Resguardo.[XI-39] His precautions seem not to have\nbeen unnecessary, for Acxoquauh soon recommenced the war, fighting\nparticularly for the possession of the whole territory about the\nlake, which seems to have been in some way divided between the three\nmonarchs. The war continued, with but brief intervals, throughout the\nreign of Xiuhtemal and during a part of that of Hunahpu, his son, who\nsucceeded him. Nothing further is recorded of Hunahpu's reign, save\nthat he distinguished himself by introducing the cultivation of cacao\nand cotton.[XI-40]\n\nExcept in the general statement that the Quich\u00e9, Cakchiquel, and\nZutugil kingdoms formed a kind of alliance at this early period, a\nconclusion to which the other records have also led us, the version\ngiven by Juarros, from Fuentes, has apparently nothing in common with\nthe others; and I shall not attempt to conjecture what may have been\nthe source whence the names of kings given by these authors were\nderived. There is no room for hesitation in deciding which records\nare the more reliable. Brasseur in one place, after narrating the\nfoundation of Izmachi, suddenly declares that with Qocavib and Nima\nQuich\u00e9 the symbolic recitals cease and history begins, and then goes\non for a few pages with an account of Acxopal and his division of\nthe empire between his two sons, apparently accepting the version of\nJuarros, except in the name of the capital at the foundation of the\nempire. But shortly after, he abandons this for the other version, as\nfollows: \"The first king of Toltec race who appears after Acxopal is\nXiuhtemal, who in his turn seems to have placed his son on the throne\nof Quauhtemalan, (Tecpan Guatemala, the Cakchiquel capital). According\nto more authentic documents, it is Balam II. of the house of Cawek,\nwho succeeds Qocavib. Except the struggles mentioned by Fuentes, we\nfind nothing about this prince or his predecessor, after the foundation\nof Izmachi,\" etc. Thus he implies that Qocavib was identical with\nAcxopal, and Balam Conache with Xiuhtemal. We hear no more of the\nnames given by Juarros until we have the statement by the same author\nrespecting Hunahpu that \"everything favors the opinion that he is the\nsame who reigned under the glorious name of Gucumatz,\" without any\nattempt to account for the intermediate kings of the Quich\u00e9s, Cotuha\nand Iztayul. Consequently as I am inclined to suspect, \"everything\nfavors the opinion\" that the worthy abb\u00e9 has introduced the names\nAcxopal, Xiuhtemal, and Acxoquauh, from Fuentes solely because they are\napparently Nahua names and therefore may add some force to his Toltec\ntheory, and has then got rid of them as expeditiously as possible.[XI-41]\n\n[Sidenote: GUCUMATZ AT UTATLAN.]\n\nThe first care of Gucumatz was to restore the ancient buildings of\nUtatlan and to add to the city's old-time splendor by the erection of\nnew and magnificent temples in honor of the gods. \"There they built\ntheir houses in great numbers, and there also they built the house of\nthe god in the centre of the city at the most elevated point, where\nthey placed it when they came to establish themselves in that place.\nThen their empire was much enlarged, and when their numbers were\nalready considerable, their great families took counsel together, and\nwere subdivided.\" When the quarrels which had formerly threatened their\nempire were at last terminated \"they carried into effect what had been\nresolved upon, and the royalty was divided among twenty-four grand\nhouses or families.\" \"There they increased in greatness, having thus\ngloriously united their thrones and their principalities; the titles\nof all their honors having been distributed among the princes, there\nwere formed nine families with the nine princes of Cawek, nine with the\nprinces of Niha\u00efb, four with the princes of Ahau Quich\u00e9, and two with\nthe lords of Zakik. They became very numerous, and numerous were those\nthat followed each of the princes; they were the first at the head\nof their vassals, and many families belonged to each of the princes.\nWe shall now tell the titles of these princes and of each of the\ngreat houses.\" Then follows a list of titles, substantially the same\nthat I have given in a preceding volume, when treating of the Quich\u00e9\ngovernmental system.[XI-42]\n\n\"Thus were completed the twenty-four princes and the twenty-four great\nhouses; then was multiplied the power and majesty in Quich\u00e9; then was\nstrengthened and extended its grandeur, when the city and its ravines\nwere built up with stone and mortar and covered with cement. Both great\nand little nations came under the power of the king, contributing\nto the Quich\u00e9 glory; power and majesty sprang up, and the house of\nthe god was built as well as the houses of the princes. But it was\nnot they who built them; they did no work, neither constructing the\ntemple of their god, nor their own buildings, for all was done by\ntheir vassals, whose numbers were multiplied. It was not by stratagem\nnor by force that these vassals were brought in; for truly each one\nbelonged to some one of the princes, and great was the number of their\nbrothers and relatives who gathered to hear what the princes commanded.\nTruly were they loved and esteemed, and great was the glory of the\nprinces. Veneration kept pace with their renown, and with the lords\nwere multiplied the dwellers in the ravines round about the city. Thus\nnearly all the nations surrendered themselves, not through war and\nforce directed against them in their ravines and cities, but by reason\nof the marvels wrought by their kings, Gucumatz and Cotuha.\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF GUCUMATZ.]\n\nVerily, this Gucumatz became a most marvelous king. In seven days he\nmounted to the skies--ascended the mountain heights--and in seven days\nhe descended to the region of Xibalba.[XI-43] In seven days he took upon\nhimself the nature and form of a serpent, and again of an eagle, and\nof a tiger; and in seven days he changed himself into coagulated blood.\nTruly the existence of this wonderful prince filled with terror all the\nlords that came before him. The knowledge thereof was spread abroad;\nall the nations heard of this prodigious king. And this was the origin\nof the Quich\u00e9 grandeur, when the king Gucumatz wrought these signs of\nhis power. The remembrance of his grandsons and sons was not lost--or,\nas Ximenez renders it, he did not lack descendants, both sons and\ngrandsons. He had not done these things merely that there might be a\nroyal worker of miracles, but as a means of ruling all nations, and of\nshowing himself to be the only chief of the peoples. This prodigious\nking Gucumatz was of the fourth[XI-44] generation of kings, Ahpop and\nAhpop Camha. He left descendants who also reigned with majesty and\nbegat children who did many things. Thus were begotten Tepepul and\nIztayul, whose reign made the fifth generation. They were kings, and\neach generation of these princes begat sons.\"[XI-45]\n\nIt is seen by the preceding account of Gucumatz' reign that this\nking fully accomplished his object in transferring the capital to\nUtatlan. By removing his court to this ancient city he aroused the\npride of all the tribes of Quich\u00e9 race, and revived their traditional\nrecollections of a glorious past; by restoring the ancient temples and\nby erecting new ones he enlisted the religious enthusiasm of the whole\ncountry in his favor. The universal interest in the new enterprise\ncaused the former dissensions between rival nobles to be for a time\nforgotten. All these circumstances combined to create for Gucumatz\na higher degree of popularity than he had ever before enjoyed; and\nwhen he felt sufficiently strong with the people, he still further\nfortified his position by a partial reconstruction of his empire.\nBy the establishment of twenty-four houses of nobility he not only\nmade partisans of those who were the recipients of new honors, but\neffectually checked the ambition of the leading nobles, whose quarrels\nhad at one time threatened his sovereignty. Two of the new dignities\nwere given to the family of Zakik, to which belonged the priest of\nthe ancient temple of Cahbaha at Utatlan; and he gave the titles\nAhau-Ah-Tohil and Ahau-Ah-Gucumatz, or high-priests of Tohil and\nQuetzalcoatl, to members of his own family, thus firmly attaching the\npriesthood to his own interests. Each of the newly created princes was\nrequired to have a palace in the capital and to reside there during\na certain part of each year; in fact the policy pursued by Gucumatz\nresembles in many points that which we have seen pursued by the\nChichimec emperor Techotl in An\u00e1huac as noted in a preceding chapter.\nThere are no data from which to determine the extent of Gucumatz'\ndomain; the descent to Xibalba may indicate that the Palenque region\nwas subjected to his power, or simply that he was wont to spend in the\ntierra caliente a portion of each year. Brasseur believes that from\nthis period the Ahpop Camha of the Quich\u00e9s spent his time chiefly in\nthe Zutugil capital at Atitlan.[XI-46]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: CAKCHIQUEL HISTORY.]\n\nAfter the death of Gucumatz, Cotuha II., already holding the second\nrank of Ahpop Camha, mounted the throne. He was in his turn succeeded\nby Tepepul, and he by Iztayul II. with Quicab, or Kicab, as Ahpop\nCamha. Respecting the reigns of these three monarchs, the Popol Vuh\ngives no details whatever; and but very little can be learned from\nother records. The three reigns may, however, be supposed to have\nextended to about the end of the fourteenth century, a century which\nis thus almost a blank in the annals of the empire. One document[XI-47]\ninforms us that the first of the three kings, Cotuha II., was\ntreacherously put to death by the lords of Qoha\u00efl and Ulaha\u00efl, who\ndrew him into an ambush, but his sons Quicab and Cavizimah, afterwards\nkings, avenged his murder by seizing and putting to death thirteen of\nthe supposed guilty parties.\n\nThe Cakchiquel record[XI-48] mentions the third of the Quich\u00e9 monarchs,\nIztayul II., under the name of Xitayul-Hax. Caynoh, whom we left on\nthe Cakchiquel throne,[XI-49] had been succeeded by his son Citan-Qatu, a\nvaliant and wise ruler who, under the sovereignty of the Quich\u00e9 emperor\nat Utatlan, had considerably extended the power of his people. At his\ndeath he was followed by his son Qotbalcan, 'the coiled serpent,'\nand under his rule the subordinate chieftains took advantage of\nhis good nature or want of ability, to reclaim their independence.\nThe descendants of the princes Baqahol and Gekaquch, who had caused\nHacavitz so much trouble in former years, were the first to inaugurate\nthis revolt, which the other tribes were not slow to join, and thus the\nnation was again split up practically into scattered tribes, the king\nhaving little, if any, more authority than the other chieftains. The\nsame condition of affairs continued during the reign of this king's\nson and grandson, Alinam and Xttamer-Zaquentol; the tribe under the\nroyal command, after wandering for a long time, having finally settled\nnear the kindred tribe of the Akahales, at the towns of Zakiqahol and\nNimcakahpec. The great grandson of Qotbalcan, Chiyoc Queh, succeeded in\nagain uniting under his rule most of the Cakchiquel tribes, and having\nfounded the capital of Chiawar, somewhat further west than the old\ncapital Tecpan Guatemala, and given the second rank of Ahpop Qamahay\nto his brother Ttattah-Akbal, he was laboring most strenuously to raise\nhis nation to her old position at the time when the record mentions the\ndeath of Iztayul II., or Xitayul-Hax, and the accession of Quicab.\n\n[Sidenote: WAR BETWEEN QUICH\u00c9S AND ZUTUGILS.]\n\nI must now return to the version presented by Fuentes and Juarros, for\nthis version agrees with the others respecting the name of the next\nking, Quicab, and hence it may be inferred that the period between the\nreigns of Hunahpu and Kicab, is identical with that between Gucumatz\nand Quicab. The kings that Juarros puts on the throne during this\nperiod were Balam Kich\u00e9, Balam Acam, Maucotah, and Iquibalam, names\nwhich are evidently identical with the four high-priests or sacrificers\nof a much earlier period. It seems probable that the authors cited\nfound these names in the aboriginal records, and could make no better\nplace for them than in the list of kings. The events referred to in\nthese reigns are as follows:--Balam Kich\u00e9 did nothing worthy of record.\nBalam Acam, his successor, was a most kind-hearted prince, and had\ngreat confidence in his cousin, the king of the Zutugils at Atitlan.\nBut the latter abused this confidence by stealing the king's daughter\nfrom the royal palace in Utatlan; and Ilocab, a near relative of the\nZutugil monarch--called Zutugilebpop by Juarros, evidently a title\nrather than a name--at about the same time abducted a niece of Balam\nAcam. These abductions caused a war which, as we are told, lasted with\nlittle intermission down to the coming of the Spaniards. The Quich\u00e9\narmy under the king and Maucotah his chief general, marched on Atitlan,\ntaking several strong towns on the way, and \"the most terrible battle\nthese countries had ever known\" was fought against the Zutugil and\nAh-Tziquinihayi forces under Ilocab. In this battle Ilocab was slain\nand the Quich\u00e9s victorious. The campaign was continued, the Zutugils\nbeing aided by many allies, including the Pipiles of Salvador, while\nthe Quich\u00e9s were reinforced by the Cakchiquels and forces from Vera\nPaz. In a later battle the loss on both sides amounted to fourteen\nthousand, and among the slain was Balam Acam, who is blamed by Juarros\nfor plunging the country in war for so slight a cause, since the\npurpose of the abduction was honorable marriage. Long wars between the\nCakchiquels and Pipiles,[XI-50] as well as between the Quich\u00e9s and Mames,\nresulted from Balam's attempt at vengeance.\n\nMaucotah was named as the successor of Balam Acam, while yet in the\nfield. Zutugilebpop, flushed with victory, besieged Xelahuh, one of\nthe Quich\u00e9 strongholds, but the fortune of war seems to have changed\nwith the change of rulers, for the Zutugils were defeated both before\nXelahuh and in their own territory about the lake, and their king\ndied of grief and disappointment soon after, leaving his throne to\nRumal-Ahaus, a young man of nineteen years. This young king continued\nthe war, but was unable to retrieve the ill-fortunes of his people. In\na battle fought soon after his accession, he had a personal combat with\nMaucotah, in which he was wounded, and forced to retreat, the Quich\u00e9\nking remaining in possession of the towns that his predecessor had\nconquered. Maucotah died soon after his victory, and was succeeded by\nIquibalam, who marched with two hundred thousand men into the Zutugil\nstates, determined to put an end to the resistance of the valiant\nRumal-Ahaus, who had recovered from the effects of his wound. He\ncaptured many towns, particularly in the territory of the Pipiles and\nabout Zapotitlan, but he also met with severe losses, and seems not to\nhave gained any permanent advantage over the Zutugils. He died during\nthe campaign, and was succeeded by Kicab, or Quicab, and Rumal-Ahaus\nwas succeeded on the throne of Atitlan at about the same time by\nChichiahtul\u00fa.[XI-51]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe reign of Quicab is briefly disposed of by Juarros as follows:\n\"He ascended the throne at a mature age, and with much experience in\nmilitary and political affairs. Chichiahtul\u00fa, who, with the rank of\nLieutenant General, had gained great advantages over the Quich\u00e9s in the\nmemorable campaign of Pinar (the one last referred to), having grasped\nthe Zutugil sceptre, besieged the famous stronghold of Totonicapan.\nKing Kicab not only opposed the movements of Chichiahtul\u00fa with a\nformidable army, but enlisting sixty thousand soldiers, he attacked\nwith them many cities and towns of the Pipiles and Zutugils, among them\nPatulul; and although the governors of these places made great efforts\nto defend them, they were unable to resist the superior numbers of\nthe Quich\u00e9s. Chichiahtul\u00fa, seeing that his best possessions were being\nlost, hastened by forced marches to defend them, abandoning the siege\nof Totonicapan; but being taken grievously ill on account of his haste\nin that march, he died within a few days, greatly to the sorrow of his\npeople. Still his army did not suspend their march, being commanded\nby the Lieutenant General Manilahuh, until they arrived within sight\nof the Quich\u00e9 camp. The fury with which the attack was made on both\nsides is unspeakable; but the column of King Kicab on account of being\nclose and double, being harder to break than the feeble and extended\nlines of Manilahuh, the latter were broken and scattered in less than\nan hour, the commander and many Atitlan chiefs being left on the field\nof battle, while the Quich\u00e9s, chanting victory, returned to Utatlan.\nWe do not know in detail the events under the seven monarchs of Quich\u00e9\nwho succeeded Kicab I.; but it is certain that these two kingdoms were\nnever for a long time at peace.\"[XI-52]\n\n[Sidenote: REIGN OF QUICAB I.]\n\nNow comes the version of Quicab's reign given by the Popol Vuh, which\ndocument carries the Quich\u00e9 history no farther, save a mere list of\nmonarchs already mentioned. \"Behold now the names of the sixth royal\ngeneration,[XI-53] of the two great kings Quicab, the name of the first\nking, and Cavizimah, name of the second (Ahpop Camha). And behold\nthe great deed that Quicab and Cavizimah did, and how Quich\u00e9 was\nmade famous by reason of their really marvelous condition. Behold the\nconquest and destruction of the ravines and cities of the nations great\nand small, all very near, including the city of the Cakchiquels, that\nnow called Chuvila (Chichicastenango), as also those in the mountains\nof the Rabinals, that of Pamaca (Zacualpa), in the mountains of\nCaokeb, that of Zacabaha (San Andres), Zakuleu, Chuvi-Mugina, Xelahuh,\nChuva-Tzak (Momostenango), and Tzolohche (Chiquimula). These abhorred\nQuicab, but truly he made war upon them and conquered and ruined the\nravines and the cities of the Rabinals, of the Cakchiquels, and of the\npeople of Zakuleu. He conquered all the tribes and carried his arms\nafar. One or two nations not having brought their tribute he entered\ntheir towns that they might bring their tribute before Quicab and\nCavizimah. They were reduced to servitude; they were tortured and their\npeople tied to trees and pierced with arrows; there was for them no\nmore glory nor honor. Such was the ruin of these towns, destroyed from\nthe face of the earth; like the lightning which strikes and breaks the\nstone, thus by terror he blotted out the nations.\"\n\n\"Before Colche, as a signal of its conquest, there stands to-day a\nmonument of rock, as if he had formed it with his axe; this is on the\ncoast called Petatayub, where it is still visible, so that everybody\nlooks upon it as a sign of Quicab's valor. He could not be killed or\nconquered; verily he was a hero, and all nations brought to him their\ntribute. Then, all the princes having taken counsel, they went away\nto fortify the ravines and the towns, having taken possession of the\ntowns of all nations. Then sentinels (spies) were dispatched to observe\nthe enemy, and new tribes (or colonies) were formed to dwell in the\nconquered countries.\" Then follows with frequent repetitions an account\nof these colonies, their departure for their posts, their victories,\nand a list of cities occupied by them, including most of the names\nalready mentioned. \"Everywhere they waged war, taking continually new\ncaptives; they became in their turn heroes, they who had been guards\nof frontier posts; they became strong in their language as in their\nthoughts before the kings when they brought in their prisoners and\ncaptives.\"\n\n\"Then assembled the council at the order of the kings, of the Ahpop\nand the Ahpop Camha, of the Galel, and of the Ahtzic Winak; and it was\ndecided that, whatever might happen, they should remain at the head,\nfor their dignities were there to represent their family. 'I am the\nAhpop, I am the Ahpop Camha, Ahpop to hold my rank like thine, O Ahau\nGalel.' As to the Galels, their nobility shall be, replied all the\nlords forming a decision. Likewise did those of Tamub and Ilocab; equal\nwas the condition of the three races of Quich\u00e9, when the chiefs of the\npeople set themselves up against the kings and assumed nobility. Such\nwas the result of this assembly, but it was not there in Quich\u00e9 that\nthe power was seized. The name of the place exists where the vassal\nchiefs took possession of the power, for although they had been sent\neach to a different place, all afterwards assembled together.\n\n[Sidenote: REVOLT OF THE PLEBEIANS.]\n\nXebalax and Xecamac are the names of the place where they took\npossession of the power, at the time when they assembled their\nrank, and that took place at Chulimal. Behold the nomination, the\ninstallation, and the recognition of the twenty Galels, and the\ntwenty Ahpops who were installed by the Ahpop and the Ahpop Camha,\nby the Galel and the Ahtzic Winak. All the Galel-Ahpops entered into\ntheir rank, eleven Nim-Chocoh, Galel-Ahpop, Galel-Zakik, Galel-Achih,\nRahpop-Ahih, Rahtzalam-Achih, Utzam-Achih, titles of the warriors which\nthey obtained when they were nominated and titled on their thrones and\non their principalities, they who were the chiefs of the vassals of\nthe Quich\u00e9 nation, its sentinels and spies, its chiefs of the lances\nand chiefs of the slings, the ramparts, the walls, and the towers\nwhich defended Quich\u00e9. Thus also did the people of Tamub and Ilocab,\nthe chiefs of the people in each locality having seized the power and\ncaused themselves to be titled. Such was the origin of the Galel-Ahpops\nand of the titles that now exist in each of these places; such was\ntheir source, when they sprang up at the hands of the Ahpop and the\nAhpop Camha, as also of the Galel and of the Ahtzic Winak, from whom\nthey derived their existence.\"[XI-54]\n\nFrom the preceding narrative we learn that Quicab by his skill in war\nand the valor of his armies extended the imperial Quich\u00e9 power far\nbeyond its former limits, subjecting to the monarch of Utatlan nearly\nthe whole of Guatemala; and also that later in his reign he was forced\nby a combination of his vassal chieftains, to whom military power had\nbeen entrusted during his conquests, to reorganize his government, and\nto bestow on these chieftains of the people nobility, and practically\nthe control of the empire. With this political revolution the record\nas presented by the Popol Vuh ceases, the remainder of the document\nbeing devoted to a description of Quich\u00e9 institutions already given\nin another volume of this work. Whether a portion of the original work\nhas been lost, or the Quich\u00e9 history was deemed by the author to have\nceased with the humiliation of the ancient nobility by their forced\nassociation with plebeian chiefs, it is impossible to determine.\nXimenez in his account of the Quich\u00e9 kings devotes five lines to\nQuicab and Cavizimah, whom, however, he unites in one person.[XI-55]\nFor additional details of Quicab's reign and the political changes\nwhich marked it, as well as for all subsequent Guatemalan history,\nwe have only the Cakchiquel record,[XI-56] with slight information from\nother documents, as presented in the history of Brasseur de Bourbourg,\ntogether with the work of Juarros, whose version of Quicab's reign has\nalready been presented.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: TYRANNY OF QUICAB I.]\n\nWe left Chiyoc Queh, the Cakchiquel monarch, endeavoring to restore the\nformer glory of his nation by re-uniting its scattered tribes under one\nhead. The Zotzil-Tukuches were the only tribe that refused to recognize\nhis royal authority, and at last the Cakchiquel monarch applied to the\nQuich\u00e9 king for aid. Quicab and Cavizimah had just succeeded to the\nthrone of Utatlan, probably early in the fifteenth century. They sent\nan army and routed the Zotziles, plundering and burning their towns and\nputting the inhabitants to death without mercy. They did not stop here,\nhowever, but forced Xiquitzal and Rahamun, who succeeded Chiyoc Queh on\nthe Cakchiquel throne, to give up their sovereign rights and submit to\nbecome vassal lords, such of the people as resisted being massacred,\nsacrificed, or sold as slaves. The Mames met with the same treatment,\ntheir strongest towns including Zakuleu and Xelahuh (Huehuetenango and\nQuezaltenango) being forced to yield to the armies of Utatlan. Then the\nRabinals and Pokomams were conquered, and no power was left that could\nmake any resistance. Quicab claimed to be absolute monarch of the whole\nGuatemalan country; he admitted no allied kings paying homage and a\nnominal tribute as they had done under the reign of his predecessors,\nbut reduced all rulers to the condition of royal governors entirely\nsubject to his command. Few kings would submit to such conditions and\nmost were consequently removed to make room for governors appointed by\nthe Quich\u00e9 emperor. In his efforts to subordinate all rank and power to\nhis own personal sovereignty, he naturally arrayed the nobility of even\nthe Quich\u00e9 royal families against himself, and the means adopted to\nhumble the ancient aristocracy were the appointment to high positions\nin the army of plebeian officers distinguished for their valor, and the\nhumiliation of the noble officers on every possible occasion. The new\nchieftains were called Achihab, and so numerous did they become and so\nhighly were they favored and stimulated against the nobles, that they\nsoon possessed, and fully realized their possession of, the controlling\npower in the empire. In his efforts to humiliate one class, Quicab had\ncreated another which he could not control by force and which he had\nzealously educated to disregard all authority based on noble birth.\n\nThe Achihab, no longer content with military rank, aspired to the\nhigher dignities of the court; the people were naturally enthusiastic\nin favor of their chiefs and were by them encouraged to question the\nauthority of their king over them. Soon a deputation was sent to the\ncourt to demand certain reforms in favor of the people, including\nan abolition of personal service and labor on the highways. Quicab\nscornfully refused the petition of the popular chiefs, and his court\nwas soon abandoned by the Achihab as it had long been by most of the\nnobles. Two of his sons, Tatayac and Ahytza, joined the Achihab in the\nrevolt, promising them all the property and titles of the nobility\nin case of success, and being promised in turn the inheritance of\nthe throne with the palaces, slaves, and wealth pertaining thereto.\nQuicab, in his extremity, applied for aid to the very nobility he had\nso oppressed, and seems to have received their zealous support, for\nnotwithstanding the treatment they had suffered at the hands of the\nmonarch, they saw plainly that with the success of the rebels all their\nprestige would be entirely destroyed. By the advice of the assembled\nnobles the leaders of the Achihab, including those who had composed the\ndeputation demanding reforms, were seized and put to death. This caused\nan immediate rising of the people, who, incited by their chiefs, and by\nthe descendants of the Tamub and Ilocab, invaded Utatlan, pillaged the\nroyal palaces, and almost annihilated by massacre the ancient nobility.\nThe king happened to be in a neighboring town at the time, and his life\nwas spared at the intercession of his sons; but he was kept a prisoner\nwhile the rebel chieftains assembled in council as already narrated in\nthe Popol Vuh, to reconstruct the monarchy and to choose from their own\nnumber the many lords that have been mentioned. At the close of their\ndeliberations the king and the surviving nobles of the royal families\nwere obliged to ratify the appointments at Chuliman, where the new\nlords were installed with great ceremony. The Ahpop and Ahpop Camha,\nseem, however, to have been left nominally in possession of their royal\nrank, although the power was practically taken from them.\n\n[Sidenote: WAR WITH THE CAKCHIQUELS.]\n\nA quarrel broke out between the Quich\u00e9s and the Cakchiquels residing\nin or near Utatlan, and the chiefs of the latter, Vucubatz and Huntoh,\nalthough particular friends of Quicab, were forced to flee from the\ncity to avoid death at the hands of the Achihab. During their flight,\nhowever, accompanied by a large band of followers, they committed\ngreat ravages in the Quich\u00e9 lands until they arrived at the Cakchiquel\ncapital of Tecpan Quauhtemalan, or Iximch\u00e9. On their arrival they\nassembled the nobles, and every preparation was made to resist the\nQuich\u00e9s, who, it was thought, would not long delay an attack. The\nCakchiquels determined to shake off the Quich\u00e9 yoke; Vucubatz and\nHuntoh were raised to the throne, with the titles of Ahpozotzil and\nAhpoxahil, borne by their successors down to the Conquest. The war\nbegan by the defeat of a Quich\u00e9 army sent to punish the Cakchiquels for\ntheir warlike demonstrations. Other nations were ready to follow the\nexample of the Cakchiquels; the Zotziles, Tzendales, Quelenes, Mames,\nRabinals, Zutugils, and Ah-Tziquinihayi declared their independence,\nand many of these peoples not only threw off their allegiance to\nQuicab, but were further divided into independent bands or cities.\n\nThe Cakchiquel monarchy soon extended over nearly all of Guatemala\nsouth of Lake Atitlan and of the Rio Motagua, including many Pokomam\ndistricts, thus not only becoming independent of the crown of Utatlan,\nbut also acquiring for itself the balance of power in the whole\ncountry, so long held by the Quich\u00e9s. Quicab, now the mere tool of\nthe Achihab, made little or no resistance, and was forced to see his\nnation reduced to a secondary position, her territory being constantly\ndiminished by the revolt of new provinces and cities. It is said,\nhowever, by the author of the Cakchiquel document, that the Achihab\nhad been restrained from attacking their rivals in the south by the\ninfluence of Quicab, who was friendly to the Cakchiquel kings, but\nthis seems hardly probable. It is much more likely that the Achihab did\nnot attack Vucubatz and Huntoh because all their power was required to\nrepress hostile demonstrations nearer home. The idea of popular rights\nwhich had robbed Quicab of his greatness and raised the vassal chiefs\nto power was as dangerous and unmanageable for the new as for the old\nnobility.\n\nAbout the middle of the fifteenth century the Quich\u00e9 and Cakchiquel\nrulers died and were succeeded, the former by Tepepul II. and Iztayul\nIII., the latter by Oxlahuh-Tzy and Lahuh-Ah. The Ahpoxahil, or\nsecond in rank at Iximch\u00e9, however, lived only a few years, and was\nfollowed by his son Cablahuh-Tihax. Immediately after the change of\nrulers war was declared between the two nations, and at a time when\nthe Cakchiquels were weakened by a famine resulting from a failure\nof crops, the Quich\u00e9 army marched against Iximch\u00e9. The kings Tepepul\nII. and Iztayul III., accompanied the army, escorting the idol of\ntheir god Tohil; but their forces were routed with great loss after\na terrific contest, near the Cakchiquel capital; both kings with the\nidol fell into the hands of the enemy, and nothing farther is recorded\nof their lives. Ximenez[XI-57] puts the revolt of the Cakchiquels and the\nestablishment of their monarchy in the reign of these kings instead of\nthat of Quicab; and he also mentions a successful revolt of the tribes\nof Sacatepeques against the Cakchiquels, and the arrival of a band of\nPokomams from Salvador, who were given lands within the limits of the\ntwo kingdoms. The two captive monarchs may have been put to death by\ntheir captors, so that it is not certain that Iztayul III. ever held a\nhigher rank than that of Ahpop Camha.\n\n[Sidenote: LATER KINGS AT UTATLAN.]\n\nTecum, Tepepul II., Vahxaki-Caam, and Quicab II. followed on the throne\nof Utatlan down to the beginning of the sixteenth century, but nothing\nis known of their reigns, and the Quich\u00e9s seem to have had but little\nto do with Guatemalan events beyond the limits of their own territory\nduring this period. Juarros, however--and it is to be noted that\nthis author gives no intimation of any serious reverses to the Quich\u00e9\nmonarchy--attributes to Quicab II. a successful campaign against the\nMames, undertaken because his own territory was found to be overcrowded\nwith the increasing numbers of his subjects, and because the Mames were\na miserable people, who should be content with less territory. At the\nreport of Quicab's warlike preparations, all the surrounding nations\nmade ready for defence, not knowing on which of themselves the blow was\nto fall. The lord of the Mames, Lahuhquieh by name, marched boldly to\nmeet the Quich\u00e9 army under the command of the king. The battle lasted\nall day, with no decisive advantage on either side; but during the\nnight Quicab gained a commanding position on a hill, from the summit\nof which, at sunrise, a storm of stones and arrows was showered upon\nthe foe. Lahuhquieh was soon defeated--the lord of Iximch\u00e9, as is\nsaid, aiding in his overthrow--and his people were driven from their\npossessions to the northern mountains.[XI-58]\n\nAbout all that is known of the kings that reigned at Utatlan from the\ndeath of Quicab II., probably about the beginning of the sixteenth\ncentury, down to 1524, is their names as given by the Popol Vuh,\nVucub-Noh, Cavatepech, Oxib-Quieh, and Beleheb Tzi, the last two being\nrespectively Ahpop and Ahpop Camha at the arrival of Pedro de Alvarado.\nJuarros names as kings for a corresponding period, Iximch\u00e9, Kicab III.,\nKicab IV., Kicab Tanub, Tecum Umam, Chignaviucelut, and Sequechul.\nThis author finds it recorded that during the reign of Kicab Tanub an\nenvoy arrived from Montezuma II., of Mexico, announcing the presence\nof the Spaniards, and his own imprisonment, news which caused the\nQuich\u00e9s to make active preparations for defence. Juarros also relates\nthat Ahuitzotl, king of Mexico, after many unsuccessful attempts to\nconquer Guatemala, sent an embassy to the different kings, ostensibly\nto form an alliance with them, but as the southern rulers believed, to\nstudy the country and the best means of attack; the embassadors were\nconsequently driven out of the country. The arguments of this and other\nauthors, that Guatemala was never subjected to Mexican rule need not\nbe repeated, since there is absolutely no evidence in support of such\na subjection.[XI-59]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Cakchiquel record[XI-60] gives some additional information respecting\nthe later period of Guatemalan aboriginal history. The Cakchiquel\nmonarch Oxlahuh-Tzy seems to have been disposed to follow the example\nof Quicab at Utatlan, by humbling the pride of his vassal kings, and\ntaking from them all real power. Among the most powerful of his allies\nwere the Akahales of Sacatapeques under Ychal-Amollac. This ruler was\nsummoned before the royal tribunal at Iximch\u00e9 on some pretext and was\nput to death as soon as he appeared in the judgment-hall; the domain\nof the Akahales was annexed to the possessions of the Cakchiquel\nmonarch, and placed under the government of officers who were that\nking's creatures. The natural consequence of Oxlahuh-Tzy's ambition was\nthe formation of a league against him by powerful tribes unwilling to\nsurrender their independence. Among these were the Ah-Tziquinihayi of\nAtitlan under Wookaok, and the Caokeb under Beleheb Gih; the latter,\nhowever, were conquered by the victorious king of Iximch\u00e9. About this\ntime internal dissensions were added to the external combination\nagainst Oxlahuh-Tzy. The Cakchiquels at Iximch\u00e9 were divided into\ntwo branches, the Zotziles and the Tukuches, and the leader of the\nlatter, Cay-Hunahpu took advantage of the ill-feeling produced by the\nking's oppressive measures against the nobility, to revolt with his\npartisans, leaving the capital and fortifying his new position near\nby. Here he awaited the movements of the revolting tribes which were\nleagued against the Cakchiquels, believing they would take advantage\nof his secession to attack Iximch\u00e9, and hoping by aiding their attack\nand granting their independence, to place himself on the throne. The\ntribes in question and others did take advantage of Cay-Hunahpu's\nsecession, not however to attack the capital and thus lend themselves\nto that chief's ambitious projects, but to declare their independence,\nestablish governments of their own, and to make preparations for the\ndefence of their homes. The revolting provinces included that of\nSacatapeques as already mentioned by Ximenez, and the seigniories\nof Tzolola, Mixco, Yampuk, and Papuluka, established at this time,\nmaintained their independence of Cakchiquel control down to the\nconquest, except perhaps Mixco.\n\n[Sidenote: REVOLT OF CAY-HUNAHPU.]\n\nCay Hunahpu, disappointed in the movements of his allies, attacked\nIximch\u00e9 with the Tukuches under his command, but his partisans\nwere routed, most of them being killed and the remainder fleeing to\ndistant provinces; while the leader was also among the slain. Thus\nOxlahuh-Tzy was still victorious, but was in no condition to attempt\nthe reduction of the rebel provinces; for new internal troubles soon\nbroke out. Cinahitoh, one of his bravest commanders in the last war,\nbut apparently of plebeian birth, demanded the rank of Ahtzih Winak\nmade vacant by the death of Cay-Hunahpu, but his claim was rejected,\nthe office given to Ahmoxnag, and the brave Cinahitoh was put to death.\nThe successful candidate was also executed for treason within a year.\nOxlahuh-Tzy continued in his policy of opposition to the nobles, and\neven succeeded in regaining a few of the weaker tribes that had thrown\noff their allegiance to his throne. In a war with the Akahales it is\nrecorded that a band of Yaqui, or Mexicans, probably traders, took part\nagainst the Cakchiquels.\n\n[Sidenote: PROPHECY OF DISASTER.]\n\nAbout 1501 a defeat of the Zutugils and the capture of their stronghold\nof Zakcab by the Cakchiquel king is recorded; and about the same\ntime the Ah-Tziquinihayi under Wookaok were besieged in Atitlan, but\nsucceeded in defeating the invaders. Respecting the last epoch of\nCakchiquel history, Juarros says: \"The Cakchiquel king, Nimahuinac,\nalso enjoyed for a long time the promised tranquility, having made\npeace and a perpetual alliance with the Pipiles; but this king having\nmade his near relative Acpocaquil treasurer of his tributes, this\ntraitor seized upon the city of Patinamit, now Tecpan Guatemala\n(Iximch\u00e9) and all the country subject to that Cakchiquel stronghold;\nand the Zutugil king having declared himself an ally of the rebel\nAcpocaquil, an obstinate war was waged between these two lords, which\nlasted down to the arrival of the Spaniards. And it even seems that\nthis was the reason why Sinacam, who had succeeded to the throne of\nthe Cakchiquels, summoned and received peacefully the Spaniards, in\norder to regain by their aid the great possessions of which Acpocaquil,\naided by the king of Atitlan, had despoiled him.\"[XI-61] The Guatemalans\nwere not left altogether without warnings of the Spaniards' coming,\nfor as early as the reign of Quicab II.--which, however, was after the\nSpaniards were actually on the American coasts--Ximenez relates that\nthe son of the Cakchiquel king, a great sorcerer, was wont to visit the\nQuich\u00e9 cities by night, insulting the king with opprobrious epithets,\nand disturbing his rest. Great rewards were offered for his capture,\nand at last he was taken and brought bound into Quicab's presence,\nwhere preparations were made for his sacrifice, when, addressing the\nassembly the captive spoke as follows: \"Wait a little and hear what I\nwish to say to you; know that a time is to come in which you will be\nin despair by reason of the calamities that are to come upon you; and\nthis _mama-caixon_, 'miserable old man,' (the king) must die; and know\nthat certain men, not naked like you, but armed from head to foot, will\ncome, and these will be terrible and cruel men, sons of Teja; perhaps\nthis will be to-morrow, or day after to-morrow, and they will destroy\nall these edifices, which will become the habitations of owls and\nwildcats, and then will come to an end all the grandeur of this court.\"\nThus having spoken, he was sacrificed to the gods.[XI-62]\n\nAt the beginning of the sixteenth century, three rival and hostile\nmonarchies ruled Guatemala, that of the Quich\u00e9s at Utatlan, under\nVucub-Noh and Cavatepech, probably the Kicab Tanub of Fuentes; that\nof the Cakchiquels at Iximch\u00e9, under Oxlahuh-Tzy and Cablahuh-Tihax;\nand that of the Zutugils at Atitlan, under Wookaok. The condition of\nthe Cakchiquel and Zutugil powers has already been portrayed so far\nas there is any information extant on the subject. The Quich\u00e9 monarchy\nhad recovered in a certain sense a large part of its former power. The\nAchihab had shrewdly kept the descendants of the ancient kings on the\nthrone, and thus secured something of the friendship and respect of the\nscattered lords. True, these lords maintained their independence of the\nking of Utatlan, but so long as their privileges were not interfered\nwith they were still Quich\u00e9 allies against the hated Cakchiquels and\nall other foreign powers. So with all the independent tribes in the\ncountry, who, although admitting no control on the part of either\nmonarch, were at heart allies of one of them against the others. Thus\nthe ancient empire had been practically divided into three, each with\nits allied kingdoms or seigniories, of which three that of the Zutugils\nand Ah-Tziquinihayi at Atitlan, was much less powerful and extensive\nthan the others.\n\nThere is no doubt that during this final period of Guatemalan history\nthe Mexican traders, who constantly visited the cities of the coast\nin large caravans for commercial purposes, and who became, as we have\nseen, practically the masters of Soconusco, exerted an influence also\nin the politics of the interior. We have seen the prominent part this\nclass played in the conquest of provinces north of the isthmus, and\nthere is much evidence that they were already making their observations\nand laying plans, by mixing themselves in the quarrels of the Quich\u00e9s\nand Cakchiquels, which might have brought the whole country under the\nAztec rulers, had it not been for the coming of the Spaniards, which\nbroke up so many cunningly devised plans in America. I have already\nnoticed the expulsion of ambassadors seeking ostensibly an alliance\nwith the southern powers, recorded by Juarros, and also the Mexican aid\nsaid to have been furnished the Akahales against the Cakchiquels.\n\nOxlahuh-Tzy died about 1510, and his colleague two years later, leaving\nthe Cakchiquel throne to Hunyg and Lahuh-Noh. Early in the reign of\nthese kings there came from Mexico the embassy already spoken of in a\npreceding chapter[XI-63] as having been sent by Montezuma II. probably to\nobtain information respecting the strangers on the eastern coast, and\nto consult with the southern monarchs about the best method of treating\nthe new-comers. It is possible also, that the political designs alluded\nto above had something to do with the embassy, and Brasseur believes\nthat the Mexicans and Cakchiquels formed at this time an alliance\noffensive and defensive against all foes. War broke out immediately\nafterwards between the Cakchiquels and Quich\u00e9s, and lasted almost\nuninterruptedly for seven years, with no decisive results in favor of\neither party, although the Cakchiquels, who acted for the most part on\nthe offensive, seem to have had the best of the struggle.\n\n[Sidenote: RAVAGES OF THE SMALL-POX.]\n\nIn 1514, while the war still continued, immense numbers of locusts\ncaused a famine in the Cakchiquel dominions, and in the same year the\ncity of Iximch\u00e9 was almost entirely destroyed by fire. In 1519 the\nwar was suspended, perhaps on receipt of the news brought by the envoy\nalready mentioned, that the Spaniards had landed at Vera Cruz. Omens of\nsinister import appeared here as at the north, one of the most notable\nbeing the appearance of a ball of fire which appeared every evening for\nmany days in the east, and followed the course of the sun until it set\nin the west. The famous black stone in the temple of Cahbaha was found,\nwhen the priests went to consult it in this emergency, broken in two\npieces. In 1520 there came upon the Cakchiquels an epidemic cholera\nmorbus, accompanied by a fatal affection of the blood which carried\noff large numbers, but which were as nothing in their ravages compared\nwith the small-pox which raged in 1521, contracted as is supposed, from\nthe Nahua tribes of the coast region. One half of the whole Cakchiquel\npopulation are estimated to have fallen victims to this pestilence,\nincluding the two monarchs, who were succeeded by Belehe Qat and\nCahi Imox. Whether the pestilence also raged among the Quich\u00e9s is not\nknown; but the monarchs of Utatlan renewed their hostilities at this\ntime, and the Cakchiquels, weakened by disease and famine, harassed by\nrebellious vassals, and now attacked again by a powerful foe, adopted\nthe desperate resort of sending an embassy to Mexico to demand the aid\nof the Spaniards, advised to this course doubtless by their Mexican\nallies. The reply was the promise that relief would soon be sent. In\nthe meantime two Cakchiquel campaigns are recorded, one most successful\nin aid of the rulers of Atitlan against insurgents, and the other, less\nfavorable in its results, in aid of the Ah-Tziquinihayi of Pacawal.\n\nThe news of the Cakchiquel alliance with the Spaniards caused the most\nbitter indignation, not only at Utatlan, where Oxib-Quieh and Beleheb\nTzy had succeeded to the throne, but among all the tribes of the\ncountry, which seem to have formed a combination against the monarchs\nof Iximch\u00e9, and to have already begun hostilities when, in February\n1524, the approach of Pedro de Alvarado was announced. The details of\nAlvarado's conquest belong to another history; but in general terms,\nafter having marched--not without opposition--through Soconusco, he\ndefeated the native forces that attempted to check his progress on the\nbanks of the Rio Tilapa, the Guatemalan frontier line, and advanced\nagainst the allied forces that had assembled from all directions in the\nregion of Xelahuh, or Quezaltenango, under the command of Tecum, the\nNim Chocoh Cawek of the Quich\u00e9 monarchy. The two battles which decided\nthe fate of the Quich\u00e9s were fought near Xelahuh and Totonicapan, so\nthat at Utatlan Alvarado met no open resistance, but was invited to\nenter the city, the plan being to burn the city and the Spaniards with\nit. The plot was discovered and the Ahpop and Ahpop Camha burned alive\nin punishment for their intentions, the city then being burned by the\ninvaders. After the fall of Utatlan, Alvarado marched to Iximch\u00e9,\nwhere he was kindly received by the Cakchiquel kings, and where\nhe established his headquarters for the conquest of other nations,\nbeginning with the Zutugils.[XI-64]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[XI-1] See vol. ii., p. 121, et seq.\n\n[XI-2] See map in vol. ii.\n\n[XI-3] _Popol Vuh_, p. 79; this volume, p. 175.\n\n[XI-4] _Las Casas_, _Hist. Apolog\u00e9tica_, MS., tom. iii., cap. cxxiv.,\ncxxv.\n\n[XI-5] This vol., pp. 178-80; _Popol Vuh_, p. 141.\n\n[XI-6] _Torquemada_, tom. ii., pp. 53-4; _Las Casas_, _Hist.\nApolog\u00e9tica_, MS., tom. iii., cap. cxxiv.\n\n[XI-7] _Brasseur_, in _Popol Vuh_, p. cclvi. The only authority\nreferred to on this matter of Copan is the _Isagoge Historico_, a\nmanuscript cited in _Garc\u00eda Pelaez_, _Mem. para la Historia del\nantiguo Reino de Guatemala_, tom. i., p. 45 et seq.\n\n[XI-8] The other names are Lamak, Cumatz, Tuhalha, Uchabaha,\nChumilaha, Quibaha, Batenab, Acul-Vinak, Balamiha, Canchahel, and\nBalam-Colob, most of which Brasseur connects more or less\nsatisfactorily with the scattered ruins in the Guatemala highlands,\nwhere these tribes afterwards settled. It is stated by the tradition\nthat only the principal names are given.\n\n[XI-9] The fourth god, Nicahtagah, is rarely named in the following\npages; Tohil is often used for the trinity, Tohil, Avilix, and\nHacavitz; and Balam-Quitz\u00e9 for the band of the first four men or\nhigh-priests.\n\n[XI-10] The names of the localities named as the hiding-places of the\ngods are said to be still attached to places in Vera Paz.\n\n[XI-11] See p. 182, of this volume.\n\n[XI-12] Another document consulted by Brasseur, _Popol Vuh_, p. 286,\nplaces four generations between Balam-Quitz\u00e9 and Qocaib and Qocavib\nmentioned above as his sons.\n\n[XI-13] Brasseur insists that this was Acxitl Quetzalcoatl, the last\nToltec king, who had founded a great kingdom in Honduras, with the\ncapital at Copan. _Popol Vuh_, p. 294.\n\n[XI-14] Brasseur, in _Popol Vuh_, p. 297, gives a list from another\ndocument of many of these new settlements, many of which as he claims\ncan be identified with modern localities. The chief of the new towns\nwas Chiquix, 'in the thorns,' possibly the name from which Quich\u00e9 was\nderived. This city occupied four hills, or was divided into four\ndistricts, the Chiquix, Chichac, Humetaha, and Culba-Cavinal.\n\n[XI-15] _Popol Vuh_, pp. 205-99; _Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp.\n83-118.\n\n[XI-16] _Brasseur_, in _Popol Vuh_, pp. ccliii-cclxxi. The manuscripts\nreferred to by this writer for this and the preceding information,\nare:--_T\u00edtulo Territorial de los Se\u00f1ores de Totonicapan_; _T\u00edtulo\nTerritorial de los Se\u00f1ores de Sacapulas_; _MS. Cakchiquel_; _T\u00edtulo\nReal de la Casa de Itzcuin-Nehaib_; and _T\u00edtulo de los Se\u00f1ores de\nQuezaltenango y de Momostenango_.\n\n[XI-17] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp. 73-150. The authorities\nreferred to besides those already named are the following: _Fuentes y\nGuzman_, _Recopilacion Florida de la Hist. de Guat._, MS.; _Ximenez_,\n_Hist. de los Reyes del Quich\u00e9_, MS.; _Chr\u00f3nica de la Prov. de\nGoattemala_, MS. The chief authority, however, is the _MS.\nCakchiquel_, or _M\u00e9morial de Tecpan-Atitlan_.\n\n[XI-18] The tribes named as having gathered here, are the Quich\u00e9s,\nRabinals, Cakchiquels, Zutugils, Ah-Tziquinaha, Tuhalaha, Uchabaha,\nChumilaha, Tucur\u00fa, Zacaha, Quibaha, Batenab, Balaniha, Canchahel,\nBalam Colob, Acul, Cumatz, Akahales, and Lamagi.\n\n[XI-19] See p. 182, of this volume.\n\n[XI-20] See vol. iv., pp. 128-30, for notice of ruins.\n\n[XI-21] See p. 555 of this volume.\n\n[XI-22] This is evidently taken by Juarros, from the Spanish version\nof the Mexican traditions.\n\n[XI-23] The reader is already aware that no such kings ever reigned\nover the Toltecs in An\u00e1huac. It is evident that the author has\nconfounded the Tulan of the Guatemalan annals with Tollan, the Toltec\ncapital in An\u00e1huac, and the Nahua migration from the Xibalban region\nin the fourth or fifth century, with that of the Toltecs in the\neleventh.\n\n[XI-24] _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, (Guat., 1857) pp. 7-9. The extract\nthat I have made extends a little beyond the point at which I have\nleft the other records. I give here also a list of the Quich\u00e9 kings,\nwho were according to Juarros: 1, Acxopil; 2, Jiuhtemal; 3, Hunahpu;\n4, Balam Kich\u00e9 (Balam-Quitz\u00e9); 5, Balam Acam (Balam-Agab); 6, Maucotah\n(Mahucutah); 7, Iquibalam (Iqi-Balam); 8, Kicab I.; 9, Cacubraxechein;\n10, Kicab II.; 11, Iximch\u00e9; 12, Kicab III.; 13, Kicab IV.; 14, Kicab\nTamub; 15, Tecum Umam; 16, Chignaviucelut; 17, Sequechul or Sequechil.\n\nThe list of the Quich\u00e9 princes of the royal house of Cawek, according\nto the order of the generations, is given in the _Popol Vuh_, pp.\n339-40, _Ximenez_, pp. 133-4, as follows--the list apparently includes\nnot only the Ahpop, or king, but the Ahpop Camha, heir apparent to the\nthrone. And, as is indicated by the course of the history, and as\nBrasseur believes, each Ahpop Camha succeeded the Ahpop on the throne,\nso that the whole number of the Quich\u00e9 kings, down to the coming of\nthe Spaniards, counting from Qocavib, was twenty-two instead of\neleven, as the list might seem to imply and as Ximenez evidently\nunderstands it:--1, Balam-Quitz\u00e9; 2, Qocavib, (although we have seen\nthat, by other documents several generations are placed between the\nfirst and second of this list); 3, Balam Conache (the first to take\nthe title Ahpop); 4, Cotuha and Iztayub; 5, Gucumatz and Cotuha; 6,\nTepepul and Iztayul; 7, Quicab and Cavizimah; 8, Tepepul and Xtayub;\n9, Tecum and Tepepul; 10, Vahxaki-Caam and Quicab; 11, Vukub Noh and\nCavatepech; 12, Oxib-Quieh and Beleheb Tzi (reigning when Alvarado\ncame, and hung by the Spaniards); 13, Tecum and Tepepul; 14, Don Juan\nde Rojas and Don Juan Cort\u00e9s.\n\nThe princes of the house of Niha\u00efb given by the same authority, p.\n343, _Ximenez_, pp. 135, were as follows:--1, Balam-Agab; 2, Qoacul\nand Qoacutec; 3, Qochahuh and Qotzibaha; 4, Beleheb-Gih; 5, Cotuha; 6,\nBatza; 7, Ztayul; 8, Cotuha; 9, Beleheb-Gih; 10, Quema; 11, Cotuha;\n12, Don Christ\u00f3val; 13, Don Pedro de Robles.\n\nList of the princes of the Royal House of Ahau Quich\u00e9, _Popol Vuh_, p.\n345, _Ximenez_, pp. 136-7; 1, Mahucutah; 2, Qoahau; 3, Caklacan; 4,\nQocozom; 5, Comahcan; 6, Vukub-Ah; 7, Qocamel; 8, Coyabacoh,\nVinak-Bam. These lists, however, do not seem to correspond altogether\nwith the Quich\u00e9 annals as given by the same authority, as the reader\nwill see in the succeeding pages.\n\n[XI-25] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 38, tom. ii., pp. 338-40. See also\n_Helps' Span. Conq._, vol. iii., pp. 246-9.\n\n[XI-26] _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 97-9, 128, et seq.\n\n[XI-27] _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 8.\n\n[XI-28] _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 41, 646.\n\n[XI-29] _Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan_, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii.,\npp. 155-75.\n\n[XI-30] Pp. 299-307; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 475-99;\n_Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp. 119-21.\n\n[XI-31] In his _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 478, Brasseur seems to\nregard Balam II. and Conache as two kings, one succeeding the other,\nbut in his notes to _Popol Vuh_, p. cclxxiii., he unites them in one.\n\n[XI-32] _T\u00edtulo de los Se\u00f1ores de Totonicapan._\n\n[XI-33] _T\u00edtulo de los Se\u00f1ores de Totonicapan_, in the introduction to\n_Popol Vuh_, pp. cclxxv-vi.\n\n[XI-34] See p. 529, of this volume.\n\n[XI-35] _Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan_, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii.,\npp. 483-9.\n\n[XI-36] See p. 570-1, of this volume.\n\n[XI-37] Brasseur places his reign somewhere between 1225 and 1275.\n\n[XI-38] The _Popol Vuh_ represents Utatlan, as we have seen, p. 573,\nto have been first occupied by Cotuha and Gucumatz; meaning, as is\nshown by the table of kings in the same document--see p. 566, of this\nvolume--by Gucumatz as king and Cotuha II. as second in rank. Brasseur\nstates that the name Gumarcaah was then given to the city, but it is\nmuch more likely that this was the ancient name, and Utatlan of later\norigin.\n\n[XI-39] For description of the ruins of Utatlan, see vol. iv., pp.\n124-8.\n\n[XI-40] _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, pp. 9-16.\n\n[XI-41] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 150-2, 475-7, 499. The\nopinion that Hunahpu and Gucumatz were identical, however, is said to\nreceive some support from the _Isagoge Historico_, of Pelaez' work,\nquoted by _Id._, in _Popol Vuh_, p. 316.\n\n[XI-42] See vol. ii., pp. 637-44.\n\n[XI-43] Or, as Ximenez renders it, to Hell.\n\n[XI-44] He is named as being of the fifth generation in the tables at\nthe end of the document.\n\n[XI-45] _Popol Vuh_, pp. 307-17; _Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp.\n121-5; _Id._, _Escolios_, in _Id._, pp. 165-8. This last work is\nperhaps the same as that quoted by Brasseur as _Ximenez_, _Hist. de\nlos Reyes del Quich\u00e9_, MS., but it is merely a list of kings with some\nof their deeds, adding nothing whatever, in a historical point of\nview, to the translation of the Quich\u00e9 record.\n\n[XI-46] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp. 493-9; _Id._, in _Popol Vuh_,\np. cclxxvi.\n\n[XI-47] _T\u00edtulo de los Se\u00f1ores de Totonicapan_, in _Popol Vuh_, pp.\ncclxxvi-vii.\n\n[XI-48] _Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan_, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii.,\npp. 501-3.\n\n[XI-49] See p. 576, of this vol.\n\n[XI-50] Cakchiquels and Pipiles almost constantly at war; _Squier's\nCent. Amer._, p. 323; _Id._, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. cliii., p.\n180.\n\n[XI-51] _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, pp. 16-23. Fuentes used a history\nwritten by a son and grandson of the last king of Guatemala, _M\u00fcller_,\n_Amer. Urrel._, p. 454. Waldeck, _Voy. Pitt._, p. 46, declares the\nGuatemalan manuscripts not reliable, and states that the Macario\nmanuscript used by Fuentes was badly translated.\n\n[XI-52] _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, pp. 23-4.\n\n[XI-53] The seventh according to the tables.\n\n[XI-54] _Popol Vuh_, pp. 317-27; _Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp.\n125-9. There are some differences and omissions in the Spanish\ntranslation.\n\n[XI-55] _Escolios_, in _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp. 168-9.\n\n[XI-56] _Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan_, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii.,\npp. 503-45.\n\n[XI-57] _Escolios_, in _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp. 169-71.\n\n[XI-58] _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, pp. 24-6.\n\n[XI-59] _Id._, pp. 9-11, 35-9.\n\n[XI-60] _Mem. de Tecpan-Atitlan_, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii.,\npp. 529-45.\n\n[XI-61] _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, p. 26. It is impossible to connect\nthis account in any way with the others.\n\n[XI-62] _Ximenez_, _Escolios_, in _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp. 172-3.\n\n[XI-63] See p. 470 of this volume; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., p.\n624.\n\n[XI-64] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iv., pp. 619-51, with reference to\n_MS. Cakchiquel_, and other documents.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nMISCELLANEOUS TRIBES OF CENTRAL AMERICA.\n\n     Scarcity of Historical Data -- The Tribes of Chiapas -- The\n     Founders and Heroes of the Chiapanec Nation -- Wars with the Aztecs\n     -- The People of the Southern Coast -- They are vanquished by the\n     Olmecs -- Their Exodus and Journey -- They settle and separate --\n     Juarros' Account of the Origin and later History of the Pipiles --\n     Pipile Traditions -- The Founding of Mictlan -- Queen Comizahual\n     -- Acxitl's Empire of the East -- The Cholutecs -- Various Tribes\n     of Nicaragua -- Settlements on the Isthmus.\n\n\nIt is my purpose to relate in this chapter all that is known\nof the scattered tribes of Central America, exclusive of the\nQuich\u00e9-Cakchiquels. The historical information that has been preserved\nrespecting these tribes is, however, so meagre and of such a vague and\nunsatisfactory character that the reader must expect nothing more than\na very disconnected and incomplete account of them.\n\nChiapas, which is geographically the most northerly portion of Central\nAmerica, though politically it belongs to Mexico, was inhabited in its\nnorthern part by the Tzendales and Zoques, in its central and southern\nregion by the Chiapanecs, Zotziles, and Quelenes.[XII-1] The Tzendales\nlived in the vicinity of Palenque, and are said to have been directly\ndescended from the builders of that city. Of the Zotziles and Quelenes\nnothing is known, save that they, together with the Tzendales and the\nZoques, were at a late date subjugated by the Chiapanecs.[XII-2]\n\n[Sidenote: THE CHIAPANECS.]\n\nThe Chiapanecs, according to some authorities, came originally from\nNicaragua. After a long and painful journey they arrived at the river\nChiapa. Finding the region to their taste they resolved to settle, and\nfounded a strong city upon the neighboring heights.[XII-3] Fuentes asserts\nthat they were descended from the Toltecs, and that their kingdom was\nfounded by a brother of Nima Quich\u00e9, one of the chiefs who led the\nToltecs to Guatemala.[XII-4] There can be no doubt that the Chiapanecs\nwere a very ancient people; indeed their traditions refer us back to\nthe time of Votan.[XII-5] Boturini, on the authority of Bishop Nu\u00f1ez de\nla Vega, speaks of an original record in which Votan is represented as\nthe third figure in the Chiapanec calendar. The record also enumerates\nthe places where Votan tarried, and states that ever since his visit\nthere has been in Teopixca a family bearing his name. Vega believes\nthat the original population of Chiapas and Soconusco were of the\nrace of Cham.[XII-6] The twenty heroes whose names are immortalized in the\ncalendar of the Chiapanecs are commonly said to have been the founders\nor first rulers of that nation. We are told that they all distinguished\nthemselves, and that some died in their beds, some on the battle-field,\nothers at the hands of their rivals, but beyond this scarcely any\nrecord of their lives or deeds has survived. One of them named Chinax,\na military leader represented with a flag in his hand, was hanged\nand burned by an enemy; of another named Been, it is stated that he\ntraveled through Chiapas, leaving special marks of his visits in the\nplaces through which he passed. It appears by the calendar that Imox,\nsometimes called Mox, and occasionally Ninus, was the first settler\nin Chiapas. According to the worthy prelate above mentioned, this\nNinus was the son of Belo, who was the son of Nimrod, who was the son\nof Chus, who was the grandson of Cham. He was represented by or with\nthe ceiba tree,[XII-7] from whose roots, it is said, the Chiapanec race\nsprang.[XII-8] It is Orozco y Berra's opinion that the Chiapanecs should\nbe placed before the better known tribes[XII-9] and after the builders of\nPalenque and Copan. Their language has not been classified, but is said\nto resemble that of the Nicoya region.[XII-10]\n\nThe spot on which the pioneer settlers of the Chiapan region\nestablished their first stronghold was so difficult of access as to be\nalmost unassailable, and was fortified so strongly both by nature and\nart, that it was practically impregnable. From here the inhabitants\nkept up a constant warfare with the Aztec garrisons at Tzinacatla,\nSoconusco and elsewhere.[XII-11] They cordially hated the Mexicans, and\npersistently refused to intermarry with them. Their enemies seem\nto have been stronger than they, but by their valor they not only\nmaintained their independence until the time of the Conquest, but, as\nwe have seen, they subjugated the surrounding nations. They incurred\nthe bitter enmity of the Chinantecs, because they forced the Zoques to\npay tribute.[XII-12]\n\n[Sidenote: THE PIPILES.]\n\nThe southern coast region of Chiapas, between Tehuantepec and\nSoconusco, was occupied by a people whose origin is involved in some\nmystery. Brasseur relates that they came from Cholula; probably in the\nninth century, at the time when Huemac took that city and persecuted\nthe followers of Quetzalcoatl. Torquemada identifies them with the\nPipiles of Guatemala and Salvador,[XII-13] of whom I shall speak presently.\nThese coast people were an industrious, frugal race, and for a long\ntime they held peaceable possession of their territory, and prospered\nexceedingly. But their happy life was destined to be rudely and\nsuddenly changed to one of bondage and oppression. A horde of fierce\nOlmecs invaded and conquered their country, and immediately reduced\nthe vanquished to a state of miserable slavery. Not only were they\nforced to pay excessive and ruinous tribute, but they were compelled\nto yield up their children of both sexes to gratify the unnatural lusts\nof their masters. They were, besides, made amenable to a most rigorous\nsystem of laws, the least infraction of which was punished with death.\nFor a time they groaned passively under this cruel yoke, but at length\nit grew unbearable. Then in their deep trouble they appealed to their\npriests for help and advice. The priests consulted the oracles and\nat the end of eight days announced to the people that the only way in\nwhich they could escape from their persecutors was to leave the country\nin a body, and go in search of another home. At first the people\nseemed disposed to question the prudence and feasibility of this step,\nbut they were speedily re-assured by the priests, who declared that\nthe gods would aid and protect them in their flight. A day was then\nset for their departure, and they were instructed in the meantime to\nprovide themselves with everything necessary for a long journey. At the\nappointed time they assembled secretly, and set out at once. It would\nbe difficult to believe that an entire nation of slaves could have\nmade such an exodus unknown to and against the will of their masters,\neven though we read of a parallel case in Holy Writ; but, however this\nmight be, they seem to have taken the road towards Guatemala without\nhindrance, and to have been pursued by no Olmec Pharaoh.[XII-14]\n\nAccording to the tradition, they continued their march down the coast\nfor twenty days, until they came to the banks of the river Michatoyatl.\nHere their chief priest fell sick, and the country being very pleasant,\nthey halted for a time. Before long the priest died, and they then\nproceeded on their journey, leaving, however, some families behind,\nwho settled here and founded a city, afterwards known in Guatemalan\nhistory by the name of Itzcuintlan. After this there is some confusion\nin the different accounts. Following the plainest version, similar\ncircumstances caused them to make another halt twenty leagues lower\ndown, in the neighborhood of the volcano Cuzcatlan.[XII-15] Here they found\na lovely climate, and a productive soil, and that part of them that has\nsince borne the name of Pipiles resolved to settle. The others went\nfarther south, towards the Conchagua Gulf;[XII-16] but of these I shall\nspeak again presently.\n\nThe authorities do not all assign this origin to the Pipiles, however.\nJuarros says that Ahuitzotl, king of Mexico, sent to Guatemala, in the\ngarb of traders, a large number of Mexicans of the lowest class, under\nthe command of four captains and one general. These were instructed to\nsettle in the country. Ahuitzotl did this in order to have auxiliaries\nso situated as to facilitate his intended military operations against\nthe chiefs of Guatemala. He died, however, before he could carry out\nthis policy. The new settlers spoke the Mexican language very poorly,\nmuch as children might speak it; for this reason they were called\nPipiles, which in Mexican signifies children.[XII-17] They prospered\nand multiplied wonderfully in their new home, and extended their\nsettlements to Sonsonate and Salvador. But after a time they incurred\nthe enmity of the Quich\u00e9s and Cakchiquels, by whom they were so sorely\noppressed that there was danger of their being speedily exterminated.\nIn this emergency the Pipiles formed a military organization, much\nas Ahuitzotl had originally intended. But some time later the chiefs\nbegan to abuse the power with which they had been invested by imposing\nheavy taxes and otherwise robbing the people. Moreover, the principal\nlord, named Cuaucmichin, introduced human sacrifice, and made victims\nof some of the most highly esteemed persons in the community. A riot\nbroke out, during which Cuaucmichin was put to death by the people of\nhis palace. The other chiefs were also deprived of their authority,\nand left with the inferior rank of Alahuaes, or heads of calpullis. A\nnobleman named Tutecotzemit, a man of mild disposition, kind heart, and\ngood ability to govern was then invested with the supreme authority. It\nappears that he was not free from ambition, however. His first step was\nto form a council, or senate, of eight nobles, connected with himself\nby blood or marriage, to whom he granted a certain amount of authority.\nHe then appointed a number of subordinate officers, chosen from among\nthe nobility, who were subject to the orders of the senate. He next\nproceeded to reduce the imposts and to remedy the evils that had arisen\nfrom previous misgovernment. Having thus gained the confidence and\naffection of the people, he caused himself to be formally proclaimed\nking of the Pipiles with the right of transmitting the crown to his\nchildren and their descendants. It is recorded that the Pipiles played\na very prominent part in the numerous wars that took place between the\nseveral kingdoms of Guatemala. In later years they were engaged in\na very long and bitter conflict with the Cakchiquels, in which they\nwere finally worsted by Nimahuinac, king of that people, who forced\nTonaltut, lord of the Pipiles, to sue for peace, and only granted it\non the condition that the Pipiles should bind themselves to a perpetual\nalliance with the Cakchiquel kings.[XII-18]\n\nAll that has been preserved of their earlier history is contained in\ntwo traditions, which are half if not wholly mythical. The first of\nthese refers to the period immediately following the settlement of\nthe Pipiles at their last halting-place in Salvador, and especially to\nthe founding of Mictlan, a city which subsequently corresponded in its\nsacred character to Cholula on the eastern plateau of Mexico, and Mitla\nin Oajaca. The story goes that there issued one day from Lake Huixa a\nmysterious old man of venerable aspect, clad in long blue robes, and\nwearing upon his head a pontificial mitre. He was followed by a young\ngirl of peerless beauty, dressed in a similar manner, excepting the\nmitre. Soon after his appearance the old man betook himself to the\nsummit of a neighboring hill. There under his directions the people\nat once set about building a splendid temple, which received the name\nof Mictlan. Round about the sacred edifice the palaces of the chiefs\nrose in rapid succession, and in an incredibly short space of time\na thriving and populous city had grown out of the desert. The same\nmysterious personage gave them laws and a system of government, under\nwhich they continued to prosper until the end.[XII-19]\n\nThe other tradition to which I have alluded was preserved at the\ntime of the Conquest by the inhabitants of Cerquin, a province in the\nmountainous region of northern Honduras. There is reason to believe\nthat the people to whom it relates were Pipiles, as they extended\ntheir possessions in this direction, but their name is not given in\nconnection with the story, which attributes to a woman the honor of\nhaving first introduced culture into this part of the country, two\nhundred years before the advent of the Spaniards. She is described\nas having been very beautiful, of a fair complexion, and well versed\nin the art of magic. She appeared suddenly, as if dropped from the\nsky, for which reason, and because of the great respect which she\ninspired, she was named Comizahual, or 'flying tigress,' the tiger\nbeing an animal held sacred by the natives. She took up her abode at\nCealcoquin, and erected there many temples which she ornamented with\nmonstrous figures of men and animals. In the principal temple she\nplaced a stone having three sides, on each of which were three faces\nof hideous aspect. By means of the magic virtues which lay within this\nstone she overthrew her enemies and added to her dominions. She reigned\ngloriously for a number of years, and had three sons, though she was\nunmarried and had never known a man. When she felt her end drawing\nnear, she summoned these princes to her presence, and after giving them\nthe best of advice regarding the way in which they should govern, she\ndivided her kingdom equally between them. She then caused herself to be\ncarried on her bed to the highest terrace of the palace, and suddenly\nvanished, amid thunder and lightning. It is recorded that her three\nsons governed well and wisely, but no particulars of their reigns are\ngiven.[XII-20]\n\n[Sidenote: EMPIRE OF THE EAST.]\n\nBrasseur implies that the Pipiles were in some way connected with or\nsubject to the empire which he believes Topiltzin Acxitl, the last\nToltec king of An\u00e1huac, to have founded in Central America, since\nhe speaks of Mictlan being the seat of the spiritual power of that\nrealm. I have already expressed my opinion that this empire of the\nEast is the offspring of the Abb\u00e9's inventive imagination; but at the\nsame time, notwithstanding the two or three allusions upon which he\nmust found his theory are so vague as to be practically meaningless,\nhe manages to give a tolerably definite description of the condition\nin which the Cakchiquels found it when they came after a long and\narduous pilgrimage from An\u00e1huac to do homage to Acxitl. He confesses\nhis ignorance of the particulars of the Toltec monarch's journey, and\nof the means by which he attained universal dominion in the east, but\nadds that it is certain that with the aid of the Toltec emigrants,\nlike himself, and the Chichimecs of all languages, who followed in his\nfootsteps, he had succeeded in establishing a kingdom larger, perhaps,\nthan that which he had lost, and in conferring upon his subjects the\nbenefits of civilization as well as the cult of Quetzalcoatl, of whom\nhe was the supreme representative. Taught by experience the benefits\nof such a policy, he united under his authority the bands of emigrants\nthat were constantly arriving, and with their assistance conquered by\nforce of arms such of the surrounding provinces as would not peaceably\nacknowledge his supremacy. It was his custom to leave those princes\nwho offered no resistance to his encroachments in possession of their\ntitles and dignities, merely making them nominal vassals of the empire.\nBy pursuing this policy Acxitl became so powerful that none of the\nnumerous Quich\u00e9 and Cakchiquel chiefs who afterwards founded states in\nthese regions dared to assume the royal authority until they had been\nformally instated in their possessions by him. Thus it was that at the\ntime when the Cakchiquels descended from the mountains to the plateau\nof Vera Paz, they found Acxitl occupied in conferring the sovereignty\nof that region upon one of the most renowned of the warriors who had\nfollowed him from Tollan, named Cempoal Taxuch before his coronation,\nand Orbaltzam afterwards.[XII-21]\n\n[Sidenote: NICARAGUAN TRIBES.]\n\nLet us now follow the fortunes of the Xuchiltepecs, or that part of\nthe tribes of the coast of Chiapas which separated from the Pipiles at\nCuzcatlan. Following the coast southward they arrived at the Gulf of\nConchagua. Here they were forced to halt, by the illness and subsequent\ndeath of the priest who had hitherto been their guide. Before expiring,\nthe old man, who seems in some way to have gained a knowledge of that\nregion, gave them full information as to what they might expect of\nthe surrounding nations, exhorted them to settle and live in peace,\nand predicted that their ancient enemies, the Olmecs, would eventually\nbecome their slaves. The Xuchiltepecs accordingly stayed permanently\nwhere they were, on the borders of Honduras, Salvador, and Nicaragua,\nand bore henceforward the name of Cholutecs, from the country from\nwhich they originally came.[XII-22]\n\nOf the other tribes of Nicaragua nothing is known, except the names\nand localities of those that inhabited the strip of country between\nthe Pacific coast and the lakes. Of these, the Oroti\u00f1ans occupied the\ncountry about the Gulf of Nicoya and south of the Lake of Nicaragua.\nTheir principal towns were Oroti\u00f1a, Cantren, and Chorot\u00e9.[XII-23] North of\nthese were the Dirians, whose chief cities were settled at the foot of\nthe volcano of Mombacho, and at Managua on the lake of that name.[XII-24]\nNorth of the Dirians were the Nagrandans, or Mangn\u00e9s, whose territory\nlay between Lake Managua and the ocean.[XII-25] The Chontales inhabited the\nmountainous region north-east of Lake Nicaragua.[XII-26] Immediately south\nof the Cholutecs were the Chorotegans. These two nations are often\nregarded as identical. According to Squier the Chorotegans included the\nOroti\u00f1ans, Dirians, and Nagrandans.[XII-27] The Niquirans, or Nicaraguans,\nwere one of the most prominent tribes in Nicaragua.[XII-28] There is some\nconfusion about their origin. Torquemada implies that they were part\nof the tribes that were driven from their home on the coast of Chiapas\nby the Olmecs, who, after the death of their priest at the Gulf of\nConchagua, continued their journey to the Atlantic coast, along which\nthey traveled as far as Nombre de Dios, founding several towns on the\nway. Thence they returned, in search of a fresh-water sea, to Nicoya,\nwhere they were informed that a few leagues farther on was a fine lake.\nThey accordingly proceeded to the spot upon which Leon now stands,\nand there formed settlements. But growing dissatisfied with this site,\nthey afterwards went to Nicaragua, where, by a treacherous ruse, they\nkilled the inhabitants and took possession of the land.[XII-29] Brasseur\ntells much the same story of their travels and ultimate settlement in\nNicaragua, but asserts that they were Toltecs.[XII-30]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[XII-1] See for location of these tribes, vol. i., pp. 681-2.\n\n[XII-2] _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. xi.; _Remesal_, _Hist.\nChyapa_, p. 264; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 16.\n\n[XII-3] _Remesal_, ib.; _Herrera_, ib.; _Murguia_, _Estadist.\nGuajaca_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. vii., p. 187.\n\n[XII-4] _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, p. 8.\n\n[XII-5] _Clavigero_, tom. iv., p. 52, tom. i., pp. 150-1;\n_Larrainzar_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. iii., p. 92;\n_Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, p. 202.\n\n[XII-6] _Boturini_, _Idea_, pp. 115, 118-19.\n\n[XII-7] Five-leaved silk-cotton tree, _Bombax Ceiba_.\n\n[XII-8] _Pi\u00f1eda_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. iii., pp. 344-5.\nThe names of these heroes were: Imox, Igh, Votan, Chanan, Abah, Tox,\nMoxic, Lambat, Molo or Mulu, Elab, Batz, Evob, Been, Hix, Tziquin,\nChabin, Chic, Chinax, Cahogh, Aghual.\n\n[XII-9] Who these 'better known tribes' are is not stated.\n\n[XII-10] _Pi\u00f1eda_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. iii., p. 346.\nThe history, position and civilization of the Chiapanecs shows that\nthey preceded, or were at least contemporaries of the first tribes or\nfactions of the Aztec family. They were certainly a very ancient\npeople, and of Toltec origin, while their civilization undoubtedly\ncame from the north and not from the south. _Orozco y Berra_,\n_Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 44, 60, 120.\n\n[XII-11] _Clavigero_, tom. iv., pp. 267-8; _Bernal Diaz_, _Hist.\nConq._, fol. 73, 178; _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. xi.;\n_Larrainzar_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. iii., p. 92;\n_Brasseur_, _Esquisses_, p. 17.\n\n[XII-12] _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. xi.; _Remesal_, _Hist.\nChyapa_, p. 264.\n\n[XII-13] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 333. Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. ii.,\np. 76, identifies them with the Pipiles and Xuchiltepecs.\n\n[XII-14] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 332.\n\n[XII-15] Cuzcatlan was the ancient name of Salvador.\n\n[XII-16] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 78-9. Torquemada, tom. i.,\np. 332, relates that twenty days after starting, one of their\nhigh-priests died. They then traversed Guatemala, and journeying a\nhundred leagues farther on, came to a country to which the Spaniards\nhave given the name of Choluteca, or Choroteca. Here another priest\ndied. After this the author goes on to tell the story which, according\nto the version followed above, applies to the Xuchiltepecs who\nproceeded to the Gulf of Conchagua, and which will be referred to\nelsewhere.\n\n[XII-17] _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, p. 224. A reduplication of _pilli_,\nwhich has two meanings, 'noble,' and 'child,' the latter being\ngenerally regarded as its meaning in the tribal name. _Buschmann_,\n_Ortsnamen_, p. 137. See also _Molina_, _Vocabulario_.\n\n[XII-18] _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, pp. 81-4, 17-18, 20, 23, 26.\n\n[XII-19] 'L'\u00e9poque que les \u00e9v\u00e9nements paraissent assigner \u00e0 cette\nl\u00e9gende co\u00efncide avec la p\u00e9riode de la grande \u00e9migration tolt\u00e8que et\nla fondation des divers royaumes guat\u00e9maliens qui en furent la\ncons\u00e9quence.' _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 81.\n\n[XII-20] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 336; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii.,\npp. 106-7; _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. viii., cap. iv.\n\n[XII-21] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 101-5.\n\n[XII-22] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 332; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii.,\npp. 79, 107-8. See vol. i., of this work, p. 791, for territory of\nCholutecs.\n\n[XII-23] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 332; _Levy_, _Nicaragua_, p. 6; see\nvol. i., of this work, p. 792.\n\n[XII-24] _Id._\n\n[XII-25] _Id._\n\n[XII-26] _Id._, p. 790.\n\n[XII-27] _Nicaragua_, (Ed. 1856), vol. ii., pp. 309-12; _Oviedo_,\n_Hist. Gen._, tom. iv., p. 35.\n\n[XII-28] For locality, see vol. i., p. 792.\n\n[XII-29] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 332-3.\n\n[XII-30] _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 108-9.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nHISTORY OF THE MAYAS IN YUCATAN.\n\n     Aboriginal Names of Yucatan -- The Primitive Inhabitants\n     from the East and West -- Zamn\u00e1, the Pontiff-King -- The\n     Itzas at Chichen -- Rule of Cukulcan at Chichen and Mayapan\n     -- His Disappearance on the Gulf Coast -- The Cocome Rule\n     at Mayapan -- Appearance of the Tutul Xius -- Translation\n     of the Maya Record by Perez and Brasseur -- Migration from\n     Tulan -- Conquest of Bacalar and Chichen -- Itza Annals --\n     Tutul Xius at Uxmal -- Overthrow of the Cocome Dynasty -- The\n     Confederacy, or Empire, of Tutul Xius, Itzas, and Cheles --\n     Fable of the Dwarf -- Overthrow of the Tutul Xius -- Final\n     Period of Civil Wars.\n\n\nRespecting the original name of Yucatan, Bishop Landa tells us that\nit was called Ulumil Cuz and Etel Ceh, 'land of turkeys and deer.'\nPadre Lizana writes the name U Luumil Cutz and U Luumil Ceb. Malte-Brun\nclaims to have found a tradition to the effect that in the early time\nthe interior plains of the peninsula were submerged, forming lakes,\nand the people lived in isolated groups by fishing and hunting. Landa\nalso applies the name Peten, 'isle,' thinking that the natives believed\ntheir country to be surrounded with water. The Perez manuscript terms\nthe peninsula Chacnouitan, which Gallatin believes to have been its\ntrue name; while Brasseur regards this as the ancient name of only the\nsouthern portion of the country. There is no doubt that the native name\nof Yucatan at the coming of Europeans and afterwards was Maya. Several\nauthors define this as 'land without water,' a most appropriate name\nfor this region. Brasseur in one place derives the name from Mai, that\nof an ancient priest; Cogolludo says the country was named from its\ncapital or chief city thus differing at each successive epoch, being\nin ancient times Mayapan, but in the time of the writer, Campeche.\nTernaux-Compans declares that from the fall of Mayapan to the coming\nof the Spaniards the country had no general name. All agree that the\nname Yucatan originated from a misunderstanding by the Spaniards of the\nwords first pronounced by the natives when questioned about the name of\ntheir country.[XIII-1]\n\n[Sidenote: MIGRATION FROM THE EAST.]\n\nThe earliest inhabitants are supposed to have come from the east. As\nthey fled before their enemies their god had opened a path for them\nthrough the sea.[XIII-2] Lizana believes these first inhabitants came\nfrom Cuba, which may have been connected with the peninsula in those\nprimitive times; while Orozco y Berra seems to favor the idea that\nthey came to Cuba from Florida.[XIII-3] From this original population,\nfew in numbers, is supposed to have come the ancient name _cenial_, or\n'little descent,' applied by the inhabitants to the east; while the\nname _nohenial_, 'great descent' by which the west was called,\noriginated from a larger migration from that direction. Cogolludo, it\nis true, claims that the eastern colony was the more numerous of the\ntwo, yet, this is not tradition, but his theory, based on the\nprevalence of the Maya language in connection with the unfounded\nassumption that those who came from the west must have spoken\nAztec.[XIII-4] All that can be learned from these traditions is the\nexistence among the Mayas of a vague idea that their ancestors came\noriginally from opposite directions. Their idea of the most primitive\nperiod of their history, like the idea entertained by other nations\nwhose annals have been presented, was connected with the arrival of a\nsmall band from across the ocean. This was the 'little descent'; by\nthis first band and their descendants the country was peopled and the\nMaya institutions established. The 'great descent' referred to the\ncoming of strangers from the south-west, probably at different times,\nand at a much later period.\n\nTo account for the fact that but one language is spoken in Yucatan,\nand that closely related to those of Tabasco and Guatemala, Orozco y\nBerra supposes that the Mayas destroyed or banished the former\ninhabitants. They were evidently barbarians, as shown by their\nabandonment of the ruins; perhaps they were the same tribes that\ndestroyed Palenque.[XIII-5] But the reader already knows that the\nbuilders of the cities were found in possession of the country, and\nthe unity of language is exactly what might be expected, if the\ntraditional colony from the east peopled not only Yucatan, but the\nadjoining countries, and the subsequent returning colonies from the\nwest came from the countries thus peopled. We learn from Boturini that\nthe Olmecs, Xicalancas, and Zapotecs, of the eastern region of Mexico,\nfled at the approach of the Toltecs and settled in Yucatan. Veytia\nshows that if any of these peoples settled in Yucatan, it was from\nchoice, not necessity; Torquemada and others add the Chichimecs and\nAcolhuas to the peoples that settled Yucatan. Cogolludo and Fancourt\ninclude the Teo-Chichimecs,[XIII-6] while most modern writers favor\nthe theory that the Toltecs occupied Yucatan after their expulsion\nfrom An\u00e1huac in the eleventh century, erecting the cities that have\nsince been found there in so great numbers.[XIII-7]\n\n[Sidenote: TOLTEC THEORY.]\n\nThe conjectures of the preceding paragraph and many others of a similar\nnature, are a part of the theory, so often noted in this work, of a\ngeneral migration of American nations from north to south, a theory\nwhich has amounted almost to a mania for dispatching every ancient\nnorthern tribe southward, and for searching in the north for the origin\nof every ancient southern people. It was not enough that the people\nof Yucatan and Guatemala migrated from the far north-west; but it was\nnecessary to find in each of these states traces of every nation whose\npresence in Mexico during the past ages has been recorded by tradition.\nAfter what has been said on this subject in this and preceding volumes,\nit is needless to repeat here the arguments against a Mexican origin\nfor the people and monuments of Yucatan. No people in America show less\nindications of a past intermixture with foreign tribes; the similarity\nbetween the monuments and those farther north is sufficiently accounted\nfor by the historical events to be recorded in this chapter; and the\nconjectures in question are not only unfounded, but wholly uncalled\nfor, serving only to complicate a record which without them is\ncomparatively clear if not very complete.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Yucatec culture-hero was Zamn\u00e1, or Ytzamn\u00e1, who according to the\ntraditions was the first temporal and religious leader, the civilizer,\nhigh-priest, and law-giver, who introduced the Maya institutions,\ndivided the country into provinces, and named all the localities in\nYucatan. He was accompanied, like other culture-heroes, by a band of\npriests, artizans, and even warriors. Ruling the country from his\ncapital of Mayapan, he gave the government of the provinces to his\ncompanions, reserving the best positions naturally for chieftains of\nhis own blood. Zamn\u00e1 was the reported inventor of the Maya hieroglyphic\nart, and it is conjectured that the Cocomes, the oldest royal family\nin Yucatan, were the descendants of this first ruler. He died at an\nadvanced age and was interred at Izamal, supposed to have been at that\ntime near the sea shore, a city which was named for him, and probably\nfounded by him, where his successors erected a sacred temple in honor\nof his memory, which was for many centuries a favorite shrine for\nYucatec pilgrims. Another personage, Kinich Kakmo, is prominent in the\nMaya mythology, and may probably have been identical with Zamn\u00e1, or one\nof his companions.[XIII-8]\n\nZamn\u00e1 may best be connected with the first colony, the 'little\ndescent,' the first introduction of Maya institutions into the\ncountry, although it is not expressly stated that he was at the head\nof that colony; and both the colony and its leader may be identified\nmost naturally with the introduction of the Votanic civilization and\nthe establishment of the Xibalban empire already narrated from the\ntraditions of the nations. Whether Zamn\u00e1 was a companion or disciple\nof Votan, or even identical with that personage, it is, of course,\nimpossible to determine; and it is not by any means necessary to accept\nliterally the arrival of either colony or leader. But the r\u00f4le played\nby Zamn\u00e1 was the same as that of Votan, and the same events at the same\nepoch may be reasonably supposed to have originated the Yucatec as\nwell as the Tzendal, Quich\u00e9, and Toltec traditions of this primitive\nhistoric period. The statement of Ordo\u00f1ez, already referred to, that\nMayapan was one of the allied capitals which with Palenque, Tulan, and\nCopan, constituted the Xibalban, or Votanic, empire, is not improbable,\nalthough its truth cannot be fully substantiated.\n\n[Sidenote: THE ITZAOB AT CHICHEN.]\n\nThe next event in the annals of the peninsula is the rule of the\nItzaob, three most holy men, at Chichen Itza, over the people also\ncalled Itzas. Closely connected with these rulers, and perhaps one\nof the three, was Cukulcan, or Quetzalcoatl, the 'plumed serpent.'\nTorquemada tells us that in very remote times, at the time of\nQuetzalcoatl's disappearance from Mexico, Cukulcan appeared from the\nwest with nineteen followers, all with long beards, and dressed in\nlong robes and sandals, but bare-headed. This author identifies him\nwith Quetzalcoatl. Cogolludo in one place briefly refers to Cukulcan\nas a great captain and a god; and elsewhere speaks of the coming of\nCozas with nineteen followers, introducing the rites of confession and\notherwise modifying the religious institutions of the country. Landa\nspeaks of Cukulcan as having afterwards been regarded as a god in\nMexico, whence he had come to Yucatan, under the name of Cezalcouati\n(Quetzalcoatl). Herrera gives him two brothers, and states that the\nthree collected a large population and reigned together in peace\nfor many years over the Itzas at Chichen, where they erected many\nmagnificent temples in honor of their gods. The three brothers lived\na most holy and continent life, neither marrying nor associating\ncarnally with women; but at last one of them, Cukulcan, for most of\nthe authorities agree that he was one of them, left his companions and\nadopted Mayapan as his capital. Landa says on this subject: \"It is the\nopinion of the natives that with the Itzas who settled Chichen Itza\nthere reigned a great lord named Cukulcan, which is shown to be true\nby the principal edifice called Cukulcan. They say that he entered the\ncountry from the west, but they differ as to whether he came before,\nwith, or after the Itzas; and they say he was very moral, having\nneither wife nor children.\" In another place the same author speaks\nof the three brothers also as having come from the west, reigning at\nChichen, agreeing in life and character with Cukulcan, until one of the\nnumber died, or at least abandoned his companions and left the country.\n\nAfter the departure or death of Cukulcan, the two remaining lords\ngradually gave themselves up to an irregular and dissolute life, and\ntheir conduct finally moved their subjects to revolt, to kill the two\nprinces, and to abandon the city. Cukulcan in the meantime devoted his\nattention to building up, beautifying, and fortifying his new capital,\nerecting grand temples for the gods and palaces for his subordinate\nlords, among whom he divided the surrounding country and towns. He\nruled here most wisely and prosperously for several years, but at last\nafter fully establishing the government, and instructing his followers\nrespecting their duties and the proper means of ruling the country\npeacefully, he determined, for some motive not revealed, to abandon the\ncity and the peninsula. He tarried awhile, however, at Champoton on the\nwestern coast, where a temple was erected in commemoration of his stay.\nAccording to Herrera it was erected by himself.[XIII-9]\n\n[Sidenote: CUKULCAN AND THE COCOMES.]\n\nIt is evident enough that Cukulcan was the same as Quetzalcoatl, but\nto determine with _which_ Quetzalcoatl--the Nahua culture-hero or the\nToltec king--is a difficult matter. We have seen what complications in\nMexican history arise from the fact that the Spanish writers failed to\nmake any distinction between the two, most of them entirely ignoring\nthe latter. Cogolludo dates the departure of Cukulcan in the middle of\nthe twelfth century; Herrera makes it precede by about five hundred and\nsixty years the coming of the Spaniards; and Brasseur de Bourbourg,\nin his history, implies that Cukulcan was Acxitl Quetzalcoatl, thus\nplacing his stay in Yucatan in or after the eleventh century. Yet\nmost of the traditions seem to point to the Itzaob and to Cukulcan as\npreceding the Tutul Xius. The Itzas seem to have been among the most\nancient nations in the country, and their name is best derived from\nthat of Ytzamn\u00e1. Even Brasseur de Bourbourg, in a later work,[XIII-10]\noffers the conjectures that the Itzas were Xibalbans who fled from\nChiapas after the overthrow of their empire by the Nahuas, and that\nCukulcan \"was the same as the more or less mythologic personage of whom\nSahagun speaks, the leader of the Nahua race to Tamoanchan, who seems\nidentical with the Quetzalcoatl of the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, and the\nGucumatz of the _Popol Vuh_.\"\n\nThere is no reason for bringing the Itza people from Chiapas, since\nthey appear to have been like the Cocomes, descendants, or followers,\nof Zamn\u00e1, whose history from the death of their great ruler down to\nCukulcan's coming, is unknown. But it is certainly most consistent\nto identify Cukulcan with the first Quetzalcoatl and with Gucumatz,\nto regard his appearance and the rule of the three 'holy princes' at\nChichen and Mayapan as the first introduction of the Nahua influence in\nYucatan, and to date it within the first two centuries of the Christian\nera, while the Nahua power was beginning to rival that of the ancient\nXibalba in Chiapas, and while the Olmecs and Xicalancas were becoming\nestablished in Vera Cruz and Puebla. Malte-Brun and some others deem\nCukulcan and Zamn\u00e1 the same without any apparent reason, although the\nlives and deeds of both these pontiff-rulers are recorded only in the\nvaguest manner.[XIII-11]\n\nIt is probable that Cukulcan abandoned Chichen and its people,\namong whom he at first attempted to establish his peculiar reforms,\nbecause his teachings were not so favorably received or so permanent\nin their effects as he desired, and because he had reason to expect\nmore favorable results among the Cocomes, whom he now adopted as\nhis chosen people. Both 'listeners' and 'serpents' are given as the\nsignification of the name Cocomes; the first may be referred to the\nfact that they were the first to 'listen' to Cukulcan's teachings;\nthe second may arise from their relationship to the Votanic race\nof Chanes, or 'serpents.' Torquemada speaks of the Cocomes as the\ndescendants of Cukulcan, but to regard them rather as disciples would\nbe more consistent with the celibate life and chastity attributed to\nthe great teacher. After the Plumed Serpent's departure the lords of\nMayapan, raised to the highest power in the state the chief of the\nCocome family, as Landa says, \"either because this family was the most\nancient or the richest, or because he who was at its head was a very\nvaliant chief.\" Many of the aboriginal institutions of this country,\nas described in a preceding volume, are derived from traditions of this\nperiod of Cocome rule, one of the most prosperous in Maya history. The\nfamily names of rulers are often used as personal names in the annals\nof these nations, and thus we find the ruler at Mayapan spoken of as\nCocom.[XIII-12]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: MIGRATION OF TUTUL XIUS.]\n\nRespecting the ensuing period of Cocome rule, we have no record until\nat a subsequent but undetermined date a new people, the Tutul Xius,\nappeared from the southern region where they had wandered long and\nsuffered great privations, and settled in the vicinity of Mayapan,\nbeing kindly received by the Cocomes. All agree that they came from\nthe south; Herrera brings them from the Lacandon mountains, and speaks\nof them as having entered Mayapan, where they lived in great peace\ntogether with the former inhabitants. Landa judges from linguistic and\nmonumental resemblances that they came from Chiapas. Morelet suggests\nthat they were a band from Palenque.[XIII-13] I have already shown that\nthe Tutul Xius were probably, like the Quich\u00e9s and Toltecs, among the\ntribes that migrated from Tulan in Chiapas at some time between the\nthird and fifth centuries.[XIII-14] They were not like the Toltecs a purely\nNahua nation, that is, they did not speak the Nahua language; but they\nwere, like the Quich\u00e9s, a branch of the ancient Maya, or Xibalban,\npeople, which had in Chiapas been subjected to Nahua influences and had\nadopted to some extent the Nahua institutions. In language they were\nkindred to the Cocomes, Itzas, and all the aboriginal inhabitants of\nYucatan; but like the Cocomes they were also followers of Cukulcan and\nQuetzalcoatl. Their kind reception is not therefore to be wondered at,\nand their subsequent prominence in the history of the country accounts\nfor the Nahua analogies observed in Yucatan institutions and monuments.\n\n[Sidenote: THE PEREZ RECORD.]\n\n[Sidenote: CHRONOLOGY OF THE RECORD.]\n\nI now present in full the Perez document which contains nearly all\nthat is known of the Tutul Xiu annals. I quote the version given\nin Mr. Stephens' work, adding in parentheses the variations and a\nfew explanatory notes from Brasseur's translation.[XIII-15] \"This is the\nseries of Katunes, or epochs, that elapsed from the time of their\ndeparture from the land and house of Nonoual, in which were the four\nTutul Xiu, lying to the west of Zuina (probably the Tulan Zuiva of\nthe Popol Vuh) going out of the land of Tulapan (capital of Tulan).\nFour epochs were spent in traveling before they arrived here with\nTolonchantepeuj (Holon-Chan-Tepeuh, in both the Maya text and in\nBrasseur's translation) and his followers. When they began their\njourney towards this island (_peten_, meaning literally 'island,' is\nthe word used, but Brasseur tells us that it was applied as well to\nregions almost surrounded by water, and the Mayas knew very well that\ntheir country was a peninsula), it was the 8 Ahau, and the 6 Ahau,\nthe 4 Ahau, and the 2 Ahau[XIII-16] were spent in traveling; because in the\nfirst year of 13 Ahau they arrived at this island (peninsula), making\ntogether eighty-one years they were traveling between their departure\nfrom their country and their arrival at this island peninsula of\nChacnouitan. In the 8 Ahau arrived Ahmekat Tutul Xiu (an error perhaps,\nfor 13 Ahau as above, or this may refer to a later arrival of another\nparty), and ninety-nine years they remained in Chacnouitan. Then\ntook place the discovery (conquest) of the province of Ziyan-caan,\nor Bacalar (Bakhalal, Chectemal at the time of the conquest, probably\nnear the site of Bacalar). The 4 Ahau, the 2 Ahau, and the 13 Ahau, or\nsixty years, they ruled in Ziyan-caan, when (since) they came here.\nDuring these years of their government of the province of Bacalar,\noccurred the discovery (conquest) of Chichen Itza. The 11 Ahau, 9\nAhau, 7 Ahau, 5 Ahau, 3 Ahau, 1 Ahau, or one hundred and twenty years\nthey ruled in Chichen Itza, when it was abandoned and they emigrated\nto Champoton (Chanputun) where the Itzas, holy men, had houses (had\n_had_ dwellings). The 6 Ahau they took possession of the territory\nof Champoton. The 4 Ahau [and so on for twelve epochs to the 8 Ahau]\nChampoton was destroyed or abandoned (Brasseur has it, \"4 Ahau, etc.,\netc., and in the 8 Ahau Champoton was destroyed\"). Two hundred and\nsixty years reigned (or had reigned at the time when Champoton was\ndestroyed) the Itzas in Champoton, when they returned in search of\ntheir homes (\"after which they started out anew in search of homes,\"\naccording to Brasseur), and then they lived for several epochs under\nthe uninhabited mountains (\"for several epochs the Itzas wandered,\nsleeping in the forests, among rocks and wild plants, suffering great\nprivations,\" as Brasseur has it, noting an omission of a part of the\ntext in Perez' translation). The 6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, after forty years they\nreturned to their homes once more, and Champoton was lost to them. (The\nFrench version is entirely different; \"6 Ahau, 4 Ahau\"--they wandered\nas above--\"after which they--the Itzas--had again fixed homes, after\nthey had lost Champoton\"). In this Katun of 2 Ahau, Acuitok Tutul Xiu\nestablished himself in Uxmal; the 2 Ahau [and so on in regular order\nfor ten epochs to 10 Ahau] equal to two hundred years, they governed\nand reigned in Uxmal with the governors (powerful lords) of Chichen\nItza, and Mayapan. After the lapse of the Ahau Katunes of 11, 9, 6\nAhau, (Brasseur says 7 instead of 6 Ahau, as indeed it must be in\norder to preserve the order) in the 8 Ahau the governor (the powerful\nlords) of Chichen Itza was (were) deposed (ruined) because he murmured\ndisrespectfully against Tunac-eel (Hunac Eel); this happened to\nChacxibchac of Chichen Itza, who had spoken against Tunac-eel, governor\nof the fortress of Mayalpan (Mayapan). Ninety years had elapsed, but\nthe tenth of the 8 Ahau was the year in which he was overthrown by\nAjzinte-yutchan (Ah-Tzinteyut-Chan) with Tzuntecum, Taxcal, Pantemit,\nXuch-ucuet (Xuchu-Cuet), Ytzcuat, and Kakaltecat; these are the names\nof the seven Mayalpans (lords of Mayapan). In this same period, or\nKatun, of the 8 Ahau, they attacked king Ulmil (king of the Ulmil) in\nconsequence of his quarrel (festivities) with Ulil, king of Izamal\n(Ytzmal); thirteen divisions of troops had he when he was routed by\nTunac-eel (Hunac Eel, 'he who gives intelligence'); in the 6 Ahau the\nwar was over, after thirty-four years. In the 6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, 2 Ahau,\n13 Ahau, 11 Ahau (Brasseur says in the 8 Ahau), the fortified territory\nof Mayalpan was invaded by the men of Itza, under their king Ulmil,\nbecause they had walls and governed in common the people of Mayalpan.\nEighty-three years elapsed after this event and at the beginning of\n11 Ahau, Mayalpan was destroyed by strangers of the Uitzes, (perhaps\nQuich\u00e9s) or Highlanders, as was also Tancaj (Tancah) of Mayalpan. In\nthe 6 Ahau (8 Ahau according to original text and Brasseur), Mayalpan\nwas destroyed (finally abandoned). The epochs of 6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, and\n2 Ahau, elapsed, and at this period the Spaniards, for the first time\narrived, and gave the name of Yucatan to this province, sixty years\nafter the destruction of the fortress. The 13 Ahau, 11 Ahau, pestilence\nand small-pox were in the castles. In the 13 Ahau, Ajpula (Ahpul\u00e1)\ndied; six years were wanting to the completion of the 13 Ahau; this\nyear was counted toward the east of the wheel, and began on the 4\nKan (the 4 Kan began the month Pop). Ajpula died on the eighteenth\nday of the month Zip, in the 9 Ymix (in the third month Zip, and on\nthe ninth day Ymix); and that it may be known in numbers, it was the\nyear 1536, sixty years after the demolition of the fortress. Before\nthe termination of the 11 Ahau, the Spaniards arrived; holy men from\nthe east came with them when they reached this land. The 9 Ahau was\nthe commencement of Christianity; and in this year was the arrival of\nToral, the first (new) bishop.\"\n\nSuch is our chief authority on the aboriginal history of Yucatan. It\nis, as Perez remarks, \"rather a list than a circumstantial detail\nof the events,\" was doubtless written from memory of the original\nrecords after the Spaniards came, and may be inaccurate at some\npoints. Perez claims to interpret its chronology according to his\ntheory that the Ahau Katun was a period of twenty-four years;[XIII-17]\nwhile Brasseur, following most of the Spanish writers, reckons an\nAhau Katun as only twenty years. I do not propose to enter into any\nfurther discussion on this point, but it should be noted that while\nPerez adduces strong arguments in favor of his general theory of the\nlength of these periods, neither his translation of the document in\nquestion nor his comments thereon are at all consistent with his own\ntheory. The document states clearly that Ahpula died in 1536, six years\nbefore the end of 13 Ahau, which must have closed in 1541. An accurate\ncalculation, reckoning twenty-four years to an epoch, would make the 8\nAhau in which the Tutul Xius left their ancient home, begin with the\nyear 173, A.D.,[XIII-18] instead of 144 as Perez gives it. If we compute\nthe epochs at twenty years each, we have 401 as the date when the\nmigration began. I have not attempted to fix the date of the migration\nfrom Chiapas, of which this forms a part, further than to place it\nbefore the fifth and probably after the second century; but the date\n401 agrees better than that of 173 with the general tenor of the\nauthorities, I therefore follow this system in forming the following\nr\u00e9sum\u00e9, although I give in notes the dates of the other system,\ntogether with some of Perez' dates.\n\nThe Tutul Xius left their ancient home in Chiapas in 401, wandering\nfor eighty-one years before their arrival in 482 at Chacnouitan, or\nthe southern part of the peninsula, under the command of, or together\nwith, Holon Chan Tepeuh.[XIII-19] Ahmecat Tutul Xiu arrived with them\nor at a later period,[XIII-20] and they remained ninety-nine years in\nChacnouitan, down to 581.[XIII-21] Then took place the conquest of\nBacalar, where they ruled for sixty years, or from 581 to 641; but at\nthe same time the 4 Ahau, 2 Ahau, 13 Ahau, of this period, correspond\nto the years 701 to 761, leaving the years 641 to 701 unaccounted\nfor.[XIII-22] During this rule at Bacalar, or at its end, they took\npossession of Chichen Itza, where they remained for six epochs, or one\nhundred and twenty years, from 761 to 881.[XIII-23] Then they went to\nChampoton where the Itzas had been, taking that country in\n941,[XIII-24] nothing being said of them during the three epochs from\n881 to 941. The Itzas had ruled in Champoton for two hundred and sixty\nyears, from 4 (or better 6) Ahau to 8 Ahau, or from 681, when they\nwere probably driven from Chichen,[XIII-25] to 941 when they were\ndriven out by the Tutul Xius.[XIII-26] The Itzas wandered for two\nepochs, from 941 to 981, suffering great hardships, and then again\nobtained fixed homes. Where they settled the record fails to\nstate.[XIII-27]\n\n[Sidenote: TUTUL XIU ANNALS.]\n\nReturning to the annals of the Tutul Xius, in 2 Ahau, 981, Ahcuitok\nTutul Xiu settled at Uxmal, where his people ruled conjointly with\nthe kings of Chichen and Mayapan for two hundred years, from 981 to\n1181.[XIII-28] In the tenth year of 8 Ahau, or 1191, Chac Xib Chac, and\nother lords of Chichen, were deposed for some offence against Hunac\nEel, the ruler of Mayapan. In the same epoch the Cocome king attacked\nand defeated the Itza king Ulmil. This war lasted thirty-four years,\nand was ended before 1221, by the Itzas invading Mayapan.[XIII-29]\n\nEighty-three years passed, and then in 11 Ahau, between 1281 and 1301,\nMayapan was conquered by the Uitzes, or mountaineers; and Mayapan was\nfinally abandoned in 8 Ahau, between 1441 and 1461.[XIII-30] After three\nepochs more, the Spaniards came for the first time, between 1501 and\n1521, sixty years after the destruction of Mayapan.[XIII-31] Between 1521\nand 1561, the small-pox ravaged the country, and among its victims was\nAhpul\u00e1, who died in 1536.[XIII-32] Before 1561 came the Spaniards; and in\nthe next epoch Christianity was introduced, and Bishop Toral arrived.\n\nThe first event narrated by the preceding document which seems to have\nany connection with those taken from other authorities is the\nestablishment of the Tutul Xius at Uxmal, where they ruled during the\ntenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries with the monarchs of Mayapan\nand Chichen Itza. All authorities agree on the prosperity attending\nthe reign of the Cocome monarchs in conjunction with the Tutul Xius at\nUxmal. It was perhaps in this period that were built a large\nproportion of the magnificent structures which as ruins have excited\nthe wonder of the world, and have been fully described in a preceding\nvolume;[XIII-33] although there is no reason to doubt that some of the\ncities date back to the Xibalban period, to the time of Zamn\u00e1 and his\nearliest successors. Uxmal and the many cities in its vicinity may be\nattributed to the Tutul Xius.\n\nThe first king of Mayapan after the departure of Cukulcan is generally\ncalled Cocom, or Ahcocom, but we know nothing of his successors\nfor some centuries, save Brasseur's conjecture that the four Bacab\nmentioned by Cogolludo as gods should be reckoned among the number.[XIII-34]\nAt last, probably during the twelfth century, Landa and the other\nSpanish writers agree that the monarchs at Mayapan began to neglect\nthe interests of their subjects, and to become exceedingly avaricious,\noppressing the people by excessive taxation. The first to follow this\ncourse of conduct is called by Brasseur Ahtubtun, a name selected from\nCogolludo's list of gods for no other apparent reason than that his\nname signified 'spitter of precious stones,' certainly an indication\nof extravagance. To his successor this author applies the name Aban\nand the title Kinehahau. This monarch was even more oppressive than his\npredecessor, and loud murmurs of discontent began to be heard, but none\nwere strong enough to make any opposition save the Tutul Xius. Either\nthis king or a successor introduced into the country a force of foreign\nsoldiers from Tabasco and southern Vera Cruz, and also established\nslavery, hitherto unknown in Yucatan.\n\n[Sidenote: OVERTHROW OF THE COCOMES.]\n\nThe Tutul Xius began their opposition to the Cocomes by sheltering\ntheir oppressed subjects. The third of the tyrants, probably identical\nwith the Hunac Eel of the Perez record, was even more oppressive than\nthose that preceded him, and brought in more foreign soldiers. In 1191\nthe monarch of Chichen Itza, Chac Xib Chac, was deposed by the tyrant\nand the deposition enforced by the aid of his foreign auxiliaries. Less\nthan ten years later Hunac Eel with his allies marched again against\nChichen, now ruled by a new monarch, Ulmil, and defeated him after a\nlong campaign. The end of the trouble is briefly if not very clearly\nexpressed by the author of the Maya record in the statement that Ulmil\nbefore 1221 invaded Mayapan.[XIII-35]\n\nLanda and Herrera relate that the tyranny of the Cocome monarch at last\nbecame insupportable, and his subjects with the aid of the Tutul Xius\nrevolted, captured and sacked Mayapan, and put to death the king with\nall his family, except one son, who chanced to be absent. The king of\nUxmal naturally acquired by this overthrow of the Cocome dynasty the\nsupreme power. Ulmil, the Itza king who led the attack against the\nCocomes, seems to have received the second place, while the head of the\nfamily of Cheles, before high-priest at Mayapan, was given the third\nrank as king of Izamal. Nearly all the authorities state that Mayapan\nwas destroyed and abandoned at this time; but the dates they give\nwith the fact that this city is mentioned by the Maya record at a much\nlater period, show that it was still inhabited, though deprived of its\nancient power.[XIII-36]\n\nThe Tutul Xius on their accession to the supreme power, strengthened\ntheir popularity by a liberal policy toward all classes, and by\nrestoring those who had been enslaved or exiled by the Cocomes to their\nformer positions. They also permitted the Xicalanca troops introduced\nby Hunac Eel and his predecessors to remain in the country, and gave\nthem the province of Canul, or Ahcanul, between Uxmal and Campeche,\nwhere they soon became a powerful nation.[XIII-37] The son of the Cocome\ntyrant, who by his absence from Mayapan at the time of the revolt\nescaped the fate of his family, on his return was permitted to settle\nwith his friends in the province of Zotuta, where he is said to have\nbuilt Tibulon, and several other towns. Thus was perpetuated with the\nancient Cocome family the mortal hatred which that family continued to\nfeel towards their successful rivals.[XIII-38]\n\n[Sidenote: FABLE OF THE DWARF.]\n\nThe reign of the Tutul Xius at Uxmal was doubtless the most glorious\nperiod of Maya history, but in addition to what has been said we have\nrespecting it only a single tradition which seems to refer to the last\nking and the overthrow of the dynasty.[XIII-39] An old sorceress lived at\nKabah, rarely leaving her chimney corner. Her grandson, a dwarf, by\nmaking a hole in her water-jar, kept her a long time at the well one\nday, and by removing the hearth-stone found the treasure she had so\ncarefully guarded, a silver _tunkul_ and _zoot_, native instruments.\nThe music produced by the dwarf was heard in all the cities, and the\nking at Uxmal trembled, for an old prophecy declared that when such\nmusic should be heard the monarch must give up his throne to the\nmusician. A peculiar duel was agreed upon between the two, each to\nhave four baskets of _cocoyoles_, or palm-nuts, broken on his head.\nThe Dwarf was victorious and took the dead king's place, having the\nCasa del Adivino built for his palace, and the Casa de la Vieja for\nhis grandmother.[XIII-40] The old sorceress soon died, and the new king,\nfreed from all restraint, plunged into all manner of wickedness, until\nhis gods, or idols, abandoned him in anger. But after several attempts\nthe Dwarf made a new god of clay which came to life and was worshiped\nby the people, who by this worship of an evil spirit soon brought upon\nthemselves destruction at the hands of the outraged deities, and Uxmal\nwas abandoned.\n\nFor this tradition we have only Brasseur's conjectural, but not\nimprobable, interpretation to the effect that the Tutul Xiu throne\nat Uxmal, in the earlier part of the thirteenth century perhaps,\nwas usurped by a chief of another family, known in tradition as the\nDwarf, or the Sorcerer. It is not unlikely that the usurping king\nwas of the Cocome family and that he succeeded in his attempt by the\naid of the priesthood. Whoever may have been at its head, the new\ndynasty was in its turn overthrown apparently by religious strife, and\nUxmal ceased to be a capital or centre of temporal power in Yucatan,\nalthough its temples may still have been occupied by the priesthood.\nFrom the fact that the Maya record, or Perez document, speaks only\nof Mayapan after this period, it is not unlikely that the Tutul Xiu\npower was transferred to that ancient capital, after the downfall of\nits representative at Uxmal. Near the end of the thirteenth century\nMayapan was conquered by a foreign army of Uitzes, or mountaineers, the\nreference being perhaps to a raid of one of the earlier Quich\u00e9 emperors\nfrom Utatlan. For a century and a half, a period of contention between\nrival dynasties and tribes, we have, besides a few reported predictions\nof coming disaster, only one definite event, the flight of a band of\nItzas under Canek, and their settlement on the islands in Lake Peten,\nwhere they were found, a most flourishing community, by the Spaniards.\nNo definite date is given to their migration--or elopement, for a lady\nwas at the bottom of the affair, as some say--except by Villagutierre,\nwho places it in 8 Ahau, or between 1441 and 1461.[XIII-41]\n\nAlso between 1441 and 1461, Mayapan was finally ruined in the\ncontentions of the factions, and abandoned at the death of a monarch\ncalled by some authors Mochan Xiu; the Tutul Xius then seem to have\nretired to Mani, which was their capital down to the Conquest.[XIII-42]\nFor twenty years after the final destruction of Mayapan the tribes\nare said to have remained at peace and independent of each other;\nbut the remaining century, down to 1561, was one of almost continual\ninter-tribal strife, of which there is no detailed record, but which,\nwith hurricanes, famine, deadly pestilence, and constantly recurring\nomens and predictions of final disaster, so desolated and depopulated\nthe country, that the Spaniards found the Mayas but a mere wreck of\nwhat they once had been, fighting bravely, but not unitedly, against\nthe invaders.[XIII-43]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[XIII-1] On the name of this country see:--_Landa_, _Relacion_, and\n_Brasseur_, in _Id._, pp. 6, 8, 42-3; _Lizana_, in _Id._, p. 348;\n_Perez MS._, in _Id._, pp. 421, 429; _Id._, in _Stephens' Yucatan_,\nvol. ii., pp. 465, 467; see also vol. i., pp. 139-40; _Cogolludo_,\n_Hist. Yuc._, pp. 60-1, 178-9; _Villagutierre_, _Hist. Conq. Itza_, p.\n28; _Ternaux-Compans_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., pp. 30-1;\n_Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, pp. 14-15; _Gomara_, _Hist. Ind._, fol. 60.\n\n[XIII-2] _Landa_, _Relacion_, p. 28; _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x.,\ncap. ii.\n\n[XIII-3] _Lizana_, in _Landa_, _Relacion_, p. 354; _Orozco y Berra_,\n_Geograf\u00eda_, p. 128. Cogolludo, _Hist. Yuc._, p. 178, quotes this from\nLizana.\n\n[XIII-4] _Lizana_ and _Cogolludo_, as above. Ternaux-Compans, in\n_Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., p. 32, also reverses the statement\nof the tradition respecting the relative numbers of the respective\ncolonies.\n\n[XIII-5] _Orozco y Berra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, p. 129.\n\n[XIII-6] _Veytia_, tom. i., p. 237; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 269;\n_Lizana_, in _Landa_, _Relacion_, p. 354; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._,\np. 178; _Fancourt's Hist. Yuc._, p. 115.\n\n[XIII-7] _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. ii., pp. 304-8, 342-3, 453-4;\n_Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 201-2; _Morelet_, _Voyage_, tom. i.,\npp. 270-1; _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 44-5; _Mayer's Mex. Aztec,\netc._, vol. i., pp. 99-100; _Wapp\u00e4us_, _Geog. u. Stat._, pp. 33, 142;\n_Prichard's Researches_, vol. v., p. 346; _Ternaux-Compans_, in\n_Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., pp. 31-2.\n\n[XIII-8] On Zamn\u00e1, see:--vol. iii., pp. 462-5 of this work;\n_Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 178, 192, 196-7; _Landa_, _Relacion_,\npp. 328-30; _Lizana_, in _Id._, p. 356; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. i.,\npp. 78-80; _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, p. 23; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_,\npp. 15-17.\n\n[XIII-9] On Cukulcan and the Itzas, see:--_Herrera_, dec. iv., lib.\nx., cap. ii.; _Torquemada_, tom. ii., p. 52, tom. iii., p. 133;\n_Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 190, 196-7; _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp.\n34-9, 340-2; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 10-13; _Malte-Brun_,\n_Yucatan_, pp. 15-16; _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., pp. 140-1.\n\n[XIII-10] In a note to _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 35, 39; _Orozco y\nBerra_, _Geograf\u00eda_, pp. 155-6.\n\n[XIII-11] Vol. iii., p. 465; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, pp. 15-16.\n\n[XIII-12] _Torquemada_, tom. ii., p. 52; _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp.\n38-45, 54-6; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 179-80; _Herrera_, dec.\niv., lib. x., cap. ii.; _Ternaux-Compans_, in _Nouvelles Annales_,\ntom. xcvii., p. 34; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, pp. 15-6.\n\n[XIII-13] _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 44-8. 'Le nom des _Tutul-Xiu_\npara\u00eet d'origine nahuatl; il serait d\u00e9riv\u00e9 de _totol_, _tototl_,\noiseau, et de _x\u00eduitl_, ou _x\u00edhuitl_, herbe, etc. En ceci il n'y\naurait rien d'extraordinaire, puisqu'ils sortaient de _Tula_ ou\n_Tulapan_, cit\u00e9 qui aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 la capitale des Nahuas ou Tolt\u00e8ques\napr\u00e8s leur victoire sur Xibalba.' _Brasseur_, in _Id._, p. 47. See\nalso _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii., iii.; _Torquemada_, tom.\niii., p. 132; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 178, 182; _Morelet_,\n_Voyage_, tom. i., p. 271; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc.,\nTransact._, vol. i., p. 171; _Ternaux-Compans_, in _Nouvelles\nAnnales_, tom. xcvii., pp. 34-5.\n\n[XIII-14] This volume, pp. 227-8. Additional study of the subject has\ncaused me to modify considerably in this chapter some of the\nstatements on Maya history contained in vol. ii., pp. 118-20.\n\n[XIII-15] _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. ii., pp. 465-9; _Brasseur_, in\n_Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 420-9.\n\n[XIII-16] For an account of this system of Ahau Katunes and the order\nof their succession, see vol. ii., pp. 762-5.\n\n[XIII-17] See vol. ii., pp. 762-5.\n\n[XIII-18] In his _Hist. Nat. Civ._, Brasseur follows this system and\nrepeatedly gives 174 (171 on p. 228 of this volume is a misprint) as\nthe date of this migration, using it indeed to fix the date of the\nmigration of the Toltecs and Quich\u00e9s from Tulan; but he adopts the\nother theory in his notes to Landa's work.\n\n[XIII-19] Reckoning an epoch as 24 years, the migration lasted from\n173 to 270, or 97 years instead of 81, as in the text. Perez has it\nfrom 144 to 217, or 73 years, which agrees neither with the text nor\nwith his own theory.\n\n[XIII-20] As late as 661 or 485, if Perez' statement of 8 Ahau be\naccepted, which is inconsistent with the whole record.\n\n[XIII-21] From 218 to 360, according to Perez; or according to his\nstatement that four epochs elapsed, from 270 to 366.\n\n[XIII-22] 360 to 432, _Perez_; 533 to 605, on the basis of 24 years to\nan epoch.\n\n[XIII-23] 432 to 576, _Perez_; 605 to 725 on the basis of 24 years to\nan epoch.\n\n[XIII-24] Or 821 according to the other system.\n\n[XIII-25] We have seen above that there is some confusion about the\ndate of the Tutul Xius taking Chichen.\n\n[XIII-26] In his commentary, Perez applies this stay of 13 epochs to\nthe Tutul Xius, although the text seems to state the contrary, making\nthem live in Champoton from 576 to 888; or if he had added simply the\n260 years of the text, 576 to 836; or if he had correctly adapted his\nchronology to his own theory, from 821 to 1133. On a basis of 24 years\nto a Katun the stay of the Itzas at Champoton, as given in the text,\nwas from 533 to 821.\n\n[XIII-27] 888-936, _Perez_; 821-869, on the basis of 24 years. Perez,\napplying this wandering to the Tutul Xius, makes them settle again at\nChichen.\n\n[XIII-28] 936-1176, _Perez_; 869-1109, on basis of 24 years, but this\nof course would not agree with the two hundred years of the text.\n\n[XIII-29] Perez makes these events, which he seems to regard as two or\nthree distinct wars, fill the time from 1176 to 1258. From 1119 to\n1157, on a basis of 24 years.\n\n[XIII-30] 1258 to 1368, _Perez_; 1229 to 1445, on the basis of 24\nyears. Perez admits in his commentary only one destruction of Mayapan\nin 1308.\n\n[XIII-31] Or, on a basis of 24 years to a Katun, between 1493 and\n1517. Either of these dates agrees very well with the facts, since\nC\u00f3rdova reached the coast of Yucatan in 1517, and Ger\u00f3nimo de Aguilar\nwas wrecked there, probably some years earlier. But Perez dates their\narrival between 1392 and 1488, before America was discovered!\n\n[XIII-32] Perez directly contradicts the text in placing this death in\n1493.\n\n[XIII-33] Vol. iv., pp. 140-285.\n\n[XIII-34] _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, p. 197.\n\n[XIII-35] It seems to me very probable that there is an error or\nomission by the copyist or translator in this part of the document.\n\n[XIII-36] On this revolution see:--_Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 48-52, 56.\nThis author calls the Chel prince Achchel, and calls him the\nson-in-law of a venerable priest in Mayapan. _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib.\nx., cap. ii., iii.; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 60, 178-9;\n_Lizana_, in _Landa_, _Relacion_, p. 350; _Villagutierre_, _Hist.\nConq. Itza_, p. 28; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 32-40, 48-9.\nThis author calls him Ahalin Chel, and their province Cicontun.\n_Ternaux-Compans_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., pp. 31, 35;\n_Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., pp. 172-3;\n_Prichard's Researches_, vol. v., p. 347; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, pp.\n20-1; _Stephens' Yuc._, vol. i., pp. 140-1.\n\n[XIII-37] Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 41-2, tells us that their\nprovince was called Calkini, and the people, from their ruler, took\nthe name of Ahcanuls; and also that they built or enlarged the cities\nof Sabacch\u00e9, Labn\u00e1, and Pokboc. (See vol. iv., pp. 211-8) The only\nauthority for the latter statement is probably the location of these\nruins in a general southern direction from Uxmal. Cogolludo says the\nnatives of Conil and Cho\u00e0ca, called Kupules, were the most warlike in\nYucatan. _Hist. Yuc._, p. 143; see also _Landa_, _Relacion_, p. 54;\n_Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. iii.\n\n[XIII-38] _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 54-5; _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x.,\ncap. iii.; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 42; _Cogolludo_, _Hist.\nYuc._, p. 143; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, p. 20.\n\n[XIII-39] _Registro Yuc._, tom. ii., pp. 261-72. The tradition is\ngiven in the form of a dialogue between a visitor to the ruins and a\nnative of extraordinary intelligence, who claimed to be well\nacquainted with the historical traditions of his race. Brasseur,\n_Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 578-88, gives what is probably an extended\ntranslation of the article referred to. Stephens, _Cent. Amer._, vol.\nii., pp. 423-5, obtained from a native a tradition similar in some\nrespects, so far as it goes, which is translated by Charnay, _Ruines\nAm\u00e9r._, pp. 369-71.\n\n[XIII-40] See vol. iv., pp. 172, 192-7.\n\n[XIII-41] _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 507-8; _Villagutierre_,\n_Hist. Conq. Itza_, pp. 29-31, 401-2, 488-91; _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._,\npp. 24, 36, 41; _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. ii., p. 200; _Gondra_, in\n_Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., p. 98; _Ternaux-Compans_,\nin _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., pp. 51-2; _Squier's Cent. Amer._,\npp. 547, 550-1.\n\n[XIII-42] _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii., iii.; _Torquemada_,\ntom. iii., p. 132; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 100, 179; _Landa_,\n_Relacion_, pp. 50-2, 62; _Villagutierre_, _Hist. Conq. Itza_, p. 28;\n_Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., pp. 140-1; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno.\nSoc., Transact._, vol. i., pp. 172-3. Landa makes the date 100 years\nbefore the Conquest, that is 1446. Villagutierre and Cogolludo say\n1420. Herrera says 70 years before the arrival of the Spaniards, and\n500 years after its foundation. Gallatin makes it 1517 or 1536.\n\n[XIII-43] _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 58-64; _Herrera_, dec. ii., lib.\niii., cap. i., dec. iv., lib. x., cap. iii.; _Cogolludo_, _Hist.\nYuc._, pp. 97-100, 185; _Gomara_, _Hist. Ind._, fol. 63;\n_Villagutierre_, _Hist. Conq. Itza_, pp. 35-7; _Torquemada_, tom.\niii., pp. 132-3; _Alcedo_, _Dicc._, tom. iii., p. 473; _Remesal_,\n_Hist. Chyapa_, pp. 245-6.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\nThe Index refers alphabetically to each of the ten or twelve thousand\nsubjects mentioned in the five volumes of the work, with numerous\ncross-references to and from such headings as are at all confused by\nreason of variations in orthography or from other causes. In describing\naboriginal manners and customs, the tribes are grouped in families,\nand each family, instead of each tribe, has been described separately;\nconsequently, after each tribal name in the Index is a reference to\nthe pages containing a description of the family to which the tribe\nbelongs; there is also an additional reference to such pages as\ncontain any 'special mention' of the tribe. For example, information is\nsought about the Ahts. In the Index is found 'Ahts, tribe of Nootkas,\ni., 175-208; special mention, i., 177, 180-1,' etc. All the matter\nrelating to the Nootka family on pp. 175-208, is supposed to apply to\nthe Ahts as well as to the other tribes of the family, except such\ndifferences as may be noted on pp. 177, 180-1, etc. If information\nis sought respecting the burial rites or any particular custom of the\nAhts, a more direct reference to the exact pages will be found under\n'Nootkas,' where the matter relating to that family is subdivided.\nThe matter in the last three chapters of vol. v. is referred to in the\nearlier letters of the Index by chapters instead of pages. No table of\nabbreviations used is believed to be needed.\n\n\n  A\n\n  Aba, iii., 354, see Aoa.\n\n  Abah (Abagh), Tzendal day, ii., 767; name for Atitlan, v., chap.\n    xi.\n\n  Abajo Val., Hond., antiq., iv., 70.\n\n  Aban, Mayapan ruler, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Abbato-tinneh, Kutchin dialect, iii., 587.\n\n  Abchuy Kak, Maya god, iii., 467.\n\n  Abiquiu, locality of Utahs, i., 465.\n\n  Abmoctacs, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Ab\u00f3, New Mex., antiq., iv., 663.\n\n  Abortion, i., 169, 197, 242, 279, 390, 634, 773; ii., 183, 269,\n    469-70.\n\n  Abrevadero, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 577.\n\n  Ac, herb, Yucatan, ii., 698.\n\n  Acacebastla, locality, Cent. Amer., iii., 760.\n\n  Acachinanco, locality, Mexico, iii., 298; v., 507.\n\n  Acagchemems, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, iii., 162;\n    myth., iii., 162-9, 525.\n\n  Acagnikakh, Aleut 1st man, iii., 104.\n\n  Acahualcingo (Acahualtzinco, Tlalixco), Aztec station, v., 323.\n\n  Acala, city, Chiapas, i., 681.\n\n  Acalan, city, Guatemala, ii., 650; v., 347.\n\n  Acalli, canoes, ii., 398.\n\n  Acamapichtli I. king of Culhuacan, v., 341-54.\n\n  Acamapichtli II., king of Mexico, v., 354-62, 492.\n\n  Acanum, Maya god, ii., 698.\n\n  Acapichtzin, Toltec hero, v., 213, 246.\n\n  Acapipioltzin, a Chichimec prince, v., 428, 450-1.\n\n  Acaponeta, province in Jalisco, i., 609, 671; v., 509.\n\n  Acapulco, city in Guerrero, i., 678, ii., 109.\n\n  Acat, Maya god, iii., 467.\n\n  Acatentehua, a Tlascaltec chief, v., 497.\n\n  Acatic, town, Jalisco, i., 672.\n\n  Acatl, Nahua calendar-sign, ii., 505; iii., 57, Toltec chief, v.,\n    243.\n\n  Acatlan, suburb of Mex., ii., 560; v., chap. x.\n\n  Acatomatl, a Chichimec chief, v., 293.\n\n  Acatonal, a Xochimilca chief, v., 309.\n\n  Acatzingo, city, Puebla, v., 420.\n\n  Acatzintitlan, locality, Mex., v., 345.\n\n  Acaucalli, Aztec chapel, iii., 346.\n\n  Acauhtzin (Achcauhtzin, Axcauhtzin), Chichimec king, v., 285,\n    290-1.\n\n  Acax\u00e9es (Acaxas), North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i.,\n    572; special mention, i., 585, 589-90; location, i., 614;\n    language, iii., 718-19.\n\n  Acayetl, Nahua pipe, ii., 231, 287.\n\n  Acayucan, town, Oajaca, i., 646.\n\n  Acchioc, Mosquito drink, i., 739.\n\n  Accouchement, see Women.\n\n  Acequias, see Canals and Irrigation.\n\n  Acexcoch, name of Tezcatlipoca, iii., 246.\n\n  Achastliens (Achastli\u00e9s, Achastliers), Cent. Cal. tribe, i.,\n    363-401; location, i., 363; lang., iii., 653-4.\n\n  Achcacauhti, Aztec old men, ii., 137.\n\n  Achcacauhtzin, Tezcucan ambassadors, ii., 422.\n\n  Achcauhtin, Nahua military order, ii., 403.\n\n  Achcauhtli, Nahua priestly order, ii., 313.\n\n  Achcauhtzin, v., 245, 290, see Achcuhtzin and Icauhtzin.\n\n  Acheto-tena, i., 149, see Daho-tena.\n\n  Achi, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 787; lang.,\n    iii., 760.\n\n  Achihab, Quich\u00e9 nobles, ii., 639; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Achilla, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Achillimo, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-422; location, i., 459.\n\n  Achiotl (Achiolt), dye-plant, i., 724; ii., 486.\n\n  Achitometl I., Culhua king, v., 256, 303, 316-20, 330-1.\n\n  Achitometl II., Culhua king, v., 354.\n\n  Achiuhtla, city in Oajaca, conquest of, v., 461; chap. x.\n\n  Achnutschik, Koniaga male concubine, i., 82.\n\n  Achote, food, South Mex., i., 652, 654.\n\n  Acla, Isthmian tribe, i., 747-85; location, i., 795; language,\n    iii., 794.\n\n  Acnagis, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Acoahunotl, ii., 436, see Quauhnochtli.\n\n  Acoculco, locality, Mexico, v., 339.\n\n  Acolhuacan (Aculhuacan), Nahua kingdom, i., 676; hist., v., 323,\n    333-482.\n\n  Acolhuas (Aculhuas), Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629;\n    loc., i., 676; spec. mention, ii., 92, 104, 125, 491-2, 134-6,\n    162-3, 231, 246-7, 367, 569, 589; myth., iii., 63, 195; lang.,\n    iii., 724-5; hist., v., 303-20, 359-494; see also Culhuas, with\n    whom they are often confounded.\n\n  Acolhuatl, name of Chichimecatl, iii., 250.\n\n  Acolhua-tlalli, war lands of Acolhuacan, ii., 225.\n\n  Acolman (Aculma), city of Mexico, ii., 441; iii., 63; v., 20,\n    380, 388, 395, 476.\n\n  Acolmiztli, name for Nezahualcoyotl, v., 372; lord of Cuitlahuac,\n    v., 409.\n\n  Acolnahuac, station, Aztec migration, v., 323, 324.\n\n  Acolnahuacatl, Tepanec king, v., 330-41, 365-6.\n\n  Acoloa, Nahua god, iii., 418.\n\n  Acoltas, tribe of Haidahs, i., 156-174; special mention, i., 174.\n\n  Acoma, town and tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-556; location, i., 600;\n    special mention, i., 527; language, iii., 681-2; antiq., iv.,\n    665-6.\n\n  Aconchi, town, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Aconite, Koniaga poison, i., 79.\n\n  Acopilco, locality, Mexico, v., 339.\n\n  Acorns, food in California, i., 339, 373-5, 406.\n\n  Acotelulco, ward of Tlascala city, v., 503.\n\n  Acoti, town of Pueblos, i., 527.\n\n  Acotoch, v., 317, see Ocotox.\n\n  Actopan, Mex., antiq., iv., 545.\n\n  Acuco, New Mex., antiq., iv., 674.\n\n  Acuecuejotl, name of Chalchihuitlicue, iii., 367.\n\n  Acul, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; hist., v., chap. xi.\n\n  Aculhua, Tepanec king, v., 320.\n\n  Aculhuacan, i., 676, see Acolhuacan.\n\n  Aculhuas, ii., 125, see Acolhuas.\n\n  Aculhua Tecuhtli, name for Quanez, v., 491.\n\n  Aculma, iii., 63; v., 20, see Acolman.\n\n  Aculmaitl, Tezcucan 1st man, iii., 63.\n\n  Aculnaoacatl, name of Mictlantecutli, iii., 396.\n\n  Acul Vinak, Maya nation, i., 687-711; ii., 630-803; special\n    mention, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Acuragua, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Acus, town of Pueblos, i., 527.\n\n  Acutee, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 789.\n\n  Acweek, Nootka title, i., 194.\n\n  Acxiquat, Zutugil king, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Acxitl (Meconetzin), Toltec king, v., 270-86, chap. xi.\n\n  Acxopal (Acxopil), Quich\u00e9 king, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Acxopal, a Toltec noble, v., 297.\n\n  Acxoquauh (Acxocuauh, Acxoquauhtli, Acxiquat), a Toltec prince\n    and Culhua king, v., 299-300, 358; a Zutugil ruler, v., chapter\n    xi.\n\n  Acxotecas, tribe of Teotenancas, v., 280.\n\n  Acyums, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 463-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Adacs, Lower Cal. tribe, i., 556-71; location, i., 603.\n\n  Addresses, see Speeches.\n\n  Adams County, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 771.\n\n  Adkayom, sacrificer, Guat., iii., 488.\n\n  Admiralty Inlet, i., 208, 298, 302.\n\n  Admiralty Island, i., 143.\n\n  Adobe, building material, i., 535-6, 575, 624, 651, 692; ii.,\n    557-73; iv., 473, 607, 626-83, 718-42, see also Earth.\n\n  Adultery, i., 350-1, 390, 412, 509-10, 660, 728-9, 770; ii.,\n    464-6, 658, 673-5, see also Fornication.\n\n  Adze, Koniaga and Nootka implement, i., 80, 189.\n\n  A\u00e9, Acagchemem 1st woman, iii., 164.\n\n  Aestaca, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Affats-tena, tribe of Nehannes, i., 149.\n\n  Agaab, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 789; special\n    mention, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Agalta Valley, Hond., antiq., iv., 70.\n\n  Agaraits, North Cal. tribe, i., 327-61; location, i., 445.\n\n  Agate, i., 343, 495; ii., 164, 751; iv., 469, 479, 554, 678, 715.\n\n  Agave, see Maguey.\n\n  Ages of the World, Nahua myth., ii., 504-5; iii., 64-5.\n\n  Aggitikkahs, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 463.\n\n  Aghual, Chiapan day, ii., 767.\n\n  Aglegmutes (Aglegmjuten, Agolegm\u00fcten, Oglemutes), tribe of\n    Koniagas, i., 70-87; loc., i., 70, 139-40.\n\n  Agrazenuqua, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 795.\n\n  Agriculture, Hyperboreans, i., 107; Columbians, i., 162, 234,\n    267; Californians, i., 323-5, 430; iv., 696; New Mexicans,\n    i., 487-9, 501, 538-9, 543; iv., 619, 623, 632, 636, 676-7;\n    Mexicans, i., 24, 576, 578, 625, 630, 652-3; ii., 343-50, 480;\n    iii., 274; iv., 429-431, 442; Cent. Americans, i., 694, 719,\n    758-9; ii., 653, 701, 717-20; iv., 21.\n\n  Agtism, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Aguacateca, lang., Guat., iii., 760.\n\n  Aguaceros, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Aguachapa, town of Pipiles, ii., 752.\n\n  Aguadas, see Reservoirs.\n\n  Aguama, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Aguardiente, South Mexican drink, i., 664.\n\n  Aguasajuchium, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 463-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Aguascalientes, antiq., iv., 593.\n\n  Aguasto, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Aguatubi, Moqui village and tribe, i., 526-56; special mention,\n    i., 601.\n\n  Aguin, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Agulmutes (Agulm\u00fcten, Aguljmjuten), tribe of Koniagas, i., 70-87;\n    loc., i., 70, 140; spec. mention, i., 80.\n\n  Ah, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Ah-Actulul, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 789.\n\n  Ahacus, Pueblo village, i., 527.\n\n  Ahahuete, iii., 66, see Ahuehuete.\n\n  Ahapchingas, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Ahau, Maya title and day, ii., 636, 756, 760; v., 21.\n\n  Ahau Ah Gucumatz, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 644; iii., 489.\n\n  Ahau Ahpop, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 639, 643; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahau Ahpop Camha, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 639, 643; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahau Ah Tohil, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 639, 644; iii., 489.\n\n  Ahau Ahtzic Winak, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 644.\n\n  Ahau Avilix (Awilix), Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 644; iii., 489.\n\n  Ahau Can Mai, iii., 472, see Ahkin Mai.\n\n  Ahau Chamahez, Maya god, ii., 697.\n\n  Ahau Gagavitz, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 644; iii., 489.\n\n  Ahau Galel, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 644.\n\n  Ahau Galel Camha, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 644.\n\n  Ahau Katunes, Maya cycle, ii., 762-5.\n\n  Ahau Quich\u00e9, Quich\u00e9 royal family, ii., 643-4; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahazats, tribe of Nootkas, i., 175-208; location, i., 296-7.\n\n  Ahbuluc Balam, Maya god, ii., 701.\n\n  Ahcan, Quich\u00e9 noble and priest, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahcan Uolcab, Maya god, ii., 701.\n\n  Ahcanail, Quich\u00e9 personage, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahcanuls, Yuc. province and people, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ahchaoh, Quich\u00e9 judges, ii., 642.\n\n  Ahcitz, Maya god, ii., 698.\n\n  Ahcocom, ruler at Mayapan, Yuc., v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ahcuitok Tutul Xiu, ruler at Uxmal, Yuc., v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ahcunal, ruler at Uxmal, Yucatan, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ah Hulneb, Maya chief and god, see Ahulneb.\n\n  Aheltahs, North Cal. tribe, i., 327-61; location, i., 445.\n\n  Ahgih, Maya astrologer, ii., 679.\n\n  Ahgishanakhou, mythic personage, iii., 103, 146.\n\n  Ahikia, Chinook game, i., 244.\n\n  Ahkak Nexoi, Maya god, ii., 698.\n\n  Ahkin, Maya priests, iii., 472.\n\n  Ahkin Mai (Ahau Can Mai), Maya high-priest, iii., 472.\n\n  Ahkin Xooc, Yuc. prince, Chichen Itza, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ahknil Chel, Yuc. high-priest, Chichen Itza, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ahlela, village of Moquis, i., 528, 600.\n\n  Ahmak, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Ahmecat Tutul Xiu, Yuc. prince, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ahmoxnag, Cakchiquel prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ah-Oanem, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 789.\n\n  Ahomamas, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; special mention, i., 576,\n    585, 590.\n\n  Ahomes (Ahomoas), North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; loc., i., 572,\n    607-8; spec. men., i., 584-5; lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Ahousets (Ahousahts, Ahowzarts), tribe of Nootkas, i., 175-208;\n    location, i., 295.\n\n  Ahpop, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 639, 643; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahpop Camha, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 639, 643; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahpop Qamahay, Cakchiquel title, ii., 640; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahpoxahil, (Ahpop Xahil), Cakchiquel title, ii., 640; v., chap.\n    xi.\n\n  Ahpozotzil, Cakchiquel title, ii., 640; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahpua, Maya god, ii., 698.\n\n  Ahqahb, Quich\u00e9 title, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahqib (Ahqixb), Quich\u00e9 title, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahquehayi, Quich\u00e9 nobles, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ah-tenas, i., 149, see Atnas.\n\n  Ahtepal, Maya title, ii., 634; v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ahts, tribe of Nootkas, i., 175-208; loc., i., 175, 297; spec.\n    mention, i., 177, 180-1, 186, 188-9, 191-2, 194, 197, 205;\n    myth., iii., 96, 520-1; lang., iii., 608; origin, v., 19.\n\n  Ahtubtun, Yuc. ruler, Mayapan, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ahtzic Winak, Quich\u00e9 title, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ah-Tziquinaha (Ah Tziquinihayi), Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711;\n    location, i., 789; hist., v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ah-Tzakol-Quet (Queh), Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location,\n    i., 789.\n\n  Ah-Tzuque, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 789.\n\n  Ahuacachapullin, a locust, iii., 380.\n\n  Ahuales, officials, Guat., i., 702.\n\n  Ahualulcos, South Mex. tribe, i., 645-70; location, i., 645, 682;\n    special mention, i., 652, 658.\n\n  Ahuamhoue, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Ahuanga, village, South Cal., i., 460.\n\n  Ahuauhtli, eggs of the Axayacatl, ii., 356.\n\n  Ahuayopan, locality, Puebla, v., 490.\n\n  Ahuchan Xahil, Cakchiquel title, ii., 640; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ahuehuete (Ahahuete), cypress-tree, iii., 66; iv., 502.\n\n  Ahuehuepa, Mex., antiq., iv., 496.\n\n  Ahuic, name of Chalchihuitlicue, iii., 367.\n\n  Ahuilizapan, ancient name of Orizava, v., 418.\n\n  Ahuitzotl, king of Mexico, v., 417, 424, 439-55, 499-501.\n\n  Ahulneb (Ah Hulneb), Maya god, iii., 466; v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ahwahnachees, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Ahwashtes (Ahwastees), Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; loc., i.,\n    363, 453.\n\n  Ah Witzil, Yuc. name for Quich\u00e9s, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ah Xiu, ruler at Mayapan, Yuc., v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ahytza, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Aiacachtli, Totonac rattle, i., 635.\n\n  Aiauh, name of Chalchihuitlicue, iii., 367.\n\n  Aiauhcalco, Nahua shrine, iii., 347.\n\n  Aiauhquemitl, priest's mantle, iii., 339.\n\n  Aibino, North Mex. lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Aijados, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 599.\n\n  Air, a Nahua symbol, iii., 129.\n\n  Aisish, root used for food, i., 265.\n\n  Aitizzarts, tribe of Nootkas, i., 175-208; location, i., 295-6.\n\n  Aixas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 599.\n\n  Aixtilcuechahuac, v., 250, see Ixtlilcuechahuac.\n\n  Aj\u00ed, name of chile, i., 759.\n\n  Ajmak, Guatemalan god, iii., 482.\n\n  Ajuchitlan, town in Guerrero, i., 678.\n\n  Akab, Maya night, ii., 755.\n\n  Akab-Tzib, hieroglyph at Chichen, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 225; name\n    of a person, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Akahales (Akales), Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; ii., 630-803;\n    hist., v., chap. xi.\n\n  Akbal, Maya day, ii., 756, 760, 767.\n\n  Ak\u00e9, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 245.\n\n  Aketsum (Kachuma), village, South California, i., 459.\n\n  Akil, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 220.\n\n  Akun Island, i., 141.\n\n  Akutan Island, i., 141.\n\n  Akutans, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Alabaster, ii., 557, 751, 787.\n\n  Alachschak, i., 37, see Alaska.\n\n  Alacupusyuen, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Alaguilac, Guatemala lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Alahuiztlan, city of Guerrero, v., 442.\n\n  Al\u00e4ksu, i., 37, see Alaska.\n\n  Alameda County, Cal., antiq., iv., 710.\n\n  Alames, South Mex. tribe, i., 645-70; location, i., 645.\n\n  Alamitos, village, South Cal., i., 460.\n\n  Alamos, village, Sonora, i., 606-7.\n\n  Alasapas (Alazapas), North Mexican tribe, i., 572-91; location,\n    i., 611.\n\n  Alaska (Aliaska, Al\u00e4ksu, Alachschak, Al\u00e4sku, Alaxa, Alasca,\n    Alyaska, Alayeksa, Al\u00e4schka, Aljaska), name, i., 37-8; nations\n    and tribes described, i., 37-137; loc. of tribes, i., 35-40,\n    137-149; myth., iii., 98-106, 122, 128-131, 141-9, 507, 516-18;\n    lang., iii., 557-8, 575-603, 662-3; antiq., iv., 742.\n\n  Alaya, a village of Sabaibos, i., 614.\n\n  Alayeksa, i., 37, see Alaska.\n\n  Albatross, Ceri dress, i., 574.\n\n  Albatuinas (Albatuins), tribe of Mosquitos, i., 712-47; loc., i.,\n    713; spec. mention, i., 746; lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Alberni, village, Vancouver Island, i., 297.\n\n  Albinos, i., 423, 530, 750; ii., 166.\n\n  Alcax, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Alceas, i., 250, see Alseas.\n\n  Alchedumas (Alchedomas), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location,\n    i., 598; language, iii., 685.\n\n  Alchones (Olchones), Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i.,\n    453-4; spec. mention, i., 365; myth., iii., 161.\n\n  Aleis, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Aletas, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Aleupkignas, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Aleutian Archipelago, i., 38, 87, 141; iii., 577-8; iv., 742; v.,\n    28-9.\n\n  Aleuts (Aleyuts), one of the five families into which the\n    Hyperboreans are divided, manners and customs of all its\n    nations and tribes described together, i., 87-94; physique, i.,\n    88; dress, i., 88-9; dwellings, i., 89; food, i., 90; weapons\n    and war, i., 90-1; implts. and manuf., i., 91; marriage, women,\n    government, i., 92; amusements, i., 92-3; burial, i., 93;\n    character, i., 93-4; loc. of tribes, i., 38, 87, 141-2; myth.,\n    iii., 104-5, 144-5, 507, 518; lang., iii., 577-80; origin, v.,\n    19.\n\n  Alexander Archipelago, i., 293.\n\n  Aleyas, i., 307, see Alseas.\n\n  Aleytacs, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Algonkins (Algonquins), location, i., 25; origin, v., 22.\n\n  Aliaska, i., 37, see Alaska.\n\n  Aliquachiek, i., 347, see Allicochick.\n\n  Alizway, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Aljaska, i., 37, see Alaska.\n\n  Aljiman, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Alkollock, game played by Colvilles, i., 280-1.\n\n  All, Towka young man, i., 732.\n\n  Allequas, North Cal. tribe, i., 327-61; spec. mention, i.,\n    329-31, 333, 341, 348, 350; myth., iii., 525.\n\n  Alliances, see Treaties.\n\n  Allicochick (Aliquachiek), shell money, North Cal., i., 347.\n\n  Alligators, i., 579, 696, 759; ii., 721; iv., 101.\n\n  Alloy, ii., 474, 749.\n\n  Allvatalama, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Alparagats, Mosquito sandals, i., 716.\n\n  Alseas (Alceas, Alseyas, Aleyas, Ulseahs), tribe of Chinooks, i.,\n    222-50; location, i., 307-8; special mention, i., 250.\n\n  Alsea Bay, i., 308.\n\n  Altahmos (Altajumos), Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; loc., i.,\n    363, 452-3.\n\n  Altamia, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 373.\n\n  Altamira, village, Tamaulipas, i., 613.\n\n  Altanuis, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Altar, village in Sonora, i., 602.\n\n  Altars, ii., 307, 571, 582, 689, 799; iii., 239, 332; iv., 32,\n    61-2, 94-9, 111-14, 257-9, 277, 334, 345-6, 371, 382, 436, 443,\n    456, 541, 545, 587, 646, 703, 774.\n\n  Altaville, California, antiq., iv., 703.\n\n  Altepatlalli, Nahua lands, ii., 226.\n\n  Aluenchis, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Alum, ii., 474, 487.\n\n  Alyaska, i., 37, see Alaska.\n\n  Alzatlan, town, North Mex., i., 622.\n\n  Am, Maya conjuring stones, ii., 697.\n\n  Amacavas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 599.\n\n  Amacui, a Chichimec chief, v., 295-6, see Xolotl II.\n\n  Amadaappigalla, season of the year, Lower Cal., i., 564.\n\n  Amaddappi, season of the year, Lower Cal., i., 564.\n\n  Amador Co., Cal., i., 450; iv., 707.\n\n  Amag-Dan, town, Guatemala, i., 789; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Amalcum, Maya god, ii., 698.\n\n  Amalinalpan, station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Amamaxtla, medical root, ii., 599.\n\n  Amanteca, Nahua feather-worker, ii., 489-91.\n\n  Amantla, a ward in city of Mex., ii., 490.\n\n  Amaquemecan, ancient home of Chichimecs, iv., 580; v., 219, 289,\n    301, 314.\n\n  Amaquetepec, Chichimec station, v., 242, 487.\n\n  Amaranth, ii., 329, 333, 356, 616; iii., 241, 297, 344, 371, 395.\n\n  Amasmaxtli, paper dress, ii., 323.\n\n  Amatetevitl (Amateteuitl), paper ornaments, iii., 333, 362.\n\n  Amatique Gulf, iii., 726; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Amatitlan (Amatitan), town, Guat., i., 787-8; ii., 651.\n\n  Amatitlan Lake, antiq., iv., 121.\n\n  Amatl, Nahua paper, ii., 485, 524.\n\n  Amatlan de los Reyes, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 434-5.\n\n  Amatzin, king of Tlatelulco, v., 364.\n\n  Amaxtlan, province, Oajaca, v., 447, chap. x.\n\n  Amaytun lamayte (Lamaytun), Maya division of Cycle, ii., 762.\n\n  Ambassadors, i., 388, 628, 723, 729-30, 770; ii., 254, 412-13,\n    419-23, 462, 607, 646, 666-8.\n\n  Ambawtawhoot-Tinneh (Sheep Indians), tribe of Tinneh, i.,\n    114-137; location, i., 145; special mention, i., 121; language,\n    iii., 585.\n\n  Amber, i., 72, 649-51; ii., 732.\n\n  Ambush, i., 264, 496-7, 628, 697; ii., 426-7.\n\n  Amechichi, Tezcucan title, ii., 189; v., 350.\n\n  American River, i., 450.\n\n  Ameyal, a Toltec prince, v., 313, 316.\n\n  Amimitl, Nahua god, iii., 410.\n\n  Amitaguas, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Amolli, soap-plant, ii., 491.\n\n  Amonces, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 363, 456.\n\n  Amotenenqua, name of Napatecutli, iii., 417.\n\n  Amoxoaque, Nahua prophets, v., 189.\n\n  Amoxtli, water-plant, ii., 365.\n\n  Ampayouts, i., 441, see Yam Pah Utes.\n\n  Amusements, Hyperboreans, i., 66-7, 84-5, 92-3, 119, 131;\n    Columbians, i., 169-71, 180-1, 198-201, 219, 243-5, 280-2;\n    Californians, i., 351-4, 392-4, 415-17, 437-8; New Mexicans,\n    i., 515-17, 549-53, 566-7, 586-7; Mexicans, i., 635-6, 664-5;\n    ii., 283-301, 399;  Central Americans, i., 704-7, 735-9, 774-6;\n    ii., 711-14.\n\n  Amusgo, South Mex., lang., ii., 752.\n\n  Amutajas, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Anacanas, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Anacarck, i., 458, see Anacbuc.\n\n  Anacbuc (Anacarck), South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    458.\n\n  An\u00e1huac, name, i., 18; ii., 87-8; for nations and tribes, myth.,\n    lang., antiq., and hist., see Mexico.\n\n  An\u00e1huac Ayotlan, Oajacan coast region, ii., 111; v., chap. x.\n\n  An\u00e1huac Mountains, name for Utah Mountains, i., 465.\n\n  An\u00e1huac Xicalanco, Tabascan coast region, ii., 111; v., 196.\n\n  Anajue (Anijue), South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Analco, village, Jalisco, i., 672.\n\n  Analt\u00e9s (Analtehes, Analtees), Maya books, ii., 768-9.\n\n  Anam\u00e1s (Anamons), Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i.,\n    452.\n\n  Anayicoyondi, Peric\u00fai goddess, iii., 169.\n\n  Ancasiguais, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Ancasmarca Mountain, v., 15.\n\n  Anchins, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Ancoose Lake, i., 443.\n\n  Anderson Lake, i., 311.\n\n  Anderson Valley, i., 362, 449.\n\n  Andreanovski (Andrejanowschen) Island, i., 87, 142.\n\n  Anegas, i., 293, see Hanegas.\n\n  Angels, iii., 492-3, 540.\n\n  Anian Strait, v., 79.\n\n  Aniche Island, Michoacan, antiq., iv., 571.\n\n  Anijue, i., 459, see Anajue.\n\n  Animals, myth., iii., 37, 127-139; diffusion of, v., 29-30.\n\n  Animal-sculpture or images, ii., 750-1; iv., 24, 39-51, 100-1,\n    112-14, 122, 137, 163-8, 173, 175, 183-9, 216, 226-31, 235,\n    317-20, 386-8, 436, 467-9, 481-2, 488, 493, 497-8, 500-1,\n    519-20, 538, 548, 575, 590-5.\n\n  Animpayamos, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 455.\n\n  Ankle-ornaments, i., 574; ii., 290, 372; iii., 385.\n\n  An-Kutchin, i., 147, see Han Kutchin.\n\n  Anlygmutes (Anlygmjuten, Anlygm\u00fcten), tribe of Koniagas, i.,\n    70-87; location, i., 70, 141.\n\n  Anointing, ii., 144-7, 422, 641; iii., 435.\n\n  Ansaymas, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Antelope, see Deer.\n\n  Antelope Peak, i., 595.\n\n  Antiquities, Cent. America, ii., 116-18; iv., 15-139; v., 58-61;\n    Mexican Republic, ii., 749-51; iii., 398; iv., 143-614; v.,\n    55-8; New Mexico, i., 537-8; iv., 616-686; California and North\n    West, iv., 688-743; Mississippi Valley, iv., 744-90; v., 93-5,\n    114; Peru, iv., 791-806; Brazil, v., 123; Bibliography of,\n    iv., 2-4, 150-1, 289-94, 377-8, 390-1, 483, 621-5; See names of\n    states and localities.\n\n  Ants, i., 419, 428, 568, 762; ii., 176, 356.\n\n  Aoa (Aba), Nahua festival character, iii., 354.\n\n  Apaches (Apatschees), one of the four families into which the\n    New Mexicans are divided. Manners and customs of all its\n    nations and tribes described together, i., 473-526; physique,\n    i., 477-9; dress, i., 480-4; dwellings, i., 485-7; food, i.,\n    487-92; weapons, i., 493-6; war, i., 496-500; impl'ts and\n    manufactures, i., 500-5; boats and property, i., 505-6; art,\n    i., 506-7; government, i., 507-10; slavery, i., 510-11; women\n    and marriage, i., 511-15; amusements, i., 515-17; miscellaneous\n    customs, i., 517-21; medicine and burial, i., 521-4; character,\n    i., 524-6; location of tribes, i., 473-5, 591-9; iii., 593-5;\n    myth., iii., 132, 135, 170; lang., iii., 584, 593-603.\n\n  Apalaches, lang., iii., 727.\n\n  Apalamu, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Apan, station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Apanco, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Apanecatl, a Toltec noble, v., 254.\n\n  Apantecutli, Nahua god, v., 193.\n\n  Apasco (Apazco), station, Aztec migration, v., 323-4.\n\n  Apatamn\u00e8s, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Apaugasi, Cent. Cal. lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Apaxtle, a Nahua vessel, ii., 272.\n\n  Apay, Cent. Amer. lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Apes, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611; see also\n    Monkeys.\n\n  Apetlac, Nahua place in temple, iii., 387.\n\n  Apil, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Apoala, town, Oajaca, iii., 71; v., chap. x.\n\n  Apoplexy, i., 247.\n\n  Apotheosis, ii., 618, 693, 699, 801; iii., 25-6, 32, 271, 308,\n    399, 457, 473; v., 205, 226, 249-50, 255, 264, chap. xi., xii.,\n    xiii.\n\n  Apozolco, a mission in Cent. Mex., i., 672.\n\n  Apozonallotl, name of Chalchihuitlicue, iii., 367.\n\n  Apparitions, Mex. hist., v., 467-9.\n\n  Appeal, right of, ii., 434-7, 445, 656.\n\n  Apple-tree Cove, i., 301.\n\n  Apuasto, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Aquamish, tribe of Nootkas, i., 175-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Aquarius Mountains, i., 597.\n\n  Aquas Calientes, South Cal., i., 460.\n\n  Aqueducts, ii., 169, 563, 565-6; iv., 121, 341-2, 447, 522-4,\n    611, 798, 801; v., 422, 452-3.\n\n  Aquiach, Nahua title, v., 264, 486.\n\n  Aquilasco, ancient Nahua home, v., 221, 309.\n\n  Ara, deified bird, ii., 212; v., 16.\n\n  Arabic, lang., traces, iii., 705.\n\n  Aramacina, Honduras, antiq., iv., 77.\n\n  Aramays, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Aransas Bay, i., 594.\n\n  Arcata, town, North Cal., i., 446.\n\n  Arch, ii., 555, 701-2, 791; iv., 127, 137, 157-8, 171, 177-9,\n    190-1, 208, 214, 228, 235, 243-4, 272-3, 309-11, 341-3, 356,\n    373, 380-1, 383, 451, 460-1, 528, 658, 713.\n\n  Arch\u00e6ology, introductory, iv., 1-14; see also Antiquities.\n\n  Architecture, ii., 553-89, 783-94; iv., 267 et seq.; v., 55-60;\n    see also Dwellings.\n\n  Arch Spring, New Mex., antiq., iv., 645.\n\n  Areitos, Isthmian dances, i., 774.\n\n  Aretines, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Aribetzi, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Arigames, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Aripas (Aripe), Lower Cal. tribe, i., 556-71; loc., i., 604;\n    lang., iii., 687.\n\n  Arispe (Arizpe), village, Sonora, i., 605-6.\n\n  Arithmetic, i., 68, 192, 274-5, 507, 564, 726, 769; ii., 497-500,\n    753-4.\n\n  Arizona, nations and tribes, i., 422, 465-6, 473-555, 591-603;\n    myth., iii., 75-83, 132-6, 170, 526-8; lang., iii., 593-603,\n    671-4, 680-6; antiq., iv., 616-44.\n\n  Ark, myth., iii., 66, 76, 79, 103; v., 14, 86-7, 327-9.\n\n  Arkansas River, i., 464, 591-2.\n\n  Arks, i., 143, see Auks.\n\n  Armadillos, ii., 720.\n\n  Armer\u00eda, Colima, antiq., iv., 572.\n\n  Armor, i., 50, 90, 105, 160, 182, 230, 235, 432, 541, 578, 655,\n    723, 763; ii., 403-8, 488, 490, 742, 750.\n\n  Armories, ii., 415, 578.\n\n  Arms, see Weapons.\n\n  Arnotto, oil, i., 753.\n\n  Arrianjianbaj, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 374.\n\n  Arrows, see Bows and Arrows.\n\n  Arrow Lakes, i., 252, 264, 271-2, 314.\n\n  Arroyo Blanco, i., 457.\n\n  Arsenals, see Armories.\n\n  Art, Hyperboreans, i., 68; Columbians, i., 160-1, 165-6, 172,\n    192-3, 238-9, 274-5; New Mexicans, i., 506-7, 545-6, 564,\n    583-4; Mexicans, i., 24, 631; ii., 442, 473-552; iv., 366-597;\n    v., 258; Cent. Americans, i., 700-1, 726-8, 769; ii., 748-82;\n    iv., 15-365; Peruvians, iv., 791-806.\n\n  Arteljnowskojes, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Artemisia, Cent. Cal. food, i., 374.\n\n  Artez-Kutshi, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 147.\n\n  Artsmilsh, i., 305, see Karweewee.\n\n  Ascension River, i., 602, 605.\n\n  Ascetics, Nahuas, iii., 436-7, 441-2.\n\n  Aseguang (Asequang), tribe of Haidahs, i., 156-74; location, i.,\n    292.\n\n  Ashes, i., 126, 204, 395-7, 419, 535, 566; ii., 277, 307, 348,\n    608-10, 615, 617, 621, 717, 722.\n\n  Ashochemie, Cent. Cal. lang., iii., 648.\n\n  Asia, origin from, v., 30-55.\n\n  Asientic-h\u00e4b\u00ee Mountains, i., 597.\n\n  Asiuhuil, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Aspianaque, Cent. Cal. lang., iii., 653.\n\n  Ass, Lower Cal., food, i., 561.\n\n  Association, element of progress, ii., 55-9.\n\n  Assuntas, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Asthma, i., 287, 667.\n\n  Astronomy, i., 584; ii., 500-22; iii., 371; iv., 496-7, 506-8;\n    v., 450.\n\n  Asucsagna, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Asuncion Sianori, village, Sinaloa, i., 614.\n\n  Atalaya Castle, Guatemala, ii., 788.\n\n  Atalcaoplo, iii., 420, see Atlcahualco.\n\n  Atamalqualiztli, Nahua religious feast, ii., 341; iii., 429.\n\n  Atamataho, forest, Michoacan, v., 517.\n\n  Atarpes, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Atchaer, i., 142, see Atkhas.\n\n  Ateakari (Ateacari), name of Coras, i., 672; iii., 719.\n\n  Atecpanecatl, name of Huemac ii., v., 267.\n\n  Atemoztli (Atemuztli), Nahua month, ii., 337, 339, 511; iii.,\n    346.\n\n  Atempanecatl, Nahua title, ii., 138.\n\n  Atenamitic, Totonac station, v., 203.\n\n  Atenco (Atengo), village, Mexico, ii., 560; station, Aztec\n    migration, v., 323.\n\n  Atepetlac, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Atepocaxixilihua, Nahua dance, ii., 324.\n\n  Athabasca Lake, i., 144.\n\n  Athabascas, name for Chepewyans, i., 114.\n\n  Athletic Sports, i., 552, 567, 586-7; ii., 286, 295-9, 713-14.\n    See also Amusements.\n\n  Atilan, department of Oajaca, i., 680.\n\n  Atit, Guatemalan queen, iii., 75; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Atitlan (Atitan, Atital-huyu), town, Guatemala, i., 789; iii.,\n    75; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Atitlan Lake, i., 789; iv., 121; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Atkha Island, lang., iii., 579.\n\n  Atkhas (Atchaer), tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 87,\n    141-2; lang., iii., 578-9.\n\n  Atl, Nahua day, ii., 511-12, 516-17.\n\n  Atlacamani, name of Chalchihuitlicue, iii., 367.\n\n  Atlacohuayan, city, Mexico, v., 402.\n\n  Atlacuezona, water lily, iii., 369.\n\n  Atlacuihuayan, station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Atlacuizoayan Mountain, name of Tacubaya, iii., 405.\n\n  Atlantis, origin theory, v., 123-9.\n\n  Atlapolco, a city of Matlaltzinco, v., 433.\n\n  Atlcahualco (Atlchualco, Atalcaoplo, Atlaooalo, Atlcaoalo), Nahua\n    month and festival, ii., 305, 509; iii., 332, 419-20.\n\n  Atliaca, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 447.\n\n  Atlicalaguian (Atlicalaquian, Atlitlalacayan, Atlitlanquian,\n    Atlitlalacpan, Atitalaquia), station, Aztec migration, v.,\n    323-4.\n\n  Atlihuetzian, a province of Mexico, i., 675.\n\n  Atlixco, town, Puebla, i., 671; antiq., iv., 468-9; hist., v.,\n    202, 426, 443, 463, 499-504.\n\n  Atlmayoacan, locality, Puebla, v., 490.\n\n  Atnahs (Atnaks), Inland tribe, i., 254-91; location, i., 251,\n    310; spec. mention, i., 260; lang., iii., 589-91.\n\n  Atnas (Ah-tenas, Atnaer), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-137; location,\n    i., 116, 135, 149; spec. men., i., 135.\n\n  Atna River, name of Copper River, i., 38, 149.\n\n  Atochpan (Atocpan), province, Vera Cruz, i., 673-4; v., 420.\n\n  Atole (Atolli), Nahua drink, i., 695, 706; ii., 355.\n\n  Atonaltzin, name for Dzawindanda, v., 415.\n\n  Atonan, station, Chichimec migration, v., 294.\n\n  Atonatiuh, Nahua age of water, ii., 504; iii., 66.\n\n  Atotonilco, station, Aztec migration, v., 298, 323-4.\n\n  Atotoztli (Atototzin), a Mexican princess, v., 316, 358, 372.\n\n  Atoyac, a district of Guerrero, i., 678.\n\n  Atrato River, i., 796-7.\n\n  Attajen, California mythic personage, iii., 165.\n\n  Atupen, mountain, Michoacan, v., 519.\n\n  Atzacualco, part of Mexico city, ii., 563.\n\n  Atzcapotzalco, station, Aztec migration, v., 324. See also\n    Azcapuzalco.\n\n  Ahtzih Winak Cawek, Cakchiquel title, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Auguries, ii., 255, 389-95, 427; iii., 438.\n\n  Aujay, i., 459, see Ojai.\n\n  Auks (Arks), tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 96-114; location, i., 96,\n    143; lang., iii., 579.\n\n  Aulintacs, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Aulone, shell used as money, i., 385.\n\n  Ausion, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Authorities, list of, i., xvii-xlix.\n\n  Autlan, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 572.\n\n  Autochthon, origin theory, v., 129-32.\n\n  Auyapemes, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Auzar, Californian mythic personage, iii., 165.\n\n  Avatanak Island, i., 141.\n\n  Avatanaks, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Avecatl, a Toltec chief, v., 243.\n\n  Avenues, see Streets.\n\n  Aviaries, Nahuas, ii., 163-6.\n\n  Avilix (Awilix), Quich\u00e9 god, ii., 648; iii., 50, 477; v., 181,\n    chap. xi.\n\n  Aw\u00e1nees, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 456.\n\n  Awignas, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Awls, i., 407-8; ii., 710; iv., 710-12, 740.\n\n  Axalo, village, Guerrero, i., 677.\n\n  Axaucalli, bath houses, iii., 337.\n\n  Axayacatl, flies, i., 625; ii., 356; king of Mexico, v., 417,\n    424-35, 499, 503, chap. x.\n\n  Axcahua, Nahua title, ii., 187.\n\n  Axcauhtzin, v., 290, see Acauhtzin.\n\n  Axes, i., 719; ii., 480, 557, 743; iii., 71.; iv., 23, 59-60,\n    557, 611, 677, 793.\n\n  Axixpatli, Nahua medicine, ii., 599.\n\n  Axoquentzin, Acolhua prince, v., 410.\n\n  Axpitil, i., 458, see Paxpili.\n\n  Axuas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; spec. mention, i., 482,\n    500, 511.\n\n  Ayacachtli, rattles, ii., 289, 293.\n\n  Ayaguas, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  A yail haab, Maya intercalary years, ii., 762.\n\n  Ayatl, Nahua mantle, ii., 366.\n\n  Ayauhcihuatl (Ayauchigual), a Mexican queen, v., 363.\n\n  Ayhuttisaht, i., 295, see Ehateset.\n\n  Ayotzinco, town, Mexico, ii., 568; v., 495.\n\n  Aytcharts, tribe of Nootkas, i., 175-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Azacot, a Quich\u00e9 chief, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Azcapuzalco, city, Mexico, i., 675; ii., 104-5, 219-20, 475; v.,\n    311, 320, 334, 345-58, 376-94.\n\n  Azcatlxochitl, a Toltec princess, v., 313.\n\n  Azcaxochitl (Azcaxochic), station, Aztec migration, v., 324;\n    princess of Malinalco, v., 340; princess of Mexico, v., 358; a\n    Tepanec princess and queen of Tezcuco, v., 421.\n\n  Aztacalco, town, Mexico, ii., 560.\n\n  Aztapilpetlatl, mats, iii., 335.\n\n  Aztatlitexcan, a Tailotlac chief, v., 338.\n\n  Aztaxelli, tassels, ii., 320.\n\n  Aztecs, Nahua nation, ii., 90-629; loc. ii., 93-5; iii., 557-8;\n    myth., ii., 200-7, 245-6, 302-41, 388-97, 604-5, 616-19; iii.,\n    55-70, 109-13, 119-23, 128-9, 181-231, 237-444, 469-70, 511-15,\n    532-9; lang., iii., 557-8, 630-1, 660-72, 680-2, 713-14,\n    716, 719-20, 723-37; antiq., iv., 504-23, 553-64; hist., v.,\n    307-510.\n\n  Aztetl, Nahua medicine stone, ii., 600.\n\n  Aztlan, ancient home of Aztecs, i., 676; ii., 125; v., 221,\n    305-6, 322-5.\n\n  Aztoguihua Aquiyahuacatl, a Tlascaltec chief, v., 498.\n\n  Azuza, village, South Cal., i., 460.\n\n\n  B\n\n  Baali, a Zapotec captain, v., chap. x.\n\n  Baaloo, a Zapotec captain, v., chap. x.\n\n  Baal-Peor, Phallic-worship, iii., 501.\n\n  Babel, myth., iii., 67-8, 77; v., 17-18, 21, 200, 209.\n\n  Babeles, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Babiacora, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Babiamares, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Babines, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 145.\n\n  Babispe, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Babos, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Babosarigames, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Baca, village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Bacabs, Maya gods, ii., 690, 699; iii., 462, 466; rulers of\n    Mayapan, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Bacadeguachi, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Bacalar, locality in Yucatan, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Bacaniyahua (Baipoa), village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Bacanora, village, Sonora, i., 606-7.\n\n  Bachimba, Chihuahua, antiq., iv., 604.\n\n  Bacerac, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Bacoatzi (Bacuachi), village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Bacowas, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 449.\n\n  Bacum (Bac\u00fan), village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Badges, of rank, see Insignia.\n\n  Badgers, Maya food, ii., 720-1.\n\n  Bags, i., 62, 190; ii., 324, 710; iii., 337, 339-41.\n\n  Bagiopas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; loc., i., 598; lang.,\n    iii., 685.\n\n  Bagnames, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Bahacechas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 599.\n\n  Baidar (Baydare), Eskimo skin boat, i., 60.\n\n  Baidarka, Eskimo small boat, i., 60.\n\n  Baines Sound, Brit. Col., antiq., iv., 741.\n\n  Baipoa, i., 606, see Bacaniyahua.\n\n  Bajada Point, i., 217.\n\n  Bajio, Guanajuato, antiq., iv., 577.\n\n  Baker's Bay, i., 304.\n\n  Bakhalal, locality, Yucatan, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Baklum Chaam, Maya god, iii., 467.\n\n  Balam, Maya sorcerer, ii., 659; founder of Copan, v., chap. xi.\n    See Ci.\n\n  Balam II., a Cakchiquel ruler, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Balam-Agab (Balam-Acab, Balam Acam), Quich\u00e9 2d created man, iii.,\n    47; v., 181; Quich\u00e9 king, chap. xi.\n\n  Balam Colob, Maya nation, i., 687-711; ii., 630-803; hist., v.,\n    chap. xi.\n\n  Balam Conache, a Quich\u00e9 prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Balam-Quitz\u00e9, (Balam Kich\u00e9) Quich\u00e9 1st created man, iii., 47; v.,\n    181; Quich\u00e9 king, chap. xi.\n\n  Balanicha, Maya nation, i., 687-711; ii., 630-803; hist., v.,\n    chap. xi.\n\n  Balbitz, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Balch\u00e9, South Mex. drink, i., 665.\n\n  Balconies, ii., 161, 555, 572. See also Terraces.\n\n  Bald Hill Indians, i., 446, see Tchololahs.\n\n  Bald Hills, i., 446.\n\n  Bale Ranch, Cent. Cal., i., 451-2.\n\n  Balize, iv., 139, see Belize.\n\n  Balls, games with, i., 353, 393, 586-7; ii., 297-9; iv., 230; v.,\n    174-9, 184, 329, 432, chap. xi.\n\n  Ballabollas, i., 295, see Bellacoolas.\n\n  Ballista, Nahuas, ii., 410.\n\n  Ballo Ki Pomos (Oat Valley People), Cent. Cal. tribe, i.,\n    363-401; location, i., 448.\n\n  Balustrades, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 226-7, 229, 235.\n\n  Bal Masque, Nahua feast, iii., 429.\n\n  Balsams, i., 589, 699-700; ii., 599.\n\n  Bamaqs, Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 787.\n\n  Bamboo, i., 583, 692-3, 737, 755; ii., 386, 389, 398, 406, 410.\n\n  Bamusehua, Sinaloa god., iii., 180.\n\n  Banamichi, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Banana, i., 624, 694, 697, 719, 739, 758-9, 775.\n\n  Banattees, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 461.\n\n  Bandages, dress, i., 717, 752.\n\n  Bands, Towkas marriage, i., 732.\n\n  Banks Island, i., 294.\n\n  Bannacks (Bannocks, Bonacks) tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-442;\n    location, i., 463; special mention, i., 440-1; lang., iii.,\n    661.\n\n  Banners, see Flags.\n\n  Bapancorapinamacas, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i.,\n    611.\n\n  Baptism, Mexicans, i., 661-2, 664; ii., 260, 270-8; iii., 369-76,\n    439; Mayas, ii., 669, 682-4.\n\n  Baqahol, Cakchiquel band, prince, and family, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Barabara, Koniaga dwelling, i., 74.\n\n  Baranoff Island, i., 96, 143.\n\n  Barbarism, see Savagism.\n\n  Barbasco, used as poison, i., 760.\n\n  Barber-shops, Nahuas, ii., 370.\n\n  Barbote, chin-ornament, ii., 376.\n\n  Barclay Sound, i., 295, 297.\n\n  Bark, Hyperboreans, i., 75, 101-3, 118, 123, 130-1; Columbians,\n    i., 160-4, 170, 172-3, 179-80, 182-6, 188, 191, 204, 211,\n    214-15, 218, 227, 230-3, 235, 257, 260, 270, 272, 286; iii.,\n    150; Californians, i., 368, 372, 382, 406; New Mexicans, i.,\n    481, 500, 502, 517, 532, 535, 563; Mexicans, i., 650; ii., 174,\n    599; Cent. Americans, i., 691, 697, 699, 715-16, 718, 722, 724,\n    726, 751, 754, 760, 766-7; ii., 727, 734, 752, 768.\n\n  Barnacles, food, i., 214.\n\n  Barricades, see Fortifications.\n\n  Bashones, i., 450, see Bushumnes.\n\n  Basiroas, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 607.\n\n  Baskets, Hyperboreans, i., 91, 103, 107, 129; Columbians,\n    i., 162-3, 166, 172, 185, 190, 213, 215, 220, 234, 236-7,\n    261-2, 270; Californians, i., 339, 345, 374-5, 381-2, 406,\n    429-30, 434; New Mexicans, i., 500, 504, 539, 543, 563-4,\n    577; Mexicans, i., 624, 631, 633; ii., 483, 616, 619; Cent.\n    Americans, i., 724, 766.\n\n  Basopa, North Mex. lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Bats, i., 393, 561, 762; ii., 743; iii., 484.\n\n  Batab, Maya title, ii., 636.\n\n  Batemdakaiees, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 448;\n    lang., iii., 647.\n\n  Batenab, ancient Guat. tribe, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Baths, Hyperboreans, i., 83, 111; Columbians, i., 201, 205, 219,\n    235, 284-6; Californians, i., 341, 356, 395, 419; New Mexicans,\n    i., 487, 521-2, 554, 569; Mexicans, i., 626-7, 639-40, 654,\n    667; ii., 171-2, 268, 280, 316, 370, 389, 392, 574, 587,\n    595-6, 621; iii., 337-8, 346, 435; iv., 447, 525-6, 545; Cent.\n    Americans, i., 696, 709, 722, 743, 760; ii., 641, 669, 681,\n    735, 789.\n\n  Battles, see War.\n\n  Battlelemuleemauch (Meatwho), tribe of Shushwaps, i., 251-91;\n    location, i., 312.\n\n  Battlements, Nahua architecture, ii., 556, 578, 580.\n\n  Batucari, North Mex. lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Batucas, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 606; special\n    mention, i., 575-8; lang., iii., 699.\n\n  Batuco, village, Sonora, i., 606-7.\n\n  Batz, Tzendal day, ii., 767.\n\n  Batza, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Batzul, Chiapan month, ii., 766.\n\n  Bauzarigames (Bazaurigames), North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91;\n    location, i., 612; spec. mention, i., 576, 585.\n\n  Bayal, locality in Guat., v., chap. xi.\n\n  Bayameo, ancient home of the Wanacaces, v., 511.\n\n  Bayamo River, i., 796.\n\n  Bayamos (Bayanos), tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i.,\n    796-7; lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Baydare, i., 60, see Baidar.\n\n  Bayette River, i., 463.\n\n  Baygua, poisonous plant, ii., 721.\n\n  Bayma Pomos, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 448.\n\n  Beacon Hill, British Columbia, antiq., iv., 740.\n\n  Beads, Hyperboreans, i., 72-3, 128, 131, 133; Columbians, i.,\n    179, 182; Californians, i., 333, 347, 368, 381-2, 396, 424-6;\n    New Mexicans, i., 482-3, 545; Mexicans, i., 623, 649; Cent.\n    Americans, i., 691, 717, 752; ii., 684, 732, 750.\n\n  Beans, i., 234, 489, 538, 574, 577, 624, 694, 719, 758; ii., 290,\n    300, 343, 347, 355, 718-19.\n\n  Bears, i., 50, 57, 78, 91, 170, 187-8, 230, 258, 264, 337, 359,\n    405-6, 426, 438, 491, 496, 520; ii., 310; iii., 80, 91-3, 150,\n    546.\n\n  Bear Creek, i., 447, 450-1, 462; iii., 648-9; iv., 707.\n\n  Beards, i., 46-7, 117, 157, 179, 225-6, 255-6, 332, 365-7, 402-3,\n    423, 573, 619, 622, 646-8, 689, 714; ii., 370, 624, 730-1, 802.\n\n  Bear Lake River, i., 144.\n\n  Beaufort Bay, i., 52.\n\n  Beaver, i., 86, 117, 123, 133, 239, 244, 264, 424, 430; iii.,\n    94-5, 130.\n\n  Beaver Ind., (Thick wood Ind.) tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 114, 144; lang., iii., 585.\n\n  Beaver Mountains, i., 467, 468.\n\n  Becal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 262.\n\n  Becanchen, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 253.\n\n  Beds, i., 51, 259, 544, 630, 656-7, 697-8, 724; ii., 259, 572,\n    786-7.\n\n  Bedahmareks, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 451.\n\n  Bees, i., 577, 659; ii., 699, 701, 722.\n\n  Beeatee, Chepewyan food, i., 118.\n\n  Been, Tzendal day, ii., 767.\n\n  Beheading, Nahua mode of sacrifice, ii., 324, 327, 332, 337.\n\n  Belbellahs, i., 294, see Bellacoolas.\n\n  Beleh, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Belehe Qat, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Beleheb Gih, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Beleheb Queh, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Beleheb Tzi, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Belem, Pueblo village, i., 599.\n\n  Belen, village, Sonora, i., 605, 608.\n\n  Belize (Balize), i., 793; iii., 761; iv., 138-9.\n\n  Belize River, antiq., iv., 139.\n\n  Bellacoolas (Bellahoolas, Bellaghchoolas, Belbellahs,\n    Bellabellahs, Bellabollas, Bellabollahs, Ballabollas), tribe of\n    Haidahs, i., 156-174; location, i., 155, 294-5;  spec. mention,\n    i., 158, 166, 169; lang., iii., 607.\n\n  Bells, i., 705, 765; ii., 290, 319, 324-5, 706-7, 737, 749-50,\n    787; iii., 238, 324, 385; iv., 556.\n\n  Bellingham Bay, i., 208, 221, 299.\n\n  Belts, i., 330, 483, 559; ii., 396.\n\n  Ben, Maya day, ii., 755-6, 760.\n\n  Benem\u00e9, South Cal., lang., iii., 686.\n\n  Beni-Xonos (Cajones, Cajonos, Nexichas, Nexitzas), South Mex.\n    tribe, i., 645-70; location, i., 680; special mention, i., 668;\n    lang., iii., 754; hist., v., chap. x.\n\n  Bentinck Arms (Bentick), i., 155, 294-5.\n\n  Bering Bay, i., 96, 142.\n\n  Bering Isle, i., 48.\n\n  Bering Straits, i., 28, 37, 41, 63-4, 139; v., 28.\n\n  Berries, i., 55, 76, 78, 90, 103, 123, 162-3, 181, 187-8, 199,\n    204, 214, 229, 234, 243, 264-7, 323, 339-40, 345, 373-4, 406,\n    427, 430, 558.\n\n  Betamas, Michoacan people, v., 511.\n\n  Betrothal, see Marriage and Courtship.\n\n  Betting, see Gambling.\n\n  Betumkes, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 447.\n\n  Betumki Valley, i., 447.\n\n  Bguanas, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Bibliography, Almaraz, Mem. de Metlaltoyuca, iv., 458-9. Almaraz,\n    Teotihuacan, in Id., Mem. Pachuca, iv., 530. Baldwin's Ancient\n    Amer., iv., 2. Boscana, in Robinson's Life in Cal., iii.,\n    161-2. Boturini, Idea, ii., 532. Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist.\n    Nat. Civ., ii., 116, 321, 436, 556, 634-5; v., 153-4. Brasseur\n    de Bourbourg, MS. Troano, ii., 780. Brasseur de Bourbourg,\n    Popol Vuh, iii., 42-4. Brasseur de Bourbourg, Recherches sur\n    les Ruines de Palenqu\u00e9, iv., 293-4. Careri, Giro del Mondo,\n    ii., 531, 544-5. Catherwood's Views of Ancient Monuments in\n    Central America, iv., 81, 146, 292-3. Charnay, Ruines Amer.,\n    iv., 147, 293, 391. Codex Chimalpopoca, v., 192-3. Dean's\n    MS., Ancient Remains in Vancouver Island and B. Col., iv.,\n    737. Domenech's Deserts, iii., 180-1. Dupaix, Relation,\n    iv., 290-1. Friederichsthal, Les Monuments de l'Yucatan, in\n    Nouvelles Annales des Voy., 1841, tom. xcii., iv., 146-7.\n    Fuentes y Guzman, Recopilacion Florida, Hist. Guat., iv., 80.\n    Galindo, Ruins of Copan, in Amer. Antiq., Soc., Transact.,\n    vol. ii., iv., 80. Gondra, Ant. Mex., in Soc. Mex. Geog.,\n    tom. ii., iv., 449. Herrera, Hist. Gen., iv., 80. Iberri,\n    Ruinas de Monte Real, in Museo Mex., tom. iii., iv., 449.\n    Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., iii., 64. Jones' Ancient Amer.,\n    iv., 82; v., 73. Juarros, Hist. Guat., iv., 80. Kingsborough,\n    Ant. Mex., iii., 191; iv., 291; v., 84. Las Casas, MS., Hist.\n    Apolog\u00e9tica, ii., 583, 677. M\u00fcller, Amerikanische Urreligionen,\n    iii., 273-300. M\u00fcller, Chips from a German Workshop, iii.,\n    43-4. Norman's Rambles, iv., 145-6. Palacio, Carta, iv., 79.\n    Palacios, Descrip. Guat., in Ternaux-Compans, Recueil de Doc.,\n    v., 79. Perez, Cronologia Ant. de Yucatan, ii., 755. Pontelli,\n    Explorations, iv., 132. Prescott's Hist. Conq. Mex., ii., 162,\n    171, 440-1. Ramirez, Atlas, Mej., iii., 68-9. Rio, Description\n    of the Ruins of an Ancient City, iv., 289-91. Sahagun, Hist.\n    Gen., iii., 231-6. Sawkins, in Mayer's Obs. on Mex. Hist.\n    and Arch\u00e6ology, iv., 404-6. Scherzer, Wanderungen, iv., 81.\n    Sproat's Scenes, i., 151. Stephens' Cent. Amer., iv., 80-2.\n    Stephens' Yucatan, iv., 146-8, 221, 292-3. Ternaux-Compans,\n    Voy., s\u00e9rie ii., tom. i., ii., 439. M\u00fchlenpfordt, Mejico, iv.,\n    391. Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., ii., 440. Waldeck, Voy. Pitt.,\n    iv., 145. Waldeck, Palenque, iv., 145. West Indische Spieghel,\n    ii., 141. Ximenes, Hist. Ind. Guat., iii., 42-3.  Zavala, in\n    Antiq. Mex., iv., 144-5. Zurita, Rapport, in Ternaux-Compans,\n    Voy., s\u00e9rie ii., tom. i., ii., 438-9.\n\n  Bibliography, General, List of works quoted, i., xvii-xlix.\n    Native Records, ii., 523-33; v., 140-2, 192-3. Spanish\n    historians, ii., 158-60; v., 142-9. Works on Antiquities, iv.,\n    2-4; on Uxmal antiq., iv., 150-1; on Chiapas and Palenque\n    antiq., iv., 289-94; on Oajaca antiq., iv., 377-8; on Mitla\n    antiq., iv., 390-1; on Xochicalco antiq., iv., 483; on Arizona\n    antiq., iv., 621-5.\n\n  Bicam (Bican), village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Bidwell's Bar, Cal., antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Big Bar, locality, North Cal., i., 445.\n\n  Big Chamise, locality, North Cal., i., 448.\n\n  Bill Williams Fork, i., 475, 597; iv., 640-1.\n\n  Bill Williams Mts., i., 598.\n\n  Birch Indians, i., 147, see Gens de Bouleau.\n\n  Birds, i., 39, 50, 73, 79, 89-91, 162, 170-1, 189, 200, 211, 213,\n    215, 229, 373, 375-6, 522, 561, 574-5, 625; ii., 163-6, 315,\n    352, 372, 750; iii., 132-4, 268, 280, 301-2, 400.\n\n  Biruqueta, Isthmian lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Bisbire, decomposed plantains, i., 721, 726.\n\n  Bitter-root, Inland tribes' food, i., 265.\n\n  Bitter Root Mts., i., 252, 317.\n\n  Bitter Root Valley, i., 313, 317.\n\n  Bitumen, i., 408; ii., 751, 769.\n\n  Bixa, vegetable dye, i., 753; ii., 371, 724, 734.\n\n  Bjeljkowskojes, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Black Ca\u00f1on, i., 597.\n\n  Black Mesa, i., 595, see Mogollon Mts.\n\n  Black Mts., i., 597.\n\n  Black River, i., 793-4; iii., 782.\n\n  Bladders, i., 84-5, 104, 186, 214-15.\n\n  Blancos, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611; tribe\n    of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 794-5; lang., iii., 793.\n\n  Blankets, i., 100, 159, 165-6, 182-3, 192, 194, 211, 215-16, 229,\n    239, 247, 408, 434, 502-3, 505, 544-5, 582, 621, 630.\n\n  Blanket Creek, Cal., antiq., iv., 700.\n\n  Blewfields Lagoon, i., 793-4.\n\n  Blewfields River, i., 793.\n\n  Bliss Collection, Mex. Rep., antiq., iv., 564.\n\n  Blood, as food, i., 55, 492; ii., 344; sacrifices, i., 665, 723,\n    740; ii., 310, 707-8, 719.\n\n  Blood-letting, see Phlebotomy.\n\n  Blow-pipe, i., 627, 760-2; ii., 411, 474, 491, 720.\n\n  Blubber, i., 54-5, 57, 90.\n\n  Blue Mts., i., 254, 319, 461.\n\n  Blue Rock, i., 448.\n\n  Boats, Hyperboreans, i., 59-61, 79, 89, 106-7, 130; Columbians,\n    i., 166-8, 172, 188-92, 205-6, 216-17, 220, 237, 247-9, 271-2,\n    288; Californians, i., 338, 345-7, 382-5, 408-9, 435; New\n    Mexicans, i., 505, 544, 563-4, 583; Mexicans, i., 631, 658;\n    ii., 386, 397-9, 414, 561; iii., 342; Cent. Americans, i., 699,\n    724-6, 744, 767-8, 783; ii., 739; iv., 231.\n\n  Boboles, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Bocalinas Island, i., 604.\n\n  Bocalos, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Boca de Quadra, i., 173.\n\n  Boca del Toro, i., 784, 794-6.\n\n  Bocay River, antiq., iv., 27-8.\n\n  Bochheafs, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 451.\n\n  Bochica, Muysca culture-hero, iii., 269; v., 24.\n\n  Bocoatzi Grande Mts., i., 605.\n\n  Bocoras, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Bodega Bay, i., 365, 368, 370, 398, 449, 452.\n\n  Body-burning, see Cremation.\n\n  Body-painting, see Painting.\n\n  B\u00f3hem C\u00fclleh, Neeshenam evil spirit, iii., 545.\n\n  Boisais River, see Boise River.\n\n  Bois d'arc, Apache bows of, i., 494.\n\n  Boise City, i., 463.\n\n  Boise River (Boisais), i., 463.\n\n  Bokal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 211; hist., v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Bolanos, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 363.\n\n  Bola\u00f1os, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 577.\n\n  Bolbon, i., 453, see Volvon.\n\n  Bolon Zacab, Maya god, ii., 702.\n\n  Bololchun, sepulchre, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 353.\n\n  Bolonchen, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 248-9.\n\n  Bolson de Mapimi, i., 592, 594, 610; iii., 714; iv., 597-9.\n\n  Bonacks, i., 463, see Bannacks.\n\n  Bonaparte River, iii., 613.\n\n  Bones, Hyperboreans, i., 48, 58, 72-3, 79, 88, 90-1, 97, 104,\n    119; Columbians, i., 164, 182, 185-6, 188-9, 191, 201, 211,\n    214-15, 235-6, 270; Californians, i., 341, 368-9, 377-8, 387,\n    403, 407-8, 424-6, 434; New Mexicans, i., 482, 532, 559, 563,\n    579; Mexicans, i., 629, 631, 655, 667; ii., 372, 408, 599-600;\n    iii., 59; Cent. Americans, i., 717, 752, 761, 765; ii., 623,\n    684, 713, 732, 742; Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 782.\n\n  Books, Nahuas, ii., 500, 524, 598; Mayas, ii., 696-7, 768-70,\n    773, 800.\n\n  Boomerang, New Mexicans, i., 541, 561-2.\n\n  Boots, see Shoes.\n\n  Booty, war, i., 581-2, 764; ii., 746.\n\n  Borrados, North Mex. tribe., i., 572-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Bosque de Contador, cypress grove, Mexico, antiq., iv., 527.\n\n  Botany, i., 38-9, 323-4, 616-17, 685-6; ii., 88-90.\n\n  Bottles, i., 163, 215, 630.\n\n  Bourneville, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 756-9.\n\n  Bows and Arrows, Hyperboreans, i., 59, 79, 90, 104-5, 119;\n    Columbians, i., 164, 188, 214-15, 235, 268; Californians,\n    i., 341-3, 377-8, 407, 431-3; New Mexicans, i., 493-5, 541,\n    562, 578-9; Mexicans, i., 627, 655; ii., 335, 351, 408-9,\n    618, 620-1; iii., 289, 294, 302, 371-2, 404; v., 325; Cent.\n    Americans, i., 696, 722-3, 760-1, 779; ii., 679, 720, 742-3.\n\n  Bowls, i., 271, 630, 765; ii., 707.\n\n  Boxes, i., 113, 164-5, 171-2, 190, 200-1, 205, 340, 382, 420,\n    537, 765; ii., 482, 621; iii., 303; iv., 495.\n\n  Bracelets, i., 482, 559, 574, 691; ii., 290, 372, 376-7, 635,\n    732, 750; iii., 238, 324.\n\n  Brains, used for tanning, i., 271, 345.\n\n  Branding, i., 764-5, 771.\n\n  Brass, ornaments of, i., 122, 211, 258.\n\n  Braziers, i., 697; ii., 567, 584, 690, 696, 698, 787; iii., 336.\n\n  Brazos River, i., 592.\n\n  Bread, i., 339, 373-4; ii., 175, 354-5, see also Tortillas.\n\n  Breast-plates, i., 105, 766; ii., 406, 742.\n\n  Breast-works, see Fortifications.\n\n  Breech-cloth, i., 258-9, 330, 369, 480, 484, 531-2, 648, 689-90,\n    751; ii., 364.\n\n  Bribery, of Nahua judges, ii., 445-6.\n\n  Bricks, i., 535-6; ii., 557-8; iv., 473, 479, 500, 503, 521; see\n    also Adobes.\n\n  Brides, see Marriage.\n\n  Bridges, i., 534, 693, 718; ii., 387, 414, 562-3, 576; iv., 343,\n    373, 479, 528-6, 690.\n\n  Bridles, i., 270, 438, 501, 726.\n\n  Bristol Bay, i., 70, 79, 139.\n\n  Brita, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 60.\n\n  British Columbia, physical geography of, i., 152-3, 156;\n    inhabited by Columbians, i., 151-321; myth., i., 170-1, 202-3,\n    283-4; iii., 95-8, 149-57, 519-22; lang., iii., 604-34; antiq.,\n    iv., 736-41.\n\n  British Museum Collection, Mex. Republic, antiq., iv., 562.\n\n  Bronze, Mex. Republic, antiq., iv., 520, 557.\n\n  Broom, Centeotl symbol, iii., 354.\n\n  Bruceport, town, Washington, i., 305.\n\n  Bruno, village, South Cal., i., 460.\n\n  Brush Creek, Cal., antiq., iv., 706.\n\n  Brushwood, dwellings of, i., 118, 371-2, 485, 535.\n\n  Bubatzo, a Zutugil princess, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Bubus, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 450.\n\n  Buccan, Mosquito meat rack, i., 721.\n\n  Buckeye Hill, California, antiq., iv., 703, 706.\n\n  Buckeye Ravine, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Budd's Inlet, i., 301.\n\n  Buchanan Hollow, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Buddhism, traces in Amer., v., 40-2.\n\n  Buena Vista, village, Cent. California, i., 455.\n\n  Buffalo, i., 258, 260, 263, 265, 424-5, 430, 432, 484, 491-2.\n\n  Buffalos, tribe of Sahaptins, i., 253-91; location, i., 317.\n\n  Bugabita, Isthmus, antiq., iv., 18.\n\n  Buildings, see Dwellings and Temples.\n\n  Bulbon, i., 453, see Volvon.\n\n  Bull Creek, i., 447.\n\n  Bullion, Maya gold, ii., 750.\n\n  Bundles, mystic, v., 325-6, chap. xi.\n\n  Buoys, Eskimo whale fishing, i., 56.\n\n  Burial, Hyperboreans, i., 69, 86, 93, 113, 119, 125-7, 132-5;\n    iii., 148-9; Columbians, i., 172-3, 205-6, 220, 247-9, 288-9;\n    iv., 737-9; Californians, i., 356-60, 396-7, 420-1, 439-40;\n    New Mexicans, i., 522-4, 554-5, 569-70, 589-90; Mexicans, i.,\n    640-1, 667-8; ii., 269, 392, 603-23; iii., 364-7, 401, 512-13;\n    v., 57, 347; Cent. Americans, i., 709, 744-5, 780-4; ii., 653,\n    798-402; iii., 490.\n\n  Buricas, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 748;\n    special mention, i., 784; lang., iii., 793.\n\n  Burke Canal, i., 156.\n\n  Burning, captives, i., 498; ii., 329-39; iii., 386-8; see also\n    Cremation.\n\n  Burrita, Tamaulipas, antiq., iv., 597.\n\n  Burros Mt, i., 595.\n\n  Bushumnes (Pushunes, Pujuni, Bashones, Bushones), Cent. Cal.\n    tribe, i., 363-401; loc., i., 450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Bute Canal, i., 184.\n\n  Bute Prairie, Washington, antiq., iv., 735.\n\n  Butler Hill, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 754.\n\n  Butte County, Cal., antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Buzzard, California, myth., iii., 168.\n\n\n  C\n\n  Caacac (Cacat, Cancac), i., 458, name of Point Concepcion.\n\n  Ca\u00e4guas, i., 319, see Cayuse.\n\n  Caban, Maya day, ii., 756, 760.\n\n  Cabecares, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 794.\n\n  Cabellera Valley, i., 595.\n\n  Cabesas (Cabezas), North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i.,\n    612; special mention, i., 576, 585.\n\n  Cabeson Valley, i., 457.\n\n  Cabinal, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 789.\n\n  Cablahuh-Tihax, a Cakchiquel ruler, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cabo Blanco, Costa Rica, antiq., iv., 21.\n\n  Cabogh, ii., 767, see Cahogh.\n\n  Caborca, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Cabra, Isthmian title, i., 770.\n\n  Cabrakan, Quich\u00e9 culture-hero, v., 172-4, 184; ancient city,\n    Guatemala, chap. xi.\n\n  Cabuegnas, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Cacaguat, cacao, and name of Nicaragua god, ii., 713, 718, 724;\n    iii., 492.\n\n  Cacalomilli, Nahua war-lands, ii., 227.\n\n  Cacalotl, gifts of maize, ii., 332.\n\n  Cacama, a Chichimec prince and king of Tezcuco, v., 474-7.\n\n  Cacamaca, lord of Chalco, v., 349.\n\n  Cacamatecuhtli, a Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Cacao (Coco, Cocoa), Mexicans, i., 625; ii., 347, 381-2, 600;\n    Cent. Americans, i., 694-5, 700, 721, 726, 739, 759, 768; ii.,\n    692-3, 707, 718-19, 723-4, 736-7, 749, 795.\n\n  Cacaria, village, Durango, i., 614.\n\n  C\u00e1caris, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 614.\n\n  Cacastes, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Cacat, i., 458, see Caacac.\n\n  Cacaxtlan, Tlascala, antiq., iv., 477.\n\n  Cacaxtli, Nahua baskets, ii., 386, 392, 616.\n\n  Cachenahs (Cachanegtacs, Chanigtacs), Cent. Cal. tribe, i.,\n    363-401; location, i., 449, 452-3.\n\n  Cache Creek, i., 362.\n\n  Cachi, town, Yucatan, ii., 657.\n\n  Cachiripa, Durango god, iii., 179.\n\n  Cachopostales, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Cacique, name for chief, i., 584-5.\n\n  Cactlan Valley, i., 672.\n\n  Cactli (Cacles), Mexican sandals, i., 620; ii., 369.\n\n  Cacubraxechein, Quich\u00e9 king, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Caczoltzin, v., 516, see Caltzontzin.\n\n  Cadet River, i., 307.\n\n  Cadimas, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Caechi, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 788.\n\n  Caechicolchi, Guat. lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Cages, ii., 163, 386, 657.\n\n  Cagnaguets, Lower California tribe, i., 556-70; location, i.,\n    603.\n\n  Caha-Paluma, Quich\u00e9 1st woman, iii., 48.\n\n  Cahbaha, a Guatemala temple, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cahi Imox, a Quich\u00e9 ruler, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cahitas, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 572; special\n    mention, i., 573-4; lang., iii., 667, 672, 678, 706-10.\n\n  Cahogh (Cabogh), Tzendal day, ii., 767.\n\n  Cahokia, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 766-7.\n\n  Cahrocs (Kahruks), North Cal. tribe, i., 327-61; loc., i., 327,\n    445; special mention, i., 325, 332, 336, 344, 348, 350-1,\n    352-3;  myth., iii., 90, 115-17, 137-9, 161, 524; lang., iii.,\n    641, 652; origin, v., 19.\n\n  Cahto Pomos, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 362-401; location, i., 362,\n    448.\n\n  Cahuillos (Cahuillas, Carvillas, Cawios, Coahuillas, Cohuillas,\n    Cowillers, Kahweyahs), South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location,\n    i., 402, 457; lang., iii., 651, 660, 677-79, 714, 717, 727.\n\n  Cahuimetos, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; loc., i., 609; lang.,\n    iii., 707.\n\n  Caibil Balam, a Mame prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Caichi, Guatemala lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Caiguas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Caiguar\u00e1s, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Cailloux, i., 319, see Cayuse.\n\n  Caimanes, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 797.\n\n  Cajon, village, South Cal., i., 458.\n\n  Cajones (Cajonos), i., 668, 680, see Beni-Xonos.\n\n  Cajpilili, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Cajuenches, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; special mention, i.,\n    488; lang., iii., 685-6.\n\n  Cakam, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Cakchi, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 788.\n\n  Cakchiquels (Kachiquels), Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; ii.,\n    630-803; location, i., 788-9; ii., 121; special mention, ii.,\n    121, 632, 637-8, 640-1, 727, 732, 743, 746, 752, 762, 766-7,\n    790; myth., iii., 483-4; lang., iii., 760-2, 768, 772-3;\n    antiq., iv., 123, 131; hist., v., chap. xi., xii.\n\n  Cakhay, mountain and fort, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cakixaha, Quich\u00e9 4th woman, iii., 48.\n\n  Caklacan, Ahau-Quich\u00e9 prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cakulgi, locality, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cakyug, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131, ancient city, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Calabash, i., 489, 505, 516, 577-8, 626, 652, 697, 701, 705, 719,\n    726, 728, 738, 760; ii., 713; iii., 241.\n\n  Calahuassa (Calla Wassa, Kulahuasa), South Cal. tribe, i.,\n    402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Calajomanas, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 363,\n    451.\n\n  Calamulla, Honduras, antiq., iv., 71-2.\n\n  Calapooyas (Calapooias, Calapooahs, Calahpoewahs,\n    Callappohyeaass, Callawpohyeaas, Callipooyas, Cathlapouyeas,\n    Kalapuyas, Kalapooyahs, Kalapooiahs, Kelussuyas, Vule Puyas),\n    tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 223, 304, 309-10;\n    special mention, i., 224, 226, 248-9; lang., iii., 629-30.\n\n  Calapooya Mts., i., 308; iii., 637.\n\n  Calasthocles (Calasthortes), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 210-22;\n    location, i., 303.\n\n  Calaveras County, California, antiq., iv., 703-4.\n\n  Calaveras Creek, California, antiq., iv., 703.\n\n  Calaveritas, Cal., antiq., iv., 704.\n\n  Calayomane, Cent. California lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Calcahualco, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 448.\n\n  Calche, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 121.\n\n  Calchithuehue, Nicaragua god, iii., 491.\n\n  Caldera, Isthmus, antiq., iv., 16.\n\n  Caledonia Bay, i., 797.\n\n  Calel Ahus, a Tulan king, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Calendar, Hyperboreans, i., 68, 135; Columbians, i., 192-3,\n    274-5; Californians, i., 418; New Mexicans, i., 507, 564, 584;\n    Mexicans, ii., 502-22; iii., 251-2, 267, 274; v., 62-3, 190,\n    192, 210; Cent. Americans, i., 727, 769; ii., 755-67.\n\n  Calendar-stone, Mex., ii., 518-21; iv., 505-9, 521.\n\n  California, early occupation of, i., 29; nations and tribes,\n    i., 322-470; myth., iii., 158-169, 522-6; lang., iii., 565-7,\n    635-79; antiq., iv., 688-713; Nahua migration, v., 221-2.\n\n  California Gulf, i., 601-2; lang., iii., 667, 704-5; boundary,\n    Mex. empire, v., 473, station, Quich\u00e9 migration, chap. xi.\n\n  Californians, one of the seven groups into which the natives of\n    the Pacific States are divided, located in California, Oregon,\n    Idaho, Nevada, and Utah, between latitudes 43\u00b0 and 32\u00b0 30\u00b4,\n    subdivided into four families, the Northern Californians,\n    Central Californians, Southern Californians and Shoshones.\n    Manners and customs of each described separately, i., 322-470;\n    location, divisions, and tribal boundaries, i., 322-6, 442-70;\n    myth., iii., 158-69, 522-6; v., 14, 19; lang., iii., 565-7,\n    635-79.\n\n  Californians, Central, one of the four families into which\n    the Californians are divided. Manners and customs of all\n    its nations and tribes described together, i., 361-401;\n    physique, i., 364-7; dress, i., 367-71; dwellings, i., 371-3;\n    food, i., 373-7; weapons and war, i., 377-81; implements\n    and manufactures, i., 381-2; boats and property, i., 382-5;\n    government and slavery, i., 385-8; women and marriage, i.,\n    388-92; amusements, i., 392-4; medicine, i., 394-5; burial,\n    i., 396-7; character, i., 397-401; location, i., 361-3, 447-57;\n    myth., i., 397, 400; iii., 85-90, 522-6; lang., iii., 644-55.\n\n  Californians, Northern, one of the four families into which\n    the Californians are divided. Manners and customs of all its\n    nations and tribes described together, i., 326-61; physique,\n    i., 327-9; dress, i., 329-34; dwellings, i., 334-6; food,\n    i., 336-40; personal habits, i., 340-1; weapons and war, i.,\n    341-4; implements and manufactures, i., 345; boats, i., 345-6;\n    property, i., 347; government and slaves, i., 347-9; marriage\n    and women, i., 349-51; amusements, i., 351-4; medicine, i.,\n    354-6; iii., 160; burial, i., 356-60; character, i., 360-1;\n    location, i., 326-7, 442-7; myth., iii., 160-1, 175-7, 523-4,\n    638; lang., iii., 637-43.\n\n  Californians, Southern, one of the four families into which\n    the Californians are divided. Manners and customs of all its\n    nations and tribes described together, i., 402-22; physique,\n    i., 402-3; dress, i., 403-4; dwellings, i., 404-5; food, i.,\n    405-7; personal habits, i., 407; weapons and war, i., 407;\n    implements and manufactures, i., 407-8; boats, i., 408-9;\n    property and government, i., 409-10; marriage, i., 410-12;\n    women and children, i., 412-15; amusements, i., 415-17;\n    medicine, i., 418-19; burial, i., 419-21; character, i., 422;\n    location, i., 402, 457-60; myth., iii., 83-6, 122, 131, 525;\n    lang., iii., 656-9, 674-9.\n\n  Calimaya, a city of Matlaltzinco, v., 433.\n\n  Calispellums (Calispels), i., 313, see Pend d'Oreilles.\n\n  Caliuenga, village, South Cal., i., 460.\n\n  Calkimi, a province of Yucatan, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Calkobins, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 146.\n\n  Calla Wassa, i., 459, see Calahuassa.\n\n  Callemax (Callemeux, Callimix), i., 307, see Killamooks.\n\n  Calli, Nahua calendar sign, ii., 505, 511-12, 516-17; iii., 69.\n\n  Calmecac, Nahua seminary, ii., 201, 244.\n\n  Calondras Rancho, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 463.\n\n  Calpan, locality, Puebla, v., 490.\n\n  Calpixcontli, Nahua title, v., 350.\n\n  Calpixques, Nahua revenue officers, ii., 236, 424.\n\n  Calpullec, head of city council, Nahuas, ii., 227.\n\n  Calpulli, ward of a city, Nahuas, ii., 224.\n\n  Calquiyauhtzin, Culhua king, v., 331, 343.\n\n  Caltzontzin, Tarasco king's title, v., 516.\n\n  Caluac, mayordomo, Mayas, ii., 637.\n\n  Calvert Island, i., 294.\n\n  Calz, Columbia plant, i., 265.\n\n  Camachal, Quich\u00e9 chief, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Camac-Hya, a Hindu goddess, v., 47.\n\n  Camajal, village, South Cal., i., 458.\n\n  Camal\u00e9l Pomos (Usals), Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; loc., i.,\n    362, 448.\n\n  Camalotz, Quich\u00e9 mythic animal, iii., 47.\n\n  Camass (Camas, Camash, Cammass, Kamas, Kamass, Kamash, Quamash),\n    an edible root, i., 214, 265, 340.\n\n  Camass Prairie, i., 265, 313.\n\n  Camaxtli, Nahua god, ii., 303, 312-15; iii., 195, 250, 295, 403;\n    v., 249, 253, 262, 484, 488, 493-501.\n\n  Camayoas, Isthmian sodomites, i., 774.\n\n  Camazotz, Quich\u00e9 god, v., 179.\n\n  Camden Bay, i., 46, 49-50.\n\n  Camey, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Camleyka, Koniaga dress, i., 74.\n\n  Cam\u00f3a, town, Sinaloa, i., 608.\n\n  Campeche, ii., 657; antiq., iv., 263-5.\n\n  Campims, lang., iii., 761.\n\n  Campo Santo, Uxmal, antiq., iv., 172.\n\n  Can, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Canadian River, i., 591.\n\n  Canainas (Canaynes), North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    613.\n\n  Canal Bacab, Maya god, iii., 466.\n\n  Canal de la Reina (Reida, Reido), i., 294.\n\n  Canal de Principe, i., 294.\n\n  Canals, i., 539; ii., 349, 563, 567-8, 743-4; iv., 632, 635, 676,\n    696; v., 420-1; see also Aqueducts, Excavations, Irrigation.\n\n  Canamlum, Chiapanec god, iii., 458.\n\n  Canaumanos, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Cancac, i., 458, see Caacac.\n\n  Canchahel (Canchaheleb), a Guatemala tribe, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Canchebiz (Canchevez), i., 787, see Ganchebi.\n\n  Candle-fish, i., 162, 164, 190, 212, 214-16.\n\n  Candles, i., 162, 164, 190, 697-8, 765.\n\n  Candlesticks, iii., 292, 294; iv., 376, 414, 423.\n\n  Cane, i., 516, 627, 656, 692-3, 717-18, 722; ii., 335, 372, 573,\n    713, 785; iii., 129; see also Reeds.\n\n  Canek, Itza king's title, ii., 635; v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Canimairo, name of Russian River, i., 449.\n\n  Cannibalism, Hyperboreans, i., 106, 120-1; Columbians, i., 170-1,\n    189, 202-3, 219; iii., 150, 152; Californians, i., 375, 380-1,\n    428, 433-4; iii., 546-7; New Mexicans, i., 521, 560, 576,\n    581; Mexicans, i., 625, 653; ii., 176, 305, 308-9, 311, 357-8,\n    394-7, 431, 626; iii., 413, 443-4, 447; Cent. Americans, i.,\n    696, 721, 759; ii., 689, 709-10, 725; iii., 472, 488.\n\n  Canoe River, i., 319.\n\n  Canoes, see Boats.\n\n  Ca\u00f1on Pintado, Utah, antiq., iv., 734.\n\n  Canopy, ii., 572, 635, 641, 789.\n\n  Canos, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Cantils, Lower Cal. tribe, i., 556-71; lang., iii., 687.\n\n  Cantren, village, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Canuas, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Caok, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Caoutchouc, see India-rubber.\n\n  Capacureo, locality, Michoacan, v., 518.\n\n  Capanay, village, Cent. Cal., i., 455.\n\n  Caparrosa, Mex., antiq., iv., 545.\n\n  Cape Avinoff, i., 140.\n\n  Cape Bathurst, i., 45.\n\n  Cape Blanco, v., 66.\n\n  Cape Cantin, v., 66.\n\n  Cape Catoche, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 261.\n\n  Cape Disappointment, i., 304.\n\n  Cape Flattery, i., 208, 210-11, 221, 227, 302; iii., 615.\n\n  Cape Gracias \u00e0 Dios, i., 714, 793-4.\n\n  Cape Honduras, lang., iii., 782.\n\n  Cape Krusenstern, i., 52.\n\n  Cape Lisburn, i., 138.\n\n  Cape Lookout, i., 227, 307.\n\n  Cape Mendocino, i., 448.\n\n  Cape Mudge, i., 297-8.\n\n  Cape Newenham, i., 70, 140.\n\n  Cape Northumberland, i., 173.\n\n  Cape Orford, i., 216, 225, 238, 249.\n\n  Cape Prince of Wales, i., 63.\n\n  Cape Rodney, i., 141.\n\n  Cape Romanzoff, i., 70, 140.\n\n  Cape St James, i., 296.\n\n  Cape San Lucas, i., 557, 604.\n\n  Cape Scott, i., 176, 296.\n\n  Cape Spencer, i., 142.\n\n  Cape Town, i., 793.\n\n  Capilla de la Piedra, near Leon, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 32, 61.\n\n  Capote Utes, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 470.\n\n  Caprups, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Caps, see Hats.\n\n  Captives, treatment of; Hyperboreans, i., 80, 108-9; Columbians,\n    i., 164, 189, 195, 269; Californians, i., 344, 381, 407, 433;\n    New Mexicans, i., 498, 500, 543, 581; Mexicans, i., 629, 656;\n    ii., 217-18, 306-8, 329-30, 402, 419, 426, 428-32, 453-4, 626;\n    iii., 386-8, 394; v., 342-3, 414; Cent. Americans, i., 723,\n    764-5; ii., 650, 704, 707, 746-7.\n\n  Capuchin, Nahua dress, ii., 369.\n\n  Capulapa, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 445.\n\n  Caraca, Mosquito drink, i., 739.\n\n  Caracol, at Chichen, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 234-5.\n\n  Cara Gigantesca, at Izamal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 246-8.\n\n  Caramariguanes, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Caramiguais, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Carascans, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Carataska Lagoon, i., 793.\n\n  Carates, Isthmian lepers, i., 778.\n\n  Caravans, ii., 380, 387-8, 391, 737-8.\n\n  Carchah, locality, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Careta, Isthmian province, i., 795.\n\n  Caribays, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Cariboo, i., 122-3.\n\n  Caribs, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; loc., i., 713, 793;\n    special mention, i., 714, 718, 722, 728, 731, 735-6, 741,\n    745-6; lang., iii., 782; tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85;\n    special mention, i., 759, 764, 771.\n\n  Carlotsapos, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 449.\n\n  Carmelote Creek, Tamaulipas, antiq., iv., 594.\n\n  Carmelo Valley, i., 454.\n\n  Carpenter's Farm, South Cal., i., 460.\n\n  Carquin, i., 453, see Karquines.\n\n  Carriers, i., 587, 666, 708; ii., 386, 736; see also Tacullies.\n\n  Carrizal, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 118.\n\n  Carrizas (Garzas), North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    572, 613; special mention, i., 573, 575, 588.\n\n  Carrots, Haidahs cultivate, i., 162.\n\n  Carr's Inlet, i., 301.\n\n  Carson City, i., 469.\n\n  Carson Lake, i., 467.\n\n  Carson River, i., 466.\n\n  Carson Valley, i., 464.\n\n  Cartakas, i., 458, see Surillos.\n\n  Carthaginians, American origin traces, i., 18; v., 77.\n\n  Caruanas, i., 458, see Sierras.\n\n  Carvillas, i., 457, see Cahuillos.\n\n  Carving, see Sculpture.\n\n  Casa Cerrada, at Zayi, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 213.\n\n  Casa del Adivino, at Uxmal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 192-7.\n\n  Casa del Enano, name of Casa del Adivino, iv., 192.\n\n  Casa del Gobernador, at Uxmal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 154-65.\n\n  Casa de Justicia, at Kabah, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 207-8.\n\n  Casa de Monjas, at Uxmal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 173-89.\n\n  Casa de Montezuma, iv., 621, name of Casa Grande, Arizona.\n\n  Casa de Palomas, at Uxmal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 171-2.\n\n  Casa de Tortugas, at Uxmal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 165-6.\n\n  Casa de la Vieja, at Uxmal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 172.\n\n  Casa Grande, at Zayi, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 212-13; Arizona,\n    antiq., iv., 621-32.\n\n  Casas Grandes, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 134; Chihuahua, antiq.,\n    iv., 604-14.\n\n  Casas de Piedra, name applied to Palenque, iv., 296.\n\n  Casalic, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Casasano, Mexican, antiq., iv., 495.\n\n  Cascade Canal, i., 173-4, 294.\n\n  Cascade Indians, i., 320, see Dog-Rivers.\n\n  Cascade Mts., i., 151-2, 208, 222, 227, 250, 308, 319, 321-3,\n    444.\n\n  Cascade Range, see Cascade Mts.\n\n  Cascade River, i., 320.\n\n  Cascades, locality, Oregon, i., 223, 239, 248, 304.\n\n  Cascili, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Case's Inlet, i., 301.\n\n  Casine (Kashim), Eskimo town house, i., 66, 75, 82-3.\n\n  Cassava, Mosquito food, i., 719, 721, 739.\n\n  Casta\u00f1eda Collection, Mex. Rep., antiq., iv., 560.\n\n  Castel Pomos, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 362,\n    448.\n\n  Castes, Hyperborean divisions, i., 109, 132.\n\n  Castillo de Montezuma, near Tuxtepec, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 421.\n\n  Castles, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 226-30, 255-7.\n\n  Cataclysm, see Deluge.\n\n  Cataicanas, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Catanamepaques, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Cataract River, i., 319.\n\n  Cataracts, Nahua cure for, ii., 599.\n\n  Catarrh, see Colds.\n\n  Catauhtlix, v., 299, see Cocauhtli.\n\n  Caterpillars, i., 561, 762.\n\n  Cathlacklas, i., 309, see Cathlathlas.\n\n  Cathlacumups (Cathlakamaps, Cathlacomatups), tribe of Chinooks,\n    i., 222-50; location, i., 306, 308-9.\n\n  Cathlahaws, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 308.\n\n  Cathl\u00e2kaheckits (Cathlakahikits), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 306, 317.\n\n  Cathlamets (Cathlamahs, Cathlamus, Cathlamux, Katl\u00e1mat), tribe\n    of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 223, 304, 307; special\n    mention, i., 239; lang., iii., 626.\n\n  Cathlanamenamens (Cathlanaminimins, Katlaminimims), tribe of\n    Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306, 308-9.\n\n  Cathlanaquiahs, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306,\n    308.\n\n  Cathlapootles (Cathlapoutles, Cattleputles, Katlaportles,\n    Kathlaportles, Quathlapotles), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 304, 306, 308-9; lang., iii., 626.\n\n  Cathlapouyeas, i., 309, see Calapooyas.\n\n  Cathlascos (Cathlascons), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; loc.,\n    i., 305.\n\n  Cathlassis, tribe of Sahaptins, i., 253-91; location, i., 320.\n\n  Cathlathlas (Cathlathlalas, Cathlacklas), tribe of Chinooks, i.,\n    222-50; location, i., 306, 309.\n\n  Cathleyacheyachs, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; special mention,\n    i., 223.\n\n  Cats, i., 258, 561.\n\n  Catsanims (Cutsahnims), tribe of Shushwaps, i., 251-91; loc., i.,\n    312.\n\n  Cattle, i., 267, 273, 505, 544, 576, 583, 659, 725.\n\n  Cattleputles, i., 304, see Cathlapootles.\n\n  Catujanes (Catuxanes), North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 611-12.\n\n  Cauac, Maya calendar sign, ii., 703, 756, 760-1; iii., 122.\n\n  Causeways, ii., 414, 561-2, 565, 790; iii., 292-3; iv., 352, 500,\n    527, 573, 580-90; v., 422.\n\n  Cautery, i., 419, 709, 716-17.\n\n  Cavatepech (Cawatepech), Quich\u00e9 ruler, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Caves, i., 486, 523, 556, 560, 575, 590, 624, 640, 651-2; ii.,\n    211, 622; iii., 81-2; iv., 117, 120, 138, 368, 372-3, 435, 575,\n    577, 587-9, 597-604, 694-6.\n\n  Caviare, Haidah food, i., 163.\n\n  Cavil, name of Chin, ii., 677.\n\n  Caviseras, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Cavizimah (Cawizimah), Quich\u00e9 prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cawek (Cavek), Quich\u00e9 royal title, ii., 643-4; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cawinal (Cavinal), Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131; hist., v., chap.\n    xi.\n\n  Cawios, i., 457, see Cahuillos.\n\n  Cawitchans, i., 296, see Cowitchins.\n\n  Cawnees, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 456.\n\n  Caxapa, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 426.\n\n  Cayala, ii., 716-17, see Paxil.\n\n  Caybatz, a Cakchiquel ruler, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cayeguas, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Cayeyus, Lower Cal. tribe, i., 556-71; lang., iii., 687.\n\n  Cay-Hunahpu, a Cakchiquel prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Caymus, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 363, 451;\n    lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Caynoh, a Cakchiquel ruler, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cayo Ratones, Yuc., antiq., iv., 261.\n\n  Cayotes, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Cayuquets, i., 207, 295, see Kyuquots.\n\n  Cayuse (Ca\u00e4guas, Cailloux, Cayoose, Kyoose, Kayouse, Kayuse,\n    Kyoots, Skyuse, Wyeilats), Inland tribe, i., 250-91; location\n    and name, i., 254, 273, 316, 319; special mention, i., 254-6,\n    258, 260, 265, 267-8, 271-4, 276, 290; myth., iii., 95, 156;\n    lang., iii., 625-6.\n\n  Cazcanes, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 672; lang.,\n    iii., 719.\n\n  Cazonzin (Cazontzin), i., 516, see Caltzontzin.\n\n  Cazopos, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl (Quetzalcoatl Chalchiuitl, Topiltzin), a\n    Toltec prince, v., 254-63, 484.\n\n  Cealcoquin, city, Honduras, iii., 485; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cecatzin, a Toltec prince, v., 211, 213.\n\n  Cecoatlutlimelaoatl, Nahua divining sign, ii., 389.\n\n  Cedar, Columbians, i., 156, 160-1, 164-6 181, 183-5, 191, 199,\n    212, 214, 216, 231, 235, 237, 260; Californians, i., 341, 431;\n    Mexicans, ii., 145, 557; Central Americans, i., 699, 725.\n\n  Cedar Bank, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 762.\n\n  Cedar City, Utah, antiq., iv., 715.\n\n  Ceh, (Qeh, Queh, Quej), Maya month, ii., 757-8.\n\n  Cehatches, South Mex. tribe, i., 644-70; lang., iii., 761.\n\n  Celibacy, Nahuas, ii., 251; iii., 433; Mayas, ii., 672.\n\n  Cellars, i., 334-5, 775-6.\n\n  Celtales, iii., 761, see Tzendales.\n\n  Celts, American origin theory, v., 116-22.\n\n  Cement, ii., 570-2, 581; iv., passim.\n\n  Ce Miquiztli, Nahua god, ii., 340; iii., 402.\n\n  Cempoala (Zempoala), city, Vera Cruz, i., 675; ii., 113, 570;\n    iv., 436-7; v., 203; station, Chichimec migration, v., 294.\n\n  Cempoal Taxuch, Guatemala prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cempoaltepec, mountain, Oajaca, v., 529.\n\n  Cenial, name for east Yucatan, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Cenicilla, a medicinal herb, i., 588.\n\n  Cenizos, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91.\n\n  Censers, Nahuas, ii., 161; iii., 335-6, 347.\n\n  Census of Chichimecs, v., 292.\n\n  Centectlapixque, Nahua official, ii., 437.\n\n  Centeotl (Centeutl, Cinteotl, Tzinteotl, Tzinteutl), Nahua\n    goddess, ii., 214, 326-7, 331-2; iii., 349-67.\n\n  Centizonac, locality, Cent. America, v., 349.\n\n  Centla, V. Cruz, antiq., iv., 439-43.\n\n  Centli, dried corn, ii., 347.\n\n  Central Americans, one of the seven groups into which the natives\n    of the Pacific States are divided, located in Guatemala,\n    Salvador, Nicaragua, the Mosquito Coast, Honduras, Costa\n    Rica, and the Isthmus of Darien, or Panama; subdivided into\n    three families, the Guatemalans, Mosquitos, and Isthmians.\n    Manners and customs of each described separately, i.,\n    684-797; civilized nations, ii., 630-803; location and tribal\n    boundaries, i., 684-8, 786-97; myth., i., 707-8, 740; ii., 663;\n    iii., 42-55, 74-5, 461-507, 542-4; lang., iii., 571-3, 759-95;\n    antiq., ii., 116-18; iv., 15-139; hist., v., 157-88, 223-34,\n    chap. xi., xii., xiii.\n\n  Central Californians, see Californians, Central.\n\n  Central Mexicans, see Mexicans, Central.\n\n  Cerbat Mts., i., 597.\n\n  Ceremonies, Hyperboreans, i., 83-4, 110-11, 113; Columbians, i.,\n    169-70, 187, 189, 219, 232, 245, 268, 284; Californians, i.,\n    411-15; New Mexicans, i., 522-4, 542-3, 553-4; Mexicans, i.,\n    636-7, 661-3; ii., 144-57, 194-8, 255-61, 270-8, 350, 389-97;\n    iii., 297-300, 315, 370-6; Central Americans, i., 697, 729-33,\n    740-1, 744-5, 782-3; ii., 668-70, 682-4.\n\n  Cereus giganteus, botanical name of the Pitahaya, i., 539.\n\n  Ceris (Ceres, Seris), North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    572, 604-5; special mention, i., 573-4, 576-9, 581, 583-5, 587,\n    589-90; lang., iii., 704-5.\n\n  Cerquin, city, Honduras, iii., 485.\n\n  Cerralvo Island, i., 604.\n\n  Cerrito de Montezuma, near Tepatitlan, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 574.\n\n  Cerro de la Ciudad, fortification, Quer\u00e9taro, antiq., iv., 550.\n\n  Cerro de Coscomate, near Zanatepec, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 374.\n\n  Cerro de los Edificios, iv., 580, see Quemada.\n\n  Cerro Gordo, i., 614.\n\n  Cerro de las Juntas (Quiotepec), Oajaca, antiq., iv., 418-20.\n\n  Cerro del Maiz, i., 613.\n\n  Cerro de la Malinche, Mexico, antiq., iv., 548.\n\n  Cerro de las Navajas, Mexico, antiq., iv., 544-5.\n\n  Cerro Prieto, i., 604, 673; iv., 549.\n\n  Cerro de San Gregorio, Guanajuato, antiq., iv., 577.\n\n  Cerro del Tesoro, Mexico, antiq., iv., 548.\n\n  Cerro de las Trincheras, Sonora, antiq., iv., 603.\n\n  Cerro del Venado, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 373-4.\n\n  Cesina, dried meat, i., 695.\n\n  Cetecpatl, king of Cohuaixtlahuacan, v., 461-2.\n\n  Cexeninuth, i., 295, see Exenimuth.\n\n  Chab, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Chabin (Chahin), Tzendal day, ii., 767.\n\n  Chac (Chaac), Maya god, ii., 682, 690-3; iii., 467, 473.\n\n  Chacala, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 572.\n\n  Chacal Bacab, Maya god, iii., 466.\n\n  Chacchob, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 219, 268.\n\n  Chacha, iii., 153, see Kishtsamah.\n\n  Chachaguares, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Chack, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 211-12, 270.\n\n  Chaclan, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Chacnouitan, name for Yucatan, v., 228, chap. xiii.\n\n  Chaco River, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 652-61.\n\n  Chacuaco, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 463.\n\n  Chac Xib Chac, ruler of Chichen Itza, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Chadukutl, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Chaguntes, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Chahalha, Quich\u00e9 household gods, iii., 481.\n\n  Chahalt\u00e9, Maya incense, ii., 702.\n\n  Chaheowahs, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Chahuames (Chahuanes), North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 612.\n\n  Chalcas, Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location and\n    name, i., 675; ii., 125-6; hist., v., 307-10, 380-422, 503-5.\n\n  Chalcatzin, a Toltec prince, v., 211, 213, 220, 243.\n\n  Chalchiuhapan, ancient name for Tlascala, v., 241, 253, 484.\n\n  Chalchiuhcua, a Mexican noble, v., 320.\n\n  Chalchiuhcuecan, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 434.\n\n  Chalchiuite (Chalchihuitztli), a precious stone, ii., 259, 350,\n    372, 606, 707; iii., 250, 271, 368, 385, 390; v., 254, 257.\n\n  Chalchihuitlicue (Chalchihuitlicuey\u00f2hua, Chalchiuhcyeje), Nahua\n    goddess, ii., 260, 516; iii., 367-76.\n\n  Chalchiuhmatz, a Toltec chief, v., 243.\n\n  Chalchiuhnenetzin, a Mexican princess, v., 449.\n\n  Chalchiuhtepehua, Nahua sacrificer, ii., 430.\n\n  Chalchiuhtlanetzin, lord of Coyuhuacan, v., 349.\n\n  Chalchiuh Tlatonac (Chalchiuhtlatonac, Chalchiuhtlanetzin,\n    Chalchiuhtlahuextzin, Tlalchiuhtlanelzin), Toltec king, v.,\n    245-7, 266, 311, 326.\n\n  Chalchiuh Tlatonac II. (Chalchiuhtona), Culhua king, v., 257,\n    330-1.\n\n  Chalchuapa, town, Salvador, i., 787.\n\n  Chalchuni, i., 293, see Chatcheenie.\n\n  Chalcitan, district of Guatemala, i., 789.\n\n  Chalco, province and town, Mexico, v., 310, 324, 380, 401.\n\n  Chalco Lake, Mexico, antiq., iv., 497-8; hist., v., 309.\n\n  Chalmecaciuatl (Chalmecacioatl), Nahua goddess, iii., 396, 416.\n\n  Chalones, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; lang., iii., 653.\n\n  Chalosas, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Chalque\u00f1os, Cent. Mex. tribe, i., 617-44; lang., iii., 725.\n\n  Chalulas, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 308.\n\n  Chalum\u00fc, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Chamalcan (Chimalacan), Cakchiquel god, iii., 483-4; v., chap.\n    xi.\n\n  Cham\u00e9, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 795; lang.,\n    iii., 794.\n\n  Chamilah, locality, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chamm\u00e1 Mts., i., 786.\n\n  Chamolla, city, Chiapas, i., 681.\n\n  Champoton (Potonchan), city, Yucatan, v., 226, chap. xiii.\n\n  Chan, Votan's ancestor, iii., 451; v., 69.\n\n  Cha\u00f1abal, Guatemala lang., iii., 760, 762.\n\n  Chanan (Ghanan), Tzendal day, ii., 767.\n\n  Chanate Mts., i., 594.\n\n  Chancafes, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Chancel agua, medicinal herb, i., 419.\n\n  Chanech, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Changuenes, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 748.\n\n  Chanigtacs, i., 453, see Cachenahs.\n\n  Chants, see Songs.\n\n  Chantunyab, Maya dance, ii., 697.\n\n  Chanwappans, tribe of Sahaptins, i., 253-91; location, i., 320-1.\n\n  Chapels, ii., 555, 588, 738; iii., 239.\n\n  Chapingo, Mex., antiq., iv., 527.\n\n  Chaplets, i., 170; iii., 150.\n\n  Chapopote Mt, i., 613.\n\n  Chapopotli, a kind of pitch, ii., 322-3; iii., 361.\n\n  Chapugtacs, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Chapulco, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 115.\n\n  Chapulistagua, Honduras, antiq., iv., 71.\n\n  Chapultepec (Chapoltepec), town in Mexico, ii., 166-7; iii., 298;\n    antiq., iv., 502; hist., v., 295-7, 321-4, 330-1, 340.\n\n  Chapultepecuitlapilco (Vetzinco), city, Mexico, iii., 248.\n\n  Chapuluca, Honduras, antiq., iv., 71.\n\n  Char\u00e1c, village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Character, Hyperboreans, i., 68, 86-7, 93-4, 113-14, 120, 122,\n    133, 135-7; Columbians, i., 173-4, 206-8, 220-2, 249-50,\n    289-91; Californians, i., 360-1, 397-401, 422, 440-2; New\n    Mexicans, i., 524-6, 555-6, 570-1, 590-1; Mexicans, i., 24,\n    641-4, 668-70; ii., 470, 626-9; Central Americans, i., 709-11,\n    745-7, 784-5; ii., 803; iv., 126-7, 131, 142.\n\n  Characu, Tarasco king, v., 516.\n\n  Charcoal, i., 210, 404, 535, 631, 722, 752; ii., 174, 483, 651,\n    710.\n\n  Chareckquin, North California spirit land, iii., 177.\n\n  Chareya, North California god, i., 352-3; iii., 90, 161; v., 19.\n\n  Charities, ii., 623, 637; iii., 431.\n\n  Charms, Hyperboreans, iii., 141, 144-5; Columbians, i., 171, 284;\n    iii., 130; Californians, i., 418; New Mexicans, i., 522, 588;\n    Mexicans, i., 634; ii., 145, 269, 300, 317, 319, 328, 334, 350,\n    477, 602; iii., 364; Cent. Americans, i., 734; ii., 697.\n\n  Charnel-house, Nahuas, ii., 430-1, 585-6.\n\n  Charon, Nahua myth., ii., 605.\n\n  Chart, see Maps.\n\n  Chase, see Hunting.\n\n  Chast\u00e0, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 308.\n\n  Chastay, i., 333, see Shastas.\n\n  Chastity, Hyperboreans, i., 65, 81, 123, 132; Columbians, i.,\n    168-9, 196-8, 218, 242, 278; Californians, i., 351, 437; New\n    Mexicans, i., 514-15, 549, 565, 585; Mexicans, i., 661-2; ii.,\n    143, 251, 469-70; iii., 435-6; Central Americans, i., 703; ii.,\n    651, 659, 675.\n\n  Chatalhuic, Nahua medicine, ii., 599.\n\n  Chatcheenie (Chatcheenee, Chalchuni), tribe of Haidahs, i.,\n    155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Chatham Sound, i., 96, 142, 155, 171.\n\n  Chatinos, South Mex. tribe, i., 644-70; location, i., 681;\n    special mention, i., 646; lang., iii., 752.\n\n  Chaudi\u00e8res (Chualpays, Kettle Falls, Quiarlpi, Schrooyelpi,\n    Schwoyelpi, Shuyelpi, Wheelpo), Inland Columbian tribes, i.,\n    250-91; location, i., 314-15; special mention, i., 262, 280.\n\n  Chavin de Huanta, Peru, antiq., iv., 801.\n\n  Chawteuh Bakowas, Cent. California tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 447.\n\n  Chayen, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Chayher, Aht god, iii., 521.\n\n  Chaykisaht, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Chayopines, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Che, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Cheate River, i., 304.\n\n  Cheattees (Cheahtocs, Chetkos, Chitcos), North California tribe,\n    i., 326-61; location, i., 443.\n\n  Checatl, Toltec chief, v., 243.\n\n  Checaylis, i., 301, see Chehalis.\n\n  Chedochogs, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 449.\n\n  Cheek-bones, Hyperboreans, i., 46, 116; Columbians, i., 157-8,\n    177-8, 210, 225-6; Californians, i., 328, 364; New Mexicans,\n    i., 530, 573; Mexicans, i., 619; Central Americans, i., 688,\n    714.\n\n  Cheek-ornaments, i., 717, 753.\n\n  Cheen, ii., 758; see Chen.\n\n  Cheenales, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 299.\n\n  Cheese, South Mexico commerce, i., 659.\n\n  Chegoe, a sand insect, i., 742, 778.\n\n  Chehalis (Cheehaylas, Checaylis, Chihailis, Chickeeles, Chekilis,\n    Tsihailish, Tch\u00e9ilichs), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 209, 301, 303; special mention, i., 214; lang.,\n    iii., 618-19, 626.\n\n  Chehalis River, i., 209, 303.\n\n  Chek oc Katun (Lath oc Katun), Maya division of cycle, ii., 762.\n\n  Chekasschees, tribe of Salish, i., 252-91; location, i., 315.\n\n  Chekilis, i., 303, see Chehalis.\n\n  Chelan Lake, i., 316.\n\n  Cheles, branch of the Mayas, ii., 119, 126, 633; v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Chelly Ca\u00f1on, i., 596; New Mexico, antiq., iv., 651-2.\n\n  Chemakane Mission, i., 315.\n\n  Chemeguaba, South California lang., iii., 677.\n\n  Chemegue, South California lang., iii., 677.\n\n  Chemegue Cajuala, South California lang., iii., 677.\n\n  Chemegue Sebita, South California lang., iii., 677.\n\n  Chemehuevis (Chemihuevis, Chemehnevis, Chemehuewas,\n    Chimehwhuebes, Chimehuevais, Chimchinves), tribe of Shoshones,\n    i., 422-42;  location, i., 466; lang., iii., 660, 677-9.\n\n  Chen (Cheen), Maya month, ii., 690, 757-8.\n\n  Chepewyans (Athabascas), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-137; location\n    and name, i., 114-16, 144; special mention, i., 116-21, 135-6;\n    myth., iii., 518-19; v., 14; origin, v., 22.\n\n  Chepo, Isthmian province, i., 796.\n\n  Chepobar, Isthmian province, i., 796.\n\n  Chepo River, i., 796-7.\n\n  Cherokee, lang., iii., 738.\n\n  Cherokee Flat, Cal., antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Cherries, drinks made from, i., 707; ii., 724.\n\n  Chethl, Thlinkeet god, iii., 103, 146.\n\n  Chetkos, i., 443, see Cheattees.\n\n  Chetlessentuns, North California tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    442.\n\n  Chettro Kettle, New Mexico, antiq., i., 537.\n\n  Chetulul, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 211; hist., v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Cheveriches (Cibariches), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42;\n    location, i., 464.\n\n  Chian, seed, ii., 347, 487, 600.\n\n  Chiantla, town, Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Chiapanecs, Maya nation, i., 645-70; ii., 630-803; location, i.,\n    681; ii., 120-1, 126; special mention, i., 648-9, 654, 658,\n    660; ii., 644-5, 726, 739, 762, 766-7; myth., iii., 458; lang.,\n    iii., 759-63; hist., v., 158-69, 221, 227-36, 440, 473, chap.\n    x., xi., xii.\n\n  Chiapas, Nations and tribes, i., 645-70, 673, 681-3; ii., 120-1,\n    126, 630-803; myth., iii., 458; lang., iii., 759-63; antiq.,\n    ii., 116; iv., 288-365; hist., v., 158-69, 221, 227-36, 440,\n    473, chap. x., xi., xii.\n\n  Chiauhtla, Nahua title, ii., 441.\n\n  Chiawar, ancient city, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chiawat, Pima devil, iii., 527.\n\n  Chibirias, Maya Holy Virgin, iii., 462.\n\n  Chic (Chiue), Tzendal day, ii., 767.\n\n  Chicacotra, Isthmian lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Chicchan, Maya day, ii., 755-6, 760.\n\n  Chicha, drink, i., 636, 706, 775; ii., 724.\n\n  Chichac, suburb of Chiquix, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chichac Chob, Maya god, ii., 701.\n\n  Chichanchob, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 233-4.\n\n  Chichen Itza, Yucatan, antiq., ii., 791-2; iv., 220-37, 274-5,\n    285; hist., v., 225-6, chap. xiii.\n\n  Chichigalpa, town, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Chichihuatzin, lord of Tulancingo, v., 349.\n\n  Chichilop, South California tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Chichilticale, name of Casa Grande, Arizona, antiq., iv., 621-2.\n\n  Chichimecas Van\u00e1ceos, v., 511; see Wanacaces.\n\n  Chichimecatlalli, a district of Mexico, v., 298.\n\n  Chichimecatl, Chichimec king, iii., 249-50; v., 219-20.\n\n  Chichimecatlalpayatzin, high-priest of Cholula, v., 349.\n\n  Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, Chichimec imperial title, v., 319.\n\n  Chichimecs, Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location and\n    name, i., 617-18, 670, 673; ii., 101-5, 126; special mention,\n    i., 622, 624, 628-9, 632-3, 643; ii., 167-73, 225, 261-2, 344,\n    364-5, 411, 606, 609, 612-13; myth., iii., 109, 403; lang.,\n    iii., 724-5; hist., v., 218-20, 237-50, 289-499, 507, 510, 519,\n    chap. x.\n\n  Chichimec Culhuas, Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; hist.,\n    v., 242, 248.\n\n  Chichimec-Toltecs, Nahua nation, hist., v., 484-7.\n\n  Chichimec Wanacaces, see Wanacaces.\n\n  Chichitzin, lord of Tepeaca, v., 349.\n\n  Chichtli, musical instrument, ii., 396.\n\n  Chic Kaban, Maya feast, ii., 700.\n\n  Chickeeles, i., 303; see Chehalis.\n\n  Chicklezats (Chicklezahts), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 296-7.\n\n  Chicoapalnacazminqui, Nahua military cloak, ii., 402.\n\n  Chicohnahuimictlan (Chicuhnauhmictlan), a division of Mictlan,\n    iii., 401, 534.\n\n  Chicomecoatl (Chicomecouatl), Nahua goddess, iii., 352, 421.\n\n  Chicomoztoc, ancient home of Aztecs, iii., 58, 67; antiq., iv.,\n    580; hist., v., 188, 191, 197, 203, 219-23, 228, 307, 322-6,\n    422-4, 487.\n\n  Chiconahuapan (Chicunahuapan), Nahua river of death, ii., 605;\n    iii., 538.\n\n  Chiconquauhtli, Otom\u00ed lord, v., 317.\n\n  Chiconquiavitl, Nahua god, iii., 416.\n\n  Chicon Tonatiuh, Toltec king, v., 242, 249.\n\n  Chicoratas (Chicoratos), North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 609; special mention, i., 573, 579; lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Chicoziagat, Nicaragua god, iii., 491.\n\n  Chicune, Isthmian god, iii., 499.\n\n  Chicuras, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609.\n\n  Chicutae, Cent. California tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Chiefs, see Government.\n\n  Chigmit (Tschigmit) Mts., i., 149.\n\n  Chignaviucelut, Quich\u00e9 king, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chigohom, Cakchiquel city, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chiguacua (Chiguangua, Tzihuanga), name for Zwanga, v., 516.\n\n  Chiguau, Central California tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Chihailis, i., 303; see Chehalis.\n\n  Chihuahua, Nations and tribes, i., 473-525, 571-93, 604; myth.,\n    iii., 178; lang., iii., 593-4, 583, 667, 710, 716-17; antiq.,\n    iv., 603-14.\n\n  Chihucchihui, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Chihuitlan, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 373.\n\n  Chila, Puebla, antiq., iv., 465-6.\n\n  Chilam Calam (Chilam Balam), high-priest, Mani, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Chilanes, Maya diviners, iii., 473.\n\n  Chilapan, province in Guerrero, i., 677; v., 412.\n\n  Chilcat, i., 142, see Chilkat.\n\n  Chilcuautla, Mex., antiq., iv., 549.\n\n  Childbirth, see Women.\n\n  Children, Hyperboreans, i., 66, 81-2, 92, 111-12, 117, 121,\n    131-3; Columbians, i., 169, 178, 180, 197, 201, 218, 242,\n    279-80; Californians, i., 350-1, 379, 390-1, 412-14, 437; New\n    Mexicans, i., 513-14, 548-9, 566, 585; Mexicans, i., 633-5,\n    661-2, 664; ii., 183, 240-51, 263-5, 271-81, 305, 626; iii.,\n    331-4, 370-6, 392, 394-5, 421, 428, 436-7; Cent. Americans, i.,\n    703-4, 734, 773; ii., 661-4, 672-3, 678-84, 729.\n\n  Chile (Aj\u00ed), red pepper, i., 624, 626, 652, 694-5, 721, 759; ii.,\n    175, 343, 347, 600; see also Pepper.\n\n  Chilians, origin, v., 22.\n\n  Chilicothe, town, British Columbia, iii., 613.\n\n  Chili Gulch, Cal., antiq., iv., 704.\n\n  Chilili, village, New Mex., i., 527.\n\n  Chililitli, Nahua musical instrument, ii., 589.\n\n  Chilkat (Chilcat) River, i., 142, 148.\n\n  Chilkats (Chilkahts), tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 96-114; location,\n    i., 96, 142; lang., iii., 579.\n\n  Chilkoten Plain, i., 156, 292.\n\n  Chilkotins (Tsilkotin), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location,\n    i., 115.\n\n  Chillates, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 303.\n\n  Chilluckittequaws, Inland tribe, i., 254-91; location, i., 320;\n    special mention, i., 258, 260, 267, 270, 273, 287, 320.\n\n  Chillulahs (Chillulas), North Cal. tribe, i., 326-61; location,\n    i., 446; special mention, i., 357, 361; lang., iii., 643.\n\n  Chillwayhook Lake, i., 298.\n\n  Chillwayhook River, i., 298.\n\n  Chillwayhooks, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 298.\n\n  Chillychandize, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Chilnequatolli, a gruel, ii., 355.\n\n  Chilts (Chiltz), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i.,\n    303-6.\n\n  Chimakums (Chinakums), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 302.\n\n  Chimalcan (Chimalacan), see Chamalcan.\n\n  Chimalco, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Chimalcuixintecuhtli, Teo-Chichimec leader, v., 489.\n\n  Chimalhuacan Atenco, station, Toltec migration, v., 212.\n\n  Chimalhuacan Tlachialco, Mexico, antiq., iv., 496.\n\n  Chimalli, Mexican shield, ii., 406.\n\n  Chimalma (Chimalman), Nahua goddess, iii., 250; v., 27, 88, 253.\n\n  Chimalmat, Quich\u00e9 goddess, v., 172.\n\n  Chimalpan, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Chimalpanecan, ward of Tezcuco city, v., 404.\n\n  Chimalpanecs, Nahua nation, v., 338.\n\n  Chimalpopoca, king of Mexico, v., 361-6, 380-6; king of Tlacopan,\n    v., 426, 440.\n\n  Chimalpopoca Codex, see Codex Chimalpopoca.\n\n  Chimalquays, North Cal. tribe, i., 326-61; loc., i., 446; lang.,\n    iii., 643.\n\n  Chimaltecuhtli, king of Matlaltzinco, v., 432.\n\n  Chimaltenango, town, Guatemala, i., 788; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chimaltizatl, paint-stone, ii., 487.\n\n  Chimamatl, Nahua mythic personage, iii., 249.\n\n  Chiman River, i., 796.\n\n  Chimapalnecatl, Nahua god, iii., 418.\n\n  Chimchinves, i., 466, see Chemehuevis.\n\n  Chimedocs, i., 456, see Choomedocs.\n\n  Chimehuevais, i., 466, see Chemehuevis.\n\n  Chimehwhuebes, iii., 677, see Chemehuevis.\n\n  Chimnapums (Chimnahpums, Chunnapuns), Inland tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 320.\n\n  Chimpsain Peninsula, i., 293.\n\n  Chimsyans (Chimmesyans, Chimpsains, Chimseeans, Chimsians,\n    Chyniseyans, Tsimsheeans), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74;\n    location, i., 155, 293; special mention, i., 125, 157-8, 165,\n    171, 174, 294; lang., iii., 607.\n\n  Chin (Cavil, Maran), Maya god, ii., 677.\n\n  Chinabahul, town, Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Chinametl, Acolhua general, v., 492.\n\n  Chinamita, Guatemala, lang., iii., 761; antiq., iv., 115.\n\n  Chinamital, Quich\u00e9 fiefs, ii., 643-4.\n\n  Chinamitl Lake, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Chinampas, floating gardens, ii., 345-6, 575; v., 345.\n\n  Chinand\u00e9ga, town, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Chinantecs (Tenez), South Mex. tribe, i., 644-70; location, i.,\n    681; special mention, i., 651-2; lang., iii., 752, 760.\n\n  Chinantla, town, Oajaca, i., 680; v., 416.\n\n  Chinapa, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Chinarra, North Mex. lang., iii., 714.\n\n  Chinax, Tzendal day, ii., 767; name of chief, v., 164, 187.\n\n  Chincila, name for Tzintzuntzan, v., 516.\n\n  Chinday, Navajo evil spirit, iii., 171.\n\n  Chinese, similarities to Americans, i., 170; iii., 647, 737-8;\n    v., 33-40, 44-51.\n\n  Chinigchinich, Acagchemem god, iii., 163-6.\n\n  Chinipas, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609;\n    special mention, i., 575, 585; lang., iii., 711.\n\n  Chinooks, (Chenooks, Cheenooks, Chinnooks, Tchinouk, Tchi-nuk,\n    Tshinuk), one of the nine families into which the Columbians\n    are divided; manners and customs of all its nations and tribes\n    described together, i., 222-50; physique, i., 224-5; dress,\n    i., 226-30; dwellings, i., 231-2; food, i., 232-5; weapons\n    and war, i., 235-6; implements and manufactures, i., 236-7;\n    boats, i., 237; property and commerce, i., 238-9; art, i., 239;\n    government, i., 240; slavery, i., 240-1; marriage and women,\n    i., 241-3; amusements, i., 243-5; miscellaneous customs, i.,\n    245; medicine, i., 245-6; burial, i., 247-9; character, i.,\n    249-50; location of tribes, i., 151, 222, 304-10; myth., iii.,\n    95-6, 137, 155-6, 519; v., 19; lang., iii., 626-34.\n\n  Chin-ornaments, i., 753; ii., 376.\n\n  Chinquimes, i., 677, see Tlapanecs.\n\n  Chins, name for Atnahs, i., 251.\n\n  Chintule, aromatic plant, i., 654.\n\n  Chiowotmahke, Pima god, iii., 78.\n\n  Chipiripe, Isthmian god, iii., 499.\n\n  Chipisclins, Cent. California tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    452.\n\n  Chipixab, (Chi-Pixab), mountain, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chipletacs, Cent. California tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Chipogana, Isthmian town, i., 796.\n\n  Chippanchickchicks, inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 317.\n\n  Chiputcas, Cent. California tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Chiquauhtli, lord of Mizquic, v., 349.\n\n  Chiquimula, province, Guatemala, v., chap. xi., xii.\n\n  Chiquimulas, tribe of Guatemala, i., 686-711; loc., i., 789;\n    lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Chiquinaut, Nicaragua god, iii., 491.\n\n  Chiquiuhio, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Chiquivin, a plant, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chiquix, ancient name for Quich\u00e9s, and town in Guatemala, v.,\n    chap. xi.\n\n  Chira Island, Costa Rica, antiq., iv., 22.\n\n  Chiricagui Mts., (Chiricahua), i., 475, 598.\n\n  Chiricag\u00fcis (Chirocahues), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; loc.,\n    iii., 594.\n\n  Chirichota, Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; loc., i., 787; lang.,\n    iii., 760.\n\n  Chirimaya (Chirimiya), musical instrument, i., 705, 738.\n\n  Chiripos, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; lang., iii., 793.\n\n  Chiriqu\u00ed, province, Isthmus Panama, antiq., iv., 15-21; hist.,\n    v., chap. xii.\n\n  Chiriqu\u00ed Indians, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; special\n    mention, i., 752-4, 767, 769, 784.\n\n  Chiriqu\u00ed Lagoon, i., 795.\n\n  Chiru, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 795; lang.,\n    iii., 794.\n\n  Chirumas, iii., 685, see Yumas.\n\n  Chisels, i., 184, 189, 237, 343; ii., 750.\n\n  Chistla, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 445.\n\n  Chitamihuany, abode of Aztec Venus, iii., 377.\n\n  Chitcheah, Kutchin clan, i., 132.\n\n  Chitcos, i., 443, see Cheattees.\n\n  Chitulul, Cakchiquel city, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chitwout, iii., 613, see Similkameen.\n\n  Chiuchin, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Chiue, ii., 767, see Chic.\n\n  Chiuhnauhtla (Chiuhnauhtlan), city, Mexico, ii., 441; v., 476.\n\n  Chivim, Votan's ancestor, iii., 451, v., 69-71.\n\n  Chixnal, locality, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chixoy River, i., 789; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chiyoc Queh Ehgug, a Cakchiquel chief, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chizos, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Chnagmutes, (Tschnagmjuten, Tschnagm\u00fcten), tribe of Koniagas, i.,\n    70-87; location, i., 70, 141; lang., iii., 576.\n\n  Choam Chad\u00e9la Pomos, Cent. California tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 362, 448.\n\n  Chochonis, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Chochona, (Chochontes, Chochos, Chuchon), i., 677; iii., 752; see\n    Tlapanecs.\n\n  Chockrelatans, North Cal. tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 443.\n\n  Choco Bay, i., 797.\n\n  Choco Mountains, i., 749.\n\n  Chocolatl, chocolate, ii., 359-60.\n\n  Chocos (Chocoes), tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i.,\n    749, 796-7; special mention, i., 750, 785.\n\n  Chocotoy, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Chocoyan, station, Chichimec migration, v., 293.\n\n  Chocreleatans, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 308.\n\n  Chocuyem, Central California lang., iii., 647.\n\n  Choemimnees, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 456.\n\n  Chohom, Maya dance, ii., 698.\n\n  Chohoptins, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    317.\n\n  Ch\u00f3is, town, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Choiteeu, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 449.\n\n  Chokemnies (Chokiamauves), Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; loc.,\n    i., 455-6.\n\n  Chokishgna, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Cholamag, locality, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Choles, South Mex. tribe, i., 644-70; location, i., 645, 682,\n    786; special mention, i., 668-9; myth., iii., 122, 482; lang.,\n    iii., 760, 763.\n\n  Cholicus, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Chollolan, city, Puebla, see Cholula.\n\n  Choloma River, i., 793.\n\n  Cholos, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 796-7;\n    lang., iii., 794-5.\n\n  Cholosoc, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Cholula (Chollolan), city, Puebla, i., 622-3, 671; ii., 112-13,\n    142, 588-9; iii., 240, 248-9, 724; antiq., iv., 469-76; v., 57;\n    hist., v., 200-2, 238, 258-67, 297, 459-63, 483-502, 528, chap.\n    x.\n\n  Cholultecs, Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; special\n    mention, i., 622-3; ii., 126-7, 142, 588-9, 629; myth., iii.,\n    195, 240, 248-9; lang., iii., 724; hist., v., 200, 238, 258-67,\n    297, 307-10, 459-63, 485-507, chap. xii.\n\n  Cholutecs, Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 688, 791;\n    ii., 123; special mention, i., 711; lang., iii., 791; hist.,\n    v., chap. xii.\n\n  Chomiha, Quich\u00e9 2d created woman, iii., 48.\n\n  Chontales (Chondals, Chontals, Ciondale), Maya nation, i.,\n    687-711; ii., 630-803; location, i., 645, 688, 790; ii., 111;\n    special mention, i., 646-7, 651-3, 668, 707, 711; lang., iii.,\n    783, 791-2; antiq., iv., 32-9, 56-8, 60; hist., v., chap. ii.\n\n  Chontalcuatlan, Guerrero, antiq., iv., 424.\n\n  Choomedocs (Chimedocs), Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 456.\n\n  Choomt\u00e9yas, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 456.\n\n  Choomuch, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 456.\n\n  Choomwits, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 456.\n\n  Chopunnish (Copunnish), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 317; special mention, i., 273-4, 279, 287, 289.\n\n  Chori, North Cal. tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 446.\n\n  Choromi, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Chorote, South Mex. drink, i., 665.\n\n  Chorotegans (Ciocotoga), Maya nation, i., 686-711; ii., 630-803;\n    location, i., 688, 791; special mention, i., 709, 752; lang.,\n    iii., 791-3; hist., v., chap. xii.\n\n  Chortis, Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 789; lang.,\n    iii., 760.\n\n  Chota, Sonora, lang., iii., 720.\n\n  Chotocoy, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Chowchilla River, i., 452, 455.\n\n  Chowchillas, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 455.\n\n  Chowclas, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 456.\n\n  Chowechaks (Choweshak), Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 449; lang., iii., 647.\n\n  Chowig-na, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Christ\u00f3val, Don, Nihaib prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Christy Collection, Mexican Republic, antiq., iv., 555-9.\n\n  Chtagaluk Island, i., 139.\n\n  Chualpays, i., 315, see Chaudi\u00e8res.\n\n  Chuapan, locality, Oajaca, i., 681.\n\n  Chuchictacs, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Chuchones, i., 677, see Tlapanecs.\n\n  Chucunaquese, i., 797, see Cunacunas.\n\n  Chucunas, i., 785; see Cunacunas.\n\n  Chuchura, Isthmian lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Chuen, Maya day, ii., 755-6, 760.\n\n  Chueti River, i., 796.\n\n  Chugachuik Bay (Chugach, Chugachik, Tschugatsk), i., 139, 149.\n\n  Chugatschen Islands, i., 139.\n\n  Chugatsches (Chugatshes, Tschugatschen, Tschugazzi, Tchugatchih,\n    Tschugatsches, Tschugatsi, Tschgatzi, Tschugatschi,\n    Tschugatskaja, Tschuktchi, Tschuktschi, Tchutski, Tuski), tribe\n    of Koniagas, i., 69-87; location, i., 70, 139; special mention,\n    i., 72-3.\n\n  Chulimal, ancient city, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chulpuns, Cent. California tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Chultunes, cisterns, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 252.\n\n  Chuluc, a Cakchiquel prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chumas (Kachumas), South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    458.\n\n  Chumbias, Cent. Mex. tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 677.\n\n  Chumilaha, a Guatemala tribe, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chumpache, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Chumuchn (Chumuchu), South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Chuncana, at Rio Ja\u00efna, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 262.\n\n  Chunemnes (Chunemmes), Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 363, 456.\n\n  Chunhuhu, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 220.\n\n  Chunkin, Maya mid-day, ii., 755.\n\n  Chunnapuns, i., 320, see Chimnapums.\n\n  Chun-Zak-Yoc, Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 787.\n\n  Chupadores, Isthmian sorcerers, i., 780.\n\n  Chupan, Peru, antiq., iv., 804.\n\n  Chupcan, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Chupumnes, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 450;\n    lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Chuquanaqua River, i., 796-7.\n\n  Churchill River, i., 144.\n\n  Churmutc\u00e9, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Chusattes River, i., 321.\n\n  Chuscan, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Chutchins, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Chutimal, ancient city, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chutsain, Tinneh evil spirit, iii., 142.\n\n  Chuva-Tzak, ancient city, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chuvi-Mugina, ancient city, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Chwachamaju (Chwachamaja), Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 449; lang., iii., 648.\n\n  Chynaus, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Chyniseyans, i., 293, see Chimsyans.\n\n  Ciateupan, iii., 362, see Cioateucalli.\n\n  Ci (Balam), Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Cib, Maya day, ii., 755-6, 760.\n\n  Cibakihay, a Cakchiquel princely family, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cibariches, i., 464, see Cheveriches.\n\n  Cibixic, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  C\u00edbola, town, New Mexico, i., 527, 537, 544; antiq., iv., 673-4.\n\n  C\u00edbolo, Mexican bull, i., 527.\n\n  Cicuhnauhuepaniuhcan, abode of Aztec Venus, iii., 377.\n\n  Cicuy\u00e9, Pueblo province, i., 527.\n\n  Cihoapatli, a medicinal herb, ii., 268.\n\n  Cihom, name of a tree, ii., 683.\n\n  Cihuacoatl (Cihuacohuatl, Cihuatcoatl), ii., 138; iii., 350, 363;\n    see Cioacoatl.\n\n  Cihuailhuitl, Nahua month, iii., 419.\n\n  Cihuapohualoyan, city, North-east Mex., v., 472.\n\n  Cihuaquaquilli, Nahua priestesses, ii., 205.\n\n  Cihuatetzin, a Toltec princess, v., 311.\n\n  Cihuatlamacasque, Nahua priestesses, ii., 205.\n\n  Cihuatlanque, Nahua title, ii., 254.\n\n  Cijp, ii., 757, see Zip.\n\n  Cimarron River, iii., 595.\n\n  Cimatecuhtli, a Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Cimi, Maya day, ii., 755-6, 760.\n\n  Cinaca-Mecallo, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 116-17.\n\n  Cinahitoh, a Cakchiquel chief, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cinaloas, i., 607, see Sinaloas.\n\n  Cinchau Yzamna, Maya god, ii., 696.\n\n  Cinihuaj, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Cinnabar, i., 370; iii., 435.\n\n  Cinteucy\u00f2hua, Nahua calendar-sign and god, ii., 516.\n\n  Cinzica, v., 516, see Zintzicha.\n\n  Cioacoatl (Ciuacoatl, Cihuacoatl, Civacoatl, Cihuacohuatl,\n    Cihuatcoatl), Nahua goddess, and title of supreme judge, ii.,\n    138, 269, 434, 608; iii., 350, 363-6.\n\n  Cioapipilti, a deified woman, iii., 362.\n\n  Cioateucalli (Ciateupan), Nahua place of prayer, iii., 362.\n\n  Cioatlamacazque, festival damsels, iii., 358, 404.\n\n  Ciocotoga, i., 791, see Chorotegans.\n\n  Ciondale, i., 791, see Chontales.\n\n  Ciotliahuatl, Nahua god, ii., 491.\n\n  Cipactli, Nahua day, ii., 511-12, 516-17; iii., 252.\n\n  Cipactonal, Nahua prophet and god, iii., 252; v., 190.\n\n  Cipattonal (Zipattoval), Nicaragua goddess, iii., 75, 490-1.\n\n  Circees, i., 145, see Sarsis.\n\n  Circleville, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 759.\n\n  Circumcision, i., 121, 666; ii., 278-9, 679; iii., 439-40, 507;\n    v., 88, 96-7.\n\n  Ciri\u00e9s, i., 145, see Sarsis.\n\n  Cisterns, see Reservoirs.\n\n  Citan Qatu, a Cakchiquel ruler, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Citbolontum, Maya god, ii., 697.\n\n  Cit Chac Coh, Maya temple, ii., 693.\n\n  Citin, Acolhua ancestral family, v., 310.\n\n  Citinatonali, name of Tonacatecotle, iii., 272.\n\n  Citlalatonac (Citlallatonac), Nahua god, iii., 58, 70.\n\n  Citlalicue (Citlallinicue), Nahua goddess, iii., 58, 70.\n\n  Citli, Nahua god, iii., 61.\n\n  Ciuacoatl (Civacoatl), i., 363, see Cioacoatl.\n\n  Ciuanemactli, a concubine, ii., 265.\n\n  Ciuatlantli, a wife, ii., 264-5.\n\n  Ciudad, see Cerro de la Ciudad.\n\n  Ciudad Real, city, Chiapas, i., 786.\n\n  Ciutla, town, Guerrero, i., 677.\n\n  Civilization, i., 3-4, 33-4, 154, 176, 615-16; phases of, ii.,\n    1-80; general view of civilized nations, ii., 81-125, 804-5.\n\n  Clackamas (Clackamis, Clackamos, Clackamus, Clakemas, Clarkamees,\n    Klackamas), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 223,\n    308-10; special mention, i., 229, 309.\n\n  Clackamas (Clackamos) River, i., 308-10.\n\n  Clackstars, i., 308; see Clockstars.\n\n  Clahclellahs, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Clahnaquah, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 308.\n\n  Clahoose (Klahous), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i.,\n    176, 296, 298.\n\n  Clallams (Clalams, Clallums, Sklallam, S'klalum, Sklallum,\n    Tsclallum), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    208, 295, 302;  special mention, i., 211-13, 216-17, 220, 222;\n    myth., iii., 155, 522; lang., iii., 608, 615.\n\n  Clallueis, (Clalluiis), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 295.\n\n  Clallums, i., 295; see Clallams.\n\n  Clamet, i., 443; see Klamath.\n\n  Clamoctomichs, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    303.\n\n  Clamoitomish, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 305.\n\n  Clams, i., 163, 186-8, 213.\n\n  Clanimatas, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Clannahminamuns, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i.,\n    308.\n\n  Clannarminnamuns, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i.,\n    306.\n\n  Clans, see Castes.\n\n  Clarence Straits, i., 143.\n\n  Clarkamees, i., 310; see Clackamas.\n\n  Clarke River, i., 252, 311.\n\n  Class Distinctions, ii., 192-4, 638, 649, 663, 668.\n\n  Classets (Clatsets, Macaws, Makahs), tribe of Sound Indians, i.,\n    280-22; location, i., 208, 302-3; special mention, i., 210-11,\n    213-15, 218, 222; lang., iii., 608, 615.\n\n  Clatscanias, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 304;\n    lang., ii., 626.\n\n  Clatsop Point, i., 306.\n\n  Clatsops (Clotsops, Tlatsaps), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 223, 304, 306; special mention, i., 226, 235,\n    249; lang., iii., 626.\n\n  Clawetsus, i., 295; see Clowetsus.\n\n  Claws, as ornaments, i., 117, 426, 438, 496, 580, 752-3; ii.,\n    372; iii., 398.\n\n  Clay, see Earth.\n\n  Clayoquots (Klahohquahts, Klaooquates, Kla-os-quates, Klayquoits,\n    Tlaoquatch, Tloquatch), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 175, 296-7; spec. mention, i., 177, 190, 194,\n    207.\n\n  Clayoquot Sound, i., 175-6, 295, 297.\n\n  Cleanliness, Hyperboreans, i., 81, 83; Columbians, i., 187-8;\n    Californians, i., 430-1; New Mexicans, i., 492-3; Mexicans, i.,\n    654; ii., 245; Central Americans, i., 696, 722, 760.\n\n  Clear Lake Indians, Central California tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 362, 448, 451; special mention, i., 364, 367-8,\n    381-2, 385-6, 388-9, 396, 398; myth., iii., 86-7.\n\n  Clearwater River, i., 253, 317.\n\n  Clehuse (Clehure), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i.,\n    295.\n\n  Clelikitte, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Clickahuts, i., 320, see Kliketats.\n\n  Clickitats, i., 256, see Kliketats.\n\n  Clictass (Clictars), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i.,\n    292.\n\n  Cliff-Carvings, see Hieroglyphics.\n\n  Climate, i., 14; ii., 44-55, 87-90; Hyperboreans, i., 38, 43-5;\n    Columbians, i., 153, 156; Californians, i., 324; New Mexicans,\n    i., 472, 557, 572; Mexicans, i., 616-17, 644; iii., 312; iv.,\n    141-2, 287-8; Central Americans, i., 685-7, 747; iv., 135.\n\n  Clockstars (Clackstars), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location,\n    i., 306, 308.\n\n  Cloos, i., 292, see Klues.\n\n  Cloth, manufacture and commerce, i., 582, 726, 766-7; ii., 259,\n    484-5, 752.\n\n  Clothing, see Dress.\n\n  Clotsops, i., 304, see Clatsops.\n\n  Cloughewallhahs, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i.,\n    309.\n\n  Clover, Central Californian food, i., 373-7.\n\n  Cloverdale, town, Central California, i., 449.\n\n  Clowetsus (Clawetsus), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 295.\n\n  Clubs, Columbians, i., 164, 235; Californians, i., 343, 377-8,\n    407, 431, 433; New Mexicans, i., 493-4, 541, 562, 578-9;\n    Mexicans, i., 627; ii., 408-9; iii., 289, 291; Central\n    Americans, i., 722, 760, 763.\n\n  Clunsus, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 311.\n\n  Coacuech, Chichimec chief, v., 317.\n\n  Coacuiles, Nahua priests, ii., 608.\n\n  Coahuayana, river, Michoacan, v., 508.\n\n  Coahuila, description and location of tribes, i., 473-526, 593;\n    lang., iii., 563, 594; antiq., iv., 598-600.\n\n  Coahuillas, i., 457, see Cahuillos.\n\n  Coanenepilli, snake-bite antidote, ii., 600.\n\n  Coapatli, snake-bite antidote, ii., 600.\n\n  Coaquites, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Coat of arms, Nahua, ii., 160, 169-71, 405; iii., 73; iv., 467,\n    469, 481, 498.\n\n  Coatepantli (Coatlapechtli), species of snakes, ii., 578; iii.,\n    254, 292.\n\n  Coatepec (Cohuactepec, Cuauhtepec), station, Aztec migration, v.,\n    323-4, 329;  locality, Puebla, v., 490.\n\n  Coatetl, princess of Chalco, v., 311.\n\n  Coati Island, Peru, antiq., iv., 805-6.\n\n  Coatl, Nahua day, ii., 511-12, 516-17.\n\n  Coatlan, Nahua temple, iii., 406; v., 426, 478; locality, Oajaca,\n    v., chap. x.\n\n  Coatlantona (Coatlantonan), ii., 315; iii., 407, see Coatlicue.\n\n  Coatlan el Viejo, Guerrero, antiq., iv., 424.\n\n  Coatlapechtli, iii., 254, see Coatepantli.\n\n  Coatlayauhcan, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Coatlicamac, v., 323, see Cohuatlicamac.\n\n  Coatlichan (Coatlychan), city, Mexico, ii., 104, 441; v., 303,\n    310-11, 319-20, 333-4, 380, 388, 395.\n\n  Coatlicue (Cohuatlicue, Coatlycue, Coatlyace, Coatlyate,\n    Coatlantona, Coatlantonan), Nahua goddess, ii., 315; iii., 288,\n    296, 407, 420-1; v., 242, 423-4, 487.\n\n  Coatlyace (Coatlyate), iii., 407, 420; see Coatlicue.\n\n  Coatzacoalco, iii., 275, see Goazacoalco.\n\n  Coatzon, v., 243, see Cohuatzon.\n\n  Coaxacayo, Nahua court mantle, ii., 375.\n\n  Coaxalpan, a chamber of the temple, iii., 358.\n\n  Coaxolotl, temple, Tlatelulco, v., 426.\n\n  Coba, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 236-7, 266.\n\n  Coban, city, Vera Paz, v., chap. xii.\n\n  Cocas, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 672;\n    lang., iii., 720.\n\n  Cocauhtli (Catauhtlix, Cocoahtli), Toltec prince, v., 299.\n\n  Cocaztzin, lord of Quauhquelchula, v., 349.\n\n  Cochees, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 475, 598.\n\n  Cochimetl, Nahua god, iii., 416.\n\n  Cochim\u00eds (Cochimas, Cochim\u00edes, Col\u00edmi\u00ebs, Cotschim\u00ec), Lower\n    Californian tribe, i., 556-71; location, i., 557-8, 603;\n    special mention, i., 558-9, 565-7, 570; myth., iii., 83, 170,\n    529; v., 20; lang., iii., 687-92.\n\n  Cochineal, i., 659, 694, 698; ii., 486.\n\n  Cochitas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 572,\n    607.\n\n  Cochiti, Pueblo village, i., 599-600; lang., iii., 681-2.\n\n  Cochochlam, Quich\u00e9 personage, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cochtoca, locality, Mexico, iii., 253.\n\n  Cocibolca, locality, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Cocinas, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 796.\n\n  Cociyo, Zapotec god, iii., 457.\n\n  Cociyoeza (Cocyo\u00ebza), Zapotec king, v., 443-7, 534-5.\n\n  Cociyopu, king of Tehuantepec, v., 535.\n\n  Cock-fighting, Pueblos, i., 553.\n\n  Cockles, Haidah food, i., 163.\n\n  Coclamas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Cocoahtli, v., 299, see Cocauhtli.\n\n  Cocoa-nut, i., 697, 719, 759, 768.\n\n  Cocobiptas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Cocohuame, Sinaloa god, iii., 180.\n\n  Cocolcan, iii., 282, see Cukulcan.\n\n  Cocom, king of Mayapan, Yuc., v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Cocomaricopas, i., 555, 595; iii., 685; see Maricopas.\n\n  Cocomates, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Cocomes, Maya nation, ii., 630-803; special mention, ii., 119,\n    127, 633, 801; iii., 260, 282; name, v., 225; hist., v., chap.\n    xiii.\n\n  Coconoons, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456; lang., iii., 651.\n\n  Cocopas (Cocopahs), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i.,\n    598.\n\n  Cocori (Cocor\u00fan), village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Cocospera, village, Arizona, i., 601.\n\n  Cocotl, Nahua place of sacrifice, iii., 333.\n\n  Cocotlanes, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 672.\n\n  Cocoyomes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Cocula, Guerrero, antiq., iv., 423-4.\n\n  Coculatepil, Guerrero, antiq., iv., 424.\n\n  Cocyo\u00ebza, v., 443-7, see Cociyoeza.\n\n  Cod, Koniaga food, i., 76.\n\n  Codames, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; special mention, i., 611.\n\n  Codex Bologna, ii., 530.\n\n  Codex Borgian, ii., 530.\n\n  Codex Mendoza, ii., 529, 538-40.\n\n  Codex Chimalpopoca, v., 192-4.\n\n  Codex Telleriano-Remensis, ii., 530.\n\n  Codex Vaticanus, ii., 529-30.\n\n  Codex Vienna, ii., 530.\n\n  C\u0153urs d'Al\u00eane (C\u0153urs d'Aleines), Inland Columbian tribe, i.,\n    250-91;  location and name, i., 252, 313-14; special mention,\n    i., 278, 289.\n\n  C\u0153ur d'Al\u00eane Lake, i., 252, 314.\n\n  C\u0153ur d'Al\u00eane River, i., 314.\n\n  Coffins, Hyperboreans, i., 69, 93, 113; Columbians, i., 172-3,\n    205-6, 247-9, 288; Californians, i., 420; Mexicans, ii., 605-6,\n    611-12, 616, 619, 621; Central Americans, i., 744, 82-3; iv.,\n    17-18; Mississippi Valley, iv., 776.\n\n  Coguinachis, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; loc., i., 606; lang.,\n    iii., 699.\n\n  Cogwell, i., 298, see Quackolls.\n\n  Cohah, Guatemalan tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 789; origin,\n    v., 21; hist., v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cohcaapa (Coaapan, Cozcaapan), locality, Mex., iii., 253, 258.\n\n  Cohuacayan, station, Chichimec migration, v., 294.\n\n  Cohuactepec, v., 323, see Coatepec.\n\n  Cohuailhuitl, Nahua month, ii., 312, 509.\n\n  Cohuaixtlahuacan, locality, Oajaca, ii., 109; v., 415-16.\n\n  Cohualzon, v., 243, see Cohuatzon.\n\n  Cohuanacoch, Chichimec prince, v., 474-7.\n\n  Cohuanas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 599.\n\n  Cohuanacotzin (Cohuanacox), a Toltec noble, v., 272-3, 277.\n\n  Cohuatitlan, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Cohuatl, Nahua title, ii., 189; calendar-sign, ii., 389;\n    priestess, v., 254; Toltec chief, v., 297, 350.\n\n  Cohuatlicamac (Coatlicamac, Cohuatlycamac), station, Aztec\n    migration, v., 323.\n\n  Cohuatlicue, v., 242, see Coatlicue.\n\n  Cohuatzin, v., 243, see Cohuatzon.\n\n  Cohuatzin, lord of Xiuhtepec, v., 406.\n\n  Cohuatzon (Cohuatzin, Cohuazon, Coatzon, Cohualzon), Toltec hero,\n    v., 212-13, 243.\n\n  Cohuatzontli, Culhua princess, v., 358.\n\n  Cohuaxochitl, Toltec lady, v., 297.\n\n  Cohuazon, v., 243, see Cohuatzon.\n\n  Cohuitl, v., 328, see Copil.\n\n  Cohuixcas, Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location and\n    name, i., 678; ii., 109, 127; hist., v., 307-10, 411-12, 508.\n\n  Coiba, Isthmian tribe, i., 747-85; location, i., 795; special\n    mention, i., 761; lang., iii., 793.\n\n  Coiners' Prairie, i., 463.\n\n  Coins, antiq., iv., 15-16, 383.\n\n  Coitch, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 456.\n\n  Cojats, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Cojo (Cojotoc), i., 458, see Xocotoc.\n\n  Cojuklesatuch, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Colanii Cobee P\u00e9cala, Zapotec priests, ii., 211.\n\n  Colcampata, royal lands, Peru, v., 47.\n\n  Colchacovatl, see Quetzalcoatl, v., 242.\n\n  Colche, ancient city in Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Colchi, Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 788.\n\n  Colds, Hyperboreans, i., 86; Mexicans, i., 667; ii., 592, 599;\n    Cent. Americans, i., 742; ii., 794-5.\n\n  Colech\u00e1, locality, Lower California, i., 569.\n\n  Colhuas, see Culhuas.\n\n  Colhua-Teuctli-Quanez, see Quanez.\n\n  Colic, Nootkas, i., 204.\n\n  Colima, antiq., iv., 572; hist., v., 473, 508.\n\n  Col\u00edmi\u00ebs, i., 558; iii., 687, see Cochim\u00eds.\n\n  Collars, Hyperboreans, i., 97; Columbians, i., 170; Californians,\n    i., 425; Mexicans, i., 651; ii., 222; iii., 289, 295, 324, 369;\n    iv., 236; Cent. Americans, i., 701, 736, ii., 635, 657.\n\n  Colleges, see Schools and Education.\n\n  Colmena, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 353.\n\n  Coloc, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458-9.\n\n  Columbia (New Granada), antiq., iv., 15-21.\n\n  Colomche, Maya dance, ii., 712.\n\n  Colopechtli, Olmec prince; v., 491.\n\n  Color, see Complexion.\n\n  Colorado, antiq., iv., 717-31.\n\n  Colorado Chiquito, i., 595, 600; antiq., iv., 641-50.\n\n  Colorado Desert, i., 324; iii., 593; Cal., antiq., iv., 690-1.\n\n  Colorado River, i., 457, 465-8, 475, 592-3, 595-7, 601-2; lang.,\n    iii., 683-6; antiq., iv., 619, 640; v., 323.\n\n  Colorados, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Colotlan, locality, Zacatecas, i., 671; iii., 719.\n\n  Coltonco, town, Mexico, ii., 560.\n\n  Coltzin, Matlaltzinca god, iii., 446.\n\n  Columbia Lakes, i., 314.\n\n  Columbia River, i., 95, 151-2, 203, 223-4, 226, 229, 231-2, 238,\n    251-3, 289, 304-6, 311, 314, 316, 318, 320; iii., 579, 616,\n    626; iv., 734.\n\n  Columbians, one of the seven groups into which the natives of\n    the Pacific States are divided, located in British Columbia,\n    Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana, between latitudes 43\u00b0\n    and 55\u00b0, subdivided into nine families, the Haidahs, Nootkas,\n    Sound Indians, Chinooks, Shushwaps, Kootenais, Okanagans,\n    Salish and Sahaptins. Manners and customs of each of the\n    first four families described separately and of the last\n    five together as the inland nations, i., 150-321; location,\n    divisions, and tribal boundaries, i., 150-6, 292-321; myth.,\n    iii., 519-22; lang., iii., 564-5, 604-34; origin, v., 19.\n\n  Columns, ii., 555, 572; iii., 504-5; antiq., iv., 17, 20, 112-14,\n    120, 166-7, 175, 180-1, 200, 212-20, 229, 236, 242, 244-5, 257,\n    274-5, 399, 408, 416, 419, 443, 448, 478-9, 529, 547-9, 585,\n    591, 600, 713; v., 59-60.\n\n  Colusa County, i., 450.\n\n  Colusas, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 362, 450.\n\n  Colvilles, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 252,\n    314; special mention, i., 265, 280-1.\n\n  Colville Valley, i., 314.\n\n  Comachos, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 362, 449;\n    special mention, i., 386.\n\n  Comagre, Isthmian Province, i., 758, 769-70, 782.\n\n  Comahcan, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Comal\u00e1, village, Colima, i., 638.\n\n  Comalli, earthen baking-pans, i., 630; ii., 355.\n\n  Comanches (Eubaous, Hietans, Jetans, Nauni, Yetas, Yetans), tribe\n    of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 473, 591-2; special\n    mention, i., 477-8, 483-4, 486, 491-6, 499-500, 506-13, 516-23,\n    525-6; myth., iii., 170, 528-9; lang., iii., 660-3, 670, 672.\n\n  Comatlan, locality, Jalisco, i., 672.\n\n  Comayagua, town, Honduras, i., 790; antiq., iv., 70-1.\n\n  Combat, i., 105-6, 728; ii., 310, 286, 305, 396, 419, 429-30;\n    iii., 413-15, 420.\n\n  Combs, i., 216, 649, 754; ii., 751.\n\n  Comecamotes, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Comecrudos, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-93; location, i., 613.\n\n  Comepescados, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Comesacapemes, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Comeyas, i., 457-8; see Diegue\u00f1os.\n\n  Comijahual, Honduras ruler and goddess, v., chap. xii.\n\n  Comitan, town, Chiapas, i., 682; lang., iii., 762; antiq., iv.,\n    352.\n\n  Comizahual, Honduras goddess, iii., 485.\n\n  Commemoration, Nahua festival, ii., 328, 331.\n\n  Commerce, Hyperboreans, i., 29-31, 64-5, 107-8, 128-9;\n    Columbians, i., 167, 192, 217, 238-9, 273-4; Californians, i.,\n    435; New Mexicans, i., 506, 545, 564, 583; Mexicans, i., 631;\n    ii., 339, 378-97, 464, 473, 558; iii., 403, 416-17; v., 415,\n    421, 456-9, 502-3; Cent. Americans, i., 700, 725-6; ii., 653,\n    735-8.\n\n  Communion, Nahua sacrament, iii., 323, 408, 440, 444;\n    Nicaraguans, ii., 710; iii., 494.\n\n  Comogre, tribe of Isthmians, i., 744-85; location, i., 795;\n    lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Comoporis, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; loc., i., 608-9; lang.,\n    iii., 707.\n\n  Comox, British Columbia, antiq., iv., 739-40.\n\n  Complexion, Hyperboreans, i., 12-14, 45, 71-2, 97, 116, 127;\n    Columbians, i., 157, 177-8, 210, 225, 255-6; Californians, i.,\n    328, 364-6, 402, 423; New Mexicans, i., 477-9, 529-30, 558,\n    573; Mexicans, i., 619, 646-8; ii., 624-5; Cent. Americans, i.,\n    688, 714-15, 750-1; ii., 802.\n\n  Comux, (Comoux, Komux), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 175, 295-7; special mention, i., 208; iii., 608.\n\n  Conache, Quich\u00e9 ruler, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Concabe y Muca, name for Oraibe, i., 528.\n\n  Concepcion, village, Sinaloa, i., 609.\n\n  Concepcion Bay, i., 605.\n\n  Concepcion Cuirimpo, village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  Concepcion de Macoyahui, village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  Conchagua Gulf, i., 791; v., chap. xii.\n\n  Conchos, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; loc., i., 572, 610; spec.\n    mention, i., 575; lang., iii., 688, 714.\n\n  Conconulps, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 312.\n\n  Concubines, see Marriage.\n\n  Condoy, Mije hero, v., 522-3.\n\n  Conec\u00e1re, town, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Confederation, Nahuas, ii., 92, 105-6, 133-4, 418; Mayas, ii.,\n    633, 645; v., chap. xi., xiii.\n\n  Confession, Hyperboreans, i., 124; iii., 143; Mexicans, i.,\n    662; ii., 601, 608; iii., 220-5, 271, 380-4, v., 88; Cent.\n    Americans, ii., 669, 678, 683, 795; iii., 472, 494-5.\n\n  Confiscation, Maya punishment, ii., 657, 672.\n\n  Congo River, i., 796.\n\n  Conicaris, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Conil, province in Yuc., v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Conjurers, see Sorcerers.\n\n  Conops, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Conquest, see War.\n\n  Consecration, Nahuas, ii., 324; iii., 297-8, 314, 362; Mayas,\n    ii., 751, 785.\n\n  Consoquitla, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 447.\n\n  Constables, Isthmian Government, i., 770; Nahua Government, ii.,\n    437-8.\n\n  Consumption, Hyperboreans, i., 86; Columbians, i., 219, 245, 287;\n    Californians, i., 354, 439; New Mexicans, i., 568; Mexicans,\n    ii., 593; Central Americans, i., 742.\n\n  Contagious disease, Mexicans, i., 588.\n\n  Contemoque, Nahua god, iii., 396.\n\n  Continence, i., 762; ii., 143, 719.\n\n  Contlan, locality in Puebla, v., 490.\n\n  Contores (Contotores), North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 612.\n\n  Contra Costa County, California, antiq., iv., 710.\n\n  Convents, Mayas, ii., 663; Nahuas, v., 258.\n\n  Cookchaneys (Choocchancies, Chookchaneys), Cent. Cal. tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 363, 456.\n\n  Cooking, Hyperboreans, i., 55, 58, 103, 123; Columbians, i.,\n    162-3, 187, 213, 234, 265-6; Californians, i., 339-40, 373-6,\n    406, 428-30; New Mexicans, i., 489-92, 540, 561, 577-8;\n    Mexicans, i., 626, 653-4, 656; ii., 175, 354-7; v., 490; Cent.\n    Americans, i., 694-5, 720-1, 758-9; ii., 722-5.\n\n  Cookoose (Cookkoooose), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location,\n    i., 307.\n\n  Cookras, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; loc., i., 712, 793;\n    spec. mention, i., 718, 722; lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Cook's Inlet, i., 107, 139, 149; iii., 588.\n\n  Cooniacs, (Kahnyak, Kukhnyak), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 306.\n\n  Coon's Ca\u00f1on, Utah, antiq., iv., 715.\n\n  Co\u00f6peration, ii., 57-9; ii., 718.\n\n  Coopspellars, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    314.\n\n  Coose Bay, i., 248, 250.\n\n  Cooses, i., 442, see Kowooses.\n\n  Coot, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Cootonais, i., 255, see Kootenais.\n\n  Copahs (Cops), North Cal. tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 442,\n    445.\n\n  Copal, i., 709, 732; ii., 284, 314, 390-1, 393, 694, 700, 703,\n    708, 719, 734; iii., 340, 381-2, 392, 410, 426.\n\n  Copalis, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 303.\n\n  Copalis River, i., 303.\n\n  Copalux (Palux) River, i., 305.\n\n  Copalxocotl, soap-tree, ii., 491.\n\n  Copan, Honduras, antiq., ii., 118, 781-2; iv., 77-105; hist., v.,\n    56-60, 187, chap. xi., xii.\n\n  Copanabastla, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 353.\n\n  Copanahuaxtla, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 354.\n\n  Copapitas, Zapotec monks, ii., 212.\n\n  Copichoch, chief, Chiapas and Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Copil (Cohuitl), prince of Malinalco. v., 328, 339.\n\n  Copilli, Nahua crown, ii., 147, 375-6.\n\n  Copo, species of tree, ii., 683.\n\n  Copper, Hyperboreans, i., 59, 79, 97, 107, 122, 135; Columbians,\n    i., 190, 235; iii., 151; Californians, i., 341; New Mexicans,\n    i., 574; Mexicans, ii., 372, 382, 406, 409-10, 473-8, 557, 599;\n    iv., 278, 346, 373, 376, 383, 414; Cent. Americans, ii., 742-3,\n    749, 751; iv., 67; Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 778-9, 783;\n    Peru antiq., iv., 792-4.\n\n  Copper Indians (Tantsawhot-Dinneh), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-137;\n    location, i., 114, 144; special mention, i., 119, 136; lang.,\n    iii., 585.\n\n  Copper Mine Apaches, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; loc., i.,\n    594.\n\n  Coppermine River, i., 42, 45-6, 49-50, 59, 64, 114, 138, 144.\n\n  Copper River, i., 96, 116, 142, 149; iii., 588-9.\n\n  Copunnish, i., 317, see Chopunnish.\n\n  Coquille River, i., 308, 442-3.\n\n  Coquilths, i., 296, see Quackolls.\n\n  Coquins, i., 443, see Tutunahs.\n\n  Coquiza-Chibataya Cozaanatao, Zapotec god, iii., 449.\n\n  Coquontans, name of Thlinkeet clan, i., 109, 143.\n\n  Cora, Pima basket boat, i., 544.\n\n  Coral, i., 583, 623, 752.\n\n  Coras, Lower Cal. tribe, i., 556-71; location, i., 603; lang.,\n    iii., 687-93; special mention, i., 571; North Mex. tribe,\n    i., 571-91; location, i., 607; lang., iii., 665-8, 678, 706,\n    719-22; Cent. Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 671-2;\n    special mention, i., 635, 637, 640-1, 643; v., 509.\n\n  Corarus, Cent. Mex. tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 672.\n\n  C\u00f3rdova, i., 293; Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 434-5.\n\n  C\u00f3rdova, Hernandez de, arrival on coast of Mex., v., 476.\n\n  Cords, Hyperboreans, i., 91; Columbians, i., 165-6, 185-6;\n    New Mexicans, i., 582-3; Mexicans, ii., 484, 551-2; Cent.\n    Americans, i., 766.\n\n  Coribici (Coribizi), Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i.,\n    791; lang., iii., 791.\n\n  Corn, Columbians, i., 234; New Mexicans, i., 516, 533, 538,\n    550-1, 577, 581; Mexicans, i., 624-6, 652-4; ii., 317, 348-349.\n\n  Corn Creek Valley, i., 468.\n\n  Corn Island, i., 715, 717.\n\n  Coronados, Cent. Mex. tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 672.\n\n  Coronation, Aztecs, ii., 147-57; v., 389, 408, 425, 428, 437,\n    455, 501; Quich\u00e9s, ii., 641.\n\n  Corozo-nuts, i., 768.\n\n  Corpulency, Columbians, i., 156, 176, 224-5, 254; New Mexicans,\n    i., 477-8, 558, 573.\n\n  Corpus Christi Bay, i., 594.\n\n  Corralitos, Chihuahua, antiq., iv., 604.\n\n  Cort\u00e9s, Hernan, arrival at Vera Cruz, v., 479-82.\n\n  Cort\u00e9s, Juan, Quich\u00e9 king, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cosispas, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 317.\n\n  Cosninos, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 475, 598;\n    special mention, i., 478.\n\n  Cosos, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 456.\n\n  Costahuntox, Chiapanec god, iii., 458.\n\n  Costanos, i., 453, see Ohlones.\n\n  Costa Rica, antiq., iv., 21-5.\n\n  Costa Ricans, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; special mention,\n    i., 754-5, 761, 775, 780, 784; lang., iii., 572, 760, 793;\n    hist., v., chap. xii.\n\n  Costrowers, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 363,\n    456.\n\n  Cosulhentens, North Cal. tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 443.\n\n  Cosumnes River, i., 455-6; lang., iii., 648-9.\n\n  Cosumnies (Cosumnes), Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Coswas, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 455.\n\n  Cotastla, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 445.\n\n  Cotejen, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Cotschim\u00ec, iii., 687, see Cochim\u00eds.\n\n  Cotter's Creek, i., 317.\n\n  Cotton, New Mexicans, i., 502, 504, 531-2, 538, 544, 574, 582;\n    Mexicans, i., 620-1, 630, 648-50, 655, 657-8, 667; ii., 363-9,\n    484, 572-3; iii., 241; Cent. Americans, i., 689-92, 694, 715,\n    723-4, 751-2, 763, 766; ii., 718-19, 726-9, 742, 752.\n\n  Cottonois, i., 311; see Kootenais.\n\n  Cottonwood, North Cal. boats, i., 346.\n\n  Cottonwood Valley, i., 597; iv., 707.\n\n  Cotuha, Quich\u00e9 king, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cotuha II., Quich\u00e9 king, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cotzales, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Cotzbalam, Quich\u00e9 mythic animal, iii., 47.\n\n  Cotzumalguapan, village, Guatemala, i., 788.\n\n  Councils, Mexicans, ii., 139, 188-9, 418, 420, 438-9, 442, 492-3;\n    v., 314; Cent. Americans, i., 702; ii., 641-2, 646, 655.\n\n  Counting, see Arithmetic.\n\n  Coup\u00e9s, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Couriers, Nahuas, ii., 175, 413-14, 462.\n\n  Court-etiquette, Nahuas, ii., 185.\n\n  Court-martial, Nahuas, ii., 418, 442.\n\n  Courtship, Hyperboreans, i., 134; Columbians, i., 192, 196, 241,\n    277-8; Californians, i., 349-50; New Mexicans, i., 511-12,\n    547-9, 565; Mexicans, i., 632-3; ii., 254-5; Central Americans,\n    i., 729-32; ii., 666-7.\n\n  Couse (Cowish), food, Inland Columbian tribes, i., 265.\n\n  Coutanies, i., 311, see Kootenais.\n\n  Couvade, i., 391-2, 585.\n\n  Covaji, South Cal., lang., iii., 686.\n\n  Coviscas, i., 677, see Tlapanecs.\n\n  Cowghalingen, name for Unalaskas, i., 87.\n\n  Cowiahs (Cowhuillas), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 363, 456.\n\n  Cowichins (Cawitchans, Cowaitzchim, Cowegans, Cowewachin,\n    Cowitchins, Cowitchens, Cowitchici, Cowitciher, Kawitchen,\n    Kawitchin, Kawitshin, Kowitchan), tribe of Nootkas, i.,\n    174-208; loc., i., 175-6, 295-7, 300; lang., iii., 608.\n\n  Cowichin (Cowitchen, Kawitchin) Valley, i., 175, 297.\n\n  Cowillers, i., 457, see Cahuillas.\n\n  Cowlitz (Cowlitsick, Kaoulis), tribe of Sound Indians, i.,\n    208-22; loc., i., 209, 299, 303-4, 310; spec. mention, i., 210,\n    220.\n\n  Cowlitz River, i., 209, 223, 303, 305.\n\n  Cows, Navajo property, i., 489.\n\n  Coxanatzin Atencatl, Chichimec prince, v., 314.\n\n  Coxcatlan, locality, Guerrero, i., 677.\n\n  Coxcotzin, Toltec king, v., 257.\n\n  Coxcox, Nahua Noah-myth, iii., 66, 68.\n\n  Coxcoxtli (Coxcotzin, Coxcox), Culhua king, v., 13, 330-1,\n    339-44, 492-5.\n\n  Coxoh, Guatemala lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Coyabacoh, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Coya Mama Oella, wife of Manco Capac, v., 46.\n\n  Coygaraca, Medicinal herb, ii., 795.\n\n  Coyohuacan, see Coyuhuacan.\n\n  Coyotl, v., 299, see Nauhyotl.\n\n  Coyolxauhqui, daughter of Coatlicue, iii., 296.\n\n  Coyote River, i., 452.\n\n  Coyoteros, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location and name, i.,\n    474, 596; iii., 594; special mention, i., 495.\n\n  Coyotes, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; special mention, i., 611.\n\n  Coyotes, South Cal. food, i., 405; myths, iii., 75-6, 85-8, 90,\n    115-17, 137-9, 161, 545-8; v., 13-14.\n\n  Coyotl, v., 299, see Nauhyotl.\n\n  Coyuhuacan (Coyohuacan), town, Mexico, ii., 562; v., 295, 317,\n    402.\n\n  Co-yukuk River, i., 148.\n\n  Coyuquilla, town, Guerrero, i., 677.\n\n  Coyyo, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Cozaana, Zapotec god, iii., 457.\n\n  Cozaby Pah Utes, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i.,\n    466.\n\n  Cozamaloapan, province, Oajaca, v., 412, 417.\n\n  Cozcaapan, iii., 258, see Cohcaapa.\n\n  Cozcapetlatl, Nahua collar, ii., 404.\n\n  Cozcaquauh, Chichimec chief, v., 293.\n\n  Cozcaquauh, Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Cozcaquauhco (Cozcacuauhco), station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Cozcaquauhtenanco, province in South Mexico, v., 441.\n\n  Cozcaquauhtli, Nahua day, ii., 512, 516-17; Acolhua chief, v.,\n    303; lord of Huauhtlan, v., 462.\n\n  Cozcotlan, locality, San Salvador, i., 790.\n\n  Cozehuatl, Nahua greaves, ii., 404.\n\n  Cozolmecatl, medicinal plant, i., 640.\n\n  Cozumel Island, ii., 792-3; iii., 761; iv., 259-60, 266.\n\n  Crab-apple, Nootka bows of, i., 188.\n\n  Crabs, Nahua food, ii., 356.\n\n  Cradles, Columbians, i., 218, 227-8; Californians, i., 391; New\n    Mexicans, i., 501, 563, 566; Mexicans, i., 633; ii., 275-6,\n    281; iii., 352.\n\n  Crean, Mosquito boat, i., 725.\n\n  Creation-myths, Hyperboreans, iii., 98-106; Columbians,\n    iii., 94-8; Californians, iii., 83-94, 162-5, 531-2, 549;\n    New Mexicans, iii., 75-83; Mexicans, iii., 55-74; Central\n    Americans, iii., 44-54, 74-5; v., 171-2, 193-4.\n\n  Cremation, Hyperboreans, i., 113, 125-6, 132, 134-5; Columbians,\n    i., 172-3, 205-6; Californians, i., 356-8, 396-7, 420-1, 439;\n    iii., 87; New Mexicans, i., 522-3, 555, 569, 589; Mexicans,\n    ii., 607-11, 615-21; iii., 240; Central Americans, i., 780,\n    783-4; ii., 798, 800-1.\n\n  Crescent City, North California, i., 445.\n\n  Crickets, Lower Californian food, i., 561.\n\n  Criers, Californians, i., 410; New Mexicans, i., 509, 520, 546;\n    Mexicans, i., 659-60; ii., 436-7; Central Americans, ii., 646;\n    iii., 241, 245, 255.\n\n  Crimes, see Government and names of crimes.\n\n  Crocodiles, Nahuas, hunting, ii., 351.\n\n  Cross, ii., 619, 793; iii., 135, 268, 274, 284, 332, 348, 356,\n    369, 385, 455, 468-70, 506, 509; iv., 57-8, 243, 260, 311-12,\n    333-8, 374, 407-8, 412, 437-8, 461, 481, 498, 503, 544-5, 572,\n    574, 674; v., 25, 48, 260.\n\n  Cross Sound, i., 96, 142.\n\n  Crosswers, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Crown, Mexicans, ii., 147-8, 307, 322, 337, 375-6, 404-5, 441;\n    iii., 341, 344, 352, 356, 359, 369, 385, 390-2, 396, 407-8,\n    411-12; Cent. Americans, i., 702; ii., 635.\n\n  Crown-lands, Nahuas, ii., 224-5.\n\n  Crows, i., 405; ii., 716; iii., 97.\n\n  Cruzados, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location and name, i.,\n    475, 599; special mention, i., 478.\n\n  Cu (Qu), Nahua temple, iii., 192, 240, 292.\n\n  Cuaahtemalteca, Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 787.\n\n  Cuachichiles, i., 614, see Guachichiles.\n\n  Cuachilgo, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Cuaque River, i., 607.\n\n  Cuauhtepec, v., 324, see Cohuactepec.\n\n  Cuautla, town, Mexico, i., 672.\n\n  Cucap\u00e1s, iii., 685, see Cuhuanas.\n\n  Cuchans, i., 597, see Yumas.\n\n  Cuchanticas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Cuchians, Central California tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Cuchinochis, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Cuchumaquiq, Quich\u00e9 god, v., 175.\n\n  Cuchumatanes, ancient name of mountains in Guatemala, v., chap.\n    xii.\n\n  Cucomogna (Cucamonga), village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Cuculcan, ii., 119; iii., 281; see Cukulcan.\n\n  Cuculetes, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 598.\n\n  Cucullo, a Mexican beetle, i., 649.\n\n  Cucumatz, see Gucumatz.\n\n  Cucunumic, Pericue god, iii., 84.\n\n  Cucurpe, village, Sonora, i., 606-7.\n\n  Cueba, see Cueva.\n\n  Cuecaltzin, iii., 385, see Xiuhtecutli.\n\n  Cuechintli, Nahua military mantle, ii., 402.\n\n  Cuecopan, ii., 563, see Tlaquechiuhcan.\n\n  Cueitl, Nahua petticoat, ii., 368-9.\n\n  Cuelap, Peru, antiq., iv., 797-8.\n\n  Cuelcajen-ne, Apache tribal name, i., 474; iii., 594.\n\n  Cuencam\u00e9, locality, Zacatecas, i., 614.\n\n  Cuernavaca (Quernauaca, Quahunahu\u00e0c, Quauhnahuac), locality,\n    Mexico, i., 637, 676; ii., 109; antiq., iv., 481-2; v., 265,\n    310, 361-2, 406.\n\n  Cuernos quemados, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    613.\n\n  Cues (Macoyahuis), North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    607; lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Cuesninas, iii., 685, see Yamajabs.\n\n  Cuetlachtlan, ancient province in Puebla and Vera Cruz, v.,\n    417-19, 469-70, 499.\n\n  Cuetlaxcoapan (Cuetlaxcohuapan), town, Vera Cruz, i., 670-1; v.,\n    495.\n\n  Cuetlaxochitl, Chichimec princess, v., 311.\n\n  Cuetzal (Quetzal), Culhua king, v., 330-1.\n\n  Cuetzpalin, Nahua day, ii., 511-12, 516-17.\n\n  Cueva (Cueba), Isthmian province and tribe, i., 747-85; location,\n    i., 749, 795; special mention, i., 753-4, 760-1, 764, 769-70,\n    779-80, 784; lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Cuexcomaixtlahuacan, locality, Mexico, v., 472.\n\n  Cuexpatchicuepul, Nahua scalp-lock, ii., 401.\n\n  Cuextecas, i., 674; v., 208; see Huastecs.\n\n  Cuextecatl, Nahua chief, v., 208.\n\n  Cuextecatlichocayan, station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Cuextlan, province, Vera Cruz, v., 420.\n\n  Cuha, Quich\u00e9 royal palace, ii., 643.\n\n  Cuhtzutecas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Cuhuac, Toltec city, v., 295.\n\n  Cuhuanas (Cuhanas, Cucap\u00e1s), tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; lang.,\n    iii., 685.\n\n  Cuicacalco, Nahua school-house, ii., 243.\n\n  Cuicatecs, South Mexican tribe, i., 644-70; location, i., 681;\n    special mention, i., 652; lang., iii., 752-3.\n\n  Cuicillos (Cuiztillos), burial mounds, iv., 551, 593.\n\n  Cuicoyan, Nahua dance-house, ii., 290.\n\n  Cuicuetzcatl, Tlascaltec ruler, v., 497.\n\n  Cuilapa, locality, Oajaca; lang., iii., 749; antiq., iv., 388.\n\n  Cuilco, village, Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Cuilton, Toltec noble, v., 254.\n\n  Cuismer, iii., 685, see Yamajabs.\n\n  Cuitlahuac, city in Mexico, hist., v., 253, 307-10, 346, 369,\n    405, 454.\n\n  Cuitlahuatzin, a Mexican prince, v., 462, 464.\n\n  Cuitlatecs (Cuitlateques, Cuitlatechi, Cuitlahuacs,\n    Quitlahuacas), Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location\n    and name, i., 678; ii., 109, 127.\n\n  Cuixlahuac, Miztec dialect, iii., 749.\n\n  Cukulcan (Cocolcan, Cuculcan, Kukulcan), Maya god, ii., 633, 647,\n    699-700, 705; iii., 135, 260, 281-2, 463, 465; v., 23, 226,\n    chap. xiii.\n\n  Culhuacan (Colhuacan, Culiacan), city, Mexico, ii., 99, 125;\n    antiq., iv., 295-6, 501-2; hist., v., 163, 188, 221, 242, 255,\n    261-87, 295-320, 323, 330-1, 334, 361, 404, 492-4.\n\n  Culhua Tecuhtli, Mexican imperial title, v., 396.\n\n  Culhuas (Colhuas), Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629;\n    location and name, i., 675; ii., 101, 127; special mention,\n    iii., 307-8; lang., iii., 724-5; hist., see Culhuacan.\n\n  Culiacan, v., 221, see Culhuacan.\n\n  Culisnisnas, iii., 685, see Yamajabs.\n\n  Culisnurs, iii., 685, see Yamajabs.\n\n  Culul, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 455.\n\n  Cumachen, locality in Michoacan, v., 513.\n\n  Cumatz, Guatemala tribe, hist., v., chap. xi.\n\n  Cumbatwas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    457; lang., iii., 638.\n\n  Cumhu (Cumk\u00fa), Maya month, ii., 757-8.\n\n  Cumorah, locality, New York, v., 101-2.\n\n  Cumpas, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Cumquekis, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Cumshewas (Cumshawas, Cumshewars, Koumchaouas), tribe of Haidahs,\n    i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Cum Umbahs (Cumumpahs), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location,\n    i., 469.\n\n  Cumuripa, village, Sonora, i., 601.\n\n  Cunacunas (Chucunaquese, Chucunas), tribe of Isthmians, i.,\n    747-85; location, i., 797; special mention, i., 785.\n\n  Cunai, Pima dialect, iii., 685.\n\n  Cunas, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 796-7;\n    special mention, i., 785; lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Cups, Columbians, i., 165, 190; Mexicans, ii., 174-5, 480, 483-4;\n    Cent. Americans, i., 697, 701.\n\n  Cuquiaratzi (Cuquiarachi), village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Curari (Urari), Isthmian poison, i., 763.\n\n  Curds, food, Apaches, i., 489.\n\n  Cures, see Medicine.\n\n  Curicaneri (Curinacanery), Tarasco god, and high priest, ii.,\n    215; iii., 445; v., 511, 514.\n\n  Curicaten, king of Michoacan, v., 519.\n\n  Curincuaro Achurin, locality in Michoacan, v., 518.\n\n  Curingh\u00f3a, town, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Curipajan, person in Michoacan, v., 519.\n\n  Currency, Hyperboreans, i., 108, 133; Columbians, i., 192, 217,\n    239; Californians, i., 347, 385, 409, 435; New Mexicans, i.,\n    545, 583; Mexicans, i., 637; ii., 381-2; Cent. Americans, i.,\n    700; ii., 736-7; Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 778-9.\n\n  Currents, effects on N.W. coast, i., 38, 153; v., 52-3.\n\n  Curtains, Nahuas, ii., 582; Mayas, ii., 787.\n\n  Cururu, Honduras, antiq., iv., 71.\n\n  Cuscatlan, name of Salvador, ii., 123.\n\n  Cushnas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451; lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Cushooks, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Cusiyaes, Lower Californian sorcerers, i., 567.\n\n  Custepeques, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 353.\n\n  Custom-houses, Nahuas, ii., 564.\n\n  Cutaneous-diseases, Hyperboreans, i., 68; New Mexicans, i., 568;\n    Mexicans, i., 638; Cent. Americans, i., 778.\n\n  Cutaras, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 749.\n\n  Cutecos, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609.\n\n  Cutganes, tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; lang., iii., 685.\n\n  Cuyama, i., 459, see Kuyam.\n\n  Cuyamaca, village, South California, i., 458.\n\n  Cuyamanque, Pueblo village, i., 527.\n\n  Cuyamu, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Cuyupuri, high-priest of Michoacan, v., 518.\n\n  Cuyutlan, Colima, antiq., iv., 572.\n\n  Cuzcatlan, name of Salvador, v., chap. xii.\n\n  Cuzco, Peru, antiq., iv., 804; v., 47.\n\n  Cycle, Nahua calendar, ii., 327, 505; v., 463; Maya calendar,\n    ii., 761-5.\n\n  Cypress, i., 214; ii., 557; iv., 502, 527.\n\n\n  D\n\n  Dabaiba, Isthmian goddess, iii., 498.\n\n  Daggers, i., 104-5, 164, 188.\n\n  Dahnohabes, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 451.\n\n  Daho-tena, (Acheto-tena), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-137; loc., i.,\n    149.\n\n  Dalles (Dallas), i., 151, 222, 227, 239, 258, 289, 304.\n\n  Dams, see Weirs and Embankments.\n\n  Dan (Tamub), Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 789;\n    hist., v., chap. xi.\n\n  Dances, Hyperboreans, i., 66-7, 84-5, 92-3, 112, 119-20; iii.,\n    145, 507; Columbians, i., 170, 197-200, 219, 243, 281-2;\n    Californians, i., 351-2, 392-3, 397, 411, 416-17; New Mexicans,\n    i., 515-16, 550-2, 566, 586-7; Mexicans, i., 635, 664; ii.,\n    243, 260-1, 288-91, 311-12, 323-8, 329-31, 333-4, 337-8, 340,\n    393, 586, 617-19, 354, 359-60; iii., 386, 392, 409-10, 426-7,\n    429; v., 486; Cent. Americans, i., 697, 705-6, 709, 733, 735-8;\n    ii., 669, 689, 697-8, 700-1, 703, 707, 710-14.\n\n  Daparabopos, North Mex. tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Darien, Nations and tribes described, i., 747-85; location, i.,\n    794-7; special mention, i., 751, 753, 765, 769, 771, 784-5,\n    796; lang., iii., 793-5.\n\n  Darts, Hyperboreans, i., 90; New Mexicans, i., 562, 582;\n    Mexicans, ii., 335, 408-10; iii., 404; Central Americans, i.,\n    722, 760-2; ii., 720, 742-3.\n\n  Dates, Isthmian drink from, i., 775.\n\n  David, town, Isthmus, antiq., iv., 16-17.\n\n  Deaf and Dumb, at Comal\u00e1, i., 638; lang., iii., 4.\n\n  Dean Canal, i., 294.\n\n  Death, Hyperboreans, i., 76, 93; Columbians, i., 172-3, 247-8;\n    Californians, i., 354-60, 420-1; New Mexicans, i., 509-10, 524,\n    569; Mexicans, iii., 129, 401-2; Cent. Americans, i., 744-5,\n    782-3; ii., 657-9; iii., 53-4.\n\n  Debts, Maya laws concerning, ii., 654, 659.\n\n  Decorations, Nahuas, ii., 272, 284, 332, 389, 555-6, 571-2,\n    582-3.\n\n  Decoys, hunting and fishing, i., 55, 90, 185, 263, 336, 375-6,\n    577.\n\n  Deep Bay, British Columbia, antiq., iv., 741.\n\n  Deer, Hyperboreans, i., 50, 55-7, 77-8, 117, 135; Columbians,\n    i., 162, 187-9, 201, 211, 213, 230-1, 234, 258, 260, 263-4;\n    Californians, i., 330, 336-7, 344, 347, 367-8, 373, 403, 405,\n    424-6, 428; New Mexicans, i., 481-4, 490, 538, 551, 574, 577;\n    iii., 80; Mexicans, i., 620-1, 625, 627, 648, 650; iii., 129,\n    131-2; Cent. Americans, i., 694-5, 721; ii., 708, 720-1; iii.,\n    70-1.\n\n  Deer Creek, i., 456.\n\n  Deformity, Mexicans, i., 588, 638; ii., 592, 625; Mayas, ii.,\n    681-2.\n\n  Degothi Kutchin (Loucheux), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 146; special mention, i., 129, 131, 137; myth.,\n    iii., 141-2; lang., iii., 586.\n\n  Deguthee Dinees, name for Kutchins, i., 115.\n\n  Del Norte County, i., 443, 445; iii., 161.\n\n  Del Norte Valley, i., 599.\n\n  Deluge, myths, v., 138; Hyperboreans, iii., 100, 103; v., 14;\n    Californians, iii., 86, 88, 547-8; v., 14; New Mexicans,\n    iii., 76, 78-9; v., 14; Mexicans, iii., 64, 70, 72; v., 12-13,\n    20, 193-4, 209; Cent. Americans, iii., 46-7, 74; v., 13-14;\n    Peruvians, v., 14-16.\n\n  Deozacuancu, station, Quich\u00e9 migration, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Derricks, Aztecs, ii., 556.\n\n  Des Chutes, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    320.\n\n  Des Chutes River, i., 262, 320; iii., 638.\n\n  Desertion, punishment for, ii., 418, 746.\n\n  Deserts, i., 153, 324, 472.\n\n  Desolation Sound, i., 183-4, 298.\n\n  Despotism, ii., 61, 185, 191-2, 634.\n\n  Destruction Island, i., 303.\n\n  Development, causes and principles of, ii., 18-80.\n\n  Diamond River, i., 466, 597.\n\n  Diamond Spring, California, antiq., iv., 705.\n\n  Diarrhea, i., 287, 742; ii., 592, 600.\n\n  Dice, gambling, ii., 300.\n\n  Didues (Didi\u00f9s), Lower Cal. tribe, i., 556-71;  location, i.,\n    603; lang., iii., 687-93.\n\n  Diegue\u00f1os (Comeyas, Deguinos, Diege\u00f1os, Dieguinas, Dieguinos),\n    South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 402, 457-8; special\n    mention, i., 409-10; myth., iii., 525; lang., iii., 684-6.\n\n  Diggers, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 464; name,\n    i., 326; lang., iii., 661-2.\n\n  Digothis, name for Kutchins, i., 115.\n\n  Dinneh, i., 115, see Tinneh.\n\n  Diriamba, village, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Dirians (Dirias), Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i.,\n    688, 792; myth., iii., 493; v., chap. xii.\n\n  Diriomo (Diriom\u00e9), village, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Discipline, priests, iii., 338-40, 427, 433, 435-6, 473, 489.\n\n  Discoidal stones, California, antiq., iv., 701-2.\n\n  Disease, see Medicine and name of disease.\n\n  Dishes, Columbians, i., 164-5, 190, 236; Californians, i., 434;\n    iv., 693-4, 702; Mexicans, ii., 285, 361, 475, 483-4; Cent.\n    Americans, i., 697, 701; ii., 723, 752.\n\n  Disobedience, punishment of, ii., 242, 246, 418-19, 662.\n\n  Distaff, i., 165; iii., 372.\n\n  Distortion of Physique, Hyperboreans, i., 72, 97-100; Columbians,\n    i., 158-9, 181-2, 226-9, 256-7; New Mexicans, i., 559;\n    Mexicans, i., 622; Cent. Americans, i., 717; ii., 731-2.\n\n  Ditches, see Excavations.\n\n  Divine representatives, Nahuas, ii., 319-27, 331-3, 337, 339;\n    iii., 309, 313.\n\n  Divisions, of nations, i., 36-7; ii., 124.\n\n  Divorce, Nahuas, ii., 262-3; see also Marriage.\n\n  Doctors, see Medicine and Sorcerers.\n\n  Dog-Ribs, i., 144, see Thlingcha-dinneh.\n\n  Dog River, i., 320.\n\n  Dog-Rivers (Cascade Indians), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 320.\n\n  Dogs, Hyperboreans, i., 62-3, 118; iii., 104-6; Columbians, i.,\n    159, 166, 171, 182-3, 202, 211, 215-16, 264, 267, 285; New\n    Mexicans, i., 506, 518, 544, 561; Mexicans, i., 634; ii., 605,\n    611, 614; iii., 129, 330, 392, 538; Cent. Americans, i., 696,\n    700, 708, 723, 758, 760; ii., 692-3, 703-4, 720-1; iii., 466.\n\n  Dog-wood, used for medicine, i., 204.\n\n  Dohme, i., 607, see Eudeves.\n\n  Dolls, Koniagas, i., 81-2.\n\n  Dolores, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 138.\n\n  Dolores de Agua Caliente, village, Durango, i., 614.\n\n  Dolores River, i., 465; Utah, antiq., iv., 733.\n\n  Domestic animals, Nahuas, ii., 353.\n\n  Donkeys, Pueblos, i., 544.\n\n  Don Pedro's Bar, Cal., antiq., iv., 703.\n\n  Doors, Hyperboreans, i., 51, 74; Columbians, i., 231-2;\n    Californians, i., 334-5, 372; New Mexicans, i., 486, 533, 535;\n    Nahuas, ii., 556, 573; Mayas, ii., 784-5.\n\n  Dorachos (Doraches), tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location,\n    i., 796; special mention, i., 759, 766, 780-1; lang., iii.,\n    794.\n\n  Dory, Mosquito boat, i., 725.\n\n  Dos Cabaces Mt., i., 595.\n\n  Dos Pueblos, village, South Cal., i., 459.\n\n  Dough, Nahua offerings and idols, iii., 297-8, 315-16, 336, 344,\n    347, 371, 408, 425.\n\n  Douglas Canal, i., 293.\n\n  Douglas City, Cal., antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Dove, Nahua deluge myth., iii., 66, 68-9.\n\n  Down, see Feathers.\n\n  Dowry, Maya, marriage, ii., 666-7.\n\n  Drake's Bay, i., 365.\n\n  Drama, Hyperboreans, i., 93; Columbians, i., 170, 200;\n    Californians, i., 393; New Mexicans, i., 586; Mexicans, ii.,\n    286, 291-2; Cent. Americans, i., 705-6, 736-8, 774; ii., 700,\n    711-12.\n\n  Drawbridges, see Bridges.\n\n  Drawers, Maya dress, ii., 727.\n\n  Dreams, i., 202-3, 723, 734, 741; ii., 211, 796.\n\n  Dresden Codex, Mayas, ii., 771-2.\n\n  Dress, origin and significance of, ii., 77-8; Hyperboreans, i.,\n    46-50, 61, 67, 72-4, 88-9, 100-2, 116-17, 122, 125, 128, 131-3,\n    135; Columbians, i., 153, 158-60, 170, 179-82, 229-30, 257-9;\n    Californians, i., 329-34, 352, 358-9, 367-71, 387-8, 403-4,\n    410, 416, 423-6; iii., 166; New Mexicans, i., 480-4, 530-3,\n    550-1, 558-9, 567, 573-5; iii., 180; Mexicans, i., 620-3,\n    648-51; ii., 144-5, 179-80, 207, 213-15, 243, 290-1, 298, 305,\n    307, 314-15, 318-31, 333-4, 337, 363-77, 395-6, 401-7, 413-14,\n    428-9, 604-8, 614-16, 621; iii., 259-60, 324-5, 333-4, 339,\n    353-61, 369, 385-7, 390-2, 407-8, 411-12, 416-18, 422-3, 425-7,\n    433, 435-437;  Cent. Americans, i., 689-92, 705-6, 715, 736-7,\n    744-5, 751-4, 764, 782-3; ii., 635, 662-3, 683, 688-9, 707,\n    710, 713, 726-35, 741; iii., 473.\n\n  Drinks, Hyperboreans, i., 76; Californians, i., 394, 437; New\n    Mexicans, i., 517, 549-50, 586; Mexicans, i., 636, 654, 664-5;\n    ii., 359-60; iii., 243; Cent. Americans, i., 706-7, 739, 774-6;\n    ii., 703, 723-5.\n\n  Droit de Seigneur, i., 584-5; ii., 671.\n\n  Drouth, see Climate.\n\n  Drowning, sacrifice by, ii., 306, 308.\n\n  Drums, i., 91, 393, 516, 552, 586, 705, 738, 765, 774; ii.,\n    292-3, 404-5, 412, 583-4, 713.\n\n  Drumsticks, i., 552, 705; ii., 293.\n\n  Drunkenness, Hyperboreans, i., 57; Columbians, i., 169, 243;\n    Californians, i., 354, 437; New Mexicans, i., 515, 517, 549-50,\n    566, 586-7; Mexicans, i., 628, 635-6, 664; ii., 285, 333,\n    360-1, 394, 460-2, 617, 627; Cent. Americans, i., 706-7, 735,\n    774; ii., 641, 689, 694, 718, 724-5, 803.\n\n  Dry Creek, Cal., antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Dry Creek Valley, i., 449.\n\n  Dtch\u00e8-ta-ut-'tinn\u00e8, lang., iii., 587.\n\n  'Dtinn\u00e8, i., 114, see Tinneh.\n\n  Ducks, i., 50, 577, 625-6, 760; ii., 351, 721.\n\n  Duckwarra Lagoon, Mosquito coast, antiq., iv., 27.\n\n  Duelling, Nahuas, ii., 628.\n\n  Dulce, gulf, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Dung, poison antidote, i., 762.\n\n  Dungeness, i., 302.\n\n  Durango, nations and tribes, i., 571-91, 617-44; special mention,\n    i., 623; myth., iii., 179; lang., iii., 667, 710, 717-19;\n    antiq., iv., 600-1; hist., v., 222.\n\n  Duties, see Taxes.\n\n  Dwamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Dwamish Lake, i., 300.\n\n  Dwamish River, i., 300.\n\n  Dwarfs, Nahuas, ii., 183.\n\n  Dwellings, Hyperboreans, i., 42, 50-4, 74-5, 89, 102-3, 118,\n    123-4, 129; Columbians, i., 160-1, 169, 183-5, 191, 211-12,\n    231-2, 259-61; Californians, i., 334-6, 371-3, 404-5, 426-7;\n    New Mexicans, i., 485-7, 533-8, 559-60, 575; iv., 668-60;\n    Mexicans, i., 24, 624, 651-2; ii., 160-74, 336, 553-74; iii.,\n    240, 255; Cent. Americans, i., 692-3, 717-18, 732, 754-8, 780;\n    ii., 783-9.\n\n  Dyeing, i., 166, 345, 503, 657, 698, 724, 766; ii., 370, 486-7,\n    752.\n\n  Dysentery, i., 521, 708, 742; ii., 600.\n\n  Dzawindanda, Miztec king, v., 415-16.\n\n  Dze-Yaxkin, ii., 757, see Yaxkin.\n\n\n  E\n\n  Eagle Prairie, i., 446-7.\n\n  Eagles, i., 105, 172, 580, 716; ii., 160, 327, 337; iii., 78-9,\n    129, 356; v., 13-4.\n\n  Early County, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 767-8.\n\n  Ear-ornaments, Hyperboreans, i., 97, 128; Columbians, i., 159,\n    182, 211, 229; Californians, i., 333, 368-9, 426; New Mexicans,\n    i., 482, 559, 574-5; Mexicans, i., 623, 649-51; ii., 290, 307,\n    372, 395; iii., 238, 325, 369, 385, 416; Central Americans, i.,\n    691, 717, 752-4; ii., 731-3.\n\n  Earth, various uses of, Hyperboreans, i., 51, 72, 75, 89, 107,\n    130; Columbians, i., 210, 212, 257-8, 271; Californians, i.,\n    333-4, 369, 371-2, 404, 424, 426, 434-5; New Mexicans, i., 481,\n    500, 532-3, 535-6, 546; Mexicans, i., 623-4, 631, 650-2; ii.,\n    317-18, 372, 599; Central Americans, i., 718, 766; ii., 733-4,\n    750; myths., iii., 121-2; Phallic worship, iii., 502.\n\n  Earthquake, Mexican symbol, iii., 129; events, v., 463, 468, 472.\n\n  Earthworks, see Embankments.\n\n  Eating, i., 75-6, 163, 187-8, 214, 266, 560-1.\n\n  Eating-houses, Nahuas, ii., 357, 384.\n\n  Eb, Maya day, ii., 755-6, 760.\n\n  Ecalchot, Nicaragua god, iii., 491.\n\n  Ecatepec (Ecatepc, Ehecatepec), station, Aztec migration, v.,\n    321-4.\n\n  Ecatl, iii., 491, see Ehecatl.\n\n  Ecatzin (Echecalzin, Ehecatzin), Nahua chief, v., 243.\n\n  Eccatl, Nahua chief, v., 243.\n\n  Ecclem\u00e1ches (Ecclemachs, Ekklemaches), Central Californian tribe,\n    i., 361-401; location, i., 363, 454; lang., iii., 653.\n\n  Ecgeagan, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Echecalzin, v., 243, see Ecatzin.\n\n  Echeh\u00f3a, town, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Echeloots, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;  location, i.,\n    320; special mention, i., 260, 267, 274.\n\n  Echilat, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, 454.\n\n  Echuah (Ekchua, Ekchuah), Maya god, ii., 692, 738; iii., 462,\n    466.\n\n  Ecitin, v., 297, see Xitzin.\n\n  Eclikimos, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, 143.\n\n  Eclipse, i., 666, 777; ii., 798; iii., 110-11.\n\n  Ecnab, ii., 756, see Ezanab.\n\n  Edchawtawhoot-dinneh, i., 144, see Beaver Indians.\n\n  Edmy, Chepewyan expression of complaint, i., 135.\n\n  Education, Californians, i., 413-14; Mexicans, ii., 240-51,\n    401-2, 492-3, 538-40; iii., 432, 437; Central Americans, i.,\n    704, 734, 777; ii., 661-4, 767, 788.\n\n  Ed\u00f9es (Ed\u00fa, Equ\u00f9), Lower Californian tribe, i., 556-71; location,\n    i., 604; lang., iii., 687-93.\n\n  Edwards Creek Mountains, i., 462.\n\n  Edznab, ii., 756, see Ezanab.\n\n  Eegloo, i., 54, see Igloo.\n\n  Eehs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 447.\n\n  Eel River tribes, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; special\n    mention, i., 326-7, 331-2, 362, 364, 367, 442, 446-8, 451;\n    lang., iii., 593, 642, 647.\n\n  Eels, i., 214, 339.\n\n  Eemitches, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363.\n\n  Eenaghs (Eenahs), i., 446, see Ehneks.\n\n  Eesteytochs, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Effigies, Nahua burial, ii., 606, 611, 614, 616-17, 620-1.\n\n  Egan Ca\u00f1on, i., 467.\n\n  Eggs, food, i., 625, 652, 694, 720, 759; ii., 356; medicine, ii.,\n    599.\n\n  Egypt, American origin-traces, v., 55-63.\n\n  Ehatesets (Ayhuttisaht), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; loc., i.,\n    295.\n\n  Ehecatepec, v., 324, see Ecatepec.\n\n  Ehecatl (Ecatl, Hecat), Nahua day, ii., 511-12, 516-17; iii., 57;\n    name of Quetzalcoatl, iii., 267, 491.\n\n  Ehecatonatiuh, Nahua age, ii., 504.\n\n  Ehecatzin, v., 243, see Ecatzin.\n\n  Ehihalis, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 303.\n\n  Ehneks (Eenaghs, Eenahs, Pehtsik), North Cal. tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 446; language, iii., 642.\n\n  Ehutewa, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Eiscap, i., 139, see Icy Cape.\n\n  Ejoni, Acagchemem 1st man, iii., 164.\n\n  Ek Balam Chac, Maya god, ii., 701.\n\n  Ekchua (Ekchuah), ii., 692, 738, see Echuah.\n\n  Ekel Bacab, Maya god, iii., 466.\n\n  Ekklemaches, i., 454, see Ecclemaches.\n\n  Elab (Elah), Tzendal day, ii., 767.\n\n  Elarroyde, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  El Ba\u00f1o, at Masaya, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 31.\n\n  El Castillo, Centla ruins, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 445.\n\n  El Dorado County, Cal., antiq., iv., 705.\n\n  El Fuerte, town, Sinaloa, i., 607.\n\n  El Henditare, royal title, Michoacan, v., 511, 519.\n\n  Eld's Inlet, i., 301.\n\n  Elech, name of month, Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Elemehumkillanwaist (Skyappe), Okanagan god, iii., 153, 519.\n\n  Eleunaxciay, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Elikinoos, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; lang., iii., 579.\n\n  Elizabeth, town, North Cal., i., 442.\n\n  Eljman, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Elk, see Deer.\n\n  Elk Mountain Utes, tribes of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i.,\n    469.\n\n  Elk River, i., 144, 443.\n\n  Elkwhahts, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 303.\n\n  Elliott's Bay, i., 301.\n\n  Ellos de los Animas, locality, Arizona, i., 469.\n\n  Elmian, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Elotepec, town, Oajaca, i., 681.\n\n  Elotl, boiled maize, ii., 354.\n\n  Eluaxcu, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Emal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 261.\n\n  Embalming, i., 780, 782-3; ii., 603-4.\n\n  Embankments, i., 185, 212, 263; ii., 564, 721; v., 412-13;\n    antiq., iv., 379, 500, 523-4, 536-7, 632-3, 740-1, 747, 750-73.\n\n  Embroidery, dress, i., 584, 690-1, 716; ii., 363-4.\n\n  Emeralds, i., 583; ii., 173, 372, 481, 606; v., 325-6; see also\n    Chalchiuite.\n\n  Emetics, i., 743; ii., 269, 599.\n\n  Emku, Maya baptismal feast, ii., 684.\n\n  Empire, Aztecs, limits of, v., 471-3.\n\n  Encarnacion, Tamaulipas, antiq., iv., 593.\n\n  Enekelkawa, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    460.\n\n  Eneshurs (Eneeshurs), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 320; special mention, i., 274.\n\n  Eno, Acagchemem title given to the Coyote, iii., 163.\n\n  Enob, ii., 767, see Evob.\n\n  Enteeatook River, i., 316.\n\n  Entertainments, see Feasts.\n\n  Entrails, i., 49, 67, 73-5, 104, 162-3, 374, 424, 490, 560, 562.\n\n  Entrenchments, see Fortifications.\n\n  Environment, influence on development and progression, i., 153-4;\n    ii., 41-5; v., 5.\n\n  Epcoaquacuiltzin, Nahua priest, iii., 434.\n\n  Epcoatl, Nahua drowning sacrifice, iii., 333.\n\n  Epeoatl, Tlalocs' temple, iii., 324.\n\n  Epidemics, ii., 593, 794.\n\n  Epuepaniuhqui, Nahua sacrificial decoration, iii., 333.\n\n  Equelchacan, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 211.\n\n  Equ\u00f9s, i., 604, see Ed\u00f9es.\n\n  Ermine, dress, i., 425.\n\n  Escabas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Escaupiles, cotton armor, i., 655.\n\n  Escelens (Escellens, Eslens, Eslenes), Cent. Cal. tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 363, 454; special mention, i., 386,\n    388-9, 396; lang., iii., 653.\n\n  Escoria, province and tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location,\n    i., 749, 795; special mention, i., 753; lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Eshquates, i., 295, see Esquiates.\n\n  Eskimos (Eskimantik, Eskimaux, Esquimantsic, Esquimaux, Innuit,\n    Keralit, Uskeemi, Usquemows), one of the five families into\n    which the Hyperboreans are divided. Manners and customs of all\n    its nations and tribes described together, i., 40-69; physique,\n    i., 45-7; dress, i., 46-50; dwellings, i., 50-4; food, i.,\n    54-8; implements and weapons, i., 58-9; boats, sledges,\n    etc., i., 59-63; property and commerce, i., 63-5; government,\n    i., 65; women and marriage, i., 65-6; amusements, i., 66-7;\n    miscellaneous customs, i., 67-8; art, i., 68; character, i.,\n    68; medicine, i., 68-9; burial, i., 69; locality and name, i.,\n    25, 37, 40-2, 138-9; myth., iii., 128, 141, 516, 518; lang.,\n    iii., 557, 575-80.\n\n  Eslanagans, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Eslens, i., 363, see Escelens.\n\n  Esmischue, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    458.\n\n  Esnispele, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    458.\n\n  Espave, Isthmian title, i., 770.\n\n  Espiiluima, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    458.\n\n  Esp\u00edritu Santo Bay, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 254.\n\n  Esp\u00edritu Santo Echojoa (Echonova), village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  Esp\u00edritu Santo Island, i., 604.\n\n  Espita, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 236.\n\n  Esquiates (Eshquates), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 295.\n\n  Esquimalt, British Columbia, antiq., iv., 740.\n\n  Esquimantsic, i., 41, see Eskimos.\n\n  Esquimatha, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 119.\n\n  Esquimaux, i., 40, see Eskimos.\n\n  Estait, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Estorica, a stick for throwing javelins, i., 761.\n\n  Estuc, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Estufas, see Sweat-houses.\n\n  Etaminuas, Chinook priests, iii., 156.\n\n  Ethnography, i., 25, 95-6, 152; v., 150.\n\n  Etiquette, origin and effects, ii., 78-9; Nahuas, ii., 178-9,\n    284, 420-1; Mayas, ii., 635, 646, 711.\n\n  Etl, Nahua beans, ii., 355.\n\n  Etla, Zapotec dialect, iii., 754-5; Oajaca, antiq., iv., 375-6.\n\n  Etzalli, Nahua food, iii., 325, 339; see also Etzalqualiztli.\n\n  Etzalqualiztli (E\u00e7alcoaliztli, Etzacualiztli, Etzalcualiztli,\n    Etzalcualiztly, Etzalli, Etzalqualitztli, Etzalqualixtli,\n    Etzaqualiztli, Ezalioaliztli, Ezalqualliztli, Exolqualiztli,\n    Hetzalqualiztl), Nahua month, ii., 324, 508, 509; iii., 325,\n    334.\n\n  Etzatlan, locality, Mexico, v., 509.\n\n  Eubaous, i., 592, see Comanches.\n\n  Eudeves (Dohme, Eudebes, Euderas, Hegues, Hequis, Heves), North\n    Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 572, 606-7;  special\n    mention, i., 582; lang., iii., 695, 699-702.\n\n  Eulachon (Uthlecan), see Candle-fish.\n\n  Euotalla River, i., 319.\n\n  Euphorbia, herb used for snake-bites, i., 521.\n\n  Euquachees, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    442.\n\n  Eurocs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 327,\n    444; special mention, i., 336, 348, 350; myth., iii., 161,\n    523-4; lang., iii., 641.\n\n  Eutahs (Eutaws), i., 464-5, see Utahs.\n\n  Evil Spirits, see Superstitions.\n\n  Evob (Enob), Tzendal day, ii., 767.\n\n  Ewentoc, Quich\u00e9 chief, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Ewintes (Uintahs, Uinta Utes, Uinta Yutas, Uwintys), tribe of\n    Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 463-4, 469.\n\n  Exbalanque (Exbalanquen), v., chap. xi., see Xbalanque.\n\n  Excanjaques, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 599.\n\n  Excavations, i., 74-5, 124, 160, 231, 260, 334-5, 337, 371-2,\n    426-7, 486, 537-8, 554-5; antiq., iv., 31, 70, 116-17, 120,\n    169, 175, 211-12, 244, 252-3, 263, 265, 344, 407-9, 445-6, 448,\n    477-8, 484-5, 503, 524-7, 659, 661, 676-7, 736, 765, 768.\n\n  Exenimuth (Cexeninuth), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 295.\n\n  Exocuillo-o-alixtli, Nahua eye disease, iii., 342.\n\n  Exolqualiztli, ii., 508, see Etzalqualiztli.\n\n  Exotl, Nahua beans, ii., 355.\n\n  Explorations, i., 27-32; iv., 142-51, 289-94, 390-1, 426, 605-6,\n    617-19, 622-5, 719.\n\n  Exquinan, Tlascaltec war ceremony, ii., 431.\n\n  E'yackimahs, i., 317, see Yakimas.\n\n  Eyacque, Acagchemem title of the coyote, iii., 163.\n\n  Eyak, Koniaga evil spirit, iii., 143.\n\n  Eyakema Valley, i., 320, see Yakima Valley.\n\n  Eycoac, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Eyes, Hyperboreans, i., 46, 72, 116; Columbians, i., 157, 177-9,\n    210, 225-6, 255-6; Californians, i., 328-9, 354, 364-6; New\n    Mexicans, i., 477-9, 529, 558, 573; Mexicans, i., 619, 646-8;\n    ii., 599, 624-5; Central Americans, i., 688, 714-15, 750-1;\n    ii., 802.\n\n  Ezalioaliztli (Ezalqualliztli), ii., 508, see Etzalqualiztli.\n\n  Ezanab (Ecnab, Edznab), Maya day, ii., 756, 760.\n\n  Ezcomachas, Nahua nation, v., 511.\n\n  Ezhuahuacatl, Nahua title, ii., 138.\n\n  Eztlepictin, Teotenanca tribe, v., 280.\n\n\n  F\n\n  Face, Hyperboreans, i., 46, 48, 72, 88, 116, 127; Columbians, i.,\n    157, 177-8, 225-6; Californians, i., 328, 365-6; New Mexicans,\n    i., 477-9, 529-30, 573; Mexicans, i., 618-19, 646-7; Central\n    Americans, i., 688, 714-15; ii., 802.\n\n  Fainting-stone, Mexico, antiq., iv., 540-1.\n\n  Fairs, i., 167, 217, 239, 273-4; ii., 378-9, 385, 736; v., 415.\n\n  Famines, v., 413, 460, 499; chap. xi.\n\n  Fans, i., 544, 706; ii., 488, 646, 713.\n\n  Fantasma, Honduras, lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Faraones (Pharaones, Taracones), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526;\n    location, i., 474, 594.\n\n  Fashion, tyranny and effects of, ii., 76-9.\n\n  Fasts, Hyperboreans, i., 111; iii., 142; Columbians, i., 170,\n    202-3, 246; iii., 156; Californians, i., 414-15; New Mexicans,\n    i., 520, 553, 581; Mexicans, ii., 147, 206, 258, 261, 303,\n    312-14, 317, 335, 339, 428, 608, 617, 622, 678, 682; iii.,\n    249, 334-8, 346, 383, 395, 407, 429, 440-1; v., 258; Central\n    Americans, i., 663-4; ii., 690-1, 695, 699, 719, 741; iii.,\n    471, 487, 499.\n\n  Fatigue, Isthmian remedy for, i., 776.\n\n  Fawalomnes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450.\n\n  Fax, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Feasts, Hyperboreans, i., 66-7, 84-5, 92-3, 134; Columbians,\n    i., 164, 167, 169-71, 188, 191, 193, 199, 219, 243; iii.,\n    151; Californians, i., 350-52, 410-11; New Mexicans, i., 512,\n    515-16, 550-2, 566-7, 586-7; Mexicans, i., 628; ii., 252, 258,\n    260, 266-268, 272, 276, 280-1, 283-6, 302-41, 387, 391-7, 428,\n    612, 621, 623; iii., 63, 313-17, 323-4, 332-48, 353-62, 385-95,\n    404-29, 446, 448; Central Americans, i., 730, 735, 772; ii.,\n    641, 656, 662, 667-9, 676, 679, 684, 687-711; iii., 484.\n\n  Feather River, i., 381, 450, 451, 455, 457; lang., iii., 648-9.\n\n  Feathers, Hyperboreans, i., 72, 90, 101, 105, 117, 128;\n    Columbians, i., 159-60, 166, 170-2, 179, 187, 200, 211, 215,\n    258; Californians, i., 331, 347, 367-70, 377-8, 381-2, 387-8,\n    392, 396, 410, 424-6, 434; New Mexicans, i., 482-4, 495-6,\n    504, 522, 531-2, 541, 551, 558, 574-5, 579, 583; iii., 180;\n    Mexicans, i., 620-3, 649-50; ii., 148, 174, 259, 290, 307,\n    314, 323-7, 333-4, 337, 363, 366-8, 404-7, 484, 488-91, 572-3,\n    606-7, 615, 619, 621; iii., 238, 301, 313, 318, 324-5, 356-61,\n    369, 385-7, 390-2, 398, 400, 404, 407, 411, 416-18, 422, 426-7;\n    v., 325, 515-16; Central Americans, i., 691, 702, 705-6,\n    715-16, 723, 726, 750-4; ii., 635, 641, 693, 707, 726-30,\n    741-3, 752, 789.\n\n  Features, see Face.\n\n  Fecundity, see Women.\n\n  Feet, i., 90-1, 177, 477-9, 529-30, 573, 689.\n\n  Fences, i., 185, 718, 756; ii., 348, 718.\n\n  Fenelon River, i., 466.\n\n  Fern, food and medicine, i., 79, 214, 354.\n\n  Ferndale, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Fertilizer, Maya agriculture, ii., 717.\n\n  Festivals, see Feasts.\n\n  Fetichism, iii., 22, 33-8, 108-9.\n\n  Fever, i., 245-6, 394, 521, 554, 568, 588, 638-9, 667, 743, 778;\n    ii., 592-3, 596, 599-600, 794.\n\n  Fibre, various uses of, i., 558-9, 563, 574, 582-3, 630, 648,\n    657, 697, 699, 754; ii., 363, 365, 409, 484, 743, 752.\n\n  Fiddletown, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Figs, drink from, ii., 723.\n\n  Filifaes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Filmore Valley, i., 468.\n\n  Fine Gold Gulch, i., 456.\n\n  Fines, punishment by, ii., 457, 656-9, 673.\n\n  Fire, Hyperboreans, i., 51-2, 58, 79, 91-2; iii., 96-7, 101;\n    Columbians, i., 189, 216, 236, 267; Californians, i., 339, 346,\n    357, 377, 430, 433; iii., 115-17, 159, 547; New Mexicans, i.,\n    498, 502, 519-20, 535, 537, 554, 563, 577; iii., 172; Mexicans,\n    i., 666; ii., 276, 280, 315, 330, 333, 491, 583-4; iii., 306,\n    376, 385-95, 416-17; v., 326, 463; Central Americans, i., 695,\n    722, 761-2, 782; ii., 670, 691-2, 696, 701-2; iii., 50, 482;\n    v., chap. xi.\n\n  Fire-arms, Nootkas, i., 188.\n\n  Firebugs, used for light, ii., 573.\n\n  Fish, Hyperboreans, i., 40, 55-6, 75-6, 90, 103-4, 118, 123, 129;\n    Columbians, i., 159, 162-3, 168-9, 171, 185-8, 209, 212-14,\n    232-4, 261-3, 265-6; Californians, i., 323, 337-40, 374-6,\n    378, 405-6, 427-30; New Mexicans, i., 482, 488, 538-9, 560-2,\n    576-8; Mexicans, i., 624, 652, 655; ii., 342, 352-3, 413; iii.,\n    410-11; Central Americans, i., 694, 719-21, 758-60, 762, 768;\n    ii., 653, 698, 708, 720-1, 750.\n\n  Fish Utes, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 470.\n\n  Fitch's Ranch, i., 449.\n\n  Fitzhugh Sound, i., 295.\n\n  Flags, ii., 323, 405, 427, 607, 615, 619, 699-700, 710, 712;\n    iii., 404, 426.\n\n  Flatbow Lake, i., 252, 311.\n\n  Flatbow River, i., 252, 263, 311.\n\n  Flatbows, i., 251, 311, see Kootenais.\n\n  Flathead Lake, i., 313.\n\n  Flathead River, i., 252, 312-13.\n\n  Flatheads, i., 312-13, see Salish.\n\n  Flattening the Head, see Head-flattening.\n\n  Flax, i., 182, 185, 368.\n\n  Flaying, captives, ii., 309, 311, 332, 429, 431, 457; iii.,\n    308-9, 353, 355, 413, 415, 420, 472.\n\n  Flesh, i., 90, 127, 162, 187, 288-9, 479, 721; ii., 711, 721.\n\n  Flies, i., 625; ii., 721.\n\n  Flint, i., 59, 88, 188-9, 235, 341-2, 377-9, 431, 434, 541,\n    562-3, 578-9, 655, 667, 722, 761; ii., 479-80, 557, 742-3, 750;\n    iii., 129, 179, 268, 281.\n\n  Floating gardens, see Chinampas.\n\n  Floats, i., 213-14, 719.\n\n  Flood, see Deluge.\n\n  Floors, i., 259, 535, 718, 755; ii., 161, 556, 572, 787; iv.,\n    125, 159, 165, 169, 273, 309, 630, 653-4.\n\n  Flores, town, Guatemala, iv., 133.\n\n  Flore's Creek, i., 443.\n\n  Florida, iv., 747; v., 191.\n\n  Flowers, i., 368, 396, 631, 649-50, 730-1; ii., 290, 315, 328,\n    349, 491, 689, 734; iii., 407, 420-1.\n\n  Flunmuda, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Flutes, i., 516, 552, 586, 738; ii., 317, 713; iv., 462-3.\n\n  Flying-game, Nahuas, ii., 295-6.\n\n  Flying gods, Miztecs, iii., 71-2.\n\n  Fomentations, Lower California, medicine, i., 568.\n\n  Fonechas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363.\n\n  Food, influence of, i., 18, 40; Hyperboreans, i., 54-8, 75-9,\n    90, 103-4, 118, 123, 125, 129, 135; iii., 147; Columbians, i.,\n    153, 161-4, 185-8, 191, 212-14, 232-5, 261-7; Californians, i.,\n    336-40, 373-7, 405-7, 427-30; New Mexicans, i., 477, 487-92,\n    538-40, 555, 576-8, 590; Mexicans, i., 624-6, 640-1, 652-4,\n    667-8; ii., 163-4, 174-8, 318-19, 342-62, 384, 612, 615, 623;\n    Central Americans, i., 694-6, 709, 718-22, 743-4, 758-60,\n    780-3; ii., 679, 715-25, 741, 798, 800-1.\n\n  Fool's Prairie, i., 313.\n\n  Football, i., 552, 586-7.\n\n  Footprints, of gods, ii., 333.\n\n  Foot-races, Nahuas, ii., 413.\n\n  Force, action and elements of, ii., 6-16.\n\n  Forehead, Hyperboreans, i., 116; Columbians, i., 177-8;\n    Californians, i., 364-5; New Mexicans, i., 477, 558; Mexicans,\n    i., 619, 647; ii., 624; Central Americans, i., 688, 714-15.\n\n  Forest Hill, California, antiq., iv., 706.\n\n  Forest Home, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Forests, i., 38-9, 114, 153, 156, 323-4, 385, 651; ii., 88-90,\n    471-2; iv., 298.\n\n  Fork Lake, i., 300.\n\n  Fornication, punishment for, ii., 469, 651, 659, 675.\n\n  Fort Alexander, i., 310.\n\n  Fort Ancient, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 756.\n\n  Fort Boirie, i., 462.\n\n  Fort Boise, i., 461.\n\n  Fort Bridger, i., 463.\n\n  Fort Colville, i., 314.\n\n  Fort Confidence, i., 144.\n\n  Fort Halkett, lang., iii., 587.\n\n  Fort Helvetia, i., 450.\n\n  Fort Hill, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 755.\n\n  Fortifications, Columbians, i., 160, 212; New Mexicans, i.,\n    534-6, 542; antiq., iv., 582-91, 603, 613, 637, 645-6, 664-5,\n    675, 715; Mexicans, i., 628, 655-6; ii., 414-17, 558, 562,\n    568; antiq., iv., 368-9, 375, 383-4, 412-13, 431-3, 439-61,\n    467, 480, 486-7, 503, 550-2; v., 503; Central Americans, i.,\n    756-7; ii., 743-5, 788-91; antiq., iv., 124-5, 131, 255, 268;\n    Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 750-7, 762-5; Peru, antiq.,\n    iv., 804.\n\n  Fort Liard, lang., iii., 587.\n\n  Fort McLoughlin, i., 295.\n\n  Fort Mojave, i., 467.\n\n  Fort Nisqually, i., 301.\n\n  Fort Ross Indians, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401, 449;\n    special mention, i., 364, 368, 381, 388, 398.\n\n  Fort Rupert, i., 175, 190-1, 296, 298.\n\n  Fort Simpson, i., 155, 167, 173-4, 293-4; lang., iii., 587.\n\n  Fort Walla Walla, Washington, antiq., iv., 735.\n\n  Fountains, ii., 565, 571, 587; iv., 457-8.\n\n  Four, Tlaloc sacred number, iii., 348.\n\n  Four Creeks, i., 363, 456-7.\n\n  Fowl, i., 694; ii., 702, 719, 721.\n\n  Foxes, i., 50, 258, 341, 551, 625; ii., 716.\n\n  Fox Islands, i., 87, 89, 141-2.\n\n  Francis Lake, lang., iii., 587.\n\n  Fraser Lake, lang., iii., 607.\n\n  Fraser River, i., 115, 145, 172, 175, 185, 251, 271, 278, 295-7,\n    312; iii., 613.\n\n  Frederick Sound, i., 143.\n\n  Fresno County, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Fresno River, i., 363, 398, 455.\n\n  Frijoles, beans, i., 694.\n\n  Fringe, Nahua dress, ii., 366-7, 369, 374.\n\n  Frogs, i., 405, 576; ii., 356; iii., 116-17, 360, 429; iv., 24.\n\n  Fruit, i., 234, 265, 333, 538-9, 549-50, 559, 560, 574, 576,\n    624-5, 652, 658, 694, 700; ii., 347, 718-19, 722.\n\n  Fuca, i., 222, see Juan de Fuca.\n\n  Funerals, see Burial.\n\n  Funnel, Isthmian dress, i., 751-2.\n\n  Fur, i., 29-31, 50, 73-4, 89, 100, 160, 182-3, 216, 230, 347,\n    425.\n\n  Furnaces, Nahuas, ii., 478.\n\n  Furniture, i., 54, 692, 718; ii., 174-5, 572-3, 786-7.\n\n  Future, i., 2-3; ii., 604-5, 616, 618, 622-3; iii., 34-5, 401-2,\n    405, 510-44.\n\n  Fyules, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n\n  G\n\n  Gabilanes (Gavilanes), North Mexican tribe, i., 572-91; location,\n    i., 612.\n\n  Gagavitz, iii., 477, see Hacavitz.\n\n  Gagcoh Valley, i., 788.\n\n  Galel Qamahay, Cakchiquel title, ii., 640.\n\n  Galel Xahil, Cakchiquel royal title, ii., 640; v., chap. xi.\n\n  Galena, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 778-9.\n\n  Gale-Ziha, branch of Ilocab, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Galisteo, Pueblo village, i., 527, 600.\n\n  Gallinomeros, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 362, 449; special mention, i., 372, 386, 390; lang., iii.,\n    643-4.\n\n  Galpons, (Galpones), corridor of council-house, Nicaragua, ii.,\n    646.\n\n  Gambling, Hyperboreans, i., 112-13, 122; Columbians, i., 169,\n    198, 219, 243-4, 280-1; Californians, i., 353-4, 394, 415-16,\n    437; New Mexicans, i., 516, 552-3, 587; Mexicans, ii., 299-301.\n\n  Gamchines, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Game, i., 39, 114, 153, 156, 187, 263, 323-4, 337, 405-6, 576;\n    ii., 350-1, 652, 659, 693, 720.\n\n  Ganchebi (Canchebiz, Canchevez, Ganchebirse), Guatemala tribe,\n    i., 686-711; location, i., 787.\n\n  Ganel, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Gardens, ii., 571, 573, 575, 789.\n\n  Gardner Channel, i., 155, 294.\n\n  Garlands, ii., 372, 620; iii., 313, 423, 426.\n\n  Garments, see Dress.\n\n  Garucha, a rope bridge, i., 693.\n\n  Garzas, i., 572, see Carrizas.\n\n  Gaulas, Mosquito tribe, i., 711-47; location, i., 713; lang.,\n    iii., 783.\n\n  Gavilanes, i., 611, see Gabilanes.\n\n  Geese, i., 75, 333, 337; ii., 721.\n\n  Geguep, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Gekaquch, a Cakchiquel ruler, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Gekaquchi, a Cakchiquel princely family, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Geliec, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Gelo, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Gemex, tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; location, i., 600.\n\n  G\u00e9nau, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Genoa, town, Nevada, i., 469.\n\n  Gens de Bois, i., 147, see Han Kutchin.\n\n  Gens de Bouleau (Birch Indians), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 147.\n\n  Gens de Buttes, i., 147, see Tenan Kutchin.\n\n  Gens de Fou, i., 147, see Tathzey Kutshi.\n\n  Gens de Foux, i., 147, see Tutchone Kutchin.\n\n  Gens de Large, i., 147, see Natche Kutchin.\n\n  Gens de Milieu, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 115,\n    147.\n\n  Georgetown, California, antiq., iv., 705.\n\n  Georgia, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 767-8.\n\n  Georgia Gulf, i., 296.\n\n  Gergecensens (Gerguensens, Gerzuensens), Central Californian\n    tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 363, 452.\n\n  Gerguensens (Gerzuensens), i., 452, see Gergecensens.\n\n  Gesture-language, iii., 2-5, 556.\n\n  Geysers, locality, California, i., 452.\n\n  Ghalashat, name for San Nicolas Island, i., 402.\n\n  Ghanan, ii., 767, see Chanan.\n\n  Ghocan, name for Palenque, iv., 295.\n\n  Ghowel (Huey Zacatlan), Chiapas, antiq., iv., 354.\n\n  Giants, i., 750; ii., 600; iii., 64, 67; iv., 695; v., 24, 49-50,\n    139, 197-200.\n\n  Gifts, see Presents.\n\n  Gig Harbor, i., 301.\n\n  Gijames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Gila (Xila) River, i., 528, 593, 595-9, 601-2; lang., iii.,\n    594-5.\n\n  Gilding, see Plating.\n\n  Gile\u00f1os (Xile\u00f1os), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i.,\n    474, 596; lang., iii., 685.\n\n  Gilimis, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Girdle, see Belt.\n\n  Givim, v., 70, see Hivim.\n\n  Gix, ii., 755, see Ix.\n\n  Gladiatorial Stone, ii., 586; iv., 509-10.\n\n  Glass, i., 48, 483; ii., 557, 573.\n\n  Glazing, pottery, i., 500, 698, 769; ii., 483; iv., 19, 63-5,\n    383, 647.\n\n  Gleuaxcuyu, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Gloves, i., 258; ii., 298, 731.\n\n  Glue, i., 91, 130; ii., 489.\n\n  Gluttony, see Eating.\n\n  Gnudzavui-Gnuhu, locality, Oajaca, i., 678.\n\n  Gnuundaa, locality, Oajaca i., 678.\n\n  Goajiros, Isthmian tribe, i., 747-85; location, i., 796.\n\n  Goasacoalco, iii., 275-6, see Goazacoalco.\n\n  Goats, i., 215-16, 544.\n\n  Goazacoalco (Coatzacoalco, Goasacoalco, Goatzacoalco,\n    Guasacualco, Guazacualco), province and river, Vera Cruz, i.,\n    645, 666, 680; ii., 112, 619; iii., 259, 275-6; v., 259, 298,\n    421, 473.\n\n  Godamyous (!), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 307.\n\n  Goggles, Eskimos, i., 69.\n\n  Goitres, i., 588, 638.\n\n  Gold, New Mexicans, i., 543, 583; Mexicans, i., 631, 648, 651,\n    657; ii., 147, 173-5, 285, 290, 372, 376-7, 382, 406-8, 473-9,\n    606; iii., 285, 324; antiq., iv., 346, 376, 383, 455; Central\n    Americans, i., 727-8, 752, 754, 763, 766-9; ii., 732, 742,\n    749-50, 787; antiq., iv., 18, 20, 22-3, 66; Mississippi Valley,\n    antiq., iv., 778-9; Peru, antiq., iv., 792-4.\n\n  Gold Bluff, i., 445-6.\n\n  Golden Gate, myth., iii., 89.\n\n  Gold-Harbors, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Gold Hill, California, antiq., iv., 706.\n\n  Goldsmiths, Nahuas, ii., 475-8; iii., 411.\n\n  Gold Springs Gulch, California, antiq., iv., 701-2, 706.\n\n  Golovin Sound, i., 141.\n\n  Golovnin (Golownin) Bay, i., 70, 141.\n\n  Gonorrh\u0153a, see Venereal Disease.\n\n  Goose Creek, i., 469.\n\n  Goose Lake, i., 444.\n\n  Gosh Ute Lake, i., 422.\n\n  Gosh Utes (Gosha Utes, Goshautes, Goships, Goshoots, Gosh Yutas),\n    tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location and name, i., 422,\n    467-8; special mention, i., 428; lang., iii., 661-2.\n\n  Gossampine, see Cotton.\n\n  Gourds, i., 544, 551-2, 582, 630, 656; ii., 398, 484, 709, 752;\n    v., chap. xi.\n\n  Government, its relation to civilization, ii., 60-6, 71-4;\n    Hyperboreans, i., 65, 80, 92, 100-1, 108, 121, 123-5, 130-2,\n    134; Columbians, i., 167-8, 170, 173, 180-2, 185, 187-8, 193-6,\n    217, 240, 247-8, 258, 262, 269-70, 275-6; Californians, i.,\n    347-9, 358, 385-8, 409-10, 435; New Mexicans, i., 507-10,\n    546-7, 564-5, 584; Mexicans, i., 632, 659-60; ii., 133-239,\n    373-7, 418-19, 433-72, 603-14, 619-22, 628; iii., 210-20,\n    225-30, 259, 273-4, 432, 726; v., 244-9, 255, 264, 350-1, 404,\n    456-8; Central Americans, i., 701-2, 728-9, 735, 753, 755, 758,\n    764, 769-71, 781-4; ii., 630-60, 669, 736-7, 740-1, 787-90,\n    799-801; iii., 73; v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Goxicas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Granada, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 47, 60; New Mexico, antiq., iv.,\n    674.\n\n  Granaries, see Store-houses.\n\n  Gran-Chim\u00fa, Peru, antiq., iv., 798-800.\n\n  Grande Ronde Valley, i., 254, 319.\n\n  Grande de San Pedro Lake, i., 612.\n\n  Grand River, i., 461, 464.\n\n  Granville, Ohio, antiq., iv., 771.\n\n  Grass, food, i., 103, 170, 340, 373-5, 406; manufactures, etc.,\n    i., 73, 91, 107, 211, 214, 236, 258, 270, 330-1, 345, 368,\n    381-2, 425, 434, 486, 500, 502, 724, 765; ii., 574; iii., 129.\n\n  Grasshoppers, as food, i., 373-4, 405-6, 428, 488, 561.\n\n  Grass Valley, California, antiq., iv., 706.\n\n  Grave Creek, i., 308.\n\n  Graves, see Burial.\n\n  Gray's Harbor, i., 151, 209, 211, 215-17, 222, 303-4.\n\n  Grease, i., 129, 210, 333; iii., 145.\n\n  Great Bear Lake, i., 144.\n\n  Great Bear River Valley, i., 461.\n\n  Great Fish River, i., 145.\n\n  Great Lone Land, i., 114.\n\n  Great Salt Lake Basin, i., 152, 323-4, 461-3.\n\n  Great Slave Lake, i., 144.\n\n  Great South Pass, i., 461.\n\n  Greaves, ii., 377, 406-8, see Armor.\n\n  Greece, myth., compared with Nahua, iii., 444; American\n    origin-traces, v., 122-3.\n\n  Greenland, early settlement of, v., 106-15.\n\n  Green River, i., 300, 461-4.\n\n  Grepons, Nicaragua council-houses, ii., 646.\n\n  Greytown, i., 793.\n\n  Grijalva, Juan de, arrival on Mexican coast, v., 478.\n\n  G-tinkit, i., 96, see Sitkas.\n\n  Guacachula, city, Mexico, ii., 416.\n\n  Guachichiles (Cuachichiles, Guachachiles, Huacbichiles,\n    Huachichiles), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    572, 614; special mention, i., 632; lang., iii., 719.\n\n  Guaco, antidote for snake-bites, i., 589, 743.\n\n  Guadalajara, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 572.\n\n  Guadalupe River, i., 452.\n\n  Guaguayutla, village, Guerrero, i., 677.\n\n  Guaicuris (Guaicuras, Guaicures, Guayc\u00faras, Waicuros, Waikur),\n    Lower Californian tribe, i., 556-71; location, i., 557-8,\n    603-4; special mention, i., 558-9, 565-7, 570; lang., iii.,\n    687-93.\n\n  Guailopos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609.\n\n  Guaimas, iii., 604, see Guaymas.\n\n  Guaimies (Huamies), Isthmian tribe, i., 747-85; location, i.,\n    796; special mention, i., 759.\n\n  Guainetas, Isthmian tribe, i., 747-85; location, i., 796.\n\n  Guainnonost, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Guaipil, i., 621, see Huipil.\n\n  Guaislac, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Guajamina, locality, Lower California, i., 569.\n\n  Guajiqueros, Mosquito tribe, i., 711-47; location, i., 712;\n    special mention, i., 718, 722, 737-8.\n\n  Guajolote, Mexico, antiq., iv., 545.\n\n  Gualala (Walhalla, Wallalla) Creek, i., 449.\n\n  Gualalas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    449; special mention, i., 386; lang., iii., 643.\n\n  Gualpi, (Gualpa, Hualpi, Jualpi), Moqui village, i., 528, 600-1.\n\n  Guamar\u0153, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; lang., iii., 719.\n\n  Guanacaste, Costa Rica, antiq., iv., 24.\n\n  Guanacauri Mt, v., 16.\n\n  Guanaja Island, i., 790; antiq., iv., 70.\n\n  Guanajuato, description of tribes, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629;\n    location, i., 673, 677; myth., iii., 541; lang., iii., 737-41;\n    antiq., iv., 577-8.\n\n  Guanines, gold ornaments, i., 752.\n\n  Guanipas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Guanitiquimanes, Oajaca tribe, hist., v., 528.\n\n  Guanlen, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Guarapo, South Mexican drink, i., 665.\n\n  Guarara, Isthmian province, lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Guards, Nahuas, ii., 183, 245.\n\n  Guasabas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 606.\n\n  Guasacualco, iii., 276, see Goazacoalco.\n\n  Guasavas, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Guashillas, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Guasistagua, Honduras, antiq., iv., 71.\n\n  Guaslaique, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    458.\n\n  Guastecs, i., 674, see Huastecs.\n\n  Guatemala (Quauhtemalan), antiq., iv., 108-38; hist., v., 298,\n    349, 460-1, chap. xi.; for information concerning tribes, see\n    Guatemalans and Maya nations.\n\n  Guatemalans (Guatemaltecs), one of the three families into\n    which the tribes of Central America are divided. Manners and\n    customs of all its nations and tribes described together, i.,\n    686-711; civilized nations, ii., 630-803; location, i., 682,\n    786-92; ii., 121-2; Physique, i., 688-9; ii., 802; Dress, i.,\n    689-92; ii., 726-34; Dwellings, i., 692-3; ii., 783-94; Food,\n    i., 694-6; ii., 715-25; Personal Habits, i., 696; ii., 734-5;\n    Implements and Manufactures, i., 697-9; ii., 748-52; Weapons\n    and War, i., 696-7; ii., 739-47; Boats, i., 699; ii., 739;\n    Property and Commerce, i., 699-700; ii., 735-8; Art, i., 700-1;\n    ii., 748-82; Government, i., 701-2; ii., 631-60; Marriage\n    and Women, i., 702-4; ii., 664-86; Education, ii., 661-4;\n    Amusements, i., 704-7; ii., 687-714; Miscellaneous Customs,\n    i., 707-8; ii., 796-8; Medicine, i., 708-9; ii., 794-6; Burial,\n    i., 709; ii., 798-802; Character, i., 709-11; ii., 803; myth.,\n    iii., 74-5, 129, 474-90; v., 13, 20; lang., iii., 726, 759-60;\n    hist., chap. xi.\n\n  Guatulco, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 374; hist., v., 214, 425.\n\n  Guatusco, iv., 445, see Huatusco.\n\n  Guatusos, (Indios Blancos, Pranzos), Isthmian tribe, i., 747-85;\n    location and name, i., 748, 794-5; special mention, i., 750-1,\n    758, 784; lang., iii., 793.\n\n  Guautla, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 461.\n\n  Guavi, i., 680, see Huaves.\n\n  Guaxaca, i., 679, see Oajaca.\n\n  Guaximala, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 35.\n\n  Guaxtecas, v., 208, see Huastecs.\n\n  Guayacan, a species of wood, i., 579, 778; ii., 795.\n\n  Guayangares, name for Tzintzuntzan, v., 516.\n\n  Guayave, a thin corn cake, i., 540.\n\n  Guayc\u00faras, i., 557, see Guaicuris.\n\n  Guaymas, (Guaimas), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 605; lang., iii., 704-5.\n\n  Guazabas, iii., 699, see Guazaves.\n\n  Guazacualco, i., 666, see Goazacoalco.\n\n  Guazalingo, province, Mexico, i., 675.\n\n  Guazamoros, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Guazapares, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610;\n    lang., iii., 711.\n\n  Guazaves (Guazabas), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 609; lang., iii., 699, 707.\n\n  Gucumatz (Tepeu, Tepeuh), Quich\u00e9 ruler and god, ii., 648, 716-17;\n    iii., 45, 135, 475; v., 23, 170, 188, chap. xi.\n\n  G\u00fceg\u00fcetenango, i., 787, see Huehuetenango.\n\n  Gueiquizales, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Guenocks, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 651.\n\n  Guerrero, tribes described, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location,\n    i., 677-8, 790; lang., iii., 749, 752; antiq., iv., 423-4.\n\n  Guetares, Isthmian tribe, i., 747-85; location, i., 795.\n\n  Gugures, Isthmian tribe, i., 747-85; special mention, i., 752.\n\n  Guichicovi, village, Oajaca, i., 679-80.\n\n  Guicholas, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 672.\n\n  Guiengola, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 368-71; hist., v., 444-5.\n\n  Guillicas (Guilucos), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 362, 449; lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Guima, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Guimen, i., 453, see Guymen.\n\n  Guipaulavi, Moqui village, i., 600.\n\n  Guisoles, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Guixa, v., chap. xii., see Huixa.\n\n  Guixolotes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Gulf of Fonseca, i., 791.\n\n  Guloismistac, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 453.\n\n  Gum, i., 130, 172, 204, 217, 286, 434, 439, 639, 692, 698, 776;\n    ii., 485, 600, 734; v., 325.\n\n  Gumarcaah, ii., 637, see Utatlan.\n\n  Gummesacapemes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    613.\n\n  Gutaras, Nicaragua sandals, ii., 731.\n\n  Guylpunes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Guymen (Guimen), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 453.\n\n  Guzman Lake, i., 595; iii., 594.\n\n  Gwangwa Pagua, name for Tangaxoan II., v., 525.\n\n  Gwosdeff Islands, i., 64.\n\n  Gymnasium, ii., 662, 713; iv., 172-3, 230-3.\n\n  Gypsum, ii., 556, 558, 570, 572, 581.\n\n\n  H\n\n  Haab, Maya year, ii., 759.\n\n  Habasto, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Habenapo, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Hacavitz (Gagavitz), Quich\u00e9 god, iii., 50-2, 477; v., 181,\n    547-56, 562, 569-71, 574.\n\n  Hacavitz Mountain, v., 549-53, 556, 560, 564.\n\n  Haeeltzuk, i., 294, see Hailtzas.\n\n  Haglli, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 599.\n\n  Hagulgets, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Hahamogna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    460.\n\n  Haidahs, one of the nine families into which the Columbians are\n    divided; manners and customs of all its nations and tribes\n    described together, i., 155-74; physique, i., 156-8; dress,\n    i., 158-60; dwellings, i., 160-1; food, i., 161-4; weapons,\n    implements, and manufactures, i., 164-6; boats, i., 166;\n    property and trade, i., 167; government, i., 167-8; women and\n    marriage, i., 168-9; amusements, i., 169-70; miscellaneous\n    customs, i., 170-2; medicine, i., 172; burial, i., 172-3;\n    character, i., 173-4; location of tribes, i., 151, 292-5;\n    myth., iii., 149-50, 520; lang., iii., 604-6.\n\n  Haidahs (Ha\u00efdas, Hydahs), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location\n    and name, i., 292-3; special mention, i., 157, 203.\n\n  Hailtzas (Haeeltzuk, Haeelzuk, Hailtsa, Hailtzuk, Hautzuk),\n    tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 155, 295; special\n    mention, i., 157-8, 170-1; lang., iii., 607.\n\n  Hair, i., 12-14; Hyperboreans, i., 46-7, 72, 86, 88, 117, 119,\n    128, 131-2; iii., 148; Columbians, i., 157-9, 166, 173, 178-80,\n    182-3, 195, 206, 210-11, 215-16, 225-6, 229, 246, 255-7, 270,\n    288; Californians, i., 331, 357, 364-6, 368-70, 397, 402, 404,\n    420, 424; New Mexicans, i., 477-84, 496, 523, 529-32, 544, 551,\n    558-9, 567, 569, 573-5, 582-3, 590; Mexicans, i., 619, 621-2,\n    646-7, 649-51; ii., 252, 307, 324, 329, 333, 370-1, 403, 408,\n    461, 484, 599, 605, 624; iii., 238, 364, 387, 392, 435; Central\n    Americans, i., 689-91, 714-16, 744, 750-2, 754; ii., 651,\n    729-31, 741.\n\n  Haitlins, i., 175, 298, see Teets.\n\n  Hakoopin, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Halach Winikel, Tutul Xiu title, ii., 636; v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Halchedomas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 599.\n\n  Halchis, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Halibut, food, Hyperboreans, i., 104; Columbians, i., 162, 186,\n    214.\n\n  Haliotis, see Pearls.\n\n  Hallams, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 296.\n\n  Hamaca, Mexican hammock, i., 656.\n\n  Hamai-Ule\u00fc, Quich\u00e9 queen, v., 572.\n\n  Hamburg Indians (Tka), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 447; lang., iii., 640.\n\n  Hamechuwa, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    460.\n\n  Hammersly's Inlet, i., 301.\n\n  Hammocks, i., 658, 697-9, 724, 765-6, 782; antiq., iv., 82-3.\n\n  Hamockhaves, i., 597, see Mojaves.\n\n  Hamook-h\u00e4b\u00ee Mountains, i., 597.\n\n  Hanags (Haynaggis), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 442, 445; lang., iii., 593.\n\n  Hanegas (Anega, Hennegas), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74;\n    location, i., 292-3.\n\n  Han-Kutchin (An-Kutchin, Gens de Bois), tribe of Tinneh, i.,\n    114-37; location, i., 115, 147; lang., iii., 587.\n\n  Hannakalals (Hannakallals), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 307.\n\n  Haracotin, mountain, Michoacan, v., 518.\n\n  Harasgna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Hare, i., 50, 373, 424, 538, 578; ii., 368, 721-2; iii., 80.\n\n  Harem, Nahuas, ii., 182-3.\n\n  Harney Lake, i., 463.\n\n  Harno, Moqui town, lang., iii., 671, 681.\n\n  Harpies, Isthmian myth., iii., 500-1.\n\n  Harpoons, i., 56, 719; ii., 721.\n\n  Harrison River, lang., iii., 613.\n\n  Harvest-feasts, i., 735; ii., 340, 713-14.\n\n  Haslintahs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    445.\n\n  Hatawa, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Hatchets, i., 59, 104, 164, 345, 434, 543, 724, 765; ii., 482,\n    737, 749-50; see also Axes.\n\n  Hats, Hyperboreans, i., 74, 88-9, 101; Columbians, i., 159, 166,\n    182-3, 211, 230, 258-9; Californians, i., 330-1, 345, 358, 368;\n    New Mexicans, i., 481-4, 531-2, 551, 558-9, 575; Mexicans, i.,\n    620, 648, 650; Central Americans, i., 690-1, 699, 715-16, 754.\n\n  Hatzal, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Hatzcab, Maya forenoon, ii., 755.\n\n  Hautzuk, i., 158, see Hailtzas.\n\n  Hauzaurni, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Havic-h\u00e4b\u00ee Mountains, i., 597.\n\n  Hawhaw, California, lang., iii., 651.\n\n  Hayate, Maya mantle, ii., 727.\n\n  Haynaggis, i., 445, see Hanags.\n\n  Hayocingo, locality, Mexico, v., 472.\n\n  Head, i., 46, 72, 329, 426, 569, 573, 689, 714.\n\n  Head-flattening, Columbians, i., 151, 158, 180, 210, 226-8,\n    256-7; Mexicans, i., 651; ii., 281; Central Americans, i., 717,\n    754; ii., 681-2, 731-2, 802; iv., 304.\n\n  Hebonomas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 598.\n\n  Hecat, iii., 491, see Ehecatl.\n\n  Hecatotonti, Nahua idols, iii., 343.\n\n  Hegues, i., 607, see Eudeves.\n\n  Hehighenimmo, i., 313, 316, see Sans Poils.\n\n  Helluland, North-east America, v., 106.\n\n  Hellwits, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306, 317.\n\n  Helmets, i., 105, 235, 706; ii., 403, 405, 407, 742.\n\n  Hemes, Pueblo province, i., 527.\n\n  Hemlock, i., 162, 204.\n\n  Hemp, i., 162, 164-5.\n\n  Hennegas, i., 293, see Hanegas.\n\n  Hepowwoo, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Hequis, i., 607, see Eudeves.\n\n  Heralds, i., 202, 379, 388; see also Ambassadors.\n\n  Heraldry, i., 193, 202.\n\n  Herbs, various uses of, i., 57, 103, 124, 172, 204, 220, 233,\n    286, 333, 340, 354, 373-4, 387, 395, 406, 419, 439, 503, 521-2,\n    537, 566, 568, 588-9, 633-4, 639-40, 667, 709, 742-3, 754, 776,\n    778, 782; ii., 287, 595, 598, 600, 710, 734, 795.\n\n  Hermita (Llano de la Culebra), town, Guatemala, i., 788.\n\n  Hermosillo, village, Sonora, i., 602.\n\n  Herradura Bay, i., 751.\n\n  Herring, i., 104, 162, 186, 212.\n\n  H\u00e9thtoyas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Hetzalqualiztl, ii., 509, see Etzalqualiztli.\n\n  Heves, i., 607, see Eudeves.\n\n  Hiaqua, a shell used for money, i., 217, 239.\n\n  Hiaqui, i., 572, 605, see Yaquis.\n\n  Hicipan, Michoacan ruler, v., 524.\n\n  Hicucaxe, king of Michoacan, v., 524.\n\n  Hidalgo, Guerrero, antiq., iv., 423-4.\n\n  Hides, see Skins.\n\n  Hieroglyphics, Columbians, i., 161, 172, 193; antiq., iv.,\n    734-6; Californians, antiq., iv., 690-1, 715-17, 724, 733-4;\n    New Mexicans, i., 507, 545-6; antiq., iv., 620, 631, 638-41,\n    643-5, 648-9, 661, 673, 679-81; Mexicans, ii., 240-1, 413, 443,\n    487-8, 499, 523-52; iii., 437; antiq., iv., 304-602 passim;\n    v., 140-2, 479-80; Central Americans, ii., 115-16, 656, 756-7,\n    767-82; antiq., iv., 22-277, passim; v., 142; Mississippi\n    Valley, antiq., iv., 784-5; v., 75-6; Peru, antiq., iv., 806;\n    resemblances to Egyptian, v., 61-2.\n\n  Hietans, i., 592, see Comanches.\n\n  Hijames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Himeris, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 606;\n    lang., iii., 699.\n\n  Hinas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 614; lang.,\n    iii., 719.\n\n  Hiokowitz, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 212.\n\n  Hios, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607.\n\n  Hipil, i., 650, see Huipil.\n\n  Hishquayaht, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Historians, Spanish, etc., bibliography, ii., 158-60; v., 142-9.\n\n  History, explorations, western North American, i., 27-32;\n    introductory remarks on aids to research, etc., v., 133-55;\n    Northern tribes, v., 536-9; Nahua nations, ii., 96-114; iii.,\n    270-1, 307-8; iv., 470; pre-Toltec period, v., 188-236; Toltec\n    period, v., 237-88; Chichimec period, v., 289-399; Aztec\n    period, v., 400-82; Tlascala, v., 483-507; Michoacan, v.,\n    508-26; Oajaca, v., 526-36; Maya nations, ii., 114-23, 632-4,\n    637-8; iv., 107, 280-1, 359-62; pre-Toltec, v., 158-88, 223-36;\n    Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel, v., 540-602; Chiapas, Honduras, etc., v.,\n    603-14; Yucatan, v., 615-34.\n\n  Hivim (Givim), name of Hurte country, v., 70.\n\n  Hix, Tzendal day, ii., 767, see Ix.\n\n  Hizos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609.\n\n  Hobnil, Maya god, ii., 692, 699.\n\n  Hochiquetzal, name of Chalchihuitlicue, iii., 367.\n\n  Hock (Huk), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450; lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Hoe, i., 582, 630; ii., 348.\n\n  Hoeras, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Hogs, i., 652, 694, 721, 725, 758; ii., 721.\n\n  Hohgates, North Californian mythic persons, iii., 177.\n\n  Hohilpos (Hopilpos), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 312-13.\n\n  Hohocam, Pima mythic persons, iii., 79-80.\n\n  Hohs, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 303.\n\n  Hokandikahs (Salt Lake Diggers), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42;\n    location, i., 463.\n\n  Holcanes, Maya paid troops, ii., 740.\n\n  Holkan okot, Maya war-dance, ii., 693.\n\n  Holom, ancient city, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Holon Chan Tepeuh, Tutul Xiu leader, v., 227, chap. xiii.\n\n  Holpop, Maya title, ii., 711.\n\n  Homamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 302.\n\n  Honcut, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450.\n\n  Honduras, tribes described, i., 711-47; Civilized nations, ii.,\n    630-803; location, i., 790, 792-4; ii., 121; myth., iii.,\n    485-6, 496; lang., iii., 726, 759-60, 782-3; antiq., iv.,\n    69-105; hist., v., 472, 541, 558, chap. xii.\n\n  Honey, i., 576-7, 586, 625, 654, 694, 726, 739; ii., 357, 599,\n    699, 722-4; iii., 313.\n\n  Honey Lake, i., 468.\n\n  Hood Bay, i., 143.\n\n  Hood's Canal, i., 208, 301-2; lang., iii., 613.\n\n  Hoodsinoos (Hoodsunhoos, Hootsinoos), tribe of Thlinkeets, i.,\n    94-114; location, i., 96, 143; lang., iii., 579.\n\n  Hoofs, used for ornaments, i., 482, 522, 574.\n\n  Hooks, i., 76, 90, 104, 164, 185-6, 212-14, 233, 236, 262, 407;\n    ii., 353.\n\n  Hoonids (Hooneaks, Huna Cow, Hunnas), tribe of Thlinkeets, i.,\n    94-114; location, i., 142.\n\n  Hoopahs (Hoopas), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location,\n    i., 327, 445; special mention, i., 334, 344, 348-51; lang.,\n    iii., 584, 592-3.\n\n  Hoopah Valley, i., 327, 445.\n\n  Hoops, Central California, game with, i., 393-4.\n\n  Hootsinoos, i., 143, see Hoodsinoos.\n\n  H\u00f3p, locality, north-east coast of America, v., 110.\n\n  Hopaiuh, village, North California, i., 444.\n\n  Hopeton, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 760-2.\n\n  Hope Valley, i., 469.\n\n  Hopilpos, i., 313, see Hohilpos.\n\n  Horcasitas, village, Sonora, i., 605.\n\n  Horcasitas River, i., 605.\n\n  Horn, i., 58, 117, 164, 189, 235, 248, 270-1, 342, 344, 432, 434,\n    542, 582; ii., 292-3, 412, 713.\n\n  Hornitos, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Horn Mountain Indians, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i.,\n    114, 144; special mention, i., 117-19.\n\n  Horocroc, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Horoscope, ii., 253, 271-2, 663; iii., 482.\n\n  Horses, i., 154, 259, 267-74, 280-4, 433, 435, 438-9, 490, 492,\n    505-6, 518, 523, 539, 542, 544, 561, 583, 725; iii., 483.\n\n  Horse Shoe Bend, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Horse Sound, i., 207.\n\n  Hospitals, i., 583; ii., 596.\n\n  Hot Creek, i., 443.\n\n  Hoteday, i., 447, name for Yrekas.\n\n  Hotlimamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    302.\n\n  Hottrochtac, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 454.\n\n  Houaguan (Wonagan), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i.,\n    292.\n\n  House of Birds, at Uxmal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 190-1.\n\n  Houses, see Dwellings.\n\n  Houtgna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Hovenweep River, Utah, antiq., iv., 732-3.\n\n  Howachez, i., 455, see Howetsers.\n\n  Howchuklisaht (Ouchuchlisit), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 295.\n\n  Howe Sound, i., 298.\n\n  Howetsers (Howachez), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 363, 455-6.\n\n  Howkumas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Howteteoh, North California, lang., iii., 642.\n\n  Hoxtotipaquillo, locality, Jalisco, i., 672.\n\n  Huabes (Huabi), i., 680, see Huaves.\n\n  Huacas, tombs, Chiriqu\u00ed and Peru, antiq., iv., 17, 792.\n\n  Huacbichiles, iii., 719, see Guachichiles.\n\n  Huachi, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Huachichiles, i., 614, see Guachichiles.\n\n  Huaconex, medicinal plant, ii., 599.\n\n  Huactlatohuani, Chichimec imperial title, v., 299.\n\n  Huactli, a Toltec king, v., 250.\n\n  Huad\u00edbis, village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Huahuapan (Huajuapan), locality, Oajaca, i., 677; antiq., iv.,\n    421.\n\n  Hualahuises, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; lang., iii., 714.\n\n  Hualapais (Hualpais, Wallpays), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526;\n    location, i., 475, 597; special mention, i., 477-8.\n\n  Hualapai Valley, i., 597.\n\n  Hualpi, i., 601, see Gualpi.\n\n  Hualquilme, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Huamares, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 572.\n\n  Huamies, i., 796, see Guaimies.\n\n  Huanuco el Viejo, Peru, antiq., iv., 801-4.\n\n  Huapalcalco, locality, Vera Cruz, i., 671.\n\n  Huaraches, Mexican sandals, i., 620.\n\n  Huasna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Huastecs, (Cuextecas, Guastecs, Guaxtecas, Huaxtecs), Nahua\n    nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location and name, i., 674;\n    ii., 127; special mention, i., 638; ii., 114, 365; lang., ii.,\n    500; iii., 759, 776-81; hist., v., 207-8, 239, 539; chap. xiii.\n\n  Huastepec, town, Mexico, ii., 575.\n\n  Huatiquimanes, Oajaca tribe, hist., v., 528.\n\n  Huatusco (Guatusco, Quauhtochco), Vera Cruz, antiq., ii., 417;\n    iv., 439-45.\n\n  Huaves (Guavi, Huabes, Huabi, Huavi, Wabi), Nahua nation, i.,\n    644-70; ii., 133-629; location, i., 645, 680; ii., 111-12;\n    special mention, i., 647-8, 652, 658-9, 666, 668; ii., 379;\n    lang., iii., 757-8; hist., v., 529-30, 532, 534.\n\n  Huaxteca, locality, Vera Cruz, i., 674.\n\n  Huaxtecs, i., 674, see Huastecs.\n\n  Huaxyacac, fortified city, Oajaca, i., 679; antiq., iv., 384;\n    hist., v., 439, 444.\n\n  Hubo, Itza god, iii., 482.\n\n  Huchun, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Hudcoadans, tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; lang., iii., 685.\n\n  Hudson Bay, i., 29-30, 38, 62-3, 114, 143-4; lang., iii., 584.\n\n  Hudson Strait, i., 46, 50, 60, 63.\n\n  Huehuequauhtitlan, locality, Mexico, iii., 257.\n\n  Huehuetan, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 354; hist., v., 160, chap. xii.\n\n  Huehuetenango (G\u00fceg\u00fcetenango), locality, Guatemala, i., 787;\n    antiq., iv., 128-30; hist., v., 555.\n\n  Huehuetenuxcatl, a Toltec leader, v., 284.\n\n  Huehueteotl, name for Xiuhtecutli, iii., 385.\n\n  Huehuetiliztli, Nahua age, ii., 505.\n\n  Huehuetl, Nahua drum, ii., 293.\n\n  Huehuetlan, province, Mexico, v., 346.\n\n  Huehue Tlapallan, ancient home of Toltecs and Chichimecs, ii.,\n    504-5; iii., 270; v., 18, 209-20.\n\n  Huehuetoca (Huehuetocan), Mexico, antiq., iv., 549; hist., v.,\n    242, 476.\n\n  Huehuetzin, a Chichimec leader, v., 272, 277, 282-6; lord of\n    Huexotzinco, v., 437-8, 499.\n\n  Hueicolhuacan, v., 323, see Huey Culhuacan.\n\n  Hueicolhues, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607.\n\n  Hueiteopixqui, Nahua priest, iii., 432.\n\n  Huejutla, city, Mexico, ii., 568; antiq., iv., 528-9.\n\n  Huemac, name for Quetzalcoatl, iii., 267, 283-4; Chichimec king,\n    v., 220; identified with Tezcatlipoca and others, v., 259,\n    261-5, 484, 528.\n\n  Huemac II., (Atecpanecatl, Iztacquauhtzin, Tecpancaltzin,\n    Yztaccaltzin), Toltec king, v., 267-86.\n\n  Huemac III., (Matlacxochitl), Toltec king, v., 286.\n\n  Hueman (Huematzin), a Toltec prophet, v., 211, 242-52.\n\n  Huenejel, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Hueneme, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Huenepel Ninyuelgual, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 458.\n\n  Huepaca, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Huetzalin, a Xochimilca chief, v., 309.\n\n  Huetzin (Huitzin), a Toltec king, v., 220, 250-6, 272-3; Acolhua\n    prince, v., 303-5, 309, 316-19.\n\n  Huetzin II., lord of Coatlichan, v., 333.\n\n  Huexachtitlan, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Huexotla, a city of Mexico, ii., 441; hist., v., 319-20, 333-4,\n    373-4, 380, 392-5.\n\n  Huexotzinco, city, Mexico, ii., 112, 127, 142; hist., v., 307-10,\n    318, 426, 459-64, 483-507.\n\n  Hueycalpixques, Nahua officials, ii., 237.\n\n  Huey Culhuacan (Hueicolhuacan), station, Aztec migration, v.,\n    323.\n\n  Hueymiccailhuitl, Nahua month, ii., 331, 510.\n\n  Hueyotlipan, fortified town, Tlascala, v., 503.\n\n  Hueypachtli, Nahua month, ii., 511.\n\n  Hueypuchtlan, station, Teo-Chichimec migration, v., 487.\n\n  Hueytecuilhuitl, Nahua month, ii., 326, 510.\n\n  Huey-Teopixqui, Nahua order of priests, ii., 202.\n\n  Hueytlato, province, Honduras, v., chap. xii.\n\n  Huey Tlatoani Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, Chichimec imperial title,\n    v., 299.\n\n  Hueytozoztli (Veitozoztli), Nahua month, ii., 317, 509; iii.,\n    421.\n\n  Hueyxalan, station, Toltec migration, v., 212.\n\n  Hueyxotzin, Tlascala, antiq., iv., 477.\n\n  Huey Zacatlan, iv., 354, see Ghowel.\n\n  Huichiapan, village, Mexico, i., 674.\n\n  Huicholas (Huitcoles), Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; special\n    mention, i., 621; lang., iii., 719.\n\n  Huictli, Nahua shovel, ii., 348.\n\n  Huictlollinqui, Nahua god, v., 193.\n\n  Huietlaxcalli, species of corn cake, ii., 355.\n\n  Huijatoo, ii., 209, see Wiyatao.\n\n  Huililic (Huililoc), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 459.\n\n  Huilocpalli, Nahua cake, ii., 312.\n\n  Huime, iii., 719, see Humes.\n\n  Huimen, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Huimolan, south boundary of Mexican empire, v., 473.\n\n  Huipil (Hipil, Guaipil, Vipilli), part of a woman's dress, i.,\n    621, 650, 691; ii., 368-9.\n\n  Huirivis, village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Huitcoles, iii., 719, see Huicholas.\n\n  Huites, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609;\n    lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Huitlapalan (Huitlapatlan), station, Toltec migration, v., 209,\n    214.\n\n  Huitz, a Toltec chief, v., 243.\n\n  Huitzilapan, locality, Puebla, i., 670; ii., 112; v., 242; name\n    for Tlascala, v., 249.\n\n  Huitzilihuitl, Aztec king, v., 330-1, 340.\n\n  Huitzilihuitl II., king of Mexico, v., 361-6.\n\n  Huitzilin, a humming-bird, ii., 489.\n\n  Huitzilopochco, city, Mexico, ii., 562; iii., 307.\n\n  Huitzilopochtli (Huitzilopuchtli, Huitziloputzli, Huitzlipochtli,\n    Ocelopuchtli, Uzilopuchtli, Vichilopuchitl, Vitziliputzli,\n    Vitzilopuchtli, Vizilipuztli, Vizliputzli), Nahua god, ii.,\n    144-7, 320-4, 328-9, 335, 337, 339, 395-6, 400, 559-60, 577-84,\n    605; iii., 187-8, 241, 247, 288-324, 427-8; iv., 512-14; v.,\n    85, 89, 220, 324-7, 345-6, 500.\n\n  Huitziloxitl, medicinal plant, ii., 599.\n\n  Huitzin, v., 252, see Huetzin.\n\n  Huitzitlan, city, Mexico, ii., 560.\n\n  Huitziton (Huitzitoc), an Aztec leader, iii., 290-1, 304-6; v.,\n    88, 306.\n\n  Huitzitzilaque, name for Tzintzuntzan, v., 516.\n\n  Huitzitzilin, a Toltec princess, v., 301.\n\n  Huitznahuac, city, Mexico, ii., 560; v., 253, 338, 404.\n\n  Huitznahuac-Teohuatzin, priestly title, ii., 202.\n\n  Huitznahuateocalli, a temple of Mexico, v., 409.\n\n  Huitzocteme, sacrificial stones, Tlascala, antiq., iv., 477.\n\n  Huitzquilocan (Huitzquilocal), station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Huitzuahuacteohuatzin, Nahua priests, iii., 433.\n\n  Huixachtitlan, station, Aztec migration, v., 323-4.\n\n  Huixachtla, iii., 393, see Vixachtlan.\n\n  Huixa (Guixa) Lake, iii., 484; v., 609.\n\n  Huixapa, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Huixapapa, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Huix\u00e1zo, locality, Oajaca, i., 679.\n\n  Huixtocihuatl, Nahua goddess, ii., 325-6.\n\n  Huixton, a Tepanec leader, v., 331.\n\n  Huixtopetlacotl, Nahua plume, ii., 325.\n\n  Huixtoti, Nahua sacrifice, ii., 326.\n\n  Huizaquen Tochin Tecuhtli, a Chichimec prince, v., 314-19.\n\n  Huizteco, Guerrero, antiq., iv., 424.\n\n  Hulanapos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Hulmecas, i., 671, see Olmecs.\n\n  Humaliju, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Human sacrifice, Hyperboreans, iii., 143; Columbians, iii.,\n    151; Mexicans, ii., 304-41, 394-7, 600-26, 704; iii., 61,\n    110-11, 265-460, passim; v., 205, 258-62, 268, 342-3, 346, 350,\n    394, 414, 440, 456, 463, 471, 478, 482, 497, 500-1; Central\n    Americans, i., 723; ii., 688-708, 796, 799-800; iii., 52,\n    471-2, 482-98; v., chap. xi., xiii.\n\n  Humboldt Bay, i., 327, 332, 446; lang., iii., 639, 643.\n\n  Humboldt County, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Humboldt River, i., 462, 464, 466, 469.\n\n  Humes (Huime), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    614; special mention, i., 575; lang., iii., 718.\n\n  Humetaha, suburb of Chiquix city, Guatemala, v., chap. xi.\n\n  Humming-bird, Nahua myth., iii., 67, 301-2, 304-5, 311-12, 404.\n\n  Humphrey Point, i., 47.\n\n  Hunab Ku, Maya god, iii., 462.\n\n  Hunac Eel, king of Mayapan, v., 625 et seq.\n\n  Huna Cows, i., 142, see Hoonids.\n\n  Hunahpu (Hun Ahpu), Quich\u00e9 and Cakchiquel day, ii., 767; Quich\u00e9\n    ruler and god, iii., 478-80; v., 174-184, 544-6, 560, 566,\n    578-9.\n\n  Hunahpu mountain, v., 569.\n\n  Hunahpu (Hun Ahpu) Ut\u00efu, Quich\u00e9 god, iii., 474; v., 170, 182.\n\n  Hunahpu (Hun Ahpu) Vuch, Quich\u00e9 god, iii., 474; v., 170.\n\n  Hunas, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 443.\n\n  Hunavan, Guatemala god, iii., 74.\n\n  Hunbatz (Hun Batz), Quich\u00e9 god, iii., 479; v., 174-80.\n\n  Hunca, town, Columbia, v., 24.\n\n  Huncahua, Muysca king, v., 24.\n\n  Hun Came, king of Xibalba, v., 175-80, 184.\n\n  Hunchbacks, in Nahua harem, ii., 183.\n\n  Hunchevan, Guatemala god, iii., 74.\n\n  Hun Chouen, Quich\u00e9 god, iii., 479; v., 174-80.\n\n  Hunchunchan, Itza god, iii., 483.\n\n  Hunctu, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Hunhunahpu (Hunhun Ahpu), Quich\u00e9 god, iii., 478-9; v., 174-5,\n    544.\n\n  Hunnas, i., 142, see Hoonids.\n\n  Huno Bix Gih, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Hunpictok, Yucatec temple, iii., 467; antiq., iv., 248.\n\n  Hunting, Hyperboreans, i., 56-7, 77-8, 91, 118, 123, 129, 135;\n    Columbians, i., 153-4, 161-2, 263-4; Californians, i., 336-7,\n    373, 375-6, 405-6, 428; New Mexicans, i., 488, 490-2, 561,\n    576-7; Mexicans, i., 652; ii., 166, 335-6, 344, 350-2; iii.,\n    403-6; Central Americans, i., 694, 720-1, 760; ii., 653, 691,\n    697-8, 708, 720-1.\n\n  Huntoh, Cakchiquel ruler and god, v., 549.\n\n  Huntzuy, Guatemala ruler and tribe, v., 563.\n\n  Hunyg, Cakchiquel ruler, v., 600.\n\n  Huocom, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Hurakan, Quich\u00e9 god, iii., 45-6, 118, 134, 475-6; v., 171, 174.\n\n  Hurmal, name for Santa Rosa Island, i., 402.\n\n  Husbands, see Marriage.\n\n  Husistaic, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    458.\n\n  Husorones, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609.\n\n  Hutatecas, Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 787;\n    lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Huts, see Dwellings.\n\n  Hutucgna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Huvagueres, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607.\n\n  Hvitramannaland, name for North-east America, v., 113.\n\n  Hydahs, i., 292, see Haidahs.\n\n  Hydromel, as medicine, i., 588.\n\n  Hymeris, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607.\n\n  Hyperboreans, one of the seven groups into which the natives\n    of the Pacific states are divided, located along the Arctic\n    seaboard, in Russian America, Alaska, and adjoining islands,\n    and from Hudson's Bay to latitude 55\u00b0, including also\n    the Aleutian Archipelago; subdivided into five families,\n    the Eskimos, Koniagas, Aleuts, Thlinkeets, and Tinneh or\n    Athabascas. Manners and customs of each described separately,\n    i., 35-137; locations, divisions and tribal boundaries, i.,\n    35-40, 137-149; myth., iii., 516-19; lang., iii., 562-3,\n    574-603; origin, v., 19.\n\n  Hyssop, Maya baptism, ii., 683-4.\n\n\n  I\n\n  Ialamma, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Ialamne, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Iamotamohuanichan, abode of Aztec Venus, iii., 377.\n\n  Iaotzin, iii., 199, see Tezcatlipoca.\n\n  I Bota, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Ibueras (Ihueras), ancient name of Honduras, v., 214.\n\n  Ica, i., 603; iii., 687, see Ika.\n\n  Icauhtzin (Achcauhtzin, Icoatzin), Chichimec king, v., 220, 245.\n\n  Iccujenne, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 474;\n    lang., i., 594-602.\n\n  Ichapilli, Mexican dress, i., 620.\n\n  Ichcahuepilli, a cotton breast-piece, ii., 406.\n\n  Ichenta, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Ichmul, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 240.\n\n  Ichpaa, name for Mayapan, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Ichpuchco, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Icoatzin, v., 245, see Icauhtzin.\n\n  Iconoclasm, ii., 170-1, 525-8, 768; iv., 281, 502.\n\n  Icpactepecs, Nahua nation, subjugated, v., 471.\n\n  Icpalli, Nahua stools, ii., 231.\n\n  Icuex, an Acolhua chief, v., 332, 335.\n\n  Icxicohuatl, a Chichimec-Toltec chief, v., 485.\n\n  Icxiuh, a Zutugil princess, v., 575-6.\n\n  Icxochitlanex, Culhua king, v., 320, 330.\n\n  Icxotl, palm-leaf, ii., 484.\n\n  Icy Cape (Eiscap), i., 138-9.\n\n  Idaho, i., 315, 322, 422, 460, 463; lang., iii., 631, 660;\n    antiq., iv., 734.\n\n  Idakari\u00fakes, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    447.\n\n  Id-do-a, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; lang., iii., 640.\n\n  Idibaes (Idibas), Isthmian tribe, i., 747-85; location, i., 797;\n    special mention, i., 785.\n\n  Idols, Hyperboreans, i., 84-5; iii., 145-7; Columbians, i., 161,\n    185, 193; Californians, iii., 166-7; New Mexicans, i., 590;\n    iii., 174; Mexicans, ii., 298-9, 318, 321, 329-31, 389, 391,\n    425, 428, 477, 482, 582-4, 605, 622; iii., 179, 196, 237-429\n    passim; antiq., iv., 346-600 passim; Central Americans, ii.,\n    689-713, 750-1, 800; iii., 463, 482-3, 493; antiq., iv., 18,\n    39-58, 66, 70-3, 89-94, 100, 111-139, 167-8, 202-3, 515-20,\n    242-8, 263-5, 277; Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 782; Peru,\n    antiq., iv., 805.\n\n  Iedocodamos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Ieyxcohuatl, a Toltec chief, v., 229.\n\n  Ig, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Igh (Ygh), Tzendal day, ii., 767; a predecessor of Votan, v.,\n    164, 605.\n\n  Iglesia Vieja, Guerrero, antiq., iv., 424.\n\n  Igloo (Eegloo, Iglo, Iglu, Iglut), Eskimo snow house, i., 54.\n\n  Ignatzio (Ihuatzio), Michoacan, antiq., iv., 569-70.\n\n  Iguanas, i., 577, 652, 743, 759; ii., 693, 701, 720.\n\n  Ihcil ixchel, Maya feast, ii., 697.\n\n  Ihuatzio, iv., 570, see Ignatzio.\n\n  Ihueras, v., 214, see Ibueras.\n\n  Ihuimatzal, name for Tochintecuhtli, v., 333.\n\n  Ihuitlan, village, Guerrero, i., 677.\n\n  Ik, Maya day and god, ii., 756, 760; iii., 482.\n\n  Ika (Ica), Lower Californian tribe, i., 556-71; location, i.,\n    603; lang., iii., 687.\n\n  Ik\u00e1nam, Chinook god, iii., 95, 155; v., 19.\n\n  Ikarucks, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 447.\n\n  Ikomag, locality, Guatemala, v., 570.\n\n  Ilamatlan, locality, Mexico, i., 675.\n\n  Ilancueitl, Nahua first woman, iii., 60; Culhua queen, v., 223,\n    354-61.\n\n  Ilhuicamina, surname of Montezuma I., v., 408.\n\n  Ilhuicatepec, station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Ilhuicatl, prince of Zumpango, v., 329.\n\n  Ilhuicatitlan, temple of Mexico, ii., 585.\n\n  Iligajakh (Ilgajack, Ilgajak) River, i., 140.\n\n  Ililluluks, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Illinois, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 766-7.\n\n  Ilocab, Guatemalan tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 789; hist.,\n    v., 546-7, 549, 553-5, 560, 562, 571-3, 584, 589, 592.\n\n  Iltteka\u00efmamits, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    320.\n\n  Images, see Idols.\n\n  Imatacax, Nahua ornament, ii., 324.\n\n  Imatatohui, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Immahah River, i., 317.\n\n  Imox (Mox), Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel and Tzendal day, ii., 767;\n    ancestor of Votan, v., 69, 164, 605.\n\n  Implements, Hyperborean, i., 58, 64, 79-80, 91, 119, 122-3, 130;\n    Columbians, i., 164-5, 170, 179-81, 184, 187, 189-91, 193, 198,\n    211-14, 233-4, 270-1; antiq., iv., 739-40; Californians, i.,\n    345, 381-2, 407-8, 434-5; antiq., iv., 692-4, 697-712, 714-15;\n    New Mexicans, i., 500-2, 543-4, 563, 582, 590; antiq., iv.,\n    635, 677-8; Mexicans, i., 629-30, 640, 656-7; ii., 300, 348,\n    351, 474-84, 614, 621-2; iii., 512-13; antiq., iv., 344-6,\n    373-6, 383, 414, 422-3, 431-2, 446-7, 451, 462-3, 520, 554-61,\n    577, 611-13; Central Americans, i., 697-8, 724, 744, 765-6,\n    780-3; ii., 700, 749-51, 799-800; antiq., iv., 18-23, 58-62,\n    96, 102-3, 237-8, 278; Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 778-9,\n    781-4; Peru, antiq., iv., 792-4.\n\n  Inajalaihu (Inajalayehua), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 459.\n\n  Inapanames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Inaspetsums, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    317.\n\n  Inbani, Tarasco calendar sign and day, ii., 521-2.\n\n  Inbeari, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Incantations, see Sorcerers.\n\n  Incense, Nahuas, ii., 145, 256-60, 318, 322-3, 327, 340, 393,\n    573; iii., 331, 438 passim; Mayas, i., 697; ii., 668, 688,\n    690-7, 700-6, 720, 745, 799; iii., 486.\n\n  Incest, i., 81, 117, 388-9, 515; ii., 466, 659, 676.\n\n  Inchini, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Inchon, Tarasco calendar-sign, ii., 521-2.\n\n  Incomecan\u00e9took, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    312.\n\n  Indehuni, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Indiana, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 762-3.\n\n  Indian Gulch, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  India-rubber, i., 639; ii., 298, 389, 393, 406, 599, 601, 719;\n    iii., 333-4, 340.\n\n  Indigo, i., 694, 698.\n\n  Indios Blancos, i., 748, see Guatusos.\n\n  Inethaati, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Inettuni, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Infanticide, i., 169, 242, 279, 390, 413, 590, 714, 781-2.\n\n  Ingaliks (T'Kitskes), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location,\n    i., 116, 133, 148; special mention, i., 63, 133; lang., iii.,\n    590-1.\n\n  Inheritance, laws of, i., 545, 664, 700, 769-70; ii., 224-9, 651,\n    653, 664.\n\n  Iniabi, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Inicebi, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Inichini, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Inixotzini, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Inizcatolohui, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Inkalichljuaten, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 148.\n\n  Inkalits, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; lang., iii., 590-1.\n\n  Inland Columbian families, fifth division of the Columbians,\n    comprising five of the nine families into which the Columbians\n    are divided, and consisting of the Shushwaps, Kootenais,\n    Okanagans, Salish, and Sahaptins, located between the\n    Cascade Range and the eastern limit of the Pacific States,\n    from latitude 52\u00b0 30' to 45\u00b0; manners and customs described\n    together, i., 250-91; physique, i., 254-6; dress, i., 256-9;\n    dwellings, i., 259-61; food, i., 261-7; personal habits, i.,\n    267; weapons and war, i., 268-70; implements and manufactures,\n    i., 270-1; boats, i., 271-2; property and trade, i., 272-4;\n    art, i., 274-5; government and slavery, i., 275-6; marriage,\n    women and children, i., 276-80; amusements, i., 280-2;\n    miscellaneous customs, i., 282-5; medicine, i., 285-7; burial,\n    i., 288-9; character, i., 289-91; location, divisions, and\n    tribal boundaries, i., 250-4, 310-21; myth., iii., 153-5;\n    lang., iii., 615-26.\n\n  Innoka River, i., 148.\n\n  Innuit, i., 40, see Eskimos.\n\n  Inodon, Tarasco calendar-sign, ii., 521-2.\n\n  Inoje, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Inpari, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Inrini, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Inscription Rock, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 648-50.\n\n  Insects, as food, etc., i., 153, 373-5, 405-6, 427, 430, 488,\n    560-1, 721; ii., 356; medicine, ii., 599, 601.\n\n  Insignia, i., 728, 753, 764; ii., 207, 403-4, 413-14, 419, 440,\n    614, 622, 646, 656, 741; iii., 433; v., 325.\n\n  Inspellums, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    312.\n\n  Intacaci, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Intamohui, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Intaniri, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Intasiabire, Tarasco intercalary days, ii., 522.\n\n  Intaxihui, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Intaxitohui, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Intecamoni, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Intechaqui, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Intechotahui, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Interment, see Burial.\n\n  Interunihi, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Intestines, see Entrails.\n\n  Inteyabchitzin, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Inthahui, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Inthihui, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Inti\u00e9tooks, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    312.\n\n  Intihui, Tarasco calendar-sign, ii., 521.\n\n  Intoxication, see Drunkenness.\n\n  Intoxihui, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Intzimbi, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Intzini, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Intzoniabi, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Inuk, derivation of Innuit, i., 40.\n\n  Inundations, Mexico, hist., v., 453-4, 468.\n\n  Inxichari, Tarasco day, ii., 522.\n\n  Iolar, Mosquito year, i., 727.\n\n  Ionata, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Iooalliehecatl, Chichimec god, iii., 406.\n\n  Ipalnemoaloni (Ipalnemoan, Ipalnemohualoni), name of\n    Tloque-Nahuaque, iii., 56, 183, 185-6.\n\n  Ipandes, iii., 594, see Lipanes.\n\n  Ipapana, Totonac dialect, iii., 777.\n\n  Ipec, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Ipinchuari, a Chichimec Wanacace chief, v., 518.\n\n  Iqi-Balam (Iquibalam), Quich\u00e9 fourth man, iii., 47; god and king,\n    v., 181, 552-6, 566, 584-5.\n\n  Iraghdadakh, Aleut creator, iii., 104.\n\n  Irimbo, Michoacan, antiq., iv., 571.\n\n  Irish, American origin traces, v., 121-2.\n\n  Iri Ticatame, a Chichimec Wanacace chief, v., 511-13.\n\n  Iron, i., 107, 164, 185, 341, 495; ii., 749; iv., 778, 794.\n\n  Iron-wood, bows of, i., 722.\n\n  Irrigation, i., 539; ii., 349, 718; antiq., iv., 619, 632, 635,\n    668-70, 676.\n\n  Irritilas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 572,\n    612; lang., iii., 714.\n\n  Isalco, village, San Salvador, i., 791.\n\n  Isanthcagna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    460.\n\n  Isapa, village, Guatemala, i., 789.\n\n  Ishcats, Aleutian baskets, i., 91.\n\n  Ishgua (Ishguaget), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 459.\n\n  Ishquats, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Isinglass, i., 271.\n\n  Isipopolames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Isla del C\u00e1rmen, i., 683.\n\n  Isle de Pierres (Linkinse), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 316.\n\n  Isleta, Pueblo village and tribe, i., 526-56; location, i., 527,\n    600; lang., iii., 681.\n\n  Isleta of the South, Pueblo village, i., 599.\n\n  Ismuracan, Central Californian lang., iii., 653.\n\n  Ispipewhumaugh, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    317.\n\n  Istaguacan, village, Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Istatole, Guatemalan drink, i., 706.\n\n  Isthmians, one of the three families into which the wild tribes\n    of Central America are divided; manners and customs of all its\n    nations and tribes described together, i., 747-85; physique,\n    i., 749-51; dress, i., 751-4; dwellings, i., 754-8; food, i.,\n    758-60; personal habits, i., 760; weapons and war, i., 760-5;\n    implements and manufactures, i., 765-7; boats and property,\n    i., 767-8; art, i., 769; government, i., 769-71; slavery, i.,\n    771-2; women and marriage, i., 772-4; amusements, i., 774-6;\n    miscellaneous customs, i., 776-7; medicine, i., 778-80; burial,\n    i., 780-4; character, i., 784-5; location of tribes, i., 794-7;\n    myth., iii., 498-501, 543-4; v., 14; lang., iii., 572-3, 793-5.\n\n  Istlavacan, locality, Guatemala, iii., 482.\n\n  It\u00e1es, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Italapas, Chinook god, iii., 95, 155.\n\n  Itaywiy, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Itch, i., 86; iii., 415.\n\n  Ithkyemamits, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    317.\n\n  Itlachia, an idol ornament, iii., 238.\n\n  Ittege River, i., 148.\n\n  Ituc, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Ituchas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Itukemuk, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Iturbide, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 252.\n\n  Itwha, Salish food, i., 265.\n\n  Itz, ii., 767, see Yiz.\n\n  Itza Lake, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 133.\n\n  Itzalane, city, Yucatan, iv., 151.\n\n  Itzamat Ul, Maya god, iii., 465.\n\n  Itzaob, Chichen rulers, v., 225; also name for Itzas, v., chap.\n    xiii.\n\n  Itzaquauh, a Chichimec chief, v., 293.\n\n  Itzas (Yzaes), Maya nation, i., 644-70; ii., 630-803; location\n    and name, i., 683; ii., 119-20, 127; special mention, i., 707,\n    709-10; ii., 633-6, 647, 657, 674, 680, 718, 723, 726, 733,\n    741, 743, 750, 768, 800; myth., iii., 482-3; hist., v., chap.\n    xiii.\n\n  Itzbachaa, Tarasco month, ii., 521.\n\n  Itzcalli (Izcalli), Nahua month, ii., 338, 509; iii., 109.\n\n  Itzcayotilmatli, Nahua court dress, ii., 374.\n\n  Itzcoatl, a Mexican commander, v., 362; king of Mexico, v.,\n    389-408.\n\n  Itzcohuatl, a Mexican lord, v., 501.\n\n  Itzcuintepec, city, Mexico, v., 463.\n\n  Itzcuintlan, locality, San Salvador, i., 790; v., 607.\n\n  Itzcuintli (Yzcuintli), Nahua day, ii., 512, 516-17.\n\n  Itziles, Mosquito tribe, i., 711-47; location, i., 713.\n\n  Itzlaquetlaloca, locality, Mexico, v., 472.\n\n  Itzmal Ul, name for Izamal, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Itzmitl (Ixmitl), Acolhua chief, v., 303-4.\n\n  Itzqueye, Pipile goddess, ii., 706-7; iii., 484.\n\n  Itztitlan, city, Mexico, v., 463.\n\n  Itzucan, locality, Vera Cruz, i., 671; v., 202.\n\n  Ivory, i., 48, 59, 63, 165, 403.\n\n  Ix (Gix, Hix), Maya day and calendar sign, ii., 755-6, 760-1;\n    Yucatec divinity, iii., 122.\n\n  Ixazalvoh (Ixazaluoh), Maya goddess, ii., 752; iii., 462-3.\n\n  Ixcanleox, Maya goddess, iii., 463.\n\n  Ixcateopan, city, Mexico, v., 412.\n\n  Ixcatlan, town, Oajaca, ii., 261.\n\n  Ixcax, a Toltec chief, v., 297.\n\n  Ixcazozolot, v., 317, see Yacanex.\n\n  Ixchel, Maya goddess, ii., 678, 697.\n\n  Ixcontzin, lord of Iztapalocan, v., 374.\n\n  Ixcotl, palm-fibre, ii., 369.\n\n  Ixcozauhqui, name of Xiuhtecutli, iii., 385.\n\n  Ixcuina, name of Tlazoltecotl, iii., 377.\n\n  Ixcuinames, Nahua religious sect, v., 282.\n\n  Ixil, Guatemalan lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Iximch\u00e9 (Patinamit, Tecpan Guatemala), city, Guatemala, i., 789;\n    ii., 121, 637, 790; antiq., iv., 121-3; hist., v., 556, 570,\n    593, 595, 598, 601-2.\n\n  Ixliuechahuexe, v., 250, see Ixtlilcuechahuac.\n\n  Ixmitl, v., 304, see Itzmitl.\n\n  Ixmixuch (Yhuixoch, Yhyozochtl), a Toltec princess, v., 299.\n\n  Ixmol, Maya priestess, ii., 701.\n\n  Ixnacan Katun, Maya priest's title, ii., 647.\n\n  Ixnextlacuilolli, Nahua court dress, ii., 374.\n\n  Ixteocale, Nahua title, ii., 324.\n\n  Ixtlahuaca, locality, Mexico, i., 674.\n\n  Ixtlahuacan, village, Zacatecas, i., 672.\n\n  Ixtle, Mexican fibre, i., 657-8.\n\n  Ixtlilcuechahuac (Aixtilcuechahuac, Ixliuechahuexe,\n    Ixtlilcuechanac, Tlachinotzin, Tlalchinoltzin, Tlaltecatl,\n    Tlaltecatl Huetzin, Tlilquechahuac, Tlilque Chaocatlahinoltzin,\n    Tzacatcatl, Tzacatecatl), Toltec king, v., 250.\n\n  Ixtlilton, iii., 409, see Yxtliton.\n\n  Ixtlilxochitl, Chichimec king, ii., 609; v., 351-3, 359-79;\n    Chichimec prince, v., 451, 474-7.\n\n  Iyacatecuhtli (Iyacacoliuhqui, Iyacatecutli, Jacacoliuhqui,\n    Jacateuctli, Yiacatecuhtli, Yacacoliuhqui, Yacatecutli,\n    Yiacatecutli), Nahua god, ii., 328, 389, 491; iii., 416.\n\n  Izalcos, town, San Salvador, iii., 760.\n\n  Izamal, city, Yucatan, ii., 647; antiq., iv., 246-7, 266, 271;\n    hist., v., 224, chap. xiii.\n\n  Izcal, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Izcohuatl, Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Izhuatl, species of palm-leaf, ii., 484.\n\n  Izmachi, city, Guatemala, v., 559-60, 564, 571-3, 576, 578.\n\n  Izmatletlopac, lord of Cuitlahuac, v., 349.\n\n  Izona, Maya god, iii., 462.\n\n  Izpapalotl, Nahua chief, v., 242.\n\n  Iztacacenteotl, name of Centeotl, ii., 340; iii., 350.\n\n  Iztacalco, city, Mexico, ii., 560; v., 345.\n\n  Iztacmaxtitlan, city, Mexico, ii., 417.\n\n  Iztacmixcoatl (Iztac Mixcoatl, Iztac Mixcohuatl, Iztacmixcuatl),\n    Nahua first man, iii., 60, 249; Nahua god, iii., 268, 403;\n    founder of Nahua nation, v., 223, 527.\n\n  Iztacquauhtzin, v., 267, see Huemac II.\n\n  Iztactlalocan, city, north-east Mexico, v., 472.\n\n  Iztamatzin (Iztamantzin), v., 495, see Iztantzin.\n\n  Iztantzin (Iztamantzin, Iztamatzin, Yztacima), high priest of\n    Cholula, v., 495.\n\n  Iztapalapan, city, Mexico, ii., 167, 567, 575.\n\n  Iztapalocan, city, Mexico, v., 372-3.\n\n  Iztaquauhtzin, lord of the Mazahuas, v., 349.\n\n  Iztauhiatl, medicinal herb, ii., 325.\n\n  Iztayub, Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566.\n\n  Iztayul I., Quich\u00e9 king, v., 560, 566, 571, 574-6, 581, chap.\n    xiii.\n\n  Iztayul II., Quich\u00e9 king, v., 583-4.\n\n  Iztayul III., Quich\u00e9 king, v., 594.\n\n  Izticpatli, Nahua medicine, ii., 599.\n\n  Iztlahuacan, town, Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Iztli, see Obsidian.\n\n  Izucan, city, Mexico, ii., 416.\n\n\n  J\n\n  Jacacoliuhqui, iii., 416, see Iyacatecuhtli.\n\n  Jacala, Mexico, antiq., iv., 549.\n\n  Jacateuctli, iii., 416, see Iyacatecuhtli.\n\n  Jackap, Nez Perc\u00e9s, food, i., 265.\n\n  Jackson, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Jacote, species of fruit, ii., 724.\n\n  Jaguar, Nahua coat of arms, ii., 160; medicine, ii., 600.\n\n  Jails, ii., 453-4, 657.\n\n  Ja\u00edmamares, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Jakons, i., 307, see Yakones.\n\n  Jalal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 253.\n\n  Jalalog, locality, Oajaca, i., 681.\n\n  Jalancingo, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 451-2.\n\n  Jalap, i., 631; ii., 599.\n\n  Jalapa, town, Vera Cruz, i., 643; antiq., iv., 436; hist., v.,\n    530.\n\n  Jalcheduns, iii., 684, see Yalchedunes.\n\n  Jalisco (Yalisco), tribes described, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629;\n    special mention, i., 618, 622, 625, 631, 643; ii., 411, 625,\n    629; myth., iii., 447-8; lang., iii., 667, 717-19; antiq., iv.,\n    572-7; hist., v., 222, 323, 349, 509.\n\n  Jalliquamai (Jallicuamais), Cajuenche dialect, iii., 685-6.\n\n  Jalostotitlan, village, Zacatecas, i., 672.\n\n  Jamajabs, iii., 684, see Yamajabs.\n\n  Jamalteca, Honduras, antiq., iv., 71.\n\n  Jamiltep\u00e9c, village, Oajaca, i., 678, 681.\n\n  Janambre, Tamaulipas, lang., iii., 744.\n\n  Janaya, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Janogualpa, Moqui village, i., 528.\n\n  Jaotlalli, ii., 425, see Yauhtlalli.\n\n  Japan current, i., 38.\n\n  Japanese, lang., similarities, iii., 647; American origin-traces,\n    v., 51-4.\n\n  Japiams, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    449.\n\n  Jappayon, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Jarames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Jaras, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 713; lang.,\n    iii., 783.\n\n  Jaredites, America peopled by, v., 97.\n\n  Jargon, Chinook lang., iii., 631-4.\n\n  Jarquin, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Jars, i., 434, 500, 697-8, 724; see also Vases.\n\n  Jasper, ii., 161, 173, 557, 750.\n\n  Jasper House, locality, Rocky Mountains, i., 310.\n\n  Jaundice, remedy, i., 743.\n\n  Javelins, see Darts.\n\n  Jeachtacs, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 301.\n\n  Jealousy, i., 65, 168-9, 218, 351, 388; ii., 381, 628, 803.\n\n  Jefferson County, Colorado, antiq., iv., 717-18.\n\n  Jemez (Jemes), Pueblo tribe and village, i., 526-56; location,\n    i., 599, 600; special mention, i., 527, 537, 550-1; lang.,\n    iii., 681-3.\n\n  Jervis Inlet, i., 298.\n\n  Jesters, Nahuas, ii., 177, 286, 289.\n\n  Jetans, i., 473, see Comanches.\n\n  Jewelry, i., 768; ii., 363, 475-7, 619, 750.\n\n  Jews, American origin-traces, i., 18; v., 77-102, chap. xiii.\n\n  Jews-harp, Mosquito music, i., 738.\n\n  Jiboa, San Salvador, antiq., iv., 69.\n\n  Jicarillas (Jicorillas), i., 490, see Xicarillas.\n\n  Jiloltepec (Xilotepec, Xilotepeque), village, Guatemala, i., 673,\n    787.\n\n  Jiquilite, Mosquito dye, i., 724.\n\n  Jiquilpan, Michoacan, antiq., iv., 571.\n\n  Jiutemal, v., 577, see Xiuhtemal.\n\n  Jlaacs (Slacus), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location,\n    i., 458.\n\n  J'lorida Mountain, i., 595.\n\n  Joaltecutli, Nahua god, iii., 112.\n\n  Jobas, i., 606, see Jovas.\n\n  Jocoatole, Guatemalan drink, i., 706.\n\n  Johamares, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  John Day Rivers, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 320.\n\n  John Day River, i., 254, 319-20.\n\n  Johnson Strait, i., 176, 194, 296-7.\n\n  Jongoapi, i., 601, see Xongopavi.\n\n  Jopes, i., 677, see Tlapanecs.\n\n  Joquizar\u00e1, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Jorse, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 451.\n\n  Josquigard, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Jovas (Jobas, Ovas), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 572, 606; special mention, i., 578, 582; lang., iii., 699.\n\n  Jualpi, i., 601, see Gualpi.\n\n  Juan de Fuca Strait, i., 222, 296, 302; iii., 613.\n\n  Jubuganti River, i., 796.\n\n  Juchium, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Judges, Nahuas, ii., 384-5, 434-9, 442-6; Mayas, ii., 642, 655.\n\n  Jugelnuten, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 148.\n\n  Jug-jak, Koniaga god, i., 85.\n\n  Juigalpa, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 33-4, 58, 61.\n\n  Juiup, Quich\u00e9 god, iii., 482.\n\n  Jukchana (Junnaka, Junna) River, i., 147.\n\n  Julime, North Mexican lang., iii., 714.\n\n  Julime\u00f1os, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Jumes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Junaka, i., 147, see Jukchana.\n\n  Junakachotana (Junnachotana), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 147-8.\n\n  Junatca, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Juniamuc, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Junin, Peru, antiq., iv., 804.\n\n  Junna, i., 147, see Jukchana.\n\n  Junnachotana, i., 148, see Junakachotana.\n\n  Juntas, see Cerro de las Juntas.\n\n  Jupes (Tupes), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 473.\n\n  Juquila, locality, Oajaca, i., 680.\n\n  Juris, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n\n  K\n\n  Kaadgettees, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i., 143.\n\n  Kaaskquatees, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i., 143.\n\n  Kabah, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 204-10, 271-6.\n\n  Kab-ul, Maya symbol, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 248.\n\n  Kace, i., 340, see Kice.\n\n  Kachiquels, i., 788, see Cakchiquels.\n\n  Kachisupal, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Kachuma, i., 459, see Aketsum.\n\n  Kachumas, i., 458, see Chumas.\n\n  Kadakamans, Lower Californian tribe, i., 556-71; location, i.,\n    603.\n\n  Kadiak (Kadjak, Kadyak, Kodiak) Island, i., 69-71; iii., 104.\n\n  Kadiaks, see Koniagas.\n\n  Kaeyah Khatana, name for Ingaliks, i., 133.\n\n  Kagataya Koung'ns (Kagataia-kung'n), name for Aleuts, i., 87.\n\n  Kahnyak, i., 306, see Cooniacs.\n\n  Kahruks, i., 327, see Cahrocs.\n\n  Kahsowahs, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    457.\n\n  Kahtai, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 302.\n\n  Kahunkles, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 307.\n\n  Kahweyahs, (Kahweahs), i., 456-7; iii., 651; see Cahuillos.\n\n  Kaigan Harbor, i., 293.\n\n  Kaiganies (Kaiganees, Kaig\u00e1ni, Kaigany, Kegarnie, Kigarnies,\n    Kigarnee, Kyg\u00e0nies, Kygargeys, Kygarneys, Kyg\u00e0ni, Kygarnies),\n    tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 155, 292-3; special\n    mention, i., 157, 164-5, 173-4; lang., iii., 604-5.\n\n  Kailtas, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 445;\n    special mention, i., 335, 348-9;  myth., iii., 133-4, 524;\n    lang., iii., 643.\n\n  Kainamares (Kainamas, Kainameahs), i., 386, 449, see Kanimares.\n\n  Kaipetl, village, North California, i., 444.\n\n  Kaiyak, i., 61, see Kyak.\n\n  Kaiyuhkatana, name for Ingaliks, i., 148.\n\n  Kaiyuh Mountains, i., 148.\n\n  Kajak, i., 61, see Kyak.\n\n  Kajatschims, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 449.\n\n  Kakas (Kakes, Kakus), tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location,\n    i., 96, 143; lang., iii., 579.\n\n  Kak Upacat, Uxmal ruler and god, v., chap. xiii.\n\n  Kalapooiah (Kalapooyah, Kalapuya), i., 223, 249, 309, see\n    Calapooyas.\n\n  Kalechinskojes, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Kalicknateck, Trinity River Indian god, iii., 176.\n\n  Kaliouches, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    303.\n\n  Kalispelm Lake, i., 313.\n\n  Kalispelms (Kalispels), i., 276, 313, see Pend d'Oreilles.\n\n  Kaljush (Kaluga, Kalusch, Koliugi, Koljush, Kolosch, Kolosh,\n    Koloshians), Kolush, name for Thlinkeets, i., 95.\n\n  Kamash (Kamas, Kamass), i., 265, see Camass.\n\n  Kamloops, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 311;\n    special mention, i., 290.\n\n  Kamloops Lake, iii., 613.\n\n  Kamucu, Quich\u00e9 song, iii., 52.\n\n  Kamulas, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Kan, Maya day and calendar sign, ii., 755-6, 760-1.\n\n  Kanagist, i., 69, see Koniagas.\n\n  Kanal Acantun, Maya god, ii., 703.\n\n  Kancune Island, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 260.\n\n  Kangjulit, Koniaga dialect, iii., 576.\n\n  Kangmali Innuits (Kangmali Innuins), tribe of Eskimos, i., 40-69;\n    location, i., 42, 138.\n\n  Kaniag, Innuit name, i., 69.\n\n  Kanil, Guatemalan god, iii., 482.\n\n  Kanimares (Kainamares, Kainameahs, Kannimares, Kyanamaras),\n    Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 362, 449;\n    special mention, i., 386, 398.\n\n  Kanisky, i., 149, see Kenai.\n\n  Kankin, Maya month, ii., 757-8.\n\n  Kansas, i., 592.\n\n  Kant\u00e9, a Maya litter, ii., 702.\n\n  Kantunile, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 237.\n\n  Kanugh, iii., 149, see Khanukh.\n\n  Kanu Uayeyab, Maya idol, ii., 702.\n\n  Kaons, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 307.\n\n  Kaouais, i., 307, see Kowais.\n\n  Kaoulis, i., 310, see Cowlitz.\n\n  Kaquaith, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 302.\n\n  Karquines (Carquin), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 363, 452-3; lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Karquines Straits, i., 363, 452.\n\n  Karweewee (Artsmilsh), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location,\n    i., 305.\n\n  Kaseks, Koniaga sorcerers, i., 85.\n\n  Kashim, i., 66, see Casine.\n\n  Kassaaus, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Kassima River, i., 450.\n\n  Kataghayekiki, name for natives of Unimak and Alaska, i., 87.\n\n  Katahuac, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Kathlaportles (Katlaportles), i., 306, see Cathlapootles.\n\n  Katlagakya, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Katl\u00e1mat, i., 304, see Cathlamets.\n\n  Katlaminimims, i., 306, see Cathlanamenamens.\n\n  Katlawewalla, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Katlawotsetts (Kiliwatshats), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 308.\n\n  Katlendarucas (Katlendarukas), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 455; lang., ii., 653.\n\n  Katun, Maya cycle, ii., 761-2; iv., 274.\n\n  Kauwehs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 444.\n\n  Kaviak Peninsula, i., 37, 141.\n\n  Kaviaks (Kaveaks), tribe of Koniagas, i., 69-87; location, i.,\n    70, 141; special mention, i., 73, 81.\n\n  Kawcho Dinneh (Hare Ind.), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location,\n    i., 144; special mention, i., 121, 136; lang., iii., 585.\n\n  Kawitchen (Kawitchin, Kawitshin), i., 296, 299, see Cowichin.\n\n  Kawwelth, i., 292, see Kowwelth.\n\n  Kayab, Maya month, ii., 757-8.\n\n  Kayouse (Kayuse), i., 319, see Cayuse.\n\n  Kechi, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458;\n    lang., iii., 660, 674-9.\n\n  Keeches (Keechis), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i.,\n    293.\n\n  Keechumakarlo (Keechumakailo), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74;\n    location, i., 294.\n\n  Keekheatla (Keetheatla), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location,\n    i., 294.\n\n  Keelalles, Chinook doctors, iii., 156.\n\n  Keenathtoix, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Keesarn, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Keethratlah, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Keewuck, Haidah paradise, iii., 520.\n\n  Keewuckkow, Haidah chief paradise, iii., 520.\n\n  Keeyeks, Thlinkeet spirits of warriors, iii., 148, 516.\n\n  Kegarnie, i., 293, see Kaiganie.\n\n  Kellespems, i., 314, see Pend d'Oreilles.\n\n  Kelp, see Sea-weed.\n\n  Kelsey River, i., 399.\n\n  Kelussuyas, i., 304, see Calapooyas.\n\n  Kelutsah (Ketutsah), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i.,\n    293.\n\n  Kenai (Kanisky, Kenai-tena, Kenaize, Kenaizi, Kenayzi, Kinai,\n    Thnaina, Tnaina Ttynai), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location,\n    i., 114, 116, 147, 149; special mention, i., 132-4; myth.,\n    iii., 517; lang., iii., 584, 588-91.\n\n  Kenai Peninsula, i., 116, 139, 147, 149.\n\n  Kenaizi (Kenayzi), i., 139, 149, see Kenai.\n\n  Kenchen Kieg, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Kentucky, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 767, 776.\n\n  Keralit, i., 41, see Eskimos.\n\n  Keres (Queres), tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; special mention,\n    i., 529, 551-2; lang., iii., 600, 673, 681-3.\n\n  Kerne Island, v., 66.\n\n  Kern River, i., 455-6.\n\n  Kern Valley, lang., iii., 651.\n\n  Kesmali, California, antiq., iv., 692.\n\n  Kespriano Island, i., 143.\n\n  Ketandou, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Ketlakaniaks, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Ketlane, i., 293, see Kitlan.\n\n  Ketoonokshelk, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Kettle Falls, i., 252, 314, see Chaudi\u00e8res.\n\n  Ketutsah, i., 293, see Kelutsah.\n\n  Ketwilkcipa, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Kewaughtchenunaughs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 312.\n\n  Kewaughtohenemachs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 316.\n\n  Kewick, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 218.\n\n  Keyataigmutes, (Kijataigmjuten, Kijataigm\u00fcten, Kijataigmutes,\n    Kijaten), tribe of Koniagas, i., 69-87; location, i., 70, 140.\n\n  Khalalons, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Khanukh (Kanugh), Thlinkeet god, iii., 101, 145-6, 149.\n\n  Khoulpouni, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Kialarnes, locality, North-east coast, America, v., 109.\n\n  Kicab, v., 595, see Quicab.\n\n  Kicab Tanub, v., 566, see Quicab Tanub.\n\n  Kice (Kace), North Californian food, i., 340.\n\n  Kichtak (Kightak, Kikchtak), name for Kadiak, i., 69.\n\n  Kicksatees, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i., 143.\n\n  Kickuallis, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Kickuallis River, i., 300.\n\n  Kidnapping, laws against, ii., 459-60, 650-1, 659.\n\n  Kigarnees (Kigarnies), i., 293, see Kaiganies.\n\n  Kighigusi, name for Akutans, i., 87.\n\n  Kightak, i., 69, see Kichtak.\n\n  Kij, Quich\u00e9 god, iii., 482.\n\n  Kijataigmjuten (Kijataigm\u00fcten, Kijataigmutes, Kijaten), i., 140,\n    see Keyataigmutes.\n\n  Kik, resin, ii., 701.\n\n  Kikchtak, i., 69, see Kichtak.\n\n  Kikiallis, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Kikiallis River, i., 300.\n\n  Kilcatah, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Kiliwatsals, i., 307, see Killawats.\n\n  Kiliwatshats, i., 308, see Katlawotsetts.\n\n  Killamooks (Callemax, Callemeux, Callimix, Kilamooks, Kilamukes,\n    Killamucks, Killamuks, Killimous, Killimux, Killymucks,\n    Nsietshawus, Tillamooks), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 223, 304, 307; special mention, i., 237-8, 250;\n    lang., iii., 618, 626.\n\n  Killawats (Kiliwatsals), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location,\n    i., 307.\n\n  Killaxthocles, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    303.\n\n  Killimous (Killimux), i., 223, 304; iii., 618, 626, see\n    Killamooks.\n\n  Killsmaht (Kilsamat), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 295.\n\n  Killuspehn River, i., 311, see Pend d'Oreille River.\n\n  Killymucks, i., 250, see Killamooks.\n\n  Kilsamat, i., 295, see Killsmaht.\n\n  Kimmooenims, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    317.\n\n  Kin, Maya day, ii., 755.\n\n  Kinakanes, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 312.\n\n  Kinaroalax, i., 294, see Kinawalax.\n\n  Kinawalax (Kinaroalax), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location,\n    i., 293-4.\n\n  Kincaid Flat, California, antiq., iv., 699-700.\n\n  Kinehahau, name of Hunab Ku, iii., 462; Maya royal title, v.,\n    630.\n\n  Kingiktorsoak Island, Greenland, antiq., v., 114.\n\n  Kings, Nahuas, ii., 133-85, 265-6, 322, 373-7, 441, 471-2,\n    603-14, 619-22; v., 244-536; Mayas, ii., 631-42, 727-8, 788-90,\n    800-1; v., 172-188, 540-602.\n\n  King's River, i., 363, 455-6; lang., iii., 651.\n\n  Kingsborough's Pyramid, at Uxmal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 192.\n\n  Kinich-Ahau-Ytzamn\u00e1, name for Cinchau Yzamna, ii., 696.\n\n  Kinich Kakmo, Maya idol, iii., 464; antiq., iv., 248; hero and\n    god, v., 621.\n\n  Kinikkinik (Kinnik-kinnik), substitute for tobacco, i., 354,\n    437-8.\n\n  Kinkipar, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Kinklas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450; lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Ki Pomos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    362, 448.\n\n  Kipunaiak (Kipunajakh) River, i., 140.\n\n  Kishawin, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Kisheys (Kis Kies, Kiskys), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Kishishai, Apache corn-planter, i., 501.\n\n  Kishtsamah (Chacha), Okanagan evil spirit, iii., 153, 519.\n\n  Kishunak (Kishunakh, Kyschunack) River, i., 140.\n\n  Kispachalaidy, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Kisshick Lake, i., 147.\n\n  Kitahon, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Kitatels, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Kitchaclaith, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Kitegues, i., 138, see Kittegarutes.\n\n  Kithateen, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Kitlan (Ketlane), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i.,\n    293.\n\n  Kitlope, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Kitsagas, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Kitsalas, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Kitsiguchs, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Kitspayuchs, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Kitswingahs, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Kitswinscolds, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 174,\n    294; special mention, i., 174.\n\n  Kittamaat (Kittamuat), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location,\n    i., 294.\n\n  Kittears, tribe of Eskimos, i., 40-69; location, i., 138.\n\n  Kittegarutes (Kitegues), tribe of Eskimos, i., 40-69; location,\n    i., 49, 138.\n\n  Kitunaha, i., 311, see Kootenais.\n\n  Kitwillcoits, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Kiwomi, Queres dialect, iii., 682.\n\n  Kizh, South California, lang., iii., 660, 674-8.\n\n  Klackamas, i., 310, see Clackamas.\n\n  Klahars, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Klahohquahts, i., 295, see Clayoquots.\n\n  Klahosahts (Klaizzahts, Klaizzarts), tribe of Nootkas, i.,\n    174-208; location, i., 295; special mention, i., 178, 207;\n    lang., iii., 609.\n\n  Klahous, i., 298, see Clahoose.\n\n  Klaizzahts (Klaizzarts), i., 178; iii., 609; see Klahosahts.\n\n  Klakalamas, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Klakhelnks, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Klamacs, i., 444, see Klamaths.\n\n  Klamath Lake, i., 327-9.\n\n  Klamath Mts., i., 327.\n\n  Klamath River, i., 327, 444-7.\n\n  Klamaths (Clamet, Klameth, Lutuamis, Tlamaths, Tlamatl), North\n    Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location and name, i., 327, 444;\n    special mention, i., 330, 333-4, 337-40, 342, 344-51, 357, 361;\n    lang., iii., 639-42.\n\n  Klaooquates (Kla-os-quates), i., 207, 295-6, see Clayoquots.\n\n  Klatskanai, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 305.\n\n  Klatskanai River, i., 305.\n\n  Klayquoits, i., 296, see Clayoquots.\n\n  Kliavakans, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 293.\n\n  Kliketats (Clickahuts, Clickitats, Klicatats, Klickatacks,\n    Klickatats, Klikatats, Klikitats, Whulwhypums), Inland\n    Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location and name, i., 253-4, 305,\n    321; special mention, i., 227, 255-60, 265, 271, 273-4, 277,\n    280, 287, 289-90; lang., iii., 620-4.\n\n  Klinkits, iii., 149, see Thlinkeets.\n\n  Kluckhaitkwee, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    312.\n\n  Klues (Cloos), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Klusquis, a reed, i., 261.\n\n  Knight's Ferry, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Knitting, Pueblos, i., 544.\n\n  Knives, Hyperboreans, i., 59, 80, 90, 104-5; Columbians, i., 235,\n    268; Californians, i., 345, 378, 408, 434; New Mexicans, i.,\n    563; Mexicans, i., 655; ii., 313, 479-80; iii., 58, 179; iv.,\n    556-8; Central Americans, i., 765; ii., 743, 750; iii., 488.\n\n  Kodiak, i., 139, see Kadiak.\n\n  Koetenais, i., 251, see Kootenais.\n\n  Kogholaghi, name for Unalaskans, i., 87.\n\n  Kokwaiytoch, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Koliugi (Koljush, Kolosch, Kolosches, Koloshians, Kolush), i.,\n    94-5, 142, see Kaljush.\n\n  Koltshanes (Koltschanes, Koltschanen), tribe of Tinneh, i.,\n    114-37; location, i., 116, 148; special mention, i., 61, 134;\n    lang., iii., 591.\n\n  Komux, i., 175, see Comux.\n\n  Kon\u00e4gen, Kadiak dress, i., 73.\n\n  Konah, Inland tribes, food, i., 265.\n\n  Konekonep, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 312.\n\n  Koniagan Archipelago, i., 37-8, 70.\n\n  Koniagas, one of the five families into which the Hyperboreans\n    are divided; manners and customs of all its nations and tribes\n    described together, i., 69-87; physique, i., 71-2; dress, i.,\n    72-4; dwellings, i., 74-5; food, i., 75-9; boats, weapons,\n    i., 79; implements and manufactures, i., 79-80; government and\n    slavery, i., 80-1; women and marriage, i., 81-3; amusements,\n    i., 84-5; medicine, i., 85-6; mourning and burial, i., 86;\n    character, i., 86-7; location, i., 37, 69-71, 139-41; myth.,\n    iii., 104, 122, 143; lang., iii., 575-8.\n\n  Koniagas (Kon\u00e6gi, Koniagi, Konjagen), tribe of Koniagas, i.,\n    69-87; location, i., 70, 139; special mention, i., 72, 75-6,\n    81, 383.\n\n  Konnichtchates, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    303.\n\n  Koo-cha-koo-chin, iii., 586, see Kutcha Kutchin.\n\n  Kookatee, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i., 143.\n\n  Kooskooskia (Kooskooskee, Kooskooskie) River, i., 317.\n\n  Kootanais (Kootanie) River, i., 264, 311.\n\n  Kootenais (Cottonois, Coutanies, Flatbows, Kitunahas, Kootanies,\n    Kootonais, Kootonays, Kootoonais, Koutanies, Kutan\u00e0e, K\u00fatani,\n    Kutnehas), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    151, 251-2, 311; special mention, i., 254-5, 261, 264-5, 267-8,\n    272-3, 278, 290-1; lang., iii., 619-20.\n\n  Kootonie Fort, Washington, i., 311.\n\n  Kootsuck, Nootka dress, i., 182.\n\n  Korekins, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Koschhiginskojes, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Kosetahs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 447.\n\n  Koskiemos (Koskeemos, Kuskema), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 295-6.\n\n  Kosmitas (Kosmiti), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 453.\n\n  Kot-\u00e0-Kutchins, i., 147, see Kutcha Kutchins.\n\n  Kotzebue Sound, i., 37-70, 138-9, 141; iii., 576.\n\n  Koumchaouas, i., 292, see Cumshewas.\n\n  Koutanies, i., 311, see Kootenais.\n\n  Kowais (Kaouais), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i.,\n    307.\n\n  Kowanga, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Kowitchan, i., 175, see Cowichin.\n\n  Kowooses (Cooses), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location,\n    i., 442.\n\n  Kowwelth (Kawwelth), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i.,\n    292.\n\n  Koyukuk River, i., 133.\n\n  Kuantlun, i., 297, see Kwantlum.\n\n  Kublai Khan, Mongol emperor, v., 44.\n\n  Kuepak, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 212.\n\n  Kugans, Aleut spirits, iii., 144.\n\n  Kuimuchquitoch, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Kujaki, Koniaga shields, i., 79.\n\n  Kukhnyak, i., 306, see Cooniacs.\n\n  Kukuth-Kutchin, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 147.\n\n  Kulahuasa, i., 459, see Calahuassa.\n\n  Kulanapo, Central Californian lang., iii., 643-7.\n\n  Kullas-Palus, i., 314, see Pend d'Oreilles.\n\n  Kullespelm, i., 313, see Pend d'Oreilles.\n\n  Kumcutes, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 296.\n\n  Kuprianoff (Kuprinoff) Island, i., 143.\n\n  Kuro Siwo, name for the Japan current, v., 52.\n\n  Kuschkukchwakm\u00fcten (Kusckockwagemuten, Kuskokwigmjuten,\n    Kuskokwimen, Kuskutchecook), i., 70, see Kuskoquigmutes.\n\n  Kushkish, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    449.\n\n  Kusil, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Kusi-Utahs, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; special mention, i.,\n    440; lang., iii., 662.\n\n  Kuskema, i., 296, see Koskiemo.\n\n  Kuskokwigmjuten (Kuskokwigmutes), i., 77, 140, see\n    Kuskoquigmutes.\n\n  Kuskoquigmutes (Kuskokwigmjuten, Kuskokwimen, Kusckockwagemuten,\n    Kuschkukchwakm\u00fcten, Kuskoquim, Kuskutchewak, Kuskwogmuts),\n    tribe of Koniagas, i., 69-87; location, i., 70, 140; special\n    mention, i., 71-3, 75, 77, 80; lang., iii., 576, 580, 589.\n\n  Kuskoquim Bay, i., 140.\n\n  Kuskoquim River, (Kuskokwim, Kuskokwina), i., 70, 116, 140, 148.\n\n  Kutan\u00e0e (K\u00fatani), i., 311, see Kootenais.\n\n  Kutcha Kutchins (Kutsha Kutshi, Koo-cha-koo-chin, Kot-\u00e0-Kutchin),\n    tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 115, 147; lang.,\n    iii., 586.\n\n  Kutchins (Kutshins), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i.,\n    114-15, 146; special mention, i., 63, 127-32, 137; lang., iii.,\n    584, 586-8.\n\n  Kutnehas, i., 311, see Kootenais.\n\n  Kutzghatushl, Thlinkeet mythical bird, iii., 99.\n\n  Kuwichpackm\u00fcten, i., 140, see Kwichpagmutes.\n\n  Kuwichpack, i., 140, see Kwichpak.\n\n  Kuyam (Cuyama), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location,\n    i., 459.\n\n  Kwalhioqua, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 305;\n    lang., iii., 592.\n\n  Kwantlums (Kuantlun), tribe of Nootkas., i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 175, 297.\n\n  Kwenaiwitl (Kwaiantl, Quinayat), tribe of Sound Indians, i.,\n    208-22; location, i., 303.\n\n  Kwichluagmutes (Kwichljuagmjuten), tribe of Koniagas, i., 70-87;\n    location, i., 70, 140-1.\n\n  Kwichluak (Kwichljuakh, Kwichluwack) River, i., 140-1.\n\n  Kwichpagmutes (Kwichpagmjuten, Kwichpak-meuts, Kuwichpackm\u00fcten,\n    Kwygyschpainagmjuts), tribe of Koniagas, i., 70-87; location,\n    i., 70, 140; lang., iii., 576.\n\n  Kwichpak (Kuwichpack, Kwickpakh, Kwikhpak), River, i., 70, 140-1.\n\n  Kyak (Kaiyak, Kajak), Alaskan boat, i., 60.\n\n  Kyanamaras, i., 449, see Kanimares.\n\n  Kycucuts, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 296.\n\n  Kyganies (Kyg\u00e1ni, Kygany, Kygargeys, Kygarneys, Kygarnies), i.,\n    174, 292-3, see Kaiganies.\n\n  Kyohquaht, i., 295, see Kyuquot.\n\n  Kyoose (Kyoots), i., 254, 273, see Cayuse.\n\n  Kyro Island, i., 143.\n\n  Kyschunack, i., 140, see Kishunak.\n\n  Kyuquots (Cayuquets, Kyohquaht, Kyuquets), tribe of Nootkas, i.,\n    174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n\n  L\n\n  Labassas, i., 294, see Lebassas.\n\n  Labn\u00e1, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 211, 215-17; hist., v., 632.\n\n  Labphak (Labpak), Yucatan, antiq., iv., 249-52.\n\n  Labranza, Honduras, antiq., iv., 70.\n\n  La Bre\u00f1a, Durango, antiq., iv., 600-1.\n\n  Labyrinth, Arizona, antiq., iv., 639.\n\n  Lacandon Mountains, v., 623.\n\n  Lacandones, Maya nation, i., 686-711; ii., 630-803; location, i.,\n    645, 687, 786-7; special mention, i., 693, 695-703, 705, 707-8,\n    710; ii., 739, 751, 785, 803; myth., iii., 484; lang., iii.,\n    761.\n\n  Lacayamu, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Lachea, name of Zapotec country, i., 679.\n\n  Lachixila, locality, Oajaca, i., 679.\n\n  Lackweips, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Lacomnis, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450.\n\n  Ladders, i., 160-1, 183, 260, 334, 535, 757; ii., 581.\n\n  Laekquelibla (Lockqualilla), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 295-6.\n\n  La Goleta, locality, South California, i., 459.\n\n  La Goleta Estero, locality, South California, i., 459.\n\n  Lagoons, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 445.\n\n  Laguaachas, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 443.\n\n  Laguna, Pueblo village and tribe, i., 526-56; location, i., 600;\n    myth., iii., 174; lang., iii., 681; antiq., iv., 665.\n\n  Laguna de Copala, lang., iii., 664-5.\n\n  Laguna de Terminos, v., 196.\n\n  Laguna Mora, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 353.\n\n  Lagunas (Tataguas), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 458.\n\n  Laguneros, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612;\n    special mention, i., 577, 585, 590; lang., iii., 714.\n\n  Lahamas, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 314.\n\n  Lahuh-Ah, Cakchiquel ruler, v., 594.\n\n  Lahuh Noh, Cakchiquel ruler, v., 600.\n\n  Lahuhquieh, Mame lord, v., 595.\n\n  Laim\u00f3nes, i., 603, see Laymones.\n\n  Lajamini, Honduras, antiq., iv., 71.\n\n  La Joya, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Lajuchu, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Lake Bigler, i., 469, see Tahoe Lake.\n\n  Lake Superior, iv., 778, 783.\n\n  Lakes (Senijextee), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 314.\n\n  Lakisumnes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450.\n\n  Lamagi, Guatemala tribe, hist., v., 561.\n\n  Lamak, Guatemala tribe, hist., v., 546.\n\n  Lamalles, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Lamam (Laman\u00e8s), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 453.\n\n  Lamanites, American origin traces, v., 98-101.\n\n  Lamas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 362,\n    449, 451.\n\n  Lamat, Maya day, ii., 755-6, 760.\n\n  Lamaytun, ii., 762, see Amaytun.\n\n  Lambat, Tzendal day, ii., 767; Chiapanec hero, v., 605.\n\n  Lamps, see Candles.\n\n  Lamsim, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Lances, see Spears.\n\n  Lancets, ii., 479, 601.\n\n  Lands, tenure, i., 191, 583, 700; ii., 223-30, 445-6, 462-3,\n    652-4.\n\n  Langley, locality, Vancouver Island, i., 297-8.\n\n  Language, general observations, i., 5, 12, 15; ii., 27; iii.,\n    2-13, 551-62; Hyperboreans, iii., 562-3, 574-92; Columbians,\n    i., 564-5; iii., 592-634; Californians, iii., 565-8, 635-79;\n    New Mexicans, i., 528; iii., 568-70, 680-722; Mexicans, ii.,\n    91, 106, 111, 114; iii., 74, 570-1, 723-58; v., 352; Central\n    Americans, ii., 645, 733; iii., 571-3, 759-95; as a historical\n    aid, v., 151.\n\n  Lantscheff Island, i., 60.\n\n  Laollaga, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 373.\n\n  Lapappu, Central California, lang., iii., 650.\n\n  La Patera, islet, South California, i., 458-9.\n\n  La Paz, town, Lower California, i., 603-4.\n\n  Lapiene's House Indians, i., 146, see Ta-Kuth-Kutchin.\n\n  Lapototots, i., 450, see Sapototots.\n\n  La Puente, locality, South California, i., 460.\n\n  La Purissima, locality, South California, i., 458.\n\n  Lard, i., 653, 768.\n\n  Lartielo, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 314.\n\n  Las Flores, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  La Soledad Mission, lang., iii., 654.\n\n  Lassen's Butte, locality, North California, i., 447.\n\n  Lassics, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 446;\n    lang., iii., 593.\n\n  Lasso, i., 493, 724.\n\n  Las Vegas River, i., 464.\n\n  Lath oc Katun, ii., 762, see Chek oc Katun.\n\n  La Tortuga, Puebla, antiq., iv., 465-6.\n\n  Latour-Allard Collection, Mexican Republic, antiq., iv., 560.\n\n  Law, see Government.\n\n  Law-Courts, ii., 442-5, 656.\n\n  Lawyers, ii., 444, 655.\n\n  Laymones (Laim\u00f3nes, Limonies), Lower Californian tribe, i.,\n    556-71; location, i., 603; lang., iii., 687.\n\n  Lead, i., 165, 180; ii., 473; iv., 794.\n\n  Leather, i., 88, 183, 227-8, 258, 331, 482, 504; ii., 407.\n\n  Leaves, i., 331, 368, 521, 577; ii., 574, 784.\n\n  Lecatuits, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    452.\n\n  Lechugilla, medicine, i., 589.\n\n  Lee Panis, i., 593, see Lipanes.\n\n  Leeshtelosh, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Leewa, Mosquito water-spirit, iii., 497.\n\n  Leggins, i., 258, 424-5, 482-4, 531.\n\n  Leg-guards, Nahuas, ii., 407.\n\n  Legs, Hyperboreans, i., 88; Columbians, i., 158, 176-7, 210,\n    224-5, 254; New Mexicans, i., 531.\n\n  Lempa River, v., chap. xii.\n\n  Lencas, Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 790; lang.,\n    iii., 783.\n\n  Lenderi, locality, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Leoba, iv., 389, see Liobaa.\n\n  Leon, city, Nicaragua, i., 792; antiq., iv., 32, 60-1; hist., v.,\n    613.\n\n  Leon River, i., 797.\n\n  Leprosy, i., 354, 709, 742; ii., 340.\n\n  Lewire, Mosquito water-spirit, i., 741.\n\n  Lewis River, i., 148, 317, 462; iii., 620.\n\n  Liam, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Liard River, i., 144-5.\n\n  Libantone, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Libertad, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 33-4, 59-60.\n\n  Liberty, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 758-9.\n\n  Libisa, species of venomous fish, ii., 408.\n\n  Lichen, see Moss.\n\n  Lickawis, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 307.\n\n  Lighthouses, Mexico, ii., 566-7; v., 507.\n\n  Lightning, i., 588; iii., 118, 324; v., 524.\n\n  Ligin Ka, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Liguaces, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Lillooet, locality, British Columbia; lang., iii., 613.\n\n  Lime, i., 577, 626, 653; ii., 556, 558, 581, 722, 784.\n\n  Limonies, i., 603, see Laymones.\n\n  Lines, fishing, i., 104; ii., 721.\n\n  Lingham, Phallic-worship, iii., 501.\n\n  Liniooh, name for Santa Cruz Island, i., 402.\n\n  Linkinse, i., 316, see Isle de Pierres.\n\n  Lintels, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 158-273 passim; Chiapas, antiq.,\n    iv., 302, 351-2, 360; Oajaca, antiq., iv., 398, 404; Colorado,\n    antiq., iv., 722; Peru, antiq., iv., 803.\n\n  Liobaa (Leoba, Liub\u00e1, Luiva, Lyoba, Lyobaa, Yobaa, Yopaa), name\n    for Mitla, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 389.\n\n  Lion, food and dress, i., 491, 648, 701-2.\n\n  Lion-snake, Miztec god, iii., 71.\n\n  Lipanes (Ipandes, Lee Panis, Lipajenne, Lipans), tribe of\n    Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 474, 593-4; special\n    mention, i., 479, 495; lang., iii., 563, 594.\n\n  Lip-ornaments, Hyperboreans, i., 47-8, 72, 88, 98-100; iii., 581;\n    Columbians, i., 158-9, 182; New Mexicans, i., 559; Mexicans,\n    i., 623; ii., 307, 372-3, 376; iii., 238, 387; Central\n    Americans, i., 691, 717, 752, 754; ii., 731-2.\n\n  Lips, Mexicans, i., 619, 647; Central Americans, i., 688, 714-15.\n\n  Liria, locality, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Lisahuato, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    458.\n\n  Lishus, i., 450, see Sishus.\n\n  Lisichi, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Lithodendron Creek, Arizona, antiq., iv., 644.\n\n  Litter, ii., 180, 606-7, 620, 635, 641, 702.\n\n  Little Colorado Mountains, i., 467.\n\n  Little Grass Valley, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Little Miami River, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 764.\n\n  Little Salt Lake Valley, i., 468.\n\n  Liub\u00e1, iv., 389, see Liobaa.\n\n  Livangebra, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Livangelva, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Lixus River, v., 66.\n\n  Liy\u00faes, Lower Californian tribe, i., 556-71; lang., iii., 687-93.\n\n  Lizards, i., 405, 428, 488, 539, 561; ii., 599, 602; iii., 129.\n\n  Llaneros, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 474, 595.\n\n  Llano de la Culebra, i., 788, see Hermita.\n\n  Llano Estacado, i., 591.\n\n  Llatu, Inca head-dress, v., 46.\n\n  Loc\u00e8nes, Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; lang., iii., 761.\n\n  Loch, Quich\u00e9 chief, v., 564.\n\n  Locklomnees, i., 450, see Socklumnes.\n\n  Lockqualillas, i., 296, see Lackquelibla.\n\n  Locobo, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Locollomillos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 451.\n\n  Locusts, famine caused by, v., 601.\n\n  Lodges, see Dwellings.\n\n  Logwood, Maya commerce, i., 658.\n\n  Lojos Aogni, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Lolmet Ahau, Quich\u00e9 official, ii., 644.\n\n  Lolmet Quehnay, Quich\u00e9 official, ii., 644.\n\n  Loloncooks, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    447.\n\n  Lompoc (Lompoe), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location,\n    i., 458-9.\n\n  Longtonguebuffs, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i.,\n    309.\n\n  Long Valley, i., 469.\n\n  Loomis, i., 209, see Lummis.\n\n  Loomnears, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Looms, i., 165, 191, 215-16, 502-3, 544, 582, 630, 724, 766-7.\n\n  Lopas, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 445.\n\n  Lopillamillos (Lupilomis), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 451.\n\n  Lopstatimnes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 450.\n\n  Loquamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 301.\n\n  Loquilts, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 311.\n\n  Lorenzo, village, South California, i., 458.\n\n  Loreto, village, Lower California, i., 557, 603-4; lang., iii.,\n    687.\n\n  Los Alamos, village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  Los Angeles, village and county, South California, tribes\n    described, i., 402-22; special mention, i., 403-4, 407, 409,\n    411, 420, 460; myth., iii., 84; v., 19; antiq., iv., 695; town,\n    Puebla, i., 671.\n\n  Los Cruces, village, South California, i., 459.\n\n  Los Dolores, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Los Edificios, name of Quemada ruins, Zacatecas, antiq., iv.,\n    580.\n\n  Los Llagos Canada, locality, South California, i., 458.\n\n  Lost River, i., 327, 443.\n\n  Lototen, i., 327, see Rogue River Indians.\n\n  Loucheux, i., 146, see Degothi Kutchin.\n\n  Loucitta, locality, Central California, i., 455.\n\n  Loughborough's Channel, i., 194.\n\n  Louisiana, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 764.\n\n  Lovedale, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 767.\n\n  Lower California, i., 556-71, 591-2, 603-4; antiq., iv., 601-2.\n\n  Lower Californians, one of the four families into which the New\n    Mexicans are divided. Manners and customs of all its nations\n    and tribes described together, i., 556-71; physique, i., 558;\n    dress, i., 558-9; dwellings, i., 559-60; food, i., 560-2;\n    weapons and war, i., 562-3; implements and manufactures, i.,\n    563; boats and property, i., 563-4; art, i., 564; government,\n    i., 564-5;  marriage and women, i., 565-6; amusements, i.,\n    566-8; medicine, i., 568-9; burial, i., 569-70; character, i.,\n    570-1; location, i., 556-7, 603-4; myth., iii., 83-4; lang.,\n    iii., 568, 686-93.\n\n  Lower Klamath Lake, i., 327, 443.\n\n  Lower Stanu Creek, i., 793.\n\n  Lower Yukon, i., 116.\n\n  Low Gap, locality, Central California, i., 446, 451.\n\n  Lowhims, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 317.\n\n  Lucayasta, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Luchasmi, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Luckasos (Luckkarsos), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location,\n    i., 307.\n\n  Lucktons, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 307.\n\n  Lucuyumu, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Lugups, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Luianeglua, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Luidneg, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Luijta, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Luiva, iv., 389, see Liobaa.\n\n  Lujanisuissilac, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location,\n    i., 459.\n\n  Lulanna (Sulanna), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i.,\n    292.\n\n  Lummi River, i., 299.\n\n  Lummis (Loomis), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location,\n    i., 208, 299; special mention, i., 210, 219, 222; lang., iii.,\n    615.\n\n  Lupercalia, Nahua festival, ii., 338.\n\n  Lupilomis, i., 451, see Lopillamillos.\n\n  Lurin Valley, Peru, antiq., iv., 796-7.\n\n  Lutuamis, i., 444, see Klamaths.\n\n  Luupsch, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Lynn Canal, i., 96, 100-1, 142.\n\n  Lyoba (Lyobaa), ii., 209; iv., 389.\n\n\n  M\n\n  Mac, Maya month, ii., 691, 757-8.\n\n  Macana (Macuahuitl), Nahua sword, i., 493, 655; ii., 409, 743.\n\n  Macanootoonys, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    442.\n\n  Macaoaquez (Macoaques), Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44;\n    location, i., 676; special mention, i., 622.\n\n  Macat (Mazat), Nicaragua god, iii., 492.\n\n  Macataxtli, Nahua priest's dress, iii., 335.\n\n  Macaws, i., 176, see Classets.\n\n  Macehuales, Nahua term for plebeians, ii., 217.\n\n  McElmo River, Colorado, antiq., iv., 727-31.\n\n  McGillivray's River, i., 311.\n\n  McGilvary's, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Machete, Central American chopping knife, i., 655-6, 697.\n\n  Mackanotins, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    442.\n\n  Mackenzie River, i., 37, 42, 45-6, 138, 144, 146.\n\n  Macmillan River, lang., iii., 587.\n\n  Macoba, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 252-3.\n\n  Macon, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 768.\n\n  Macoyahuis, i., 607, see Cues.\n\n  Macsinum, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Macuahuitl, ii., 743, see Macana.\n\n  Macuexhuacan, city, Mexico, v., 242.\n\n  Macuextli, Nahua precious stones, ii., 319.\n\n  Macuilacatltecuhtli, Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 489.\n\n  Macuilmalinatzin, Mexican prince, v., 455, 505.\n\n  Macuilxochiquetzalli, name of Chalchihuitlicue, iii., 367, 407.\n\n  Macuilxochitl, Nahua god, ii., 300; iii., 406-7.\n\n  Macuilxuchil, city, Oajaca, v., 531.\n\n  Madison, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 764.\n\n  Madison Bay, i., 301.\n\n  Madoc (Madawc), a Welsh prince, v., 116-18.\n\n  Mad River, i., 329, 332, 446, 451; lang., iii., 593, 642.\n\n  Magdalena, locality, Sonora and Jalisco, i., 606, 672; Oajaca,\n    antiq., iv., 372.\n\n  Magdalena Bay, i., 603-4.\n\n  Magemutes (Magagmjuten, Magimuten, Magmjuten), tribe of Koniagas,\n    i., 69-87; location, i., 70, 140.\n\n  Maggots, as food, i., 55, 695.\n\n  Magicians, see Sorcerers.\n\n  Magmjuten, i., 140, see Magemutes.\n\n  Magot, species of tree, i., 579.\n\n  Maguacate, medicinal herb, i., 588.\n\n  Maguey (Agave), i., 488-9, 517, 559-699 passim; ii., 347, 357-65\n    passim, 484, 600, 724, 727, 752.\n\n  Maguiaquis, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609.\n\n  Mahakh, Aleut goddess, iii., 104.\n\n  Mahoe, species of tree, i., 722, 724, 760, 766.\n\n  Mahogany, boats, i., 658, 699, 725.\n\n  Mahquinalo, a Cakchiquel chief, v., 560.\n\n  Mahuames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Mahucutah (Maucotah), Quich\u00e9 third created man, iii., 47; a\n    divine person, or high-priest, v., 181, 546, 549, 552-6, 566-7,\n    584-5.\n\n  Maiconeras, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Maiz, city, San Luis Potos\u00ed, i., 673; lang., iii., 742.\n\n  Maize, i., 430, 489, 693-5, 706, 719, 739, 758-60, 775; ii., 145,\n    343, 347-50, 354-5, 619, 679, 702-3, 710, 716-20, 723, 737;\n    iii., 241, 325, 349, 358-63, 404; v., 193-4.\n\n  Majibel, Lower Californian fourth season, i., 564.\n\n  Majiben, Lower Californian fifth season, i., 564.\n\n  Majiibenmaaji, Lower Californian sixth season, i., 564.\n\n  Makahs, i., 302, see Classets.\n\n  Makalay, Trinity River Indians' evil spirit, iii., 176.\n\n  Makomas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    449.\n\n  Makuschinskoja, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Malaguecos (Malahuecos), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91;\n    location, i., 613.\n\n  Malah, a Zutugil prince, v., 572.\n\n  Malahuecos, i., 612, see Malaguecos.\n\n  Malahues, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Malay, lang., traces, iii., 646.\n\n  Malcam, Quich\u00e9 widower, ii., 802.\n\n  Malcuitlapilco, suburb of Mexico, ii., 560.\n\n  Malemutes (Maleigmjuten, Malim\u00fcten), tribe of Koniagas, i.,\n    70-87; location, i., 70, 138, 141; special mention, i., 71, 73,\n    77-8, 81; lang., iii., 580.\n\n  Malico, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Malik Ocok Kin, Maya dawn, ii., 755.\n\n  Malila, locality, Mexico, i., 675.\n\n  Malim\u00fcten, i., 141, see Malemutes.\n\n  Malinalcas, Nahua nation, i., 677-78; ii., 133-629; name, ii.,\n    127-8; hist., v., 307-10.\n\n  Malinalco, town and province, Mexico, i., 677; antiq., iv., 504;\n    hist., v., 310, 323, 328.\n\n  Malinalli, Nahua day, ii., 512, 516-17; lord of Tlachquiauhco,\n    v., 461.\n\n  Malinalxochitl, Chichimec princess, v., 303; Aztec princess, v.,\n    327-8.\n\n  Malinche, see Cerro de la Malinche.\n\n  Malinche\u00f1os, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Mallets, i., 189, 237, 270-1.\n\n  Mallin, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Maltese Cross, iv., 481, 498; see also Cross.\n\n  Malvaitac, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Mamalhoaztli, a constellation, iii., 112.\n\n  Mamalihuasco, Acolhua lordship, v., 303.\n\n  Mama-lil-a-culla (Mamalilacula, Marmalillacalla), tribe of\n    Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 176, 295-6.\n\n  Mamamchic, name for Coya Mama Oella, v., 46.\n\n  Mama Oello, Peruvian goddess, iii., 269.\n\n  Mamatlavicoa, Nahua game, ii., 334.\n\n  Mamazorras, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Mames, Maya nation, i., 687-711; ii., 630-803; location and name,\n    i., 787; ii., 128; lang., iii., 760-1, 766-7; hist., v., 541-2,\n    555, 563, 566, 569, 576-7, 585, 591, 593, 595.\n\n  Mamh\u00e9ni, Otom\u00ed City, v., 243.\n\n  Mamites, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Mamnits, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Mamum, Inland Columbian tribe, food, i., 265.\n\n  Mam Yoc, name of Mames, i., 787.\n\n  Managua, city, Nicaragua, v., 613.\n\n  Managua Lake, i., 791-2; antiq., iv., 32; v., 613.\n\n  Manatee, a sea-cow, i., 719-20.\n\n  Manazaquepet, Guatemalan tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 789.\n\n  Manches, Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 682, 687;\n    special mention, i., 710; myth., iii., 482.\n\n  Manchika, Queen of Sheromogula, v., 46.\n\n  Manco, v., 46, see Mango.\n\n  Manco Capac, Peruvian god, iii., 269; v., 46.\n\n  Mandans, name given to early Welch colonists, v., 118.\n\n  Mandingos, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 797;\n    special mention, i., 752, 784.\n\n  Mandioc, Mosquitos, food, i., 721.\n\n  Mangn\u00e9s, i., 792, name for Nagarandas.\n\n  Mango (Manco), first Inca of Peru, v., 46.\n\n  Mani, city, Yucatan, ii., 699-700; antiq., iv., 220; v., 634.\n\n  Maniani, Honduras, antiq., iv., 71.\n\n  Manik, Maya day, ii., 755-6, 760.\n\n  Manilahuh, Zutugil king, v., 586-7.\n\n  Mankeesh, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 253.\n\n  Mannawousut, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Manosaht, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Manos Prietas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    611.\n\n  Manovapa (Manowapa), Tarasco god, iii., 446; v., 517.\n\n  Mantles, i., 630, 690, 751; ii., 364, 366-7, 374-5, 406, 604-5,\n    615, 618, 621, 727-8; iii., 416, 423.\n\n  Manufactures, Hyperboreans, i., 79-80, 107, 130; Columbians,\n    i., 164-7, 190-1, 215-16; Californians, i., 345, 381-2, 407-8;\n    New Mexicans, i., 544, 563; Mexicans, i., 630, 657; ii., 384,\n    474-91; Central Americans, i., 698-9, 724, 766-7; ii., 752.\n\n  Manzanilla, used as poison, i., 723, 762.\n\n  Manzanillos (San Blas Indians), tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85;\n    location, i., 796; special mention, i., 753, 784.\n\n  Manzanita, North California, food, i., 340.\n\n  Mapilca, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 455.\n\n  Mapimi, see Bolson de Mapimi.\n\n  Maps, i., 68, 165, 239, 274-5; ii., 224, 236, 380, 388, 424, 443,\n    487-8; iv., 283, 748-9.\n\n  Mapulcanas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Maquelnoteers, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    443.\n\n  Maquiapemes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Maran, ii., 677, see Chin.\n\n  Marani, Inland Columbian tribe, food, i., 265.\n\n  Maraveres, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 672.\n\n  Marcasite, used for painting, ii., 327; iii., 360-1.\n\n  Mar de Cort\u00e9s, see California Gulf.\n\n  Margajita, a species of mineral, ii., 478, 480.\n\n  Marhoos, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 305.\n\n  Maribios (Maribichoa), Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711; location,\n    i., 791.\n\n  Maricopa Copper Mine, i., 528, 601.\n\n  Maricopas (Cocomaricopas), tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56;\n    location, i., 526, 602; special mention, i., 530, 533-4, 544,\n    547-53, 555-6; myth., iii., 131, 527; lang., iii., 684-6.\n\n  Maricopa Wells, i., 602.\n\n  Marietta, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 767.\n\n  Mariguana, a narcotic herb, i., 633.\n\n  Mariguanes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Marimba, a musical instrument, i., 664, 705, 738.\n\n  Marin County, Cal., i., 363, 452.\n\n  Maripenda, a medicinal plant, ii., 599.\n\n  Mariposa County, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Markets, i., 700; ii., 378, 383-6, 440, 564-8, 646, 736-7; v.,\n    421.\n\n  Markland, locality, north-east coast of America, v., 107.\n\n  Marmalillacalla, i., 295, see Mama-lil-a-culla.\n\n  Marriage, Hyperboreans, i., 66, 81-3, 92, 110-11, 117, 123,\n    127, 130-4; Columbians, i., 168-70, 192, 195-8, 218, 241-2;\n    Californians, i., 349-51, 388-91, 410-12, 436-7; New Mexicans,\n    i., 511-15, 547-9, 565-6, 584-6; Mexicans, i., 632, 661-3; ii.,\n    251-66, 442, 628; Central Americans, i., 702-4, 729-34, 772-4;\n    ii., 642, 651, 664-75, 711; iii., 473.\n\n  Martilpar, i., 295, see Murtilpar.\n\n  Martinez, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Martinez, California, antiq., iv., 709.\n\n  Martinez Point, i., 301.\n\n  Martin Lake, i., 144.\n\n  Mary River, i., 462, see Humboldt River.\n\n  Masacatan, village, Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Masagneve, Moqui village, i., 528.\n\n  Masalla Magoons, (Masallamagoons), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 449; lang., iii., 643.\n\n  Masanais, i., 601, see Moszasnavi.\n\n  Masatzin, Chichimec king, v., 220.\n\n  Masaya, city, Nicaragua, i., 792; antiq., iv., 31, 35-6.\n\n  Maschal, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Masiaca, village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  Masks, Hyperboreans, i., 93, 97, 101; iii., 145, 148; Columbians,\n    i., 159, 170, 181, 186, 193; Californians, i., 393; New\n    Mexicans, i., 532, 550-1; Mexicans, i., 630; ii., 291, 314,\n    341, 480, 482, 490, 603, 606, 620; iii., 289, 295, 341, 385,\n    390-2, 394-5; antiq., iv., 479, 495, 556-9; Central Americans,\n    ii., 713, 733, 750; antiq., iv., 67, 236.\n\n  Masonahs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 443.\n\n  Mason's Plantation, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 768.\n\n  Massets (Massettas, Massettes, Massetts, Massits, Mosettes),\n    tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 155, 292.\n\n  Mastamho, Mojave god, iii., 175.\n\n  Mastate, Maya dress, ii., 726.\n\n  Matacaxtli, Nahua armlets, ii., 395-6.\n\n  Matahuay, South Californian village, i., 458.\n\n  Matal\u00e1nes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453-4; lang., iii., 652.\n\n  Mataluhtli, Nahua drink, ii., 359.\n\n  Matape, village, Sonora, i., 606-7.\n\n  Matchclats (Michlaits, Muchlaht), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 295.\n\n  Matchemnes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Matelpys, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 296.\n\n  Matemecatl, Nahua brachials, ii., 404.\n\n  Matevil (Mathowelia), Mojave god, iii., 175, 526.\n\n  Mathlanobs, i., 309, see Multnomahs.\n\n  Mathowelia, iii., 175, see Matevil.\n\n  Matiares, village, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Matiliha (Matillija), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 459.\n\n  Matlaccoatl, Toltec king, v., 266.\n\n  Matlacxochitl, name for Huemac and Tezcatlipoca, v., 261, 286.\n\n  Matlahuacallan, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Matlalcueje, name for Chalchihuitlicue, iii., 367; Tlascala\n    heights, v., 504-5.\n\n  Matlalquac, Nahua female sacrifice, iii., 345.\n\n  Matlaltzincas (Matlaltzinchi), Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii.,\n    133-629; special mention, i., 622; ii., 411; location and name,\n    i., 677; ii., 128; myth., iii., 446; lang., iii., 747-8; hist.,\n    v., 307-10, 432-5, 510, 523-4.\n\n  Matlaltzinco, province of Mexico, i., 676; v., 432-5, 472.\n\n  Matlaluca, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 445.\n\n  Matlalxihuitl, a flower used for dyes, ii., 486.\n\n  Matlalzahuatl, a species of pestilence, i., 638.\n\n  Matlatlihuitzin, Mexican king, v., 492-3.\n\n  Matlazahua, i., 674, see Mazahuas.\n\n  Matlose, Nootka spirit, iii., 151.\n\n  Matoles, iii., 643, see Mattoles.\n\n  Matomey Ki Pomos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location and name, i., 362, 448.\n\n  Mats, Hyperboreans, i., 91, 107; Columbians, i., 160-3, 166,\n    173, 184, 187, 190, 211-12, 220, 231, 236-7, 259-61, 270-1;\n    Californians, i., 336, 345; New Mexicans, i., 575, 582;\n    Mexicans, i., 624, 656; ii., 161, 361, 386, 440, 572, 621;\n    iii., 335; iv., 402; Central Americans, i., 697-9, 724, 745,\n    766; ii., 669, 739, 787.\n\n  Mattole Creek, i., 447.\n\n  Mattoles (Matoles), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 447; myth., iii., 86; v., 14, 19; lang., iii.,\n    643.\n\n  Matzahuas, i., 674, see Mazahuas.\n\n  Matzopetztli, Nahua bracelets, ii., 404.\n\n  Maucotah, see Mahucutah.\n\n  Maugna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Mauhemi, i., 350, see Mow-wee-mas.\n\n  Mawish, Nez Perc\u00e9s' spirit of fatigue, i., 284.\n\n  Max, a species of leaf in Yucatan, ii., 737.\n\n  Maxatecaz, Nahua maskers, iii., 429.\n\n  Maxcan\u00fa, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 262.\n\n  Maxio, Toltec queen, v., 271.\n\n  Maxixcatzin, Ocotelulco lord, v., 503.\n\n  Maxtla, a Tepanec prince, and king of Coyuhuacan, v., 373,\n    384-94, 499; lord of Tlachco, v., 439.\n\n  Maxtlatzin, a Toltec noble, v., 276, 283-4.\n\n  Maxtli, Nahua dress, ii., 144, 365-6, 618, 726-8.\n\n  Mayacomas (Mayacmas), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 363, 451-2.\n\n  Mayapan, ancient name and capital of Yucatan, i., 645; ii.,\n    632-7, 654; antiq., iv., 240-3, 268, 274-5, 277; hist., v.,\n    159, 224-7, 615, 618-19, 622-3, 626, 629-34.\n\n  Maya nations, manners and customs described, i., 645-747; ii.,\n    630-803; government, property, etc., ii., 632-60; education,\n    ii., 661-4; marriage, women, etc., ii., 664-86; food, ii.,\n    718-25; dress, ii., 726-34; war, weapons, etc., ii., 740-7;\n    implements and manufactures, ii., 748-52; art, ii., 753-82;\n    dwellings, etc., ii., 783-94; medicine and superstitions, ii.,\n    794-8; burial, ii., 798-801; physique, ii., 802; character,\n    ii., 803; location, i., 645-6, 683, 786-92; ii., 128-9; myth.,\n    iii., 461-96, 541-3; v., 87; lang., iii., 558, 571, 724,\n    759-76; v., 616; hist., v., 157-8, 540-634.\n\n  Mayas, tribe of South Mexicans and one of the Maya nations,\n    i., 644-70; ii., 630-803; location and name, i., 645-6, 683;\n    special mention, i., 647-64, 667, 669; ii., 91, 117-21, 631-7,\n    647-705, 711-803; myth., iii., 461-73, 541-2; v., 87; lang.,\n    iii., 558, 571, 724, 759-62, 773-6; v., 616; origin, v., 22;\n    hist., v., 157-8, 614-34.\n\n  Mayavel, Nahua female sacrifice, iii., 345.\n\n  Mayo River, i., 607-8.\n\n  Mayos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location and name, i.,\n    572, 607; special mention, i., 582, 590; lang., iii., 667,\n    707-10.\n\n  Mayotla, ii., 563, see Moyotlan.\n\n  Maza, Nahua war-club, ii., 409.\n\n  Mazacohuatl (Otziuhcohuatl), Nahua chief, v., 243.\n\n  Mazahuacan, district in Northwest Mexico, i., 674.\n\n  Mazahuas (Matlazahua, Matzahua, Mazahui, Mozahui), Central\n    Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 674; v., 510; lang.,\n    iii., 737, 741.\n\n  Mazames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Mazamorra, maize porridge, iii., 360.\n\n  Mazapiles, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 672;\n    lang., iii., 719.\n\n  Mazat, iii., 492, see Macat.\n\n  Mazatecs (Mazotecas), Maya nation, i., 644-70; ii., 630-803;\n    location, i., 680; special mention, i., 646; ii., 261; myth.,\n    iii., 131-2; lang., iii., 752-3.\n\n  Mazatepec, station, Toltec migration, v., 213.\n\n  Mazatl, Nahua day, ii., 511-12, 516-17; Tepanec commander, v.,\n    393.\n\n  Mazatlan, province, Guerrero, hist., v., 411-12.\n\n  Mazatsal Peaks, i., 595.\n\n  Mazatzin, Culhua king, v., 256, 330-1.\n\n  Mazotecas, iii., 131, see Mazatecs.\n\n  Measles, i., 286, 521, 568, 638, 667, 742.\n\n  Meat, see Flesh.\n\n  Meatwho, i., 312, see Battlelemuleemauch.\n\n  Mecamecan, Mexico, antiq., iv., 496-7.\n\n  Mecapalli, a strap to support burdens, ii., 386.\n\n  Mecitl (Mexi), name for Huitzilopochtli, v., 88, 324, 346.\n\n  Mecochiliztli, lunar period, ii., 504.\n\n  Meconetzin, v., 270, see Acxitl.\n\n  Mecos, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 672;\n    lang., iii., 743.\n\n  Medals, ii., 732; iv., 118-19, 346.\n\n  Medellin, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 434.\n\n  Medicine, Hyperboreans, i., 68-9, 85-6, 113, 120, 124;\n    Columbians, i., 172, 204-5, 219-20, 228, 245-6, 285-7;\n    Californians, i., 354-6, 358, 394-5, 418-19, 439; iii., 160;\n    New Mexicans, i., 521-2, 542, 554, 568-9, 588-9; Mexicans, i.,\n    638-40, 667; ii., 268-9, 460, 591-602; iii., 353, 409, 415,\n    421; Central Americans, i., 708-9, 741-3, 778-80; ii., 794-8,\n    see names of diseases.\n\n  Medicine-men, see Sorcerers.\n\n  Mediotaquel, Acaxee dialect, iii., 718.\n\n  Meewocs (Meewa, Meewie), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 455; special mention, i., 375, 393, 395; myth.,\n    iii., 522.\n\n  M\u00e9htehs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 444.\n\n  Meidoos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451; lang., iii., 648, 652.\n\n  Mejibo, Lower Californian first season, i., 564.\n\n  Melzolzin, v., 243, see Metzoltzin.\n\n  Men, Maya day, ii., 755-6, 760.\n\n  Menaches, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 464.\n\n  Mendocino County, i., 447, 451.\n\n  Menguis (Menquis), i., 558; iii., 687, see Monquis.\n\n  Menstruation, i., 82, 110-11, 242, 278-9, 351, 549.\n\n  Merced County, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Merced River, i., 455-6; iii., 651.\n\n  Merchants, Nahuas, ii., 386-97, 616; v., 415, 443, 600; Mayas,\n    ii., 736-8.\n\n  M\u00e9rida, city, Yucatan, iii., 467; antiq., iv., 243-4.\n\n  Merivales Mountains, i., 795.\n\n  Mesa Verde, Colorado, antiq., iv., 719.\n\n  Mescal, Mexican drink, i., 517, 664.\n\n  Mescaleros (Mezcaleros), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location\n    and name, i., 474, 594; special mention, i., 505, 509, 523.\n\n  Mescales, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Mescalteco, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 451.\n\n  Meshonganawe, Moqui village, i., 601.\n\n  Mesquit-bean, Apache food, i., 487-8.\n\n  Messier Mound, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 767-8.\n\n  Mesticatan, village, Zacatecas, i., 672.\n\n  Metals, i., 546, 727-8, 769; ii., 473-8, 749-50; iii., 255; iv.,\n    66-7, 102-3, 278, 778-9, 792-4.\n\n  Metaphors, common use of, iii., 35-7.\n\n  Metate (Metlatl), a corn-grinder, i., 489, 501, 540, 544, 629-30,\n    653, 656, 697, 721, 765; ii., 354, 361, 750.\n\n  Metazures, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Meteors, meteoric phenomena, Mexico, v., 446-7.\n\n  Metepec, a city of Matlaltzinco, v., 433.\n\n  Metlaltoyuca, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 458-61.\n\n  Metlapilli, a stone roller used with the metate, i., 630.\n\n  Metlatl, ii., 354, see Metate.\n\n  Metztli, a pre-Toltec hero, v., 205.\n\n  Metztli Itzacual (House of the Moon), Mexico, antiq., iv., 531-5.\n\n  Metzoltzin (Melzolzin, Metzotzin), a Toltec prince, v., 213, 243.\n\n  Meviras, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Mewahs, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Mexcala, town, Michoacan, i., 676.\n\n  Mexcala River, ii., 107, 109; v., 508.\n\n  Mexcaltepec, city, Michoacan, i., 678.\n\n  Mexi, v., 324, see Mecitl.\n\n  Mexicaltzinco, town, Mexico, ii., 562; v., 345.\n\n  Mexican Manuscript, ii., 772.\n\n  Mexicans, Central, one of the two families into which the tribes\n    of Mexico are divided; manners and customs of all its nations\n    and tribes described together, i., 617-44; civilized nations,\n    ii., 133-629; physique, i., 618-19; ii., 624-5; dress, i.,\n    620-3; ii., 363-77; dwellings, i., 624; ii., 160-74, 553-89;\n    food, i., 624-6; ii., 342-62; personal habits, i., 626;\n    weapons and war, i., 627-9; ii., 400-32; implements, arts and\n    manufactures, i., 629-31; ii., 473-92; oratory and poetry,\n    ii., 492-7; boats and property, i., 631; ii., 397-9; commerce,\n    ii., 378-97; government, i., 632; ii., 133-239, 433-72; women\n    and marriage, i., 632-5; ii., 251-81; education, ii., 240-51;\n    amusements, i., 635-6; ii., 283-301; festivals and feasts,\n    ii., 302-41; arithmetic, ii., 497-500; calendar, ii., 502-22;\n    hieroglyphics, ii., 523-52; medicine, i., 638-40; ii., 591-602;\n    burial, i., 640-1; ii., 603-23; character, i., 641-4; ii.,\n    626-9; myth., ii., 200-15, 245-6, 292, 302-41, 388-97, 604-5,\n    616-23; iii., 55-74, 109-13, 119-23, 128-9, 181-231, 237-460,\n    511-15, 532-41; lang., iii., 570, 723-48; antiq., iv., 504-23,\n    553-64; hist., ii., 91-114; iii., 270, 307-8; v., 307-510,\n    595-7, 600-1, 606; location, i., 617, 670-8; name, v., 324-5.\n\n  Mexicans, Northern, one of the four families into which the New\n    Mexicans are divided; manners and customs of all its nations\n    and tribes described together, i., 571-91; physique, i.,\n    572-3; dress, i., 573-5; dwellings, i., 575; food, i., 576-8;\n    weapons and war, i., 578-82; implements and manufactures, i.,\n    582-3; boats and property, i., 583; art and government, i.,\n    583-4; women and marriage, i., 584-6; amusements, i., 586-7;\n    miscellaneous customs, i., 587-8; medicine, i., 588-9; burial,\n    i., 589-90; character, i., 590-1; myth., iii., 111, 178-81,\n    529-32; lang., iii., 569-70, 706-22; antiq., iv., 568-614;\n    location, i., 571, 604-14.\n\n  Mexicans, Southern, one of the two families into which the wild\n    tribes of Mexico are divided; manners and customs of all its\n    nations and tribes described together, i., 644-70; physique,\n    i., 646-8; dress, i., 648-51; dwellings, i., 651-2; food, i.,\n    652-4; personal habits, i., 654; weapons and war, i., 655-6;\n    implements and manufactures, i., 656-7; boats, property, etc.,\n    i., 658-9; government, i., 659-60; slavery, i., 661; women\n    and marriage, i., 661-3; amusements, i., 664-5; miscellaneous\n    customs, i., 665-6; medicine and burial, i., 667-8; character,\n    i., 668-70; myth., iii., 448-73; lang., iii., 570-1, 748-58;\n    location, i., 644-6, 678-83.\n\n  Mexicapan, a ward of Tezcuco city, v., 404.\n\n  Mexica-tlalli, Mexican war-lands, ii., 225.\n\n  Mexicatl-Teohuatzin, Mexican pontiff, ii., 201; iii., 433.\n\n  Mexico, nations and tribes described, i., 617-44; civilized\n    nations, ii., 133-629; location, i., 670-8; myth., iii., 55-70,\n    181-444, 505-6; lang., iii., 723-41; antiq., iv., 480-549;\n    hist., ii., 92-106; v., 237-510.\n\n  Mexico City, ii., 160-6, 414-15, 559-67; iii., 307; v., 343-6,\n    355-8; antiq., iv., 504-20.\n\n  Mexitl (Mexitly, Mextli), name of Huitzilopochtli, iii., 296.\n\n  Mexochitl, an emetic, ii., 599.\n\n  Mexoyotzin, a Toltec noble, v., 272-3.\n\n  Mexquital, town, Mexico, i., 674.\n\n  Mextozolitzli, lunar period, ii., 504.\n\n  M\u00e9yemmas, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 445.\n\n  Meyuncame, Durango god, iii., 179.\n\n  Mezcaleros, i., 474, see Mescaleros.\n\n  Mezquites, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Meztitlan, province, Mexico, iii., 431; antiq., iv., 544; hist.,\n    v., 260, 335, 475.\n\n  Meztitlanecs, Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location,\n    i., 675.\n\n  Miahuaxochitl, Mexican princess and queen, v., 363.\n\n  Miamisburg, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 777-8.\n\n  Mica, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 782.\n\n  Micaotli, Mexico, antiq., iv., 537.\n\n  Micapetlacoli, Nahua goddess, iii., 396.\n\n  Miccacuicatl, Nahua funeral chant, ii., 607.\n\n  Miccailhuitzintli, Nahua month, ii., 328, 510.\n\n  Mice, as food, i., 405, 430, 561, 576.\n\n  Michatoyatl, river, Guatemala, v., 607.\n\n  Michitlatecotle, iii., 396, see Mictlantecutli.\n\n  Michlaits, i., 295, see Matchclats.\n\n  Michoacan (Michuacan), tribes, etc., described, i., 617-44; ii.,\n    133-629; location, i., 674-8; myth., iii., 66-7, 403, 445-7,\n    541; lang., iii., 737, 744-7; antiq., iv., 569-72; hist., ii.,\n    107-8; v., 434, 508-26.\n\n  Michoacaques, i., 643, see Tarascos.\n\n  Micksucksealtons (Micksucksealtoms), Inland Columbian tribe, i.,\n    250-91; location, i., 312-14.\n\n  Micla (Mimilla), Guatemala, antiq., iv., 115.\n\n  Mictecacihuatl, iii., 401, see Mictlancihuatl.\n\n  Mictlan, Nahua Hades, ii., 648; iii., 396, 534-6; locality, San\n    Salvador, i., 484; v., 609-11.\n\n  Mictlancalco, subterranean palace, iii., 254; iv., 544.\n\n  Mictlancihuatl (Mictanihuatl, Mictecacihuatl, Miquitecacigua),\n    Nahua goddess, iii., 396-402; v., 41.\n\n  Mictlantecutli (Michitlatecotle, Mictlanteuctli, Miquitlamtecotl,\n    Miquitlantecotli), Nahua god, ii., 338, 340; iii., 59, 396-403;\n    iv., 514.\n\n  Mictlanteucy\u00f2hua, Nahua calendar sign and god, ii., 516.\n\n  Mictlantongo, Miztec dialect, iii., 749.\n\n  Mictlanzinco, locality, Mexico, v., 472.\n\n  Midwives, i., 634; ii., 268-71, 678.\n\n  Miemissouks, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Migrations, Hyperboreans, i., 71, 87, 116; Columbians, iii., 608;\n    Californians, i., 325; iii., 637-8; general, v., 138-9; Nahua\n    nations, ii., 537-9, 543-51, 559-60; pre-Toltec, v., 165-8,\n    188-208; Toltecs, v., 208-18, 565-7; Chichimecs, v., 218-20;\n    Nahuatlacas, v., 220-3, 305-10; Maya nations, v., 165-8, 180-8,\n    223-30, 537-42, 546, 554-6, 565-7, 604-13, 616-7.\n\n  Miguihui (Miguigui), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 459.\n\n  Mijes, Maya nation, i., 645-70; ii., 133-629;  location, i., 645,\n    679; ii., 111-2; special mention, i., 646-8, 651-2, 659, 666,\n    668-9; ii., 278, 379; myth., iii., 458; lang., iii., 756-7;\n    hist., v., 530-3.\n\n  Milaketkuns, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    312.\n\n  Milchimalli, Nahua war lands, ii., 227.\n\n  Milijaes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Milkwanen, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    460.\n\n  Millbank Sound, i., 155, 158, 227, 292-5; iii., 606.\n\n  Millbank Sound Indians, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location,\n    i., 294; special mention, i., 159, 168, 171, 174.\n\n  Millerton, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Milnaoatl, Nahua male sacrifice, iii., 345.\n\n  Milpa, a cornfield, ii., 717.\n\n  Mimals, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450.\n\n  Mimbre\u00f1os, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 474, 595.\n\n  Mimbres mountains and river, i., 595.\n\n  Mimich (Mitmitzichi), Nahua chief, v., 242.\n\n  Mimics, i., 68, 437, 551, 706, 736-8; ii., 286, 291-2, 309, 712.\n\n  Mimilla, iv., 115, see Micla.\n\n  Mina, locality, Chihuahua, lang., iii., 712, 716.\n\n  Mines, i., 727-8; ii., 473-4, 749-50; iv., 544-5, 673, 697-707,\n    783-4.\n\n  Miopacoas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Mipacmas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    362.\n\n  Miquetanteot, Nicaragua god, iii., 492.\n\n  Miquitecacigua, iii., 396, see Mictlancihuatl.\n\n  Miquitlamtecotl (Miquitlantecotli), iii., 396, see\n    Mictlantecutli.\n\n  Miquiztli, Nahua day, ii., 511-12, 516-17.\n\n  Mirador, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 447.\n\n  Mirador, El, at Huanuco el Viejo, Peru, antiq., iv., 801-3.\n\n  Mirrors, i., 623; ii., 480, 482, 713, 735; iii., 238; iv., 383.\n\n  Misalahs, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    449.\n\n  Misantla, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 448-51.\n\n  Miscanaka, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Miscellaneous customs, Hyperboreans, i., 67-8, 118-19, 125;\n    Columbians, i., 201-3, 245, 282-5; Californians, i., 417-18;\n    New Mexicans, i., 517-21, 538, 553-4, 587-8; Mexicans, i.,\n    636-7; iii., 393; Central Americans, i., 707-8, 740-1, 776-7.\n\n  Mish, common termination of names of Nisqually tribes, i., 208.\n\n  Mishla, Mosquito drink, i., 739.\n\n  Miskaiwhu, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Misquique, Mexico, antiq., iv., 500-1.\n\n  Mission Dolores, i., 363, 452-3.\n\n  Missions, i., 29, 173, 291, 325.\n\n  Missisissepono, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location,\n    i., 458.\n\n  Mississippi, lang., iii., 726-7; antiq., iv., 767, 769-70; v.,\n    93-5.\n\n  Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 746-90; v., 538.\n\n  Missopeno (Sopono), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 459.\n\n  Missouri, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 769.\n\n  Missouri River, i., 311.\n\n  Missouris, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    458.\n\n  Mist\u00e9ken, i., 678, see Miztecs.\n\n  Mita, town, Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Mithouie River, i., 316.\n\n  Mithouies, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 316.\n\n  Mitic, town, Jalisco, i., 672.\n\n  Mitl, Nahua god, ii., 337; Toltec king, v., 253, 263-4, 297;\n    Tlascaltec ruler, v., 349, 497.\n\n  Mitla, Oajaca, antiq., i., 665; ii., 570; iv., 388-417; v.,\n    59-60; hist., v., 232, 444, 464, 528-9, 535.\n\n  Mitlin\u00e9, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Mitliztac, Chichimec chief, v., 293.\n\n  Mitmitzichi, v., 242, see Mimich.\n\n  Mitnal, Maya hell, iii., 542.\n\n  Mitote, Nahua dance, ii., 289.\n\n  Mitre, ii., 325, 730; iii., 249, 427, 473.\n\n  Mittens, see Gloves.\n\n  Miuty, Tacullie name for chief, i., 123.\n\n  Mixco, town, Guatemala, i., 787; v., 597; antiq., iv., 119-20;\n    Tlascala, antiq., iv., 477.\n\n  Mixcoa, Nicaragua god, iii., 492.\n\n  Mixcoatl, Nahua god, ii., 335-6, 351-2; iii., 118, 403-6.\n\n  Mixcohua, king of Culhuacan, v., 484.\n\n  Mixcohuas, tribe of Nahuas, hist., v., 241.\n\n  Mixcohuatepec, name of a temple in Mexico, v., 409.\n\n  Mixcohuatl, Chichimec king, v., 220; (Mixcohuatzin), king of\n    Tlatelulco, v., 349, 364.\n\n  Mixcohuatl Amacohtle, Nahua chief, v., 242.\n\n  Mixcohuatl Mazatzin, a Toltec ruler, v., 241, 248-50.\n\n  Mixiuhtlan, locality, Mexico, v., 345.\n\n  Mixquiahuala, Mexico, antiq., iv., 545.\n\n  Mixtecapan, i., 678, see Miztecapan.\n\n  Mixtecas (Mixt\u00e8ques), i., 671, 678, see Miztecs.\n\n  Mixtecatl, Nahua chief, v., 223; founder of Miztecs, v., 527.\n\n  Mizquiahuala, station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Mizquic, province, Mexico, v., 310, 346.\n\n  Mizquicas, Nahua nation, ii., 133-629; name, ii., 129; hist., v.,\n    307-10.\n\n  Mizquihuacan, city, Vera Cruz, i., 675.\n\n  Mizquitl, a Tlascaltec chief, v., 497.\n\n  Mizquiyahualan, station, Chichimec migration, v., 294.\n\n  Miztec Alto, Miztec dialect, iii., 749-52.\n\n  Miztecapan (Mixtecapan), province, Oajaca, i., 678; ii., 109;\n    hist., v., 415-17, 443-7, 461-2, 526-7, 531-6.\n\n  Miztec Bajo, Miztec dialect, iii., 749-52.\n\n  Miztecs, (Mist\u00e9ken, Mixtecas, Mixt\u00e8ques), Nahua nation, i.,\n    645-70; ii., 133-629; location and name, i., 645, 678; ii.,\n    109-10, 129; special mention, i., 646-8, 652-3, 657, 659-60,\n    668-9; ii., 142, 207-9, 228-9, 261, 277, 280, 368, 371, 466,\n    624, 629; myth., iii., 70-3, 513, 541; v., 13, 20; lang., iii.,\n    745-52; v., 527; hist., v., 206-7, 239, 443, 461-3, 499, 526-7,\n    531-5.\n\n  Moachets (Moouchat, Mowalchits), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 295.\n\n  Mo\u00e4doc, i., 327, 443, see Modocs.\n\n  Moahtockna, i., 327, see Modocs.\n\n  M\u00f6alkais, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Moan, ii., 758, see Muan.\n\n  Moats, see Excavations.\n\n  Moc, name of month in Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Moccasins, see Shoes.\n\n  Mochan Xiu, Mayapan ruler, v., 634.\n\n  Mochicaui, village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Mochopa, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Mociaquezqui (Mocioaquetza, Mocioaquezque), a woman who died in\n    childbed, ii., 269; iii., 364-6.\n\n  Mocomatzin, v., 349, see Montezuma.\n\n  Mocorito, Sinaloa, lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Mocuexpaltia, a military badge, ii., 401.\n\n  Modoc Lake, i., 443.\n\n  Modocs (M\u00f6adoc, Moahtockna, Modocks), North Californian tribe,\n    i., 326-61; location, i., 327, 443-4; special mention, i.,\n    330-4, 340, 346, 350-1, 357, 361; myth., iii., 524; lang.,\n    iii., 640.\n\n  Moetwas, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 443.\n\n  Mogollon (Mogoyen, Black Mesa), i., 475, 595.\n\n  Mohave, i., 597, see Mojave.\n\n  Mohuaches, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 464.\n\n  Moiocoiatzin, name for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 199.\n\n  Moiyas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Mojave River, i., 597.\n\n  Mojaves (Mohaves, Hamockhaves), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526;\n    location and name, i., 475, 597; special mention, i., 477-8,\n    480-2, 487, 489, 493, 500-2, 505-6, 508, 512, 517, 519-25;\n    myth., iii., 175, 526; lang., iii., 684-6.\n\n  Mokaskel, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Mokelumnes (Mokelumnees, Mukelemnes, Mukeemnes, Muthelemnes),\n    Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 450;\n    lang., iii., 649-50.\n\n  Mokelumne (Moquelumne) Hill, California, antiq., iv., 704.\n\n  Mol (Mool), Maya month, ii., 700-1, 757-8.\n\n  Molango, locality, Mexico, i., 675.\n\n  Molcaxetes, plates, ii., 285.\n\n  Moleje, locality, Lower California, i., 603.\n\n  Mollales (Moleles), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i.,\n    310, 319-20.\n\n  Molo, Chiapanec hero, v., 605.\n\n  Molo (Mulu), Tzendal day, ii., 767.\n\n  Moltnomahs (Moltnomas), i., 304; iii., 626; see Multnomahs.\n\n  Molpilli, Nahua baptismal name, ii., 275.\n\n  Momacaico, Nahua sacrifice, ii., 335.\n\n  Mombacho Mt, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 30, 48.\n\n  Momostenango, city, Guatemala, v., 587.\n\n  Momotombita Island, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 52-4.\n\n  Momoxtles, ancient tombs, Guerrero, antiq., iv., 423.\n\n  Momuztli, Nahua altar, ii., 328.\n\n  Monapostiac, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 374; v., 529.\n\n  Monexico, Nicaragua council, ii., 646.\n\n  Money, see Currency.\n\n  Mongol civilization in Peru, v., 44-8.\n\n  Monguis, i., 604, see Monquis.\n\n  Monkey Indians, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location and\n    special mention, i., 423.\n\n  Monkeys, i., 721, 759; ii., 351; iii., 129; v., 172, 209.\n\n  Monogenesis, i., 4-6; v., 7-9.\n\n  Mono Lake, i., 466.\n\n  Monoliths, ii., 555, 572; iv., 115, 138, 275, 399, 448, 538-9,\n    805.\n\n  Mono Pi Utes, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 467.\n\n  Monos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 456;\n    special mention, i., 365; lang., iii., 661.\n\n  Monotheism, iii., 23, 55-6, 196-8.\n\n  Monquis (Menguis, Menquis, Monguis, Monquies, Monquoi, Moquis),\n    Lower Californian tribe, i., 556-71; location, i., 558, 603-4;\n    special mention, i., 423; lang., iii., 687-93.\n\n  Montana, i., 422, 463; lang., iii., 631; antiq., iv., 734.\n\n  Monta\u00f1os, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 794.\n\n  Monte Alban, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 377-84.\n\n  Montecristo, village, Tabasco, i., 683.\n\n  Monte Cuyo, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 261.\n\n  Monte Penulco, Mexico, antiq., iv., 546.\n\n  Monte Real, name of Misantla, iv., 448.\n\n  Monterey Indians, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 363, 454; special mention, i., 366-7, 369, 381,\n    384, 388, 398; lang., iii., 653.\n\n  Montezuma (Mocomatzin, Moteuhzomatzin), lord of Coatlichan, v.,\n    349.\n\n  Montezuma I. (Moteuczoma, Moteuhzoma), king of Mexico, i., 554,\n    586; ii., 139, 181-2, 191-4, 237-9, 404, 451-3; iii., 76-7, 80,\n    171-5; v., 366, 389-424, 534-5, 537.\n\n  Montezuma II., king of Mexico, v., 455-82, 501-2, 595, 600.\n\n  Montezuma Ilhuicamina, see Montezuma I.\n\n  Montezuma (Quetzalatl, Tula, Tullanatl) River, v., 243.\n\n  Montezuma's Bath, Mexico, antiq., iv., 524-6.\n\n  Months, Nahua calendar, ii., 508-14; Maya calendar, ii., 756-8,\n    760-1, 766.\n\n  Monuments, burial, i., 113, 357, 523, 783.\n\n  Moolallels, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Moon, superstitions and worship, i., 587, 666, 741; iii., 62, 82,\n    84-6, 100-101, 111-12, 152, 187, 190, 502, 547.\n\n  Moon Valley, i., 362.\n\n  Mooshahneh, Moqui town, iv., 669.\n\n  Mootaeyuhew, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    460.\n\n  Moouchat, i., 295, see Moachet.\n\n  Mopanes, Guatemalan tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 682, 786.\n\n  Moquelumne, iii., 650, see Mokelumne.\n\n  Moquihuix, governor of Tlatelulco, v., 411, 417-18, 429-31.\n\n  Moquis (Moquinos), tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; location, i.,\n    526, 528, 600-1; special mention, i., 529-30, 540, 544, 547,\n    551, 554-6; iv., 668-70; myth., iii., 80, 131, 175, 527; v.,\n    20; lang., iii., 660, 671-4.\n\n  Moraiuhs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 444.\n\n  Morale\u00f1os, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Moreri, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 795.\n\n  Moresby Island, i., 292.\n\n  Mormon, theory of origin, v., 96-102.\n\n  Mormon Creek, California, antiq., iv., 702.\n\n  Moro, El, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 648.\n\n  Moro Mountains, iii., 595.\n\n  Morshewskojes, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Mosaic, ii., 314, 376-7, 482, 488-90, 606, 750; iii., 385, 390-2;\n    iv., 395, 400-1, 407-8, 410, 557-9.\n\n  Mosette, i., 292, see Massets.\n\n  Mosquito Coast, antiq., iv., 25-8.\n\n  Mosquitos, one of the three families into which the wild tribes\n    of Central America are divided; manners and customs of all its\n    nations and tribes described together, i., 711-47;  physique,\n    i., 714-15; dress, i., 715-17; dwellings, i., 717-18; food,\n    i., 718-22; personal habits, i., 722; weapons and war, i.,\n    722-3; implements and manufactures, i., 724; boats, i., 724-5;\n    property and commerce, i., 725-6; art, i., 726-8; government\n    and slavery, i., 728-9; women and marriage, i., 729-35;\n    amusements, i., 735-9; superstitions and miscellaneous customs,\n    i., 740-41; medicine, i., 741-3; burial, i., 744-5; character,\n    i., 745-7; myth., iii., 496-8, 543; lang., iii., 571-2, 782-90;\n    location of tribes, i., 712-13, 792-4.\n\n  Mosquitos (Sambos), tribe of Mosquito family, i., 711-47;\n    location and name, i., 713, 794; special mention, i., 714-16,\n    723, 728, 731, 736, 745-6; lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Moss, i., 86, 227, 264-7.\n\n  Moszasnavi (Masanais, Moxonavi), Moqui village, i., 600-1.\n\n  Motagua River, i., 788-9; v., 593.\n\n  Moteuczoma (Moteuhzoma), v., 391, see Montezuma I.\n\n  Moteuhzomatzin, v., 349, see Montezuma.\n\n  Mother-of-pearl, see Pearl.\n\n  Moth-worm, Navajo myth., iii., 81.\n\n  Motilones, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 796.\n\n  Motlaxquiantota, Nahua feast, iii., 390.\n\n  Motucas, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 713;\n    lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Motzontecomaitotia, Nahua dance, ii., 311.\n\n  Mound-builders, speculations concerning, iv., 744-90; v., 538-9.\n\n  Mound City, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 758.\n\n  Mounds, Central America, antiq., ii., 647; iv., 24, 27, 32-4,\n    69-76, 117-18, 124, 129, 131, 139, 167, 198-204, 215, 219-20,\n    236-7, 240-7, 252, 261-2, 270-1; Mexico, antiq., iv., 350-614,\n    passim; Arizona, antiq., iv., 633-4, 675-6; California,\n    Utah, and Colorado, antiq., iv., 695-718; Oregon and British\n    Columbia, antiq., iv., 735-42; Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv.,\n    747-78; Peru, antiq., iv., 792, 798-803.\n\n  Mount Adams, i., 254.\n\n  Mountain of the Sun, Oajaca, v., 531-2.\n\n  Mount Baker, i., 299.\n\n  Mount Cacatepec, ii., 335.\n\n  Mount Diablo, i., 363, 452.\n\n  Mount Fairweather, i., 142.\n\n  Mount Hood, i., 320.\n\n  Mount Matlalcueje, ii., 312.\n\n  Mount Rainier, i., 321.\n\n  Mount St Elias, i., 94, 96, 142; iii., 579.\n\n  Mount St Helens, i., 321.\n\n  Mount Shasta, i., 328, 330; iii., 90-1, 593.\n\n  Mount Tocitlan, ii., 567.\n\n  Mount Vancouver, i., 320.\n\n  Mourning, Hyperboreans, i., 86, 119, 125-7, 134; Columbians, i.,\n    173, 180, 192, 206, 247-8, 288-9; Californians, i., 357-60,\n    370, 396-7, 420-21, 440; New Mexicans, i., 523-4, 555, 569-70,\n    590; Mexicans, ii., 331, 606-8, 613-23; Central Americans, i.,\n    709, 716, 744-5, 781-4; ii., 801-2.\n\n  Moustache, see Beards.\n\n  Mouth, Hyperboreans, i., 46; Columbians, i., 177-8, 225;\n    Californians, i., 364-6; New Mexicans, i., 573; Mexicans, i.,\n    647; Central Americans, i., 714.\n\n  Mouth-stone, burial, ii., 606, 614, 619, 799; iii., 515.\n\n  Movas, village, Sonora, i., 601.\n\n  Mowatchits, i., 295, see Moachets.\n\n  Mow-wee-mas (Mauhemi), North Californian name for chiefs, i.,\n    348.\n\n  Mox, ii., 767, see Imox.\n\n  Moxic, Tzendal day, ii., 767; Chiapanec hero, v., 605.\n\n  Moxonavi, i., 601, see Moszasnavi.\n\n  Moyotlan (Mayotla), suburb of Mexico, ii., 563.\n\n  Moyucuyatzin, Nahua god, iii., 194.\n\n  Mozahui, i., 675, see Mazahuas.\n\n  Mozcas, iii., 269, see Muyscas.\n\n  Mozeloquitzin, Chichimec king, v., 220.\n\n  Mozot, medicinal herb, ii., 795.\n\n  Mptolyas Ca\u00f1on, Oregon, antiq., iv., 734.\n\n  Muan (Moan), Maya month, ii., 692, 757-8.\n\n  Mucaw, a species of wood, i., 761.\n\n  Mucchita, Nayarits' abode of souls, iii., 529.\n\n  Muchlaht, i., 295, see Matchclat.\n\n  Muckalucs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; special mention,\n    i., 351.\n\n  Muck-a-muck, North Californian food, i., 358.\n\n  Mud, see Earth.\n\n  Muddy River, i., 464.\n\n  Muerto Island, Isthmus, antiq., iv., 20.\n\n  Muetasac, name of month in Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Mugeres Island, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 260-1.\n\n  Mugu, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458-9.\n\n  Muhasal, Towka boy of 10 years, i., 732.\n\n  Muingpe, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Mukelemnes (Mukeemnes), i., 450, see Mokelumnes.\n\n  Mulatos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Mules, i., 490-2, 496, 505, 539, 544, 561, 659.\n\n  Mullateco, Central Californian dialect, iii., 650.\n\n  Multnomahs (Mathlanobs, Moltnomas, Moltnomahs), tribe of\n    Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309; special mention, i.,\n    229; lang., iii., 626.\n\n  Mulu, v., 605, see Molo.\n\n  Muluc, Maya day, calendar sign, and god, ii., 703, 755-6, 760-1;\n    iii., 122.\n\n  Mumah, Quich\u00e9 sanctuary, iii., 481.\n\n  Mumaltachi, Central California, lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Mummies, ii., 604; iii., 54, 500.\n\n  Mumuehitl, parched corn, ii., 354.\n\n  Muna, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 199.\n\n  Mupu, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Muqui, Moqui village, i., 528.\n\n  Murder, i., 124, 168, 171, 348-9, 386, 409-10, 435, 509-10, 770;\n    ii., 458-9, 651, 657.\n\n  Murex, for dyeing, i., 630.\n\n  Murphy's Flat, California, antiq., iv., 704.\n\n  Murtilpar (Martilpar), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 295.\n\n  Muscleshell Rapids, i., 321.\n\n  Museums, Mexican Republic, antiq., iv., 553-64.\n\n  Mushaiina, Moqui village, i., 528, 600.\n\n  Music, Hyperboreans, i., 112; Columbians, i., 165, 170, 200-1,\n    281-2; Californians, i., 354, 393, 416; New Mexicans, i.,\n    515-16, 552, 584, 586; Mexicans, i., 631, 635, 656, 664-8;\n    ii., 285-6, 288-94, 313, 412, 426-7, 492, 617, 620-1; iii.,\n    62-3, 336-7, 341-2, 347, 427; antiq., iv., 478, 504, 520, 561;\n    Central Americans, i., 705, 732, 735-8, 744, 764, 774, 782; ii.,\n    646, 706-7, 711-14, 746; antiq., iv., 19-20; v., 632.\n\n  Musk-rat, Tacully myth., iii., 98.\n\n  Mustac, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Muthelemnes, i., 450, see Mokelumnes.\n\n  Mutistuls, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    452.\n\n  Mutsunes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454; lang., iii., 653-4.\n\n  Muutzizti (Muutzicat), Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44;\n    location, i., 672; lang., iii., 719-21.\n\n  Muvin\u00e1bores, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Mux, name of month in Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Muyscas (Mozcas), a Columbian tribe, myth., iii., 269; v., 24.\n\n  Myacoma, Napa dialect, iii., 650.\n\n  Myer's Ravine, California, antiq., iv., 706.\n\n  Mystic Tree, temple, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 343.\n\n  Mythology, general observations, iii., 5, 13-41, 510-5;\n    Hyperboreans, iii., 98-106, 140-9, 516-19; v., 14; Columbians,\n    i., 170-1, 202-3, 283-4; iii., 94-8, 149-57, 519-22;\n    Californians, i., 387-8, 397, 400, 405, 421-2; iii., 84-94,\n    157-69, 175-7, 522-6, 545-50; v., 14; New Mexicans, i., 520,\n    538, 553-4, 587-8; iii., 75-85, 169-75, 526-9; v., 13-14;\n    Mexicans, i., 634, 665-6; ii., 200-15, 245-6, 292, 302-41,\n    388-97, 604-5, 616-23; iii., 55-74, 109-13, 119-23, 128-9,\n    179-231, 237-460, 511-15, 527-8, 532-41; v., 12-13, 84-91, 350,\n    514, 528; Central Americans, i., 707-8, 740; ii., 663; iii.,\n    42-55, 74-5, 461-501, 541-4; v., 13-14, 87, 171-2, 545-8, 572,\n    610, 618-9; physical myths, iii., 108-26; animal myths, iii.,\n    127-39; phallic rites, iii., 501-9; mound builders, iv., 787;\n    Peruvians, v., 14-17.\n\n\n  N\n\n  Naaneeaaghees, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i.,\n    143.\n\n  Nabe Ligin Ga, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Nabe Mam, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Nabe Pach, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Nabe Tzih, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Nabey Mam, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Nabey Pach, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Nabey Togic, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Nabey Tumuzuz, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Nabiltse, North Californian lang., iii., 642.\n\n  Naboh Choweshaks, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 447.\n\n  Nacalxur, v., 252, see Nacaxoc.\n\n  Nacameri, village, Sonora, i., 601.\n\n  Nacameri River, i., 605.\n\n  Nacapahuazcan, locality, Puebla, v., 490.\n\n  Nacaugna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Nacaxoc (Nacalxur, Nacaxoc Mitl, Nacaxzoch, Nacazxoc, Nacazxot),\n    Toltec king, v., 252, 261, 297.\n\n  Nacazpipilolxochi, Cholultec priest, v., 495-6.\n\n  Nachan (Pachan), name applied to Palenque, iv., 294-5; hist., v.,\n    159, 163, 187, 221.\n\n  Nackneck River, i., 140.\n\n  Nacochtli, Nahua ear-rings, ii., 404.\n\n  Nacon, Maya title, ii., 693, 741; iii., 473.\n\n  Nacooche Valley, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 768.\n\n  Nacori, village, Sonora, i., 606-7.\n\n  Nacuix, name of Chichimec country, v., 219.\n\n  Nacxit, king of Copan, v., 552, 558.\n\n  Nacxitl, Nahua god, iii., 416.\n\n  N\u00e1\u00e9lims (Nahelems), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i.,\n    307.\n\n  Nagailers, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 145.\n\n  Nagarandas, i., 792, see Nagrandans.\n\n  Naggeuktormutes (Naggeuktoomutes), tribe of Eskimos, i., 40-69;\n    location, i., 42, 138.\n\n  Nagrandans (Nagarandas, Nagrandas), Guatemala tribe, i., 686-711;\n    location, i., 688, 792; hist., v., 613.\n\n  Nagualism, belief in a guardian spirit, i., 740; ii., 277; iii.,\n    458-9, 467, 482.\n\n  Nagun-alayeksa, i., 37, see Unalaska.\n\n  Nahajuey, i., 459, see Nahuey.\n\n  Naha-'tdinn\u00e8, Kutchin dialect, iii., 587.\n\n  Nahchess River, i., 320.\n\n  Nahelems, i., 307, see N\u00e1\u00e9lims.\n\n  Nahlohs, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    449.\n\n  Nahual Teteuctin, Nahua order of chivalry, v., 253.\n\n  Nahua Nations (Nahoas), manners and customs, ii., 133-629;\n    name, ii., 129; government, ii., 133-239, 433-72; education,\n    ii., 240-51; marriage, ii., 251-66; women and children, ii.,\n    266-81; amusements, ii., 283-301; festivals and feasts, ii.,\n    302-41; food, ii., 342-62; dress, ii., 363-77; commerce, ii.,\n    378-97; boats, ii., 397-9; weapons and war, ii., 400-32; arts\n    and manufactures, ii., 473-92; oratory and poetry, ii., 492-7;\n    arithmetic, ii., 497-500; calendar, ii., 502-22; hieroglyphics,\n    ii., 523-52; dwellings and architecture, ii., 160-174,\n    553-89; medicine, ii., 591-602; burial, ii., 603-23; physique,\n    ii., 624-5; character, ii., 626-9; manners and customs also\n    described with Mexicans Central and Southern, i., 617-70;\n    location, i., 617, 670-81; myth., ii., 200-15, 245-6, 292,\n    302-41, 388-97, 604-5, 616-23; iii., 55-74, 109-13, 119-23,\n    128-9, 179-231, 237-460, 511-15, 532-41; v., 84-91, 350; lang.,\n    iii., 723-58; v., 352, 508, 510, 527, 537; hist., ii., 91-114;\n    iii., 270, 307-8; v., 188-538, 541-6, 553-7, 561, 564-8, 595-7,\n    601, 606, 616-17, 621, 623.\n\n  Nahuatlacs, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i.,\n    675-6; hist., v., 305-10.\n\n  Nahuatls, Guatemalan tribe, i., 686-711; special mention, i.,\n    701.\n\n  Nahualoztomecas, Nahua merchants, ii., 381.\n\n  Nahuey (Nahajuey), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location,\n    i., 459.\n\n  Nahui Ollin Tonatiuh, Nahua calendar sign, ii., 339; v., 205.\n\n  Nahuixochitl, lord of Tzotzolan, v., 461-2.\n\n  Naiagutls, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    444.\n\n  Naig (Naique), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 453.\n\n  Naila, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Najarites, i., 607, see Nayarits.\n\n  Nalalsemoch, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Nalegak, Eskimo title of chief, i., 65.\n\n  Nambe, Pueblo village, i., 527, 599; lang., iii., 681.\n\n  Nambe Creek, i., 599.\n\n  Names, Hyperboreans, i., 37, 40-1, 69-71, 87, 94-5, 111-12,\n    116, 121; Columbians, i., 151-2, 202, 219, 222, 245, 248, 279,\n    288; Californians, i., 325-6, 344, 357, 438, 468; iii., 636;\n    Mexicans, i., 634-5, 670; ii., 85, 274-5; v., 324, 346; Mayas,\n    ii., 665, 680-1; antiq., iv., 154, 294-6; metaphoric, iii.,\n    35-6.\n\n  Namocuix, Chichimec king, v., 220.\n\n  Nanacatl, an intoxicating mushroom, ii., 394.\n\n  Nanahuani, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Nanahuatzin, Nahua god, iii., 60; v., 204-5.\n\n  Nanaimo River, i., 298.\n\n  Nanaimos, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 175, 298.\n\n  Nanchititla, Mexico antiq., iv., 480.\n\n  Nanihehecatl, name of Quetzalcoatl, iii., 267.\n\n  Nanoose, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 176, 296.\n\n  Nanoose Harbor, i., 298.\n\n  Nantena, Tinneh fairies, iii., 142.\n\n  Naolin, Nahua god, iii., 109.\n\n  Naolingo (Tatimolo), Totonac dialect, iii., 777-8.\n\n  Napas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 363,\n    451, 453; lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Napatecutli, Nahua god, iii., 417-18.\n\n  Napa Valley, i., 363, 451-2.\n\n  Napobatins, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Napousney, Trinity River god, iii., 176.\n\n  Napuat, (Quetahtores), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location,\n    i., 592.\n\n  Naranjan, city, Michoacan, v., 511.\n\n  Narcotics, i., 667; ii., 330, 600.\n\n  Narices, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Narkocktau, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Nasals, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 305.\n\n  Nasas, i., 614, see Nazas.\n\n  Nascud, Tinneh dialect, iii., 585.\n\n  Nashville, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 776.\n\n  Naskootains, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 146.\n\n  Nasomahs, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 308.\n\n  Nasqually, i., 301, see Nisqually.\n\n  Nass, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 155, 293-4;\n    special mention, i., 156, 173; lang., iii., 606-7.\n\n  Nass River, i., 38, 94, 142, 155, 293-4.\n\n  Nass-Shakieyehl, home of Yehl, iii., 146.\n\n  Nata, Nahua Noah, iii., 66.\n\n  Nat\u00e1, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 795; lang.,\n    iii., 794.\n\n  Natages (Natajes), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i.,\n    474; iii., 595.\n\n  Natche Kutchin (Gens de Large), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 115, 147.\n\n  Natchez, Florida tribe, early condition and lang., v., 538-9.\n\n  Nateotetain River, i., 146.\n\n  Nateotetains, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 114,\n    146; special mention, i., 127.\n\n  Nate-sa, i., 132, see Natsahi.\n\n  National Buena Esperanza, locality, Central California, i., 455.\n\n  National Museum, Mexico, antiq., iv., 560-3.\n\n  Natividad Navajoa (Navohoua), village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  Natividad, Puebla, antiq., iv., 477-8.\n\n  Natliautin, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 145.\n\n  Natora, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Natsahi (Nate-sa), Kutchin clan, i., 132.\n\n  Na-tsik-Kut-chin (Na-tsik-koo-chin), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 147; lang., iii., 586.\n\n  Nature, influence on physique and character, see Environment.\n\n  Natykinskojes, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Nauaq, epithet for Tonacateotle, iii., 191.\n\n  Nauhtlan, city, Vera Cruz, v., 439.\n\n  Nauhyotl, Chichimec king, v., 220.\n\n  Nauhyotl I. (Nauhyotzin), Toltec king, v., 248, 256, 263-5.\n\n  Nauhyotl II., Toltec king, v., 276.\n\n  Nauhyotl III. (Coyol, Coyotl), Toltec king, v., 299-304.\n\n  Nauhyotl IV., Toltec king, v., 361-4.\n\n  Nauhyotzin, v., 248, see Nauhyotl I.\n\n  Nauni, name for Comanches, i., 473.\n\n  Navah\u00f3a (Navohoua), i., 607-8, see Natividad Navajoa.\n\n  Navajas, see Cerro de las Navajas.\n\n  Navajo River, i., 465.\n\n  Navajos (Navahoes, Navajoes, Navajoos), tribe of Apaches,\n    i., 473-526;  location and name, i., 464, 475, 596; special\n    mention, i., 477-8, 482-3, 486, 488-91, 494-5, 498, 501-6, 508,\n    510, 512-13, 520-5; myth., iii., 81-3, 117, 120, 171, 528; v.,\n    20; lang., iii., 602.\n\n  Navajo Spring, Arizona, antiq., iv., 644.\n\n  Navigandis, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; special mention, i.,\n    785.\n\n  Navigation, pre-historic, v., 10-11, see also Boats.\n\n  Navohoua, i., 607, see Natividad Navajoa.\n\n  Navon de los Pecos, i., 600, see Pecos.\n\n  Nawdowessies, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; special mention, i.,\n    158.\n\n  Naweetees, i., 295, see Newittees.\n\n  Nawloks, Haidah spirits, iii., 150.\n\n  Nawmooits, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Nayab chab, Maya intercalary days, ii., 759.\n\n  Nayarit (Nuevo Toledo), locality, Jalisco, i., 671-2; v., 509.\n\n  Nayarits (Najarites), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 607; lang., iii., 719-20.\n\n  Nayeb haab, Maya intercalary days, ii., 759.\n\n  Nazas (Nasas), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    613.\n\n  Neachesna River, i., 307.\n\n  Neah Bay (Waadda), i., 220, 302.\n\n  Near Island, i., 87.\n\n  Nebah (Nebak), Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Ne\u00e7alhualcoiotl, ii., 134, see Nezahualcoyotl.\n\n  Necaoalpilli, name for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 199.\n\n  Necatitlan, suburb of Mexico, ii., 560.\n\n  Nechecolees (Nechakokes, Nechecolies), tribe of Chinooks, i.,\n    222-50; location, i., 223, 306; special mention, i., 230.\n\n  Necketos (Neekeetoos), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location,\n    i., 307.\n\n  Necklaces, i., 368-9, 482, 533, 551, 559, 574, 623, 649-51, 732,\n    752, 754; ii., 376, 733.\n\n  Necociautl, name for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 199.\n\n  Necomanchees (Nickomins), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 305.\n\n  Necoons, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Necootimeighs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    317.\n\n  Necuametl, ancient country of Chichimecs, v., 219.\n\n  Necultas, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 298.\n\n  Neecelowes, i., 293, see Neeslous.\n\n  Needles, i., 73, 79, 91, 191, 236, 407, 563.\n\n  Neekeetoos, i., 307, see Necketos.\n\n  Neerchokioons, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Neeshenams (Neshenams), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 451; special mention, i., 386, 389, 397; myth.,\n    iii., 531-2, 545-6; lang., iii., 648-9, 652.\n\n  Neeslous (Neecelowes), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location,\n    i., 293-4.\n\n  Neetlakapamuch, British Columbia, lang., iii., 613.\n\n  Neewamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Neewamish River, i., 300.\n\n  Negritos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Negroes, Isthmian slaves, i., 772; antiq., iv., 427.\n\n  Neguales, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Nehalem River, i., 305.\n\n  Nehannes (Nehannees, Nohhannies), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 148-9; special mention, i., 125; lang., iii.,\n    587.\n\n  Neixcotlapatli, an emetic, ii., 599.\n\n  Nemalquinners, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Nemontemi, Nahua intercalary days, ii., 275, 508.\n\n  Nemshous (Nemshans, Nemshaws, Nemshoos), Central Californian\n    tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Nena, wife of Nahua Noah, iii., 66.\n\n  Nennequi, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Nephites, American origin-traces, v., 98-101.\n\n  Nepohualtzitzin, Nahua knotted records, ii., 551.\n\n  Nequametl, Chichimec king, v., 220.\n\n  Nequatolli, a kind of gruel, ii., 355.\n\n  Nequen, maguey cloth, ii., 364, 406, 484.\n\n  Nequiteh, Trinity River god, iii., 176.\n\n  Neselitch, tribe of Chinooks. i., 222-50; location, i., 307.\n\n  Nespeelum Creek, i., 316.\n\n  Nespeelums, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    315.\n\n  Nespods, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Nesquallis, i., 301, see Nisquallies.\n\n  Netecuitotoli, Nahua dance, ii., 290.\n\n  Netela, South Californian lang., iii., 660, 674-8.\n\n  Netentzzoponiztli, a Nahua disease, ii., 267.\n\n  Neteteliztli, Nahua dance, ii., 288.\n\n  Netonatiuhqualo, Nahua festival, ii., 339.\n\n  Netotoliztli, Nahua dance, ii., 295.\n\n  Nets, Hyperboreans, i., 55-6, 76, 90, 118, 123; Columbians,\n    i., 162-4, 185-7, 212-14, 233, 262; Californians, i., 337-9,\n    375-6, 406, 428; New Mexicans, i., 488, 500-2, 539, 562-3,\n    566; Mexicans, i., 652, 656-7; ii., 351-2; v., 325; Central\n    Americans, i., 694, 697-8, 708, 719, 724, 760, 765; ii., 721,\n    752.\n\n  Nettles, i., 185, 568.\n\n  Netzicho, Zapotec dialect, iii., 754.\n\n  Neuchallets (Neuchadlits, Noochahlaht), tribe of Nootkas, i.,\n    174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Neuksack, i., 209, 299, see Nooksak.\n\n  Neukwers, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 299.\n\n  Neutubvig, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Neuwitties, i., 295, see Newittees.\n\n  Nevada, manners and customs of tribes, i., 422-42; location, i.,\n    322, 460, 465-9; lang., iii., 661-3; antiq., iv., 713-14.\n\n  Nevada County, California, antiq., iv., 706.\n\n  Nevichumnes, i., 450, see Newatchumnes.\n\n  Nevome, Pima dialect, iii., 695.\n\n  New Almaden, California, antiq., iv., 696.\n\n  Newark, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 758-9, 785.\n\n  Newaskees, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Newatchumnes (Nevichumnes, Newichumnes), Central Californian\n    tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Newatees, i., 175, see Newittees.\n\n  Newathie, Mojave god, iii., 175.\n\n  New Caledonia, i., 145, 313.\n\n  Newchemas (Nuchimas), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 295; special mention, i., 178, 182; lang., iii., 608.\n\n  New Dungeness, locality, Washington, i., 212.\n\n  New Granada, iv., 15, see Colombia.\n\n  Newicarguts, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 115, 147.\n\n  Newittees (Naweetees, Newatees, Neuwitties, Newette), tribe of\n    Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 175, 292, 295.\n\n  New Mexicans, one of the seven groups into which the natives\n    of the Pacific States are divided, located in New Mexico,\n    Arizona, Lower California, Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua, Durango,\n    Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, northern Zacatecas, and western Texas,\n    between latitudes 36\u00b0 and 23\u00b0, longitude, 96\u00b0 and 117\u00b0,\n    subdivided into four families--the Apaches, Pueblos, Lower\n    Californians, and Northern Mexicans; manners and customs of\n    each described separately, i., 471-614; location, divisions and\n    tribal boundaries, i., 471-3, 591-614; myth., i., 520, 538,\n    553-4, 587-8; iii., 75-85, 169-75, 526-31; lang., i., 528;\n    iii., 568-9, 680-722; antiq., i., 537-8; iv., 615-86; origin,\n    v., 20; hist., v., 537-8.\n\n  New Mexico, tribes, i., 471-556, 591-601; lang., iii., 593-5,\n    660-4, 680-3; antiq., iv., 615-86.\n\n  New River, i., 445, 458, 597.\n\n  New River Indians, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location,\n    i., 458.\n\n  New York, antiq., iv., 750-1.\n\n  New York Flat, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Nexapa, locality, Nicaragua, i., 790; v., 532, 534.\n\n  Nexichas (Nexitzas), i., 680, see Beni Xonos.\n\n  Nexoxocho, Nahua goddess, iii., 396.\n\n  Nextepelma, Nahua god, iii., 396.\n\n  Neyetse-Kutshi, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 147.\n\n  Nezahualcoyotl (Ne\u00e7ahualcoiotl, Nezahualcojotl), Acolhua monarch,\n    ii., 134, 447, 471-2, 589; iii., 184, 196-8; v., 372-428,\n    498-9.\n\n  Nezahualpilli, Acolhua monarch, ii., 134, 220, 447-50, 610; v.,\n    421-75, 499, 507.\n\n  Nez Perc\u00e9 River, i., 318.\n\n  Nez Perc\u00e9s, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location and\n    name, i., 152, 253, 316-17; special mention, i., 254-8, 260,\n    265, 267-74, 276-9, 282, 284, 287, 289-91;  myth., iii., 95,\n    156, 520; lang., iii., 621-5.\n\n  Nguyuk, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Niahbella Pomos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 448.\n\n  Nicahtagah, Quich\u00e9 god, v., 181, 547.\n\n  Nicaragua, nations described, i., 686-711; ii., 645-803;\n    location, i., 688, 790-4; special mention, i., 711; ii., 123,\n    645-7, 650-4, 666-7, 670-2, 674, 676, 678, 708-10, 713-14,\n    718-25, 728-34, 737, 739-47, 749-52, 766, 770-1, 785, 790,\n    793-4, 800-3; myth., iii., 75, 132, 490-6, 507, 543; v., 13;\n    lang., iii., 723, 726, 759-60, 783, 791-3; antiq., iv., 28-67;\n    hist., v., 472-3, 529, 604, 612-13.\n\n  Nicaragua Lake, i., 790-2, 795; ii., 123; v., 613; antiq., iv.,\n    28-30.\n\n  Nicaraguans, name for Niquirans, v., 613.\n\n  Niccoutamuch, i., 310, see Nicoutamuch.\n\n  Nichqum, name of month in Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Nickomins, i., 305, see Necomanchees.\n\n  Nicola Lake, lang., iii., 613.\n\n  Nicola River, lang., iii., 613.\n\n  Nicoutameens, i., 310, see Nicoutamuch.\n\n  Nicoutamuch (Niccoutamuch, Nicoutameens, Nicutemuch), Inland\n    Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 310; special\n    mention, i., 258, 290.\n\n  Nicoya, province and city, Costa Rica, v., 605.\n\n  Nicoya Gulf, i., 752, 791-2; v., 613.\n\n  Nightan, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Niha\u00efb, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 643-4; v., 546, 552, 566-7, 580.\n\n  Nijapa Lake, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 31, 37.\n\n  Nijoras, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location and name, i.,\n    475, 598; lang., iii., 684.\n\n  Nikaas (Nikas), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 307.\n\n  Nikozliautin, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 145.\n\n  Nima-Amag, name of Qulaha, i., 787.\n\n  Nima Camha, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 644.\n\n  Nimahuinac, Cakchiquel king, v., 598, 609.\n\n  Nima Quich\u00e9 (Nimaquich\u00e9), Quich\u00e9 chief, v., 565, 576, 578, 604.\n\n  Nimcakahpec, city, Guatemala, v., 584.\n\n  Nim Chocoh Cawek, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 639, 644; v., 602.\n\n  Nimkish (Nimkis, Nimpkish), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 176, 295-6, 298; special mention, i., 183.\n\n  Nimkish River, i., 298.\n\n  Nimpokom, city, Guatemala, i., 788; antiq., iv., 131; v., 555.\n\n  Nimxob Carchah, name for Carchah, v., 175, 544.\n\n  Ninstence, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Ninumbees, Shoshone spirits, iii., 157.\n\n  Ninus, name for Mox, v., 605.\n\n  Nio, Sinaloa, lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Niparaya (Niparaja), Peric\u00fai god, iii., 83, 169, 529; v., 20.\n\n  Nipomo, grave at San Luis Obispo, California, antiq., iv., 692.\n\n  Niquirans, (Nicaraguans), Guatemala tribe, i., 668-711; location,\n    i., 688, 792; hist., v., 613.\n\n  Nisquallies (Nesquallis, Skwalls, Squallies), tribe of Sound\n    Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 208, 299, 301; special\n    mention, i., 210, 214, 217, 220, 222; myth., iii., 97-8; lang.,\n    ii., 618.\n\n  Nisqually (Nasqually) River, i., 301.\n\n  Nitinaht River, i., 295.\n\n  Nitinats, (Nitinahts, Nitteenats, Nittinahts), tribe of Nootkas,\n    i., 174-208; location, i., 175, 296; special mention, i., 178,\n    189-90, 208; lang., iii., 609.\n\n  Nitinat Sound, i., 175, 295-7.\n\n  Niyuna, name for Comanches, i., 473.\n\n  Noaches, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 464.\n\n  Noah, origin theory, v., 9-12.\n\n  Nobles, Mexicans, ii., 186-200, 225, 373-7, 441; iii., 434; v.,\n    456-7; Central Americans, i., 770-1; ii., 636-44, 663-4, 673-4,\n    693-4, 727, 784-5; v., 579-82, 588-9, 591-2.\n\n  Nocasari, village, Sonora, i., 605.\n\n  Noches, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460;\n    lang., iii., 686.\n\n  Nochiztlan, Miztec dialect, iii., 749.\n\n  Nochiztli, cochineal insect, ii., 486.\n\n  Noconi (Yiuhtas), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i.,\n    592.\n\n  Nocto, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Nocuma, Acagchemem god, iii., 164.\n\n  Noh, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Nohcacab, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 200-2, 211, 218-9.\n\n  Nohenial, name for west Yucatan, v., 615.\n\n  Nohhannies, i., 148, see Nehannes.\n\n  Nohioalli, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Nohpat (Noh Pat), Yucatan, antiq., iv., 202, 211.\n\n  Nohtscho, village, North California, i., 444.\n\n  Noimucks, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Noisas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Noiyucans, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Noj, Istlavacan god, iii., 482.\n\n  Nombre de Dios, town, Zacatecas, i., 614; town, Darien, iii.,\n    794; v., 613.\n\n  Nomee Cults, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    442.\n\n  Nomee Lacks (Nome Lackees), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 442, 451.\n\n  Nomenuches (Poruches), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location,\n    i., 464.\n\n  Nonohualca, Chichimec king, v., 220.\n\n  Nonohualcas, Tabasco tribe, i., 644-70, ii., 133-629; location\n    and name, i., 791; ii., 112, 129; hist., v., 196, 229, 562.\n\n  Nonohualcatl, Culhua king, v., 250, 256, 300, 313, 316, 320.\n\n  Nonohualco (Nonualcat), region and locality, Tabasco, v., 229,\n    562.\n\n  Noobimucks, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    442.\n\n  Noochahlaht, i., 295, see Neuchallet.\n\n  Nookchues, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 456.\n\n  Nooklummi (Nukhlumi), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 299; lang., iii., 615.\n\n  Nooksak (Neuksack, Nooksahk, Nootsak), tribe of Sound Indians, i.,\n    208-22; location, i., 208, 299; special mention, i., 210, 213,\n    218, 220; lang., iii., 615.\n\n  Noosdalums (Noostlalums, Nusdalums), tribe of Sound Indians, i.,\n    208-22; location, i., 302.\n\n  Noosehchatl, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    301.\n\n  Nootchoos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Noothums, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Nootkas, one of the nine families into which the Columbians are\n    divided; manners and customs of all its nations and tribes\n    described together, i., 174-208; physique, i., 176-9; dress,\n    i., 179-82; dwellings, i., 183-5; food, i., 185-8; weapons, i.,\n    188; war, i., 180-1, 188-9; boats, i., 189-91; implements and\n    manufactures, i., 180, 184, 189-91; property and trade, i.,\n    191-2; art, i., 192-3; government and slaves, i., 180-1, 191,\n    193-5; women and marriage, i., 195-8; amusements, i., 198-201;\n    miscellaneous customs, i., 201-3; medicine, i., 204-5; burial,\n    i., 205-6; character, i., 206-8; myth., iii., 96-7, 150-2, 514,\n    522; lang., iii., 608-12, 664; location of tribes, i., 151,\n    155, 174, 295-8.\n\n  Nootkas (Nootkahs, Noutkas, Nutkas), tribe of Nootkas, i.,\n    174-208; location, i., 175, 295; special mention, i., 189, 208;\n    myth., iii., 150-2, 514, 522; lang., iii., 608-12, 664.\n\n  Nootka Sound, i., 150-1, 174-5, 181, 194, 203, 295, 297; antiq.,\n    iv., 736.\n\n  Nopaltzin, Chichimec king, v., 294-320, 330; Acolhua prince, v.,\n    335.\n\n  Norfolk Sound, i., 142, 159.\n\n  Northern Californians, see Californians, Northern.\n\n  North Island, i., 293.\n\n  Northern Mexicans, see Mexicans, Northern.\n\n  Northern tribes, hist., v., 536-8.\n\n  Norton Sound, i., 61-2, 70, 138, 141.\n\n  Nose, Hyperboreans, i., 46, 88, 116; Columbians, i., 177-8, 210,\n    225-6, 255-6; Californians, i., 328, 364-6; New Mexicans, i.,\n    530, 558; Mexicans, i., 619, 647; Central Americans, i., 688,\n    714-15, 750.\n\n  Nose-ornaments, Hyperboreans, i., 49, 72, 88, 97, 122, 128;\n    Columbians, i., 159, 181-2, 210-11, 229; Californians, i., 333,\n    347, 403, 424; New Mexicans, i., 559, 574-5; Mexicans, i., 622,\n    649-51; ii., 372, 376, 395; Central Americans, i., 752-4; ii.,\n    731-3.\n\n  Noser (Noza), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    447.\n\n  Notonatos (Nutonetoos), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 456.\n\n  Notoowthas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 456.\n\n  Noumpolis, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Noyaxche, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 252.\n\n  Noza, i., 447, see Noser.\n\n  N'Pockles, i., 312, see Sans Poils.\n\n  N'poolthla, Inland Columbian tribes, food, i., 265.\n\n  N'quachamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  N'quutlmamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Nsietshawus, i., 307, see Killamooks.\n\n  Ntshaautin, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 145.\n\n  Nuchusk, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 149.\n\n  Nuclukayettes, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 115,\n    147.\n\n  Nueva Segovia, locality, Nicaragua, i., 793; antiq., iv., 62.\n\n  Nuevo Leon, i., 473, 571, 591, 593, 604; lang., iii., 593;\n    antiq., iv., 597.\n\n  Nuevo Toledo, i., 671, see Nayarit.\n\n  Nukhlumi, iii., 615, see Nooklummi.\n\n  Nuklukahyet, locality, Alaska, i., 133.\n\n  Nulaautin, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 145.\n\n  Numeration, see Arithmetic.\n\n  Numguelgar, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Numpali, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Nunatangmutes (Nuna-tangm\u00eb-uns), tribe of Eskimos, i., 40-69;\n    location, i., 42, 138.\n\n  Nunatok River, i., 42, 138.\n\n  Nu\u00f1ez Gaona Bay, i., 181.\n\n  Nunnery, at Chichen, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 223-5.\n\n  Nures, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607.\n\n  Nuri, village, Sonora, i., 601.\n\n  Nursing, see Children.\n\n  Nusdalums, i., 302, see Noosdalums.\n\n  Nushagak (Nuschagack, Nuschagakh, Nushergak) River, i., 70,\n    139-40.\n\n  Nushergagmut, name for Keyataigmutes, i., 140.\n\n  Nusklaiyum, name for Clallams, iii., 615.\n\n  Nutka, i., 194, see Nootka.\n\n  Nutonetoos, i., 456, see Notonatos.\n\n  Nutonto, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Nuwungmutes (Nuwangmeuns), tribe of Eskimos, i., 40-69; location,\n    i., 42, 138.\n\n\n  O\n\n  Oajaca (Guaxaca, Oaxaca), i., 644-8, 652, 678-82, 790; ii.,\n    109-11; lang., iii., 748-9, 763; antiq., iv., 367-423; hist.,\n    v., 206-7, 239, 263, 473, 526-7.\n\n  Oajaca City, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 374-5.\n\n  Oakinackens (Oakinacks), i., 257, 312, see Okanagans.\n\n  Oak Point, i., 304.\n\n  Oanbos, village, Sonora, i., 601.\n\n  Oars, see Paddles.\n\n  Oath, i., 771; ii., 146, 443-4, 656; iii., 382.\n\n  Oat Valley People, i., 448, see Ballo Ki Pomos.\n\n  Oavanti, Nahua sacrifice, ii., 309.\n\n  Oaxaca, i., 678, see Oajaca.\n\n  Obayas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Obelisks, see Columns.\n\n  Observatory Inlet, i., 174, 293-4; lang., iii., 606.\n\n  Obsidian, i., 90, 343, 377-8, 431-2, 495, 627-8; ii., 161,\n    408-10, 479-80, 601; iii., 238; iv., 237, 544-5, 556-8.\n\n  Oc, Maya day, ii., 755-6, 760.\n\n  Ocanes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Occabayanti, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 795.\n\n  Ocean current, see Current.\n\n  Ocelome, Nahua military order, ii., 403.\n\n  Ocelopuchtli, iii., 57, see Huitzilopochtli.\n\n  Ocelotentlapalliyiticycacocelotl, Nahua court dress, ii., 374.\n\n  Ocelotl, Nahua day, ii., 512, 516-17.\n\n  Oceloxochitl, v., 299, see Ozolaxochitl.\n\n  Oceloxroch, v., 299, see Ozolaxochitl.\n\n  Ocelunacace, Nahua sandals, iii., 423.\n\n  Ochecamnes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Ochoyos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Ochpaniztli, Nahua month, ii., 331, 510.\n\n  Ochre, i., 131, 403-4; ii., 474, 487, 556, 558, 572; iii., 435.\n\n  Ocipila, v., 323, see Ocopipilla.\n\n  Ocki, Utah term for trout, i., 466.\n\n  Ocki Pah Utes (Ocki Pi Utes), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42;\n    location, i., 466-7.\n\n  Ocna, Maya feast, ii., 690.\n\n  Oc na kin, Maya sunset, ii., 755.\n\n  Ococingo, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 346-52; hist., v., 187.\n\n  Ocolco, a suburb of Tezcuco, v., 351.\n\n  Ocopetlayuca, city, Mexico, v., 309.\n\n  Ocopipilla (Ocipila), station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Ocoronis, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607;\n    lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Ocotelulco, a quarter in Tlascala city, ii., 412; v., 496-8.\n\n  Ocotic, village, Jalisco, i., 672.\n\n  Ocotl, a species of pine, ii., 487, 600-1; iii., 435.\n\n  Ocotlan, Zapotec dialect, iii., 754-5.\n\n  Ocotox (Acotoch), Chichimec chief, v., 317-8, 332, 335.\n\n  Octli, Nahua drink, ii., 285, 359, 600.\n\n  Ocuillan, town, Mexico, i., 677.\n\n  Ocuiltecs, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 676;\n    lang., iii., 748.\n\n  Odeeilahs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    447.\n\n  Offerings, origin of, iii., 30-1, 34-5; New Mexicans, iii.,\n    174, 178-80; Mexicans, i., 641, 665; ii., 259, 279-80, 303-40,\n    351-2, 389-96, 587, 601, 612-23; iii., 307-8, 313, 336 passim;\n    v., 88; Central Americans, ii., 662, 678-710, 719-21, 738, 796;\n    iii., 72, 481, 493; see also Sacrifices.\n\n  Ogden Valley, i., 469.\n\n  Ogden's Channel Islands, i., 294.\n\n  Oglemutes, i., 140, see Aglegmutes.\n\n  Ogus, an Asiatic prince, v., 47.\n\n  Ohaguames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Ohiat, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Ohio, Mississippi valley, antiq., iv., 751.\n\n  Ohlones (Sulones, Costanos), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Ohuapan, city, Guerrero, v., 412.\n\n  Ohueras, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609; lang.,\n    iii., 707.\n\n  Ohyaht, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Oiatuch, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Oiclela, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Oil, i., 47, 55, 63, 72, 78, 86, 103, 162-3, 180, 186, 188,\n    215-16, 716, 743, 753, 765; ii., 487, 599.\n\n  Ointment, i., 204, 568; ii., 145, 214, 598-9; iii., 433.\n\n  Oioksecumnes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 450.\n\n  Oiyotls, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 444.\n\n  Ojai (Aujay), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Ojo del Pescado, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 647-8.\n\n  Okanagan Lake, i., 251.\n\n  Okanagan River, i., 251, 253, 312.\n\n  Okanagans (Oakinackens, Oakinacks, Okinakanes), tribe of\n    Shushwaps, i., 250-91; location, i., 251, 312-13; special\n    mention, i., 256-7, 260, 262, 264-5, 268, 270-2, 275-6, 278-81,\n    284, 288-90; myth., iii., 153-4, 519; lang., iii., 616; origin,\n    v., 22.\n\n  Okenokes, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 445.\n\n  Okkowish, name for Modocs, i., 444.\n\n  Okot uil, Maya dance, ii., 697.\n\n  Okowvinjha, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Okshee, name for Klamaths, i., 444.\n\n  Olalti, name of month in Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Olamentkes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    449; lang., iii., 648, 654.\n\n  Olanches (Olash), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 450, 456.\n\n  Olancho, locality, Honduras, i., 790, 793; antiq., iv., 70.\n\n  Olcacaran, medicinal plant, i., 640.\n\n  Olchones, i., 453, see Alchones.\n\n  Old age, treatment of aged, i., 390, 437, 515, 568.\n\n  Oleepas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450; special mention, i., 389-90, 398.\n\n  Olemos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Olestura, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Olhones (Oljon), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 453; iii., 653; lang., iii., 653.\n\n  Oliliuhqui, Nahua drug, ii., 601.\n\n  Oliman, station, Quich\u00e9 migration, v., 185, 562.\n\n  Olintepec, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 124.\n\n  Olives, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613;\n    lang., iii., 744.\n\n  Oljon, i., 453, see Olhones.\n\n  Ollantaytambo, Peru, antiq., iv., 804.\n\n  Olleppauh'lkahtehtls, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 445.\n\n  Ollin, Nahua day, ii., 512, 516-17.\n\n  Olmecatl, Olmec ruler, v., 196.\n\n  Olmeca Vixtoti, Olmec provinces, v., 190, 197.\n\n  Olmecs (Hulmecas, Olmecas, Olm\u00e8ques, Ulmecs), Nahua nation, i.,\n    617-44; ii., 133-629; location and name, i., 671; ii., 112-14,\n    129; special mention, ii., 343, 554; lang., iii., 724; origin,\n    v., 22; hist., v., 195-202, 484, 488, 491, 499, 527-8, 606-7,\n    612-13, 616, 621.\n\n  Olmolococ, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Olohzabkamyax, Maya feast, ii., 700.\n\n  Oloman, Quich\u00e9 tribal name and station, v., 21, 546, 561-2.\n\n  Olompalis, i., 453, see Olumpali.\n\n  Olonutchamnes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 450.\n\n  Ol\u00f3wedocs, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location and\n    name, i., 456.\n\n  Olowe\u00e9yas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location and\n    name, i., 456.\n\n  Olowits, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location and\n    name, i., 456.\n\n  Olpen, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Olumpali (Olompalis), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 453.\n\n  Omaca (Omeacatl), lord of Tlalmanalco, v., 349.\n\n  Omah\u00e1, North Californian god, iii., 176, 523.\n\n  Omatchamnes (Omochumnies, Omutchamnes, Omutchumnes), Central\n    Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 450; lang., iii.,\n    649.\n\n  Omaxtux, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Ome Acatl (Omeacatl), Nahua god, iii., 408, see Omaca.\n\n  Omecioatl (Omecihuatl), name of Citlalicue, ii., 273; iii., 58,\n    370, 373.\n\n  Omens, of disaster, Mexico, v., 463-71, 526, 535, 601, 604.\n\n  Ometecuhtli (Ometecutli, Ometeuctli), name of Citlalatonac, iii.,\n    58, 370, 373.\n\n  Ometepec, i., 792; antiq., iv., 29-30, 33, 39, 58-9, 61, 63-5.\n\n  Ometochtli, Nahua god, and order of priests, ii., 202, 273, 297,\n    359; iii., 418, 434.\n\n  Omeyateite, Nicaragua god, iii., 492.\n\n  Omeyatezigoat, Nicaragua goddess, iii., 492.\n\n  Omi, village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Omicxipan, Otom\u00ed noble, v., 317.\n\n  Omochumnies (Omutchamnes, Omutchumnes), i., 50, see Omatchamnes.\n\n  Ompivromo, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Onapa, village, Sonora, i., 601.\n\n  Onavas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; special mention, i.,\n    590.\n\n  Onbi, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Onieletochs, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Oomiak (Umiak), Alaskan boat, i., 60.\n\n  Oonalashka (Oonalaska), i., 90, see Unalaska.\n\n  Ootlashoots, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    312; special mention, i., 258.\n\n  Oparrapa, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  \u00d3patas (Opas), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    572, 605-6; special mention, i., 573-6, 581-3, 586-91; lang.,\n    iii., 684, 695, 699-704.\n\n  Opechisat (Opechisaht), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 295; special mention, i., 179.\n\n  Opecluset, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Openoches, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Ophir, locality of, v., 64-5.\n\n  Ophthalmia, i., 68, 245, 285, 521.\n\n  Opico Volcano, Salvador, antiq., iv., 69.\n\n  Opochtli, iii., 410, see Opuchtli.\n\n  Opodepe, village, Sonora, i., 606-7.\n\n  Oposura River, i., 605-6.\n\n  Oppegachs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    445.\n\n  Opuchtli (Opochtli), Nahua god, iii., 410; Aztec chief, v., 358.\n\n  Oputo, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Oquinajual, name of month in Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Oracles, i., 568; ii., 690; iii., 466, 483; v., 535-6, 606.\n\n  Oracle-stone, at Cahbaha, v., 601.\n\n  Oraibe (Oraive, Oraybe, Orayxa, Oreybe), Moqui village, i., 528,\n    600-1; lang., iii., 671.\n\n  Oranges, i., 652, 658.\n\n  Orations, see Speeches.\n\n  Oratories, ii., 164-5, 570-4, 687-8, 786; iii., 362, 409.\n\n  Oraybe, i., 600, see Oraibe.\n\n  Orayxa, i., 601, see Oraibe.\n\n  Orbaltzam, a Guatemalan ruler, v., 612.\n\n  Ore, Sinaloa, lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Oregon, tribes described, i., 222-91, 422-42; locations, i.,\n    304-22, 422, 460-3; lang., iii., 631, 660; antiq., iv., 734-5.\n\n  Orejones, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Oresta, Michoacan ruler, v., 513.\n\n  Oretigua, i., 791, see Oroti\u00f1ans.\n\n  Oreybe, i., 601, see Oraibe.\n\n  Orientales, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 473.\n\n  Origin, of American nations, v., 1-136, 538.\n\n  Oriza, food of Inland Columbian tribes, i., 266.\n\n  Orizava, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 435-6.\n\n  Ornaments, Hyperboreans, i., 72-3, 88-9, 97-100, 122, 128,\n    133; Columbians, i., 159, 165, 179-80, 182-3, 211, 258;\n    Californians, i., 333, 387-8, 424-6; New Mexicans, i., 482-4,\n    532-3, 558-9, 574-5; iii., 180; antiq., iv., 678; Mexicans, i.,\n    623, 649-51; ii., 290-1, 319-27, 337, 372-7, 395-6, 407, 440-1,\n    604, 606, 621; iii., 238, 249, 289-96, 314, 324-5, 385, 390-2,\n    423, 427; antiq., iv., 376, 383, 539; Central Americans, i.,\n    691, 716-17, 752-4; ii., 635, 732-3; antiq., iv., 18, 20, 22-4;\n    Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 778-9; Peru, antiq., iv., 792.\n\n  Orosaqui, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Oroti\u00f1a, city, Nicaragua, v., 613.\n\n  Oroti\u00f1ans (Oretigua), Guatemalan (Nicaragua) tribe, i., 686-711;\n    location, i., 688, 792; v., 613; lang., iii., 791-3.\n\n  Oroville, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Oruks, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 446.\n\n  Osacalis, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Ossegons, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 446.\n\n  Ostotl, Tlascala, antiq., iv., 478.\n\n  Ostuta, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 354.\n\n  Otaquitamones, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    610.\n\n  Othomis, i., 673, see Otomis.\n\n  Otlatl, bamboo, ii., 410.\n\n  Otoacte, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Otolum (Ototiun, Otula), native name for Palenque, iv., 295.\n\n  Otom\u00eds (Othomis), Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629;\n    location and name, i., 617-18, 673-4; ii., 129-30; special\n    mention, i., 625, 630, 632, 634, 643; ii., 261, 308, 371-2,\n    500; myth., iii., 541; lang., iii., 725, 737-41; v., 39-40,\n    205-6; hist., v., 205-6, 239, 503, 506, 510.\n\n  Otomitl, Nahua chief, v., 223.\n\n  Otompan (Otompa, Otumba), a town and chief of Mexico, i., 673;\n    iv., 544; v., 255, 283, 317-19, 347, 476.\n\n  Otoncapolco, Mexico, antiq., iv., 502-3.\n\n  Ototiun, iv., 295, see Otolum.\n\n  Otter, i., 77, 90, 108, 160, 166-7, 182, 188, 213, 230, 258, 330,\n    367-70, 383, 425; iii., 147.\n\n  Ottetiewa River, i., 447, see Scott's River.\n\n  Otula, iv., 295, see Otolum.\n\n  Otumba, i., 673, see Otompan.\n\n  Oturbe, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Otziuhcohuatl, v., 243, see Mazacohuatl.\n\n  Otzoya, a district in Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Ouakich, name for Nootka tribes, i., 176.\n\n  Ouallamat, (Ouallamet), i., 309-10, see Willamette.\n\n  Oualla Oualla, i., 318, see Walla Walla.\n\n  Ouches, gold ornaments, i., 766.\n\n  Ouchuchlisit, i., 295, see Howchuklisaht.\n\n  Ouiamot, name for Chinigchinich, iii., 165.\n\n  Ouiot, Acagchemem mythical person, iii., 162-5.\n\n  Oukskenahs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    444.\n\n  Oulasser, iii., 497, see Wulasha.\n\n  Ouloulatines, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 453.\n\n  Oumpini, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Ounalaska, i., 37, see Unalaska.\n\n  Ouraba, Sinaloa god, iii., 180.\n\n  Ousint, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Outchioung, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Ovas, i., 606, see Jovas.\n\n  Owens Lake, Cal., antiq., iv., 691.\n\n  Owens River, i., 466.\n\n  Owls, i., 171, 219, 405, 561, 741; iii., 128.\n\n  Oxametl, ii., 349, see Oyametl.\n\n  Oxib-Quieh, Quich\u00e9 ruler, v., 566, 595, 602.\n\n  Oxlahuh-Tzy, Cakchiquel king, v., 594, 596-600.\n\n  Oxmutal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 150.\n\n  Oxomoco, Nahua god, iii., 252; v., 190.\n\n  Oxomococipactonatl, Nahua inventor of medicine, ii., 597.\n\n  Oyametl (Oxametl), a species of tree, ii., 349, 557, 574.\n\n  Oyome, Chichimec ancient city, v., 219, 291.\n\n  Ozolaxochitl (Oceloxochitl, Oceloxroch), Toltec princess, v.,\n    299.\n\n  Ozomatli, Nahua day, ii., 512, 516-17; Zapotec king, v., 532.\n\n  Oztaxochitl, wife of Toltec chief, v., 297.\n\n  Oztolotl, station, Chichimec migration, v., 294.\n\n  Oztoman, city, Guerrero, v., 412, 442.\n\n  Oztoncalco, town, Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Oztoticpac, city, Mexico, v., 317, 333.\n\n  Oztotipac, station, Chichimec migration, v., 292.\n\n  Oztotl, v., 323, see Quinehuayan-Chicomoztoc.\n\n  Oztotlan, station, Aztec migration, v., 307, 324.\n\n  Ozumba, Mexico, antiq., iv., 496.\n\n\n  P\n\n  Paax, ii., 758, see Pax.\n\n  Paaylaps, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 301.\n\n  Pabavit, Los Angeles County tribes, first woman, iii., 84.\n\n  Pabucos, South Mexican tribe, i., 644-70; location, i., 681.\n\n  Pacaitun River, i., 683.\n\n  Pacalay, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Pacam, Quich\u00e9 god, v., 179.\n\n  Pacarab\u00f3s, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Pacasas, Acaxee dialect, iii., 719.\n\n  Pacandan Island, Michoacan, v., 519.\n\n  Pacawal, locality, Guatemala, v., 602.\n\n  Pachacamac, Peru, antiq., iv., 796-7; god, v., 47.\n\n  Pachagues, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pachales (Paxchales), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 612.\n\n  Pachalocos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Pachalum, locality, Guatemala, v., 559.\n\n  Pachan, iv., 295, see Nachan.\n\n  Pacheenas (Pacheenetts), i., 295, 297, see Patcheenas.\n\n  Pachera, Tarahumara dialect, iii., 711.\n\n  Pachhepes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Pachoches, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pachtli, Nahua month, ii., 511.\n\n  Pachtontli, Nahua month, ii., 511.\n\n  Pacimwane, Michoacan ruler, v., 517.\n\n  Pacoas (Pacuas), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    611-12.\n\n  Pacora, a province in Darien, i., 796.\n\n  Pacos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Pacos, Isthmian slaves, i., 771.\n\n  Pacpoles, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pacsiol, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Pacuaches (Paguachis), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    611-12.\n\n  Pacuas, i., 611, see Pacoas.\n\n  Pacuazin, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pacumchac, Maya feast, ii., 693.\n\n  Paddles, i., 60, 106, 130, 166, 185, 188, 190, 216, 238, 346,\n    382, 384, 408, 563, 583, 631, 658, 699, 725, 767; ii., 739;\n    iii., 342.\n\n  Padoucas, Pawnee term for Comanches, i., 473.\n\n  Pafaltoes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Pagouts, i., 441, see Pah Utes.\n\n  Pahcaba, term for sweat-house, i., 356.\n\n  Pahmetes, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 464.\n\n  Pahonahs, Shoshone water spirits, iii., 157.\n\n  Pahseego, food of Inland Columbian tribes, i., 265.\n\n  Pah Ute Creek, California, antiq., iv., 691.\n\n  Pah Utes (Pagouts, Pah Utahs, Pa-Utes, Pa Yutas, Pey Utes), tribe\n    of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 422, 465-6; special\n    mention, i., 424, 432-3, 441.\n\n  Pah Vants (Pahvents, Parant Utahs, Pa Vants), tribe of Shoshones,\n    i., 422-42; location, i., 422, 464, 468; special mention, i.,\n    442.\n\n  Pah Vant Valley, i., 464.\n\n  Pailsh (Pailsk), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location,\n    i., 303.\n\n  Paint Creek, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 755-6.\n\n  Painting, Hyperboreans, i., 47-8, 72, 84, 88, 97, 105-7, 122,\n    127, 130; Columbians, i., 159, 161, 165, 173, 178, 180-2,\n    184, 190, 193, 199, 206, 210-12, 216, 229, 236, 257, 274;\n    Californians, i., 333, 358, 370-1, 377-8, 393, 403-4, 424; iv.,\n    691-2; New Mexicans, i., 480-4, 495-6, 506-7, 531-2, 543-6,\n    550-1, 556, 559, 574-5; Mexicans, i., 622-3, 631, 649-51; ii.,\n    321-4, 333, 337, 363-4, 371-4, 405, 407, 486-8, 572; iii.,\n    386-7, 407-17, 435; iv., 306, 312, 400, 411; Central Americans,\n    i., 691, 701, 716, 752-4, 769; ii., 697, 700, 713, 724, 731-4,\n    741, 752, 768-70, 784, 787; iv., 19, 35-9, 63-5, 126, 189-90,\n    197, 219, 231-4, 275.\n\n  Paintzin, king of Xaltocan, v., 349.\n\n  Pai-uches, i., 440, see Pi Utahs.\n\n  Paiulee, Utah dialect, iii., 661.\n\n  Pai-Utes, i., 463, see Pi Utes.\n\n  Pajalames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Pajalaques, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pajalatames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pajalates, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pajaritos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Pajaro River, i., 455.\n\n  Pakoc, Itza god, iii., 483.\n\n  Pala, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Palaces, ii., 160-74, 440, 635, 787-9; antiq., iv., 123-5, 136-7,\n    154-285, 298-352, 391-412, 419-20, 431, 458-60, 523, 526, 544,\n    570, 798-9, 806.\n\n  Palaiks, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 447;\n    lang., iii., 640.\n\n  Palakahus, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 308.\n\n  Palanshan, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450.\n\n  Palanshawl Ustu, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 450.\n\n  Palagueques, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Palenque, ancient city, Chiapas, i., 683; ii., 118, 120, 633,\n    781-2; iii., 135; iv., 289-346; v., 58-9; hist., v., 169,\n    202-3, 232, 542, 544, 616, 619, 623.\n\n  Pallalts, tribe of Nootkas, i., 175-208; location, i., 298.\n\n  Pallawonaps, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; myth., iii.,\n    549-50.\n\n  Palletto Pallas, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 317.\n\n  Palm, various uses of, i., 166, 558, 560, 582, 589, 624, 630,\n    651-2, 690-3, 708, 716, 718, 722, 739, 755, 761, 765, 775; ii.,\n    363, 365, 484, 557; v., 221, 633.\n\n  Palmillas, forts, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 447.\n\n  Palmitos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Palos Verdes, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Palouse (Paloose, Palus, Peloose, Peluse), Inland Columbian\n    tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 253, 318; special mention, i.,\n    267, 290; lang., iii., 620-4.\n\n  Palouse River, i., 253, 317-18; myth., iii., 94-5.\n\n  Paloushiss, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Palpa, Mosquito food, i., 719.\n\n  Paltocac, i., 458, see Partocac.\n\n  Palus, i., 318, see Palouse.\n\n  Palux, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 305.\n\n  Pamaca, city, Guatemala, name for Zacualpa, v., 587.\n\n  Pamaques, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pamasus, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pames, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 617,\n    672-3; special mention, i., 624, 643; lang., iii., 742-3; v.,\n    510.\n\n  Pamoranos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Pampopas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611-12.\n\n  Pancacoya River, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 120.\n\n  Panam\u00e1, Isthmian province and tribe, i., 747-85;  location, i.,\n    796; special mention, i., 751, 770, 775-6, 784; antiq., iv.,\n    15-16.\n\n  Panamekas, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 713.\n\n  Panchoy Valley, Guatemala, v., 569.\n\n  Panes, Acagchemem buzzard-feast, iii., 168.\n\n  Panguais (Panguajes), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 613.\n\n  Panniers, see Baskets.\n\n  Panoaia, v., 189, see P\u00e1nuco.\n\n  Panoteca, i., 674, see Panteca.\n\n  Panotlan, i., 674, see P\u00e1nuco.\n\n  Panquetzaliztli, Nahua month, ii., 337, 394-6, 511; iii., 323.\n\n  Panteca (Panoteca), name for Huastecs, i., 674.\n\n  Pantecatl, Nahua god, iii., 418.\n\n  Pantemit, Mayapan lord, v., 626.\n\n  Pantitlan, locality, Mexico, iii., 333; station, Aztec migration,\n    v., 323-4.\n\n  Pantla River, Michoacan, v., 508.\n\n  Pantlan (Panotlan), i., 674, see P\u00e1nuco.\n\n  Pantzic, plateau, Guatemala, v., 574.\n\n  P\u00e1nuco (Panoaia, Panotlan, Pantlan, Panutla), province, Vera\n    Cruz, i., 622, 674; ii., 230; antiq., iv., 461-3; hist., v.,\n    189, 191, 196.\n\n  Paogas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pap\u00e1bi-Ootam, i., 602, see P\u00e1pagos.\n\n  P\u00e1pagos, tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; location, i., 526, 529,\n    602-3; special mention, i., 533-4, 538-9, 541, 545, 549, 553,\n    555; myth., iii., 75-7; v., 13, 20; lang., iii., 685, 694-9.\n\n  Papahua Tlemac\u00e0zque, a class of priests, v., 239.\n\n  Papaloiotilmatlitenisio, Nahua court mantle, ii., 374.\n\n  Papalotl, Ocotelulco ruler, v., 497.\n\n  Papantla, pyramid, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 452-4; station, Aztec\n    migration, v., 324.\n\n  Papantzin, a Toltec noble, v., 268-70; Mexican princess, v.,\n    467-8.\n\n  Papaztac, Nahua god, iii., 418.\n\n  Paper, various uses, etc., ii., 307, 314-16, 322-34, 389-93, 444,\n    485-6, 524, 603-5, 614, 771; iii., 333, 340-6, 383-92, 426.\n\n  Papigochic River, i., 606.\n\n  Papudos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 614.\n\n  Papuha, ancient home of Olmecs and Xicalancas, v., 196.\n\n  Papuhya, a mythic river, v., 178, 196.\n\n  Papuluka, a Guatemalan lordship, v., 597.\n\n  Parant Utahs, i., 464, see Pah Vants.\n\n  Paravan Valley, i., 468.\n\n  Parawat Utahs, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 464.\n\n  Paraxone, plateau, Guatemala, v., 574.\n\n  Parcialidades, name for Costa Rica tribes, i., 794.\n\n  Pariche, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Paris, Isthmian province and tribe, i., 747-85; location, i.,\n    749, 795; lang., iii., 793-4.\n\n  Parka, Koniaga dress, i., 73-4.\n\n  Parras, Zacatec dialect, iii., 719.\n\n  Parras Lake, i., 576.\n\n  Parrazquin, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 124.\n\n  Parrots, i., 574, 652, 708, 754; ii., 489, 716.\n\n  Partitions, dwellings, i., 259, 535, 718; ii., 572, 784, 787.\n\n  Partocac (Paltocac), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 458.\n\n  Paruraca, province and tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location,\n    i., 796.\n\n  Pasalves, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Paschtol, i., 141, see Pashtolik.\n\n  Paschtoligmjuten (Paschtoligm\u00fcten, Paschtuligm\u00fcten), i., 141, see\n    Pashtoliks.\n\n  Pasecgna (Pasheckno), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 459, 460.\n\n  Paseos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pasey Creek, i., 456.\n\n  Pashtolik Bay, i., 70, 141.\n\n  Pashtolik (Paschtol, Pestol) River, i., 70, 141.\n\n  Pashtoliks (Paschtoligmjuten, Paschtoligm\u00fcten, Paschtuligm\u00fcten),\n    tribe of Koniagas, i., 69-87; location, i., 70, 141.\n\n  Pasinogna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    460.\n\n  Pasitas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Paso de Ovejas, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 438-9.\n\n  Pason, locality, Guatemala, i., 789.\n\n  Passaguates, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Passports, Nahua burial, ii., 604, 614; iii., 513, 537.\n\n  Pastalocos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pastancoyas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Patacales, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pataloma, i., 449, see Petaluma.\n\n  Patamagua Nacaraho, locality, Michoacan, v., 518.\n\n  Patapee, Carib basket, i., 724.\n\n  Patawats, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 446;\n    special mention, i., 329, 348, 350, 357, 361; lang., iii., 643.\n\n  Pataways, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 445;\n    lang., iii., 642.\n\n  Patcheena (Pacheena, Pacheenett), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 175, 297.\n\n  Patinamit, ii., 637, see Iximch\u00e9.\n\n  Patlacht\u00e9, cacao money, ii., 381-2.\n\n  Patnetac, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Patoliztli, Nahua game, ii., 300.\n\n  Patolli, gambling beans, ii., 300.\n\n  Patolquachtli, cloth money, ii., 382.\n\n  Patook (Potook) River, i., 793-4; iii., 783.\n\n  Patulul, city, Guatemala, i., 788; v., 586.\n\n  Patzcuaro, station, Aztec migration, v., 323; city, Michoacan,\n    v., 521-2, 524.\n\n  Patzcuaro Isles, v., 511.\n\n  Patzcuaro Lake, ii., 107; v., 323, 328, 509.\n\n  Patzima, locality, Guatemala, v., 559.\n\n  Patzun, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 123-4.\n\n  Pautomaugons, Chinook war clubs, i., 237.\n\n  Pauzanes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Pa Vants, i., 468, see Pah Vants.\n\n  Pavement, i., 185; ii., 575, 578; antiq., iv., 23, 175, 398, 466.\n\n  Pavilion River, i., 318.\n\n  Pawacume, Chichimec Wanacace ruler, v., 515-22.\n\n  Pawlowskojes, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Pawluchs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 317.\n\n  Pax (Paax), Maya month, ii., 693, 757-8.\n\n  Paxchales, i., 611, see Pachales.\n\n  Paxil Cayala, Quich\u00e9 mythic region, ii., 716-17; v., 180, 184,\n    186.\n\n  Paxpili (Axpitil), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location,\n    i., 458.\n\n  Payaguas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Payanmin, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Payaqui, name for Chiquimula kingdom, v., 545.\n\n  Paya River, i., 796-7.\n\n  Payas, Guatemalan tribe, i., 686-711; location, i., 790.\n\n  Payas, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 797.\n\n  Paye-Tome, Brazil god, v., 23-4.\n\n  Paynal, Nahua god, iii., 387-8.\n\n  Paynalton, Nahua god, iii., 187, 298-9, 303.\n\n  Paysim, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Payuches i., 464, see Pi Utahs.\n\n  P\u00e1 Yutas, i., 466, see Pah Utes.\n\n  Payzanos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Peace, see Treaties.\n\n  Peace River, i., 130, 144.\n\n  Peaches, i., 505, 539.\n\n  Peahay, food of Inland Columbian tribes, i., 265.\n\n  Pearl Island, lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Pearl Key Lagoon, i., 794.\n\n  Pearls, i., 165, 258, 382, 408, 558-9, 574, 583-4, 651, 768; ii.,\n    376, 481, 733, 750; iv., 782.\n\n  Pechetaro, locality, Michoacan, v., 518.\n\n  Pecos (Navon de los Pecos), Pueblo village, i., 527, 554, 600;\n    antiq., iv., 663, 671.\n\n  Pecquans, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 444.\n\n  Pecuris, iii., 682, see Picuris.\n\n  Pecyous, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Pedro, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Peel River Indians, i., 146, see Tatlit Kutchin.\n\n  Peel's River, i., 115, 146-7.\n\n  Peeshaaak, term of contempt among Sound Indians, i., 221.\n\n  Peh-tsik, term applied to some Trinity River tribes, i., 327,\n    444; see also Ehnek, iii., 642.\n\n  Pelaxilla, a Mexican princess, v., 446-7, 535.\n\n  Pelican, Ceris' dress, i., 574.\n\n  Pelloatpallahs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    317.\n\n  Pelly River, i., 148; lang., iii., 587.\n\n  Pelones, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 474.\n\n  Peloose (Peluse), i., 317-18, see Palouse.\n\n  Pelua, food of Inland Columbian tribes, i., 265.\n\n  Penance, ii., 147, 258, 261, 303-4, 312-14, 335, 688; iii., 249,\n    256, 383, 395, 404, 421, 436-7, 440-2, 487; v., 258.\n\n  Penand\u00e9s, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Pe\u00f1asco Collection, Mexican Republic, antiq., iv., 560.\n\n  Pend d'Oreille Lake, i., 252, 313; antiq., iv., 734.\n\n  Pend d'Oreille (Killuspehn) River, i., 313.\n\n  Pend d'Oreilles (Calispellums, Calispels, Kalispelms, Kalispels,\n    Kellespem, Kullas-Palus, Kullespelms, Ponderas), Inland\n    Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 252, 312-14; special\n    mention, i., 257, 260, 262, 267, 271-2, 278-80, 283-4, 289;\n    myth., iii., 522; lang., iii., 615.\n\n  Penn's Cove, i., 215, 221, 299.\n\n  Pe\u00f1ol, cave, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 117.\n\n  Pe\u00f1oles, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 376.\n\n  Pensacola Island, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 48-51.\n\n  Peor-Apis, Phallic-worship, iii., 501.\n\n  Pephtsoh, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 445.\n\n  Pepper, i., 653, 694-5, 700, 719; ii., 599, 718-19, 722; iii.,\n    336.\n\n  Pequine, a species of wild vine, i., 720.\n\n  Peranscuaro, Matlaltzinca festival, iii., 446.\n\n  Perfume, i., 651, 654, 730; ii., 161, 256-8, 287, 603, 614, 618,\n    620, 734.\n\n  Peric\u00fais (Pericos, Periuches), Lower Californian tribe, i.,\n    556-71; location, i., 557, 604; special mention, i., 558-9,\n    565-7, 570; myth., iii., 83-4, 169-70, 529; v., 20; lang.,\n    iii., 687.\n\n  Perjury, punishment of, i., 770; ii., 444, 463, 656.\n\n  Personal habits, Hyperboreans, i., 49, 65, 111-12; Columbians,\n    i., 235, 267; Californians, i., 341, 377, 407, 430-1; New\n    Mexicans, i., 492-3, 540, 562; Mexicans, i., 626-7, 654;\n    Central Americans, i., 696, 722, 760; ii., 734-5.\n\n  Peru, antiq., iv., 791-807; civilization of, v., 44-51; migration\n    from, v., 529-30.\n\n  Peruqueta, province of Darien, i., 795.\n\n  Peruvians, myth., iii., 269; v., 14-17, 23-4; antiq., iv.,\n    791-807; civilization and origin, v., 44-51.\n\n  Pesso, Mosquito drink, i., 739.\n\n  Pestilence, Mexicans, i., 638-9; ii., 593; iii., 200-4; v.,\n    413-14; Guatemalans, v., 601.\n\n  Pestnjakow-swoje, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Pet\u00e1h, root used as food, i., 374.\n\n  Petajaya, i., 540, see Pitahaya.\n\n  Petaluma (Pataloma, Petlenum), i., 449, 452-3.\n\n  Petalumas (Yolhios), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 363, 452.\n\n  Petampich River, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 260.\n\n  Petapa, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 120-1.\n\n  Petapa, hill, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 353.\n\n  Petapa, town, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 372.\n\n  Petate (Petlatl), a palm-leaf mat, i., 630, 656.\n\n  Petatlan, Sinaloa dialect, iii., 707.\n\n  Peten, province and city, Guatemala, i., 683, 786; ii., 634;\n    antiq., iv., 133-9; name for Yucatan, v., 614, 624.\n\n  Peten Lake, ii., 133-5, 138; iii., 483; v., 634.\n\n  Petlacalli, bamboo packing cases, ii., 386.\n\n  Petlenum, i., 453, see Petaluma.\n\n  Petticoats, i., 558, 574, 620-1, 648-50, 752; ii., 728.\n\n  Peyote, medicine, i., 589.\n\n  Pey Utes, i., 466, see Pah Utes.\n\n  Phallic-worship, relics of, iii., 501-9; iv., 41, 42, 44, 48, 50,\n    56-7, 66, 167, 175, 189, 196, 202, 276, 358, 481-2, 562; v.,\n    42-3.\n\n  Pharaones, i., 594, see Faraones.\n\n  Philadelphia Philosophical Society, Mexican Republic, antiq.,\n    iv., 560, 562.\n\n  Phlebotomy, i., 86, 395, 568, 667, 709, 743, 779; ii., 479-80,\n    601, 796.\n\n  Ph\u0153nicians, American origin-traces, v., 63-76.\n\n  Phonechas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Physical Geography, Home of Hyperboreans, i., 38-9, 71; of\n    Columbians, i., 152-3, 156; of Californians, i., 323-4; of\n    New Mexicans, i., 471-2, 476, 556-7, 571-2; of Mexicans, i.,\n    616-17, 644-5; ii., 107; of Central Americans, i., 684-7, 712,\n    747-8; of American civilization, ii., 86-90; Yucatan, iv.,\n    140-2; Tabasco and Chiapas, iv., 287-8;  Vera Cruz, iv., 425-6.\n\n  Physicians, see Medicine.\n\n  Physiognomy, see Face.\n\n  Physique, Hyperboreans, i., 45-7, 71-2, 88, 97, 116-17, 122,\n    132-3; iii., 578; Columbians, i., 176-9, 210, 224-5, 254-6;\n    Californians, i., 327-9, 364-7, 402-3; New Mexicans, i., 472-3,\n    477-9, 529-30, 558; Mexicans, i., 24, 618-19, 646-8; ii.,\n    624-5; Central Americans, i., 688-9, 714-15, 749-51; ii., 802;\n    Quetzalcoatl, iii., 250, 255, 260, 269, 273-4.\n\n  Piaba, village, Sinaloa, i., 614.\n\n  Piaces (Piachas), Isthmian sorcerers, i., 777.\n\n  Picacho River, i., 528, 601.\n\n  Picoris, i., 599, see Picuris.\n\n  Picote, whipping-post, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 167, 171, 175, 202.\n\n  Picture-writing, see Hieroglyphics.\n\n  Picula Kakla, Maya drink, ii., 703.\n\n  Picuris (Pecuris, Picoris), tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56;\n    location, i., 599; lang., iii., 681-3.\n\n  Picyetl, Nahua tobacco, ii., 287.\n\n  Pi Edes (Py Edes), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i.,\n    422, 468; special mention, i., 430, 436, 440; lang., iii., 662.\n\n  Piedra de la Boca, statue, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 54.\n\n  Piedra Grande (San Gaspar), Guerrero, antiq., iv., 424.\n\n  Piedra Pintal, at Caldera, Isthmus, antiq., iv., 16.\n\n  Pigeon River, i., 342.\n\n  Pigs, see Hogs.\n\n  Pihuiques, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Piiru, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Pijmos, i., 530, see Pimas.\n\n  Pike County, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 763.\n\n  Pikek, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Piketon, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 764-5.\n\n  Pilcalli, entail of land, ii., 229.\n\n  Pilgrims, v., 496, 532, 618.\n\n  Pillalli, lands of nobles, ii., 225.\n\n  Pillar of Death, at Mitla, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 408.\n\n  Pillar Rock, locality, Oregon, i., 304.\n\n  Pillars, see Columns.\n\n  Pilli, Nahua title, ii., 187.\n\n  Pillows, ii., 572, 786.\n\n  Piltzinteolli, Jaliscan god, iii., 447.\n\n  Piltzinteucy\u00f2hua, Nahua calendar sign and god, ii., 516.\n\n  Pimas, (Pijmos, Pimos), tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; location,\n    i., 526, 528-9, 601-2; special mention, i., 530, 532-4, 539,\n    541-5, 547-55; myth., iii., 78-80, 131, 526-7; v., 13-14, 20;\n    lang., iii., 569, 584-5, 694-8.\n\n  Pimocagna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    460.\n\n  Pimos, iii., 131, see Pimas.\n\n  Pimps, punishment of, ii., 469.\n\n  Pinale\u00f1os (Pinalinos, Pi\u00f1als, Pi\u00f1ols), tribe of Apaches, i.,\n    473-526; location, i., 474, 595-6.\n\n  Pi\u00f1al Mountains, i., 602.\n\n  Pinanacas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pinar, locality, Guatemala, v., 586.\n\n  Pine, various uses, i., 104, 156, 162-3, 172, 184-5, 189, 191,\n    204, 217, 237, 260, 266-7, 272, 346, 431, 439, 560, 692; ii.,\n    557, 599.\n\n  Pine-apple, i., 719, 739, 775; ii., 724.\n\n  Pineugna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Pinogana, town, Darien, i., 796.\n\n  Pinolatl, gruel, i., 577.\n\n  Pinole (Pinolli), corn flour, i., 374, 577-8; iii., 360.\n\n  Pi\u00f1ols, i., 595, see Pinale\u00f1os.\n\n  Pinomes, i., 677, see Tlapanecs.\n\n  Pinotl, governor of Cuetlachtlan, v., 479.\n\n  Pinotl-Chochons, i., 677, see Tlapanecs.\n\n  Pintos, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 572,\n    613, 681; special mention, i., 574, 638-9, 643.\n\n  Pinula, town, Guatemala, i., 788.\n\n  Piocheque, tresses, ii., 371.\n\n  Piochtli, a scalp lock, ii., 371.\n\n  Pipes, i., 165, 189, 199, 237, 354, 382, 434-5, 544, 699, 705;\n    ii., 287; iv., 781.\n\n  Pipian, a stew, ii., 356.\n\n  Pipiles, Maya nation, i., 686-711; ii., 630-803; location and\n    name, i., 688, 790; ii., 123, 130; special mention, ii., 645,\n    651, 657-9, 665-70, 675, 678, 680-1, 706-8, 719, 728, 730, 741,\n    745-7, 800-1; myth., iii., 484-8, 507, 542; hist., v., 585-6,\n    598, 606-11.\n\n  Pipiolcomic, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Piraraylos, Isthmian title, i., 770.\n\n  Pirindas, name for Matlaltzincas, i., 677; hist., v., 523-4.\n\n  Piro, North Mexican lang., iii., 714.\n\n  Piscaous, i., 316, see Pisquouse.\n\n  Piscour River, i., 312.\n\n  Piscouse (Piscous), i., 316, see Pisquouse.\n\n  Pishquitpaws, i., 271, see Pisquitpaws.\n\n  Pishwanwapums, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    320.\n\n  Piskwaus, i., 316, see Pisquouse.\n\n  Pisones, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612;\n    lang., iii., 744.\n\n  Pisquitpaws (Pishquitpaws, Pisquitpahs), Inland Columbian tribe,\n    i., 250-91; location, i., 321; special mention, i., 258, 271.\n\n  Pisquouse (Piscaous, Piscous, Piscouse, Piskwaus), Inland\n    Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 253, 312, 316;\n    special mention, i., 275; lang., iii., 618.\n\n  Pisquouse River, i., 316.\n\n  Pistol River, i., 442.\n\n  Pita, a species of hemp, i., 657-8, 689-90, 697-9, 766; ii., 409.\n\n  Pitahaya (Petajaya), a fruit used for food, etc., i., 539-40,\n    550, 560, 576, 586, 624.\n\n  Pitao-Cocobi, Zapotec god, iii., 457.\n\n  Pitao Cozaana, Zapotec god, iii., 449.\n\n  Pitao-Xoo, Zapotec god, iii., 457.\n\n  Pitas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Pitaycachi Valley, i., 595.\n\n  Pitcatches, i., 455, see Pitiaches.\n\n  Pitches, i., 433, see Sampitches.\n\n  Pitem (Pitem\u00e8ns), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 453.\n\n  Pitiaches (Pitcatches), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 363, 455-6.\n\n  Pitisfiafuiles, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    612.\n\n  Pitpan, Mosquito river boat, i., 725.\n\n  Pitt Archipelago, i., 155, 294.\n\n  Pitt River, i., 344, 447, 457.\n\n  Pitt River Indians, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; special\n    mention, i., 329-30, 337, 341-6, 351, 353-5, 357-61; lang.,\n    iii., 638, 640.\n\n  Pi Utahs (Pai-Uches, Payuches, Piuchas), tribe of Shoshones, i.,\n    422-42; location, i., 464; special mention, i., 440.\n\n  Pi Utes (Pai Utes, Pyutes), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42;\n    location, i., 466-7; special mention, i., 431, 433, 437, 440-1;\n    myth., iii., 135; lang., iii., 661-2.\n\n  Pixahua, a Toltec prince, v., 297.\n\n  Pixbaex, Isthmian fruit, i., 759.\n\n  Placer County, i., 398, 450; antiq., iv., 706.\n\n  Placerville, town, California, i., 365; antiq., iv., 705.\n\n  Plagues, Toltec, hist., v., 274-5; see also Pestilence.\n\n  Plantain, see Banana.\n\n  Plant-sculpture, iv., 112, 114.\n\n  Plasters, medicine, i., 172, 395-6, 419, 568; ii., 598.\n\n  Plates, see Dishes.\n\n  Platforms, i., 160, 163, 338-9, 397, 718, 724, 782; ii., 322,\n    443, 556, 692, 703, 718, 785; iii., 425.\n\n  Plating, ii., 477, 750.\n\n  Playanos, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Plaza Mayor, Mexico, antiq., iv., 505-17, 520.\n\n  Plaza Tlatelulco, Mexico, antiq., iv., 517-19.\n\n  Pleasure-gardens, Nahuas, ii., 163-73.\n\n  Pleiades, Nahua sign for new fire, iii., 394.\n\n  Plenty, Nahua prayer for, iii., 200.\n\n  Plows, i., 543, 582.\n\n  Plumes, see Feathers.\n\n  Plummet, Nahuas, ii., 557.\n\n  Plunkett Creek, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 768.\n\n  Poaramas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Poblazon, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 663.\n\n  Poborosa, province and tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location,\n    i., 795.\n\n  Pocam, Maya feast, ii., 696.\n\n  Pochotl, a species of seed, ii., 359; a Toltec prince, v., 285,\n    299-301; lord of Chalco Atenco, v., 349.\n\n  Pochtecas, Nahua merchants, ii., 380, 491, 616.\n\n  Pochtlan, a ward in Mexico city, ii., 491.\n\n  Poch\u00fatla, locality, Oajaca, i., 679.\n\n  Po\u00e7olatl, i., 578, see Pozole.\n\n  Pocomams, ii., 121, see Pokomams.\n\n  Pocomchi (Poconchi), i., 788, see Pokomams.\n\n  Pocorosa, Isthmian province and tribe, i., 747-85; location, i.,\n    796.\n\n  Poctepec, town, Guerrero, v., 412.\n\n  Pocyetl, Nahua tobacco, ii., 287.\n\n  Poetry, i., 701, 727; ii., 286, 493-7; v., 428.\n\n  Poggamoggon, club of Snake Indians, i., 431.\n\n  Poh-lik, Klamath appellation, i., 327, 444.\n\n  Pohoneeches, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 455-6.\n\n  P\u00f3hono Fall, iii., 126.\n\n  Poiauhtla, a sacred place, Mexico, ii., 585; iii., 333.\n\n  Poin, name of month in Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Point Adams, i., 304, 306.\n\n  Point Barrow, i., 42, 45, 47-8, 50, 69, 138; lang., iii., 576.\n\n  Point Concepcion, i., 458.\n\n  Point Grenville, i., 303.\n\n  Point Hopkins, i., 174.\n\n  Point Lewis, i., 306.\n\n  Point Nisuc, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 260.\n\n  Poison, i., 79, 343, 378-9, 432-3, 541, 577-9, 586-7, 722-3, 760,\n    762-3, 782; ii., 408-9, 721, 742-4.\n\n  Pojuaque, Pueblo village and tribe, i., 526-56; location, i.,\n    599; lang., iii., 681.\n\n  Pokboc, city, Yucatan, v., 632.\n\n  Pokerville, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Pokomams (Pocomams, Pokonchis), Maya nation, i., 686-711; ii.,\n    630-803; location and name, i., 788; ii., 121, 130; lang.,\n    iii., 760-1, 764-6; hist., v., 541, 555, 557-8, 561, 563-4,\n    566, 569, 576-7, 591, 593-4.\n\n  Pokoninos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Pole (Popole), Yucatan, antiq., iv., 260.\n\n  Police, i., 546; ii., 565-7, 655.\n\n  Polish, Nahua architecture, ii., 560, 570-1, 573, 578-9, 581.\n\n  Politos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Polokawynahs, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 456.\n\n  Polonches, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 317.\n\n  Poloyamas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Polyandry, i., 66, 82, 197.\n\n  Polyer, i., 793, see Poyer.\n\n  Polygamy, see Marriage.\n\n  Pomos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location and name,\n    i., 362, 448; special mention, i., 325, 379, 396; lang., iii.,\n    643-4, 646.\n\n  Pome Pomos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location and\n    name, i., 362, 448.\n\n  Pompey, Mississippi Valley, antiq., v., 115.\n\n  Pomulumas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Ponderas, i., 252, see Pend d'Oreilles.\n\n  Ponds, ii., 165, 353; iii., 435.\n\n  P\u00f3nida, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Pook, Mojave shell-money, i., 506.\n\n  Pop, (Poop, Popp), Maya month, ii., 695, 757.\n\n  Popkah, bulb eaten by Inland Columbian tribes, i., 265.\n\n  Popocatepetl, ominous eruption of, v., 460.\n\n  Popocaxtli, vase, Tlascala, antiq., iv., 479.\n\n  Popoconaltepetl, mountain, v., 207.\n\n  Popole, iv., 260, see Pole.\n\n  Popolocas (Popolucas), i., 677, see Tlapanecs.\n\n  Popol Winak Chituy, Quich\u00e9 official, ii., 644.\n\n  Popol Winak Pahom Tzalatz Xcaxeba, Quich\u00e9 official, ii., 644.\n\n  Popotlan, (Popotla), locality, Mexico, iii., 298; station, Aztec\n    migration, v., 323, name for Tacuba.\n\n  P\u00f3pulo, village, Sonora, i., 605.\n\n  Poquietl, perfume canes, ii., 206.\n\n  Porcupine, i., 128, 258, 425, 482-3, 753, 761; ii., 601.\n\n  Porcupine River, i., 115, 146-7.\n\n  Porpoise, i., 103.\n\n  Porsiuncula River, i., 456.\n\n  Port Discovery, i., 210-12, 219-20, 302.\n\n  Porterfield, California, antiq., iv., 704.\n\n  Porters, see Carriers.\n\n  Port Essington, i., 293.\n\n  Porticoes, Nahua market places, ii., 383, 565.\n\n  Portland Canal, i., 143, 293-4.\n\n  Port Ludlow, i., 302.\n\n  Porto Belo, i., 753.\n\n  Port Orchard, i., 216, 220, 222, 301.\n\n  Port Orford, i., 443.\n\n  Portrait-sculpture, antiq., iv., 56-8, 82, 99, 101, 168, 276-7,\n    381, 427, 435, 462-3, 502, 595; v., 424, 435, 455.\n\n  Portsmouth, Mississippi valley, antiq., iv., 758.\n\n  Port Townsend, i., 214, 302.\n\n  Port Trinidad, i., 342.\n\n  Poruches, i., 464, see Nomenuches.\n\n  Posole, i., 654, see Pozole.\n\n  Possession Sound, i., 299.\n\n  Posuamas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Potaaches, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Potam (Potan), village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Potatoes, i., 161-2, 167, 652.\n\n  Potlapiguas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 606.\n\n  Potoancies, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Potoashees (Potoashs), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location,\n    i., 303, 305.\n\n  Poton, Guatemalan lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Potonchan, v., 226, see Champoton.\n\n  Potook, i., 794, see Patook.\n\n  Potoyantes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; myth., iii.,\n    87; v., 19.\n\n  Potoyucca, Nahuas, food, ii., 357.\n\n  Potrero, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Pots, i., 185, 187, 434, 582, 656, 697, 724.\n\n  Potter Valley, i., 362, 448; lang., iii., 643.\n\n  Pottery, Columbians, antiq., iv., 735; Californians, i., 434;\n    antiq., iv., 710, 714-15, 718-20; New Mexicans, i., 500, 504,\n    543, 546, 582; antiq., iv., 575-7, 594, 600, 611-12, 633-4,\n    636, 642-4, 646-7, 661, 678-9; Mexicans, i., 658; ii., 483-4;\n    antiq., iv., 368, 372, 383, 387-8, 427-8, 462-3, 521, 526-7,\n    541-2, 547; Central Americans, i., 697-8, 701, 724, 766-7; ii.,\n    752, 787; antiq., iv., 19-23, 62-6, 70, 76, 137, 139, 199, 278;\n    Mississippi valley, antiq., iv., 779-80; Peru, antiq., iv.,\n    795-6.\n\n  Poultry, i., 538, 544, 652.\n\n  Power, see Government.\n\n  Poxtla, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 445.\n\n  Poyas, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 712, 793;\n    special mention, i., 714, 716, 719-22, 726-8, 746; lang., iii.,\n    783.\n\n  Poyauhtlan, Teo-Chichimec settlement, v., 330; battles at, v.,\n    336, 487-8, 494, 497, 503.\n\n  Poyer Mts., i., 793.\n\n  Poyer (Polyer) River, i., 793.\n\n  Poytoquis, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; lang., iii.,\n    653.\n\n  Pozole (Posole, Po\u00e7olatl), a thin gruel, i., 577-8, 654.\n\n  Pozoltega, town, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Ppapp-Hol-Chac, Maya temple, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 248.\n\n  Pranzos, i., 748, see Guatusos.\n\n  Prayers, ii., 492, 689; iii., 30, 195-6, 200-30, 325-30, 370-5,\n    381-2, 438.\n\n  Precious stones, ii., 290, 372, 376, 481-2, 606, 635, 737, 750;\n    iii., 398.\n\n  Pregnancy, see Women.\n\n  Presents, Hyperboreans, i., 67, 84, 92; Columbians, i., 168, 172,\n    191-2, 196; Californians, i., 389, 411; New Mexicans, i., 500,\n    548, 565, 584; Mexicans, i., 632-3, 662-3; ii., 140, 256-7,\n    260, 272, 276, 286, 391, 421-4, 432, 446, 603, 607, 612, 617;\n    Central Americans, i., 702-3, 729-33, 740, 769, 772, 777; ii.,\n    635, 641, 647, 655, 666-70, 684, 694, 711, 799.\n\n  Priapus, Phallic-worship, iii., 501.\n\n  Priests, origin of, iii., 21-2, 31; New Mexicans, iii., 173;\n    Mexicans, ii., 142-3, 200-15, 243, 303, 307, 334, 401,\n    425, 428, 469, 608; iii., 431-8, 446-7; v., 500-1; Central\n    Americans, i., 716, 734, 740; ii., 647-8, 663, 682-4, 688-710,\n    727-30, 745, 769, 800; iii., 472-3, 489-90, 495-6, 499.\n\n  Priestesses, Mexicans, ii., 204-6, 245; iii., 435-6.\n\n  Priest Rapids, i., 253, 312, 316, 321.\n\n  Primoski, tribe of Koniagas, i., 69-87; location, i., 140.\n\n  Prince of Wales Archipelago, i., 143, 155, 292; iii., 604.\n\n  Princetown, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Prince William Sound, i., 70, 73, 79, 139, 149; iii., 588.\n\n  Prisoners, see Captives.\n\n  Privileges, ii., 168, 191, 221-2, 403-4.\n\n  Processions, ii., 144, 181-2, 255, 316-18, 322, 335-7, 350, 428,\n    432, 607-8, 617-21, 668, 689, 700, 710; iii., 297-9.\n\n  Property, Hyperboreans, i., 63-4, 128; Columbians, i., 167,\n    173, 184, 191-2, 201, 205-6, 217, 239, 247, 272-3, 288-9;\n    Californians, i., 347, 385, 396, 409, 439-40; New Mexicans, i.,\n    505-6, 522-3, 544-5, 555, 564, 569; Mexicans, i., 631, 640-1,\n    658-9, 664; ii., 263-4, 462-3, 611; iii., 241, 430-2; Central\n    Americans, i., 699-700, 725-6, 744, 768, 780-3; ii., 652-3,\n    659-60, 735-6, 798-801.\n\n  Prophecies, v., 466-9, 499, 526, 598-9, 633.\n\n  Prophets, see Sorcerers.\n\n  Proqueu, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Prostitution, i., 168-9, 195-7, 218, 278, 351, 436-7, 514-15,\n    549, 565-6, 585-6, 635, 773; ii., 266, 676.\n\n  Pructaca, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Pruristac, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Pshwanwappams (Pshawanwappam), Inland Columbian tribe, i.,\n    250-91; location, i., 320.\n\n  Ptolmes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Puallipawmish (Pualliss), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 301.\n\n  Pualliss River, i., 301.\n\n  Puberty, i., 197, 351, 392, 414-15, 511, 548, 584, 772.\n\n  Pubugna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Pucro River, i., 796.\n\n  Puebla, nations described, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; special\n    mention, i., 620, 625, 671, 674-5; ii., 215; lang., iii., 737,\n    749; antiq., iv., 465-78; hist., v., 196-7, 527, 621.\n\n  Pueblito, Quer\u00e9taro, antiq., iv., 549-50.\n\n  Pueblo Arroyo, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 662.\n\n  Pueblo Bonito, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 655-62.\n\n  Pueblo Chettro Kettle, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 655-62.\n\n  Pueblo Creek, i., 595; Arizona, antiq., iv., 637.\n\n  Pueblo de los Reyes, Tlascala, antiq., iv., 479.\n\n  Pueblo Hungo Pavie, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 655-62.\n\n  Pueblo Pe\u00f1asco Blanco, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 653-62.\n\n  Pueblo Pintado, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 653-62.\n\n  Pueblos, one of the four families into which the New Mexicans\n    are divided; manners and customs of all its nations and tribes\n    described together, i., 526-56; physique, i., 529-30; dress,\n    i., 530-3; dwellings, i., 533-8; food, i., 538-40; personal\n    habits, i., 540; weapons and war, i., 541-3; implements and\n    manufactures, i., 543-5; art, i., 545-6; government, i.,\n    546-7; marriage and women, i., 547-9; amusements, i., 549-53;\n    miscellaneous customs, i., 553-4; medicine and burial, i.,\n    554-5; character, i., 555-6; myth., iii., 80-3, 114, 135-6,\n    171-5, 527-8; lang., iii., 568, 671-4, 680-3; antiq., iv.,\n    615-86; location of tribes, i., 526-9, 599-603; hist., v.,\n    537-8.\n\n  Pueblos, tribe of Pueblo family, i., 526-56; location, i., 526;\n    special mention, i., 529-32, 534-48, 550-1, 553-6; myth., iii.,\n    80-3, 114, 171-4, 527-8; lang., iii., 568, 671-3, 680-3.\n\n  Pueblo Una Vida, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 662.\n\n  Pueblo Viejo, iv., 73, name for Tenampua.\n\n  Pueblo Viejo, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 443-4, 451.\n\n  Pueblo Weje-gi, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 661.\n\n  Puente de los Bergantines, Mexico, antiq., iv., 528.\n\n  Puente Nacional, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 437-8.\n\n  Pugallipamish, i., 301, see Puyallupamish.\n\n  Pugallipi, i., 301, see Puyallup.\n\n  Puget Sound, i., 151, 208, 212, 214, 217, 219, 221-2, 298, 301;\n    lang., iii., 615.\n\n  Puget's Island, i., 307.\n\n  Pui\u00e1les, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 299.\n\n  Puichon, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Puip, a medicinal plant, i., 522.\n\n  Pujuni, i., 450, see Bushumnes.\n\n  Pulpones (Pulpenes), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 363, 452.\n\n  Pulque, Mexican drink, i., 517, 636, 706; ii., 310, 359, 724;\n    iii., 348, 408-10; v., 207-8.\n\n  Pumpkin, see Calabash.\n\n  Punishment, see Government and Children.\n\n  Punta Arenas, locality, Darien, i., 797.\n\n  Punta Gorda, locality, Honduras, i., 793, 795.\n\n  Puplems, Acagchemem sorcerers, iii., 166.\n\n  Pur\u00edsima, California, antiq., iv., 695.\n\n  Pur\u00edsima Concepcion de Arnedo, locality, Nuevo Leon, i., 673;\n    lang., iii., 742.\n\n  Purmo, Lower California, antiq., iv., 602.\n\n  Puruai Mountain, i., 600.\n\n  Purutabui, Pericui god, iii., 84.\n\n  Purutea, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Pushunes, i., 450, see Bushumnes.\n\n  Putos Creek, i., 452.\n\n  Puyacantes, Comanche sorcerers, iii., 170.\n\n  Puyallupamish (Pugallipamish, Puyyallapamish), tribe of Sound\n    Indians, i., 208-22;  location, i., 299, 301.\n\n  Puyallup (Pugallipi, Puyallop) River, i., 301.\n\n  Puycone, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Puzlumne, Central California, lang., iii., 649-50.\n\n  Py Edes, i., 468, see Pi Edes.\n\n  Pyramid Lake, i., 466.\n\n  Pyramids, ii., 555, 576, 579, 588-9, 794; antiq., iv., 26, 73-6,\n    82-9, 110-31, 169-71, 192-718 passim; v., 55-59, 200, 203.\n\n  Pytogius, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Pyutes, i., 466, see Pi Utes.\n\n\n  Q\n\n  Qakbatzulu, mountain, Guatemala, v., 569.\n\n  Qat, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Qatic, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Qicinzigua, Pueblo village, i., 600.\n\n  Qoacul, Niha\u00efb prince, v., 552, 566.\n\n  Qoacutec, Niha\u00efb prince, v., 552, 566-7.\n\n  Qoahau, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., 552, 567.\n\n  Qocaib, Quich\u00e9 ruler, v., 552, 557, 559.\n\n  Qocamel, Ahau Quich\u00e9 prince, v., 567.\n\n  Qocavib, Quich\u00e9 ruler, v., 552, 557-60, 566, 571, 578.\n\n  Qochahuh, Niha\u00efb prince, v., 567.\n\n  Qocozom, Ahau Quich\u00e9 prince, v., 567.\n\n  Qoha\u00efl, locality, Guatemala, v., 583.\n\n  Qotbalcan, Cakchiquel king, v., 583-4.\n\n  Qotzibaha, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., 567.\n\n  Qoxbaholam, Agaab town, v., 558.\n\n  Qu, iii., 192, see Cu.\n\n  Quaayayp, Peric\u00fai god, iii., 169.\n\n  Quachic (Quagchil), Nahua title, ii., 403.\n\n  Quachictin, Nahua title, ii., 404.\n\n  Quachictli, Nahua royal decoration, ii., 404.\n\n  Quackenamish (Qu\u00e1ks'namish), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 301.\n\n  Quackolls (Cogwells, Coquilths, Quacolth, Qualquilths, Quaquidts,\n    Quaquiolts, Quawguults, Queehaquacoll, Queehavuacolt,\n    Quoquoulths), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i.,\n    175-6, 295-8; special mention, i., 177, 180; lang., iii., 608.\n\n  Quacktoe (Quactoe), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i.,\n    296.\n\n  Quacott, name for Haidah family, i., 292.\n\n  Quagchil, ii., 403, see Quachic.\n\n  Quahootze, Nahua god, iii., 151.\n\n  Quahtomahs, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 308.\n\n  Quahuacan, a Mexican chief, v., 347.\n\n  Quahuatlapal, locality, Mexico, v., 314.\n\n  Quahuitlehua (Quavitleloa), Nahua month, ii., 305, 509; iii.,\n    419.\n\n  Quahuitl-Icacan, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Quahuitonal, Culhua King, v., 330.\n\n  Quahunahu\u00e0c, i., 676, see Cuernavaca.\n\n  Quail, i., 331; ii., 310, 314, 322, 393; iii., 298, 395, 426,\n    437.\n\n  Quainu, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Quakars, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 296.\n\n  Quako, Inland Columbian tribes, food, i., 265.\n\n  Qu\u00e1ks'namish, i., 301, see Quackenamish.\n\n  Qualquilths, i., 296, see Quackolls.\n\n  Quama, Lower Californian sorcerer, i., 567.\n\n  Quamash, i., 265, see Camass.\n\n  Quanes, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 296.\n\n  Quanez, a Tlascaltec ruler, v., 491-8.\n\n  Quaoar, Los Angeles County tribes' god, iii., 84; v., 19.\n\n  Quaochpanme, name for Tarascos, ii., 371.\n\n  Quapilollan, a south Mexican province, v., 441.\n\n  Quaquacuiltin, Nahua order of priests, ii., 203; iii., 336.\n\n  Quaquauhnochtzin, Mexican ambassadors, ii., 421.\n\n  Quaquauhpitzahuac, Tepanec prince, and king of Tlatelulco, v.,\n    358, 360-4.\n\n  Quaquidts, i., 296, see Quackolls.\n\n  Quaquiolts, i., 296, see Quackolls.\n\n  Quarra, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 663.\n\n  Quarries, i., 165; ii., 480; antiq., iv., 414, 676.\n\n  Quathlapotles, i., 306, see Cathlapootles.\n\n  Quatomahs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    443.\n\n  Quatsinos (Quatsinu), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 296; special mention, i., 180.\n\n  Quatsinos Sound, i., 296.\n\n  Quattamyas, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 308.\n\n  Quauhcalco, Nahua jail, ii., 453.\n\n  Quauhchinanco, town, Mexico, ii., 441; v., 298, 489.\n\n  Quauhiacatl, Nahua title, ii., 402.\n\n  Quauhnahuac, iv., 482, see Cuernavaca.\n\n  Quauhnelhuatlan, province of Guatemala, v., 460.\n\n  Quauhnexatolli, gruel of maize, ii., 355.\n\n  Quauhnochtli, (Acoahunotl, Quauhnuchtli), Nahua judge, ii., 436.\n\n  Quauhpanco, a South Mexican province, v., 441.\n\n  Quauhquelchula, Puebla, antiq., iv., 468; hist., v., 464, 490,\n    495, 504.\n\n  Quauhquetzal, lord of Tenamitec, v., 349.\n\n  Quauhtecan, town, Puebla, v., 495.\n\n  Quauhtemalan, name for Tecpan Guatemala, v., 349, 578.\n\n  Quauhtenanco, city, Oajaca, v., 443-6.\n\n  Quauhtepec, station, Aztec migration, v., 324, 412.\n\n  Quauhtepetl, place of sacrifice, iii., 333.\n\n  Quauhtepetla, Chichimec king, v., 220.\n\n  Quauhtetl, stone eagle, Mexican, antiq., iv., 482.\n\n  Quauhtexpetlatl, Toltec king, v., 256; Culhua prince, v., 304-5.\n\n  Quauhtin, Nahua title, ii., 403.\n\n  Quauhtinchan, city, Puebla, v., 420, 495.\n\n  Quauhtitenco, a Toltec town, Mexico, v., 297, 299.\n\n  Quauhtitlan, province and city, Mexico, ii., 337; iii., 252; v.,\n    242, 249, 324, 355, 369, 371, 392, 404-5.\n\n  Quauhtla, Acolhua chief, v., 317; city, Vera Cruz, v., 441.\n\n  Quautlapal, a Chichimec chief, v., 293.\n\n  Quauhtlaqualli, corn cake, ii., 355.\n\n  Quauhtlatohuatzin, king of Tlatelulco, v., 390.\n\n  Quauhtlequetzqui, an Aztec priest, v., 329, 331, 339.\n\n  Quauhtli, Nahua money, ii., 382; day, ii., 512, 516-17; Toltec\n    noble, v., 276, 283-4.\n\n  Quauhtlix, Toltec king, v., 257, 331.\n\n  Quauhtliztac, name for Totomalotecuhtli, v., 490.\n\n  Quauhtochco, ii., 417; iv., 445; see Huatusco.\n\n  Quauhtonal, Chichimec king, v., 220, 256.\n\n  Quauhtzintecuhtli, Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Quauhxicalco, place of cremation, ii., 585, 616, 619.\n\n  Quauhxilotzin, governor of Iztapalocan, v., 373.\n\n  Quauhyacac, city, Mexico, v., 296.\n\n  Quaulixicalcalico, Nahua altar, iii., 404.\n\n  Quauyetl, wild tobacco, ii., 287.\n\n  Quavitleloa, iii., 420, see Quahuitlehua.\n\n  Quawguult, i., 176, see Quackoll.\n\n  Quawteaht, Aht god, iii., 96-7, 152, 521.\n\n  Quebi, Isthmian title, i., 770.\n\n  Quecchi, Guatemalan dialect, iii., 760.\n\n  Quecholac, town, Oajaca, i., 679.\n\n  Quecholli, Nahua month and calendar sign, ii., 335-7, 351, 511,\n    515, 618; iii., 404-5.\n\n  Quechutl, a Mexican bird, iii., 374.\n\n  Quedexe\u00f1os, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Queeahs, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Queehanicultas, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 298.\n\n  Queehaquacoll (Queehavuacolt), i., 295, see Quackoll.\n\n  Queen Charlotte Island, i., 151, 155, 158-9, 164-5, 170-4, 292,\n    295; lang., iii., 579, 604.\n\n  Queets, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 303.\n\n  Quej (Qeh, Queh), ii., 758, see Ceh.\n\n  Quejupa, village, Sinaloa, i., 614.\n\n  Quelaptonlilts, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 305.\n\n  Quelenes, Maya nation, i., 644-70; ii., 630-803; location, i.,\n    645, 682; ii., 120-1; special mention, i., 648, 662; lang.,\n    iii., 761; hist., v., 565, 593, 603-4.\n\n  Queletzu, Central American bird, iii., 51.\n\n  Quema, Nihaib prince, v., 567.\n\n  Quemada, Zacatecas, antiq., iv., 578-92; v., 59; hist., v., 222.\n\n  Quemelentus, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 453.\n\n  Quemey\u00e1, Pima dialect, iii., 685.\n\n  Quenech, Quich\u00e9 tribal name, v., 21, 546.\n\n  Queniult (Quinaielt) River, i., 303.\n\n  Queniults (Quenaielts, Quinaielt, Quinaik, Quinailee, Quinaitle,\n    Quiniults, Quinults), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 303; special mention, i., 210-14, 216, 220.\n\n  Queno, town, Darien, i., 795.\n\n  Quepanos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Quepopan, ii., 563, name for Tlaquechiuhcan.\n\n  Quequetzalcohua, priests of Quetzalcoatl, iii., 259.\n\n  Querechos, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; special mention, i.,\n    493-5, 506, 508, 518.\n\n  Quereqto, locality, Michoacan, v., 512.\n\n  Queres, iii., 682, see Keres.\n\n  Quer\u00e9taro, tribes described, i., 617-44; location, i., 672-4;\n    lang., iii., 737; antiq., iv., 549-53.\n\n  Quernauaca, i., 676, see Cuernavaca.\n\n  Querqueltins, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 305.\n\n  Quesaltenango, i., 788, see Quezaltenango.\n\n  Quet, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Quetahtores, i., 592, see Napuat.\n\n  Quetzal, a Mexican bird, ii., 326, 488-9, 635; Toltec king, v.,\n    220, 257; see also Cuetzal.\n\n  Quetzalacxoyatl, Chichimec prince, v., 475.\n\n  Quetzalalpitoai, Nahua ornament, ii., 376.\n\n  Quetzalapan, city, Tamaulipas, v., 472.\n\n  Quetzalatecuhtli (Quetzalteuhtli), lord of Xochimilco, v., 349.\n\n  Quetzalatl River, v., 243, name for Montezuma River.\n\n  Quetzalcoatl (Quetzaalcoatl, Quetzacoatl), Nahua god, i., 554;\n    ii., 202, 314, 324, 397, 584-5, 589, 706-8; iii., 57, 60-1,\n    110, 135, 195, 240-3, 248-87, 449-56, 484; v., 23-7, 87-8, 122,\n    188, 193-4, 197, 200-2, 215, 223, 226, 254-64, 268, 479-80,\n    484, 495, 527-8, 582, 606, 622.\n\n  Quetzalcoatl, Acxitl, king of Tollan, v., 270-86, 558, 611-12,\n    619-21; see also Acxitl and Topiltzin Acxitl.\n\n  Quetzalcoatl Chalchiuitl, v., 254, see Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl.\n\n  Quetzalcuitlapillan, province, South Mexico, v., 441.\n\n  Quetzallacxoyatl, Toltec king, v., 263, 266.\n\n  Quetzalpopoca, Toltec prince, v., 297.\n\n  Quetzaltehueyac, Chichimec-Toltec chief, v., 485.\n\n  Quetzaltehuyacixcotl, Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Quezaltenango (Quesaltenango), city, Guatemala, i., 787; antiq.,\n    iv., 124; hist., v., 555, 577, 591.\n\n  Quezaltepec, town, Oajaca, i., 680; hist., v., 229, 412, 472.\n\n  Quetzalxiuhtli, Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Quetzalxochitzin, v., 269, name for Xochitl.\n\n  Quiahanles, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Quiahtlale, ii., 425, see Yauhtlalli.\n\n  Quiahuitl, Nahua day, ii., 512, 516-17.\n\n  Quiahuiztlan, a quarter of Tlascala city, ii., 412; v., 497, 503.\n\n  Quianna, Pueblo village and tribe, i., 526-56; location, i., 601.\n\n  Quiarlpi, i., 252, 261-2, 315, see Chaudi\u00e8res.\n\n  Quiateot, Nicaragua god, iii., 120, 492.\n\n  Quiauhteucy\u00f2hua, Nahua calendar sign and god, ii., 516.\n\n  Quibaha, Guatemalan tribe, v., 546.\n\n  Quicab I. (Kicab), Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566, 583-94.\n\n  Quicab II. (Kicab), Quich\u00e9 king, v., 594-5, 598.\n\n  Quicab III. (Kicab), Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566, 595.\n\n  Quicab IV. (Kicab), Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566, 595.\n\n  Quicab Tanub (Kicab Tanub), Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566, 595, 599.\n\n  Quicamopa, Yuma dialect, iii., 684.\n\n  Quichemel, Mexican female dress, i., 620.\n\n  Quich\u00e9s (Utletecas), Maya nation, i., 686-711; ii., 630-803;\n    location and name, i., 687, 788; ii., 121, 130; v., 164, 556,\n    565; special mention, i., 691, 700, 703, 707, 710; ii., 632,\n    637-44, 687-9, 732, 742-4, 762, 766-7, 789, 796-802; myth.,\n    iii., 44-54, 474-90, 542; v., 20; lang., iii., 760-2, 767-73;\n    hist., v., 21-2, 157-88, 540-602, 619, 626, 634.\n\n  Quicksilver, ii., 474; iv., 794.\n\n  Quicksutinut (Quicksulinut), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 295.\n\n  Quiechapa, locality, Oajaca, i., 679, 681; v., 532.\n\n  Quieetsos, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 303.\n\n  Quieh, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Quierecuaro, locality, Michoacan, v., 512.\n\n  Quigyamas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 598.\n\n  Quihuimas, iii., 685, see Quiquimas.\n\n  Quilapan, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 376.\n\n  Quilaztli, ii., 269; iii., 363, see Cioacoatl.\n\n  Quilleliutes (Quillehutes), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 303; special mention, i., 222.\n\n  Quillequeoquas, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 305.\n\n  Quimichtin, Nahua spies, ii., 424.\n\n  Quimis, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Quinaielt (Quinaik, Quinailee, Quinaitle), i., 303, see Queniult.\n\n  Quinames (Quinametin), Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44;\n    location, i., 670-1; hist., v., 197-200, 483.\n\n  Quinantzin, Chichimec king, v., 315-20, 331-47.\n\n  Quinayat, i., 303, see Kwenaiwitl.\n\n  Quinehuayan, Chicomoztoc (Oztotl), station, Aztec migration, v.,\n    323-5.\n\n  Quinicuanes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Quinnecharts (Quinnechants), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 303.\n\n  Quinults, i., 303, see Queniults.\n\n  Quiotepec, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 418-21.\n\n  Quiquimas (Quihuimas), tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; lang., iii.,\n    685.\n\n  Quires (Querix), tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; location, i., 527;\n    special mention, i., 544.\n\n  Quirigua, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 108-15.\n\n  Quirogles (Quiroles, Quirotes), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 363, 453; lang., iii., 652.\n\n  Quitlahuacas, v., 308, see Cuitlatecs.\n\n  Quitlepanquetzin, Nahua burial ceremony, ii., 617.\n\n  Quitonaltia, offerings to the dead, ii., 612.\n\n  Quitzaen\u00e9s, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Quitzetzelohua, name for Napatecutli, iii., 417.\n\n  Quivers, i., 341, 431, 495, 541, 578, 627, 696; ii., 620.\n\n  Quiviras, tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; location, i., 527;\n    antiq., iv., 663, 672.\n\n  Quixt\u00e9, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 354.\n\n  Quiyahuitztlan An\u00e1huac, station, Toltec migration, v., 213.\n\n  Quiyauhtzin, lord of Huexotla, v., 349.\n\n  Qu\u00edyechapa, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 375.\n\n  Quiyecolani, fort, Oajaca, v., 532.\n\n  Quiyecolani Mountains, i., 790.\n\n  Qulaha, city, Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Quoquoulth, i., 175, see Quackoll.\n\n  Quoratem River, i., 446.\n\n  Qwantlums, i., 209, see Kwantlums.\n\n\n  R\n\n  Rabbits, i., 229, 330, 403, 423-4, 427-30, 488, 538, 578, 625;\n    ii., 367, 720-1, 736-7; iii., 129.\n\n  Rabinal, town, Guatemala, i., 788; ii., 640-1; antiq., iv.,\n    130-1; hist., v., 546-9, 553-4, 556, 558, 561, 563, 571, 587,\n    591, 593.\n\n  Raccoon, Navajo myth., iii., 81.\n\n  Races, Human Race distinctions, etc., i., 12-26, 36, 87-8; iv.,\n    10-13.\n\n  Racing, i., 280, 552-3, 586; ii., 296-7, 399.\n\n  Rafts, see Boats.\n\n  Rahamun, Cakchiquel king, v., 590.\n\n  Rahpop-Ahih, Quich\u00e9 title, v., 589.\n\n  Rahtzalam-Achih, Quich\u00e9 title, v., 589.\n\n  Rahum (Ra\u00fan), village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Raiment, see Dress.\n\n  Rainbow, Peruvian myth., v., 16-17.\n\n  Rakes, for fishing, i., 104, 162, 186, 212, 233.\n\n  Ramas, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 713, 793-4;\n    special mention, i., 714, 746; lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Ranas, Quer\u00e9taro, antiq., iv., 550-1.\n\n  Rancher\u00eda, California collection of huts, i., 373.\n\n  Rancher\u00eda Valley, i., 362, 449.\n\n  Ranchito de Lugo, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Rancho del Chino, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Rancho de los Felis, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Rancho de las Piedras, Tamaulipas, antiq., iv., 595.\n\n  Rancho de los Verdugas, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Rancho de los Ybarras, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Randolph County, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 762-3.\n\n  Rank, see Government.\n\n  Rape, punishment of, i., 660, 771; ii., 201, 466, 656, 659,\n    675-7.\n\n  Rat Indians, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 96-114; location, i., 143.\n\n  Rat Island, i., 87, 142.\n\n  Rat River, lang., iii., 586.\n\n  Rats, as food, i., 374, 405, 427-30, 488, 561, 576, 625.\n\n  Rattles, i., 91, 705; ii., 293, 334, 646, 713, 737; iii., 385,\n    411.\n\n  Rattlesnake, i., 343; iii., 80.\n\n  Ra\u00fan, i., 608, see Rahum.\n\n  Raven, i., 109; iii., 102-104.\n\n  Reckoning, see Arithmetic.\n\n  Records, historical, etc., ii., 523-33; v., 93-5, 103-5, 140-2,\n    160-5.\n\n  Red-Cap's Bar, locality, North California, i., 445.\n\n  Red Creek Ca\u00f1on, Utah, antiq., iv., 715-17.\n\n  Red-hand, paintings, antiq., iv., 37-8, 164, 209, 212, 251, 257.\n\n  Red-Knives, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 144-5;\n    special mention, i., 121.\n\n  Red Lake, i., 470.\n\n  Red River, i., 594.\n\n  Redwood Creek, i., 329, 446; lang., iii., 643.\n\n  Redwood Valley, i., 362, 448.\n\n  Reeds, various uses, Hyperboreans, i., 74, 90; Columbians,\n    i., 261; Californians, i., 336, 341, 345, 368-9, 372, 377-8,\n    381-4, 393, 404, 406, 408, 428; New Mexicans, i., 494-5, 505,\n    533, 541, 558-63, 575-6, 579-83; Mexicans, i., 624, 627; ii.,\n    259, 300, 398, 406, 484, 573; iii., 334-5, 360, 435; Central\n    Americans, i., 692, 699, 722, 724, 754-6, 761, 774; ii., 742-3,\n    784-5.\n\n  Reese River, i., 462.\n\n  Refugio Playa, locality, South California, i., 459.\n\n  Reindeer, i., 118, 128-9.\n\n  Rekquas, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 444.\n\n  Relics, of Camaxtli, v., 497; see also Antiquities.\n\n  Religion, see Mythology.\n\n  Remedios, village, Sonora, i., 601.\n\n  Reno, town, Nevada, i., 469.\n\n  Reptiles, i., 373-5, 379, 405, 417, 419, 428, 430, 539, 560-1,\n    568, 576-7, 625, 758-9; ii., 234, 315, 356, 721.\n\n  Reservoirs, i., 539; ii., 565, 575; antiq., iv., 198, 201, 212,\n    221, 245, 249, 252-3, 260, 344, 419, 429-31, 460, 526-9, 589,\n    633, 638-70, 676, 798.\n\n  Resguardo, fortress at Utatlan, ii., 789; iv., 125, 128; v., 578.\n\n  Resin, i., 419, 562, 697; ii., 408; iii., 392.\n\n  Resurrection, belief in, iii., 514, 530-31; v., 86.\n\n  Revolution, see War.\n\n  Rewards, military, i., 764-5; ii., 400-3.\n\n  Reynosa, village, Tamaulipas, i., 613.\n\n  Rheumatism, i., 86, 204-5, 287, 354, 439, 521, 667, 709, 742;\n    ii., 795.\n\n  Ribbon-dance, Nahuas, i., 586; ii., 289-90.\n\n  Riddles, Nahua amusements, ii., 286.\n\n  Rincon, locality, South California, i., 459.\n\n  Rinconado, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 436.\n\n  Rincons, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    449.\n\n  Rings, i., 211; ii., 480, 732, 750; antiq., iv., 173, 177, 230-1,\n    256, 273.\n\n  Ringworm, cure for, i., 395.\n\n  Rio Alamo, i., 613.\n\n  Rio Alvarado, v., 473.\n\n  Rio de las Animas, i., 470.\n\n  Rio de la Antigua, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 437.\n\n  Rio Atoyac, i., 670; v., 197.\n\n  Rio Azul, i., 598; lang., iii., 684.\n\n  Rio Bravo del Norte, i., 592, see Rio Grande del Norte.\n\n  Rio Catasah\u00e0, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 344.\n\n  Rio Cazones (San Marcos), i., 675.\n\n  Rio Chachalacas, i., 675.\n\n  Rio Chama, i., 596.\n\n  Rio Champoton, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 263, 265.\n\n  Rio Charmer, i., 470.\n\n  Rio Chiquinguare, Honduras, antiq., iv., 72.\n\n  Rio Coahuayana, i., 676.\n\n  Rio Conchos, i., 610.\n\n  Rio del Corte, i., 682.\n\n  Rio Frio, i., 794-5.\n\n  Rio del Fuerte, i., 602, 607-9.\n\n  Rio Grande, i., 599-600, 672; iii., 594.\n\n  Rio Grande de Espeleta, i., 601.\n\n  Rio Grande (Bravo) del Norte, i., 526-7, 592-5; New Mexico,\n    antiq., iv., 662-74.\n\n  Rio Hacha, i., 796.\n\n  Rio Hassayampa, i., 475.\n\n  Rio Humace, i., 614.\n\n  Rio Ja\u00efna, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 262.\n\n  Rio Jamapa, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 434.\n\n  Rio Lagartos, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 261.\n\n  Rio Lempa, i., 702.\n\n  Rio Mancos, i., 470.\n\n  Rio Mara\u00f1on, Peru, antiq., iv., 804.\n\n  Rio Moche, Peru, antiq., iv., 799-800.\n\n  Rio de Montezuma, Mexico, antiq., iv., 549.\n\n  Rio Nayarit, i., 672; lang., iii., 719.\n\n  Rio Nazas, i., 614.\n\n  Rio Nexapa, lang., iii., 756.\n\n  Rio del Norte, see Rio Grande del Norte.\n\n  Rio Nueces, i., 611.\n\n  Rio de los Osos (Rio Ose), i., 595; iii., 595.\n\n  Rio Pantla, i., 676.\n\n  Rio P\u00e1nuco, boundary Mexican Empire, v., 473.\n\n  Rio del Partido, iv., 579, see Rio de Villanueva.\n\n  Rio de la Pasion, i., 700, 786.\n\n  Rio Paxa, i., 790.\n\n  Rio Pecos, i., 591, 594-5; iii., 593.\n\n  Rio Piaztla, i., 614.\n\n  Rio Picuris, i., 599.\n\n  Rio de la Plata, i., 470.\n\n  Rio Puerco, i., 595-6, 600; antiq., iv., 644, 672.\n\n  Rio Sabinas, i., 612.\n\n  Rio Salado (Salinas), iii., 684; antiq., iv., 634-5.\n\n  Rio Salinas, see Rio Salado.\n\n  Rio San Antonio, i., 611.\n\n  Rio de San Cosme, iv., 733.\n\n  Rio San Juan, iii., 782-3.\n\n  Rio San Marcos, i., 675, see Rio Cazones.\n\n  Rio San Pedro, i., 602.\n\n  Rio Secos, iii., 783.\n\n  Rio Sinaloa, i., 609; iii., 715.\n\n  Rio Suchil, i., 614.\n\n  Rio Tecomava, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 421.\n\n  Rio Tinto, i., 792.\n\n  Rio Tuerco, iii., 595.\n\n  Rio Ulua, i., 792.\n\n  Rio de los Ures, i., 602.\n\n  Rio Verde, i., 595; lang., iii., 684; antiq., iv., 634.\n\n  Rio de Villanueva (del Partido), antiq., iv., 579.\n\n  Rio Virgen, i., 598.\n\n  Rio Xoxo, antiq., iv., 379.\n\n  Rio Yaqui, i., 605.\n\n  Rio Zent, i., 795.\n\n  Rio Zuaque, i., 608.\n\n  Rio Zu\u00f1i, antiq., iv., 644-7.\n\n  Rita, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 663.\n\n  River Canal, i., 294.\n\n  Rj\u00e4tscheschnojes, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Roads, ii., 387, 561-2, 575-6, 736, 790-1; antiq., iv., 24,\n    265-7, 374, 484, 526, 532, 541, 581-91, 690-1, 794-5.\n\n  Roatan Island, i., 790, 793; antiq., iv., 70.\n\n  Robesco, village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  Robles, Don Pedro de, Nihaib prince, v., 567.\n\n  Rocking-stones, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 434.\n\n  Rockland, California, antiq., iv., 706.\n\n  Rock-sculpture, see Hieroglyphics.\n\n  Rocky Mountain Indians, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location,\n    i., 145; special mention, i., 126-7; lang., iii., 619.\n\n  Rocky Mountains, i., 38, 114, 145-6, 151-3, 252, 311-12, 322,\n    461.\n\n  Rogue River, i., 222, 326, 327, 442-3.\n\n  Rogue River Indians (Lototen, Tootooton, Tototen, Tototin,\n    Tototutna, Totutime, Totutune, Toutouni, Tutoten, Tutunahs,\n    Tututamy), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    327, 443; special mention, i., 328, 332, 338, 341, 344, 346,\n    355, 361.\n\n  Roil-roil-pam, name of Kliketat country, i., 254, 321.\n\n  Rojas, Don Juan de, Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566.\n\n  Rollers, ii., 329, 354, 482-3, 557; iii., 385.\n\n  Romanons (Romanans), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 363, 453.\n\n  Romans, American origin traces, v., 123.\n\n  Roofs, i., 74, 89, 102, 161, 211, 334-5, 372, 404, 486-7, 535,\n    537, 560, 575, 624, 651-2, 692-3, 718, 755-6; ii., 161, 557,\n    571-4, 784-6; antiq., iv., 257, 269, 303, 325-6, 331, 339-403,\n    585-6, 666-7.\n\n  Roots, various uses, i., 57, 79, 90-1, 101, 103, 123, 130, 159,\n    166, 180, 187, 204, 212-14, 233-6, 261, 264-7, 340, 345, 354,\n    373-4, 406, 488, 491, 521, 560, 576, 589, 654, 694, 709, 721,\n    759, 762; ii., 365, 599, 722, 724, 768.\n\n  Rope, i., 58, 107, 185-6, 544, 693, 724; ii., 484, 752; iii.,\n    240.\n\n  Roquas River, i., 444.\n\n  Rosario, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 121.\n\n  Round Valley, i., 447, 451; lang., ii., 643, 648.\n\n  Rox Tzih, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Ruby Valley, i., 462.\n\n  Ru Cab Mam, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Ru Cab Pach, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Ru Cab Togic, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Rucab Tumuzuz, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Ruiatcot, Nicaragua god, iii., 492.\n\n  Rumal-Ahaus, Zutugil king, v., 585-6.\n\n  Rumsens (Runsiens), Central Californian tribe, i., 363-401;\n    location, i., 363, 454; special mention, i., 386, 388-9, 396;\n    lang., iii., 653-4.\n\n  Rushes, various uses, i., 182, 190-1, 211, 231, 236-7, 260,\n    270-1; see Reeds.\n\n  Russian River, i., 362, 397-8, 448; lang., ii., 647-8, 654.\n\n\n  S\n\n  Saalis, i., 312, see Salish.\n\n  Saaptins, i., 462, see Snakes.\n\n  Sabacch\u00e9, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 211-12; v., 632.\n\n  Sabaibos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 572,\n    614; lang., iii., 718.\n\n  Sabaism, iii., 112-13, 144, 171, 496-8.\n\n  Sacaa, Miztec priest, ii., 208.\n\n  Sacacal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 219.\n\n  Sacatepeques, province, Guatemala, i., 788; hist., v., 577,\n    594-7.\n\n  Sacaton, locality, Arizona, i., 602.\n\n  Sacb\u00e9, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 200, 267.\n\n  Sachal Lake, i., 303.\n\n  Sachals, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 303.\n\n  Sachets, i., 299, see Skagits.\n\n  Sa-chincos, name applied to Teets, i., 175.\n\n  Sachuen, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Sacks, see Bags.\n\n  Saco, Isthmian title, i., 770.\n\n  Sacramento River, i., 362, 367, 384, 450, 599; iii., 88.\n\n  Sacramento Valley, i., 365, 368-70, 381, 386, 388, 398, 450, 597;\n    lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Sacred Enclosures, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 757-62.\n\n  Sacrificatorio, at Utatlan, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 126.\n\n  Sacrifice, Hyperboreans, i., 86, 108; Columbians, i., 288;\n    Californians, i., 387-8; New Mexicans, iii., 178-80; Mexicans,\n    i., 656, 665-6; ii., 147, 304-41, 420, 428-32, 443, 457, 479,\n    605; iii., 61, 110-11, 265-460 passim; v., 85-8, 258; Central\n    Americans, i., 708, 723, 740, 781-3; ii., 668, 678-9, 687-710,\n    745-7, 796-800; iii., 52, 466-98; iv., 199; v., 560, 572;\n    origin of, iii., 30-1; v., 572; see also Human-sacrifice.\n\n  Sacrificial stone, ii., 582-3, 707; iii., 293-4, 488; iv.,\n    509-11, 541; v., 471.\n\n  Sacrificios Island, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 427-8.\n\n  Sacsiol, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Sacspili, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Sadanes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Saddles, i., 270-1, 439, 501, 726.\n\n  Saelies (Saeliss), i., 311-13, see Salish.\n\n  Sagayayumnes (Sagayacumnes), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Sagin, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Sagunte, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sahaptins (Shahaptans, Shawhaaptens), one of the nine families\n    into which the Columbians are divided, belonging to the Inland\n    families; manners and customs of all its nations and tribes\n    described together, i., 253-91; physique, i., 255; dress,\n    i., 256; dwellings, i., 259; war, i., 269; boats, i., 271;\n    implements and property, i., 271-3; Slavery, i., 276; women,\n    i., 278; medicine, i., 285; character, i., 290; myth., iii.,\n    94-5; lang., iii., 620-6; location of tribes, i., 152, 253-4,\n    316-21.\n\n  Sah\u00e9hwamish, i., 301, see Sawamish.\n\n  Sahmamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Sahuaripa, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Sahuaripas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91;  location, i., 606;\n    lang., iii., 699.\n\n  Sails, i., 166, 658, 725; ii., 397-8, 739.\n\n  St Cyprian River, v., 66.\n\n  St Ignatius Mission, i., 313.\n\n  St John's River, i., 794.\n\n  St Joseph's River, i., 314.\n\n  St Lawrence Island, i., 59; lang., iii., 576.\n\n  St Mary's River, i., 313.\n\n  St Michael Island, i., 141.\n\n  St Thomas, in America, v., 25-6.\n\n  Saiustklas (Saiustkas, Saliutlas, Sayonstlas, Sayouslas,\n    Sinselaws, Suislaws), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location,\n    i., 308; special mention, i., 250.\n\n  Sajcay, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Sakhones, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455; lang., iii., 653.\n\n  Sakisimmes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450.\n\n  Saklans, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sakum\u00e9hu, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Salachi, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Salama, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 130-1.\n\n  Salan Pomas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 448.\n\n  Salem, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 759.\n\n  Salinas River, i., 455, 595-6, 598.\n\n  Salineros, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 605;\n    special mention, i., 576-8.\n\n  Salish (Saalis, Saelies, Saeliss, Selish), one of the nine\n    families into which the Columbians are divided, belonging to\n    the Inland families; manners and customs of all its nations\n    and tribes described together, i., 252-91; physique, i., 254-6;\n    dress, i., 256-7; dwellings, i., 261; food, i., 264; property\n    and art, i., 273-4; government, i., 276; marriage and children,\n    i., 276-9; myth., iii., 97-8, 154-5, 519; lang., iii., 615-20;\n    location, i., 252-3, 312-16.\n\n  Salish (Flatheads), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 252, 313; special mention, i., 195, 228, 252, 256, 258,\n    260, 264-5, 267-73, 275-9, 284, 287-91; myth., iii., 130, 520.\n\n  Saliutlas, i., 308; see Saiustklas.\n\n  Salmon, i., 55, 76, 129, 158, 162-3, 171, 178, 185, 212, 214,\n    229, 232-3, 239, 261-3, 337-9, 374.\n\n  Salmon River, i., 294, 317, 445-6, 463; lang., iii., 639, 642.\n\n  Salpilil, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Salses, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 453; lang., iii., 652.\n\n  Salsipuedes Island, i., 605.\n\n  Salsonas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Salt, i., 55, 103, 163, 186, 406-7, 430, 576, 581, 631, 638, 653,\n    694-5, 709, 726, 758, 760, 768; ii., 319, 325, 353-4, 722, 742;\n    v., 88, 459, 503.\n\n  Salt Creek, i., 794.\n\n  Saltillo, town, Coahuila, i., 614.\n\n  Salt Lake Diggers, i., 463; see Hokandikahs.\n\n  Salt Lake Valley, i., 469; antiq., iv., 714-15.\n\n  Salt-makers, Nahua festival, ii., 325.\n\n  Salt-petre, i., 634, 640.\n\n  Salt River, i., 528, 595, 601.\n\n  Salutation, i., 67-8, 120, 637, 665, 707, 741, 777; ii., 284,\n    635.\n\n  Salvador, tribes described, i., 684-711; ii., 630-803; special\n    mention, i., 688, 711; ii., 123; lang., iii., 723, 759-60;\n    antiq., iv., 68-9; hist., v., 585-6, 608-11.\n\n  Salves, see Ointment.\n\n  Salzon, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Samahtumiwhoolah, (White Man's Island), Okanagan mythical island,\n    iii., 153.\n\n  Samamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Samdans, i., 143, see Sundowns.\n\n  Samilkanuighs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    312.\n\n  Samindas (Samundas), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 447, 449.\n\n  Samish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 208,\n    299; lang., iii., 615.\n\n  Samish River, i., 299.\n\n  Sampitches (Pitches, Sampectches, Sampiches, San Pitches,\n    Sampichyas), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 469;\n    special mention, i., 433, 441; lang., iii., 661-2.\n\n  Sampitch Valley, i., 464, 469.\n\n  Samundas, i., 447, see Samindas.\n\n  Sanact\u00e9, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 211-12.\n\n  San Andres, locality, Durango, i., 614.\n\n  San Andres, locality, Guatemala, v., 587.\n\n  San Andres, California, antiq., iv., 704.\n\n  San Andres Chalchicomula, Puebla, antiq., iv., 468.\n\n  San Andres Chinipas, locality, Chihuahua, i., 609.\n\n  San Andres, Coamiat, village, Zacatecas, i., 672.\n\n  San Andres de Conicari, village, Sinaloa, iii., 707.\n\n  San Antonio, village, Central California, i., 367.\n\n  San Antonio, village, Guatemala, i., 789.\n\n  San Antonio, Puebla, antiq., iv., 468.\n\n  San Antonio Island, i., 604.\n\n  San Antonio de Padua, mission, Central California, lang., iii.,\n    656.\n\n  San Augustin, Durango, antiq., iv., 600.\n\n  San Bartolom\u00e9 Batacosa, village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  San Bernabe Bay, i., 603-4.\n\n  San Bernardino County, i., 457-8.\n\n  San Bernardino Mountains, i., 402, 408, 457.\n\n  San Blas, town, Darien, i., 796.\n\n  San Blas Indians, i., 796, see Manzanillos.\n\n  San Buenavent River, i., 459.\n\n  San Buenaventura, Chihuahua, antiq., iv., 603.\n\n  San Buenaventura, mission, South California, i., 459; antiq.,\n    iv., 695.\n\n  San Carlos, mission, Central California, lang., iii., 653.\n\n  Sanchines, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  San Christobal (San Chrisobal, San Cristoval), mission,\n    Guatemala, i., 788.\n\n  Sanchu, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  San Clemente Island, i., 460.\n\n  San Crist\u00f3val, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 373; see also San Christobal.\n\n  San Christ\u00f3val Teopantepec, Puebla, antiq., iv., 466.\n\n  Sand, i., 158, 163, 178, 181, 285, 395, 566, 722, 758; ii., 481;\n    iii., 80; v., 472.\n\n  Sandajuanes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Sandals, see Shoes.\n\n  Sandia, i., 599, see Zandia.\n\n  San Diego County, i., 457-8, 460.\n\n  San Diego, town and mission, South California, i., 458.\n\n  San Dimas, locality, Durango, i., 614.\n\n  San Dionisio, village, Oajaca, i., 680.\n\n  San\u00e9ls, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    362, 451; special mention, i., 386; myth., iii., 524; lang.,\n    iii., 643-4.\n\n  San Estevan Island, i., 604.\n\n  Sanetch, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295-7.\n\n  San Felipe, Pueblo village, i., 458, 527, 600; lang., iii., 681;\n    antiq., iv., 663.\n\n  San Fernando, village, Lower California, i., 603.\n\n  San Fernando, mission, South California, i., 459-60; lang., iii.,\n    660, 675.\n\n  San Francisco, village, Oajaca, i., 680.\n\n  San Francisco Bay, Central California, i., 361-401, 452-3; lang.,\n    iii., 652; antiq., iv., 710-11.\n\n  San Francisco de Borgia, mission, Lower California, lang., iii.,\n    690.\n\n  San Francisco de Coahuila, mission, Coahuila, i., 610, 612.\n\n  San Francisco Istaltepec, village, Oajaca, i., 680.\n\n  San Francisco Javier (Xavier), mission, Lower California, i.,\n    603; lang., iii., 691-2.\n\n  San Francisco Mountains, i., 467, 598.\n\n  San Francisco de Ocuapa, village, Tabasco, i., 682.\n\n  San Francisco River, i., 594, 596.\n\n  San Francisco Xavier, mission, Tamaulipas, i., 613; see also San\n    Francisco Javier.\n\n  San Francisquito, village, Central California, i., 454.\n\n  San Francisquito Pass, California, antiq., iv., 691.\n\n  San Gabriel, mission, South California, i., 460; lang., iii.,\n    674-5.\n\n  San Gabriel River, i., 457.\n\n  Sangana, province, Darien, lang., iii., 794.\n\n  San Gaspar, iv., 424, see Piedra Grande.\n\n  San Giuseppe Island, i., 604.\n\n  San Gorgonio, village, Coahuila, i., 457.\n\n  San Gorgonio Pass, i., 457.\n\n  San Gregorio, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 353;  see also Cerro de San\n    Gregorio.\n\n  San Ignacio, mission, Lower California, i., 603; lang., iii.,\n    690.\n\n  San Ignacio, village, Sonora, i., 609.\n\n  San Ignacio de Chicuris, village, Sonora, i., 609.\n\n  San Ignacio Otatitlan, village, Sinaloa, i., 614.\n\n  San Ignacio de Tesia, village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  San Ildefonso (Yldefonso), Pueblo town, i., 599; lang., iii.,\n    681.\n\n  San Jacinto, village, South California, i., 457.\n\n  San Jacinto Mountains, i., 402, 457.\n\n  San Joaquin River, i., 363, 454-6.\n\n  San Joaquin Valley, myth., iii., 88; lang., iii., 650; antiq.,\n    iv., 707-8.\n\n  San Jos\u00e9, town, South California, i., 366, 452, 458, 460; antiq.,\n    iv., 22.\n\n  San Jos\u00e9 de Bocas, town, Durango, i., 610.\n\n  San Jos\u00e9 del Cabo, mission, Lower California, i., 604.\n\n  San Jos\u00e9 Comond\u00fa, town, Lower California, i., 603; lang., iii.,\n    691-2.\n\n  San Jos\u00e9 Island, i., 604.\n\n  San Jos\u00e9 de Pimas, village, Arizona, i., 601.\n\n  San Jos\u00e9 River, i., 600.\n\n  San Jos\u00e9 Teopari, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  San Juan, Pueblo village, i., 527, 599; lang., iii., 681.\n\n  San Juan Baptista (Bautista), mission, Central California, i.,\n    454; lang., iii., 653.\n\n  San Juan Bautista Bay, i., 605.\n\n  San Juan Capistrano, mission, South California, i., 405, 460;\n    lang., iii., 674.\n\n  San Juan Guichicovi, town, Oajaca, i., 680.\n\n  San Juan Island, i., 208, 297.\n\n  San Juan Lake, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 575.\n\n  San Juan de los Llanos, Mexico, antiq., iv., 546.\n\n  San Juan del Obispo, mission, Guatemala, i., 789.\n\n  San Juan del Rio, town, Quer\u00e9taro, i., 674.\n\n  San Juan del Rio, town, Zacatecas, i., 614.\n\n  San Juan River, i., 466, 470, 596, 795; iii., 81; New Mexico,\n    antiq., iv., 650-1; California, antiq., iv., 691.\n\n  San Juan Teul, Zacatecas, antiq., iv., 592.\n\n  San Juan Valley, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 650-1.\n\n  San L\u00e1zaro, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 663.\n\n  San Lorenzo, Coahuila, antiq., iv., 599.\n\n  San Lorenzo de Oguera, village, Sonora, i., 609.\n\n  San Luis de las Carretas, mission, Guatemala, i., 789.\n\n  San Luisie\u00f1os (Luise\u00f1os), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 460.\n\n  San Luis Obispo, California, antiq., iv., 692.\n\n  San Luis de la Paz, town, Guanajuato, i., 673; lang., iii., 742.\n\n  San Luis Potos\u00ed, i., 571-2, 593, 673; lang., iii., 737, 742, 780;\n    antiq., iv., 593.\n\n  San Luis Rey, mission, South California, i., 458, 460; lang.,\n    iii., 674.\n\n  San Marcos, village, South California, i., 459.\n\n  San Marcos, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 663.\n\n  San Marcos River, i., 602.\n\n  San Martero, Coahuila, antiq., iv., 599-600.\n\n  San Martin Luvianos, Mexico, antiq., iv., 480.\n\n  San Mateo, California, antiq., iv., 710.\n\n  San Mateo, village, Oajaca, i., 680.\n\n  San Mateo Malzura, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  San Mateo Mountains, i., 595.\n\n  San Miguel, village, California, i., 366, 379, 386, 388, 402;\n    lang., iii., 658-9.\n\n  San Miguel, village, Chiapas, i., 682; lang., iii., 760.\n\n  San Miguel, village, Sonora, i., 608-9.\n\n  San Miguel, province, Salvador, i., 790.\n\n  San Miguel, Isthmus, antiq., iv., 17.\n\n  San Miguel del Milagro, Tlascala, antiq., iv., 478.\n\n  San Miguel de Mocorito, mission, Sinaloa, lang., iii., 707.\n\n  San Miguel Gulf, i., 797; lang., iii., 794.\n\n  San Nicolas, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 463.\n\n  San Nicolas Island, i., 402.\n\n  San Pablo, California, antiq., iv., 710.\n\n  San Pablo del Monte, Tlascala, antiq., iv., 477.\n\n  San Pasqual, village, South California, i., 458.\n\n  San Pedro, Pueblo village, i., 600.\n\n  San Pedro Alc\u00e1ntara, mission, Tamaulipas, i., 613.\n\n  San Pedro Guazave, village, Sinaloa, i., 609.\n\n  San Pedro las Huertas, mission, Guatemala, i., 789.\n\n  San Pedro River, i., 683.\n\n  San Pete, locality, Utah, i., 469.\n\n  San Pitches, i., 469, see Sampitches.\n\n  Sanpoil Creek, i., 315.\n\n  Sanpoils, i., 315, see Sans Poils.\n\n  San Rafael, mission, Central California, i., 363, 452; lang.,\n    iii., 647.\n\n  San Roche Island, i., 561.\n\n  San Salvador, see Salvador.\n\n  San Sebastian, village, Zacatecas, i., 672.\n\n  Sans Poils (N'pochles, Sanpoils, Sans Puelles, Sinapoils,\n    Sinipouals, Sinpauelish, Sinpavelist, Sinpoilish, Sinpoilschne,\n    Sinspeelish), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    315-16; special mention, i., 267, 290.\n\n  Santa Ana, Pueblo village, i., 527, 600; lang., iii., 681.\n\n  Santa Ana, village, South California, i., 400.\n\n  Santa Anna River, i., 457.\n\n  Santa Barbara, town, South California, i., 403-4, 459; antiq.,\n    iv., 695.\n\n  Santa Barbara Channel, i., 404.\n\n  Santa Catalina, Puebla, antiq., iv., 469.\n\n  Santa Catalina Cayamoa (Camoa), village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  Santa Catalina Island, i., 402, 408, 460; myth., iii., 134.\n\n  Santa Catarina, village, Guanajuato, i., 672; antiq., iv., 578.\n\n  Santa Clara, mission, Central California, i., 365, 398; lang.,\n    iii., 653-4.\n\n  Santa Clara, Pueblo village, i., 527, 599; lang., iii., 681.\n\n  Santa Clara River, i., 464, 468.\n\n  Santa Clara Valley, i., 452, 600.\n\n  Santa Cruz, mission, Central California, i., 381, 389, 392-3,\n    396, 398, 454; lang., iii., 656; antiq., iv., 696.\n\n  Santa Cruz, mission, Guatemala, i., 788.\n\n  Santa Cruz, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Santa Cruz del Quich\u00e9, locality, Guatemala, v., 564.\n\n  Santa Cruz Island, i., 402, 459; lang., iii., 658-9.\n\n  Santa Cruz River, i., 602.\n\n  Santa Delfina Ca\u00f1on, Utah, antiq., iv., 733.\n\n  Santa Gertrudis, mission, Lower California, lang., iii., 691-2.\n\n  Santa Inez, mission, South California, i., 420, 459; lang., iii.,\n    651.\n\n  Santa Margarita, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Santa Maria, mission, Lower California, lang., iii., 690.\n\n  Santa Maria, village, Darien, i., 796.\n\n  Santa Maria, village, Oajaca, i., 680, 682.\n\n  Santa Maria, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 219.\n\n  Santa Maria Chimalapa, village, Oajaca, i., 682.\n\n  Santa Maria de los Alamos, Mexico, antiq., iv., 549.\n\n  Santa Maria River, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 120.\n\n  Santa Maria River, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 448.\n\n  Santa-Marta, province, Darien, i., 796.\n\n  Santander, town, Tamaulipas, i., 613.\n\n  Santa Rosa Island, i., 409, 449; antiq., iv., 694-5.\n\n  Santa Rosal\u00eda, village, Sonora, i., 601.\n\n  Santa Rosa de Nadadores, village, Coahuila, i., 612.\n\n  Santa Sinfor\u00f3sa, village, Chihuahua, i., 609.\n\n  Santa Ysabel, village, South California, i., 458.\n\n  Santiago, Pueblo village, i., 600.\n\n  Santiago, mission, Lower California, i., 604.\n\n  Santiago Ixcuintla, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 575-7.\n\n  Santo Domingo, Pueblo village, i., 527, 600; lang., iii., 681;\n    antiq., iv., 666-7.\n\n  Santo Domingo, village, Guatemala, i., 789.\n\n  Santo Domingo, village, Chiapas, iv., 290, 294.\n\n  Santo Tomas, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Santo Tomas, Peru, antiq., iv., 797.\n\n  Santoton, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 353.\n\n  San Vicente, province and city, Salvador, antiq., iv., 68-9.\n\n  San Vicente Mountain, i., 791.\n\n  San Vincent, Leeward Islands, i., 793.\n\n  San Yldefonso, i., 599, see San Ildefonso.\n\n  Sapotitlan, province, Guatemala, i., 788.\n\n  Sapototots (Lapototots), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 450.\n\n  Saptin River, i., 463, see Snake River.\n\n  Sapuyal, sapote kernel, i., 695.\n\n  Saracatzi, village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  Saraise, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sarbacan, Nahua blow-pipe, ii., 351.\n\n  Sargentarukas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 454.\n\n  Saritscheff Island, i., 62.\n\n  Sarlistos (Sarlilsos), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 313, 315.\n\n  Sarontac, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sarritehcas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Sarsaparilla, i., 726, 768.\n\n  Sarsis (Circees, Ciri\u00e9s, Sarsi, Sorsi, Surcis, Sursees, Sussees),\n    tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 145; lang., iii.,\n    584.\n\n  Sasaguel, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Saskatchewan River, i., 145; iii., 584.\n\n  Sasketoom, food of Inland Columbian tribes, i., 265.\n\n  Sassardis, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; special mention, i.,\n    785.\n\n  Sassics, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; special mention,\n    i., 344.\n\n  Sast\u00e9s, i., 446, see Shastas.\n\n  Saticoy, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Saticoy River, i., 458-9; antiq., iv., 695-6.\n\n  Satumuo, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Satun Sat, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 262.\n\n  Saturaumo, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Satz-tzi-mitl, Nootka month, i., 193.\n\n  Saucelito, California, antiq., iv., 710.\n\n  Saucon, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Saukaulutuchs (Saukaulutucks), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 175, 298; special mention, i., 188.\n\n  Saulapaguemes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    613.\n\n  Sautatho, i., 459, see Sitolo.\n\n  Savagism, i., 3-4, 25-6, 33-4, 154, 176, 324; ii., 1-6, 34-8,\n    342; iii., 30-41.\n\n  Savanerics, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 749,\n    796; special mention, i., 750, 756, 760; lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Savanna Bight Kay, Honduras, antiq., iv., 70.\n\n  Savinnars, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Sawamish (Sah\u00e9hwamish, Sayhaymamish, Sehehwamish), tribe of Sound\n    Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 299, 301-2.\n\n  Saway Yanga, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459-60.\n\n  Saw-fish, Maya weapon, ii., 743.\n\n  Sawpaws, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 317.\n\n  Sayhaymamish, i., 301, see Sawamish.\n\n  Sayokenek, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Sayonstlas (Sayouslas), i., 307-8, see Saiustklas.\n\n  Saywamines, i., 450, see Seywamenes.\n\n  Sbanvinquil, Tzendal month, ii., 766.\n\n  Scaffolds, see Platforms.\n\n  Scalps (Scalping), i., 164, 215, 235, 269, 344, 380, 407, 425,\n    433-4, 496, 498, 500, 581, 629.\n\n  Scandinavians, American origin-traces, v., 102-15.\n\n  Scarification, i., 397, 440, 521, 523, 580, 588, 743, 776; ii.,\n    245, 279-80, 303, 324, 335, 425, 600, 658, 663, 678, 733; iii.,\n    52, 72, 241, 249, 256, 278, 336-7, 395, 421, 441-2, 471, 486.\n\n  Scatchetts, i., 301, see Skagits.\n\n  Sceptres, iii., 369, 407-27.\n\n  Schaitls, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 444.\n\n  Schaktol, i., 141, see Shaktolik.\n\n  Schaktulack, i., 141, see Shaktolik.\n\n  Schawill, village, Yucatan, i., 658-9, 663.\n\n  Scheeetstish, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    315.\n\n  Scheperrhs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    444.\n\n  S-chinkit, i., 96, see Sitkas.\n\n  Schissatuch, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  S-chitcha-chon, i., 96, see Sitkas.\n\n  Schools, see Education.\n\n  Schoomadits, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Schopan (Schoopan), Koniaga male concubine, i., 82.\n\n  Schouchouap, i., 315, see Shushwap.\n\n  Schregons, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    444.\n\n  Schrooyelpi, i., 315, see Chaudi\u00e8res.\n\n  Schumaginsk, i., 142, see Shumagin.\n\n  Schwoyelpi, i., 314, see Chaudi\u00e8res.\n\n  Sciatogas, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 319.\n\n  Scomalt, Okanagan god, iii., 153.\n\n  Scontas, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 308.\n\n  Scorpion, i., 640; iii., 379-80.\n\n  Scott Island, i., 296.\n\n  Scottsburgs, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 308.\n\n  Scott's River (Ottetiewa), i., 447; antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Scott's Valley, i., 447, 457; lang., iii., 637-8.\n\n  Sculpture, Hyperboreans, i., 68, 80, 91, 107; Columbians, i.,\n    161-2, 165, 181, 183, 192-3, 205-6, 238-9, 274; antiq., iv.,\n    734, 736; Californians, antiq., iv., 715-17; New Mexicans, i.,\n    507, 545-6; antiq., iv., 575-7, 590, 593-7, 620; Mexicans, i.,\n    631; ii., 161, 169-72, 478-81, 524, 566; antiq., iv., 313-22,\n    332-41, 347-59, 370-6, 381-8, 398, 415, 420-3, 427-8, 435-6,\n    444, 451-564 passim; Central Americans, i., 701, 769; ii.,\n    750-1, 775-7; antiq., iv., 16-17, 23-8, 39-138, 160-279 passim;\n    Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 781-5; Peru, antiq., iv.,\n    803-6; resemblances to Egyptian, v., 59-61.\n\n  Seacos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    362, 449, 451.\n\n  Seal Harbour, i., 294.\n\n  Sea-lion, i., 59-60, 86, 89-90.\n\n  Seals, i., 49-50, 54-60, 73-4, 77-8, 86-8, 90-1, 160, 163, 186,\n    188, 190, 200, 214, 330, 383, 403, 627.\n\n  Seamystys, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Sea-otter, see Otter.\n\n  Seasons, see Calendar.\n\n  Seattles, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 301.\n\n  Sea-water, uses of, i., 172, 762.\n\n  Sea-weed, various uses, i., 103, 163, 185, 187-8, 214; iii., 144.\n\n  Sebassas (Labassas, Shebasha), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74;\n    location, i., 155, 294; special mention, i., 157, 159, 170,\n    174.\n\n  Secatquonays, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i., 143.\n\n  Sechelt, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 176, 296,\n    298.\n\n  Sechomawe, Pueblo village and tribe, i., 526-56; location, i.,\n    601.\n\n  Secos, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 712; special\n    mention, i., 726, 746; lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Secumnes (Sekamne, Sekomnes, Sicumnes), Central Californian\n    tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 450; lang., iii., 649-50.\n\n  Seeds, various uses, i., 340, 373-5, 387-8, 406, 428, 430,\n    559-60, 577, 658, 734, 752; ii., 703; iii., 83, 297, 316, 344,\n    371, 395.\n\n  Seekroe, Mosquito festival, i., 735.\n\n  Seekywa, food of Inland Columbian tribes, i., 265.\n\n  Segatajenne, Apache tribal name, i., 474; iii., 594.\n\n  Seguyones, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Sehehwamish, i., 299, see Sawamish.\n\n  Sehuatoba, Sinaloa god, iii., 180.\n\n  Sehui\u00e1b, Clallam demon spirits, iii., 95, 155.\n\n  Sejenne, Apache tribal name, i., 474; iii., 594.\n\n  Sekamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Sekomnes, i., 450, see Secumnes.\n\n  Selawik Lake, i., 141.\n\n  Self-immolation, i., 781-3; ii., 610, 620-2; iii., 443; v., 205.\n\n  Selish, i., 312, see Salish.\n\n  Selloatpallahs (Sewatpallas), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 318.\n\n  Seltzerton, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 767.\n\n  Semianmas, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; special mention,\n    i., 209.\n\n  Senacu, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 663.\n\n  Senijextees, tribal name of lakes, i., 314.\n\n  Sennatuchs, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Sennelkameen River, i., 312.\n\n  Senotes, subterranean springs, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 198, 201,\n    212, 221, 249.\n\n  Senuisacal, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 199.\n\n  Sepulture, see Burial.\n\n  Sequechul (Sequechil), Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566, 595.\n\n  Serape, Mexican dress, i., 532, 582, 690.\n\n  Seraque, village, Darien, i., 795.\n\n  Seredkinskojes, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Seris, i., 604, see Ceris.\n\n  Serouskumne, Central California, lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Serpent, symbols, etc., ii., 556, 572, 578, 585, 751, 791; iii.,\n    129, 134-7, 171-3, 180, 398, 400; antiq., iv., 37, 185-7,\n    226-7, 229-31, 235; v., 87; see also Snakes.\n\n  Serpent River, i., 317, see Snake River.\n\n  Serrano de Cajones, Zapotec dialect, iii., 754.\n\n  Serrano de Ixtepec, Zapotec dialect, iii., 754.\n\n  Serrano de Miahuatlan, Zapotec dialect, iii., 754.\n\n  Serranos, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Serritos, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Servushamnes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 450.\n\n  Sesaguks, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Sesepaulab\u00e1, Moqui village, i., 528.\n\n  Seshats (Seshahts, Shecharts), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 295, 297.\n\n  Sespe, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Seven, sacred number, iii., 270.\n\n  Seven Caves, name for Chicomoztoc and Tulan Zuiva, q. v.\n\n  Severnovskia, name for Chwachamaju, i., 449.\n\n  Severnozer, name for Chwachamaju, i., 449.\n\n  Sevier Lake, i., 422, 464-8.\n\n  Sevier (Severe) River, i., 467.\n\n  Sevier Valley, i., 464, 468.\n\n  Sewatpallas, i., 318, see Selloatpallahs.\n\n  Sexes, i., 93, 128, 170, 390, 393, 416-17, 551-2, 566, 703-4;\n    ii., 243-5, 290, 695, 723.\n\n  Sextapay, South California lang., iii., 656-8.\n\n  Seywamenes (Saywamines), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Shahaptans, i., 316, see Sahaptins.\n\n  Shaistches, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    314.\n\n  Shaktolik (Schaktol, Schaktulack) Bay, i., 141.\n\n  Shalachmushumnes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 450.\n\n  Shalalas (Shalalahs, Shallalahs), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 306-7.\n\n  Shaltattos (Shallatos), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 320-1.\n\n  Shaman, a sorcerer, i., 77, 85, 522; iii., 141-4, 147-8, 152.\n\n  Shamooinaughs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    317.\n\n  Shanelkayas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 451.\n\n  Shasta Butte, locality, North California, i., 444, 447.\n\n  Shasta Mountains, i., 327, 447, 451.\n\n  Shasta River, i., 446.\n\n  Shastas (Chastay, Sast\u00e9, Shaste, Shasty, Weohows), North\n    Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 327, 446-7;\n    special mention, i., 333, 342, 344, 351, 361; myth., iii., 547;\n    v., 19; lang., iii., 640.\n\n  Shasta Valley, i., 447, 457; lang., iii., 637-8.\n\n  Shaste, i., 447, see Shastas.\n\n  Shasty, i., 447, see Shastas.\n\n  Shawhaaptens, i., 317, see Sahaptins.\n\n  Shaw's Flat, California, antiq., iv., 700.\n\n  Sheastukles, i., 307, see Shiastuckles.\n\n  Shebalne Pomos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 362, 448.\n\n  Shebashas, i., 294, see Sebassas.\n\n  Sheberetches, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 470.\n\n  Shecharts, i., 295, see Seshats.\n\n  Sheep, i., 215-16, 489, 502, 505, 544, 583.\n\n  Sheep Indians, i., 145, see Ambawtawhoot-Tinneh.\n\n  Shehees, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Shekoms, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Shells, various uses, Hyperboreans, i., 48, 72, 80, 97, 122, 128,\n    133; Columbians, i., 165, 179, 182, 186-92, 201, 206, 211, 217,\n    229, 239, 258; antiq., iv., 739-40; Californians, i., 330, 333,\n    347, 367-8, 381-2, 385, 393-4, 403, 407-9, 424-6; antiq., iv.,\n    709-10; New Mexicans, i., 482, 506, 532-3, 551, 558-9, 563,\n    574-5, 584; Mexicans, i., 622, 630; ii., 173, 175, 290, 292,\n    319, 325, 337, 374, 573; iii., 369, 385, 407, 416-17; Central\n    Americans, i., 691, 706, 717, 752, 754; ii., 684, 713, 729,\n    732-3, 737, 752; Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 782.\n\n  Shelter Cove, i., 449.\n\n  Shepowlawe, Moqui village, i., 601.\n\n  Sherwood Valley, i., 362, 448.\n\n  Sheswap, i., 311, see Shushwaps.\n\n  Shet-la-cane, Okanagan hair ornaments, i., 257.\n\n  Shewhapmuch, i., 251, see Shushwaps.\n\n  Shewhaps, i., 312, see Shushwaps.\n\n  Shiastuckles (Sheastukles), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 307.\n\n  Shields, Hyperboreans, i., 79, 119; Columbians, i., 235;\n    Californians, i., 343, 431-2; New Mexicans, i., 493, 496, 541,\n    578-9; Mexicans, i., 627-8, 655; ii., 326, 337, 404, 406-7,\n    606, 618, 621; iii., 284-426 passim; Mayas, ii., 742.\n\n  Shimiahmoos, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    299; lang., iii., 615.\n\n  Shingle Springs, California, antiq., iv., 704-5.\n\n  Shipap, Pueblo village, i., 527.\n\n  Shirrydikas, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 461.\n\n  Shis Inday, 'Men of the woods,' name for Apaches, i., 474.\n\n  Shistakoostees (Sisticoostas), North Californian tribe, i.,\n    326-61; location, i., 443.\n\n  Shiuguermi, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Sh\u00edwinn\u00e1, i., 600, see Siwinna.\n\n  Shljam Scho\u00e1, Koniaga god, iii., 143.\n\n  Shoalwater Bay, i., 209, 303, 305.\n\n  Shoalwater Bay Indians, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location,\n    i., 305.\n\n  Shoes, Hyperboreans, i., 49-50, 73; Columbians, i., 258;\n    Californians, i., 331, 424-6; New Mexicans, i., 480-4, 504,\n    531-2, 559, 569, 574; Mexicans, i., 620, 650; ii., 326, 337,\n    369-70, 375, 396, 405; iii., 435; Central Americans, i., 690,\n    716; ii., 635, 731.\n\n  Shokomish, i., 302, see Skokomish.\n\n  S'homamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    299, 301.\n\n  Shonomnes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450.\n\n  Shookanys, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Shoopshaps, i., 312, see Shushwaps.\n\n  Shooshaps, i., 310, see Shushwaps.\n\n  Shooshewaps, i., 310, see Shushwaps.\n\n  Shoremee, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Shoshokoes (Shoshocoes, Shoshocos), tribe of Shoshones, i.,\n    422-42; location, i., 460; special mention, i., 441-2; lang.,\n    iii., 661.\n\n  Shoshones, one of the four families into which the Californians\n    are divided; manners and customs of all its nations and tribes\n    described together; i., 422-42; physique, i., 422-3; dress, i.,\n    423-6; dwellings, i., 426-7; food, i., 427-30; personal habits,\n    i., 430-1; weapons and war, i., 431-4; implements, i., 434-5;\n    boats, property, government, i., 435; slavery, i., 435-6;\n    marriage and women, i., 436-7; amusements and miscellaneous\n    customs, i., 437-9; medicine and burial, i., 439-40; character,\n    i., 440-2; location, of tribes, i., 152, 322, 422, 460-70;\n    myth., iii., 93-4, 157; lang., iii., 567-8, 660-79.\n\n  Shoshones (Shoshonee, Shoshonie), i., 422, see Snakes.\n\n  Shoshoteos, i., 469, see Tosawees.\n\n  Shothoucs, i., 462, see Snakes.\n\n  S'Hotlemamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    301.\n\n  Shotos, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306, 308.\n\n  Shouagan (Showgan), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i.,\n    292.\n\n  Shoushwaps, i., 310, see Shushwaps.\n\n  Shrouders, burial, ii., 603, 615, 619, 799-800; iii., 406.\n\n  Shucu, i., 458, see Xucu.\n\n  Shumagin (Schumaginsk) Islands, i., 61, 87, 142.\n\n  Shumeias, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; special\n    mention, i., 379; location, i., 448.\n\n  Sh\u00famuthp\u00e0, Moqui village, i., 528, 600.\n\n  Shungopawe, i., 601, see Xougopavi.\n\n  Shushwap Lake, i., 310; iii., 613.\n\n  Shushwaps, one of the nine families into which the Columbians\n    are divided; manners and customs of all its nations and tribes\n    described together; i., 251-91; location, i., 151, 251-2,\n    310-12.\n\n  Shushwaps (Schouchouap, Shoopshap, Shooshaps, Shooshewap,\n    Shoushwaps, Shushwapmuch, Shuswapmuch, Shuswaps, Soushwap,\n    Suwapamuck), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    310-11; special mention, i., 256, 259-60, 264-5, 271, 276, 289;\n     lang., iii., 613.\n\n  Shuttle, i., 502, 582.\n\n  Shuyelpi, i., 314, see Chaudi\u00e8res.\n\n  Siahs (Sians), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    446; lang., iii., 593.\n\n  Siamana Lake, i., 299.\n\n  Siamanas, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 299.\n\n  Sian\u00e1bones, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Sians, i., 446, see Siahs.\n\n  Sibag-na, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Sibubapas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607.\n\n  Sicannis (Sicaunies, Sikanis), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 114, 146; special mention, i., 125, 137; myth.,\n    iii., 517; lang., iii., 587.\n\n  Sicca, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Sichican, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sickley River, i., 463.\n\n  Sicknaahuttys, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i.,\n    143.\n\n  Sickness, see Medicine.\n\n  Sicuiracha, Chichimec Wanacace ruler, v., 512-15.\n\n  Sicumnes, i., 450, see Secumnes.\n\n  Sicuraba, Acaxee dialect, iii., 719.\n\n  Sicxacames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Sidanaks, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Sierra de Acha, i., 595.\n\n  Sierra Anahuac, i., 596.\n\n  Sierra Ancha, i., 595.\n\n  Sierra Blanca, i., 595.\n\n  Sierra de Canoas, Quer\u00e9taro, antiq., iv., 550-2.\n\n  Sierra del Diablo, iii., 594-5.\n\n  Sierra Gorda, i., 673; lang., iii., 742-3.\n\n  Sierra Largua, i., 595.\n\n  Sierra de Macuilapa, i., 679.\n\n  Sierra Madre, ii., 87; iii., 710.\n\n  Sierra de Malinche, Tlascala, antiq., iv., 477.\n\n  Sierra del Mezquital, i., 613.\n\n  Sierra de los Mimbres, i., 475, 595-6; iii., 594-5.\n\n  Sierra del Nayarit, i., 672.\n\n  Sierra Nevada, i., 323, 422, 444, 466, 471-2.\n\n  Sierra de Palomas, Zacatecas, antiq., iv., 583.\n\n  Sierra Pi\u00f1al, i., 595.\n\n  Sierra de Tamaulipa vieja, i., 613.\n\n  Sierra Valley, i., 469.\n\n  Sierras (Caruanas), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 458.\n\n  Sieves, i., 544, 636.\n\n  Signals, i., 380, 497-8, 519-20, 697; ii., 425-7.\n\n  Sihimi, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Sihkran, Mosquito feast, i., 735.\n\n  Sihuicom, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Sijoh, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 262.\n\n  Sikanis, i., 125, see Sicannis.\n\n  Sikitipuc, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Silan, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 261.\n\n  Silimastus, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    458.\n\n  Silimi, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Silino, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Silisne, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Silk, i., 370, 648, 650, 657.\n\n  Silla, Pueblo village, i., 527; lang., iii., 681.\n\n  Silver, i., 370, 482-3, 504-5, 543, 574, 631, 752; ii., 173, 285,\n    372, 406, 473-8; iii., 325; iv., 778-9, 792-4.\n\n  Silver Creek, i., 793.\n\n  Simbalakees, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 362-3.\n\n  Simerones, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Simi, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Similkameen River, i., 312.\n\n  Similkameens (Chitwout), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 312; lang., iii., 613.\n\n  Sinaahmish, i., 299, see Snohomish.\n\n  Sinacshops, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    320.\n\n  Sinahemish, i., 300, see Snohomish.\n\n  Sinahomish, i., 299, see Snohomish.\n\n  Sinahoumez, i., 300, see Snohomish.\n\n  Sinaloa, i., 591; lang., iii., 667, 694, 706-10; antiq., iv.,\n    601; Nahua migration, v., 222.\n\n  Sinaloas, (Cinaloas), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 572, 607; special mention, i., 576; myth., iii., 83, 180,\n    529; v., 20; lang., iii., 667, 694, 706-10.\n\n  Sinamish, i., 300, see Snohomish.\n\n  Sinapoils, i., 316, see Sans Poils.\n\n  Sinatcheggs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    311.\n\n  Sineequomenach, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    315.\n\n  Sinews, various uses, i., 56, 58-9, 74, 76, 91, 104, 117, 164,\n    186, 188, 215, 235, 268, 341, 377-8, 431-2, 494, 541, 579; ii.,\n    408.\n\n  Sinicon, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Sinipouals, i., 316, see Sans Poils.\n\n  Sinkoman, name for Spokanes, i., 315.\n\n  Sinnock, Mosquito fishing-spear, i., 720.\n\n  Sinnomish, i., 301, see Snohomish.\n\n  Sinoquipe, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Sinpauelish, i., 316, see Sans Poils.\n\n  Sinpavelist, i., 310, see Sans Poils.\n\n  Sinpohellechachs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 312.\n\n  Sinpoilish (Sinpoilschne), i., 315-16, see Sans Poils.\n\n  Sinselaws, i., 308, see Saiustklas.\n\n  Sinselaw River, i., 308.\n\n  Sinslihhooish, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    315.\n\n  Sinspeelish, i., 315, see Sans Poils.\n\n  Sintootoos (Sintootoolish), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 315.\n\n  Sintzicha Tangajuan, name for Tangaxoan, v., 516.\n\n  Sinwhoyelppetooks, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 312.\n\n  Sio Cotchmin, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 454.\n\n  Sipanum, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sipico, locality, Michoacan, v., 518.\n\n  Siplichiquin, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 453.\n\n  Sipuca, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Siqiurionals, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 456.\n\n  Siraguen Lake, Michoacan, antiq., iv., 570.\n\n  Sirout, Acagchemem mythical person, iii., 164-5.\n\n  Sisa, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Sisabanonase, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Sisac, name of month in Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Sisahiahut, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Siscastac, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sishus (Lishus), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 450.\n\n  Sisibotaris, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; special mention,\n    i., 585, 587, 590.\n\n  Sisichii, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Sisimbres, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Sisitcanogna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    460.\n\n  Sisjulcioy, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Siskiyou County, California, i., 413-4; antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Siskiyou Mountains, i., 443, 446.\n\n  Sisolop, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Sisticoostas, i., 443, see Shistakoostees.\n\n  Sisuchi, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Sitax, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 236.\n\n  Sitintajea, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sitka Bay, i., 142-3.\n\n  Sitkas (G-tinkit, S-chinkit, S-chit-cha-chon, Sitcas,\n    Sitkaguouays, Sitka-Koans), tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114;\n    location, i., 96, 143; special mention, i., 102-3; lang., iii.,\n    579.\n\n  Sitlintaj, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sitolo (Sautatho), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location,\n    i., 459.\n\n  Sittintac, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Situchi, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Siur Poils, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    314.\n\n  Siuslaws, i., 308, see Saiustklas.\n\n  Sivano, Pima mythical person, iii., 80.\n\n  Sivilih\u00f3a, town, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Siwinna (Shiwinn\u00e0), Moqui village, i., 528, 600.\n\n  Siyanguayas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Siyante (Typoxi), Central California dialect, iii., 650.\n\n  Skaddals, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    320-1.\n\n  Skadjets, i., 299, see Skagits.\n\n  Skagit River, i., 299, 300.\n\n  Skagits (Sachets, Scatchetts, Skadjets), tribe of Sound Indians,\n    i., 208-22; location, i., 208, 299; special mention, i.,\n    211-12, 219, 222; lang., iii., 615.\n\n  Skaischilt'nish, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 315.\n\n  Skalzi, name for Kootenais, i., 251.\n\n  Skamnaminaughs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    317.\n\n  Skamoynumacks (Skamoynumachs), Inland Columbian tribe, i.,\n    250-91; location, i., 312, 316.\n\n  Skatcat, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 296.\n\n  Skatkmlschi, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    314.\n\n  Skeawamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Skeawamish River, i., 300.\n\n  Skecheramouse, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    315.\n\n  Skeedans, i., 292, see Skiddans.\n\n  Skeena River, i., 155, 174, 293-4.\n\n  Skeenas, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 155, 294;\n    special mention, i., 174.\n\n  Skeetsomish, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    314.\n\n  Skeletons, antiq., iv., 71, 117-130, 237-40, 263-5, 368, 376,\n    428-30, 451, 474-5, 527, 577, 597-600, 692-707, 737-40, 775-6.\n\n  S'Ketehlmish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Sketigets, i., 292, see Skiddegats.\n\n  Sketsomish, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    313.\n\n  Skeysehamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Skeysehamish River, i., 300.\n\n  Skidagates (Skidagatees), i., 165, 292, see Skiddegats.\n\n  Skiddans (Skeedans), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i.,\n    292.\n\n  Skiddegate Channel, i., 292.\n\n  Skiddegats (Sketigets, Skidagatees, Skidagates, Skidegats,\n    Skittageets, Skittdegates, Skitteg\u00e1s, Skittegetts), tribe of\n    Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 155, 292; special mention,\n    i., 165, 174.\n\n  Skiens, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 320.\n\n  Skillutes (Skilloots, Skiloots), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 304, 306-7; special mention, i., 274; lang.,\n    iii., 626.\n\n  Skins, various uses, Hyperboreans, i., 46, 49-63, 69, 73-5, 79,\n    86-7, 89, 100, 102, 108, 117-18, 122, 128, 133; Columbians,\n    i., 159-60, 162, 166-7, 170, 182-3, 211, 214-15, 228-31, 235,\n    239, 258-61, 266, 270-2, 289; Californians, i., 330-1, 341,\n    343, 345, 347, 367-8, 377-8, 384, 388, 403, 423-6, 432, 440;\n    New Mexicans, i., 481-3, 486-7, 495-6, 505, 531-2, 541, 545,\n    558-60, 567, 574, 579, 583; Mexicans, i., 620-1, 627, 630,\n    648, 650, 657, 659; ii., 311, 363-9, 386, 406-7, 440, 486, 524;\n    iii., 355-8, 413, 415, 421; Central Americans, i., 705-6, 716,\n    726, 765, 768; ii., 731, 741-2, 771, 787.\n\n  Skitsuish (Skitswish), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 314; lang., iii., 618.\n\n  Skittageets (Skittdegates, Skitteg\u00e1s, Skittegetts), i., 292, see\n    Skiddegats.\n\n  Sklallam (Sklallum, S'klalum), i., 302; iii., 615, see Clallam.\n\n  Skoielpoi, name for Colvilles, i., 252.\n\n  Skokomish (Shokomish), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 301-2.\n\n  Skoocoom, Clallam evil spirit, iii., 155.\n\n  Skopeahmish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Skowhomish, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    311.\n\n  Skowtous, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 311.\n\n  Skrellings, account of, v., 110-12.\n\n  Sktahlejums, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Skuckstanajumps, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location,\n    i., 300.\n\n  Skuckstanajumps River, i., 300.\n\n  Skulls, i., 12, 15, 46, 72, 158, 177, 204, 225; ii., 430-1,\n    585-6, 624; iii., 293, 345; iv., 740.\n\n  Skwalls, i., 301, see Nisquallies.\n\n  Skyappe, iii., 153, see Elemehumkillanwaist.\n\n  Skyuse, i., 265, see Cayuse.\n\n  Skywhamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Slacus, i., 458, see Jlaacs.\n\n  Slate, i., 59, 165, 188, 343; ii., 784-5.\n\n  Slav\u00e9, Kutchin dialect, iii., 587-8.\n\n  Slave River, i., 144.\n\n  Slavery, ii., 62; Hyperboreans, i., 65, 80-1, 108-9, 124-5, 135;\n    Columbians, i., 167-8, 171, 173-4, 177, 179, 188, 191, 195,\n    205, 217-18, 226-7, 240-1, 248, 276; Californians, i., 349,\n    388, 435-6; New Mexicans, i., 510-11; Mexicans, i., 661; ii.,\n    217-23, 455-62, 607-8, 610-13, 622, 626, 688-9, 737; iii.,\n    511-13; v., 394, 413-14, 452; Central Americans, i., 729,\n    771-2; ii., 649-51, 657-9; v., 631.\n\n  Sledges, i., 61-2.\n\n  Slings, i., 494, 541, 562, 627, 655, 696, 761; ii., 408-9, 743.\n\n  Slouacuss Tinneh (Slowacuss, Sluacuss-dinais), tribe of Tinneh,\n    i., 114-37; location, i., 145; lang., iii., 585.\n\n  Smahoomenaish, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    315.\n\n  Smal\u00e8hhus, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Small-pox, i., 220, 246, 286, 394, 521, 568, 588-9, 638-9, 708,\n    742; ii., 594; v., 525, 601, 629.\n\n  Smelk\u00e1miah, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Smess, tribe of Nootkas, i., 175-208; location, i., 298.\n\n  Smess Lake, i., 298.\n\n  Smess River, i., 298.\n\n  Smith Inlet, i., 294.\n\n  Smith River, i., 330, 333, 346, 445-6; lang., iii., 593, 638.\n\n  Smockshops, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Smoke, i., 68, 133, 163, 184, 198-9, 213, 219, 243, 273, 282,\n    285, 339, 354, 380, 394, 433-8, 497-8, 515-17, 519-20, 550,\n    554, 566-8, 580, 633, 666, 720-1, 739, 742, 776; ii., 178,\n    285-8, 656, 673, 684; iii., 153, 171, 238.\n\n  Smoky Valley, i., 466.\n\n  Smoos, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 712, 793;\n    special mention, i., 714, 716-17, 720, 746; lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Smulkamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Snake River, i., 152, 253, 317-18, 461-3; iii., 620.\n\n  Snakes (Shoshonee, Shoshones, Shoshonie, Shothoucs, Soshonies),\n    tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 422, 461-3;\n    special mention, i., 424-6, 428, 430-5, 438, 440-1; lang.,\n    iii., 662.\n\n  Snakes, i., 374, 379, 405, 417, 419, 521, 539, 561, 576, 578-9,\n    587-9, 625, 649, 743, 762, 778; ii., 600, 602; iii., 268,\n    281-2, 290-1, 294, 298, 321-2, 324, 343-4, 348, 429.\n\n  Snares, see Traps.\n\n  Snelling, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Snihuax, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Snohomish (Sinaahmish, Sinahemish, Sinahomish, Sinahoumez,\n    Sinamish, Snowhomish), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 299-301; lang., iii., 615.\n\n  Snohomish River, i., 300.\n\n  Snoqualimich, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Snoqualimich River, i., 300.\n\n  Snoqualmook, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    299-300.\n\n  Snoquamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    301.\n\n  Snow, Eskimo dwellings, i., 53-4, 58; heavy fall in Mexico, v.,\n    413.\n\n  Snowhomish, i., 301, see Snohomish.\n\n  Snow-shoes, i., 63, 264.\n\n  Snuff, i., 76, 133; ii., 287-8, 600.\n\n  Soayalpis (Soaiatlpi), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 312; lang., iii., 616.\n\n  Sobaipuris, (Sobaypuris), tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; location,\n    i., 603; lang., iii., 694-5.\n\n  Sobas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 606; lang.,\n    iii., 695.\n\n  Sochimanque, iii., 420, see Xochimanqui.\n\n  Sockamukes, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Sockatcheenums, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    311.\n\n  Socklumnes (Locklomnees), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 450.\n\n  Soclan, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Socoas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    362, 449, 451.\n\n  Socoisukas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 452.\n\n  Socol\u00e9o, i., 788, see Zakuleu.\n\n  Socollomillos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 363.\n\n  Soconusco (Xoconochco), town and province, Chiapas, i., 680, 787;\n    iii., 760; hist., v., 425, 473, 530, 534, 602, 604, 606.\n\n  Socorro, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 663.\n\n  Soda Springs, Idaho, myth., iii., 93-4.\n\n  Sodomy, i., 81-2, 92, 415, 515, 585, 773-4; ii., 467-9, 664,\n    677-8; v., 198.\n\n  Sogups, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 464.\n\n  Soiilenu, i., 295, see Soiitinu.\n\n  Soiitinu, (Soiilenu), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 295.\n\n  Soisehme, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sok\u00e9akeits, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    445.\n\n  Sokes, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 175, 295-7.\n\n  Sokulks, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 321;\n    special mention, i., 258, 260, 267, 271, 278, 287, 289; lang.,\n    iii., 621.\n\n  Sola, town, Oajaca, i., 681.\n\n  Solano County, California, i., 452; iii., 650.\n\n  Soledad de las Canoas, town, Quer\u00e9taro, i., 672.\n\n  Soliman Point, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 254.\n\n  Soloeis Cape, v., 66.\n\n  Solol\u00e1, town and province, Guatemala, i., 788; iv., 121; v., 577.\n\n  Sololumnes (Solomnies, Solumnees), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 450, 453; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Soltecs, South Mexican tribe, i., 644-70; location, i., 681.\n\n  Sombrerito, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 422.\n\n  Somes (Somo), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Sonagna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Songhies (Songes, Songhish), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 296-7; myth., iii., 522.\n\n  Songs, i., 67, 112, 170-1, 190, 201, 219, 243, 281-2, 352-3, 358,\n    393, 516, 522, 550-2, 635, 664, 704, 707, 736-8, 782-3; ii.,\n    243, 285, 289, 293-4, 313, 607-8, 617-21, 669, 712; iii., 62-3;\n    see also Music.\n\n  Sonomas (Sonomellos, Sonomis), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 362, 449, 453.\n\n  Sonons, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sonora, tribes described, i., 571-91; location, i., 604-12;\n    myth., iii., 178-9, 529; lang., iii., 583, 593-5, 667-70,\n    694-710, 717; antiq., iv., 603; hist., v., 221, 509.\n\n  Sonora River, i., 605.\n\n  Sonoras, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607;\n    myth., iii., 178-9, 529; lang., iii., 667-71.\n\n  Sonsonate (Zonzonate), town, Salvador, i., 790; antiq., iv., 69;\n    hist., v., 608.\n\n  Soones, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 598.\n\n  Soo-oo-it, name for inhabitants of Kadiak, i., 70.\n\n  Sopono, i., 459, see Missopeno.\n\n  Sopotatumne, Central California, lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Soquamish, i., 301, see Suquamish.\n\n  Soques, i., 647, see Zoques.\n\n  Sorcerer, name given to an Uxmal king, v., 633.\n\n  Sorcerers, Hyperboreans, i., 85, 113, 120-1, 124; iii., 141-4,\n    147-9; Columbians, i., 167, 170-2, 192, 200-5, 219, 245-6, 284,\n    286-7; iii., 130, 149-56; Californians, i., 344, 352-5, 386,\n    394-5, 418; iii., 158-65; New Mexicans, i., 522, 554, 567-8;\n    iii., 170-1, 180; Mexicans, i., 640-1, 667; ii., 253, 271-2,\n    317, 462, 601-2; iii., 241-2, 364; v., 450, 469, 533; Central\n    Americans, i., 703, 707, 709, 740-3, 777-80; ii., 211-12, 659,\n    688, 696-7, 719, 745, 797-8, 800; iii., 473, 495-500; origin\n    of, iii., 31.\n\n  Sormeh, feather ornaments, i., 482.\n\n  Sorsi, i., 145, see Sarsis.\n\n  Soshonies, i., 462, see Snakes.\n\n  Soteomellos (Sotomieyos), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 448.\n\n  Sotomoenu (Sotonoemu), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 459.\n\n  Souissouns, i., 453, see Suisunes.\n\n  Soul, ideas of, iii., 34-5, 514-18.\n\n  Sound Indians, one of the nine families into which the Columbians\n    are divided; manners and customs of all its nations and tribes\n    described together, i., 208-22; physique, i., 156, 210; dress,\n    i., 210-11; dwellings, i., 211-12; food, i., 212-14; implements\n    and weapons, i., 214-15; manufactures, i., 215-16; boats, i.,\n    216-17; property and trade, i., 217; government and slavery,\n    i., 217-18; women and marriage, i., 218-19; amusements, etc.,\n    i., 219; medicine, i., 219-20; burial, i., 220; character, i.,\n    174, 220-2; location of tribes, i., 151, 208-9, 298-304.\n\n  Souscoc, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Soushwap, i., 310, see Shushwaps.\n\n  South Bay, i., 301.\n\n  Southern Californians, see Californians, Southern.\n\n  Southern Mexicans, see Mexicans, Southern.\n\n  South Fork, i., 445, 448.\n\n  Soyennom, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 317.\n\n  Soyopa, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Spampt, Okanagan weapon, i., 268.\n\n  Spaniards, arrival on the Coast, v., 464-69, 473, 476, 478-82,\n    526, 535-6, 598-9, 601-2, 626-7, 629.\n\n  Spanish Flat, California, antiq., iv., 705.\n\n  Spanish historians, bibliography, ii., 158-60; v., 142-9.\n\n  Spatlam, food of Inland Columbian tribes, i., 265.\n\n  Spawn, food, i., 104, 163, 187-8; ii., 176.\n\n  Spears, Hyperboreans, i., 59, 77, 79, 104-5; Columbians, i.,\n    162-4, 185, 188, 212-14, 233-6, 262; Californians, i., 338,\n    341-2, 377-8, 406, 428, 431-2; New Mexicans, i., 493-6, 541,\n    578-9; Mexicans, i., 627, 655; ii., 351, 408, 410; Central\n    Americans, i., 696, 722, 760-1; ii., 742-3.\n\n  Speeches, i., 199, 352, 580-1, 708; ii., 146, 149-57, 252-3,\n    256-7, 266-8, 270-7, 387, 401-2, 439, 492-3, 607, 611, 621,\n    668; iii., 366-7, 588, 600-1.\n\n  Spells, see Charms.\n\n  Spies, ii., 387, 420, 424; v., 415.\n\n  Spindles, i., 503, 698; ii., 485, 679; iii., 372.\n\n  Spinning, i., 503-4, 657, 698, 724; ii., 245, 484-5, 752.\n\n  Spirits, belief in, i., 740-1, 777; iii., 34, 531-2.\n\n  Spirkin Island, i., 141.\n\n  Spokane River, i., 252, 315.\n\n  Spokanes (Spokans, Spokehnish, Spokeins, Spokihnish), Inland\n    Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 252-3, 315; special\n    mention, i., 260, 264, 267, 273, 276-80, 289-90; lang., iii.,\n    615.\n\n  Spokehnish (Spokihnish), i., 315, see Spokanes.\n\n  Spokeins, i., 315, see Spokanes.\n\n  Spoons, i., 164, 187, 234, 236, 271, 345.\n\n  Springfield, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 769.\n\n  Spruce-fir, various uses, i., 59, 61, 103, 130, 205.\n\n  Spuzzum, locality, British Columbia, i., 310.\n\n  Squahsinawmish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    302.\n\n  Squaiaitl, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 301.\n\n  Squaks'namish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    299.\n\n  Squalliamish (Squalliahmish, Sqallyamish), tribe of Sound\n    Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 299, 301.\n\n  Squallies, i., 301, see Nisquallies.\n\n  Squamaross (Squamaros), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 320-1.\n\n  Squawmisht, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 176,\n    296, 298.\n\n  Squin\u00e1mish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    300.\n\n  Squirrels, i., 50, 171, 488; iii., 130.\n\n  Srootlemamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    301.\n\n  Ssalayme, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Ssichitca, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Ssipudca, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Ssiti, Central Californian tribe, i., 301-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  S'slomamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    301.\n\n  Ssogereate, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Ssupichum, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Stachines (Stachins), i., 96, see Stikines.\n\n  Stackine, i., 143, see Stikeen.\n\n  Stakhins, i., 96, see Stikines.\n\n  Staktamish (Staktomish), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 299, 304.\n\n  Stalacom, i., 301, see Steilacoom.\n\n  Standards, see Flags.\n\n  Stanislaus County, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Stanislaus River, i., 455-6.\n\n  Stanu Creek, i., 793.\n\n  Statues, Mexicans, ii., 556; iii., 292, 294, 456; antiq.,\n    iv., 314, 336-7, 347-8, 372, 451-2, 457-8, 496, 541; Central\n    Americans, antiq., iv., 28, 39-58, 82, 89-99, 111-15, 150, 163,\n    186-9, 196-9, 202-3, 215-20; Peru, antiq., iv., 805.\n\n  Stature, Hyperboreans, i., 45, 71, 88, 116; Columbians, i.,\n    176-7, 224-5, 254-5; Californians, i., 328, 364-6, 402, 422;\n    New Mexicans, i., 477-9, 529-30, 558, 572-3; Mexicans, i., 618,\n    646-7; ii., 624-5; Central Americans, i., 688, 714; ii., 802.\n\n  Stealing, see Theft.\n\n  St\u00e9hchas\u00e1mish (Stitchassamish, Stitcheosawmish), tribe of Sound\n    Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 301-2.\n\n  Stehllum (Stentlum), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 302.\n\n  Steilacoom (Stalacom) Creek, i., 301.\n\n  Steilacoomish (Steilacoomamish), tribe of Sound Indians, i.,\n    208-22;  location, i., 301.\n\n  Steilaquamish, i., 300, see Stillaquamish.\n\n  Stekins, i., 96, see Stikines.\n\n  Stentlum, i., 302, see Stehllum.\n\n  Stephens Passage, i., 143.\n\n  Steptoe Valley, i., 463.\n\n  Stewart's Lake, i., 174.\n\n  Stickeens, i., 96, see Stikines.\n\n  Stietshois, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    314.\n\n  Stikeen (Stackine) River, i., 294, 143; iii., 579.\n\n  Stikines (Stachin, Stachine, Stackine, Stakhin, Stekin, Stickeen,\n    Stikeen, Stikein, Stikin, Stikine, Stychine), tribe of\n    Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i., 96, 143; lang., iii.,\n    579.\n\n  Stillaquamish (Steilaquamish, Stoluchw\u00e1mish), tribe of Sound\n    Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Stillaquamish River, i., 300.\n\n  Stipu, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Stitchassamish (Stitcheosawmish), i., 301, 302, see\n    St\u00e9hchas\u00e1mish.\n\n  Stk\u00e1mish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Stobshaddats, name for Yakimas, i., 320.\n\n  Stockades, see Fortifications.\n\n  Stoluchw\u00e1mish, i., 300, see Stillaquamish.\n\n  Stone, various uses, i., 48, 51, 59, 76, 80, 91, 103, 107, 119,\n    123, 165, 185, 187, 189, 213, 234, 237, 268, 339, 344, 374,\n    406-8, 420, 434, 486, 522, 536, 545, 574, 649, 657, 696, 717,\n    724; ii., 259, 372, 475, 478, 557, 600, 702, 750-1, 784-94;\n    iii., 281, 485; iv., 16-806 passim.\n\n  Stony Mountains, i., 462, name for Rocky Mountains.\n\n  Store-houses, i., 52, 487, 533-5, 575; ii., 161, 163, 235, 349,\n    574; iii., 431.\n\n  Stotonias, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 307.\n\n  Straits Lake, i., 145.\n\n  Strangers, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 310.\n\n  Straumey Island (Stream-Isle), v., 109.\n\n  Straumfi\u00f6rdr (Stream-Firth), locality, north-east coast of\n    America, v., 109.\n\n  Straw, various uses, i., 74, 259, 500, 533, 576, 648, 651, 690,\n    778; ii., 336, 784-5.\n\n  Streets, ii., 556-9, 567, 787-90.\n\n  Strong-bows, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 144.\n\n  Strum-strum, musical instrument, i., 738.\n\n  Stta Llimuh, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    311.\n\n  Stuart Lake, iii., 607.\n\n  Stucco, ii., 556, 572, 582, 794; antiq., iv., 126, 129, 171, 209,\n    215-16, 242, 247-59, 269, 276, 303-39, 351-2.\n\n  Stucu, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Sturgeon, i., 73, 213, 233, 262, 376.\n\n  Stychines, i., 96, see Stikines.\n\n  Suanaimuchs, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Suanga, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Suangna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Suaqui, village, Sonora, i., 601.\n\n  Subchiam, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Subtiava (Subtiaba), village, Nicaragua, i., 792; antiq., iv.,\n    32, 54-7.\n\n  Succession, ii., 134-6, 140-3, 214, 633-41, 647; see also\n    Inheritance.\n\n  Suchiapa, town, Chiapas, i., 681.\n\n  Suchicoatlan, province, Mexico, i., 675.\n\n  Suchigin, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Suchiltepeques, province, Guatemala, i., 788-9.\n\n  Suchimilcos, i., 675, see Xochimilcas.\n\n  Suchitepec, locality, Guatemala, lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Suchni, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sucking, medical practice, i., 355, 394-5, 589, 709, 779-80; ii.,\n    600.\n\n  Sucurawe, Michoacan ruler, v., 517.\n\n  Sugar-cane, i., 636, 652, 739.\n\n  Suicide, i., 121, 288, 744.\n\n  Suiesia, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Suislaws, i., 250, see Saiustklas.\n\n  Suisunes (Souissouns, Suysum), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 363, 452-3.\n\n  Suisun Valley, i., 363, 452.\n\n  Suizul, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Sukia, Mosquito sorceress, i., 740; iii., 497.\n\n  Sukw\u00e1mes, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 299.\n\n  Sula, locality, Honduras, i., 793.\n\n  Sulaco River, i., 793.\n\n  Sulanna, i., 292, see Lulanna.\n\n  Sulones, i., 453, see Ohlones.\n\n  Suma, North Mexico, lang., iii., 714.\n\n  Sumach, substitute for tobacco, i., 517.\n\n  Sum\u00e9, Brazilian god, v., 23-4.\n\n  Sun, myth., i., 587; ii., 303, 339, 706, 738; iii., 51, 60-1,\n    82, 85-6, 100, 109-11, 152, 161, 170, 178, 187, 190, 193-5,\n    365, 428, 437-8, 461, 483-4, 498, 502, 547-50; v., 205, 528;\n    phenomenon of three suns, v., 566.\n\n  Sunah\u00fames, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 299.\n\n  Sunatoya Mountains, i., 463.\n\n  Sunchaque, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Sundowns (Samdans), tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location,\n    i., 143.\n\n  Sun-hunters, i., 470, see Tabechyas.\n\n  Suntaho, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Superior Lake, iv., 778, see Lake Superior.\n\n  Superstitions, Hyperboreans, i., 76, 124; Columbians, i., 162,\n    171, 202-4, 219, 245, 283; Californians, i., 354-5, 360, 391,\n    395, 414-18; New Mexicans, i., 520, 553-4, 568-9, 587-8;\n    Mexicans, i., 634, 661, 665-7; ii., 267, 351, 500, 601-2,\n    626; iii., 110-13, 362-4, 394-5; iv., 408; Central Americans,\n    i., 707, 734, 740-3, 777; ii., 678, 719-20, 738, 796-8; iii.,\n    497-8, 500-1; iv., 215-16.\n\n  Suquamish (Soquamish), tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22;\n    location, i., 299, 301.\n\n  Suraminis, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450.\n\n  Surcis, i., 145, see Sarsis.\n\n  Surgelp, evil spirit, Trinity River tribes, iii., 176.\n\n  Surgery, see Medicine.\n\n  Surillos (Cartakas), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 458.\n\n  Surites, Matlaltzinca god, iii., 446; Tarasco high-priest, v.,\n    526.\n\n  Sursees, i., 145, see Sarsis.\n\n  Surugunti, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 795.\n\n  Suscols, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 452; lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Sussees, i., 145, see Sarsis.\n\n  Suthsetts, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Sutter Creek, i., 456.\n\n  Suwapamuck, iii., 613, see Shushwap.\n\n  Suyacal, a species of palm leaf, i., 690.\n\n  Suysum, i., 453, see Suisunes.\n\n  Swarrow, food of Pueblos, i., 540.\n\n  Sweat-houses, i., 83, 356, 395, 537-8; ii., 595-6; iii., 159;\n    iv., 648, 650, 652, 659.\n\n  Sweetland, California, antiq., iv., 706.\n\n  Sweetwater Lake, i., 470.\n\n  Swielpree, tribal name of Colvilles, i., 314.\n\n  Swimming, i., 172, 198, 552, 666, 741; ii., 297.\n\n  Swod\u00e1mish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 300.\n\n  Swords, i., 235, 379, 407, 655, 722, 761; ii., 310, 743.\n\n  Symbols, i., 18, 634; ii., 258, 272-3, 277; iii., 268, 280-5,\n    312-25, 352-4, 371-2, 396-8, 400, 403, 416-18; v., 90, 221.\n\n  Syphilis, see Venereal Disease.\n\n  Syrinx, a musical instrument, i., 738.\n\n  Szeukha, Pima god, i., 553; iii., 78-9; v., 14.\n\n\n  T\n\n  Taa, Honduras, lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Taamish, Haidah sorcerer, i., 170; iii., 150.\n\n  Tabahteas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Tabai, Maya god, ii., 698.\n\n  Tabascans, Nahua nation, i., 644-69; ii., 133-629; special\n    mention, i., 648-9, 655-6, 658-9, 661; ii., 408, 619; lang.,\n    iii., 726, 759, 763; v., 616; hist., v., 239, 473, 631.\n\n  Tabasco (Tauasco), tribes described, i., 644-70; ii., 133-629;\n    location, i., 682, 790; ii., 112; name, ii., 111; lang., iii.,\n    726, 759, 763; antiq., iv., 287-8; hist., v., 239, 473, 631.\n\n  Tabasco, Zacatecas, antiq., iv., 592.\n\n  Tabasco River, i., 671.\n\n  Tabechyas (Sun-hunters), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42;\n    location, i., 470.\n\n  Tabeguachis, i., 465, see Tabiachis.\n\n  Tabe-naches, i., 464, see Tabiachis.\n\n  Tabi, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 217-18.\n\n  Tabiachis (Tabeguachis, Tabe-naches), tribe of Shoshones, i.,\n    422-42; location, i., 464.\n\n  Table-cloths, Mayas, ii., 722, 787.\n\n  Table Mountain, California, antiq., iv., 698-9.\n\n  Tables, i., 656; ii., 572; iv., 318.\n\n  Tabore, province, Darien, i., 796.\n\n  Taburon, i., 604, see Tiburon.\n\n  T\u00e1cames, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Tacatecatl, ii., 436, see Tlacatecatl.\n\n  Taches, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Tac\u00f3\u00f3ns, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 307.\n\n  Tacu, Acagchemem mythical person, iii., 165.\n\n  Tacuache, a medicinal root, ii., 599.\n\n  Tacuba (Tlacopan), city, Mexico, ii., 92; antiq., iv., 503.\n\n  Tacubaya, locality, Mexico, iii., 405.\n\n  Tacullies (Carriers, Tacully, Takuli, Tokalis), tribe of Tinneh,\n    i., 114-37; location and name, i., 114-15, 121, 145; special\n    mention, i., 121-6, 130, 137; myth., iii., 98, 143, 517; v.,\n    19; lang., iii., 584, 591-2.\n\n  Tacultas (Tahcultahs), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location,\n    i., 298.\n\n  Taeeteetan, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i., 143.\n\n  Tagualilos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Taguzgalpa, i., 793, see Tegucigalpa.\n\n  Tahahteen, lang., iii., 593.\n\n  Tahanos (Tahanas), tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; location, i.,\n    600.\n\n  Tahatens, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 445.\n\n  Tahco River, i., 148.\n\n  Tahcultahs, i., 298, see Tacultas.\n\n  Taheechaypah Pass, California, antiq., iv., 695.\n\n  Tahijuas, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Tahlewahs, i., 445, see Tolewahs.\n\n  Tahoe Lake, i., 469; iii., 89-90; v., 14.\n\n  Tahos, i., 600, see Taos.\n\n  Tahtoos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    448; special mention, i., 391, 398; lang., iii., 643.\n\n  Tahuas, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 713.\n\n  Tahucup, Tabascan canoe, ii., 398.\n\n  Tahus, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; special mention, i.,\n    584-5; myth., iii., 180-1; lang., iii., 719.\n\n  Taighs, i., 320, see Tairtlas.\n\n  Tailotlacs, tribe of Toltecs, v., 338.\n\n  Tairtlas (Taighs), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 320.\n\n  Taitinapams, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    304.\n\n  Taitzaes, Maya nation, i., 644-69; ii., 630-803; lang., iii.,\n    761.\n\n  Tajimaroa, v., 524, see Tangimaroa.\n\n  Takaitsky, name for Kaiyuh Mountains, i., 148.\n\n  Takama River, i., 304.\n\n  Takank\u00f3u, Thlinkeet spirit-land, iii., 148.\n\n  T\u00e1keeyek, Thlinkeet land-spirit, iii., 148, 516.\n\n  Takoo Inlet, i., 143.\n\n  Takoo River, i., 143.\n\n  Takoos (Takos), tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 96-114; location, i.,\n    96, 143.\n\n  Taktik, locality, Guatemala, i., 788.\n\n  Takuli, i., 145, see Tacullies.\n\n  Ta-Kuth-Kutchin, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 146.\n\n  Talam, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Talamancas, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 748,\n    794; special mention, i., 758, 784; lang., iii., 793.\n\n  Talaquichis, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Talatui, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450; lang., iii., 649-50.\n\n  Talawas, i., 445, see Tolewahs.\n\n  Talaxano, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Talcan, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Talchedunes, i., 598, see Yalchedunes.\n\n  Talches, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 455.\n\n  Talkotins (Talcotins, Tautin), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 115, 146; special mention, i., 125-6.\n\n  Tallarcittos, locality, Central California, i., 454.\n\n  Tallenches, i., 455, see Talluches.\n\n  Talluches (Tallenches), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 363, 455-6.\n\n  Talquatees, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i., 143.\n\n  Taltic, locality, Guatemala, i., 788.\n\n  Tamacaztobal, Nicaragua angel, iii., 493.\n\n  Tamagast, Nicaragua priest, iii., 495.\n\n  Tamagostat (Tamagostad), Nicaragua god, iii., 75, 490-1.\n\n  Tamajabs, i., 525, see Yamajabs.\n\n  Tamalanos, i., 452, see Tomales.\n\n  Tamales (Tamalli), a kind of meat pies, i., 577, 626, 653-4, 694;\n    ii., 356, 618, 722.\n\n  Tamallos, i., 452, see Tomales.\n\n  Tamals (Tamales, Tamalos), i., 452, see Tomales.\n\n  Tamanowas, Chinook spirits, iii., 156.\n\n  Tamath, Chinook paradise, iii., 519.\n\n  Tamaulipa Moza, locality, Tamaulipas, i., 613.\n\n  Tamaulipas, tribes described, i., 617-44; location of tribes,\n    i., 571, 593, 604, 674; ii., 114; special mention, i., 624,\n    632, 635; lang., iii., 727, 744, 759, 776; antiq., iv., 693-7;\n    hist., v., 239.\n\n  Tamaulipecos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613;\n    lang., iii., 744.\n\n  Tamazula, village, Sinaloa, i., 609.\n\n  Tamazulapa, Miztec dialect, iii., 749.\n\n  Tambla, Honduras, antiq., iv., 71.\n\n  Tambourine, i., 91, 112, 170.\n\n  Tamerlane, an Asiatic prince, v., 46.\n\n  Tamissee River, Tamaulipas, antiq., iv., 594.\n\n  Tamlocklocks (Yamlocklocks), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 450.\n\n  Tamoanchan (Temoanchan), first home of Nahuas in America, v.,\n    189-97, 621.\n\n  Tamol\u00e9cas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location and\n    name, i., 456.\n\n  Tampico, lang., iii., 781.\n\n  Tamp Pah-utes, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 464.\n\n  Tamub, Quich\u00e9 princely family, i., 789; v., 546-56, 560, 562,\n    565, 588-9, 592, see Dan.\n\n  Tananah River, i., 147.\n\n  Tananahs, i., 147, see Tenan Kutchins.\n\n  Tanaquiapemes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    613.\n\n  Tancah (Tancaj), locality, Yucatan, v., 626.\n\n  Tanchi, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 211.\n\n  Tanela, locality, Panama Isthmus, i., 754.\n\n  Tan\u00e9tze, locality, Oajaca, i., 679.\n\n  Tangaxoan I., Tarasco king, v., 516, 524.\n\n  Tangaxoan II., Tarasco king, v., 525-6.\n\n  Tanges-at-sa, i., 132, see Tengratsey.\n\n  Tangimaroa (Tajimaroa, Tlaximaloyan), city, Michoacan, v., 434,\n    477, 525.\n\n  Tanks, see Reservoirs.\n\n  Tankuch\u00e9, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 262.\n\n  Tanna-kutshi, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 147.\n\n  Tanning, i., 49, 271, 345, 544, 657; ii., 363-5, 486.\n\n  Tanos, Pueblo village and tribe, i., 526-56; location, i., 601.\n\n  Tantsaut-'dtinn\u00e8, name for Red-knives, i., 144.\n\n  Tantsawhot-Dinneh, name for Copper Indians, i., 144.\n\n  Tanub, Tulan king, v., 554.\n\n  Tao Mountains, i., 465.\n\n  Taos (Tahos), Pueblo village and tribe, i., 526-56; location, i.,\n    527, 599-600; lang., iii., 681; antiq., iv., 664-5.\n\n  Taos, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 713.\n\n  Tapaiaxin, a species of animal, ii., 599.\n\n  Tapalan, locality, Guatemala, v., 214.\n\n  Tapaligui, Nicaragua title, ii., 740-1.\n\n  Tapanissilac, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Tapestry, ii., 161, 440, 484, 572.\n\n  Tapir, as food, i., 721; ii., 721.\n\n  Tapo, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Taptul River, i., 312, 319.\n\n  Taraacazcati, Nicaragua angel, iii., 493.\n\n  Taracones, i., 594, see Faraones.\n\n  Tarahumara (Taraumara), district of Chihuahua, i., 608-9.\n\n  Tarahumares (Tarahum\u00e1ras), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91;\n    location and name, i., 572, 609-10; special mention, i., 574-8,\n    582-3, 588, 590; lang., iii., 665-7, 672, 678, 706, 710-13.\n\n  Taraichi (Taraitzi), village, Sinaloa, i., 601, 609.\n\n  Tarapecha Chanhori, Chichimec Wanacace chief, v., 518.\n\n  Tarar\u00e9cua, locality, Chihuahua, i., 609.\n\n  Taras, Tarascos god, iii., 403, 446.\n\n  Tarascos (Michoacaques), Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629;\n    location, i., 676; special mention, i., 623, 625, 631, 640,\n    643; ii., 107-8, 130, 140-1, 214-15, 229, 353, 365-8, 371-2,\n    407-8, 417, 427, 458-9, 473, 490, 521-2, 609, 619-22, 625, 629;\n    myth., iii., 66-7, 403, 445-7, 541; v., 13; lang., iii., 737,\n    744-7; v., 508; hist., v., 307-10, 328, 434-5, 508-26.\n\n  Taraumara, i., 608, see Tarahumara.\n\n  Tariacuri, Tarasco king, v., 522-4.\n\n  Tarigaran, Michoacan ruler, v., 517.\n\n  Tarimi Chundido, locality, Michoacan, v., 520.\n\n  Tarpom, a fish, i., 719.\n\n  Tarro, locality, Central California, i., 455.\n\n  Tarshish, location of, v., 64-5.\n\n  Tartars, American origin-traces, v., 54.\n\n  Tashhuantas, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    445.\n\n  Tash Utes (Tash Yutas), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location,\n    i., 464, 470.\n\n  Tassajo, dried meat, i., 695.\n\n  Tassels, i., 691; ii., 366-7, 369, 403, 405; iii., 369, 385,\n    407-17.\n\n  Tataguas, i., 458, see Lagunas.\n\n  Tatayac, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., 592.\n\n  Tatch\u00e9, South California, lang., iii., 656-8.\n\n  Tat\u00e9ma, Tarahumare food, i., 577.\n\n  Tathzey-Kutshi (Gens du Fou, Trats\u00e8-Kutshi), tribe of Tinneh, i.,\n    114-37; location, i., 147.\n\n  Tatimolo, iii., 777, see Naolingo.\n\n  Tatlit-Kutchin (Peel River Indians), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 146; special mention, i., 127-8; lang., iii.,\n    586.\n\n  Tatouche, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 302.\n\n  Tatquinte, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Tatshiautin, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 145.\n\n  Tattooing, Hyperboreans, i., 48, 72, 117, 127; Columbians, i.,\n    159, 182, 210-11, 229, 257; Californians, i., 332-3, 347,\n    369-71, 404, 424; New Mexicans, i., 480, 483, 532-3, 559,\n    574-5; Mexicans, i., 623, 651; ii., 371; Central Americans, i.,\n    691-2, 716-17, 753; ii., 651, 731, 733, 741.\n\n  Tauasco, i., 671, see Tabasco.\n\n  Taucos, Pueblo village and tribe, i., 526-56; location, i., 600.\n\n  Taulepa, Guatemalan dialect, iii., 760.\n\n  Tauro, Sinaloa dialect, iii., 707.\n\n  Tautin, i., 145, see Talkotins.\n\n  Tavorino, a poisonous fish, i., 762.\n\n  Tawalemnes (Touserlemnies, Turealemnes), Central Californian\n    tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Taxcal, Mayapan lord, v., 626.\n\n  Taxco, locality, Guerrero, ii., 382, 473.\n\n  Taxes, i., 344, 659, 728, 770; ii., 231-9, 380, 388, 464, 636,\n    642, 652-5, 720; iii., 430-1; v., 355, 381-2, 575.\n\n  Taxlipu, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Tayasal, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 133.\n\n  Tayauh, a Tepanec prince, v., 384-5.\n\n  Taylor Peak Mountain, iii., 86; v., 14.\n\n  Tays, i., 194, see Tyee.\n\n  Taysacaa, Miztec high-priest, ii., 207; v., 529.\n\n  Taywah, i., 601, see Tegua.\n\n  Tay-waugh, iii., 671, see Tegua.\n\n  Tazi, iii., 350, see Teteionan.\n\n  Tcatlaiz, town, Tlascala, v., 498.\n\n  Tchalabones (Tcholovonis), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Tch\u00e9ilichs, i., 303, see Chehalis.\n\n  Tchilouits (Tchelouits), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location,\n    i., 306, 320.\n\n  Tchink\u00eet\u00e2n\u00e9, i., 95, see Thlinkeets.\n\n  Tchinouk (Tchi-nuk), i., 304, see Chinook.\n\n  Tchipantchicktchicks, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 320.\n\n  Tchokoyems, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    449.\n\n  Tchololahs (Bald Hill Indians), North Californian tribe, i.,\n    326-61; location, i., 446.\n\n  Tcholoones, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Tcholovonis, i., 365, see Tchalabones.\n\n  Tchugatchih, i., 139, see Chugatsches.\n\n  Tchutski, i., 139, see Tschuktschi.\n\n  Teacuaeitzica (Teakuaeitzicai), Cora dialect, iii., 719, 721.\n\n  Teakuaeitzizti, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    672.\n\n  Teatas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607.\n\n  Teates, i., 298, see Teets.\n\n  Teatlahuiani, iii., 418, see Tezcatzoncatl.\n\n  Teatzelhuia, name for Napatecutli, iii., 417.\n\n  Teayamiqui, v., 41, see Teoyaomique.\n\n  Tebacas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 614;\n    lang., iii., 718.\n\n  Tebechyas (Sun-hunters), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42;\n    location, i., 464.\n\n  Tecali, a transparent stone, ii., 161, 557, 573.\n\n  Tecamachalco (Techamachalco), town, Guerrero, i., 677, 679.\n\n  Tec\u00e0rgonis, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609.\n\n  Tecat\u00e9 Valley, i., 458.\n\n  Tecayaguis, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607.\n\n  Tecayahuatzin, lord of Huexotzinco, v., 504.\n\n  Tecayas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 614.\n\n  Teccalli, an entail in Tlascala, ii., 229.\n\n  Teccizcalli, Nahua temple, ii., 585.\n\n  Techamachalco, i., 679, see Tecamachalco.\n\n  Techcatepec, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Techcatitlan, station, Aztec migration, v., 323-4.\n\n  Techcatl, sacred meteorite, iii., 248.\n\n  Techichis, Mexican dogs, ii., 721.\n\n  Techotl (Techotlala, Techotlalatzin), Chichimec king, ii.,\n    188-91; v., 335, 347-57, 366-7, 582; lord of Iztapalapan, v.,\n    439.\n\n  Techotlala (Techotlalatzin), v., 347, see Techotl.\n\n  Tecoatega, town, Nicaragua, ii., 713.\n\n  Tecolotlan, ancient name of Vera Paz, v., 349.\n\n  Tecomal, Mexico, antiq., iv., 546.\n\n  Tecomatl, a Mexican cup, ii., 484.\n\n  Tecomic, a Mexican chief, v., 347.\n\n  Tecos, i., 677, see Tlapanecs.\n\n  Tecoxepual, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Tecoxines, i., 677, see Tlapanecs.\n\n  Tecozahuitl, ochre, ii., 487.\n\n  Tecpan, town, Guerrero, i., 678; a Chichimec chief, v., 293;\n    station, Chichimec migration, v., 294; thirteen tribes of,\n    hist., v., 546, 555, 563.\n\n  Tecpan Atitlan, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 121.\n\n  Tecpancaltzin, Toltec king, v., 265-6; name for Huemac II., v.,\n    267.\n\n  Tecpanecs, iii., 724, see Tepanecs.\n\n  Tecpan\u00e8ques, ii., 365, see Tepanecs.\n\n  Tecpan Guatemala (Tecpanguatemala), town, Guatemala, i., 789;\n    hist., v., 577.\n\n  Tecpanpouhque (Tecpantlaca), Palace people, ii., 224.\n\n  Tecpantlalli, Palace lands, ii., 224.\n\n  Tecpatepec, station, Chichimec migration, v., 294.\n\n  Tecpatitlan, i., 672, see Tepatitlan.\n\n  Tecpatl, Nahua day, ii., 505, 512, 516-17; iii., 57-8; lord of\n    Atotonilco, v., 349.\n\n  Tecpatlan, town, Chiapas, i., 682.\n\n  Tecpatzin, a Nahuatlaca chief, v., 88, 306.\n\n  Tecpayocan, station, Aztec migration, v., 323-4.\n\n  Tecpayuca, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Tecpoyo Acauhtli, a Toltec noble, v., 315.\n\n  Tecpoyotl, a court crier, ii., 436.\n\n  Tecualmes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; lang., iii., 720.\n\n  Tecuciciotilmatli, a court mantle, ii., 374.\n\n  Tecucxicolli, priest's dress, ii., 315.\n\n  Tecuexes (Tejuejue, Tequexes), Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44;\n    location, i., 672; lang., iii., 719.\n\n  Tecuhtlacuiloltzin, lord of Acolman, v., 349.\n\n  Tecuhtli, Nahua title, ii., 194-200, 437.\n\n  Tecuiche, Colorado River dialect, iii., 686.\n\n  Tecuilhuitzintli (Tecuilhuitontli), Nahua month, ii., 325, 352,\n    510.\n\n  Tecuiltecatl, an Acolhua prince, v., 377-8.\n\n  Tecuitlatl, Nahua food, ii., 356.\n\n  Tecum, Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566, 594, 602.\n\n  Tecumbalam, Quich\u00e9 mythic animal, iii., 47.\n\n  Tecum Umam, Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566, 595.\n\n  Tecutlatoque, Nahua title, ii., 137.\n\n  Tecuzistecatl (Tezcociztecatl), Nahua god, iii., 62.\n\n  Tedexe\u00f1os, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Teeswin, Apache drink, i., 517.\n\n  Teeth, i., 46, 91, 117, 158, 163, 177, 225, 244, 255-6, 333-4,\n    364-5, 530, 558, 619, 622, 647, 651, 701, 714, 722, 750, 752,\n    771; ii., 371-2, 624, 731-2; iii., 325, 398.\n\n  Teets (Haitlins, Teates), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 175, 298; special mention, i., 185, 191, 208.\n\n  Tegua (Taywah, Tay-waugh, T\u00e9qu\u00e0, Tigua), Pueblo village and\n    tribe, i., 526-56; location, i., 600; lang., iii., 671, 673,\n    681-3.\n\n  Teguaca, Honduras, lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Teguantepeque, i., 679, see Tehuantepec.\n\n  Tegucigalpa (Taguzgalpa), a district of Honduras, i., 790, 793;\n    lang., iii., 760; antiq., iv., 70.\n\n  Tegu\u00e9co, town, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Tegueco River, i., 607.\n\n  Teguecos, i., 608, see Tehuecos.\n\n  Teguima, Opata dialect, iii., 699.\n\n  Teguioa, iii., 246, see Tezcatlipoca.\n\n  Teguis, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 606;\n    lang., iii., 699.\n\n  Tehama County, California, i., 442.\n\n  Tehamas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; special mention,\n    i., 362.\n\n  Tehanghir, an Asiatic prince, v., 46.\n\n  Tehuacan el Viejo, Puebla, antiq., iv., 466.\n\n  Tehuantepec (Teguantepeque, Teoquantepec), Isthmus, i., 654, 658,\n    679-80; ii., 111-12; lang., iii., 757; antiq., iv., 368-74;\n    hist., v., 298, 349, 425, 443-7, 530, 534-6.\n\n  Tehuecos (Teguecos), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 608; special mention, i., 585; lang., iii., 707-10.\n\n  Tehuisos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607.\n\n  Teicauhtzin, Nahua vice-god, iii., 427.\n\n  Teicu, iii., 380, see Tlazoltecotl.\n\n  Teilpiloyan, Nahua jail, ii., 453.\n\n  Teiocoiani Tehimatini, name for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 210.\n\n  Teiotocan, locality, Mexico, ii., 441.\n\n  Teite, Nicaragua chief, ii., 645-6.\n\n  Teixamique, Nahua shrouders, iii., 406.\n\n  Teixhuihuan, Tlascalan title, ii., 229.\n\n  Teja, Quich\u00e9 mythic personage, v., 599.\n\n  Tejano, Coahuila, lang., iii., 714-15.\n\n  Tejar, locality, Guatemala, i., 789.\n\n  Tejey, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Tejon, locality, South California, i., 458.\n\n  Tejon Indians, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    460.\n\n  Tejuas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 474; iii.,\n    595.\n\n  Tejuejue, iii., 719, see Tecuexes.\n\n  Tejupilco, Mexico, antiq., iv., 480.\n\n  Tekax, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 219.\n\n  T\u00e9keeyeks, Thlinkeet water-spirits, iii., 148, 516.\n\n  Tekep, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Tekunratums, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    312.\n\n  Telacalzin, Nahua chief, v., 243.\n\n  Telam\u00e9, South California, lang., iii., 656-8.\n\n  Telemnies, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    457.\n\n  Telhuitl, paper offerings, iii., 343.\n\n  Telica, town, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Teloloapan, city, Guerrero, v., 442.\n\n  Telpochcalli, Nahua schools, ii., 243.\n\n  Telpochtiliztli, Nahua religious order, iii., 436.\n\n  Telpochtlato, Nahua teacher, ii., 243.\n\n  Telpuchtli, name for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 199.\n\n  Telpuchtlitaquitlamani, Nahua title, ii., 402.\n\n  Temacatzin, lord of Huexotzinco, v., 349.\n\n  Temacpalco, locality, Mexico, iii., 253, 257.\n\n  Temaitl, a priest's censer, iii., 335.\n\n  Temalacatl, gladiatorial stone, ii., 429, 586.\n\n  Temalcacaiotilmatlitenisio, a court mantle, ii., 374.\n\n  Temalpalco, locality, Mexico, v., 376.\n\n  Temamacpalitotique, sorcerers, iii., 364.\n\n  Tematzin, prince of Huexotzinco, v., 349.\n\n  Temazcalli (Temescal), Nahua steam bath, i., 355-6, 626, 639-40;\n    ii., 574, 595-6.\n\n  Temazcalteci, Nahua goddess, iii., 353.\n\n  Temazcaltitlan, locality, Mexico, v., 345.\n\n  Temecauh, Nahua mistress, ii., 264.\n\n  Temecula, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Temesathi, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Temescal, i., 355-6, see Temazcalli.\n\n  Temeteti, California, antiq., iv., 692.\n\n  Temictzin, a Tlatelulco general, v., 421.\n\n  Temimiltepec, province of Mexico, v., 346.\n\n  Temoanchan, v., 191, see Tamoanchan.\n\n  Temoksees, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 468.\n\n  Temoris, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610;\n    special mention, i., 575.\n\n  Tempanahgoes, i., 464, see Timpanogos.\n\n  Tempanecatl, v., 389, see Tlacaeleltzin.\n\n  Tempantzin, a Tailotlac chief, v., 338.\n\n  Tempatlahuac, a Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Temple of the Beau Relief, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 328-30.\n\n  Temple of the Cross, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 330-8.\n\n  Temple of the Sun, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 338-41.\n\n  Temple of the three Tablets, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 323-7.\n\n  Temples, Columbians, i., 165; Californians, i., 405, 409;\n    Mexicans, ii., 211, 227-8, 332-3, 414-15, 554, 560, 576-89,\n    613; iii., 192, 259-60, 272, 292-4, 430-1, 437-8, 447-8;\n    antiq., iv., 298-352, 376-84, 391-420, 431, 521-49, 574-5,\n    592-3; hist., v., 86, 265, 409, 422, 426, 438-40, 478; Central\n    Americans, i., 734-5; ii., 647, 787-94; iii., 477, 483-4, 494,\n    499; antiq., iv., 27-8, 82-9, 115-16, 136-7, 143-4, 154-285;\n    Peru, antiq., iv., 796, 800.\n\n  Tenamatlac, locality, Mexico, v., 378.\n\n  Tenamitec, locality, Mexico, v., 314.\n\n  Tenampua, Honduras, antiq., iv., 71, 73-7.\n\n  Tenancacaltzin, Acolhua king, v., 333-5.\n\n  Tenanches, sick nurses, i., 583.\n\n  Tenanco, locality, Mexico, v., 280.\n\n  Tenan Kutchin (Tananahs, Gens de Buttes), tribe of Tinneh, i.,\n    114-37; location, i., 115, 131, 147; special mention, i., 127,\n    131-2.\n\n  Tenawas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 473.\n\n  Tenayocan, city, Mexico, ii., 104; v., 292, 295, 311-12, 320,\n    332-5.\n\n  Tenayuca, serpent-symbols, iii., 137.\n\n  Tenexotzin, Tlascala, antiq., iv., 477.\n\n  Tenez, i., 681, see Chinantecs.\n\n  Tengratsey (Tanges-at-sa), Kutchin tribal name, i., 132.\n\n  Tenimes, i., 677, see Tlapanecs.\n\n  Teniqueche, South California, lang., iii., 686.\n\n  Tenisichs, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Tennessee, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 766, 776.\n\n  Tenochtitlan, city, Mexico, ii., 414, 559; v., 343-6, 420-1, see\n    Mexico city.\n\n  Tenpenny Utahs (Utes), i., 463, 470, see Timpenaguchyas.\n\n  Tentetl, Nahua mouth-stone, ii., 404, 614.\n\n  Tenuai, Navajo tribal name, i., 474-5.\n\n  Tenuch (Tenuchtzin), a Mexican chief, v., 223, 345-6, 356.\n\n  Tenuckttau, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Teoamoxtli, divine book of Toltecs, v., 251.\n\n  Teobat, Nicaragua idols, iii., 493.\n\n  Teocahuitl, a species of pitch, ii., 372.\n\n  Teocalli, Nahua temple, ii., 576.\n\n  Teocaltiche, village, Jalisco, i., 672.\n\n  Teocaltitlan, village, Jalisco, i., 672.\n\n  Teochiapan, town, Chiapas, i., 681.\n\n  Teo-Chichimecs, Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location,\n    ii., 112-13; special mention, ii., 271, 595, 619; myth., iii.,\n    403; hist., v., 336-7, 487, 617.\n\n  Teocipactli, Nahua Noah, iii., 66, 68.\n\n  Teocuitlapopocatzin, lord of Cuetlaxcohuapan, v., 349.\n\n  Teo-Culhuacan (T\u00e9o-Colhuacan, Teuculhu\u00e0can), station, Aztec\n    migration, i., 610, 676; v., 221, 323.\n\n  Teohicpalpan, supreme tribunal at Tezcuco, ii., 440.\n\n  Teohuacan, town, Oajaca, i., 679.\n\n  Teohuayacatzin, lord of Quiahuiztlan, v., 503.\n\n  Teohuiznahuac, station, Chichimec migration, v., 242, 487.\n\n  Teoicpalli, a sacred box, iii., 303.\n\n  Te-ok-a-wilk, name for Humboldt Bay Indians, i., 327, 446.\n\n  Teololinga, rocking stones, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 434.\n\n  Teonanacatl, a kind of mushroom, ii., 360.\n\n  Teopan, a quarter of Mexico city, also temple place, ii., 563,\n    576; v., 490.\n\n  Teopatli, divine unction, ii., 601; iii., 435.\n\n  Teopixca, locality, Chiapas, v., 604.\n\n  Teopixqui, order of priests, ii., 202.\n\n  Teoqualo, Nahua sacrament, iii., 300, 315.\n\n  Teoquantepec, v., 349, see Tehuantepec.\n\n  Teotbilche, Nicaragua god, iii., 492.\n\n  Teotecuhtli, Nahua high-priest, ii., 202; iii., 432.\n\n  Teotenancas, tribe of Nahuas, v., 280.\n\n  Teotes, Nicaragua gods, iii., 75.\n\n  Teotetl, name for obsidian, iii., 238.\n\n  Teoti, Pipile chief or pontiff, ii., 648; iii., 489.\n\n  Teotihuacan, city, Mexico, ii., 114, 441, 613; iii., 187; antiq.,\n    iv., 529-44; v., 55-6; hist., v., 190-2, 203-5, 238-9, 248,\n    281-84, 395.\n\n  Teotilac, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 353.\n\n  Teotitlan (Teutitl\u00e1n), town, Oajaca, i., 680-1; hist., v., 444.\n\n  Teotl, Nahua god, iii., 110, 183-6, 193.\n\n  Teotlachco, locality, Mexico, iii., 298.\n\n  Teotla Cochoalco, station, Teo-Chichimec migration, v., 242, 487.\n\n  Teotlalale-Matlava-Tepeva, name for Tonacateotle, iii., 191.\n\n  Teotlalpan, valley, Tlascala, v., 498.\n\n  Teotleco, Nahua month, ii., 332-4, 510.\n\n  Teotost, iii., 492, see Toste.\n\n  Teotzapotlan, town, Oajaca, i., 679; hist., v., 324, 446, 530-1.\n\n  Teoxcahualco, town, Mexico, v., 412.\n\n  Teoxihuitl, Nahua divine year, ii., 304; iii., 429.\n\n  Teoyaomique (Teayamiqui, Teoyaomiqui), Nahua goddess, iii., 188,\n    397-400, 513; v., 41; Mexico, antiq., iv., 512-15.\n\n  Teoyaotlatohua, Nahua god, iii., 399.\n\n  Teozomaco, station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Tepagues (Tepahues), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 608, 610; special mention, i., 581; lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Tepahpaca Teaaltati, name for Napatecutli, iii., 417.\n\n  Tepanabaz, Guatemalan drum, i., 705.\n\n  Tepanahuaste, Lacandon drum, i., 705.\n\n  Tepaneca, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Tepanecapan, a ward of Tezcuco city, v., 404.\n\n  Tepaneca Tecuhtli, Tepanec imperial title, v., 396.\n\n  Tepanecs (Tecpanecs, Tecpan\u00e8ques), Nahua nation, i., 617-44;\n    ii., 133-629; location and name, i., 675; ii., 130; special\n    mention, ii., 92, 330-1, 365, 413; lang., iii., 724-5; hist.,\n    v., 307-482.\n\n  Tepanoaya, locality, Mexico, iii., 253.\n\n  Tepanteohuatzin, order of priests, ii., 202; iii., 433.\n\n  Tepantlatoani, Nahua lawyers, ii., 444.\n\n  Tepapayecan, station, Teo-Chichimec migration, v., 489.\n\n  Tepatec, locality, Mexico, v., 376.\n\n  Tepatitlan (Tecpatitlan), town, Jalisco, i., 672; antiq., iv.,\n    573.\n\n  Tepeaca, Puebla, antiq., iv., 467; hist., v., 420, 490, 495, 500.\n\n  Tepecanos, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; special mention,\n    i., 628; lang., iii., 719.\n\n  Tepechpan, Nahua title, ii., 441.\n\n  Tepecoacuilco (Tepecuacuilco), town, Guerrero, i., 677; antiq.,\n    iv., 424.\n\n  Tepehuanes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location and name,\n    i., 572, 613-14; special mention, i., 575, 585, 590; lang.,\n    iii., 667, 672, 678, 706, 717.\n\n  Tepeiac, town, Oajaca, i., 679.\n\n  Tepeilhuitl, Nahua month, ii., 334, 511; iii., 343.\n\n  Tepejacac, v., 323, see Tepeyacac.\n\n  Tepemaxalco, city, Matlaltzinco, v., 433.\n\n  Tepenec, station, Chichimec migration, v., 242, 487.\n\n  Tepepul, Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566, 581, 583.\n\n  Tepepul II., Quich\u00e9 king, v., 594.\n\n  Tepepulco, station, Chichimec migration, v., 294; town, Mexico,\n    v., 338, 476.\n\n  Tepeticpac (Texcalticpac), a quarter of Tlascala city, ii., 412;\n    v., 496-498, 503.\n\n  Tepetla, station, Toltec migration, v., 213.\n\n  Tepetlaoztoc, town, Mexico, ii., 441; v., 317, 497.\n\n  Tepetlapan (Tepetlapa), station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Tepetoca, locality, Mexico, iii., 298.\n\n  Tepetzingo, locality, Mexico, iii., 333.\n\n  Tepeuh (Tepeu), name for Gucumatz, ii., 716-17; iii., 475;\n    Guatemala tribe, v., 21, 546; Quich\u00e9 god, v., 170; station,\n    Quich\u00e9 migration, v., 562; name for Iztayul, v., 574.\n\n  Tepeu Yaqui, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 644.\n\n  Tepexe el Viejo, Puebla, antiq., iv., 467.\n\n  Tepexic, locality, Mexico, i., 673; station, Aztec migration, v.,\n    323.\n\n  Tepexomaco, locality, Mexico, v., 297.\n\n  Tepeyacac (Tepejacac), station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Tepeyollotli (Tepeyoloy\u00f2hua), Nahua calendar sign and god, ii.,\n    516.\n\n  Tepeyoloy\u00f2hua, ii., 516, see Tepeyollotli.\n\n  Tepic, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 574.\n\n  Tepieme, Nahua idols, iii., 347.\n\n  Tepitoton (Tepictoton), Nahua idols, iii., 419.\n\n  Tepocas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91;  location, i., 572,\n    605; special mention, i., 583; lang., iii., 704.\n\n  Tepolohua, name for Xayacamachan, v., 497-8.\n\n  Teponaztli (Teponaztle), Mexican musical instrument, ii., 293;\n    iii., 63; iv., 478.\n\n  Tepopochuiliztli, iii., 422, see Toxcatl.\n\n  Tepotzotlan, a province of Mexico, v., 375.\n\n  Tepoxch, Nahua sacrifice, iii., 345.\n\n  Tepozotlan, station, Teo-Chichimec migration, v., 487.\n\n  Tepuspe, village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  Tepuzculula (Tepuzculano), Miztec dialect, iii., 749, 751.\n\n  Tepuztecatl, Nahua god, iii., 418.\n\n  T\u00e9qu\u00e0, i., 600, see Tegua.\n\n  Tequaquilli, Nahua chief priest, ii., 206.\n\n  Tequechmecaniani, name for Tezcatzoncatl, iii., 418.\n\n  Tequepas (Tequepes), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 459.\n\n  Tequexes, iii., 720, see Tecuexes.\n\n  Teq\u00fcimas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 606.\n\n  Tequinas, Isthmian sorcerers, i., 777.\n\n  Tequisquiac (Tequixquiac), station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Tequitin tlacotl, tributary provinces, Mexico, ii., 236.\n\n  Tequizquitl, coarse salt, ii., 354.\n\n  Teremendo, Michoacan, antiq., iv., 571.\n\n  Terrabas (Tiribees, Tiribis), tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85;\n    location, i., 748, 794-5; special mention, i., 784-5; lang.,\n    iii., 793; antiq., iv., 24.\n\n  Terra cotta, i., 705; antiq., iv., 22, 65-6, 72-3, 127, 263-5,\n    316-594 passim, 780.\n\n  Terrapa, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Terrenate Mountain, i., 603.\n\n  Terwars, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 442,\n    445.\n\n  T\u00e9sia, town, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Tesoro, see Cerro del Tesoro.\n\n  Tesotal, locality, Arizona, i., 602.\n\n  Tesuque (Tezuque), Pueblo town, New Mexico, i., 527, 599; lang.,\n    iii., 681; antiq., iv., 667.\n\n  T\u00eate de Biche, locality, Utah, i., 464, 470.\n\n  Teteionan (Tazi, Toccy, Toci, Tocitzin, Tozi), Nahua goddess,\n    ii., 279, 308, 601; iii., 308-9, 350; v., 464.\n\n  T\u00eate Jaune Cache, locality, British Columbia, i., 310.\n\n  Tetenanco, a city of Matlaltzinca, v., 433.\n\n  Tetepanco, station, Aztec migration, v., 323-4.\n\n  Tetevaltia, Nahua religious feast, ii., 395.\n\n  Tetevitl, Nahua paper offerings, iii., 346.\n\n  Tetikilhati, Totonac dialect, iii., 777.\n\n  Tetipac, Guerrero, antiq., iv., 424.\n\n  Tetipac el Viejo, Guerrero, antiq., iv., 424.\n\n  Tetlahto, Tezcucan title, ii., 189; v., 350.\n\n  Tetlahuehuetquizitzin, a Chichimec prince, v., 474-5.\n\n  Tetlimonamiquian, Nahua sacrifice, ii., 340.\n\n  Tetliyacac (Tetliyucatl), station, Teo-Chichimec migration, v.,\n    489.\n\n  Tetzaapan, Nahua temple bath, ii., 587.\n\n  Tetzateotl (Tetzauhteotl), name for Huitzilopochtli, iii., 289,\n    302.\n\n  Tetzauh, name for Tezcatlipoca, v., 324.\n\n  Tetzcoco, i., 676, see Tezcuco.\n\n  Tetzihuatzin, a Mexican princess, v., 363.\n\n  Tetzilacatl, Nahua gong, ii., 293.\n\n  Tetzitzimitl, a Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Tetzontli, a species of stone used for building, ii., 160, 557,\n    568, 570, 581; v., 454.\n\n  Teuculhu\u00e0can, i., 676, see Teo-Culhuacan.\n\n  Teuhchimaltzin, an Acolhua officer, v., 448.\n\n  Teuhtlehuac, a Tepanec prince, v., 355-6.\n\n  Teul, locality, Jalisco, iii., 448; v., 509.\n\n  Teumetl, maguey wine, iii., 243.\n\n  Teupa, Pipile temple, ii., 707.\n\n  Teutecomatl, Nahua drinking cup, ii., 285.\n\n  Teut\u00edla, town, Oajaca, i., 680-1.\n\n  Teutitl\u00e1n, i., 680, see Tootitlan.\n\n  Texas, tribes described, i., 473-525; location, i., 591-4; lang.,\n    iii., 593-5, 660; antiq., iv., 597.\n\n  Texas Flat, California, antiq., iv., 702.\n\n  Texcalapa, locality, Mexico, iii., 245.\n\n  Texcalcevia, Nahua drink, ii., 359.\n\n  Texcalcevilo, Nahua drink, ii., 359.\n\n  Texcalla (Texcalticpac), v., 491, see Tlascala.\n\n  Texcalpa, Mexico, antiq., iv., 536-7.\n\n  Texcaltepec Mountain, v., 328.\n\n  Texcaltlauhco, mythical river, iii., 246.\n\n  Texcatlipocatl, name for Tezcatlipoca, v., 249.\n\n  Texochipantzin, v., 301, see Xochipantzin.\n\n  Texoloc, locality, Oajaca, i., 671.\n\n  Texones, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Texoxes, Nicaraguan sorcerers, iii., 495.\n\n  Teyahualco, locality, Mexico, v., 309.\n\n  Teyaohualohuani, Nahua slave traders, ii., 381.\n\n  Teyohualminqui, a Tlascaltec chief, v., 496-7.\n\n  Teyutlma, Clallam god, iii., 155.\n\n  Tezahuitl, name for Huitzilopochtli, iii., 289, 297, 303.\n\n  Tezcacalli, Nahua temple, ii., 585.\n\n  Tezcatlipoca (Taotzin, Teguioa, Tezcatlipuca, Tezcatlipucatl,\n    Titlaca\u00e2on), Nahua god, ii., 317-21, 332-4, 582, 603; iii.,\n    56-7, 62, 182-282, 422-5, 507; v., 86, 249, 259, 261-5, 268,\n    271-86, 426, 484, 486, 499.\n\n  Tezcatzoncatl (Teatlahuiani, Tequechmecaniani), Nahua god, ii.,\n    260; iii., 418.\n\n  Tezcocingo (Tezcozinco), city, Mexico, ii., 168-73; antiq., iv.,\n    523-6.\n\n  Tezcociztecatl, iii., 62, see Tecuzistecatl.\n\n  Tezcuco (Tetzcoco), city, Mexico, i., 675-6; ii., 92, 104;\n    antiq., iv., 520-3; myth., v., 20; hist., v., 249, 283, 317-19,\n    332-482, 499.\n\n  Tezcuco Lake, v., 203.\n\n  Tezihuaccoahuatl, v., 243, see Tzihuacohuatl.\n\n  Tezompan, town, Jalisco, i., 672.\n\n  Tezozomoc, Chichimec emperor, ii., 609; v., 341, 348-9, 351-5,\n    367-84; lord of Azcapuzalco, v., 464.\n\n  Tezpi, Nahua Noah, iii., 66-8; v., 13.\n\n  Tezulutlan (Tezulutan), name for Vera Paz, v., 565.\n\n  Tezuque, i., 599, see Tesuque.\n\n  Thamiens, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 452; lang., iii., 653.\n\n  Theatre, see Drama.\n\n  Theft, punishment of, i., 64, 386, 509-10, 729, 770; ii., 455-8,\n    650, 656-8.\n\n  Thetliotin, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 145.\n\n  Thick-wood Indians, i., 144, see Beaver Indians.\n\n  Thilhoa, Nahua god, iii., 418.\n\n  Thipetotec, name for Xipe, iii., 411.\n\n  Thlingcha-dinneh (Dog-ribs), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 144; special mention, i., 120-1, 136; lang.,\n    iii., 585.\n\n  Thlinkeets (Klinkits, Tchinkit\u00e2ne), one of the five families\n    into which the Hyperboreans are divided; manners and customs\n    of all its nations and tribes described together, i., 94-114;\n    physique i., 97; dress, i., 97-102; dwellings, i., 102-3;\n    food, i., 103-4; weapons and war, i., 104-6; boats, i., 106-7;\n    manufactures and commerce, i., 107-8; government and slavery,\n    i., 108-9; Women, marriage, etc., i., 82, 109-12; amusements,\n    i., 112-13; medicine and burial, i., 113; character, i.,\n    113-14; myth., iii., 98-104, 129-31, 145-9, 516; v., 14, 19;\n    lang., iii., 579-83; location of tribes, i., 38, 94-6, 142-3.\n\n  Thlishatkmuches, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 314.\n\n  Thljegonchotana, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 148.\n\n  Thljegon River, i., 148.\n\n  Thnaina, i., 149, see Kenai.\n\n  Thoiga-rik-kah, name for Nez Perc\u00e9s, i., 253.\n\n  Thompson River, i., 251, 291, 310; iii., 613.\n\n  Thongeith, name for Cowichin, i., 175.\n\n  Thorames (Totorames), Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44;\n    location, i., 672; hist., v., 509.\n\n  Thorns, various uses, i., 655; ii., 242, 245-6, 259, 601.\n\n  Thread, i., 79, 91, 107, 503, 657, 766; iii., 404.\n\n  Throne, ii., 440-1, 612, 621, 632-3, 637, 641-2, 646, 789, 794;\n    iii., 294, 390.\n\n  Thumiaterion, a Ph\u0153nician city, v., 66.\n\n  Thunder, i., 741; iii., 118, 324, 403.\n\n  Tiacapan, name for Tlazoltecotl, iii., 380.\n\n  Tiacapantzin (Tiacapapantzin), v., 330, see Tlacapantzin.\n\n  Tiahuanaco, Peru, antiq., iv., 805.\n\n  Tianazatlan, heights, Tlascala, v., 498.\n\n  Tianguez, Guatemalan market, i., 700.\n\n  Tianguiztengo, province, Mexico, i., 675.\n\n  Tianguiztepetl, locality, Mexico, v., 25.\n\n  Tianquiztli, Nahua market, ii., 383.\n\n  Tiazolteotl, name for Centeotl, iii., 350.\n\n  Tiba, Isthmian title, i., 770.\n\n  Tibahagna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    460.\n\n  Tibulca, cave near Copan, Honduras, antiq., iv., 82-3.\n\n  Tibulon, city, Yucatan, v., 632.\n\n  Tiburones, North Mexican tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 572;\n    special mention, i., 583, 585, 590; lang., iii., 704.\n\n  Tiburon (Taburon) Island, i., 572, 604-5.\n\n  Ticeuiracocha (Ticeviracocha), v., 23, see Viracocha.\n\n  Ticitl, Nahua midwife, ii., 268.\n\n  Ticul, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 237-40.\n\n  Ticum, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 219.\n\n  Tie-poo-eet, i., 54, see Topek.\n\n  Tierra Amarilla, locality, Utah, i., 469-70.\n\n  Tierra Blanca, village, Chiapas, i., 682.\n\n  Tierra Caliente, ii., 89-90.\n\n  Tierra Fria, ii., 87.\n\n  Tierra Templada, ii., 87.\n\n  Tigalda Island, i., 141.\n\n  Tigaldas, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Tigers, i., 648, 716, 723, 752-3; ii., 259, 351, 720-1; iii.,\n    129.\n\n  Tigua, i., 600, see Tegua.\n\n  Tiguex, Pueblo province, New Mexico, i., 527, 538.\n\n  Tihax, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Tihoo, city, Yucatan, iii., 467; antiq., iv., 243-4.\n\n  Tihugun, Tinneh god, iii., 142.\n\n  Tikal, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 135-8.\n\n  Tilantongo, city, Oajaca, iii., 73; hist., v., 416, 461, 527-9.\n\n  Tilapa River, v., 602.\n\n  Tilema, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 374.\n\n  Tilijaes (Tilijais, Tilijayas), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91;\n    location, i., 611-12.\n\n  Tillamooks, i., 307, see Killamooks.\n\n  Tilma (Tilmatli), Mexican mantle, i., 574, 620; ii., 366, 727.\n\n  Tilofayas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Timbalakees, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 449.\n\n  Timita (Timigtac, Titmictac), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Timpana Yutas, i., 470, see Timpenaguchyas.\n\n  Timpanigos, lake and desert, i., 465, 467.\n\n  Timpanigos Yutas, i., 440, see Timpanogos.\n\n  Timpanogos (Tempanahgoes, Timpanagos, Timpanigos Yutas,\n    Timpanoges, Timpanogs), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42;\n    location, i., 440, 462, 464, 469-70.\n\n  Timpenaguchyas (Tenpenny Utahs, Tenpenny Utes, Timpana Yutas),\n    tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 470; special\n    mention, i., 440.\n\n  Timsim, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Tin, i., 483; ii., 382, 473-5; iv., 794.\n\n  Tinabsotis, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    314.\n\n  Tinachi, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Tinajas Altas, Sonora, i., 603.\n\n  Tinapihuayas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Tinneh (Dinneh, 'Dtinn\u00e8, Tinn\u00e8, Ttynai), one of the five families\n    into which the Hyperboreans are divided; manners and customs\n    of all its nations and tribes described together, i., 114-37;\n    physique, i., 36, 116-17, 122, 127; dress, i., 117, 122, 128;\n    marriage and women, i., 117-18, 121, 123, 125-6, 132, 134;\n    Dwellings, i., 118, 123-4; Food, i., 118, 121, 123, 129, 135;\n    Weapons, i., 119; Amusements, i., 119-20, 122; Burial, i., 119,\n    125-7, 132, 134-5; Character, i., 120, 122, 135-7; Government,\n    i., 121, 123-4, 130-1, 134; Medicine, i., 124; Boats,\n    Implements, &c., i., 130; Myth., iii., 105-6, 131, 141-3, 518;\n    v., 19; lang., iii., 557-8, 583-603, 662-3; location of tribes,\n    i., 25, 38, 114-16, 143-9.\n\n  Tinum, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 236.\n\n  Tipitapa, village, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Tipitapa River, i., 792.\n\n  Tipotani, Nicaragua god, iii., 492.\n\n  Tiribees (Tiribis), i., 794-5, see Terrabas.\n\n  Tiripito, locality, Michoacan, v., 523.\n\n  Tisayac, Central Californian mythic person, iii., 125.\n\n  Titicaca Island, Peru, antiq., iv., 800-2.\n\n  Titicaca Lake, Peru, antiq., iv., 800-2, 805-6; v., 23.\n\n  Tititl, Nahua festival, ii., 337.\n\n  Titiy\u00fa, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Titlaca\u00e2on (Titlacahua, Titlacahuan, Titlacaoamoquequeloa,\n    Titlacoa, Titlacoan), names for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 57, 70,\n    191, 199, 214, 256; v., 259.\n\n  Titmictac, i., 453, see Timita.\n\n  Tiubta, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Tixualajtun, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 240.\n\n  Tizaapan, a district of Mexico, v., 340-1.\n\n  Tizajocan, v., 323, see Tizayocan.\n\n  Tizapetlan, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 353.\n\n  Tizatlacatzin, a Tlascaltec leader, v., 459, 504.\n\n  Tizatlalli, a species of stone, ii., 487.\n\n  Tizatlan, a quarter of Tlascala city, ii., 412; v., 497-8, 503.\n\n  Tizayocan (Tizajocan), station, Aztec migration, v., 323, 330.\n\n  Tizoc, king of Mexico, v., 417, 424, 436-9.\n\n  Tjuiccujenne, Apache tribal name, i., 474; iii., 594.\n\n  Tjulchide, Apache name for Rio Colorado, i., 595.\n\n  Tjunchi, Apache name for Rio Pecos, i., 595.\n\n  Tka, i., 447, see Hamburg Indians.\n\n  Tkhimkee, Aleut amulet, iii., 144.\n\n  T'kitskes, i., 148, see Ingaliks.\n\n  Tlaaltilzin, slaves for sacrifice, ii., 394.\n\n  Tlaamaviques, Nahua combatants, ii., 396.\n\n  Tlacabepan, Nahua vice-god, iii., 427.\n\n  Tlacacavili, Nahua mistress, ii., 264.\n\n  Tlacacebastla, Maya Quich\u00e9 dialect, iii., 760.\n\n  Tlacacouhcan, Nahua temple, iii., 387.\n\n  Tlacaeleltzin (Tempanecatl), a Mexican commander, v., 389-90; a\n    Mexican prince, identical with Montezuma I., v., 423.\n\n  Tlacahua, Nahua title, ii., 187.\n\n  Tlacahuepancuextotzin, Nahua god, iii., 303.\n\n  Tlacahuepatzin (Tlacahuepantzin), a Mexican prince, v., 443, 459,\n    504.\n\n  Tlacalhuaztilmatli, a court mantle, ii., 375.\n\n  Tlacamihtzin (Tlacamilitzin, Tlacamitzin), a Toltec prince, v.,\n    211, 220, 243.\n\n  Tlacapantzin (Tiacapantzin, Tiacapapantzin), an Aztec princess,\n    v., 329.\n\n  Tlacatecatl (Tacatecatl, Tlacateccatl), Nahua judge, ii., 436.\n\n  Tlacatecololotl, Nahua evil spirit, iii., 184.\n\n  Tlacateotzin, Acolhua prince, v., 332, 334; Chimalpanec chief,\n    v., 338; King of Tlatelulco, v., 364-86.\n\n  Tlacatlaolli, a dish of human flesh, ii., 309.\n\n  Tlacatecco, a temple in Mexico, v., 441.\n\n  Tlacavepan, name for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 241, 246.\n\n  Tlacaxipehualiztli, Nahua month, ii., 306, 308-12, 509; iii.,\n    309, 420.\n\n  Tlacepoallitlaxcalli, corn cake, ii., 355.\n\n  Tlachcala, i., 676, see Tlascala.\n\n  Tlachco, a play-ground, ii., 297; town, Guerrero, v., 412.\n\n  Tlachiach, Nahua title, v., 264, 486.\n\n  Tlachicatzin, a Toltec city, v., 211.\n\n  Tlachielonique, Nahua sceptre, iii., 408.\n\n  Tlachihualtepec, locality, Puebla, v., 230.\n\n  Tlachinotzin, v., 250, see Ixtlilcuechahuac.\n\n  Tlachmalacac, town, Mexico, i., 677; v., 412.\n\n  Tlachpanquizqui, Huexotzinca chief, v., 477.\n\n  Tlachquauhyo, court dress, ii., 403.\n\n  Tlachquiauhco, city, Oajaca, v., 416, 461.\n\n  Tlachtli (Tlachtl, Tlaxtli), Nahua ball-game, ii., 297; iii.,\n    254; v., 467.\n\n  Tlaciuaantin, Nahua mistress, ii., 265.\n\n  Tlaciuantli, Nahua mistress, ii., 265.\n\n  Tlaclquani, iii., 380, see Tlazolteotl.\n\n  Tlaco, iii., 380, see Tlazolteotl.\n\n  Tlacochcalcatl, ii., 138, see Tlacohecalcatl.\n\n  Tlacochtli, a javelin, ii., 410.\n\n  Tlacoculaquilo, cradle ceremony, ii., 276.\n\n  Tlacohecalcatl (Tlacochcalcatl), Nahua title, ii., 137-8, 201.\n\n  Tlacolula, locality, Oajaca, i., 790; antiq., iv., 375.\n\n  Tlacomihua, a Toltec chief, v., 243, 253; Ocotelulco ruler, v.,\n    497.\n\n  Tlacopan (Tacuba), city, Mexico, i., 674; ii., 92, 134-6; iv.,\n    503; v., 396-9.\n\n  Tlacoteo, Tezcucan seminary, ii., 246.\n\n  Tlacotepec, town, Vera Cruz, i., 677; antiq., iv., 445-6.\n\n  Tlacotin, a Tepanec prince, v., 355.\n\n  Tlacotlan, town, Jalisco, i., 672.\n\n  Tlacotzontli, Nahua god, ii., 389.\n\n  Tlacuihuallan, station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Tlagga Sillas, tribe of Koniagas, i., 69-87; location, i., 140.\n\n  Tlahuac (Cuitlahuac), Mexico, antiq., iv., 498-9.\n\n  Tlahuicas, Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location and\n    name, ii., 109, 130; special mention, i., 622; lang., iii.,\n    725; hist., v., 307-10.\n\n  Tlahuicol (Tlalhuicol), a Tlascaltec general, iii., 415; v.,\n    477-8, 505, 525.\n\n  Tlahuililpan, Mexico, antiq., iv., 549.\n\n  Tlahuil Tecuhtli, a Xochimilco chief, v., 309.\n\n  Tlahuitoltzin, a Chichimec prince, v., 475.\n\n  Tlahuitzin, mythic person, iii., 379-80.\n\n  Tlailotlacan, a ward of Tezcuco city, v., 404.\n\n  Tlaitlanililoni, name for Napatecutli, iii., 417.\n\n  Tlaixnexia, Nahua feast, ii., 395.\n\n  Tlaixpan, locality, Mexico, i., 673.\n\n  Tlajomulco, town, Jalisco, i., 672.\n\n  Tlalamoztoc, station, Chichimec migration, v., 294.\n\n  Tlalchihualtepec, name for Cholula, iv., 473.\n\n  Tlalchinoltzin, v., 250, see Ixtlilcuechahuac.\n\n  Tlalchitonatiuh, Nahua period of time, ii., 504.\n\n  Tlalchiuhtlanelzin, v., 245, see Chalchiuh Tlatonac.\n\n  Tlalcocomocco, locality, Mexico, ii., 559; v., 339.\n\n  Tlalhuicol, v., 477, see Tlahuicol.\n\n  Tlaliac, a mineral substance, ii., 487.\n\n  Tlallamanac, Nahua god, v., 193.\n\n  Tlalliquamallas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-520; location, i.,\n    599.\n\n  Tlalmanalco, Mexico, antiq., iv., 501; hist., v., 200.\n\n  Tlaloc, Nahua god, ii., 305, 308, 334-7, 582-4; iii., 67, 118,\n    120, 134, 324-48.\n\n  Tlalocan, Nahua mythic region, iii., 533; v., 197, 527.\n\n  Tlalocan Mountain, v., 489.\n\n  Tlalocateuchtli, name for Tlaloc, iii., 324.\n\n  Tlalpepexic, ravine, Tlascala, v., 507.\n\n  Tlalpilli, Nahua period of time, ii., 505.\n\n  Tlalquimiloltecuhtli, an order of priests, iii., 434.\n\n  Tlaltecatl, v., 250, see Ixtlilcuechahuac.\n\n  Tlaltecatl Huetzin, v., 250, see Ixtlilcuechahuac.\n\n  Tlaltecatzin, name for Quinantzin, v., 347; lord of\n    Quauhchinanco, v., 349.\n\n  Tlaltetecui, a Nahua prophet, v., 190.\n\n  Tlaltecuin, name for Yxtliton, iii., 409.\n\n  Tlaltecutli, Nahua god, iii., 207.\n\n  Tlalticpaque, name for Tonacateotle, iii., 191.\n\n  Tlamacatoton, boy priests, iii., 335.\n\n  Tlamacatzin, Chichimec king, v., 220, 290.\n\n  Tlamacaxqui, (Tlamacazqui), an order of priests, ii., 203-4;\n    iii., 436.\n\n  Tlamacazcatlotl, an order of priests, ii., 203.\n\n  Tlamacazcayiaque, an order of priests, iii., 335.\n\n  Tlamacazcayotl, an order of priests, ii., 204.\n\n  Tlamacazquecuicanime, an order of priests, iii., 335.\n\n  Tlamacaztequioagues, an order of priests, iii., 335.\n\n  Tlamacaztezcahoan, an order of priests, iii., 335.\n\n  Tlamaitl, tenants, ii., 231.\n\n  Tlamalhuilili, musical instrument, Mexico, antiq., iv., 504.\n\n  Tlamama, Nahua carriers, ii., 386.\n\n  Tlamaths (Tlamatl), i., 444, see Klamaths.\n\n  Tlamatzincatl, name for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 199, 405.\n\n  Tlamaxcacayotl, a religious order, iii., 436.\n\n  Tlami, Tezcucan title, ii., 189; v., 350.\n\n  Tlanatzi, Tarasco mantle, ii., 368.\n\n  Tlanchinolticpac, locality, Mexico, i., 675.\n\n  Tlanemiliani, Nahua solicitors, ii., 444.\n\n  Tlanempopoloa, name for Napatecutli, iii., 417.\n\n  Tlanotlac (Tlaylotlac, Tlaylotlat), Nahua judge, ii., 436.\n\n  Tlanquacemilhiyme (Tlanquacemilhuique), Quetzalcoatl adherents,\n    iii., 241, 255.\n\n  Tlaolli (Tlaulli), dried corn, ii., 347.\n\n  Tlaominqui, inventor of bow and arrow, ii., 343.\n\n  Tlaoquatch, i., 295, see Clayoquots.\n\n  Tlapala, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 445.\n\n  Tlapalcatep\u00e9c, locality, Nicaragua, i., 790.\n\n  Tlapalhuitz (Tlapalhuiz), a Nahua chief, v., 243.\n\n  Tlapalizquixochitl, a South Mexican plant, v., 461.\n\n  Tlapalla (Tlapallan), an ancient South Mexican kingdom, iii.,\n    253-4, 257; v., 211, 214, 284-5, 558.\n\n  Tlapallanconco (Tlapallantonco, Tlapallanzinco, Tlappallanzingo),\n    station, Toltec migration, v., 211, 215, 221.\n\n  Tlapallan de Cortes, a region in Honduras, v., 215.\n\n  Tlapallantonco, v., 211, see Tlapallanconco.\n\n  Tlapallantzinco, v., 211, see Tlapallanconco.\n\n  Tlapalmetzin, a Toltec prince, v., 213.\n\n  Tlapalmetzotzin, a Nahua chief, v., 243.\n\n  Tlapanecs (Chinquimes, Chochona, Chochontes, Chochos, Chuchones,\n    Coviscas, Jopes, Pinomes, Pinotl-Chochons, Popolocas,\n    Popolucas, Tecos, Tecoxines, Tenimes, Yopes, Yopimes, Yopis,\n    Yoppi), Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location and\n    name, i., 677; ii., 109, 130; special mention, i., 651-2,\n    665-6; lang., iii., 752, 783; hist., v., 207, 523-4.\n\n  Tlapatl, a medicinal plant, ii., 599.\n\n  Tlapitzahuacan, name for Quiahuiztlan, v., 497.\n\n  Tlapitzcatzin, an order of priests, ii., 203; iii., 434.\n\n  Tlappallanzingo, v., 211, see Tlapallanconco.\n\n  Tlaquaquallo, a mantle, ii., 321.\n\n  Tlaquechiuhcan, a quarter of Mexico city, ii., 563.\n\n  Tlaquihua, Nahua title, ii., 187.\n\n  Tlaquillaughs, Okanagan sorcerers, i., 287.\n\n  Tlaquilxochitl, princess of Zumpango, v., 329.\n\n  Tlaquimilloli, sacred relics, ii., 202; iii., 62.\n\n  Tlaquimilol-Tecuhtli, an order of priests, ii., 202.\n\n  Tlascala (Texcalla, Texcalticpac, Tlachcala, Tlaxcala,\n    Tlaxcallan), tribes described, i., 617-44; civilized nations,\n    ii., 133-629; location and name, i., 674, 676, 791; ii., 112,\n    130; myth., iii., 111, 195, 437, 443, 506, 512; v., 20; lang.,\n    iii., 725; antiq., iv., 477-80; hist., v., 262-3, 403, 458-60,\n    476, 493-507.\n\n  Tlascaltecs, Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location and\n    name, i., 676, 791; ii., 130; special mention, i., 622; ii.,\n    141-2, 215, 225-6, 229, 271, 277, 331, 336-7, 354, 371, 405-6,\n    411-12, 416-17, 423-31, 446, 568, 609, 628-9; myth., iii., 111,\n    195, 437, 443, 506, 512; v., 20; lang., iii., 725; hist., v.,\n    307-10, 388, 417-18, 458-60, 476, 493-507.\n\n  Tlaltecaiooa, Nahua god, iii., 418.\n\n  Tlatecuinxochicaoaca, inventor of medicine, ii., 597.\n\n  Tlatelulcas, Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; special\n    mention, ii., 380-1, 565; hist., v., 325-6, 356-482.\n\n  Tlatelulco (Xaltelulco), city, Mexico, ii., 380-1, 565; iii.,\n    298; hist., v., 357-99, 411, 421, 429-31.\n\n  Tlatlauhquicenteotl, name for Centeotl, iii., 350.\n\n  Tlatlu\u00eccas, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location and name,\n    i., 675.\n\n  Tlatoani, Nahua title, ii., 186-7; v., 248.\n\n  Tlatopilzintli, Nahua title, ii., 186.\n\n  Tlatoque, Nahua title, ii., 186.\n\n  Tlatsaps, i., 304, see Clatsops.\n\n  Tlatskanais, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 307;\n    lang., iii., 592.\n\n  Tlatzalan, v., 295, see Tlazalan.\n\n  Tlauhquechol, a mythic bird, iii., 241.\n\n  Tlauhquecholtzontli, a feather dress, ii., 376.\n\n  Tlaulli, ii., 347, see Tlaolli.\n\n  Tlavitezqui (Tlavitecqui), a festival character, iii., 354.\n\n  Tlaxcallan, v., 491, see Tlascala.\n\n  Tlaxcalli, a kind of cake, ii., 354.\n\n  Tlaxcalpacholli, a kind of cake, ii., 355.\n\n  Tlaxcaltotopochtli, a kind of cake, ii., 425.\n\n  Tlaxiaco, Miztec dialect, iii., 749.\n\n  Tlaxicoluican (Tlaxi Coliuhcan), a region of Mexico, v., 211,\n    218.\n\n  Tlaximaloyan, town, Michoacan, i., 677, see Tangimaroa.\n\n  Tlaxochimaco, Nahua month, ii., 327-8, 389, 510, 618.\n\n  Tlaxomultecs, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i.,\n    672; lang., iii., 719.\n\n  Tlaxtli, ii., 297, see Tlachtli.\n\n  Tlaylotlac, ii., 436, see Tlanotlac.\n\n  Tlaylotlat, ii., 436, see Tlanotlac.\n\n  Tlazalan (Tlatzalan), locality, Mexico, v., 295, 297.\n\n  Tlazoaloyan, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 354.\n\n  Tlazolteotl (Teicu, Tiacapan, Tlaclquani, Tlaco, Tlazoly\u00f2hua),\n    Nahua goddess, ii., 336-7, 516; iii., 377-84.\n\n  Tlazoly\u00f2hua, ii., 516, see Tlazolteotl.\n\n  Tlehuexolotl, lord of Tepeticpac, v., 503.\n\n  Tlemaco, station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Tlemaitl, a censer, ii., 323.\n\n  Tletl, calendar sign, ii., 516-17.\n\n  Tlexictli, a brazier, ii., 323.\n\n  Tlilcoatzin, Toltec king, v., 266.\n\n  Tlilcuetzpalin, an Otom\u00ed chief, v., 433-4.\n\n  Tlillan, name of a temple in Mexico, v., 441.\n\n  Tlillancalcatl, an order of priests, ii., 202.\n\n  Tlillancalqui, Nahua title, ii., 138.\n\n  Tlilquechahuac, v., 250, see Ixtlilcuechahuac.\n\n  Tlilque Chaocatlahinoltzin, v., 250, see Ixtlilcuechahuac.\n\n  Tliltepec, locality, Mexico, v., 443.\n\n  Thlingcha-dinneh (Dog-ribs), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 144.\n\n  Tlolpintzin, iii., 279, see Topiltzin.\n\n  Tloquatch, i., 297, see Clayoquots.\n\n  Tloque, name for Tonacateotle, iii., 191.\n\n  Tloque, Maya-Quich\u00e9 dialect, iii., 760.\n\n  Tloque-Nahuaque (Ipalnemoaloni, Ipalnemoan, Ipalnemohualoni),\n    Nahua god, iii., 56, 182-6, 195; v., 252.\n\n  Tlotli, Nahua divine messenger, iii., 58.\n\n  Tlotlitecuhtli, a Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Tlotzin Pochotl, Chichimec king, v., 314-20, 330-3.\n\n  Tnaina Ttynai, i., 116, see Kenai.\n\n  Toads, i., 539, 706, 763; ii., 721.\n\n  Toandos, i., 302, see Toankooch.\n\n  Toankooch (Toandos, Toanhooch, Tuanoh, Tuanooch) tribe of Sound\n    Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 302.\n\n  Toape, village, Sonora, i., 607.\n\n  Tobacco, various uses, i., 68, 76, 133, 199, 219, 282, 354, 394,\n    430, 517, 550, 568, 580, 652, 667, 706, 739, 775-6; ii., 287-8,\n    601, 795; iii., 80.\n\n  Tobacco Plains, i., 311.\n\n  Tobet, name for Chinigchinich, iii., 166.\n\n  Tobeyo, v., 271, see Toveyo.\n\n  Tobohar, first man, Los Angeles tribes, iii., 84.\n\n  Tobosos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610-12;\n    special mention, i., 576; lang., iii., 714.\n\n  Tobreytrota, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 796;\n    lang., iii., 794.\n\n  Tocas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Tocaxequal, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Toccy, iii., 350, see Teteionan.\n\n  Tochintecuhtli (Tochin Tecuhtli, Tochintzin), a Tepanec chief,\n    v., 317; Acolhua prince and lord of Huexotla, v., 332-3, 335.\n\n  Tochintzin, a Mexican prince, v., 374; see also Tochintecuhtli.\n\n  Tochmilco, town, Puebla, i., 671.\n\n  Tochos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 610.\n\n  Tochpanecatl, lord of Zumpango, v., 329.\n\n  Tochtepec (Turlitepeque), locality, Vera Cruz, v., 214, 416.\n\n  Tochtla, town, Chiapas, i., 681.\n\n  Tochtli, Nahua day and year, ii., 505, 511-12, 516-17; iii., 57.\n\n  Toci, iii., 350, see Teteionan.\n\n  Tocina, Pueblo dance, i., 554.\n\n  Tocitzin, iii., 350, see Teteionan.\n\n  Tocivitl, a military dress, ii., 405.\n\n  Tocolco, station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Tocontin, Guatemalan dance, i., 705.\n\n  Tocoy, locality, Guatemala, v., 559.\n\n  Tocpacxochitzin, princess of Quahuatlapal, v., 314.\n\n  Toh, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Tohil, Quich\u00e9 god, ii., 648, 794; iii., 49-50, 267, 476; v.,\n    181-2, 547, 549-51, 554, 556-7, 562, 582, 594.\n\n  Tohohil Mountain, name for Hacavitz Mountain, v., 564.\n\n  Tohu\u00e9yo, v., 271, see Toveyo.\n\n  Tokalis, i., 115, 145, see Tacullies.\n\n  Toker Point, i., 52.\n\n  Tolenos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 452.\n\n  Tolewahs (Tahlewahs, Talawas, Tolawas, Tolewas, Tolowas), North\n    Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 327, 445; special\n    mention, i., 348, 357, 361; myth., iii., 524; lang., iii., 593.\n\n  Tollan (Tula, Tulan, Tulha, Tulla, Tullan), city, Mexico, i.,\n    673; ii., 98-9; antiq., iv., 547; hist., v., 21, 181-2, 186-7,\n    191-2, 208, 213, 219, 243-86, 293, 323, 329, 473, 553-6, 561,\n    565, 623.\n\n  Tollancingo (Tollantzinco), v., 191, 213, see Tulancingo.\n\n  Tolnahuac, Nahua temple, iii., 402.\n\n  Tolocan, i., 677, see Toluca.\n\n  Tolokh-eis, name for Casa del Adivino, Uxmal, antiq., iv., 192.\n\n  Tololotlan, town, Jalisco, i., 672; antiq., iv., 575.\n\n  Tololotlan River, Michoacan, v., 508.\n\n  Tolonchantepeuj, name for Holon-Chan-Tepeuh, v., 624.\n\n  Tolowas, i., 361, see Tolewahs.\n\n  Tolpetlac, v., 323, see Tultepetlac.\n\n  Tolqom, a Guatemalan chief, v., 569.\n\n  Toltecat, iv., 529, see Teotihuacan.\n\n  Toltecatltecuhtli, Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Toltecs, Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; name, i., 670;\n    ii., 131-2; special mention, i., 24; ii., 98-101, 140, 173-4,\n    213-14, 265-6, 343, 379, 407, 478, 506, 554, 597, 604, 609,\n    613; iii., 270-1; myth., iii., 55-6; lang., iii., 724; v.,\n    510; origin, v., 19-21; hist., v., 208-18, 237-399, 509, 527-8,\n    541-3, 546, 557-8, 561, 564-7, 604, 611-19.\n\n  Toluca (Tolocan), city, Mexico, i., 676-7; lang., iii., 747-8;\n    v., 433, 523.\n\n  Tomahawks, i., 188, 235, 268, 341, 378, 493-4.\n\n  Tomales (Tamales, Tamallos, Tamalanos), Central Californian\n    tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 452.\n\n  Tomallan, station, Chichimec migration, v., 242, 487.\n\n  Tomaoteot, Nicaragua god, iii., 492.\n\n  Tomasi\u00fa, village, Guatemala, i., 788.\n\n  Tomatoes (Tomatl), Mexican food, i., 624, 653; ii., 356.\n\n  Tomazolapan, city, Mexico, v., 412.\n\n  Tombs, antiq., iv., 17-18, 26-30, 372-88, 412, 419, 422, 428-30,\n    447-51, 465, 474, 495, 516-17, 593, 692.\n\n  Tomiyauh, Otom\u00ed princess, v., 319.\n\n  Tomoy, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 454.\n\n  Tompiras, tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; location, i., 600.\n\n  Tona, a guardian spirit, i., 661-2.\n\n  Tonacacigua, name for Chicomecoatl, iii., 352.\n\n  Tonacajohua, name for Centeotl, iii., 350.\n\n  Tonacatecotli, iii., 272, see Tonacateotl.\n\n  Tonacatecuhtli (Tonacatecutli), name for Tonatiuh Itzacual, iv.,\n    535.\n\n  Tonacateotl (Citinatonali, Tonacatecotli, Tonacateotle,\n    Tonacatlecotle), Nahua god, iii., 191, 268, 272, 352.\n\n  Tonacatepetl, Nahua mythic locality, v., 193-4.\n\n  Tonal\u00e1, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 354.\n\n  Tonala, town, Jalisco, i., 630; antiq., iv., 572; hist., v.,\n    508-9.\n\n  Tonalamatl, Nahua divining book, iii., 381.\n\n  Tonalan, station, Aztec migration, v., 323.\n\n  Tonalpouhqui, Nahua sorcerer, ii., 271, 391, 500.\n\n  Tonaltut, a Pipile lord, v., 609.\n\n  Tonantzin, name for Chicomecoatl, iii., 350, 352.\n\n  Tonatacinga, name for Chicomecoatl, iii., 352.\n\n  Tonatiuh, Nahua god, iii., 109, 183.\n\n  Tonatiuh Itzacual, temple, Mexico, antiq., iv., 535-6.\n\n  Tongarses (Tongas), i., 143, see Tungass.\n\n  Tonglas, Honduras, lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Tongue Point, i., 306-7.\n\n  Toniche, i., 606, see Tonitzi.\n\n  Tonila, name for Ococingo, iv., 347.\n\n  Tonitzi, town, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Tontos, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 474, 595;\n    special mention, i., 494-5, 511, 516.\n\n  Tonvel's Bay, i., 293.\n\n  Tookarikkahs, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 463.\n\n  Toomedocs, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location and\n    name, i., 456.\n\n  Toomuns, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location and\n    name, i., 456.\n\n  Toonglas, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 713, 793;\n    special mention, i., 714, 718, 746; lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Toopek, i., 54, see Topek.\n\n  Too-pote, i., 54, see Topek.\n\n  Toos, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Tootooch, thunder-bird, Aht myth., iii., 96, 152.\n\n  Tootooton, i., 327, 443, see Rogue River Indians.\n\n  Topek (Tie-poo-eet, Toopek, Toopote, Topak, Tuppek), Eskimo tent,\n    i., 54.\n\n  Topia, province, North Mexico, i., 607, 613-14; lang., iii.,\n    718-19.\n\n  Topila Creek, Tamaulipas, antiq., iv., 596-7.\n\n  Topila Hills, Tamaulipas, antiq., iv., 595.\n\n  Topilli, constables, ii., 437.\n\n  Topiltzin (Tlolpintzin, Topil), an order of priests, ii., 201,\n    307; iii., 279, 434; v., 248; Toltec imperial title, ii., 609;\n    v., 256, 260, 276, 299; see also Acxitl.\n\n  Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, name for Quetzalcoatl, v., 25.\n\n  Tepopochuiliztli, iii., 422, see Toxcatl.\n\n  Toquaht (Toquart, Toquatux), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 295-7.\n\n  Toquetzal, Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Toquimas, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 468.\n\n  Toral, Spanish bishop in Yucatan, v., 627, 629.\n\n  Torches, use of, i., 185-6, 213, 338, 719; ii., 491, 573, 618,\n    621-3; iii., 375.\n\n  Torin, village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Tornilla, Apache food, i., 488.\n\n  T\u00f3ro, village, Sonora, i., 608.\n\n  Torom raqui, Opata festival, i., 586.\n\n  Torose, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Torresques, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 748.\n\n  Tortilla, a species of cake, i., 489, 540, 577, 626, 653, 694,\n    721; ii., 347, 354-5, 722; iii., 360.\n\n  Tortoise, symbols, v., 73-4.\n\n  Tortoise-shell, various uses of, i., 393, 705, 717, 725-6, 768;\n    ii., 285, 406, 713.\n\n  Tortuga Island, i., 605.\n\n  Torture, of captives, i., 164, 269, 433, 581; ii., 656, 746.\n\n  Tosawees (Shoshoteas, Tosawitches, Tosawwitches, Tosiwitches,\n    White Knives), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i.,\n    469; special mention, i., 440.\n\n  Tosemiteiz, i., 452, see Yosemites.\n\n  Tosiwitches, i., 461, see Tosawees.\n\n  Toste (Teotost), Nicaragua god, iii., 492.\n\n  Totanquitlaxcallitlaquelpacholli, a species of cake, ii., 175,\n    355.\n\n  Totec, iii., 411, see Xipe.\n\n  Totepeuh Nonohualcatl (Totepauh, Totepeuhque), Toltec king, v.,\n    250, 252-5.\n\n  Totepeuh II., Toltec king, v., 266.\n\n  Totok\u00f3nula, Californian mythic person, iii., 124-6.\n\n  Totola, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Totolapan, province, Mexico, v., 346, 412.\n\n  Totollan, locality, Puebla, v., 490.\n\n  Totolohuitzil, Chichimec-Toltec chief, v., 485.\n\n  Totoloque, Nahua game, ii., 301.\n\n  Totoltepec (Tototepec), city, North-east Mexico, v., 297-8, 335,\n    472.\n\n  Totomalotecuhtli, Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Totomihuacan (Totomiuacan), town, Puebla, i., 670-1; v., 490,\n    495.\n\n  Totonacapan, province, Vera Cruz, i., 675; v., 413, 415.\n\n  Totonacs (Totonaques), Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629;\n    location and name i., 675; ii., 113-14, 132; special mention,\n    i., 635; ii., 278, 554; myth., ii., 214; iii., 350-1, 433, 437,\n    445; lang., iii., 759, 776-9; v., 204; hist., v., 203-5, 239,\n    441-2, 476.\n\n  Totonicapan, town, Guatemala, i., 787-8; v., 577, 586, 602.\n\n  Totonquiatolli, a kind of gruel, ii., 355.\n\n  Totoposte (Totoposti), a corn cake, i., 653-4, 695.\n\n  Totoquihuatzin, king of Tlacopan, v., 396, 399, 410, 426.\n\n  Totoquihuatzin II., king of Tlacopan, v., 440-1.\n\n  Totorames, i., 672, see Thorames.\n\n  Tototecti, sacrificial victims, ii., 309.\n\n  Tototen (Tototin, Tototutna, Totutime, Totutunes), see Rogue\n    River Indians, i., 327, 442-3.\n\n  Tototlan, locality, Mexico, v., 416.\n\n  Totten's Inlet, i., 301.\n\n  Totzapan, station, Toltec migration, v., 213.\n\n  Totzapantzin, a Toltec prince, v., 213.\n\n  Touchon-ta-Kutchin, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i.,\n    146.\n\n  Touserlemnies, i., 450, see Tawalemnes.\n\n  Toustchipas, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    319.\n\n  Toutouni, i., 327, see Rogue River Indians.\n\n  Tovares, i., 609, see Tubares.\n\n  Toveyo (Tobeyo, Tohu\u00e9yo), name for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 243-6; v.,\n    271-3.\n\n  Towers, ii., 556-7, 571, 744, 792-3; antiq., iv., 134-5, 187-8,\n    250, 254, 260, 315, 445-6, 552, 580, 723-9, 804.\n\n  Towkas, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 712, 793;\n    special mention, i., 714, 725, 732, 736, 746; lang., iii., 783.\n\n  Towns, see Dwellings.\n\n  Tox, Tzendal day, ii., 767; Chiapanec hero, v., 605.\n\n  Toxas, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 748.\n\n  Toxcachocholoa, Nahua dance, ii., 323.\n\n  Toxcatl (Tepopochuiliztli), Nahua month, ii., 509; iii., 422-8.\n\n  Toxilmolpilia, Nahua cycle feast, ii., 274; iii., 393-6.\n\n  Toxpalatl, name of a fountain, ii., 587.\n\n  Toxpan (Tuxpan), station, Toltec migration, v., 212, 216.\n\n  Toxpilli, an Acolhua chief, v., 378.\n\n  Toybipet, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Toyon, Aleutian title for chief, i., 92.\n\n  Toy Pi Utes, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 467.\n\n  Tozantla, town, Michoacan, i., 677.\n\n  Tozcuecuex, an Aztec prince, v., 329.\n\n  Tozi, iii., 309, see Teteionan.\n\n  Tozoztli, Nahua month, iii., 70.\n\n  Tozoztontli (Tozcotzintli), Nahua month, ii., 315, 509; iii.,\n    420-1.\n\n  Tozquentzin, name for Atototzin, v., 372.\n\n  T'quaquamish, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    301.\n\n  Trade, see Commerce.\n\n  Traditions, ii., 367-8, 427, 559-60, 716-17; iv., 104, 730-1; v.,\n    137-40; see also history.\n\n  Trak Pocoma, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Tran-jik-koo-chin, Kutchin dialect, iii., 586.\n\n  Traps, i., 91, 123, 187, 336-9, 344, 652; ii., 720.\n\n  Trats\u00e8-Kutshi, i., 147, see Tathzey-Kutshi.\n\n  Treason, punishment of, ii., 459, 645, 659, 746.\n\n  Treaties, i., 164, 189, 269-70, 433-4, 500, 580, 628, 636-7, 723;\n    ii., 747; v., 363, 391-2, 397-9, 414, 445.\n\n  Trees, i., 173, 205-6, 220, 288, 757; ii., 329-30, 557, 616, 619;\n    iii., 385-9, 400, 459.\n\n  Trench Bar, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Tribute, see Taxes.\n\n  Trile Kalets, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 366.\n\n  Trincheras, see Cerro de las Trincheras.\n\n  Trinidad, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 463.\n\n  Trinidad Bay Indians, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    special mention, i., 329-30, 332, 348, 351.\n\n  Trinity, myth., ii., 648; iii., 462, 476-7, 492; v., 87, 547.\n\n  Trinity County, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Trinity River Indians, North Californian tribe, i., 325-61;\n    location, i., 445; special mention, i., 327-9, 334, 348, 361;\n    myth., iii., 175-6; lang., iii., 592, 642.\n\n  Tripas Blancas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    612.\n\n  Tripoli, native place of Votan, v., 71.\n\n  Troano MS., ii., 771-4.\n\n  Troe, Sinaloa dialect, iii., 707.\n\n  Trophies, war, i., 164, 344, 380, 433-4, 581, 629; ii., 306, 316,\n    329, 429, 746.\n\n  Truckee River, i., 466.\n\n  Truckee Valley, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Trumpets, i., 765; ii., 292, 713.\n\n  Truxillo, town, Honduras, i., 793; iii., 496.\n\n  Tsakaitsitlin, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    312.\n\n  Tsamak, Sacramento Valley dialect, iii., 649-50.\n\n  Tsatsnotin, Tinneh tribe, i., 114-37; location, i., 145.\n\n  Tschageljuk River, i., 148.\n\n  Tschernow-skojes, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Tschigmit, i., 149, see Chigmit.\n\n  Tschilsolomis, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    314.\n\n  Tschnagmjuten (Tschnagm\u00fcten), i., 141, see Chnagmutes.\n\n  Tschugatschen (Tchugatchih, Tchutski, Tschgatzi, Tschugatsches,\n    Tschugatschi, Tschugatsi, Tschugazzi, Tschuktchi, Tschuktschi),\n    i., 70, 72, 139, see Chugatsches.\n\n  Tschugatsk, i., 139, see Chugachuik.\n\n  Tsclallum, i., 170, see Clallams.\n\n  Tshik\u00e1tstat, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i.,\n    299.\n\n  Tshinuk, i., 304, see Chinook.\n\n  Tsihailish, i., 303, see Chehalis.\n\n  Tsilkotin, i., 145, see Chilkotin.\n\n  Tsillanes, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 312.\n\n  Tsillawdawhoots, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 145.\n\n  Tsimsheeans, i., 293, see Chimsyans.\n\n  Tsoi-gah, name for Nez Perc\u00e9s, i., 253.\n\n  Tsomass, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Ttattah-Akbal, Cakchiquel king, v., 584.\n\n  Ttynai, i., 148, see Tinneh.\n\n  Tuanoh (Tuanooch), i., 302, see Toankooch.\n\n  Tubanam\u00e1, province and tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location,\n    i., 796.\n\n  Tubares (Tovares), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    572, 609; lang., iii., 715-16.\n\n  Tubes, various uses, i., 170, 627, 705, 709, 723, 760-3; ii.,\n    351; iv., 316, 375, 451.\n\n  Tubisuste, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Tuca, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Tucannon (Tukanon) River, i., 317.\n\n  Tucapacha, Tarasco god, iii., 445.\n\n  Tuchiquetzal, name for Chicomecoatl, iii., 352.\n\n  Tucumcari Creek, i., 591.\n\n  Tucumu, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Tucur\u00fa, village, and tribe, Guatemala, i., 788; v., 561.\n\n  Tuerto, tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; location, i., 600.\n\n  Tuhalha, Guatemalan tribe, hist., v., 546, 561.\n\n  Tuhecayan, abode of Aztec Venus, iii., 377.\n\n  Tuira, Isthmian god, iii., 500.\n\n  Tuitlan, name for Quemada, iv., 580.\n\n  Tukanon, i., 319, see Tucannon.\n\n  Tuk-Kuth, Kutchin dialect, iii., 586.\n\n  Tukuches, Guatemalan tribe, hist., v., 561, 596-7.\n\n  Tula (Tulan, Tulha, Tulla, Tullan), ancient city, Mexico, i.,\n    673; antiq., iv., 547-9; station, Aztec migration, v., 323;\n    ancient home of Quich\u00e9s, v., 21; ancient city, Central America,\n    v., 159, 181-2, 185-7, 191-2, 233, 553-7, 561, 619, 623; see\n    also Tollan.\n\n  Tula, California, antiq., iv., 690.\n\n  Tulancingo (Tollancingo, Tollantzinco, Tulantzinco), city and\n    province Mexico, antiq., iv., 544; hist., v., 213, 260, 320,\n    335, 411, 489.\n\n  Tulan-zuiva (Tulanzu, Seven Caves, Zuina), ancient home of\n    Quich\u00e9s, iii., 49; hist., v., 181, 188, 191, 197, 203, 219-21,\n    223, 228, 325, 422-4, 527, 547, 561, 565, 580, 624.\n\n  Tulapan, ancient home of Tutul Xius, v., 227-8, 624.\n\n  Tulares (Tulare\u00f1os), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 452, 456; lang., iii., 650-1.\n\n  Tulare Lake, i., 363, 455, 457.\n\n  Tulare Valley, i., 460; California, antiq., iv., 690.\n\n  Tula River, v., 243, see Montezuma river.\n\n  Tule, term for rushes, i., 336, 367, 384, 466; ii., 357.\n\n  Tules, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; lang., iii., 794-5.\n\n  Tule River, i., 456.\n\n  Tulh\u00e1, city, Chiapas, ii., 633; antiq., iv., 346-7.\n\n  Tulija River, iv., 297, 343.\n\n  Tuliks, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Tulkays, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 452.\n\n  Tulla (Tullan), iii., 240-1, 288; v., 243, see Tollan.\n\n  Tullanatl River, v., 243, see Montezuma River.\n\n  Tulomos, i., 363, see Tuolomos.\n\n  Tuloom, city, Yucatan, ii., 744-5; antiq., iv., 254-9, 268, 277.\n\n  Tultecatl, Nahua god, iii., 418; a Huexotzinca general, v., 452,\n    500-1.\n\n  Tultepetlac (Tolpetlac, Tulpetlac), station, Aztec migration, v.,\n    323-4.\n\n  Tultitlan, city, Mexico, v., 284, 295, 369, 405.\n\n  Tuluraios, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; special\n    mention, i., 365.\n\n  Tulyahualco, Mexico, antiq., iv., 500.\n\n  Tumalehnias, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 449.\n\n  Tumapacanes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Tunac-eel, name for Hunac Eel, v., 625-6.\n\n  Tu\u00f1e Cha Valley, i., 596.\n\n  Tungass (Tongarses, Tongas, Tun Ghaase, Tunghase), tribe of\n    Thlinkeets, i., 96-114; location, i., 96, 143; lang., iii.,\n    579.\n\n  Tungass Island, i., 143.\n\n  Tunkul, musical instrument, i., 656, 664; ii., 712; v., 632.\n\n  Tuolomos (Tulomos), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 363, 453.\n\n  Tuolumne County, i., 455; lang., iii., 650; antiq., iv., 698-703.\n\n  Tuolumne River, i., 455-6; lang., iii., 651.\n\n  Tuparan, Pericui evil spirit, iii., 529.\n\n  Tup\u00e1taro, Guanajuato, antiq., iv., 577.\n\n  Tupes, i., 592, see Jupes.\n\n  Tupocuyos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 607.\n\n  Tuppek, i., 54, see Topek.\n\n  Tuppkak, Maya feast, ii., 691-2.\n\n  Tupuic, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Tupuinte, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Tupuxanchuen, locality, Michoacan, v., 523.\n\n  Tuquesa River, i., 796.\n\n  Turami, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Turbo, locality, Darien, i., 797.\n\n  Turealemnes, i., 450, see Tawalemnes.\n\n  Turialba Valley, Costa Rica, antiq., iv., 21.\n\n  Turkeys, i., 723; ii., 703, 721.\n\n  Turlitepeque, v., 214, see Tochtepec.\n\n  Turquoise, i., 545, 583; ii., 173, 376-7, 606.\n\n  Turrets, see Towers.\n\n  Turtle, i., 551, 563, 576-7, 655, 694, 720, 725-6, 759; ii., 721.\n\n  Tusanes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Tusapan, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 456-8.\n\n  Tusayan, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 674.\n\n  Tushepaws (Tusshepaws), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 311-12; special mention, i., 259, 274.\n\n  Tuski, i., 139, see Chugatsches.\n\n  Tusquin, Apache kettle, i., 489.\n\n  Tutachro, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 458.\n\n  Tutahaco, Pueblo province, i., 527.\n\n  Tutchone Kutchin (Gens de Foux), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 115, 147; lang., iii., 587.\n\n  Tutecotzemit, Pipile king, v., 608-9.\n\n  Tutoten, i., 443, see Rogue River Indians.\n\n  Tutul Xius, Maya nation, ii., 630-803; special mention, ii.,\n    118-20, 132, 633, 649, 720; hist., v., 227-8, 621-34.\n\n  Tutunahs (Coquins), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 443.\n\n  Tututamy, i., 327, see Rogue River Indians.\n\n  Tututepec, city, Oajaca, i., 678; antiq., iv., 374; hist., v.,\n    462, 472-3, 531.\n\n  Tuvares, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 572, 607.\n\n  Tuwanahs, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    449.\n\n  Tuxpan, v., 216, see Toxpan.\n\n  Tuxpan River, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 458.\n\n  Tuxtepec, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 421.\n\n  Tuxtla, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 426-7.\n\n  Tuzamapa, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 439.\n\n  Tuzsint, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Twaka River, i., 793.\n\n  Twigs, various uses, i., 190, 217, 575; iii., 383.\n\n  Twocan, name for San Miguel Island, i., 402.\n\n  Tyee (Tays), Nootka title of chief, i., 194.\n\n  Tyichs (Tyicks), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location,\n    i., 316, 320.\n\n  Tyich Valley, i., 320.\n\n  Tykothee-dinneh, name for Kutchins, i., 115.\n\n  Typoxi, iii., 650, see Siyante.\n\n  Tyugas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    362, 451.\n\n  Tzacatcatl (Tzacatecatl), v., 250, see Ixtlilcuechahuac.\n\n  Tzacatl, Nahua chief, v., 243.\n\n  Tzacua, a Mexican bird, iii., 374.\n\n  Tzaputlatena, Nahua goddess, iii., 409.\n\n  Tzatzapaltamale, amaranth cakes, ii., 316.\n\n  Tzatzitepetl Mountain, Mexico, iii., 241.\n\n  Tzauhtli, a species of tree, ii., 487, 489.\n\n  Tzayaquecas, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i.,\n    672.\n\n  Tzec (Zeec), Maya month, ii., 757.\n\n  Tzeetzaiak (Tzeet-tzaiak), Hailtzuk sorcerer, i., 170, 204.\n\n  Tzelep Kin, afternoon, ii., 755.\n\n  Tzendales (Celtales, Zeldales), Maya nation, i., 644-70; ii.,\n    630-803; location, i., 645, 681; ii., 120; special mention, i.,\n    652; lang., ii., 120; iii., 760-3; hist., iii., 452-3; v., 593,\n    603-4, 619.\n\n  Tzenticpac, i., 672, see Zentipac.\n\n  Tzequil, town, Central America, v., 69-70, 161.\n\n  Tzequiles, companions of Votan, iii., 452; v., 163, 187.\n\n  Tze Yaxkin, ii., 757, see Yaxkin.\n\n  Tziauhcohuac, province, Vera Cruz, v., 420.\n\n  Tzibe Pop, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Tzichu Mountains, v., 510.\n\n  Tzihuacohuatl (Tezihuaccoahuatl, Tzihuac-Cohuatl, Tziuhcoatl),\n    Nahua chief, v., 243.\n\n  Tzihuanga, v., 525, see Zwanga.\n\n  Tziminchac, Itza god, iii., 483.\n\n  Tzinacantepec, a city of Matlaltzinco, v., 433.\n\n  Tzinacantla (Tzinacantlan, Tzinacantan), town, Chiapas, i., 681;\n    v., 561, 605.\n\n  Tzincanoztoc, locality, Mexico, v., 378.\n\n  Tzinteotl (Tzinteutl), iii., 350, 354, see Centeotl.\n\n  Tzintzuntzan, city, Michoacan, ii., 107; antiq., iv., 569-70; v.,\n    508, 515-18, 524-5.\n\n  Tziquin, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767; Chiapanec hero, v.,\n    605.\n\n  Tziquinaha, Quich\u00e9 palace, ii., 644; Guatemalan tribe, hist., v.,\n    547, 549, 553.\n\n  Tziquin Gih, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Tzitzimitles, Nahua evil spirits, iii., 394.\n\n  Tzitzol, tribe of Guatemalans, i., 686-711; location, i., 787.\n\n  Tziuhcoatl, v., 243, see Tzihuacoatl.\n\n  Tziuhtecatl, Culhua king, v., 257, 330-1.\n\n  Tzizi Lagan, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Tzoalli (Tzoali), dough mixed with honey, ii., 321, 396; iii.,\n    323.\n\n  Tzocoyotl, cakes of flour and honey, ii., 279.\n\n  Tzolohche, ancient city, Guatemala, v., 587.\n\n  Tzolola, a Guatemalan lordship, v., 597.\n\n  Tzomes, Yucatan dogs, ii., 721.\n\n  Tzompahuacan, locality, Michoacan, i., 677; v., 412.\n\n  Tzompanco (Tzompan), locality, Mexico, ii., 473; v., 323-4, 329,\n    see Zumpango.\n\n  Tzompane, a Tlascaltec chief, v., 497-8.\n\n  Tzompantli, place of skulls, Mexico, ii., 320, 329, 585; v., 463.\n\n  Tzontecoma, an Acolhua chief, v., 303, 310-11.\n\n  Tzonpanco, v., 323-4, see Zumpango.\n\n  Tzontemoc, name for Mictlantecutli, iii., 396, 401; v., 90, 193.\n\n  Tzotziha Chamalcan, name for Chamalcan, v., 549.\n\n  Tzotziles, i., 681, see Zotziles.\n\n  Tzotzolan, city, Oajaca, v., 461.\n\n  Tzotzomatzin, lord of Coyuhuacan, v., 453.\n\n  Tzotzopaztli, a knife used in weaving, iii., 347.\n\n  Tzoz (Zoc, Zotz), Maya month, ii., 699, 757.\n\n  Tzumpanco, v., 323, see Zumpango.\n\n  Tzun, name of month, Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Tzuntecum, Mayapan lord, v., 626.\n\n  Tzununiha (Tzununi-ha), Quich\u00e9 third created woman, iii., 48; a\n    tribe of Ilocab, v., 555.\n\n  Tzuruya, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Tzutuha, a Guatemalan sacred stone, v., 559.\n\n  Tzutum, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Tzy, Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n\n  U\n\n  U, Maya month, ii., 756.\n\n  Uallik River, i., 140.\n\n  Uayab, Maya intercalary days, ii., 759.\n\n  Ubakheas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Ubus, i., 450, see Yulus.\n\n  U Cab Ligin Ga, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  U Cab Mam, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  U Cab Pach, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  U Cab Tzih, Quich\u00e9 month, ii., 766.\n\n  Ucaltas, i., 296, see Ucletas.\n\n  Ucas, i., 447, see Yukas.\n\n  Uchabaha, Guatemalan tribe, hist., v., 546, 561.\n\n  Uchidie, iii., 687, see Uchitis.\n\n  Uchitis (Uchidie, Uchitas, Uch\u00edti, Uchities, Utschitas, Utschiti,\n    Vchities, Veh\u00edtis), Lower Californian tribe, i., 556-71;\n    location, i., 603-4; lang., iii., 687-93.\n\n  Uchium, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Uchuch Camha, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 644.\n\n  Uchulta, i., 296, see Ucleta.\n\n  Uchum, Cakchiquel month, ii., 766.\n\n  Uclenus, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 296.\n\n  Ucletas (Ucaltas, Uchulta, Ucletahs, Ucultas, Yongletas,\n    Yougletats, Yucletahs, Yukletas), tribe of Nootkas, i.,\n    174-208; location, i., 175, 295-6; special mention, i., 208.\n\n  Ucurganti River, i., 796.\n\n  Ugalachmiuti, i., 96, see Ugalenzes.\n\n  Ugalenzes (Ugalachmiuti, Ugalenzi, Ugaljachmjuten, Ugalukmutes,\n    Ugalyachmutzi), tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i.,\n    96, 142.\n\n  Ugaljachmjuten (Ugalukmutes, Ugalyachmutzi), i., 96, see\n    Ugalenzes.\n\n  Ugnasiks, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Uhde Collection, of Mexican antiq., iv., 555.\n\n  Uinal, Maya month, ii., 756.\n\n  Uintahs (Uinta Utes, Uinta Yutas, Uwintys), i., 464, 469, see\n    Ewintes.\n\n  Uintah (Uinta) Valley, i., 464, 469.\n\n  Uitzes, Maya nation, hist., v., 626, 629, 633.\n\n  Ukas, i., 447, see Yukas.\n\n  Ukiah, town, Central California, i., 362.\n\n  Ukiahs (Ukias, Yokias, Yukai), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 362, 448; myth., iii., 524; lang., iii.,\n    643-4.\n\n  Ulaha\u00efl, locality, Guatemala, v., 583.\n\n  Ulh\u00e1ipa, Chinook demons, iii., 95.\n\n  Ulil, king of Izamal, v., 626.\n\n  Ullaa, Fox Island dwellings, i., 89.\n\n  Ulli, see India-rubber.\n\n  Ullulatas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 452.\n\n  Ulmecatl, Nahua chief, v., 223.\n\n  Ulmecs, iii., 724, see Olmecs.\n\n  Ulmil, Itza king, v., 626, 631.\n\n  Ulol, name of month, Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Ulseahs, i., 307, see Alseas.\n\n  Ulteteu, India-rubber idols, iii., 340.\n\n  Ulua, Central America, lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Ulucas (Uluka), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 363, 452; lang., iii., 650.\n\n  Ululato, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Ulung, Mosquito drink, i., 739.\n\n  U Luumil Cutz, U Luumil Ceb (Ulumil Cuz, Ethel Ceh), ancient name\n    of Yucatan, v., 614.\n\n  Umatilla (Umatallow) River, i., 319.\n\n  Umatillas (Utillas), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 319; special mention, i., 255, 260, 267.\n\n  Umetechtecomaiotilmatli, a court mantle, ii., 374.\n\n  Umiak, i., 60-1, see Oomiak.\n\n  Umkwas, i., 249, see Umpquas.\n\n  Umnak Island, i., 141; lang., iii., 579.\n\n  Umpin, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 453.\n\n  Umpqua Mountains, i., 222, 308.\n\n  Umpqua River, i., 150, 307-8, 442; lang., iii., 592.\n\n  Umpquas (Umkwas), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i.,\n    223, 307-8, 442; special mention, i., 234, 249, 344; lang.,\n    iii., 584, 592.\n\n  U na haab, Maya intercalary days, ii., 759.\n\n  Unakatanas (Yunakakhotanas), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 133, 147; special mention, i., 133.\n\n  Unalaklik River, i., 141.\n\n  Unalaschkaer, i., 141, see Unalaskans.\n\n  Unalaska Island (Nagun-alayeksa, Oonalashka, Oonalaska,\n    Ounalaska, Unalaschka, Unalashka), i., 37, 141.\n\n  Unalaskans (Unalaschkaer), tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location,\n    i., 87, 141; special mention, i., 61, 90; lang., iii., 577-9.\n\n  Unalga Island, i., 141.\n\n  Unalgas, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Undameo, city, Michoacan, v., 523.\n\n  Unga Island, i., 141.\n\n  Ungoweah Mountains, i., 468.\n\n  Unimak Island, i., 141.\n\n  Unjigah River, name for Peace River, i., 145.\n\n  Unkribikun, Mosquito eye-disease, i., 742.\n\n  Uo (Voo, Woo), Maya month, ii., 696, 757.\n\n  Upanguaymas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 605.\n\n  Upantzin, Otom\u00ed king, v., 319.\n\n  Upar, province, Darien, i., 796.\n\n  Upatsesatuch (Upatse Satuch), tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208;\n    location, i., 295, 298.\n\n  Uplegohs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 445.\n\n  Uqluxlatuch, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Uquincat, city, Guatemala, i., 789; v., 555, 573.\n\n  Uquitinac, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Urab\u00e1, province and tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i.,\n    795, 797; special mention, i., 761, 765, 785.\n\n  Urab\u00e1 Gulf, i., 797.\n\n  Urari, i., 763, see Curari.\n\n  Urebure, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Ures, village and river, Sonora, i., 601, 605-6.\n\n  Urine, uses of, i., 49, 83, 235, 559; ii., 599.\n\n  Urns, see Vases.\n\n  Urran, locality, Guatemala, i., 788.\n\n  Usal Creek, i., 362, 448.\n\n  Usals, i., 448, see Camal\u00e8l Pomos.\n\n  Usap, a poisonous herb, i., 541.\n\n  Uscapemes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Uskeemi, i., 41, see Eskimos.\n\n  Uspantan, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Usquemows, i., 116, see Eskimos.\n\n  Ussete, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Ustus, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 450.\n\n  Usumasinta (Usumacinta) River, i., 683, 786; v., 168-9, 186, 230.\n\n  Utah, tribes described, i., 422-42; location, i., 460-70; antiq.,\n    iv., 714-18, 729-34.\n\n  Utah Lake, i., 423, 464.\n\n  Utah Mountains, i., 465.\n\n  Utahs (Eutahs, Eutaws, Utaws, Utes, Youtas, Yutahs, Yutas), tribe\n    of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 422, 463-5; special\n    mention, i., 423-4, 430-2, 434, 440-1; myth., iii., 170; lang.,\n    iii., 660-2, 670-2.\n\n  Utalla River, i., 319.\n\n  Utalliam, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Utatl, a merchant's staff, iii., 416.\n\n  Utatlan (Gumarcaah), city, Guatemala, ii., 121, 637, 744, 788-9;\n    antiq., iv., 124-8; hist., v., 180, 186, 541, 544, 560, 563-7,\n    573, 576, 579-84, 587-96, 599, 601-2.\n\n  Utaws, i., 464, see Utahs.\n\n  Utensils, see Implements.\n\n  Uthlecan, i., 214, see Eulachon.\n\n  Utillas, i., 319, see Umatillas.\n\n  Ut\u00efu, a mythic personage, v., 182-4.\n\n  Utletecas, i., 788, see Quich\u00e9s.\n\n  Utschim, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Utschitas (Utshiti), iii., 687, see Uchitis.\n\n  Uturpe, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  U tuz kin, Maya intercalary days, ii., 759.\n\n  Utzam-Achih, Quich\u00e9 title, v., 589.\n\n  Uwintys, i., 464, see Ewintes.\n\n  Uxab, name for Pokomams, i., 788.\n\n  Uxmal, city, Yucatan, ii., 633; antiq., iv., 149-200, 267-77,\n    285; hist., v., 59, 630-4.\n\n  U yail haab, Maya intercalary days, ii., 759.\n\n  U yail kin, Maya intercalary days, ii., 759.\n\n  Uzilopuchtli, iii., 57, 195, see Huitzilopochtli.\n\n  Uzpanteca, Guatemala, lang., iii., 760.\n\n\n  V\n\n  Vacoregues, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 608;\n    lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Vagerpe, Central Californian tribe, i., 301-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Vahxaki-Caam, Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566, 594.\n\n  Vairubi, Sinaloan first man, iii., 83; v., 20.\n\n  Valdes Island, i., 181, 184, 206, 298.\n\n  Valientes, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 748,\n    794-5; special mention, i., 784; lang., iii., 783, 793.\n\n  Vallecito, California, antiq., iv., 704.\n\n  Valle de San Bartholome, Chihuahua, i., 610.\n\n  Valle de las Viejas, South California, i., 458.\n\n  Valley of Taos, New Mexico, i., 597.\n\n  Valum Votan, locality connected with Votan, v., 69.\n\n  Valverde, New Mexico, antiq., iv., 663.\n\n  Van\u00e1ceos, v., 511, see Wanacaces.\n\n  Vancoh, tribe of Guatemalans, i., 686-711; location, i., 789.\n\n  Vancouver Island, tribes described, i., 174-208;  names and\n    location of tribes, i., 151, 292, 295-8; special mention, i.,\n    175, 178, 182, 184; myth., iii., 130; lang., iii., 607-12, 631;\n    antiq., iv., 737.\n\n  Vandalism, see Iconoclasm.\n\n  Van Dusen's Fork, locality, Central California, i., 446.\n\n  Vanquech, a Californian temple, i., 405; iii., 166-7.\n\n  Vanta-Kutchin (Vantah-koo-chin, Vanta-Kutshi), tribe of Tinneh,\n    i., 114-37; location, i., 115, 146; lang., iii., 586.\n\n  Vaqueros, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 474.\n\n  Varogios, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609;\n    lang., iii., 707, 710-11.\n\n  Vasapalles, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Vases, ii., 573, 750-1, 787; iii., 352; antiq., iv., 25-7, 60,\n    72, 129-33, 236-9, 344-5, 372, 428-647 passim, 786, 793-6.\n\n  Vashon's (Vaston's) Island, i., 301.\n\n  Vaults, see Burial.\n\n  Vauquitamalqualiztli, Nahua feast, iii., 391.\n\n  Vchities, i., 604, see Uchitis.\n\n  Vebetlateca, Central America, lang., iii., 760.\n\n  V\u00e9ctaca, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Vecula, Nahua dance, ii., 338.\n\n  Veeards, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i., 446;\n    special mention, i., 336-7, 342, 345, 352.\n\n  Vegetables, i., 162, 214, 234, 430, 487-9, 577-8, 624-5, 652-3,\n    658; ii., 347, 719.\n\n  Veh, name of month, Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Veh\u00edtis, i., 558, see Uchitis.\n\n  Veitioacan, name for Teotihuacan, iv., 529.\n\n  Veitozoztli, iii., 421, see Hueytozoztli.\n\n  Venado, see Cerro del Venado.\n\n  Venados, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Venereal Disease, i., 86, 204, 246, 354, 394, 419, 439, 521, 554,\n    568, 588, 638, 778; ii., 594, 599, 794-5.\n\n  Venison, see Deer.\n\n  Venus, Nahua worship of, ii., 585; iii., 113.\n\n  Vera Cruz, tribes described, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629; location\n    and names, i., 674-6; ii., 112; special mention, i., 618, 624,\n    631, 635, 643; ii., 629; lang., iii., 737, 759, 776; v., 207;\n    antiq., iv., 425-63; hist., v., 203, 207-8, 239, 442, 621.\n\n  Veragua, province, Darien, i., 756-7, 769, 784, 796; antiq., iv.,\n    15, 17, 19.\n\n  Vera Paz, province, Guatemala, i., 682-3, 710, 786-8; ii., 651,\n    655-6, 674-7; lang., iii., 760; antiq., iv., 130-2; hist., v.,\n    349, 472-3, 544, 556-8, 561-2, 612.\n\n  Vermin, i., 188, 377, 576, 654, 721, 743; ii., 234-5.\n\n  Vesnacks (Veshanacks), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 450.\n\n  Vestals, ii., 245, 647; iii., 473.\n\n  Vetzinco, iii., 248, see Chapultepecuitlapilco.\n\n  Veutelolotli, dough offerings, iii., 336.\n\n  Vevequauhtitlan, locality, Mexico, iii., 252.\n\n  Vevetl, a kettledrum, iii., 63.\n\n  Viceitas, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 795.\n\n  Vichilopuchitl, iii., 323, see Huitzilopochtli.\n\n  Vicilapan, locality, Puebla, i., 671.\n\n  Victoria, town, British Columbia, i., 167, 297.\n\n  Villages, see Dwellings.\n\n  Vinak-Bam, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., 567.\n\n  Vinland, name for North-east America, v., 107-8.\n\n  Vinni ettinenne, Apache tribal name, i., 474; iii., 594.\n\n  Vipilli, i., 650, see Huipil.\n\n  Viracocha (Ticeuiracocha, Ticeviracocha), Peruvian god, v., 23.\n\n  Virgen River, i., 464, 468.\n\n  Virginia city, Nevada, i., 469.\n\n  Virginity, marriage, i., 632; ii., 260-1, 670.\n\n  Viriseva, Sinaloan goddess, iii., 83; v., 20.\n\n  Visits, of ceremony, i., 68, 84, 169, 519, 708.\n\n  Vitalata, town, Guerrero, i., 677.\n\n  Vitziliputzli (Vitzilopuchtli), ii., 603; iii., 288, see\n    Huitzilopochtli.\n\n  Vixachtlan (Huixachtla), locality, Mexico, iii., 393.\n\n  Vixtocioatl, Nahua goddess, iii., 369.\n\n  Vixtoti, Central Mexican tribe, i., 617-44; location, i., 671.\n\n  Vizilipuztli, iii., 192, see Huitzilopochtli.\n\n  Vizliputzli, iii., 306, see Huitzilopochtli.\n\n  Voc, messenger of Hurakan, v., 174, 177.\n\n  Vocarros, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Volvon (Bolbon, Bulbon), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 453.\n\n  Voo, ii., 757, see Uo.\n\n  Votan, Maya god, ii., 117, 631-2, 638, 647, 716, 770; iii.,\n    450-4; v., 27-8, 69-70, 159-65, 225, 231, 604-5, 618-9.\n\n  Votan, Tzendal day, ii., 767.\n\n  Vows, Nahuas, ii., 309, 431-2.\n\n  Voyages, to America by Ph\u0153nicians, v., 65-8; by Northmen, v.,\n    102-15; by Welshmen, v., 116-8; see also Exploration.\n\n  Vucubatz, Cakchiquel king, v., 592-3.\n\n  Vucub-Noh, v., 595, 599, see Vukub-Noh.\n\n  Vukab Hun Ahpu (Vucub Hunahpu, Vukub Hunahpu), Quich\u00e9 god, iii.,\n    478-80; v., 174-80, 544.\n\n  Vukub-Ah, Quich\u00e9 prince, v., 567.\n\n  Vukub Cakix, Quich\u00e9 god and Xibalban king, iii., 480; v., 172,\n    184, 187.\n\n  Vukub Came, Xibalban king, v., 175-80, 184.\n\n  Vukub-Noh (Vucub-Noh), Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566, 595, 599.\n\n  Vule Puyas, i., 310, see Calapooyas.\n\n  Vulture, myth., iii., 67, 129.\n\n\n  W\n\n  Waadda, i., 302, see Neah Bay.\n\n  Waakiacums (Waakicums), i., 304, 307, see Wakiakums.\n\n  Wabi, i., 680, see Huaves.\n\n  Wac, name for Tuparan, iii., 169.\n\n  Wacalamus, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 304;\n    lang., iii., 626.\n\n  Waches Notoowthas, i., 456, see Watches.\n\n  Wacomeapps, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309.\n\n  Wahclellahs, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Wahkiacums (Wahkiakume, Wahkyekum), i., 304, 307, see Wakiakums.\n\n  Wahoma, village, South California, i., 460.\n\n  Wahowpums, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 319;\n    special mention, i., 281.\n\n  Wahsatch Mountains, i., 323.\n\n  Wahsherrs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    444.\n\n  Waicuros, iii., 687, see Guaicuris.\n\n  Waiilatpus (Waiilaptus, Willetpoos), Inland Columbian tribe, i.,\n    250-91; location, i., 316, 319; lang., iii., 625.\n\n  Waiknas, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 712-47; location, i., 713.\n\n  Waikur, iii., 687, see Guaicuri.\n\n  Waisko-dusa, Mosquito Harpoon, i., 719.\n\n  Wajuomnes, i., 450, see Wapoomnes.\n\n  Wak\u00e2lla, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Wakalumy, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Wakalumytoh, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 456.\n\n  Wakamass, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Wakiakums (Waakiacum, Waakicum, Wahkiacum, Wahkiakume, Wahkyekum,\n    Wak\u00e1iakum, Wakaikum, Wakaikam), tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50;\n    location, i., 223, 304, 307; lang., iii., 626.\n\n  Walagumnes (Walacumnies), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Walawaltz, i., 318, see Walla Wallas.\n\n  Walckhe, grave at San Luis Obispo, California, antiq., iv., 692.\n\n  Walhalla, i., 362, see Gualala.\n\n  Walhamette, i., 305, see Willamette.\n\n  Walker Lake, i., 466.\n\n  Walker River, i., 464, 466.\n\n  Wallalla, i., 449, see Gualala.\n\n  Wallamat (Wallamette), i., 224, 309, see Willamette.\n\n  Wallanmai, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Wallas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455; special mention, i., 393, 398.\n\n  Wallalshimmez, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 455.\n\n  Wallaumut, i., 309, see Willamette.\n\n  Walla Wallas (Oualla-Ouallas, Walawaltz, Wallah Wallahs,\n    Walla-wallahs, Walla Wallapums, Walla Walle, Wollaolla,\n    Wollawalla, Wollaw Wollahs), Inland Columbian tribe, i.,\n    250-91; location, i., 253, 318-19; special mention, i., 255-8,\n    260, 262, 266, 271-4, 278-81, 287-9;  myth., iii., 95, 156;\n    lang., iii., 620-4.\n\n  Walla Walla River, i., 253, 318-19.\n\n  Walla Walla Valley, i., 319.\n\n  Walla Walloo, i., 327, 446, see Weeyots.\n\n  Wallies (Wallas), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location,\n    i., 327, 446, 455; special mention, i., 328, 343.\n\n  Wallpays, i., 478, see Hualapais.\n\n  Walrus, i., 50, 59.\n\n  Wanacaces (Van\u00e1ceos), Chichimec invaders of Michoacan, hist., v.,\n    511-16.\n\n  Wankanaga, Shoshone god, iii., 94.\n\n  Wankees, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; special mention, i.,\n    726.\n\n  Wanks (Wanx) River, i., 793-4.\n\n  Wanlish, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 296.\n\n  Wanuswegock, evil spirit, Trinity River tribes, iii., 176.\n\n  Wanwanwis, name for Des Chutes, i., 319.\n\n  Wanx, i., 794, see Wanks.\n\n  Wapato, root used as food, i., 234.\n\n  Wapeani, a Chichimec Wanacace ruler, v., 515, 518-22.\n\n  Wapoomnes (Wajuomnes), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 450.\n\n  Wapos, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 362,\n    452; lang., iii., 648.\n\n  Wappeckquemow, god of Trinity River tribes, iii., 175-6.\n\n  Wapticacoes River, i., 317.\n\n  War, Hyperboreans, i., 91, 105-6, 113, 129-30; Columbians,\n    i., 160, 164, 180-1, 188-90, 194, 215, 235-6, 268-70, 275;\n    Californians, i., 343-4, 381, 407, 433-4; New Mexicans, i.,\n    496-500, 542-3, 562-3, 579-82, 586; Mexicans, i., 628-9, 655;\n    ii., 399-432, 616-18; iii., 206-10, 364, 399, 532-3; v., 250,\n    263, 279-84, 290-4, 302-535 passim; Central Americans, i.,\n    696-7, 723, 763-5; ii., 645, 654, 662, 707-8, 734, 739-47;\n    iii., 53; v., 551-613 passim.\n\n  Wararereeks, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; special mention, i.,\n    431.\n\n  Wasakshes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Wascopam, name of Wasco country, i., 319.\n\n  Wascos (Wascopams), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location\n    and name, i., 254, 319-20; special mention, i., 258, 271, 287,\n    289, 291.\n\n  Washakeeks, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 463.\n\n  Washington County, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 770.\n\n  Washington Territory, tribes described, i., 208-91; location, i.,\n    298-321; myth., iii., 94-8, 153-7, 519-20; lang., iii., 615-34;\n    antiq., iv., 735-6.\n\n  Washoe, city, Nevada, i., 469.\n\n  Washoes, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 422,\n    468-9; special mention, i., 440-1; lang., iii., 661.\n\n  Wasoricuare, Michoacan god, v., 512.\n\n  Wasps, as allies of Quich\u00e9s, v., 551.\n\n  Watarecha, Tarasco priests, iii., 447.\n\n  Watches (Waches Notoowthas), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 455-6.\n\n  Water, various uses, etc., i., 103, 172, 188, 190, 204, 216, 708;\n    ii., 601, 604, 611, 614; iii., 80, 101-3, 119-20, 129, 171,\n    367-76.\n\n  Water-fowl, see Wild-fowl.\n\n  Watlalas, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 223,\n    304-5.\n\n  Watsahewahs (Watsahewas), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 447; lang., iii., 642.\n\n  Wattokes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Wauhtecq, village, North California, i., 444.\n\n  Wawa River, i., 794.\n\n  Wayameo, capital of Chichimec Wanacaces, v., 514.\n\n  Wayleeway River, i., 317, 319.\n\n  Wayyampas, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 317.\n\n  Wealth, see Property.\n\n  Weapons, Hyperboreans, i., 58-9, 79, 86, 90, 104-5, 119;\n    Columbians, i., 164, 188, 235, 268; Californians, i., 341-3,\n    377-9, 407, 431-3; New Mexicans, i., 493-6, 541-2, 562, 578-9;\n    iii., 180; Mexicans, i., 627-8, 655; ii., 406-11, 475, 618,\n    622; iii., 404; iv., 372; Central Americans, i., 696, 722-3,\n    760-3; ii., 741-3; iv., 18-20, 58-60, 127, 278; Mississippi\n    Valley, antiq., iv., 781.\n\n  Weaving, i., 165, 502-4, 657, 698-9, 724, 766-7; ii., 245, 484-5,\n    752.\n\n  Weber Utes, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 469;\n    special mention, i., 441.\n\n  Weber Valley, i., 469.\n\n  Wechummies, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Wedding, see Marriage.\n\n  Wedges, i., 182, 184, 189, 211, 270, 434.\n\n  Weekemoch, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 294.\n\n  Weetletoch, i., 294, see Weitletoch.\n\n  Weeyots (Walla-Walloos, Weyots), North Californian tribe, i.,\n    326-61; location, i., 327, 446; special mention, i., 329-30,\n    351; lang., iii., 642.\n\n  Weht'lquas, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    444.\n\n  Weights, Nahua commerce, ii., 382-3.\n\n  Weirs, for fishing, i., 129, 162, 168, 262, 337-9, 429, 720.\n\n  Weitletochs (Weetletochs), tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74;\n    location, i., 294.\n\n  Weitspeks (Witspuks), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 444-5; lang., iii., 642.\n\n  Wells, see Reservoirs.\n\n  Welsh, language traces, iii., 705; American origin traces, v.,\n    116-21.\n\n  Wemenuche (Weminuche) Utes, i., 470, see Wimmenuches.\n\n  Wenass River, i., 320.\n\n  Weohows, i., 446, see Shastas.\n\n  Wesselowskojes, tribe of Aleuts, i., 87-94; location, i., 141.\n\n  Wewarkka, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Wewarkkum, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Weyehhoos, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 321.\n\n  Weyots, i., 446, see Weeyots.\n\n  Whaillahay, Navajo god, iii., 171.\n\n  Whales, various uses, etc., i., 49, 51, 54-5, 60-2, 73-6, 79, 90,\n    103, 166, 179-81, 185-8, 213-14, 233, 376, 405.\n\n  Whale's Head, locality, North California, i., 443.\n\n  Wharhoots, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 305.\n\n  Whatcom Lake, i., 299.\n\n  Wheat, i., 538, 586, 652.\n\n  Wheelcuttas, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    446; lang., iii., 643.\n\n  Wheelpo, i., 313, see Chaudi\u00e8res.\n\n  Whidbey Island, i., 208, 212, 299, see Whitby's Island.\n\n  Whinegas, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i., 142.\n\n  Whiskers, see Beard.\n\n  Whisky, i., 169, 188.\n\n  Whiskkahs, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 303.\n\n  Whistles, i., 393, 774; ii., 292, 713, 787; iv., 19.\n\n  Whitby's (Whidbey) Island, i., 208, 212, 296, 299.\n\n  White Knives, i., 469, see Tosawees.\n\n  White Man's Island, iii., 153, see Samahtumiwhoolah.\n\n  White Mountains, i., 464, 593.\n\n  White River, i., 300, 464.\n\n  Whulwhypums, i., 321, see Kliketats.\n\n  Whyelkine, food of Inland Columbian tribes, i., 265.\n\n  Wicananish, i., 295, see Wickinninish.\n\n  Wichaana, Zapotec god, iii., 449.\n\n  Wickanninish, i., 296, see Wickinninish.\n\n  Wickinninish (Wicananish, Wickanninish), tribe of Nootkas, i.,\n    174-208; location, i., 297; special mention, i., 178.\n\n  Wickinninish Islands, i., 296.\n\n  Widows, i., 125-6, 169, 173, 277-8, 357, 385, 515, 555, 730-1,\n    744, 781-3; ii., 251, 466, 668, 671; iii., 154.\n\n  Wihinashts, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 462;\n    lang., iii., 660-3, 672.\n\n  Wihwin, Mosquito evil spirit, iii., 497.\n\n  Wikachumnis, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 456.\n\n  Wi-Lackees (Wye Lakees, Wylaks), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 442, 451.\n\n  Wilapah (Whilapah) River, i., 303, 305.\n\n  Wilapahs (Whilapahs, Willopahs), tribe of Sound Indians, i.,\n    208-22; location, i., 303, 305.\n\n  Wild-fowl, i., 56, 233-4, 264, 367, 375, 406.\n\n  Willamette River (Walhamette, Wallamat, Wallamette, Wallaumut,\n    Willamettee), i., 223, 227, 231, 309-10; lang., iii., 630.\n\n  Willamette Valley, i., 223, 225-6, 232, 240, 308-9, 320.\n\n  Willetpoos, i., 319, see Waiilatpus.\n\n  Willewah River, i., 319.\n\n  Willewahs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 319.\n\n  William Lake, iii., 613.\n\n  Willopahs, i., 305, see Wilapahs.\n\n  Willow, various uses, i., 51, 79, 130, 215, 259-60, 270, 337,\n    371, 382, 429, 434, 481, 494, 517, 533, 541, 543, 589; ii.,\n    145.\n\n  Wimmenuches (Wemenuche, Weminuche Utes, Womenunche), tribe of\n    Shoshones, i., 422-42;  location, i., 469-70.\n\n  Winnas, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 463.\n\n  Wintoons, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location and\n    lang., iii., 640-1.\n\n  Wiriu Quarampejo, forest, Michoacan, v., 511.\n\n  Wisconsin, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 770.\n\n  Wishhams (Wisswhams), Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91;\n    location, i., 320.\n\n  Wishosk, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location and name,\n    i., 327, 446; lang., iii., 642.\n\n  Wishtenatins (Wishtanatans), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 442-3.\n\n  Wisscopams, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    317.\n\n  Wisswhams, i., 317, see Wishhams.\n\n  Witches, see Sorcerers.\n\n  Witchita Mountains, i., 592.\n\n  Witnesses, government, ii., 443-5, 464-5, 656.\n\n  Witspuks, i., 445, see Weitspeks.\n\n  Wives, see Marriage and Women.\n\n  Wixepecocha (Wixipecocha), Zapotec apostle, ii., 209-10; iii.,\n    455; iv., 372; v., 23, 528-9.\n\n  Wiyana, order of priests, ii., 212.\n\n  Wiyatao (Huijatoo), Zapotec pontiff, ii., 143, 209; v., 529.\n\n  Wizaechi, order of priests, ii., 212.\n\n  Wizards, see Sorcerers.\n\n  Wocus, an aquatic plant, i., 340.\n\n  Wolves, i., 109, 182, 258, 284, 330, 424; iii., 80.\n\n  Wollaolla (Wollawalla, Wollaw Wollah), i., 318, see Walla-Wallas.\n\n  Women, Hyperboreans, i., 65-6, 81-3, 92, 109-11, 117-18, 121,\n    123, 131-3; Columbians, i., 163, 167-9, 177-8, 181-3, 186, 189,\n    195-8, 218-19, 241-3, 277-9; Californians, i., 328-9, 343, 347,\n    349-51, 355, 385, 388-93, 436-7; iii., 159; New Mexicans, i.,\n    511-15, 547-9, 565-6, 584-6; iii., 78; Mexicans, i., 632-5,\n    661-4; ii., 245-7, 266-81, 354, 460-1, 616; iii., 59-60, 63,\n    359, 362-7, 394, 435-6, 533; Central Americans, i., 702-4,\n    729-34, 772-4; ii., 635, 664-86, 711-13, 728-30, 733, 737,\n    802-3; iii., 48, 74.\n\n  Womenunches, i., 466, see Wimmenuches.\n\n  Wonagan, i., 292, see Houaguan.\n\n  Woo, ii., 757, see Uo.\n\n  Wood, various uses of, i., 52, 88, 91, 106, 333, 368-9, 631, 649,\n    717, 722, 766; ii., 407-8, 482, 742, 750-1; iv., 269-70.\n\n  Woodpecker, i., 331, 347, 368.\n\n  Wood's Creek, California, antiq., iv., 701.\n\n  Wookaok, Ah-Tziquinihayi ruler, v., 596, 598-9.\n\n  Wool, various uses, i., 100, 107, 191, 502-4, 544, 620-1, 630,\n    648.\n\n  Woolsaw, iii., 497, see Wulasha.\n\n  Woolwas, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 712;\n    special mention, i., 714-15, 722, 731-2, 737, 741, 745; lang.,\n    iii., 783.\n\n  Woorali, Isthmian poison, i., 763.\n\n  Woowells, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    363, 455.\n\n  Worms, use of, i., 374, 488, 560-1, 576, 638, 742; ii., 600, 795.\n\n  Wounds, cure of, i., 521, 588-9, 638; ii., 599-600, 795.\n\n  Wright Lake, i., 444.\n\n  Writing, see Hieroglyphics.\n\n  Wulasha (Oulasser, Woolsaw), Mosquito evil spirit, i., 740; iii.,\n    497.\n\n  Wyampams, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 306.\n\n  Wyatch River, i., 303.\n\n  Wychus Creek, Oregon, antiq., iv., 734.\n\n  Wyeilats, i., 254, see Cayuse.\n\n  Wynooches, tribe of Sound Indians, i., 208-22; location, i., 303.\n\n\n  X\n\n  Xacxam, a species of palm, ii., 722.\n\n  Xagua, a dye plant, ii., 371.\n\n  Xalanaj, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Xalatlauhco, city, Matlaltzinco, i., 677; v., 433.\n\n  Xalisco, station, Toltec migration, v., 212; see also Jalisco.\n\n  Xalliteuctli, a Chichimec leader, v., 280.\n\n  Xalou, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Xalpan, locality, Vera Cruz, v., 492.\n\n  Xalpan y Pontepec, Totonac dialect, iii., 777.\n\n  Xaltaianquizco, locality, Mexico, v., 472.\n\n  Xaltelulco, v., 357, see Tlatelulco.\n\n  Xaltemoc, lord of Quauhtitlan, v., 369, 372.\n\n  Xaltepec, Miztec dialect, iii., 749; Mije city, v., 532.\n\n  Xaltepetlapan, locality, Puebla, v., 490.\n\n  Xaltepozauhcan, station, Aztec migration, v., 324.\n\n  Xaltocan, city, Mexico, ii., 104; v., 284, 294, 311, 320, 323,\n    331, 334, 347-8.\n\n  Xampon, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 211-12.\n\n  Xan, a mythical animal, v., 178.\n\n  Xanambres, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 572.\n\n  Xaoalquauhiotilmatlitenisio, a court mantle, ii., 374.\n\n  Xaracuero, island, Michoacan, v., 519, 522.\n\n  Xaratanga, Tarasco goddess, iii., 445-6; v., 517.\n\n  Xaseum, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Xayacamachan (Xayacamachantzompane), a Tlascaltec noble, v.,\n    497-8.\n\n  Xbakiyalo, Quich\u00e9 goddess, iii., 479; v., 174.\n\n  Xbalanque, Quich\u00e9 god, iii., 479; v., 172-80, 184-7, 544-6, 560.\n\n  Xcanchakan, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 240.\n\n  Xchanibalvinquil, name of month, Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Xchibalvinquil, name of month, Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Xchmel, Guatemalan god, iii., 74.\n\n  Xcoch, pyramid, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 201.\n\n  Xco=c=poop, ruins at Kabah, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 206.\n\n  Xebalax, ancient city, Guatemala, v., 589.\n\n  Xecamac, ancient city, Guatemala, v., 589.\n\n  Xecotcovach, Quich\u00e9 mythic bird, iii., 47.\n\n  Xelahuh, ancient city, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 124; v., 585, 587,\n    591, 602.\n\n  Xelhua, a legendary giant and Nahua chief, iii., 67-8; v., 200,\n    223, 484.\n\n  Xelitla, locality, Mexico, i., 675.\n\n  Xeocok (Xokoc), Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Xerez de Choluteca, locality, Guatemala, lang., iii., 760.\n\n  Xet, an Ahquehayi chief, v., 564.\n\n  Xetaco, a Chichimec Wanacace prince, v., 522.\n\n  Xexulpituc, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    459.\n\n  Xhembobel-Moyos, name for Palenque, iv., 295.\n\n  Xibalba, Maya evil spirit, iii., 467; Quich\u00e9 hell, iii., 542;\n    ancient Central American empire, iii., 478-9; iv., 295; hist.,\n    v., 174-88, 231, 539, 543-7, 555, 560-2, 581-2, 618-19, 621,\n    623.\n\n  Xicalancas, Nahua nation, i., 617-71, ii., 133-629; location and\n    name, i., 671; ii., 112, 132; special mention, ii., 343, 379;\n    lang., iii., 724; hist., v., 195-202, 239, 488, 527, 616, 621,\n    632.\n\n  Xicalancatl, Xicalanco ruler, v., 196, 223.\n\n  Xicalanco, town, Vera Cruz, i., 671; antiq., iv., 434; v., 196.\n\n  Xicales (Xicalli), cups or vessels made of gourds, ii., 177, 484.\n\n  Xicapoya (Xipacoya, Xiuhpacoya), locality, Mexico, iii., 241,\n    256.\n\n  Xicaques, tribe of Mosquitos, i., 711-47; location, i., 712,\n    792-3; special mention, i., 715, 720, 722, 728, 746.\n\n  Xicarillas (Jicarillas, Jicorillas), tribe of Apaches, i.,\n    473-526; location, i., 594-5; special mention, i., 490, 504-5,\n    511.\n\n  Xicayan, town, Oajaca, i., 677.\n\n  Xico Island, Lake Chalco, Mexico, antiq., iv., 500; hist., v.,\n    284.\n\n  Xicochimalco, v., 492, see Xochimilco.\n\n  Xicocoges, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Xicolli, priest's badge, ii., 207; iii., 335.\n\n  Xicotencatl, a Tlascaltec noble, v., 414-15, 498, 503.\n\n  Xicotepec, locality, Puebla, ii., 441; antiq., iv., 479.\n\n  Xicuintla, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 445.\n\n  Xihuilpopoca, lord of Zacatlan, v., 349.\n\n  Xihuiltemoc, Culhua king, v., 330-1, 338-9; lord of Xochimilco,\n    v., 432.\n\n  Xihuitl, Mexican year, ii., 504-5, 510.\n\n  Xijames, i., 611, see Xiximes.\n\n  Xila, i., 601, see Gila.\n\n  Xile\u00f1os, iii., 685, see Gile\u00f1os.\n\n  Xilomanaliztli, Nahua month, ii., 509; iii., 419-20.\n\n  Xilonen, name for Centeotl, ii., 326; iii., 350, 359.\n\n  Xiloquetzin, a Chimalpanec chief, v., 338.\n\n  Xilotepec (Xilotepeque), i., 673, 787, see Jiloltepec.\n\n  Xilotl, an ear of corn, ii., 326.\n\n  Xilotzin, a Toltec prince, v., 285.\n\n  Xiloxuchitla, locality, Tlascala, i., 671; v., 504.\n\n  Xipacoya, iii., 241, see Xicapoya.\n\n  Xipe (Totec, Xipetotec), Nahua god, ii., 306-12, 457, 478; iii.,\n    411-15.\n\n  Xipeme, flayed sacrificial victims, ii., 309.\n\n  Xipetotec, iii., 411, see Xipe.\n\n  Xiquipilas, Chiapas, antiq., iv., 353.\n\n  Xiquipilco (Xiquilpo), a city of Matlaltzinco, i., 673-4; hist.,\n    v., 433.\n\n  Xiquipilli, term to express 8000, ii., 382, 425.\n\n  Xiquitzal, a Cakchiquel king, v., 590.\n\n  Xiripa, village, Sonora, i., 606.\n\n  Xitayul-Hax, name for Iztayul II., v., 583.\n\n  Xitzin (Ecitin), a Toltec chief, v., 297.\n\n  Xiuchtimatl, v., 299, see Xiuhtemoc.\n\n  Xiuhguzaltzin, a Tlascaltec noble, v., 497.\n\n  Xiuhmolpilli (Xiuhmolpia, Xiuhtlalpilli), Nahua cycle, ii., 140,\n    341, 505-7; iii., 393.\n\n  Xiuhnel, Toltec king, v., 242, 249.\n\n  Xiuhnenetl, baptismal name, ii., 275.\n\n  Xiuhpacoya, iii., 256, see Xicapoya.\n\n  Xiuhpopoca, a Toltec prince, v., 297.\n\n  Xiuhquentzin, v., 265, see Xiuhtlaltzin.\n\n  Xiuhquetzaltzin, an Acolhua prince, v., 332, 496.\n\n  Xiuhquilitl (Xiuhquilipitzahuac), a dye plant, ii., 370, 486.\n\n  Xiuhtecutli (Huehueteotl, Xiuhteucy\u00f2hua), Nahua god, ii., 285,\n    329-30, 338, 516; iii., 114, 385-91.\n\n  Xiuhtemal (Jiuhtemal, Jiutemal), Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566, 577-9.\n\n  Xiuhtemoc (Xiuchtimatl, Xiuhthemal), a Toltec noble, v., 286,\n    299-300; king of Culhuacan, v., 344, 496.\n\n  Xiuhtemoctzin, Toltec king, v., 257, 331.\n\n  Xiuhtenancaltzin (Xiuhtenan), a Toltec noble, v., 272, 277.\n\n  Xiuhtepec, city, Mexico, v., 406.\n\n  Xiuhthemal, v., 299, see Xiuhtemoc.\n\n  Xiuhtilmatli, a court mantle, ii., 374.\n\n  Xiuhtlalpilli, girdles, ii., 396.\n\n  Xiuhtlaltzin (Xiuhquentzin, Xiuhtzaltzin, Xiuhzaltzin,\n    Xiuliquentzin), Toltec queen, v., 265.\n\n  Xiuhtlapohualli, year circle, ii., 508.\n\n  Xiuhtlehui, Huexotzinco prince, v., 492.\n\n  Xiuhtomoltetl, a medicinal stone, ii., 600.\n\n  Xiuhtototl, a mythic bird, iii., 241.\n\n  Xiuhtzaltzin (Xiuhzaltzin), v., 265, see Xiuhtlaltzin.\n\n  Xiuliquentzin, v., 265, see Xiuhtlaltzin.\n\n  Xiximes (Xijames), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i.,\n    572, 614; lang., iii., 718.\n\n  Xixiquipilihui, name for Chalchihuitlicue, iii., 367.\n\n  Xma Kaba Kin, Maya intercalary days, ii., 759.\n\n  Xmucane, Quich\u00e9 goddess, ii., 717, 723; iii., 474; v., 170,\n    174-80.\n\n  Xocen, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 236.\n\n  Xochetecatl, sacrifice to Tlaloc, iii., 345.\n\n  Xochicalco, Mexico, antiq., iv., 483-94; v., 265.\n\n  Xochilhuitl, flower festival, iii., 407.\n\n  Xochimanqui (Sochimanque, Xochimanques), flower dealers, ii.,\n    315; iii., 420.\n\n  Xochimilcas (Suchimilcos), Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii.,\n    133-629; location, i., 675; name, ii., 132; lang., iii., 725;\n    hist., v., 307-9, 341-2, 405-6, 492.\n\n  Xochimilco (Xicochimalco), Mexico, antiq., iv., 497-9; hist., v.,\n    307-9, 341-2, 405-6, 492.\n\n  Xochiocotzotl, liquid amber, ii., 287.\n\n  Xochipalli, a dye plant, ii., 487.\n\n  Xochipantzin (Texochipantzin), a Toltec princess, v., 301.\n\n  Xochiquetzal, Tlascalan goddess; ii., 336-7; iii., 66-8, 377; v.,\n    13; a Chichimec prince, v., 450-1.\n\n  Xochitecatl, Tlascalan goddess, ii., 336-7; antiq., iv., 477.\n\n  Xochitl, Nahua day, ii., 512, 516-17; a Mexican general, v., 476.\n\n  Xochitl (Quetzalxochitzin), a Toltec princess, v., 269-70, 283-4.\n\n  Xochitla, locality, Mexico, iii., 248.\n\n  Xochitlalpan, town, Mexico, v., 284.\n\n  Xochitlycacan, abode of Aztec Venus, iii., 377.\n\n  Xochitzin, a Toltec princess, v., 250.\n\n  Xocok, iv., 131, see Xeocok.\n\n  Xoconochco, i., 680, see Soconusco.\n\n  Xocotamalli, small pies, iii., 360.\n\n  Xocotitlan (Xocotlan), suburb of Mexico city, i., 676; ii., 560;\n     early Toltec settlement, v., 243.\n\n  Xocotl, a festival tree, iii., 386.\n\n  Xocotlhuetzin, Nahua month, ii., 329, 510, 618; iii., 508-9.\n\n  Xocotlvetzi, Nahua religious feast, iii., 386.\n\n  Xocotoc (Cojo, Cojotoc), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22;\n    location, i., 458.\n\n  Xocuauhtli (Xoquauchtli), a festival character, iii., 354.\n\n  Xohualatonac, v., 331, see Yohuallatonac.\n\n  Xolabah, i., 789, see Xoyabah.\n\n  Xolacul, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Xoloc (Xolotl), city, Mexico, v., 294.\n\n  Xolotl, Nahua god, iii., 59, 61; Chichimec king, v., 219, 289-96;\n    see also Xoloc.\n\n  Xolotl II., Chichimec king, v., 296-319.\n\n  Xolotlan, locality, Nicaragua, i., 792.\n\n  Xomocuil, Nahua god, iii., 416.\n\n  Xonacatepec, Mexico, antiq., iv., 495.\n\n  Xongopavi, i., 601, see Xougopavi.\n\n  Xoquauchtli, iii., 354, see Xocuauhtli.\n\n  Xougopavi (Jongoapi, Shungopawe, Xongopavi), Moqui village, i.,\n    600-1.\n\n  Xoyabah (Xolabah) Mountains, i., 789.\n\n  Xozintun, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Xpiyacoc, Quich\u00e9 god, iii., 474; v., 170, 174.\n\n  Xpuch, a Guatemalan princess, v., 550-1.\n\n  Xquiq, Quich\u00e9 princess, iii., 478-9; v., 175-6, 545.\n\n  Xtah, a Guatemalan princess, v., 550-1.\n\n  Xtayub, Quich\u00e9 king, v., 566.\n\n  Xtmana, Guatemalan princess, iii., 74.\n\n  Xttamer-Zaquentol, Cakchiquel king, v., 583.\n\n  Xubabal, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Xubiltenam, city, Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Xuchicalli, Nahua bath, ii., 268.\n\n  Xuchicaltzin, Nahua god, ii., 268.\n\n  Xuchicaoaca, a Nahua prophet, v., 190.\n\n  Xuchiltepec, province, Guatemala, v., 447.\n\n  Xuchiltepecs, Guatemalan tribe, hist., v., 606-7, 612.\n\n  Xuchipilas, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; lang., iii.,\n    719.\n\n  Xuchipiltepetl, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 575.\n\n  Xuchitepec, town, Mexico, v., 429, 471.\n\n  Xuchu-Cuet (Xuch-ucuet), a Mayapan lord, v., 626.\n\n  Xucotsi, name for Tlazolteotl, iii., 380.\n\n  Xucu (Shucu), South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i.,\n    458.\n\n  Xul, Maya month, ii., 699, 757.\n\n  Xul, village, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 218-19.\n\n  Xulos, Nicaraguan dogs, ii., 721.\n\n  Xulpiti, locality, South-east Mexico, v., 562.\n\n  Xulu, Quich\u00e9 god, v., 179.\n\n  Xumiltepec, ancient Toltec capital, v., 190.\n\n\n  Y\n\n  Yaat, an herb used to allay hunger, ii., 722, 745.\n\n  Yabacoh, tribe of Guatemalans, i., 687-711; location, i., 789.\n\n  Yabalan (Yahalan), Chiapanec god, iii., 458.\n\n  Yabipais, i., 475, see Yampais.\n\n  Yacacoliuhqui, iii., 416, see Iyacatecuhtli.\n\n  Yacahualiuqui, Nahua breech-cloth, ii., 375.\n\n  Yacanex (Ixcazozolot, Yacatzotzoloc, Yacazozolotl, Yanex), a\n    Chichimec noble, v., 317-18.\n\n  Yacapichtla, city, South-west Mexico, v., 412.\n\n  Yacapitzaoac, Nahua god, iii., 416.\n\n  Yacatecutli, ii., 338, see Iyacatecuhtli.\n\n  Yacatzotzoloc, v., 317, see Yacanex.\n\n  Yacazozolotl, v., 317, see Yacanex.\n\n  Yach\u00e1, iv., 134, see Yaxhaa.\n\n  Yachachumnes (Yachichumnes), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 363, 450, 452.\n\n  Yachimeses, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    452.\n\n  Yackamans, i., 320, see Yakimas.\n\n  Yacmui (Yacomui), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 453.\n\n  Yacol Atam, Quich\u00e9 title, ii., 644.\n\n  Yacomui, i., 453, see Yacmui.\n\n  Yaesumnes, i., 450, see Yosumnis.\n\n  Yagualica, i., 672, 675, see Yahualica.\n\n  Yaguarato, Michoacan, antiq., iv., 570.\n\n  Yahalan, iii., 458, see Yabalan.\n\n  Yahau Kuna, Maya temple, iii., 467.\n\n  Yahshutes (Yah Shutes), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 442-3.\n\n  Yahualica (Yagualica, Yahualiuhcan), locality, Mexico, i., 672,\n    675; ii., 617; antiq., iv., 495.\n\n  Yajumui, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Yakamas, i., 253, 316, see Yakimas.\n\n  Yakatzib, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 253.\n\n  Yakimas (E'yackimahs, Eyakemas, Yackamans, Yakamas, Yookoomans),\n    Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location and name, i.,\n    253-4, 317-20; special mention, i., 227, 264, 272-4, 280,\n    287-90; myth., iii., 97-8; lang., iii., 620-4.\n\n  Yakima River, i., 320; antiq., iv., 736.\n\n  Yakima Valley (Eyakema, Yakimaw), i., 254, 280, 320.\n\n  Yakones (Jakons, Youicones, Youkones), tribe of Chinooks, i.,\n    222-50; location, i., 307; lang., iii., 640.\n\n  Yakutats, tribe of Thlinkeets, i., 94-114; location, i., 96, 142;\n    special mention, i., 100, 103.\n\n  Yalahao, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 261.\n\n  Yalchedunes (Jalchedunes, Talchedunes), tribe of Apaches, i.,\n    473-526; location, i., 475, 598; lang., iii., 684.\n\n  Yale, town, British Columbia, i., 298; lang., iii., 613.\n\n  Yalesumnes (Yaleyumnes, Yuleyumnes), Central Californian tribe,\n    i., 361-401; location, i., 450; lang., iii., 649-50.\n\n  Yalisco, i., 618, see Jalisco.\n\n  Yamajabs (Cosninas, Cuesninas, Cuismer, Culisnisnas, Culisnurs,\n    Jamajabs, Tamajabs), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location,\n    i., 475, 598; special mention, i., 525; lang., iii., 684-6.\n\n  Yamkallies, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 309;\n    lang., iii., 630.\n\n  Yamlocklocks, i., 450, see Tamlocklocks.\n\n  Yam Pah Utes (Ampayouts), tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42;\n    location, i., 469; special mention, i., 441.\n\n  Yampais (Yabipais, Yampaos, Yavipais), tribe of Apaches, i.,\n    473-526; location, i., 475, 598; special mention, i., 478, 504,\n    519; lang., iii., 684-6.\n\n  Yampai Valley, i., 597.\n\n  Yampapas, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 463.\n\n  Yamparacks (Yamparicas, Yampaxicas), tribe of Apaches, i.,\n    473-526; location, i., 473.\n\n  Yampas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Yampatickara, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 461.\n\n  Yampaxicas, i., 592, see Yamparacks.\n\n  Yampuk, Guatemalan lordship, v., 597.\n\n  Yanabopos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Yancuitlalpan, locality, Puebla, v., 487.\n\n  Yanex, v., 317, see Yacanex.\n\n  Yanguitlan, valley, Michoacan, v., 528.\n\n  Yanguitlan (Yanguistlan), town, Oajaca, lang., iii., 749-51;\n    antiq., iv., 422-3.\n\n  Yangna, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.\n\n  Yanostas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Yantuckets (Yatuckets), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 442, 445.\n\n  Yanuati, a child's collar, iii., 436.\n\n  Y\u00e1otl, a Nahua mythic person, iii., 378-80.\n\n  Yaotlalli, Nahua war lands, ii., 225.\n\n  Yapain\u00e9s, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Yaparehcas, tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526; location, i., 592.\n\n  Yapico, Nahua temple, iii., 421.\n\n  Y\u00e1ppan, a Nahua mythic person, iii., 378-80.\n\n  Yaqui River, i., 601, 608.\n\n  Yaquis (Hiaquis), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location,\n    i., 572, 608; special mention, i., 574-8, 582-4, 587, 589-91;\n    lang., iii., 667, 707-10; Quich\u00e9 name for Mexicans, v., 187-8,\n    547, 597.\n\n  Yarumela, Honduras, antiq., iv., 71-2.\n\n  Yasja, iv., 134, see Yaxhaa.\n\n  Yasumnes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450; lang., iii., 649.\n\n  Yatuckets, i., 442, see Yantuckets.\n\n  Yauhtepec, town, South-west Mexico, v., 412.\n\n  Yauhtlalli (Jaotlalli, Quiahtlale), locality reserved for battle,\n    ii., 425.\n\n  Yauhtli, a medicine, ii., 601.\n\n  Yauterrhs, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    444.\n\n  Yautl, name for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 199.\n\n  Yautlnecociautlmonenequi, name for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 206.\n\n  Yavipais, iii., 684, see Yampais.\n\n  Yavisa, town, Darien, i., 796.\n\n  Yax (Yaax), Maya month, ii., 690, 757-8.\n\n  Yaxcocahmut, name for Zamn\u00e1, iii., 462.\n\n  Yaxhaa Lake (Yach\u00e1, Yasja), Guatemala, antiq., iv., 134-5.\n\n  Yaxkin (Dze-Yaxkin, Tze Yaxkin), Maya month, ii., 700, 757.\n\n  Yaxquin, name of month in Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Yaxtaxitaxitanne, Apache god, iii., 170.\n\n  Ycaiut, Acagchemem god, iii., 165.\n\n  Ychal-Amollac, Akahale ruler, v., 596.\n\n  Ycuexoan, Nahua devotees, iii., 357.\n\n  Yeeaths, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    448.\n\n  Yehahs, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 317.\n\n  Yehl (Yethl), Thlinkeet god, iii., 98-103, 145-6, 149.\n\n  Yej-ak-ouns, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    314.\n\n  Yek, Thlinkeet spirits, iii., 148.\n\n  Yekas, i., 447, see Yrekas.\n\n  Yelam\u00fa, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Yeletpoo, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i., 317.\n\n  Yellow-cum, Makah chief, i., 217.\n\n  Yem\u00e9, Tamaulipas, lang., iii., 744.\n\n  Yenghies River, i., 317.\n\n  Yerba Buena, locality, Central California, i., 363.\n\n  Yetan (Yetas), i., 592; iii., 660, see Comanches.\n\n  Yethl, iii., 149, see Yehl.\n\n  Yetl, tobacco, ii., 287.\n\n  Yeunaba, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Yeunata, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Yeunator, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    454.\n\n  Yew, bows, etc. made of, i., 188, 214, 341, 494.\n\n  Ygh, ii., 767, see Igh.\n\n  Yhuixoch, v., 299, see Ixmixuch.\n\n  Yhyozochtl, v., 299, see Ixmixuch.\n\n  Yiacatecutli, iii., 416, see Iyacatecuhtli.\n\n  Yiauhqueme Mountain, a place of sacrifice, Mexico, iii., 333.\n\n  Yiauhtli, an herb, ii., 330; iii., 339, 387.\n\n  Yiaulatecatl, Nahua god, iii., 418.\n\n  Yinkaceous, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    314.\n\n  Yiuhtas, i., 592, see Noconi.\n\n  Yiz (Itz), Quich\u00e9-Cakchiquel day, ii., 767.\n\n  Ylackas (Ylakas), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location,\n    i., 442, 447.\n\n  Ymitches, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Ymix, Maya day, ii., 756, 760.\n\n  Ymunacam, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    455.\n\n  Ynyaomaxaliuhqui, a breech-cloth, ii., 375.\n\n  Yoalliehecatl, name for Tezcatlipoca, iii., 267, 381.\n\n  Yoaltecatl, a place of sacrifice, Mexico, iii., 333.\n\n  Yoaltecutli, Nahua god, ii., 275.\n\n  Yoalticitl, Nahua goddess, ii., 268-9; iii., 363.\n\n  Yobaa, iv., 389, see Liobaa.\n\n  Yocolles, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Yocut, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 457;\n    lang., iii., 651-2.\n\n  Yohuallatonac (Xohualatonac), Culhua king, v., 254, 257, 261,\n    263, 331; Teo-Chichimec chief, v., 490.\n\n  Yohuatl Chichimecatzin, lord of Coatepec, v., 349.\n\n  Yoiontzin, a Chichimec prince, v., 475.\n\n  Yoke, sacrificial, iii., 413; iv., 436.\n\n  Yokias, i., 362, see Ukiahs.\n\n  Yolanchas, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Yolays, i., 362, See Yolos.\n\n  Yolcuat, name for Quetzalcoatl, iii., 267.\n\n  Yolcuat Quitzalcuat, name for Tohil, v., 182, 188.\n\n  Yolhios, i., 452, see Petalumas.\n\n  Yolo County, California, i., 450.\n\n  Yolos (Yolays), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location\n    and name, i., 362, 450.\n\n  Yolqui, Tezcucan title, ii., 189; v., 350.\n\n  Yongletats, i., 298, see Ucletas.\n\n  Yonio, Central California, lang., iii., 643-4.\n\n  Yonsal Pomos, Central California tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 448.\n\n  Yookoomans, i., 320, see Yakimas.\n\n  Yopaa, iv., 389; v., 528, see Liobaa.\n\n  Yopes (Yopimes, Yopis), i., 677, see Tlapanecs.\n\n  Yopicatl Atonal, king of Zacatollan, v., 448.\n\n  Yopitzincas, tribe of Nahuas, hist., v., 471.\n\n  Yopitzinco, locality, Guerrero, v., 471.\n\n  Yoro, locality, Honduras, i., 790, 793.\n\n  Yosemites (Tosemiteiz), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401;\n    location, i., 452.\n\n  Yosemite Valley, i., 452.\n\n  Yosumnis (Yaesumnes, Yusumnes), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 450.\n\n  Youahnoe, tribe of Haidahs, i., 155-74; location, i., 292.\n\n  Youclulaht, tribe of Nootkas, i., 174-208; location, i., 295.\n\n  Youcoolumnies (Youcoulumnes), Central Californian tribe, i.,\n    361-401; location, i., 450.\n\n  Yougletats, i., 298, see Ucletas.\n\n  Youicones, i., 307, see Yakones.\n\n  Youitts, tribe of Chinooks, i., 222-50; location, i., 307.\n\n  Youkones, i., 307, see Yakones.\n\n  Youmatallas, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    317.\n\n  Young's River, i., 305.\n\n  Yourt (Yurt), Eskimo dwelling, i., 54.\n\n  Youruk, Klamath name, i., 327, 445.\n\n  Youtas, i., 464, see Utahs.\n\n  Yoxibalvinquil, name of month, Chiapas, ii., 766.\n\n  Yoyontzin, name for Nezahualcoyotl, v., 372.\n\n  Ypalnemoaloni, Nahua god, iii., 193.\n\n  Ypuc, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Yreka, California, antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Yrekas (Hoteday, Yekas), North Californian tribe, i., 326-61;\n    location, i., 447; lang., iii., 640.\n\n  Ytsimpte, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 248-9.\n\n  Ytzahuazalmaxtlatl, a breech-cloth, ii., 375.\n\n  Ytzamn\u00e1, iii., 462; v., 617-19, 621, see Zamn\u00e1.\n\n  Ytzcuat, a Mayapan lord, v., 626.\n\n  Ytzmal, name for Izamal, v., 626.\n\n  Ytzteucy\u00f2hua, Nahua calendar sign, ii., 516.\n\n  Ytztlacoliuhqui, a priest's hood, iii., 356; Nahua mythic person,\n    v., 90.\n\n  Yuba River, i., 451; antiq., iv., 707.\n\n  Yubas (Yuvas), Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 451; lang., iii., 648.\n\n  Yucals, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    451.\n\n  Yucatan, tribes described, i., 645-747; ii., 630-803; myth.,\n    iii., 461-73, 541-2; v., 87; lang., iii., 558, 571, 724,\n    759-62, 773-6; antiq., iii., 118; iv., 143-285, 355-9; v., 58;\n    name, v., 614-15, 626; hist., v., 223-30, 614-34.\n\n  Yucca, a plant used for food, i., 734, 759; ii., 357.\n\n  Yucletahs, i., 208, see Ucletas.\n\n  Yucuatl, name for Vancouver Island tribes, i., 296.\n\n  Yu\u00ea, Tamaulipas, lang., iii., 744.\n\n  Yukai, i., 448, see Ukiahs.\n\n  Yukas (Ucas, Ukas, Yukehs, Yuques), North Californian tribe, i.,\n    326-61; location, i., 447; special mention, i., 361, 390, 398;\n    lang., iii., 643, 648.\n\n  Yukletas, i., 295, see Ucletas.\n\n  Yukon River, i., 115, 146-8; lang., iii., 586-7.\n\n  Yukon Valley, i., 146.\n\n  Yukulmes, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450.\n\n  Yukuth Kutchins, tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37; location, i., 115.\n\n  Yukutneys, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    450.\n\n  Yuleyumnes, i., 450, see Yalesumnes.\n\n  Yul\u00f3nees, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    456.\n\n  Yulus, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i., 450.\n\n  Yumagatocks, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location,\n    i., 450.\n\n  Yumas (Chirumas, Cuchans), tribe of Apaches, i., 473-526;\n    location and name, i., 475, 597-8; special mention, i., 477-8,\n    480, 487, 489, 494, 504-5, 510-11, 516, 519, 521-3; myth.,\n    iii., 527; lang., iii., 684-6.\n\n  Yunakakhotanas, i., 147, see Unakatanas.\n\n  Yuncemil, Maya god, iii., 467.\n\n  Yuquaches, North Californian tribe, i., 326-61; location, i.,\n    443.\n\n  Yuques, i., 447, see Yukas.\n\n  Yuque-Yunque, Pueblo province, i., 527.\n\n  Yurguimes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Yurt, i., 54, see Yourt.\n\n  Yusumnes, i., 450, see Yosumnis.\n\n  Yutas, i., 440, see Utahs.\n\n  Y\u00fatahkah, name for Navajos, i., 475.\n\n  Yutajenne, Apache tribal name, i., 474.\n\n  Yuvas, i., 451, see Yubas.\n\n  Yx, Maya calendar sign, ii., 703.\n\n  Yxaulo, South Californian tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 459.\n\n  Yxchebelyax, Maya goddess, ii., 752; iii., 467.\n\n  Yxcuina, name for Tlazolteotl, iii., 380.\n\n  Yxcum, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 138.\n\n  Yxillantonan, locality, Mexico, iii., 405.\n\n  Yxteucalli, Nahua vice-god, iii., 427.\n\n  Yxtliton (Ixtlilton), Nahua god, iii., 409.\n\n  Yxtutz, Guatemala, antiq., iv., 138.\n\n  Yzaes, i., 683, see Itzas.\n\n  Yzamn\u00e1, ii., 691, see Zamn\u00e1.\n\n  Yzcalli, Nahua month, iii., 390-3.\n\n  Yzpunteque, Nahua god, iii., 396.\n\n  Yzquitecatl, Nahua god, iii., 405, 418.\n\n  Yztaccaltzin, v., 267, see Huemac II.\n\n  Yztaccuixtli, a mythic bird, iii., 247.\n\n  Yztachuexucha, station, Toltec migration, v., 213.\n\n\n  Z\n\n  Zaachilla, Zapotec dialect, iii., 754-5.\n\n  Zaachilla I., Zapotec king, v., 532.\n\n  Zaachilla III., Zapotec king, v., 534.\n\n  Zaachilla Yoho, name for Teotzapotlan, v., 530.\n\n  Zabacilthan, Maya feast, ii., 694.\n\n  Zac (Zak), Maya month, ii., 691, 757-8.\n\n  Zaca, Itza drink, ii., 723; Nahua chief, v., 243.\n\n  Zacabaha, ancient city, Guatemala, v., 587.\n\n  Zacah, Maya incense, ii., 702.\n\n  Zacaha, Guatemalan tribe, hist., v., 547, 561.\n\n  Zacal Bacab, Maya god, iii., 466.\n\n  Zacapantzin, a Toltec hero, v., 213.\n\n  Zacapulas (Sacapulus), town, Guatemala, i., 788.\n\n  Zacatecas, antiq., iv., 578-93.\n\n  Zacatecos (Zacatecas, Zacatecs), North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91;\n    location, i., 614; special mention, i., 577; lang., iii., 719;\n    hist., v., 503, 537.\n\n  Zacatepec, i., 787, see Sacatepeque.\n\n  Zacapetec Mountain, Mexico, iii., 247.\n\n  Zacatlan, name for Chiapas, i., 681; station, Toltec migration,\n    v., 213; town, Puebla, v., 298, 314, 490.\n\n  Zacatollan, province, Guerrero, ii., 109, 473; hist., v., 448,\n    473, 508-9.\n\n  Zacatula, town, Guerrero, ii., 109.\n\n  Zacatula River, Puebla, antiq., iv., 467.\n\n  Zacatzontli, Nahua god, ii., 389.\n\n  Zachila, Oajaca, antiq., iv., 384-8.\n\n  Zactecauh, Cakchiquel chief, v., 562, 569-70.\n\n  Zactzuy, locality, Guatemala, i., 788; v., 564.\n\n  Zacualco, town, Jalisco, i., 622.\n\n  Zacualpa, city, Guatemala, v., 587.\n\n  Zacualpan, Mexico, antiq., iv., 480.\n\n  Zacualtipan, town, Mexico, i., 675; antiq., iv., 545.\n\n  Zacuapan, Vera Cruz, antiq., iv., 447.\n\n  Zak, ii., 766, see Zac.\n\n  Zakbim, a Guatemalan chief, v., 563.\n\n  Zakcab, Zutugil, city, v., 598.\n\n  Zakik, a Quich\u00e9 noble family, ii., 648; v., 580, 582.\n\n  Zaki Nim Ak, Quich\u00e9 god, v., 173.\n\n  Zaki Nima Tzyiz, Quich\u00e9 goddess, v., 170, 173.\n\n  Zakiqahol, city, Guatemala, v., 584.\n\n  Zakiqoxol, Quich\u00e9 mythical person, v., 569.\n\n  Zakitzunun, a Cakchiquel chief, v., 570.\n\n  Zaklohpakap, name for Mame lang., iii., 766.\n\n  Zakul\u00e9u (Socol\u00e9o), ancient city, Guatemala, i., 787; antiq., iv.,\n    128-30; hist., v., 587, 591.\n\n  Zalaias, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Zalzun, a magic crystal, i., 667.\n\n  Zamaneb (Zameneb), city, Guatemala, i., 789; antiq., iv., 131.\n\n  Zama River, i., 600.\n\n  Zamn\u00e1 (Ytzamn\u00e1, Yzamn\u00e1), Maya god, ii., 117, 127, 632, 647; iii.,\n    462-5; iv., 247; v., 23, 224-5, 617-19, 621-2, 630.\n\n  Zamorra, Nahua food, ii., 278.\n\n  Zancopinco, a suburb of Mexico City, ii., 560.\n\n  Zandia (Sandia), village and tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56;\n    location, i., 600; lang., iii., 681.\n\n  Zapatepec, locality, Mexico, iii., 405.\n\n  Zapatero Island, Nicaragua, antiq., iv., 30, 39-47, 58-62.\n\n  Zape, Durango, antiq., iv., 600.\n\n  Zapotecapan, a Oajacan kingdom, v., 443-7, 526-36; see also\n    Zapotecs.\n\n  Zapotecs, Nahua nation, i., 644-70; ii., 133-629; location and\n    name, i., 645, 679; ii., 132; special mention, i., 646, 648,\n    651-3, 656-61, 667-9; ii., 109-10, 142-3, 228, 277-8, 368, 379,\n    410, 522, 624, 629; myth., ii., 209-3, 308; iii., 73-4, 268,\n    448-60, 541; lang., iii., 754-6; v., 527; hist., v., 206-7,\n    239, 443-7, 473, 526-36, 616.\n\n  Zapoteros, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 613.\n\n  Zapotitlan, locality, Guatemala, v., 586.\n\n  Zapotlan, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 574; hist., v., 416.\n\n  Zaquan, a mythic bird, iii., 241.\n\n  Zarahemla, name of Hebrew colony in America, v., 99.\n\n  Zayi, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 211-15, 270.\n\n  Zayollan, province, Mexico, v., 346.\n\n  Zeec, ii., 757, see Tzec.\n\n  Zeetopaa, city, Oajaca, v., 532.\n\n  Zeilusqua, Bellacoola baskets, i., 166.\n\n  Z\u00e8k\u00e0-thaka (Ziunka-kutshi), tribe of Tinneh, i., 114-37;\n    location, i., 147.\n\n  Zekilna, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 212.\n\n  Zeldales, i., 681, see Tzendales.\n\n  Zeldal-Quelen, Chiapas dialect, iii., 760.\n\n  Zemanahuaca Tlatoani, Mexican imperial title, v., 471.\n\n  Zentipac (Tzenticpac), town, Jalisco, i., 672; v., 509.\n\n  Zia, Pueblo village, i., 600.\n\n  Zibilnocac, Yucatan, antiq., iv., 252.\n\n  Z\u00edbolos, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Zichajucuero, locality, Michoacan, v., 513.\n\n  Zichu, locality, Mexico, v., 524.\n\n  Zihil, Maya baptismal rite, ii., 682.\n\n  Zima, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 612.\n\n  Zingomenes, Inland Columbian tribe, i., 250-91; location, i.,\n    314.\n\n  Zintzicha, name for Tangaxoan, v., 516.\n\n  Zip (Cijp), Maya month, ii., 696, 757.\n\n  Zipacapan, town, Guatemala, i., 787.\n\n  Zipacna, Quich\u00e9 god, v., 172-3; a pre-Toltec ruler, v., 184.\n\n  Zipattoval, iii., 491, see Cipattonal.\n\n  Ziranziran Camaro, Michoacan chief, v., 511.\n\n  Zirumbo, a Michoacan kingdom, v., 523.\n\n  Zitacuarencuaro, Matlaltzinca festival, iii., 446.\n\n  Zitzimitl, name for Mictlantecutli, iii., 396.\n\n  Ziuhcohuatl, a Toltec prince, v., 212-13.\n\n  Ziunka-kutshi, i., 147, see Z\u00e8k\u00e0-thaka.\n\n  Zivenaritzcatl, birth-place of Quetzalcoatl, iii., 271.\n\n  Ziyan-caan, name for Bacalar, v., 624.\n\n  Ziziz Pandacuare, Tarasco king, v., 524-5.\n\n  Zoc, ii., 757, see Tzoz.\n\n  Zococ Aztahua Tlacaztalli, a Tlascaltec chief, v., 498.\n\n  Zoes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 609; lang.,\n    iii., 707.\n\n  Zoltepec, locality, Mexico, i., 677.\n\n  Zolton, a Toltec noble, v., 254.\n\n  Zomiomi, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Zonzonate, i., 790, see Sonsonate.\n\n  Zoological collection, Montezuma's, ii., 163-6.\n\n  Zoot, musical instrument, Yucatan, v., 632.\n\n  Zopilotes, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 611.\n\n  Zoques (Soques), South Mexican tribe, i., 645-70; location, i.,\n    682; special mention, i., 646-7, 649, 652, 657-8, 668; lang.,\n    iii., 760, 763; hist., v., 603-4, 606.\n\n  Zoquitlan, Mije town, v., 532.\n\n  Zotuta, province, Yucatan, v., 632.\n\n  Zotz, ii., 757, see Tzoz.\n\n  Zotziles (Tzotziles), South Mexican tribe, i., 644-70; location\n    and name, i., 645, 681; ii., 132; v., 561-2; lang., iii., 760,\n    764; hist., v., 547-8, 561, 570, 590, 593, 596, 603-4.\n\n  Zotzilh\u00e1, name for Tzinacantlan, i., 681.\n\n  Zotzilen-Tukuches, Guatemalan tribe, hist., v., 562, 569, 574-5,\n    590.\n\n  Zquina, locality, Guatemala, v., 559.\n\n  Ztayul, Niha\u00efb prince, v., 567.\n\n  Zuaques, North Mexican tribe, i., 571-91; location, i., 572, 608;\n    lang., iii., 707.\n\n  Zucigin, Central Californian tribe, i., 361-401; location, i.,\n    453.\n\n  Zugen (Zuyen), South Mexican mantle, i., 650; ii., 727.\n\n  Zuhuy Zipi, Maya god, ii., 698.\n\n  Zuina, v., 624, see Tulan Zuiva.\n\n  Zukli Island, i., 139.\n\n  Zumpango (Tzompan, Tzompanco, Tzonpanco, Tzumpanco, Zumpanco),\n    locality, Guatemala, i., 789; station, Aztec migration, v.,\n    323-4, 329, 476.\n\n  Zu\u00f1i, town, New Mexico, i., 527, 600; antiq., iv., 645-6, 663,\n    667, 674.\n\n  Zu\u00f1i River, i., 600; antiq., iv., 644-50.\n\n  Zu\u00f1is, tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-56; location, i., 600; special\n    mention, i., 545; myth., iii., 120-1, 132; lang., iii., 681-3.\n\n  Zutugilebpop, Zutugil king, v., 584-5.\n\n  Zutugils (Zutuhiles), Maya nation, i., 687-711; ii., 630-803;\n    location, i., 789; special mention, ii., 732; lang., iii.,\n    760, 762, 772; hist., v., 561, 566-7, 570-2, 575-8, 584-6, 593,\n    598-9, 602.\n\n  Zuyen, ii., 727, see Zugen.\n\n  Zwanga (Tzihuanga), Tarasco king, v., 516, 525.\n\n\n  END OF THE FIFTH VOLUME.\n\n\n\n\nSupplementary Transcriber's Note:\n\nThe following primary index entries were not located in this or previous\nvolumes. (Missing secondary entries were assumed to be alternate spellings\nand were ignored.)\n\nAchcuhtzin\nAhacus\nAhcunal\nAhkin Xooc\nAh Witzil\nAzacot\nBalanicha\nCaibil Balam\nChilam Calam\nCalkimi\nCenial\nCenizos\nChuluc\nChutimal\nCuchumatanes\nCunai\nDidues\nEwentoc\nHolom\nHueytlato\nIchpaa\nItzmal Ul\nKak Upacat\nKyuquots\nLackquelibla\nLebassas\nManosaht\nOlalti\nQuilleliute\nSwarrow\nTerrace\nTootitlan\nYmitches","title":"The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History: The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, Volume 5","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":322672}