The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History

See vol. ii., pp. 297-9; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 106-8; Tezozomoc, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 7-8.

541

See besides references in preceding notes, Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 18-19; Herrera, Hist. Gen., dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi.; Gallatin, in Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact., vol. i., pp. 125-6; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 302-5.

542

Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 96-7, calls the bride of Ilhuicatl, Tiacapapantzin; and Torquemada, tom. i., p. 82, Tiacapantzin. See also Clavigero, tom. i., p. 163; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. iii.; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 306-8.

543

Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 213, 346, 397, gives the dates 1107, 1158, and 1105; the first date is 5 Acatl which agrees with Brasseur's documents, but is interpreted as 1211 or one cycle later than Ixtlilxochitl's interpretation. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 79-80, gives the date 1263.

544

Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 323, 378; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 254. This author gives the succession of kings at Culhuacan as Achitometl, Mazatzin, Quetzal, Chalchiuhtona, Quauhtlix, Yohuallatonac, Tziuhtecatl, Xuihtemoctzin, and Coxcotzin. Veytia gives the succession as follows: Achitometl, Xohualatonac, Calquiyauhtzin, and Coxcox. It is impossible to reconcile this matter; but no events of great importance in which the Culhuas were engaged seem to have taken place until the reign of Coxcoxtli.

545

Leon y Gama, Dos Piedras, pt i., p. 20, and Codex Chimalpopoca. Gallatin makes the date one cycle later or 1298.

546

Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 83-4. This author represents the Aztecs as having been driven from Chapultepec at this time. There is but little agreement respecting the order of events in Aztec history previous to the foundation of Mexico.

547

Codex Chimalpopoca, in Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 319-23.

548

Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 348, and Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 140-1, mention this application to Quinantzin, but refer it to a much later period after the city of Mexico was founded.

549

Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 81-8, 110-13, gives the date of Tlotzin's death as 1298. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 213, 346, 3981, 461, gives as dates, 1141, 1194, and 1140. See also on his reign; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 68-72; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 143-4; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 16; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 324-33.

550

Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 73-4, 85; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 114-15; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 347-8, 399, 452-3; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 144-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., p. 16; Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 333-8; Müller, Reisen, tom. iii., p. 48.

551

Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 215, 347-8, 399, 452-3; Veytia, tom. i., pp. 116-17, 122-25, refers these events to a considerably later period, and states that Huitzilihuitl previously married a niece of Acolnahuacatl. Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 338-44.

552

Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 143-54, relates this rebellion and defeat of the northern provinces, and the consequent abdication of Acolnahuacatl, attributing these events, however, to a much later period, after the separation of the Tlatelulcas from the Mexicans, giving the date as 1325. Most of the authorities do not definitely fix the date, but Brasseur, Hist., tom. ii., pp. 344-55, gives satisfactory reasons, supported by Camargo and Ixtlilxochitl, for referring both this war and the battle at Poyauhtlan to the time when the Mexicans were yet living under Huitzilihuitl at Chapultepec. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 162-73, unites the rebellion of the king's sons and the fight against the Teo-Chichimecs, referring this latter war to 1350, and including the provinces of Huastepec, Huehuetlan, and Cuitlahuac in the revolt. He represents the allied forces of Anáhuac, 100,000 strong, as serving in six divisions under the general command of Quinantzin, already emperor. He also states that Quinantzin's queen accompanied her sons in their exile. Of course there is great diversity among the authorities in respect to names of leaders, and details of the battles; but the general account given in my text is the only consistent one that can be formed, since there is much even in Veytia's account to support it. It is probable, in the light of later events, that Quinantzin took no part in the war against the Teo-Chichimecs, and quite possible that Camargo's statement that the Teo-Chichimecs were victorious, though much exhausted, in the battle at Poyauhtlan, results to a great extent from national pride in the record of the Tlascaltecs. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 84-6, 259-60, seems to be the authority for the second campaign of Quinantzin in the north, which was decided by a great battle at Tlaximalco in the region of Monte Real. Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 215-16, 349-52, 398-400, 461-2, as usual favors in different places nearly all the views of other authorities. See also Camargo, in Nouvelles Annales, tom. xcviii., pp. 142-3; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 144-5, 154.

553

Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 160, 228; Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 216-17, 351, 399, 401, 453. The chief of the Tailotlacs was Tempantzin, or Aztatlitexcan; and the Chimalpanecs were under Xiloquetzin and Tlacateotzin. In this, as in other cases I have not entered minutely into the names, marriages, and genealogies of the nobles of Anáhuac, since my space does not permit a full treatment of the subject, and a superficial treatment would be without value.

554

Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 86. It is not quite certain that this revolt, and that of some southern provinces, which occurred two years later, were not connected with those that have been already narrated. Torquemada rarely pays any attention to chronology.

555

Kingsborough, vol. ix., p. 217. It seems that Quinantzin's successor granted permission to build temples.

556

Hist., tom. ii., pp. 377-80.

557

Id., p. 382; dates 1281, or 1300. According to Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 160-1, and Ixtlilxochitl, p. 462, Xiuhtemoc, king of Culhuacan, died in 1340, and was succeeded by Acamapichtli.

558

See pp. 327-8 (#Page_327).

559

Duran, MS. tom. i., cap. iv.; Acosta, pp. 462-4; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 83-4, 89, says the Aztecs were either brought as slaves from Ocolco to Tizaapan, or were invited to Culhuacan and then enslaved. See also, Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 164-5; Vetancvrt, Teatro, pt ii., pp. 20-1; Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 127-9. I make no effort to follow Veytia's chronologic order which, in this part of the history, is hopelessly confused and different from the other authorities.

560

Hist., tom. ii., pp. 380-98.

561

There is some confusion about the parentage of Tezozomoc and Acamapichtli: 'Coxcoxtli épousa une fille d'Acolnahuacatl dont il eut Tezozomoc, ou Acolnahuacatl épousa une fille de Coxcoxtli dont ce prince serait issu. Quoique le MS. de 1528 donne Acolnahuacatl pour père à Tezozomoc, le Mémorial de Culhuacan le donne pour le fils de Coxcoxtli et frère d'Acamapichtli. Ixtlilxochitl dit également qu'Acamapichtli était son frère.' Id., pp. 394-5. See Ixtlilxochitl, in Kingsborough, vol. ix., pp. 349, 397, 401. He, however, seems to make Acamapichtli also the son of Acolnahuacatl. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 73, 161-2, fixes the date of the king's death at 1343. Torquemada, tom. i., p. 68; Granados y Galvez, Tardes Amer., pp. 142-3.

562

Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 119-22. This author places this event in the lifetime of Huitzilihuitl and of Acolnahuacatl. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 90-1; Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 165-7.

563

See references in last note (#cn_561); also Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 260-1; Gondra, in Prescott, Hist. Conq. Mex., tom. iii., pp. 80-1, 260-1.

564

Acosta, p. 464; Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. iv. He calls the Culhua king Achitometl. Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi.

565