AZTLAN, TAMOANCHAN, AND THE HUASTEC CONNECTION by

AZTLAN, TAMOANCHAN, AND THE HUASTEC CONNECTION
by
RubenG. Mendoza,Ph.D.
Director
Institute of Archaeology
California StateUniversity Monterey Bay
100 CampusCenter
Seaside,California 93955-8001
Paper presented before the ~994 Annual Meetings
of
The American Anthropological Association
Washington Hilton Hotel
Washington, DC
DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
II II
I
November22, 1994
Revisedversionof March 12, 1997
II
1
AZTLAN, TAMOANCHAN, AND THE HUASTEC CONNECTION
by
RubenG. Mendoza,Ph.D.
Institute of Archaeology
California StateUniversity Monterey Bay
Introduction1
The ultimate ethnic origins and cultural affinities of the Mexica Aztec have long
perplexedscholarsseekinganswersin the epic ethnohistoricalaccountsthat record an
Aztec emergencefrom Chicomoztoc,and a subsequent
departurefrom the legendary
place of origin, Aztlan (SeIer1967, 1985; Kirchhoff 1976). According to ancient
accounts,the Aztec emperorMoctezurnallhuicamina soughtanswersto the questionof
Mexica Aztec origins, and did so by way of ancient traditions --both oral and written
narratives --as well as by way of the work of soothsayers, sorcerers, and magicians
(Duran 1967).2 Recent scholarship, which at times is seemingly little different than the
work of soothsayerswhere Aztec origins is concerned,indicatesan Aztlan migration
point ofldeparture closely identified with ancient Tollan, and by extension, the Huastec
region of northern Mexico and the Gulf lowlands. The evidencefor a Tollan-Toltec
(Hers 1989; Corona S. 1990)or Huastec(Mendoza1993)point of origin for the Aztec
migrations provides an ever more compellingchallengeto longstandingquestions
concerningthe ethnic and cultural affinities of the Mexica Aztec culture complex
(Grove 1983; Odella Guemes 1990)
I approachthis review from the standpointof challengingthe key interpretive
weaknessesinherent in traditionalistperspectivesthat have forced us to entertaina host
2
of questionableassumptionsregardingthe Aztlan migration themeand its ultimate
byproduct, the genesis of Mexica Aztec society. "As such, we will proceed from an
overview of the history of scholarshipon the Aztlan migration theme, move to a
considerationof recentevidencethat challengesprevailing perspectives,and culminate
with a rcf;assessment
of Aztec origins
Given the current stateof our knowledgeconcerningAztec origins, my intent
here is gearedto introducing alternative interpretationsthat I have posed in other
contexts:(Mendoza1992a,1992b, 1992c, 1992d, 1993). I will argue that these
alternatiiVe interpretations --which draw on recent evidence pertaining to the cultural
and social dynamics of the central highlands in the Epiclassic era --hold greater
promise!for resolving the questionof Aztec origins and affmities than do prevailing
ideasand interpretationsintroducedfrom a variety of perspectives(i.e. art history
ethnohi$tory,linguistics, and archaeology).Ultimately, I contendthat recentevidence
linking ppiclassicperiod (A.D. 750-950)Huastecdevelopmentsto the central highlands
is key to our understandingof the social and cultural origins of the Mexica Aztec
Legendary Points of Departure
~uch of what we know aboutAztec origins derives primarily from a host of
contact-periodchromclescommissionedby suchcolomal-eraSpamshclergymanas
Fray Bernardinode Sahagun(1950-1969;1988; original manuscripts,1547-1577)and
Diego I»uran (1967), as well as from a variety of native chronicles including the Anales
de Cuauhtitlan (1975) and Tlatelolco (1948), the Historia de los Mexicanos (1.941), the
3
Codice de 1576 (Codice Aubin 1963), the Boturini (1975), Azcatitlan (Barlow 1949),
Ramirez1(1944),Chimalpopoca(1975), and Mexicayotl (1949)codices, the Historia
Tolteca-~hichimeca(1976), and the works of Chimalpahin(1965), Ixtlilxochitl (1965),
and Mu~oz Camargo(1892). Takentogether,thesesourcesprovide an invaluable
perspectiveon the eclectic social conditionsand ethnic origins of Basin populationsin
the period just prior to European-Mesoamerican
contact.More significantly, these
sourcesprovide a variety of narrativescenteredon the epic migrations that drew many
different!tribes and clansinto the Basin of Mexico in the Epiclassic (A.D. 750-950)and
early Postclassic(A.D. 950-1250)periodsof Mesoamericanprehistory (Carrasco
1971).3While the Mexica Aztec (or Aztlanecas-Tenochcas,
accordingto Ixtlilxochitl
1 :295) are accordedprominencein post-conquestethnohistoricalaccounts,it
shouldb~ rememberedthat the Aztec Triple Alliance dominatedand controlled, and
therebypoliticized, the vast majority of central highlandpeoples(and their respective
histories) of the Late Postclassic era (A.D. 1428-1521). As such, the Mexica Aztec or
Aztlanecaplace in suchhistories mustbe weighedcarefully againstother forms of
evidence,including that derived from regional ethnohistories,archaeology,and
linguisti~s
.
The Aztlan Migration Theme
The traditional origins scenario,which is basedon a patchwork reconstruction
Mtlan migration chronicl~s,portraysthe Aztec as relative newcomerswho, in
following the dictatesof their god or clan totem, Huitzilopochtli, were led on an epic
4
migratio~ into the Basin of Mexico where they foundedthe city and capital of
Tenochtitlan. By this accounting,the primordial homelandof the Aztecs was a
legendary place located to the north, and referred to as Aztlan --Place of Herons, Place
of Whiteness(MacazagaOrdofio 1979), or White Land (Davies 1987:16-17). As to the
basic descriptionsand characterof Aztlan scholarsare in agreement,however, the
specific [ocation of Aztlan, and thereby, the original point of departure, is what has
beenthrown into questiontime and again.
Two schoolsof thoughtconcernedwith the veracity of the Aztlan migration
themehave emergedin the literature (OlmedoVera 1989:142). On the one hand are
those scholars who believe that Aztlan represents a specific geographic locality, and
therefort, their respectiveapproachhas beento identify the pertinent sites and regions
in question.This perspectivehasresulted in the identification of specific sites or
precontact polities with the legendary Aztlan, including Metzcaltitlan, Nayarit (Chavero
1887); Lake Yuriria, Michoacan(Kirchhoff 1961); and Aztatlan, Sinaloa (Jimenez
Moreno I1972). The second major approach has been that which interprets the Aztlan
migrati~n legendas little more than a body of allegory fashionedto the ends of political
expedie~cy --both ancient and modern (Boone 1991).4Ultimately, this perspective does
not allow for the identification of Aztlan with a specific geographicalor political entity
(OlmedoVera 1989). As such, the migration legendis seenas a tool for-uniting the
disparateand potentially devisive ethnic and political factionsthat bore the bannerof
the Aztec Triple Alliance (Nicholson 1988). Works representativeof this school of
thought ,have been introduced by SeIer (1967) and Nicholson (1988), and more recently
5
by Coro~ S. (1990)and Weigand(1991). In theseand other suchstudies,Aztlan-particularly as described in 16th century chronicles --is interpreted as little more than
the mirrored imageof the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan(Nicholson 1988). In sucha
context, past is clearly prologue, and Aztlan serves to legitimize the ascendancyof
Tenochtitlan,and thereby, the Mexica Aztec empire.
The specific dates ascribed to the Aztlan migrations are a major point of
controversy. Whereas descriptions pertaining to Aztlan, Chicomostoc, and the seven
tribes, are relatively consistent from chronicle to chronicle, no such consistency is
evident i!l1the pattern of dates ascribed to the chronological ordering of the migrations
themsel\1es
(Smith 1984). Recentefforts to reconcile chronology with specific migration
...
events has only served to further cloud the questIon of Aztec OrIgIns
The Aztlan migrationsare generallythoughtto encompassthe 10th through 14th
centurie$A.D., with the Mexica migration encompassingthe period betweenA.D
1111 and the founding of Mexico-Tenochtitlanin A.D. 1325 (Davies 1987:16).The
specific pate' identified with the settlement or founding of the Aztec capital of Mexico-
Tenochdtlanis opento interpretation,but is thoughtto be either A.D. 1325 or 1345
(OlmedoVera 1989:146;Davies 1987:25).The date given for the Mexica departure
from AZtlan is the calendricalyear countdateof 1 Flint, which recurred every 52 years
in the MesoamericanTonalpohuallior sacredcount. Hencethe traditional interpretation
or depajturedate of A.D. 1111 may well be substitutedfor A.D. 1059 or A.D. 1163
Criticallto the interpretationof which date is ultimately selected-foris the comparative
analvsis:of eventsand personalitiesdetailed in the associatednarratives (Smith
6
1984:161). For the Mexica, time, especiallysacredtime, was relevant only in so far as
the anchoringand designationof sacredeventswas concerned(Davies 1987:25). Both
the cyclical nature of the year count, and the tendencyfor individual ethnic groups to
anchor tjrne to different mythico-religious and political events, has resulted in a great
deal of oocertaintywhere the specific chronologyof the Mexica migration is concerned.
qespite the broad spanof datesidentified with the Aztlan migration theme
10th thrC)ugh14th centuries A.D. --scholars continue to exclude dates thought not to
correspond to the traditionalist paradigm (Smith 1984),5 A recent reassessmentby
Smith (1984), basedon dateclustersand migration themes,has attemptedto establish
the 12thand 13th centu,riesas the principal focus of the Aztlan migrations and Nahua
settlementsof the Basin of Mexico. While Smith (1984)presentscompelling evidence
for a chronologyof peoplesand eventspertainingto the Aztlan migration theme, his
attempttp correlatethe Aztlan migrationswith 12thand 13th century eventsin the
Basinarq problematic at best. Specificethnohistorically-deriveddatesascribedto the
Aztlan migrations, and recentlycited by Weigand(1991:1), include A.D. 902 (Codice
Ramirez),A.D. 1069(Cronica Mexicayotl), A.D. 1090 (CodiceChimalpopoca;Anales
de Cuaul1titlan),or A.D. 1155 (Analesde Tlatelolco). Smith (1984:174)has isolated
three Aztlan migration clusters for the central highlands,and thesehe suggestscenter
on the years A.D. 1195 for the Basin of Mexico (Xochimilca, Chalca, Tepaneca, and
Acolhua groups), A.D. 1220 for the surroundinghighland valleys (Tlaxcala and
northern :1>uebla
groups), and A.D. 1248 for the Mexica settlement of the Basin. In
order to supportthe thesisthat three distinct Aztlan-basedmigrations accountfor the
7
data, Sniith (1984) inexplicablyexcludesearlier datesas anomolous,and avoids
consideration of earlier Nahuatl-speaking groups such as the Olmeca-Xicalanca who
may well have swept into the highlands --out of the Gulf lowlands --by the 7th century
A.D. (Munoz Camargo1892; Mendoza1992a).
Ifaving reviewed the essential facts surrounding the Aztlan migration legend, we
now runt our attentionto traditionalistinterpretationsregarding the whereaboutsof
Aztlan, and thereby, recentperspectivesregardingthe ethnic affinities of the Mexica
Aztec.
Geography, Semantics, and Migration
The Aztlan migration themehas led a variety of prominent Mesoamericaniststo
searchfqr the specific geographicallocationof the legendaryAztlan (Acosta Saignes
1946). The rationalebehindthis venturehas beenthe questfor the ethnic affinities and
origins or the Mexica Aztec. The questfor Aztlan and Chicomostochas predictably led
I
scholars to search Mesoamerica Is far flung northern frontiers for evidence of Mexica
origins.6,As such, the origins question has led to the emergence of several schools of
thoughtfucusedon diverseregions or localities, including (a) west Mexican origins in
or at the lisle of Janitzio in Lake Patzcuaro, Michoacan (Davies 1987:17); Lake Yuriria,
Guanaju~to7
(Kirchhoff 1961);Mexcaltitlan, Nayarit (Chavero 1887; Davies 1987:17;
Weigandj 1991); or associated with the west coast polity of Aztatlan, Sinaloa (Jimenez-
Moreno !972; Weigand 1991), (b) a Northern Frontier point of departurepotentially
including the sitesof the Chalchihuites-Malpaso
region of Zacatecas,Mexico (Davies
8
1977), aIjld (c) a Tula- Toltec point of departure centered on southern Hidalgo, Mexico
(CoronaS. 1990). One final theme,and one acknowledgedand espousedmore
recently, is that which identifiesAztlan, and Chicomoztoc,with the Basin of Mexico
(Nichols(j)n 1988; Gillespie 1989; Weigand 1991).
Where west Mexican origins are concerned,the site of Mezcaltitlan, Nayarit,
has long been identified with Aztlan (Chavero 1887). Much of this identification stems
from the existenceof the pre-contactpolity of Aztatlan which once encompassedthe
region o~ northern Nayarit and southernSinaloa(JimenezMoreno 1972; cr. Weigand
1991 :3), ~nd the proposed --but dubious
linguistic associationbetweenthe toponym
Mezcaltitlanand that of Mexica (Robelo 1951; cf. Weigand1991:3). ArchaeologistPhil
Weigand 1(1991)has recently demonstrated that Mezcaltitlan, and thereby Aztatlan, was
not the le~endaryAztlan (Weigand1991).Again, the linkage of Mezcaltitlan, and the
Aztatlanpolity, with Aztlan, is not borne out by the ethnohistoricaland archaeological
evidence.The linguistic argument,and the existenceof the ancientpolity of Aztatlan
are considered an insufficient base of evidence, in and of themselves, to support the
attribution of Mezcaltitlan with Aztlan (Weigand1991). In fact, Phil Weigand (1991)
argues'that the idea that Aztlan is Mezcaltitlan is fueled more by tourism, and a New
Age questfot spiritual origins, than by any real concernwith Aztec origins (Weigand
1991: 12).
In Paul Kirchhoff's (1961)review of the questionof Aztec origins, an
alternative location for Aztlan was proposed. Employing ethnohistorical accounts, town
namesor toponyms,and questionablelinguistic-toponymicidentifications, Kirchhoff
9
(1961)tracedthe Aztlan migrationbackwardsinto the areaof Lake Yuriria,
Guanaj~ato.Key to Kirchhoff's (1961) interpretationwas the assumptionthat an early
13thcenturyToltec-Chichimecaccountof conflicts with the Historic Olmec, and a
related ~tteItlptby Toltec-Chichimecto obtain warriors from the west, provided an
alternativemigration route from Aztlan and Chicomoztoc.Moreover, the accountin
questioij may well document politically motivated population movements that followed
the grand migration out of Aztlan (Kirchhoff 1940:96-104;Smith 1984)
Another location traditionally identified with Aztlan and Chicomoztoc is the
Chalchihuites-Malpaso
culture areaof Zacatecasand Durango, Mexico. This attribution
stems~m the longstandingassociationof the ancientsite of La Quemada,Zacatecas
with the! name Chicomoztoc, or Place of Seven Caves. While Davies (1977) and others
havediScussedthe Toltec connectionsto the acropolis centerof La Quemada,
Zacatec~s,recentreinvestigationsof the site have resultedin an Epiclassic, and thereby
pre-Tol~c, dating of the principal monumentsat that site (Trombold 1990; Nelson
1990). Becausenahuatlscholars,both ethnohistoriansand archaeologists,considering
the ques~ionofAztec origins continueto hinge their investigationsand interpretations
on a 12th and/or 13th centuryjourney for the Mexica Aztec migration (Smith 1984),
there has beena generalreticenseto considersites or regions that either pre- or postdatethe 12th or 13thcenturies.As such, the site and region of La Quemadahas
receivedlittle attentionwhere the questionof Mexica origins is concerned.
Both ethnohistoricallyand archaeologically,the Late Classic through Early
Postclas$icacropolis centerof Tula, Hidalgo, is the one locality for which we have a
Hidalgo!
10
converg~nceof severallines of evidenceto indicatea probable point of departurefor
the Me~ica migrations (Diehl 1983; CoronaS. 1990). First, as noted, the
ethnohi~orical accounts trace a migration specific to the region of Tula, or southern
Hidalgol Second,the hill of Coatepec(SerpentHill), is locatedjust outside of Tula,
It will be recalled that Coatepecis identified with the sacredmountain
attributetl to the great cosmic battle that gave birth [0 the power and might of
Huitzilopochtli, the deified warlord of the Aztec legends.EduardoMatos Moctezuma
(perso~l communication,1987) now believesthat the greatbattle that took place at the
hill of Cbatepec is symbolized in the monumental architecture and sculpture of the great
templeqf the Aztec, the Templo Mayor (seealso Mendoza1975, 1977). From this
perspecttve, 'the Templo Mayor is taken to symbolize the great cosmic hill of Coatepec.
Third, i4vestigations at the site of Tula, Hidalgo appear to confirm that the Aztecs
(based011the presence of Aztec II ceramics) buried their dead within the ruins of
ancienttoll an after the collapseof that ancientcenterin A.D. 1175 (Davies 1987)
Tollan was in addition a target of looting by the Aztecs, as well as by other Chichimec
irnrnigrailtgroups, perhapsso that they might recoverheirlooms or iconsto legitimize
their linlotagesto the legendary Toltec legacy. The temporal proximity of the Aztec
burials at Tollan to the fall of that great centerhave led to speculationsthat the early
Mexica tpay have had somethingto do with the collapseof ancientTollali (Davies
1977; Cqrona S. 1990). Ultimately, for the Aztec, Tollan and its immediateenvirons
particulaHyas this pertainsto the hill of Coatepec,representedthe location of the great
battle wIjich spawnedthe birth and deathof the Mexica Aztec pantheonof benevolent
11
and malevolent deities. For it was at the place of the serpent hill of Coatepec that the
greatd~ities, including the Mexica earthmothergoddessCoatlicue, the moon goddess
Coyolxauhqui,the star warriors known as the Centzonhuitznahuac,and the divine
warrior! Huitzilopochtli, wagedthe rust battle for the fate of the Mexica cosmos
(Towns~nd1979). Coincidentally,this is as far north as we cantrace the Mexica Aztec
migratiqn route by any stretchof the imaginatiorl(SeIer1967; Corona S. 1990)
Grand Migration or Ritual Perigrination?
~ his early summaryof the questionof Aztec origins, Eduard SeIer (1967)
soughttp refute turn of the centuryindicationsthat Aztlan, and therebyAztec origins,
should tie sought as far afield as Puget Sound in North America (Wickershan 1893; cf.
Seier 1967, 1985:31).While Seier(1967) effectively refuted the PugetSound
identific~tion with Aztlan, he wasunableto provide an alternative location for the
ancestral home of the Mexica Aztec. SeIer (1967) did, however, suggest that Mexica
account~placed both Aztlan and Chicomostoc at the Twisted Hill of Colhuacan, located
nearCh.lco within the Basinof Mexico.sBecauseof a probableMexica association
with anqientTollan,'SeIer(1967)wasunableto reconcilehis views on the location of
Colhuac~n, and thereby Aztlan, with the Aztec presence at Tollan. As a result of the
confuse4stateof the ethnohistoricalrecord, SeIer(1967)concludedthat :Aztlanmight
just as ~eII be identified with PugetSound{Wickershan1893; ct. SeIer 1967,
1985:309)
A recenttrend in the literature has begunto reexploreSeIer's (1967) notion that
12
the questionof origins will needto be reexaminedwith respectto the Basin of Mexico
(Nicholspn 1988; Olmedo Vera 1989; CoronaS. 1990; Weigand 1991). This view
presents la radically differing perspective from prior approaches that attempted to trace
specific routes of migration from the north (Jimenez-Moreno1972), or west (Kirchhoff
1961). As noted by a numberof preeminentMexican ethnohistorians,including Henry
Nicholsdn (1988), Phil Weigand(1991), and a whole host of recentMexican scholars
(Monjaras-Ruiz1976; Hers 1989; OlmedoVera 1989; Corona S. 1990), Aztlan and
ChicomQstocmay well have nothing at all to do with westernMexico or the Northern
Frontier,
More recently, Corona S. (1990)hasemployedSeIer's (1967, 1985)Basinof
Mexico ~entification for Aztlan as the basis for his interpretationthat the Aztecs were
ultimately Toltecs, or at the very least, a tributary political or military arm of the Toltec
state.Th~ many archaeologicaland ethnohistoricallinkagesthat have been
demonstljatedto have existed betweenthe Toltecs and the Aztecs are providing evidence
,
for a lev,l of interaction that supportrecentclaims suchas thosemarshalledby Corona
s. (1990)
Aztlan as Mirror over Tenochtitlan
TPe chronicles that have been employed as a guide to seeking the-isle of Aztlan,
and the ~otto of Chicomostoc,appearto more effectively corroboratethe claim that
Colhuacan, and the adjacent hill of Uixachecatl, was in fact the Aztlan of Mexica
legend. 9 the ,evidence, especially as seen through the eyes of Eduard SeIer's (1967)
13
earlier a~sessment,
provides strong indicationsthat Aztlan was located at the Basin
locality today identified with the Ixtapalapapeninsulaand Cerro de la Estrella. Of
course, tJIe identification of Aztlan with a site in the Basin of Mexico does not
ultimatel~ resolve the questionof Aztec origins. However, in retracing the specific
settleme*tsthrough which the Mexica trekked on their legendarypilgrimage to the
Basin of:Mexico, one is left with the makingsof a circuitous route that extendsto and
from Cothuacanand the ancientsettlementof Tollan, or Tula, Hidalgo. As such, it may
well be !pat the Aztlan migration themedocumentsthe makings of an ancestral
homelandno further afield thanthe ancientToltec-Nonoalcacenterof Tollan, or Tula,
Hidalgo,! Mexico (Corona S. 1990)
The Aztlan Chronicles
Ai reconsideration of the ethnohistorical descriptions of Aztlan is clearly in
order. Ironically, despiteEduardSeIer's (1967) insightful recounting and review of
migratio~ legendsand their respectiveinterpretations,we have succeededin moving
full circl~ aboutthe issueand the point of departureidentified with Aztlan and
Chicomostoc.What thendo the sourcestell us of the ancient settlementof Aztlan itself?
The Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca(Kirchhoff, et al., 1976) describesAztlan in very
specificterms:
Here was the crooked mountain, the place of the extensive emerald waters,
~here the white rulesgrow, where the white reed is found, where the white
Willow standsupright, wherethe white river sandslie, where differently colored
14
speciesof cotton grow, where the multicolored waterlilies live, where the magic
ball court lies, where the yellow puma lies outstretched
In additict>nto the descriptions from the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca (Kirchhoff, et al
1976), Fray Diego Duran's (1967) accountprovides further details regarding Aztlan
!
and the Aztec place of origin. Duran's (1967)recountingincludes relatively detailed
descriptil!>nsof the flora, fauna, and topography of the legendary Aztlan:
14 that placethere is a greathill in the midst of the waters, and it is called
Cblhuacan,becauseits summitis twisted; this is the Twisted Hill. On its slopes
w~re cavesand grottos where our fathersand grandfatherslived for many
y~ars...There they had at their disposalgreatflocks of ducks of different kinds,
h~rons, water fowl, and cranes. .They also possessedmany kinds of large fish.
T~eyhad the freshnessof grovesof treesalong the edgeof the waters. They had
s~ringssurroundedby willows, evergreensand alders, all of them tall and
comely. Our ancestorswent about in canoesand madefloating gardensupon
which they sowed maize, chili, tomatoes, amaranth, beans and all kind of seeds
which we now eatand which were broughthere from there.
(Duran 1967;cr. Weigand 1991:5)
The foregoing accountssupportthe identificationof Aztlan with the Basin area
of the Iztapalapa peninsula and Cerra de la Estrella --the purported burial place of the
I
Tolteca-Chichimeca warlord, Mixcoatl. In this context it should be noted that Mixcoatl
is said to have led his peopleinto the Basin from the Rio Panucoof the Huastecregion,
and who, accordingto legend, took a Huastecwomanas his wife (Davies 1977). The
15
descript~ons
given for the Twisted Hill of Colhuacanaccuratelydescribethe Basin
peninsul~ of Ixtapalapa and Cecco de la Estrella. Having personally explored Cecco de
Ia EstreI~a, or the Uixachtecatl (SeIer 1985:316), I have a fIrsthand perspective on some
of the n~merouscavesand grottos that pockmarkthe hill upon which the New Fire
ceremo~ of the Aztec was onceperformed. Local legendhas it that the cavesare
bottomlf1SSand that several unwary caving enthusiasts have entered the caves never to
return.
I*terestingly, Doris Heyden(1981)has recently reported on the existenceof a
Chicomqstoc, or Place of Seven Caves, located below the Pyramid of the Sun at
Teotihu~an, where shehas identified the existenceof an artificially modified grotto
with sev~nsubdivisions.While it is not my intent to suggestthat Teotihuacanhas
anythingi to do with either Aztlan, or Chicomostoc, it is my intent to illustrate that all of
the salie*t characteristicsof the legendaryAztlan are most readily identified with
ancient, $acred, and legendary locations within the Basin of Mexico, and not areas to
the nortq or west. Weigand (1991)notesthat the descriptionsin questionbear a better
fit with t4e Chalco and Xochimilco areasof the Basin of Mexico, and do so "more
closely t1j1an
that area near and around Mexcaltitan and the swamps of Nayarit"
(Weigan~1991:5).
I~ addition to thosedescriptionsthat provide guidancefor our identification of
the Twisted Hill, and thereby, Aztlan, the descriptionsof wildlife, and specifically,
waterfo~l, further supportthe contentionthat the Basinof Mexico is the hearth-placeof
Aztlan. Iforemost among the relevant observations is the fact that the Basin of Mexico
16
is a stoppingpoint along the Canadianflyway. As such, the Basin is an area with
abundantiwaterfowl, including ducks, herons, geese, and cranes. Nayarit and
Michoac~n, on the other hand, are not representativeof the great diversity of waterfowl
identified in the ethnohistoricalaccounts,and known from the Basin of Mexico
(O'Macki 1991)
T~e foregoing accountsalso claim that the ancestralpeoplesof Aztlan engaged
in agricultural pursuits centeredon the cultivation of maize, chili, tomatoes,amaranth,
beansand a variety of other seedcropsadoptedby the later peoplesof Mexico
Tenochtitlan.Chinampas,or floating gardenslike thoseof Xochimilco in the Basin of
Mexico, are said to have beenconstructedand used by the peoplesof Aztlan. The use
of canoesl,both in Aztlan and in the Basin of Mexico, adds one additional point of
infornlatipn concerningsimilarities betweenAztlan and Basinmodesof transportation
Interestingly, only two specific regions of Mesoamerica have borne archaeological or
ethnohist~ricalevidencefor the existenceof chinampas,or floating gardens.One of
theselocationsis Lake Texcoco(Xochimilco, Chalco, Texcoco), and the other is within
the Valle"'jfof Teotihuacan very near the ancient metropolis of Teotihuacan. Where Lake
Texcocois concerned,chinampashave beendocumentedas early as the late 12thand
early 13thcenturiesA.D. (Turner 1983)
Depictions of Chicomostoc,the Placeof the SevenCavesand by extension,the
SevenTribes, are to be had from the pagesof the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca
(Kirchho1Jf, et. al., 1976). Images of Chicomostoc illustrate a place beneath a twisted
hill upon which may be identified a variety of cacti; the implication being that at the
17
very lea~tChicomostocis identified with a semi-aridregion. The presenceof cacti in a
Mexicattlocation do not assistour effort to narrow the scopeof our search;the whole
of the Nbrthern Frontier and the central highlandscould very well be indicated
However, I might add that Tenochtitlanin fact signifies CactusStone.And, of course
the Plact of the SevenCavesand as manytribes is replete with cacti, caves,a twisted
hill, all <!>fwhich are identified with an isle in the middle of a lake. Clearly, the
coincide~ceof thesefeaturesoccursin no other place but the Basin of Mexico at Lake
Texcoco!and Chalco.
~aving turned our quest for Aztlan origins back to a focus on the Basin of
Mexico, Iwhat then accounts for the many and varied ethnohistorical narratives that
documeqt epic migrations spanning centuries and the whole of Mesoamerica Is northern
frontier?! And, if in fact, Aztlan and Chicomostoc are located within the Basin, what
then is tlie antiquity of the Mexica presencein the Basin of Mexico? Recent
archaeol«>gical
evidencerecoveredby ElizabethBrumfiel (1992) from the Basin areaof
Lake Xaltocan may as yet provide answersto the antiquity of Mexica settlementwithin
the Basil1 of Mexico.
The Antiquity of the Mexica Occupation
Lpcated at the northeastern margin of the ancient system of lakes -identified with
Texcocowas a portion of the lake known as Xaltocan. Recentresearchby Elizabeth
Brumfiell (1992) has resulted in the identification of Aztec I ceramics in one of the
earliestcpntextsthus far identified. Radiocarbondeterminationsnow place Aztec I
18
ceramic$at A.D. 750; a period coinciding with the collapseand abandonmentof the
ancientcenterof Teotihuacan.The ceramicsin questionwere recoveredfrom a trash
midden that .formed an isle on the margins of Lake Xaltocan in the north-central portion
of the ~lley of Mexico (Brumfiel, personalcommunication,1992). Interestingly, the
ceramicsin questionwere recoveredfrom within contextsassociatedwith Cholula
polychrQmeceramics(BrumfieI1992). Despitethe early dates,and their immediate
implicat~ons,scholarsseelittle significancein this finding for the interpretationof
Aztec o~igins;due in large part to the continuing tendencyto place the Aztecs in the
Basinno earlier thanthe 12thcenturyA.D.
As previously notedAztec scholarscontinueto work from the assumptionthat
becausethe ethnohistoriesindicatea 12th century migration into the Basin, Aztec I and
II ceramicsdo not actuallyhave anythingto do with the Aztec tradition. These
traditions are touted as pre-Aztec, and it has beensuggestedthat the ceramictypes in
questionfsimplyrepresentan ancientBasin tradition that the Aztec ultimately borrowed
upon their arrival within the Basin in the 12th century A.D
Do we in fact know when the Mexica Aztec fIrst settled the Basin? Clearly, we
do not have suchinformation readily at hand. However, it will be rememberedthat the
CodexRamirezplacesthe migration into the Basin at A.D. 900 (Weigand 1991). So
again, I ~ould be rather more cautiousin assumingthat the ceramictraditions in
question !(i.e. Aztec I) do not in fact provide concrete indications of a much greater
antiquity:for the Mexica Aztec presencein the Basinof Mexico. I believe that the
recovery:of Aztec I ceramicsfrom 8th century Basincontextsprovides but one more
19
point o~corroboratingevidencefor linking the Aztec to an 8th and 9th century
occupat~on
of the Basinof Mexico.
"' in fact the Aztec presencemay be tracedto the the 8th and 9th centuries
A. D., men the Aztec settlementof the Basin coincideswith recentindicationsregarding
a massi~einflux of Huastecand Otomi-Huastec(Garcia Cook and Merino Carrion
1979; ~cia
Cook 1981; Merino Carrion 1989)peoplesinto Basin and circum-Basin
subregiqnsdf the Mexican highlandsin the aforementionedperiod (Mendoza 1992a)
Recent~tudiesindicate, as JohnFox (1978:272)hasnoted, that
"jBeginningin the Epiclassic,the Gulf Coastalgroupsexpandedwith a kind of
sociocultural "hybrid vigor," probablymotivatedby the acquisitionof goods for
i~ternal growth, commercialexchange,and simply territorial
ejxpansion. [and] it is becommingincreasinglyclear that this expansionhad
militaristic as well as economicunderpinnings."
WhereasFox's (1978) observationswere intendedto accountfor the impact of the
Mexican Gulf Coast on highland Guatemalan culture and society --such as that
pertainitig to the migration accounts and settlements of the Quichean peoples (Fox
1978, 1987). Following on the heelsof theseobservations,Garcia Cook and Merino
Carrion (1979), Garcia Cook (1981), and Merino Carrion (1989)have examineda
similar (jJulf'Coast-Huastec
impact on the ancientsocietiesof northeasternTlaxcala,
Mexico. The characterof Gulf Coastor Huastecinfluence (Garcia Cook and Merino
Carrion 1979) manifestin northeastTlaxcalahas beenidentified as a hybrid melding of
Huastec land Otomi (or Otomi-Huastequizado) that envelopes the region in the period
20
after A.~. 750 to 850. Thereafter,Tlaxcala was dominatedby Huastec,Otomi, and
Gulf Coastinfluencesin its material culture and social makeup(an observation
reenforcedby the significantpresenceof Huastecceramictypes and hybrid variations
ext~ndinginto the Late Postclassicera (Merino Carrion 1989)
Qiven the implicationsof suchfindings, and our proposedre-readingof the
ethnohis(oricalaccounts,I now turn to a considerationof one other potential point of
origin for the Mexica migrations --mainly, Panuco, Panotlan, or the great Huasteca
region of the north-centralGulf Coastalplain.
Cuextecatl Ichocayan and the Huastec Connection
If in fact the Mexica migration, and the larger pattern of Aztlan migration
legends ~re examined closely, we get a relatively consistent pattern of references to
Huastec and Gulf Coast towns or toponyms encountered enroute from Aztlan. Huastec
toponym~ such as Tamoanchan (We Seek OUf Abode) Of Cuextecatl Ichocayan (Place
Where ttie HuastecCried) are specificallyrelatedto the Mexica and Chichimecaroutes
ofmigra~ion, and in turn, to the Huastecthemselves(Kirchhoff 1961:315-316).In turn,
the specific nahuatl toponyms identified with the Aztlan migrations, and thereby, the
origins or the Mexica people, are the samenamesidentified with dozensof ancient
settlemeqtsin the Huastecregion of northern Veracruzand southernTamaulipas
Ancient Huastecsettlementsidentified with nahuatlplace-namesinclude, Coatepec
Atzatlan, Tenoxtitlan, Xicalango, Tepetipac,Acatlan, Acultzingo, Xico, Pantepec,
Panuco,Panotlan;all namescited in varying contextswith respectto the Aztlan
21
migratio~ (Garcia Payon1971:506-511;SeIer1967; Kirchhoff 1961). Interestingly, a
number bf these place-names or toponyms were lent to the naming of towns and regions
within tJte Basin of Mexico and vice versa. If, as Smith (1984) argues, ethnic-group
names \\1erederived from the toponyms of existing towns settled by immigrant groups,
or by cortrast, ethnic identity underliesthe naming of specific towns, then in this
instance~we may well have additionalevidencefor a relatively direct linkage between
the Mexican Gulf coastand centralhighlands.
I*onically, despitethe sophisticationand elaborationinherent in the Mexica use
of the ~uatllanguage, scholarscontinueto assumethat the languagewas simply
adopted~y the Aztec upon their arrival in the central highlands.This characterization
of the Aztecs neglects the fact that while nahuatl has no immediate associations with
western~r northwesternMesoamerica(Price 1980), it was used intensively over an
extensiv~areaof the Huastecregion to the north and east(Garcia Payon1971:506). In
fact, Ga*ia Payon(1971:506)hasmapped16th centuryHuastecdistributions of
regional fariants of the nahuatllanguagefor northernVeracruz; including Nahua
Mexicanj Nahua Huastec, Tepehua Otomi, Tepehua Nahua Otomi, Tepehua, Totonac-
Otomi-Tfpehua Nahua,Nahua-Totonac-Otomi,Totonac, and Totonac Nahua. Similar
identifications of the Huastec region with nahua speakers --including Olmeca Xicalanca
or Histor1!icOlmec --has been examined ethnohistorically by Kirchhoff (1961).
According to recentinterpretationsof the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca(Kirchhoff
1971), the Toltec conquestof the Historic Olmec of Cholollan resulted in an Olmec
diasporatowards the MexicanGulf Coast, and specificallyto areasof northern
22
Veracrui, southernTamaulipas,and the Sierra de Puebla.According to legendthe
Historic l°lmec groupsof the diasporasoughtto return to an ancestralhomelandin the
Huastec~;with destinationsthat included suchtownsas Zacatlanand Pantepec,Puebla,
i
and the ~ncientHuastecsettlementsof the PanucoRiver.
Huastec Ethnogenesis
~e expansionof the Huastecstyle, and its bellicosemanifestationsin the
central highlands(Garcia Cook 1981; Merino Carrion 1989),has resulted in
consider~blespeculationon the role of the Huastecand other Gulf Coastgroups in
,
greaterMesoamerica(Delgadode Cantu 1977; Fox 1978, 1980, 1987; Garcia Cook
1981; Di~hlI983). Recentreviews, suchas that of David Grove (1983), acknowledges
the domipance of Huastec themes in the art and iconography of Postclassic central
highland$.
AFcordingto Ochoa(1984:67),evidencefor increasedcommercebetweenthe
Huastec ~egion --consisting of the eastern portion of the Sierra Madre, northern
Veracruzi, the southern half of Tamaulipas, southeasternSan Luis Potosi, portions of
the Altiplano!Potosino, and portions of Hidalgo, Puebla, and Queretaro --and central
V eracruz~ appears in Late Classic Huastec material culture and architecture (Michelet
1986).
AFcording to Krotser (1981:178-179), beginning at A.D. 600, Gulf lowland
populationincreaseddramatically. This increaseclearly manifestsitself in site size,
artifact dfnsities, and the distribution and total numbersof sitesidentified along the
23
north-centralGulf Coast. Whereas,few Early Classicsiteshave beenidentified, Late
Classic sites fabound along the coast and adjacent valleys. Site density and areal
coverag~ suggest that such sites maintained substantial populations (Krotser 1981: 179),
The patt~rns(indicatedcontinuedinto the Early Postclassic,at which time, we seethe
expansiopof the Huastecinto highlandbasins; in a pattern that coincides with
ethnohis~oricalaccountsof the Aztlan migrations.
Panuco and the Rio Tula
J*st north of Colhuacanwas ancientTollan, identified by the great
ethnohistbrianWigberto JmenezMoreno (1941) with the site of Tula, Hidalgo. If one
!
follows $e Rio Tula (which flows at the foot of the acropolis complexof Tula,
Hidalgo)tto the north, it becomespatently clear that this ancientwaterwaywas a key
corridor pf communicationand interactionlinking southernHidalgo with the whole of
Mesoam~rica.The Rio Tula emptiesinto the Rio Moctezuma,which is in turn linked to
the Rio ~anuco,and thereby, the Huastecregion of the Mexican Gulf Coast. This
water-bo~ne corridor served as a vital link between southern Hidalgo and the Basin of
Mexico, hnd the heartof the Huastecregion of northernVeracruz, southern
Tamaulipas,northernPuebla,Queretaro,and portions of severaladjacentstates
including: San Luis Potosi. The Huasteca, in turn, was a culturally distinctive region
marked by the defined ubiquity of Huastecmasonryplatforms moundsconstructedon a
circular tloorplan, distinctive ballcourts, large and slab-like tabular sculpturesof
individuaJs,deities, and otherpersonagesexecutedin a style later employed or adopted
24
by the Alztec(Miller 1986:169;Trejo 1989), iconographicmotifs (Ochoa 1984), and a
major cult complexcenteredon deities purportedlyintroducedinto the central highlands
by way Qf Toltec and Aztec migration events (Davies 1977, 1987; Delgado de Cantu
1977; SUllivan 1982). And so it is that we must follow the waterways, and thereby, the
natural cprridors of communicationlinking the central highlands and therebythe
Toltecs 4nd Aztecs --with the Huastec region of the Mexican Gulf Coast. More than
likely, it! was this source of ancient interactions between the Mexican Gulf Coast and
central highlandsthat servedas the stimulusand the path followed by the peoplesof the
Aztlan migrations.
Huastecsin Aztlan
Whenpressedfor answersto the questionof Aztec origins, scholarscontinueto
recite tht1prevailing, and unfounded, notion that the very core of Aztec civilization was
little moIte than the result of syncretic adaptations and cultural borrowings that span
centuriesiand the whole of Mesoamerica (Miller 1986:169; Porter Weaver 1981:385-
387). From this perspectiveit is assumedthat upon their arrival in the Valley of
Mexico in the 13thcentury, the Aztecs simply adoptedthe existing traditions of the
Basinof Mexico, including Coyotlatelco-relatedand Aztec n period ceramics,Tolteclike scul~turaland architecturalconventions,Huastecritual and religious practices,and
Mixteca-Pueblaiconographicand artistic motifs and designs.From this perspectivethe
Aztecs a11e
likened to so many Romans borrowing from the cultural traditions of their
Greekprpjenitors,
25
UIltimately, we are left to assume that both Toltec and Huastec traditions so
dominatetlthe central highlandsthat it was a simple matter of imitating the extant
culture of the Basin. What is not explained,especiallywhen given the intense
regionalism --both political and stylistic --of the Basin of Mexico, is why the Aztecs
singled-out Toltec and Huastec traits and elements for their chosen cultural inventory ,10
While we know that the Toltecs were the superpowers of the time, and therefore
worthy of emulation, we are left with no explanation as to why the most conservative
dimensions of both Toltec and Aztec society --especially its pantheon of major gods
and ritua.s --are drawn directly from Huastec religion and its attendant ritual system
(Davies 1:977).
Preliminary assessmentsof the material, social, and ritual dimensionS of Aztec
societyinevitably encountera significantbias toward Toltec and Huastecthemesand
traditions. Whenconsideringthe potential factorsunderlying suchdominantinfluences
on Aztec culture, it would be well to go to the source of these interactions. Recent
reappraisalsof the Toltec-Aztecconnectionhave come far closer to concluding that the
Aztecs were vassals,and possiblemercenaries,of the Toltec stateand may well have
had a hand in the destructionof the Toltec capital of Tollan (Corona S. 1990). If such
were the case, and we do know that the Aztecs coopted and layed claim to the Toltec
heritage and dynastic tradition, we can readily explain the extent of Toltec influence on
the Aztec. This doesnot, however,provide a ready answerto the Huastec impact on
the most conservative dimensions of Aztec society --mainly, its ritual, religious,
symbolic, and utilitarian traditions. Inevitably, whenwe look to the Huastecculture
26
area(Ochoa1984, 1989), we are confrontedby the very sameconstellationof social
and ritunl trappingsthat formed the nucleusof Aztec tradition and civilization (StresserPean1971).
Conclusions: The Mexica-HuastecCultural Pattern in Retrospect
Having reviewedthe Aztlan migration theme, as well as the linguistic
connectionsbetweennahuatllanguageuse in the central highlandsand on the Mexican
Gulf cOast,the use of Huastectoponymsin Mexica migration accounts,and fmally, the
routesof communicationand exchangelinking ancientTollan to the Huastecheartland,
we nowlturn our attention to the Huastec themselves Ochoa 1984, 1989; Trejo 1989)
Becauseiit was not the intent of this essayto provide an exhaustive recounting of
Mexica-Huasteccultural connections,the remainderof this discussionprovides an
abbrevi~ted overview of cultural elements inherent in each society --mainly,
monumentalart and architecture,religion, and social diacritics or diagnosticssuchas
clothing, In other words, thoseaspectsof Mexica culture and societythat may bear
witnessto the Huastecconnectionin Aztec origins
The Cosmopolitan Origins of Tribes and Empires
Ip our questfor answersto the questionof Aztec origins we must look to other
27
ancient$ocieties.We must also be preparedto ask informed questionsregarding the
causes apd consequencesof human migrations --especially the sort of epic migrations
that cha~acterizethe Aztlan chronicles.One Old World analog for migration and tribal
formatiqns like that that characterizedthe evolution of Mexica Aztec societyis that
identified with the ancientHebrewsof the Near East. In an effort to reconcile and unify
the m~gs
of what was essentiallya multi-ethnic, multi-tribal grouping of peoples,
ancient $ebrew leaders introduced religious doctrines, codified mandates, laws,
sanctioned rituals, and a migration legend that served to unify and homogenize the
cultural ~nd social composition of early Hebrew society. Clearly, the religious doctrines
of the Hebrew --embodied in the Torah and in other sacred bodies of arcane doctrine --
servedboth spiritual, as well as sociopolitical, ends.Thesedoctrinesservedto createa
social and spiritual history intended to promote unity among the tribal factions that
formed the Hebrew confederacy.Like the Aztec, the Hebrew are said to have rewritten
their respectivehistories so as to politically correct and engendera new and cohesive
history.
According to early 16thcenturychronicles,the Aztec destroyedtheir ancient
historical traditions so as to avert impendingpolitical and social fissioning and
factioning (Leon-Portilla 1979). They themselvesclaim that they burnt their ancient
histories~and thesewere in turn rewritten to accomodatea new world order centeredon
humanheart excisionand Mexica-centeredimperial expansion.According to the
Mexica chronicles of Sahagun(Leon-Portilla 1979:251-252; cf. Weigand 1991 :7)
Se guardabasu historia. Pero, entoncefue quemada...Los senoresmexicas
28
dijeron: no convieneque toda la genteconozcalas pinturas. Los que estan
s~jectos(el pueblo), se hechana perder y andaratorcida la tierra, porque alIi se
gpardamuchamentira y muchosen ellas han sido tenidos por dioses.
What is tndicatedby this accountis that the Aztec political and ritual specialistsof the
time car~fully guardedthe historiesof the Mexica nation, and ultimately, burned these
:
histories! in an effort to avert the social chaos and political upheaval that would ensue if
the truthjwere revealed. According to this accounting, if the truth were revealed, the
Mexica Aztec histories would engendercivil war and strife in the Valley of Mexico.
Clearly, we can only speculateon the contentof the ancientchronicJesthat were
destroyed, and ask, what potentially dangerous "lies" comprised the Mexica histories?
What was the nature of these "lies" --these evil portents --that could so rend the earth
and lead ~o civil unrest? Interestingly, the aforementioned Aztec histories were
destroyedand rewritten at the very momentthat Aztec armiespreparedto march on the
cities and towns of the southernHuasteca.
1.
29
this paper is basedon both a presentationfor the World of MoctezumaLecture
Seriesof the Denver Museumof Natural History, Denver, Colorado, December2, 1992
(Mendoza1992b),anda conferencepaperpresentedbeforethe 1993annualmeetingof the
AmericanAnthropological Association,Washington,D.C. (Mendoza 1993)
the perspectivesdevelopedhere arise from ideasthat I have espousedamong my
studentsIfoLthe past,several years (Mendoza 1993). In each instance, I have pushed my
studentsl(Eidlen 1992) to explore non-traditionalist perspectives that have nothing at all to
do with West Mexico (Kirchhoff 1961), or an Aztlan origin in Mexico's Northern Frontier
(Jimenez-Moreno1972). Mine is a point of view temperedby the frustration that we are
no clos~r to resolving the questionof Aztec origins than we were when Eduard SeIer
,
(1967)examinedtheseissuesat the turn of the century.
30
2
According to the Spanishchronicler, Fray Diego Duran (1967), in the mid-1400's
the grea~Aztec king MoctezumaIlhuicamina,with the assistanceof his principal military
advisor, 1the ,Serpent Woman Tlacaelel, sought the advice of soothsayers in his quest for
the legendary home of the Aztec, Aztlan. The soothsayersdescribed Aztlan and
Chicomqstoc --the
grotto of the Seven Caves --in
great detail to their sovereign
Moctezuma llhuicamina, Obsessedwith their descriptions, Moctezuma ordered his
soothsay~rsand magicians to relocate Aztlan and thereby the legendary place of
emergence.The soothsayers
and magiciansset aboutthis task and soonfound themselves
magicallytransportedto the regionof the ancientcity of Tollan, to the site of the legendary
serpentijill of Coatepec.AtCoatepec, the soothsayersand magicianswere tra~formed
into eagl~sandjaguars, and othercreatureSof the day and night. At the hill of Coatepec
they camebefore the primordial mothergoddessCoatlicue and her son Huitzilopochtli,
"Left Hand Like a HUmmingbird" (O'Mack 1991:23). The soothsayers and magicians
listened$tently as Coatlicuerecountedthe legendof how Huitzilopochtli had departedthe
hill of Cqatepecand embarkedon his momentousjourney to the Valley of Mexico. There
Huitzilopochtli sought his fortune, the conquestof cities, and a great earthly kingdom that
was to become the empire of the Mexica Aztec.
31
3
Nlany theoriesexist with regardto Aztec origins. One can sum thesetheoriesinto
several~ajor themespertainingto pointsof departureidentified with the 10ththrough 12th
century tnigrationsof the Mexica Aztec people. Suchthemesencompassa diverse array
of origip points, ethnic groups and affiliations,
and routes --even
as these are
reconst~cted by a variety of ethnohistorians(Congresmtemacional des Americanistes
1897;CqronaS. 1990; Davies 1977;Jimenez-Moreno1972; Kirchhoff 1961; MonjarasRuiz 19~6; Nicholson 1988; SeIer1967; Smith 1984; Weigand 1991).
4
B~ this accounting,the Aztecs literally createda parallel or circular history to
explain ~eir presentworld, and did so by way of projecting into the past their present
history. *' one subscribesto the notion that Aztlan is little more than allegory, then Aztlan
was in all probability a manifestationof a forgotten history that the Aztec soughtto
resurrect!by way of projecting their contemporaryreality into the mythic past
5
~ such,datesextendingprior to the late 12thcenturyA.D. have beenquestioned
32
and ther~by,systematicallyexcludedfrom consideration.Much of this tendencyis clearly
a byproductof the confusing array of ethnically and politically-basedcalendrical counts
encounteted by the Spanishin the central highlands in the early 16th century (Smith 1984),
A number of scholarshave employeda comparative approachto this problem, often
alligning Itheir perspectives with those dates that appear to cluster in time. Such a strategy,
whenno~weighedin terms of the ethnic and political rhetoric of the times, has tendedto
obscurethe existenceof datesthat clearly anticipateby centuriesthe traditionalist dates
ascribedto the Mexica migrationsfrom Aztlan. Despitethe confusion, the migrations in
questionare documentedin a varietyof sources,anddatesranging from A.D. 902 (Codice
Ramirez)Ito A.D. 1155 (Anales de Tlatelolco) are presentedto account for Mexica origins
(Weigan41991:1). Smith's (1984)recentessayon the Aztlan migration theme servesto
illustrate Ithe confusion. Despite an attempt to restrict the focus of the Aztlan migrations
to the Iat~ 12th centuryA.D., Smith was forced to contend with dates that fell into the
period of the early 10thcentury. His strategywas to segregateout theseearly migrations
into a nop-nahuatltheme, while at the sametime attemptingto conjoin the 12th century
migrations to a nahuatl-only contingent --an effort that avoided consideration of the
nahuatl-speakingOlmecaand Xicalancagroups that have now beenreinterpreted (on the
basisof recentfmdings from the sitesof Cholula and Cacaxtla)to representthe product of
a 7th through 9th century conquestmovementinto the Puebla Basin and the region of
Chalco-Arnecameca
(Mendoza1992).
33
6.
Ghicomoztoc was a toponym identified with the founding of many towns in the
MesoamfricanPostclassic;especiallyas this regardsthe Aztlan migrationsinto the central
high1an~. Ultimately, Chicomostochas been identified, in varying contexts, with La
Quemad~,Zacatecas;Teotihuacanin the Basin of Mexico (Heyden 1981); and with
Colhuacan(SeIer1967)
7
I~ should be noted that Lake Yuriria stradles the border between Michoacan and
Guanaju,to, and that San Isidrio Culiacan lies squarely within the modem state of
Guanaju~to,Mexico. While Kirchhoff (1961)interpretedSanIsidrio Culiacan,Guanajuato,
to be the Ilegendary Colhuacan or Teocolhuacan of the Mexica migrations, he nevertheless
believed that Aztlan itself lay some distance north and west of San Isidrio Culiacan. This
particulat interpretationdid not presenta major conflict or challengeto JimenezMoreno's
I
(1972) perspective that Mezcaltitlan, Nayarit, was Aztlan.
8
Oddly enough,if oneretracesthe footstepsof the original lost tribes that composed
34
the Mexi~aAztec polyglot, one is left with the impressionthat the original homelandwas
located a~Colhuacan in the Basin of Mexico; a settlement identified with the island-hill and
grottos of Cerro de la Estrella.
9,
I~ we take the accountsto representactual events and localities, then in all
likelihood, Aztlan canmost specificallybe identified with a hostof ancientsitesand events
in the B~sin of Mexico. It has been demonstrated in other contexts (Smith 1984) that
migrants lof the Aztec era took the names or toponyms of the towns or regions that they
settled. 1\Issuch, the ethnic names attributed to many an Aztec period group were largely
related tol their ultimate destinations, and not their particular origins. If this is in fact the
case, then the Aztec accountof origins, with its many and sundried legends, best lends
credibilitY to the migration as little more than a pilgrimage circuit.
10.
RichardMacNeish's (1954)dissertationexaminedthe Panuco region of Veracruz
for the origins of Mesoamericaninteractionswith the Caddoanpeoplesof the Texas Gulf
35
Coast.~ecent1y,Gloria M. Delgadode Cantu (1977)reexaminedthe role of the Huastec
in the elaborationof the prehistoric societiesof the SoutheasternUnited States.In turn,
recentexcavationsat Balconde Moctezuma,Tamaulipas,Mexico (Narez 1990; Pella and
Narez 1990)haveresultedin the recoveryof a significant body of evidencein supportof
the Huastec connection --and the emergence of a prehistoric" gateway community" --to
the SoutheasternUnited States.
36
ReferencesCited
Acosta~aignes,Miguel
Migraciones de los Mexica. Memorias de la Academia Mexicana de la
Historia 5: 177-187.
Anales~ Cuauhtitlan
Anales de Cuauhtitlan. In Codice Chimalpopoca.Primo F. Velazquez,
ed. and trans. pp. 1-118. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma
de Mexico
Analesde Tlatelolco
Anales de Tlatelolco: Unos Anales Historicos de la Nacion Mexicana y
Codice de Tlatelolco. Heinrich Berlin and Robert Barlow, eds.Mexico:
Porrua e Hijos.
Barlow, Robert, ed.
EI Codice Azcatitlan. In Journal de la Societe des Americanistes,
XXXVIII, pp. 101-136.
Boone, ElizabethHill
Migration Histories as Ritual Performances. In To Change Place: Aztec
Ceremonial LandscaQes.David Carrasco, ed. pp. 121-151. Niwot,
Colorado: University Pressof Colorado.
Brumfiel~ ElizabethM
Early PostclassicDates for Aztec I Ceramicsat Xaltocan. Paper
presentedbefore the 15thAnnual Meeting of the Midwest
37
Mesoamericanists,Indianapolis,Indiana.
CarrascQ,Pedro
The Peoplesof Central Mexico and Their Historical Traditions. In
Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volume
1, Archaeolog~ of
Northern Mesoamerica,GordonF. Ekholm and Ignacio Bernal, volume
editors. pp. 459-473 Austin: University of Texas Press,
ChaverojAlfredo
Historia Antigua y de la Conquista.In Mexico a traves de los Siglos,
Vol. I, Mexico.
Chimalpahin,Franciscode S. A. M
Relaciones Originales de Chalco Amequemecan. Sylvia Rendon, Trans.
Mexico: Fondode Cultura Economica
Codice ~ubin
Historia de la Nacion Mexicana: Reproduccion a TodD Color del Cod ice
de 1576 (CodiceAubin). CharlesE. Dibble, Ed. and Trans. Madrid:
JoseParma Turanzas.
Codice Azcatitlan
El Codice Azcatitlan. Robert Barlow, ed. In Journal de la Societe des
Americanistes38, Supplement,pp. 101-136.
Codice Boturini
1975 .c.QdiceBoturini or Tira de la Peregrinacion. Mexico: Secretaria de
EducacionPublica.
38
Codice qhimalpopoca
Codice Chimalpopoca.P.F. Velazquez,ed. & trans. Mexico: lnsitituto
de Investigaciones Historicas, U.N .A.M,
Codice ~amirez
1944 Codice Ramirez: Relacion del Origen de los lndios que Habitaban esta
Nueva Espana. Segun sus Historias. Juan de Tovar, ed. Mexico
Editorial Leyenda
CongresInternational desAmericanistes
L 'Historien Sahagunet leg Migrations Mexicainespar Le Cte de
Charencey In Compte Rendu de la Dixieme Session Congres
InternationaldesAmericanistes.Stockholm. 1894 Stockholm:
Imprimerie Ivar Haeggstrom
Corona 81.,Eduardo
El origen de Aztlan: La identidad Tolteca de 105Mexica. In
Mesoamerica X Norte de Mexico. Siglo IX-XII:
Seminario de
ArQueologia "Wigberto Jimenez Moreno". Federica Sodi Miranda,
coordinadora. Vol. 2, pp. 575-584. Mexico: Museo Nacional de
Antropologia, lnstituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.
Cronica Mexicayotl
Cronica Mexica):otl. H.A. Tezozomoc, with Adrian Leon, trans
Mexico: Instituto de Investigaciones Historicas, U.N .A.M
Davies, Nigel
Angel
Aztlan:
39
The Toltecs: Until the Fall of Tula. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
The Aztec Empire: The Toltec Resurgence.Norman & London:
University of OklahomaPress
Delgado! de Cantu, Gloria M.
La Huasteca:Cultura-Origenen Mesoamericay punto de enlacecon el
sureste de Estados Unidos. In Los Procesos de Cambia en Mesoamerica,
Vol. 1, pp. 439-446.
Diehl, Richard
IP83 Tula. The Toltec Capital of Ancient Mexico. London: Thames &
Hudson.
Duran, ~ray Diego
Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espana ~ Islas de Tierra Firrne. 2 vols.
M. Garibay K, ed. Mexico: Porma.
Eidlen, I1>enise
Here?There?Anywhere. Papersubmittedfor Anthropology
6000 (The Aztec Empire: ProfessorMendoza), University of Colorado at
Denver.
Fox, JohnW.
Lowland to Highland MexicanizationProcessesin Southern
Mesoamerica.AmericanAntiQuit~ 45(1):43-54
Ma~a PostclassicStateFormation. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity
40
Press
Garcia qook, Angel
The Historical Importanceof Tlaxcala in the Cultural Developmentof
the Central Highlands. In Handbook of Middle American Indians,
SupplementNo.1, Archaeology,pp. 244-276. I.A. Sabloff, volume
editor. Austin: University of TexasPress.
Garcia qook, Angel, and B. Leonor Merino C.
Grupos Huaxtecos en el Norte de Tlaxcala. In Comunicaciones
17:57-63. Proyecto Puebla-Tlaxcala, Puebla, Mexico
Garcia P~yon,Jose
Archaeologyof Central Veracruz. In Handbookof Middle American
Indians. RobertWauchope,GordonF. Ekholm, and Ignacio Bernal.
Volume 11, pp. 505-542. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Gillespie~SusanD
1989 The Aztec Kings: The Construction of Rulership in Mexica Histor~.
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Grove, I1avid C.
Review of The Art and Iconogra12h~of Late Post-Classic Central
Mexico, Elizabeth Hill Boone, ed. American AntiQuit~ 48":871-872.
Hers, M4rie-Areti
Los Toltecasen Tierras Chichimecas.Mexico: lnstituto de
InvestigacionesEsteticas,Cuademosde Historia del Arte, 35,
Antropologia
41
Universidad Nacional Autonomade Mexico.
Heyden, IDoris
An Interpretationof the Cave Underneaththe Pyramid of the Sun in
Teotihuacan,Mexico. AmericanAntiQuit~ 40(1):131-147
Historia ~e Ios Mexicanos
Historia de Ios Mexicanospar susPinturas. In Nueva CoIecciQnde
Documentos para la Historia de Mexico. Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta, Ed
vol. 3. pp. 209-240. Mexico: Editorial SalvadorChavezHayhoe.
Historia trolteca-Chichirneca
Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca.Paul Kirchhoff, Lina OdenaGuemes,and
Luis ReyesGarcia, eds. & trans. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de
e Historia
Ixtlilxochitl, Fernandode Alva
Obras Historicas. Edition and notesby Alfredo Chavero. Mexico
Editorial Nacional
Jimenez-Moreno,Wigberto
Tula y 10sToltecassegunlas FuentesHistoricas R.M.E.A.,
V, 2-3,
pp. 79-83
La migracion Mexica. Actas del XL Congreso lnternacional de
Americanistas,Roma. pp. 167-177
Kirchhoff. Paul
Los pueblos de la historia Tolteca-Chichimeca: Sus migraciones y
42
parentesco. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropologicos, Torno IV,
Nums. 1-2, pp. 77-104.
?Sepuedelocalizar Aztlan? Anuario de Historia, 1, pp. 59-67. Mexico:
Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, UNAM.
?Se puede localizar Aztlan? Reprinted in Mesoamerica): el Centro de
Mexico: Una Antologia, JesusMonjaras-Ruiz,RosaBrambila, and
EmmaPerez-Rocha,eds.pp. 331-341. ColeccionBiblioteca del INAH,
lnstituto Nacionalde Antropologia e Historia.
Kirchhoff, Paul, Lina Odella Guemes, and Luis Reyes Garcia
Historia Tolteca-Chichirneca.
Mexico: lnstituto Nacional de
Antropologia e Historia
Leon-Po~illa, Miguel
Textos de los informantesde Sahagun.In La Filosofia Nahuatl, pp. 251252. Mexico: UniversidadNacional Autonomade Mexico.
Macazag~Ordofio, Cesar
NombresGeograficosde Mexico. Mexico: Editorial Innovacion, S.A
MacNeish, Richard S.
An Early ArchaeologicalSite Near Panuco,Veracruz, Transactionsof
the American Philosophical Societ~, Vol. 44, Part 5
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Mendoza,RubenG
The Nahuatl Templesand Their Relationshipto Cosmology: The Testing
43
of an Hypothesis. Southwestern Anthropological Association Newsletter,
Vol. XV, No.1, pp. 3-8.
Worldview and the Monolithic Templesof Malinalco, Mexico:
Iconography and Analogy in Precolumbian Architecture. Journal de la
Societe des Americanistes 64:63-82.
1992a Conquest Polities of the Mesoamerican Epiclassic: Circum-Basin
Regionalism. A.D. 550-850. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Departmentof Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Ann
Arbor: University Microfilms International.
1992b Mexico Before the Aztec: The Origins of Central Highland Civilization.
Museum Quarterl~, Vol. 1, No.1, pp. 10-15, Autumn. Denver
Museumof Natural History, Colorado.
Cholollan, Tajin, and the OlomanConnection: Patternsin the Evolution
of Circum-BasinRegionalism,A.D. 550-850. Abstractsof the 57th
Annual Meeting of the Socie~ for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania,April 8-12, 1992.
1992d Maya Warlords,Olmec Tyranny, and the Collapseof the Mesoamerican
Classic: Patternsin Gulf Lowland-CentralHighland Interaction.
Abstracts of the 91st Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, San Francisco, California; December 2-6, 1992
Aztlan, Tanloanchan,and the HuastecConnectionin Mexica Aztec
Origins. Paperscheduledfor the 92nd Annual Meeting of the American
44
Anthropological Association,Washington,D.C.
Merino darrion, Beatriz Leonor
1989 La Cultura Tlaxco. SerieArqueologia, ColeccionCientifica 174
Mexico: lnstituto Nacionalde Antropologia e Historia.
Michelet, Dominique
?Gentedel golfo tierra adentro?Algunasobservacionesacercade la
region de Rio Verde, S.L.P. Cuadernos de Arijuitectura Mesoamericana
8:80-83. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico,
Miller, ~ary Ellen
The Art of Mesoamerica from Olmec to Aztec. London: Thames &
Hudson.
Monjaras~Ruiz,Jesus
Aztlan, interpretacion de una leyenda. In Las Fronteras de Mesoamerica,
XIV Mesa Redonda. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, Torno 2, pp
327-333,Mexico.
Munoz Camargo,Diego
Historia de Tlaxcala. Alfredo Chavero,Ed. Mexico: Secretariade
Fomento
Narez, Je~us
Los trabajosarqueologicosen Balconde Montezuma,Municipio de
Victoria, Tamaulipas.In Mesoamerica~ Norte de Mexico. Siglo IX-XII,
Seminariode Arqueologia "Wigberto JimenezMoreno. FedericaSodi
45
Miranda, Coordinadora.pp. 433-442.Mexico: lnstituto Nacional de
Antropologia e Historia
Nelson, 13en
Observacionesacercade la presenciaTolteca en La Quemada,Zacatecas.
In Mesoamerica~ Norte de Mexico. Siglo IX-XII. FedericaSodi
Miranda, ed. Mexico: Museo Nacional de Antropologia, I.N .A.H
Nicholsop, Henry B.
Aztlan: Myth, Legend and/or History? Paper presented before the 87th
Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Phoenix
Arizona. November18, 1988.
Ochoa, r}orenzo
HisiQria Prehis12anicade la Huaxteca. Mexico: lnstituto de
InvestigacionesAntropologicas,SerieAntropologica, 26, Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
1~89 Huaxtecos~ totonacos:Una antologiahistorico-cultural. Mexico
Direccion Generalde Publicaciones,ConsejoNacional para la Cultura y
lag Artes,
adena Guemes,Lina
La composicionetnica en el Postclasicoy la cuestionChichirneca. In
Mesoamericay Norte de Mexico. Siglo IX-XII: Seminariode
Arqueologia "Wigberto JimenezMoreno". FedericaSodi Miranda,
coordinadora.Vol. 2, pp. 451-458.Mexico: Museo Nacional de
46
Antropologia, lnstituto Nacionalde Antropologia e Historia.
OlmedoI" era, Bertina
La migracion de losmexicas. In Atlas Historico de Mesoamerica. Linda
RosaManzanillaand LeonardoLopez Lujan. coordinators.pp. 142-147
Mexico: EdicionesLarousse.
O'Mack,1Scott
YacateuctliandEhecatl-Quetzalcoatl:Earth Divers in Aztec Central
Mexico. In Ethnohisto~ 38(1):1-33,
Pella, R~saMa., and JesusNarez
Un casoespecialde mutilaciondentariadetectadoen los entierros de
"Balconde Montezuma",Tamaulipas.In Mesoamerica~ Norte de
Mexico. Siglo IX-XII, Seminariode Arqueologia "Wigberto Jimenez
Moreno. FedericaSodi Miranda, Coordinadora.pp. 417-432. Mexico
lnstituto Nacionalde Antropologiae Historia
Porter Weaver, Muriel
The Aztecs. Ma~a. and Their Predecessors:Archaeolog~of
Mesoamerica.SecondEdition. SanDiego: AcademicPress,Inc.
Price, BaJrbaraJ.
The Truth is Not in Accounts but in Account Books: On the
EpistemologicalStatusof History. In Be~ondthe M~ths of Culture:
Essa~sin Cultural Materialism. Eric B. Ross, ed. pp. 155-180. New
York: AcademicPress.Inc.
47
Robelo, Cecilia
Diccionario de Mitologia Nahuatl. Mexico: Ediciones Fuentes Cultural.
Sahaguli.Fray Bernardinode
1950-69
Florentine Codex. General Histor~ of the Things of New Spain.
12 books. Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble, Trans.
and Eds. SantaFe and Salt Lake City: Schoolof American
Researchand University of Utah,
Historia General de las Casas de Nueva Espana. Introduction and notes
by Alfredo LopezAustin and JosefinaGarcia. Mexico: Alianza Editorial
Mexicana.
SeIer, 'E4tuard
W 0 lag Aztlan, die Heimath der Azteken? Reprinted in Gesammelte
Abhandlungen, Ferdinand Anders, ed. Vol 2, pp. 31-48. 2nd Edition.
Austria: Graz.
?Dondese EncontrabaAztlan, La Patria [Original] de los Aztecas?
Reprinted in Mesoamerica ~ el Centro de Mexico: Una Antologia, Jesus
Monjaras-Ruiz,RosaBrambila, and Emma Perez-Rocha,eds. pp. 309330. ColeccionBibliotecadel INAH, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia
e Historia.
Smith, Michael E
The Aztlan Migrations of the NahuatlChronicles: Myth or History?
Ethnohisto~ 31(3):153-186.
48
Stresser-pean,Guy
Ancient Sources on the Huasteca. In Handbook of Middle American
Indians. RobertWauchope,GordonF. Ekholm, and Ignacio Bernal
Volume 11, pp. 582-602.Austin: University of Texas Press
Sullivan, IThelma D.
Tlazolteotl-Ixcuina: The Great Spinnerand Weaver. In The Art and
Iconographx of Late Post-Classic Central Mexico. Elizabeth Hill Boone
ed. pp. 7-35. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Townsend,Richard Fraser
State and Cosmos in the Art of Tenochtitlan. Dumbarton Oaks Studies in
Pre-ColumbianArt and Archaeology, No. 20.
Trejo, Silvia
Escultura Huaxteca de Rio Tamuin (Figuras Masculinas). Mexico:
Instituto de InvestigacionesEsteticas,Cuademosde Historia del Arte,
46, UniversidadNacionalAutonomade Mexico
Trombold, CharlesD.
A Reconsiderationof Chronology for the La QuemadaPortion of the
Northern Mesoamerican Frontier. American Antiquit~ 55(2):308-324,
Turner II, B. L.
Comparisonof Agrotechnologiesin the Basin of Mexico and Central
Maya Lowlands: Formative to the ClassicMaya Collapse. In HighlandLowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisci12lina~ A1212roaches
49
Arthur G. Miller, Ed. Washington,D.C
DumbartonOaks Research
Library and Collection.
Weigandl.Phil C.
Revum Novarum: Mexcaltitan as Aztlan? Manuscript in author's
possession. Submitted for publication in Avances en el arijueologia de
Occidente de Mexico, Eduardo Williams, Ed. Mexico: Colegio de
Michoacan. In press
Wickersijan, James
The Ceramicsof Puget-Sound.Science566. December8, 1893
."'"
fi
~-
t-
oJ
<
:>
t-
N
0
U
LU
<
:>
~
z
<
..J
I-
<
Z
<
~
In
0
~
~
I-
Z
~
~
~
C
I--J
:I:
D. ..,
Z
u
<
In
:5 z
Z
<
.
..
,
Z
~
'I
VI '
,
'I
I
I
I
I
<
..J
~
...
I
I
t
t
..
t
U
"
~
I&J
Q.
I&J
I-
I U
t
~".,
I
.....
"'~
-J
~
z
.
il-