ni;u.VTiox of the nahuas. 3'H

tlier defeat, for tliey move full 100 leaguGs norlliward to Yztachuechucha, and stop there 22 years, a sufficient tinie to raise another génération of warriors; thence, 80 leagues, to ToUantzingo and then finaily to « Tollan » the capital of their future empire which, if Ixlilxochitl's dates can be trusted, Ihey build about 500 P. C, on the site of a former city of the t)tomis.

The fact, that even the distances; as given by Ixlilxochitl agroe with the actual situation of the varions locaUties, hero indicated, is not only a fiirlher proof of the correctness of the location of Amaquemecan, as demonstrated, but serves likewise to increase the confidence in the transmitted accounts of the old vvriters, some modem historians bave sought to discrédit in rather a sunnnary manner, which if il were generally accepted, would save us the labor of further archaoological investigation not only in America, but likewise in raany countries of the old world, where our knowledge often rests on no better évidences. It is the province of the true historian to point eut the rational probabilities and lurnish the proof by criticizing and sifting just such évidence, as bas been preserved for us in America !

The Toltec immigration was followed by that of the Ghichimecs somo of whom, the Teo-chichimecs, appear to bave been immédiate followers of the first wave ofToltecs, and the , fûunders of Gulhuacan, the conquerors of Cholulla (the old capital of the Huitznahuacs and Olmecs) and indeed the real founders of the Toltec empire (1) (about 700 P. G.). Three hundred years later, the body of the Ghichimecs and of the Acolhuas (the latter probably the inhabitants of Golhuacan about the rivers Guliacan and Yaqui, where strong Nahua affmilies were found) moved southwards (2), and the Ghichi-

(1) Bancroft. V. 243.

[2; Ibid. V. 221.

mec empire was founded on the ruins of the Tollec State. They were imcloubtedly driven forward by the Nahuatlaca tribes, which shortly after thein appeared in Mexico. Tiiese had corne frora Aztlan, by way of Chicomoztoc, where the Aztecs remained for a while.

As there can be no reasonable doiibt, that this latter émigration took place only about 400 years before the arrivai of the Spaniards, it is indeed incompréhensible, on what ground of scrutiny the transmitted accounts of a people highly cultvated in raany respects, support the high-handedassumption, that the « land of grottoes », a station, which ail the accounts of the Aztec migration assure us, that people rested in for (piite a while at that lime, is nolhing but a mythical fancy, having some unknowable metaphysical or symbolical signification. It appears to me, this fashion ofexplainingaway traditions is carried altogether too far now-a-days. The most misérable tribe of savages, if itmade a long migration, taking up more than a century, will retain somememory ofits gênerai direction etc. etc. for fourhundred years. Why then should the Aztec priesthood and nobility, a class bred for and educated in tho understanding of traditional lore and an elaborate System of picture writing, be considered as a set of metaphysical lunatics, who did not know or did not mean, what they said. What they unanimously did say, was that, only three centu-, ries previously their forefathers had arrived in the valley of Mexico after a long migration from the North, from a great^ and exlensive country, called Aztlan, their former home, and by way of a country, called Oztotlan. The slatement is simple direct, rational, and not a single man of those, who take the liberty of turning symbolical somersaults on ils assertions, has yet advanced a solitary reason, why it is not worthy of crédit.

Until such reasons are bronght forward, we shall assume, that Aztlan, is identical with the Tulan, the happy eastern land of the Fopol Vuh, whenœ the Tollecs had previously