http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

*History, Myth, and Migration in Mesoamerica *

*Alexander F. Christensen *

Department of Anthropology

Box 6050-B, Vanderbilt University

Nashville, TN 37235

/Please send comments to the author at christaf at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu/

Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Society for
Ethnohistory, Portland, OR, November 7, 1996

*? 1997 by Alexander F. Christensen. All rights reserved.*

<christaf at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Two features stand out sharply in nearly all theories of origins (and
there have been thousands of them) that have been put forward at every
opportunity. These theories have a genealogical character and they
incorporate some kind of migration. All peoples originated but few seem
to have originated where they actually were when speculation on their
origins took place. (Henige 1982:91) *

Mesoamerica is distinguished from all other parts of the Americas by the
presence of a well-developed Precolumbian writing system. One important
use of this system was the recording of history (Boone 1994, Florescano
1994). Although only a few historical texts survived the Conquest, many
more were produced in the decades that followed, drawing upon both the
indigenous and European historiographical traditions. Over time, these
narratives became increasingly secondary in content and European in
structure, and by the mid-seventeenth century they contained little if
anything of primary source value to modern historians. Only the most
European of these works were printed prior to the nineteenth century,
when several early accounts, written by natives, mestizos, and
missionaries, were discovered in manuscript. Many others have
subsequently been published, and they provide a more indigenous history,
often narrated in Nahuatl or Maya. However, early analyses treated them
as any other historical sources, without understanding the peculiar
biases of the native tradition.

More recent studies have recognized numerous distinctive elements in
indigenous narratives, which appear to varying degrees in the hybrid
accounts of the Colonial period. The defining characteristic of these
sources is the different nature of Mesoamerican time (e.g., Edmonson
1982). Most indigenous histories place a strong emphasis on chronology,
but this is not the continuous, progressive time of the European
tradition. Rather, time was composed of several interlaced cycles. For
the Maya, the emphasis was on the twenty-year katun cycle. In the
Classic period, the katuns were fit within the progressive Long Count,
but in the Postclassic this seems to have largely disappeared, to be
replaced by the Short Count, a cycle of thirteen katuns. In Central
Mexico, the fifty-two year Sacred Round was primary, and no longer form
of reckoning ever seems to have been developed. In both cases, any given
period of time was strongly associated with all previous and later
periods that bore the same same. For the Mexica Aztec, similar events
could be expected to occur in any year Ce Acatl, or One Reed-- among
other things, the year in which the man-god Quetzalcoatl was born. For
the Yucatec Maya, the same held true for the katun 8 Ahau, when disaster
struck and cities fell. When historical events were assembled into a
narrative, they were hung onto this framework, which may often have
distorted their precise Western calendrical position.

As in most cultures other than our own, myth and history were not
clearly distinguished (Florescano 1994). Recently, the reality of the
history/myth separation, and the value of making it, has been questioned
by some, who feel that since the ancient sources made no distinction
between the two types of information, history is always coded into myth
and inseparable from it (e.g., Bricker 1981, Lincoln 1990). This
perspective is tangentially supported by modern interpretations of the
material, some of which are barely recognizable as having been derived
from the same sources (witness Lincoln's [1990] comparison of Roys' and
Edmonson's translations of the Book of *Chilam* *Balam* of Chumayel, in
which not even the proper names are the same). Nonetheless, this paper
argues that it is possible to separate out that which probably did
occur, or "history," from subsequent manipulation of that event, or "myth."

Even a distinction as sharp in the West as that between man and god is
not clear in Mesoamerican accounts. Leaders were seen, both in their own
lifetimes and after, as incarnations of deities (e.g., Gruzinski 1989).
Their acts mirrored those of the deity in his present and future
avatars. Thus a series of leaders might bear the same name or title, and
at least in theory perform some of the same deeds. In Colonial accounts,
whether in Spanish or an indigenous language, repetitions of the same
individual or event were easily conflated. This probably did not seem a
problem within native culture, as the eternal role was more important
than the temporal individual (for an African example of this, see Miller
1972). To the modern ethnohistorian who is attempting to sort historical
"reality" from myth, it is a problem, and a frequently overlooked one at
that. Perhaps the best example of such confusion in Mesoamerica is
Quetzalcoatl (Davies 1977:70-4). In central Mexico, the first conflation
is that of the god with a historical ruler of Tollan, Hidalgo. The
second appears to be between two such rulers, one at or near the
beginning of Tollan's florescence, the other at its end. In the Maya
area, where the same deity appears as Kukulcan, there are probably as
many if not more conflations occurring, but the separation of god and
man has proven quite difficult (Seler 1990[1898], Davies 1977:191-5).

Migrations are a prominent theme in many Mesoamerican historical
narratives, both those preserved only in alphabetic texts and those
recorded in various combinations of pictorial and written elements. The
best known example of a migration narrative in the area is that of the
Colhua Mexica, or Aztecs, who claimed to have risen from their lowly
position as the last arrivals in the Basin of Mexico to their lofty
status as conquerors of most of Central Mexico by the arrival of the
Spanish. More historical accounts are preserved of the Mexica than of
any other Mesoamerican group, and almost all have their migration as a
central element. Many attempts have been made to place the events of
these accounts within a Western geographic and temporal framework,
starting with the earliest chroniclers (Motolinia 1951[1541]:83, Dur?n
1994[1581]:3-11) and continuing through numerous secondary studies until
the present (Clavigero 1787:112, Seler 1991[1894], Denison 1908,
Kirchhoff 1961, Smith 1984). But the Mexica were not alone in their
emphasis upon migrations. Most Mesoamerican peoples at the time of the
Conquest looked back to a migration event as the foundation of their
social unit.

These migration narratives have several distinct sources. First, and
that which has been taken as primary by many ethnohistorians, is
historical fact. Linguistic distributions alone leave no doubt that
population movements on varying scales did occur throughout Mesoamerican
history (e.g., Kaufman 1976, Beekman and Christensen in prep.). Second,
foreign origin and right of conquest were asserted by many elite groups
as justifications for their position of authority. Rulers need an
ideology to support the distinction made between them and their
subjects; a foreign and superior origin provides an excellent such
justification. Third, the importance of migration narratives in the
Judeo-Christian tradition was quickly recognized by the newly converted
indigenous peoples, who adapted them to their own purposes. This is in
fact simply a post-Conquest variant of the second influence, since
Biblical references served to legitimize any Colonial text in terms of
the new dominant ideology. If we are to understand the first source for
such stories, that is, the actual historical facts that underlie them,
we must first try to understand the second two. Only then can historical
reconstructions be compared to those produced by archaeologists to
achieve an accurate understanding of the role of population movements in
Mesoamerican history.

*Dynastic Legitimization

*While it may be difficult to explain satisfactorily, it is clear enough
that the notion of coming from somewhere else, whether it is somewhere
best suited to the preconceptions of outsiders or to members of the
society, is one that is uncannily attractive. It seems that there is
little glamour in authocthony, perhaps because it often seems desirable
to distinguish the ruling classes from the rest of the population.
(Henige 1982:96)

A comparison of royal dynastic mythologies from around the world shows
that "foreignness" is almost an essential characteristic of royalty, or
of "stratified" societies as opposed to "ranked" ones (Henige 1982,
Sanders 1989). I am not royal; my brother is not royal; no one we know
is royal. Therefore, royalty are unlike us. To justify the placement of
absolute power within a small group, the assertion of difference is
necessary. And yet, at the same time, to justify the relationship
between a particular royal group and their subject population, some form
of similarity must be evident as well. These two distinct legitimization
strategies have been described as ones of "disconnection" and
"connection," respectively (Stone 1989). Foreign ties are an important
means of disconnection, but the foreign ruler who does not belong to the
subject society lacks any form of connection. He is thus in a weaker
position than the migrant, who is by his nature foreign and yet native,
who has, to some degree or another, assimilated, while maintaining a
distinct identity.

*Toltecs and Chichimecs in Central Mexico *

In Precolumbian central Mexican history, two ethnonyms were used more
frequently than any others: Tolteca and Chichimeca. There has been much
debate over the precise meaning of these terms, but it seems clear that
both were very complex. At times they did refer to what a modern scholar
would consider an ethnic group, but more often they referred to a
broader cultural affiliation. "Toltecs" were the long-civilized peoples
of Mesoamerica, whether or not they actually lived at Tollan (Davies
1977, 1980). After the fall of Tollan, the term was often associated
specifically with Colhuacan, Tollan's former partner. "Chichimecs," on
the other hand, were the nomadic groups along the northern frontier of
civilization and their settled cousins along the marches (Davies 1980,
Gradie 1994). In this sense, the terms were often combined, both with
more specific ethnonyms and with each other. One such combination was
"Tolteca-Chichimeca," which differentiated the "civilized" Chichimeca
from the true, or Teochichimeca. To the settled people of the Basin of
Mexico, the Teochichimeca were the quintessential foreigners and
immigrants. Late Postclassic central Mexican dynasties claimed to be
descended from both lines, drawing youth and strength from the
Chichimeca, age and wisdom from the Tolteca (Davies 1980:86). By
definition, Chichimec ancestry required some form of migration
narrative. Even in cases where this duality is not explicitly stated, it
often underlies social structures. In Amaquemecan, for instance, four
groups are recorded as the constituent elements of the polity, each with
its own migration account (Hodge 1984:39). Two, the Totolimpaneca and
Tecuanipa, came from Aztlan. The others, Tenanca and Poyauhteca, came
from Teotenango and Tlapallan-Nonohualco respectively, thereby tracing
their origins to earlier civilizations within the Altiplano Central. The
Mexica themselves, while glorifying their Chichimec ancestry, chose a
member of the Colhua royal family, Acamapichtli, as their first
/tlatoani /after the foundation of Tenochtitlan (Davies 1980:198).

Boone (1991) has interpreted the Mexica migration narratives as
representations of a ritual performance that recounted a primitive
tribe's testing and progression to a higher stage of development, and
thus its charter of legitimacy. This rite of passage proved their
worthiness to rule. The migration route in many accounts appears
circular (Duverger 1983:95-101): sometimes it actually starts in the
Basin of Mexico at Colhuacan (which means "The Place of the Owners of
Grandfathers"), which is often disguised as Teo- (or "true") Colhuacan.
Other times it begins at Aztlan, situated on an island in a lake whose
descriptions are modelled after Lake Tetzcoco (e.g., Castillo 1991,
Chimalpain 1991).^1 <#f1> Dur?n's account of the envoys sent by
Moteuczoma Ilhuicamina to locate Chicomoztoc and Colhuacan (1994:212-22)
indicates not only that that place was a primitive, idyllic version of
Tenochtitlan, but also that the Mexica's passage was irreversible. Once
you have fallen from grace into civilization, there is no going back.

The Nahuas were not the only ones to claim dual Tolteca-Chichimeca
heritage. In Michoacan, the Tarascan monarchy also looked back to
Chichimeca who had settled among the lake dwellers (Seler 1993[1905],
Pollard 1993:13-4). Despite the complete absence of any linguistic
relationship between the groups, the Michoaque, or Tarascans, are
frequently linked with the Nahua and Otomi of central Mexico in
migration accounts (e.g., Qui?ones Keber 1995:54). One /lienzo /from
Jucutacato in Michoacan depicts the movement of a Nonoalca, or Toltec,
group westwards from the Gulf Coast by way of Tenochtitlan (Seler
1993[1905]:7-17). The village that they founded was Nahuatl-speaking at
the Conquest, although included within the Tarascan state. This charter
of Toltec ancestry served to differentiate them from their "Chichimec"
neighbors, and presumably the story contained within contributed to
their maintenance of Nahua ethnicity.

*Teotihuacan and Tulan among the Classic and Postclassic Maya *

Although archaeologists have often seen the Maya as insular and isolated
from their western neighbors (Coe 1984:7), there is now a large body of
evidence for the entrance of foreign ideas, if not people, into the
region throughout its history. The majority of these influences have
been labelled "Mexican," although the accuracy of this designation is
somewhat open to question.^2 <#f2> These borrowings can be seen both in
the Colonial ethnohistoric sources and in the sculpted texts and
monuments of the Classic period. In the Postclassic period, linguistic
borrowings indicate that the majority of these influences were indeed
Mexican, that is, Nahuatl. But in the Classic period, despite the
assumptions made by some archaeologists (e.g., Wilkerson 1994), Nahuatl
was probably not present either in the Basin of Mexico or further south
(Kaufman 1976).

In Postclassic Yucatan and Quauhtemallan, claims of "Toltec" origin
served a legitimizing function similar to that played in Central Mexico.
In Yucatan, several lineages, such as the Cocom, Xiu, and Itza, were
called /dzulob/, or foreigners, both by themselves and by others. Our
primary texts for the region are the Books of *Chilam* *Balam*,
mytho-historical chronicles kept in numerous villages by the local
priests (e.g., Roys 1967, Edmonson 1982). Unlike the majority of the
Central Mexican accounts, these texts present an unabashedly nativist
view of history. Their authors do not belong to any of the dynasties
whose history they are describing, and thus their accounts of the
/dzulob /show an outsider's or subject's view of this legitimization
strategy. It is not surprising that foreignness is less consistently
regarded. At times it is an honorific reference, but at other times
opprobrious (Stone 1989:166). This tension is probably fundamental to
everyone's view of foreigners, with positive or negative aspects of
alien identity coming to the fore in different situations-- even in the
modern U.S., immigrants and imports are exalted or decried on a case by
case basis, usually due less to their own merits than to internal social
concerns. While the Itza were seen as unrestrainedly erotic and lewd
(Thompson 1970:20-1), they were also seen as divine (Edmonson 1982:6).
Understanding of the "language of Zuyua," which may be taken as a
general reference to foreign knowledge, was essential for rulers (Roys
1967:192). Advanced military technology was also said to have been
introduced by "the Mexicans" (Landa 1978[1566]:15). These claims of
foreignness were generally associated with some elements of Central
Mexican culture, most notably Nahuatl names, but their bearers were
largely indistinguishable both linguistically and culturally from the
Maya substrate population whom they ruled. In fact, some of these
lineages have been documented in the inscriptions of Chichen Itza,
indicating their presence in the area for at least 700 years (Ringle
1990; see below).

Several Colonial texts from highland Guatemala, particularly the Popol
Vuh (Tedlock 1986) and Annals of the Cakchiquels (Recinos and Goetz
1953), also give migrations a large role in Precolumbian history. But
unlike the *Chilam* Balams, these texts were written by the descendants
of the former rulers, and thus migration serves as a self-justification,
with none of the negative associations that it has in Yucatan. These
groups claimed to have commenced their migrations at "Tulan Zuyua" or a
place of seven caves, or Chicomoztoc in Nahuatl. Both Tulan and Zuyua
indicate a connection with Yucatan, if not central Mexico (Davies
1977:191-5). The Annals of the Cakchiquels (Recinos and Goetz 1953)
refer to four Tulans, superimposing the place upon the cardinal
directions and indicating that it had a broader cosmological
significance. After a lengthy peregrination, the lineages of the Quiche
and their relatives arrived in the highlands of Guatemala and subjugated
the existing inhabitants. While there is archaeological evidence that
may indicate the arrival of new dynasties in the area (Fox 1980, 1989),
this evidence predates the period described in the chronicles by several
centuries. Upon examination, it appears that the details of many if not
all of the migrations described are only verifiable over fairly short
distances (e.g., Hill 1996). Nonetheless, it does appear likely that at
least a few of the dynasties involved may have been founded by migrants,
even if they were rapidly culturally submerged (Carmack 1981).

While our understanding of Classic Maya history is still incomplete, and
the monumental texts are far shorter than the manuscripts from the
Colonial period, they nonetheless provide our best source of
Mesoamerican history free of Spanish influences. No clear migration
narratives appear on the monuments, but the extensive use of "foreign"
iconography shows a manipulation of ethnic identity comparable to that
found in the Postclassic. One particular set of Classic iconographic
elements has been linked with a Teotihuacan warrior complex (Stone 1989,
Taube 1992). Perhaps overzealously, Schele and Freidel have dated this
adoption by the Maya of the sacred war iconography of Teotihuacan to
exactly January 16, AD 378 (1990:130-64).^3 <#f3> On this date,
8.17.1.4.12 in the Maya Long Count, Tikal conquered Uaxactun. The
monument which commemorates this event, Uaxactun Stela 5, is the
earliest known representation of what they call the "Tlaloc-Venus
costume." The strong parallels between this costume and elements of
Teotihuacan warrior iconography suggest that the Maya learned this new
style of warfare from Teotihuacan.^4 <#f4> These traits continue to
occur on Maya monuments through the Terminal Classic, appearing on some
of the latest monuments at Seibal in the ninth century. Throughout this
span, this costume and associated elements appear to have retained their
distinctive foreign identity, and were not simply assimilated into the
general Maya iconographic vocabulary (Taube 1992). Stone (1989) has
documented how the rulers of Piedras Negras in the seventh and eighth
centuries used this costume and other signs of warfare to emphasize
their disconnection from their subjects, as opposed to their accession
stelae, which used fertility and traditional Maya imagery to affirm
their connection.

Similarly, the four stelae that surround Structure A-3 at Seibal,
erected in AD 849 to commemorate the 10.1.0.0.0 period ending, depict
two individuals in traditional Maya form and two in a "Mexican" costume
(Christensen 1991, Graham 1990:25-40, Schele and Freidel 1990:387-9).
Many have seen these as depictions of different individuals, and taken
them (and the other, amazingly eclectic monuments of the site) as proof
for the coexistence of two ethnic groups, natives and conquerors (e.g.,
Graham 1973, 1990). However, the texts indicate that all four stelae
bear portraits of Ruler E, a.k.a. Ah-Bolon-Tun-Ta-Hun-Kin-Butz',
(Mathews and Willey 1991, Schele and Freidel 1990). On the monuments he
appears in four different costumes, associated with war, rulership,
fertility, and the underworld, the first two more "Mexican" and the
latter "Mayan" (Christensen 1991, Schele and Freidel 1990). On the
second, he also records the presence of lords from three other major
sites, Tikal, Calakmul, and Motul de San Jos?, who came to watch, or
perhaps participate in, the ceremony. Thus, at the end of the first
katun of the new baktun, Ruler E confirmed his power in a way no other
Maya ruler ever did. He dedicated a new sacred space in the center of
the South Plaza, aligned to the four directions, and performed different
rituals for each axis. Foreign lords came to witness the rites, perhaps
even to participate. These rituals were then memorialized in an array of
stelae, in which Ruler E portrayed himself as everything a ruler could
or should be: war and fertility, life and death, foreign and native. Why
did he do all of this, after decades of inactivity at the site? By
10.1.0.0.0, the last two other Pasi?n drainage sites erecting monuments,
Itzan and Machaquila, had both ceased (Mathews and Willey 1991). The
lord of Seibal was certainly subject to the same stresses that had
caused his neighboring dynasties to collapse. By memorializing himself
as the exemplar of all aspects of Maya kingship, he sanctified his power
enough to keep his subject's support. Ruler E's legitimization campaign
clearly worked. For at least forty years after 10.1.0.0.0, his
successors could still get their subjects to erect them monuments, if
not on as grand a scale, and thereby they outlasted almost all other
Classic Maya rulers.

One city that did flourish for some time after even Seibal, and which
appears in the Yucatec ethnohistoric sources as well, is Chichen Itza.
There has been much debate over the archaeology of this site. While some
of the monuments and architecture are clearly in Maya style, others are
very reminiscent of Central Mexico. Early interpretations held that the
"Toltec" stage was subsequent to the "Maya" stage, which many have seen
as clear proof of a Toltec invasion of Yucatan (Tozzer 1957), but more
recently it has become clear that the two styles overlap largely, if not
completely (Lincoln 1990). In addition to the stratigraphical evidence
for overlap, murals depict "Toltec" and "Maya" warriors together,
frequently in combat. Much if not most of the iconography is derived
from Classic Maya prototypes, and although there are clear foreign
influences, these seem to have been integrated within an overall Maya
framework (Schele and Freidel 1990:346-76). This new artistic fusion was
used to support a transformed political structure, unlike any previously
known from the Maya area, in which several individuals shared power
(ibid.:359-62). Some of these individuals bore names which recur
throughout the Books of *Chilam* *Balam*, such as Cocom, Cupul, and
Kauil (Ringle 1990). In the later ethnohistoric sources, these lineages
were generally considered foreigners. The monumental art of Chichen
shows that, seven or eight centuries before the Conquest, these lineages
were already carefully manipulating indigenous and foreign imagery to
justify their rule to a native Maya audience, whether or not they were
originally migrants themselves. Their use of foreign associations proved
so successful, in fact, that they continued it for centuries.

*The Ultimate Alien *

With the arrival of the Spaniards, the dynastic use of foreign origin
backfired against its practitioners, for the Spaniards were demonstrably
more foreign than any inhabitants of the until-then-known world. The
Books of *Chilam* *Balam* consider the Spanish another set of /dzulob/,
whose turn it was to rule (Edmonson 1982). Moteuczoma's awe and fear of
the conquistadors, and subsequent mishandling of the politico-military
situation, can easily be explained in these terms. The stories of
Quetzalcoatl's white skin and promised return from the East may or may
not date to before the arrival of the Spaniards, but the structural
principle underlying them was clearly fundamental to Mesoamerican
legitimization. In the construction and backdating of specific
prophecies to predict and understand the end of the world as they had
known it, native writers took this general principle and cast it in
terms that the Spanish would understand: the return of a bearded, white
god. Even without such prophecies, the arrival of people who looked
different from any that had been seen before, from a direction whence
none had come before, would be enough of a challenge to the indigenous
dynasties.

This equation of European-ness with legitimate power has continued
through the present, both aiding and abetted by the political dominance
of criollos and ladinos in all of Latin America. The assimilation of
native gods to Christian saints left most indigenous holy images with
white faces. Even in the contemporary resistance movement that most
strongly adheres to traditional Maya values and ideology, that of the
Ejercito Zapatista de Liberaci?n Nacional, the most prominent leader is
a university-educated creole, not an Indian (Gossen 1996). Subcomandante
Marcos thus continues a strong Maya, and Mesoamerican, tradition of
appropriation and use of the powerful "other" within indigenous society.

*The Lost Tribe

*On first receiving this legend, I was inclined to doubt its genuineness
and to consider it as a paraphrase or adaptation of the Biblical
account.... But a larger and better acquaintance with Hawaiian folklore
has shown me that, though the details of the legend, as narrated by the
Christian and civilised Kamakau, may possibly in some degree, and
unconsciously to him, perhaps have received a Biblical colouring, yet
the main facts of the legend, with the identical names of places and
persons, are referred to more or less distinctly in other legends of
undoubted antiquity. I am compelled, therefore, to class the legend
among the other Chaldaeo-Arabico-Hebraic mementoes which the Polynesians
brought with them from their homesteads in the West.... (Fornander
1878:99-100, cited in Barr?re 1969:32)

One important aspect of the European colonial enterprise throughout the
world was the accomodation of the peoples, places, and things
encountered within a Western intellectual framework. The modern
discipline of anthropology is one of the products of this endeavor. In
many, if not all regions, of the globe, the fundamental structure within
which indigenous peoples had to be fit was the Bible. Early speculations
on the Biblical origins of different groups often appear obscure if not
lunatic to modern scholars. But many of these hypotheses, in Mesoamerica
as well as South America and the Pacific, found strong supporting
evidence in what appeared to be wholly indigenous mytho-historical
accounts.

The Spanish Conquest irrevocably altered the social context in which
Mesoamerican historical texts were created. The most fundamental
historiographical change was the imposition of a new dominant ideology.
Just as they had in the Prehispanic period, histories served to
legitimize their authors, but the grounds upon which they did so were
different. Texts had previously served to justify the elite's superior
position to their subjects; now, they served to justify the native
nobility's intermediate position to their new rulers and prevent them
from being lumped in with the commoners. This was a notably more
difficult task, and most caciques had only limited success. The first
aim of most colonial histories was to demonstrate one group or dynasty's
territorial claims, often before the Spanish courts (Duverger
1983:50-61, Florescano 1994:110ff.). Such demonstrations may frequently
have entailed alterations of the historical record. The most parochial
of such texts are the local /t?tulos/, which provide a late Colonial
community history that generally bore at most a faint semblance to
objective reality. Others had a slightly broader perspective, such as
the many documents from Cuauhtinchan, which are important historical
sources but served similar local juridico-political purposes (Reyes
1976, Leibsohn 1993). Some histories, however, had higher aims and tried
to justify the Indian's place in the European world. This justification
was best provided by the use of Spanish traditions. While references to
many aspects of the European tradition were integrated into indigenous
sources (see, for instance, Haskett 1996), the most potent were those to
the Bible, the central, ultimate authority to a medieval Spaniard
(Florescano 1994:126ff., Christensen 1996). These adaptations had many
earlier European precedents. Lives of the saints, for instance, were
often modelled after specific Biblical events (Alford 1992).

One element in the Biblical narrative that must have been instantly
intelligible to the native audience was the story of Exodus. The ancient
Hebrews, like so many of their New World cousins, employed a migration
as the central element of their self-justificatory history. They were
the chosen people, those who had been led into the wilderness and the
promised land by Moses, acting at his god's command. It took little
reworking to phrase the traditional legitimization myths in the new
language. The most extreme example of this was the work of Crist?bal del
Castillo, who wrote his Nahuatl account of the Mexica peregrinations at
the turn of the seventeenth century (Castillo 1991, Christensen 1996).
His text follows Exodus so closely that there seems to be little of
"historical" value left. Nor are there many traces of Prehispanic
legitimization, such as other sources impart by their listing of
different ethnic groups and the genealogical relationships between their
leaders. Instead, this use of the Bible in structure and content served,
at least in the mind of its author, to legitimize all of the Indians in
the eyes of the Spaniards. The Historia's present obscure and
fragmentary state indicates how well it succeeded in this endeavor.

Other texts also draw upon Exodus, although not to the same extreme as
del Castillo. Most borrow individual topoi rather than the entire
structure. The most striking example of this, although perhaps not the
most common, is that of crossing the waters, which may or may not part
before the migrants. It is possible that conflation may be occurring
here as well, because a source which shows as little European influence
as the /Tira de la peregrinaci?n /(1944) still commences with the Mexica
leaving Aztlan by boat. Certainly all accounts of Aztlan describe a
watery location, and the mere name of Tollan, Place among Reeds, implies
the same. But when a parting of the water is specifically described, as
in the Popol Vuh (Tedlock 1986:177), Christian influence is assured, as
recognized a century ago by Seler (1991[1894]). Another recurring theme
is the forty years in the wilderness. While del Castillo adapts this to
an Aztec context by lengthening it to fifty-two years, the length of one
sacred round, the /B/ook of *Chilam* *Balam *of Tizimin describes how
"the Itza went on, beneath the trees, beneath the bushes, beneath the
vines, where they suffered, 6 Ahau (1224), 4 Ahau (1244): forty years,
then they came and established their homes again" (Edmonson 1982:7). The
Popol Vuh, which many have seen as a fundamental source for both
Postclassic and Classic Maya religion, has at least one other possible
Biblical borrowing in its migration account. When the peoples came to
Tulan, they all spoke one language, yet "the languages of the tribes
changed there; their languages became differentiated. They could no
longer understand one another clearly when they came away from Tulan"
(Tedlock 1986:171). This is rather reminiscent of the Tower of Babel.

In several accounts, the migrants spend some time as captives of another
group. Del Castillo begins with the Mexitin enslaved by the Azteca
Chicomoztoca, who are clearly modelled after the Egyptians of Exodus. In
many other accounts, so much so that it can be taken as the standard
version, the Mexica are enslaved in Colhuacan between their stay in
Chapultepec and the foundation of Tenochtitlan (Boone 1991). This may
well have actually occurred, in some form or other, because it is
recorded in a number of early texts, including the /Tira de la
peregrinaci?n/ (1944:24-5). But its importance was certainly reinforced
by yet another Biblical parallel: not to Egypt this time, but to the
Babylonian exile.

Even authors whose data do not appear on the surface to be notably
influenced by Christianity may have secondhand biases, on account of the
borrowing, usually uncredited, of one author's work by another. A good
example of this is Chimalpain. Although his Relaciones are an incredibly
valuable source for the history of the Chalco region (Schroeder 1991),
they can only be trusted as far as his sources. In most cases, these are
unknown, but at least two significant passages of the Memorial breve
(Chimalpain 1991:30-2) were clearly lifted directly from the Historia of
del Castillo. Given the overtly Christian structure of the work of the
latter, the significance of these passages for any study of the
Precolumbian past is dubious.

Over time, there have been numerous interpretations posited for such
Biblicisms (Christensen 1996). Even in the sixteenth century, while some
saw them as proof of the descent of the Indians from the Hebrews or a
related group (e.g., Dur?n 1994), others saw them instead as evidence
for a conscious, diabolical mockery of Christianity (e.g., Olmos 1990).
Olmos, for one, shifted from one viewpoint to another over the course of
his life (Baudot 1995). With the decline in theological influence on
scholarship, these views have fallen out of favor. More recently,
scholars have either ignored these parallels or seen them as religious
universals, symbols and themes that are fundamental to many
independently developed sacred traditions. Both of these approaches are
clearly flawed. To understand native history and religion on their own
terms, these early borrowings need to be recognized and accounted for.

By the time that Dur?n and Sahag?n collected their source materials, in
the first generation following the Conquest, such stories had already
been integrated into the native tradition, and neither the friars nor
the later indigenous chroniclers such as Chimalpain and Ixtlilxochitl
were conscious of the interpolations. This process parallels that
documented in the Pacific. There some Maori inserted the name Noa in
their genealogies and tied their ancestors in to the Old Testament
(Kelly 1940). In Hawai'i, one classic account of native history and
mythology received a strong Biblical bias due specifically to two
mid-nineteenth century informants (Barr?re 1969). Such alterations were
not imposed by the Europeans who recorded them, or by those who educated
the natives. Rather, they were volunteered by Christian converts seeking
to establish an accommodation between traditional ways and the new
doctrines (Barr?re 1967).

The exact nature of this accommodation varied from author to author. One
interpretation is that the equation between Indians and Jews was a
justification of paganism, since the Jews prior to the coming of Christ
could not be blamed for not being Christians (Christensen 1996). This
fits with the Franciscan millenarian model, held by some of the earliest
evangelizers, that the conversion of the "Jews," whom they too took to
be the Indians, was a sign of the arrival of the new millennium (Baudot
1995). However, a more nativist interpretation is also possible. From
this perspective, which may or may not have been consciously held by any
Colonial Indian authors, the Spanish did not represent the coming of
Christ; rather, they represented the Roman occupation of Palestine. In
this prophetic interpretation, the foreign conquest was a sign that a
new messiah was to be born among the conquered-- a role that several
individuals did attempt to play (Bricker 1981, Gruzinski 1989). In
either case, the writing of history to highlight its parallels to
earlier events, and use these for prophetic purposes, was a direct
development from Precolumbian practice.

*Historical Reality

*Also, when large tribal movements are studied at close quarters there
sometimes emerges such a welter of small individual groups moving
apparently in all directions that any picture of a coherent general
movement is obscured. To this extent the near view is unable to see the
woods for the trees. (Southall 1954:140)

What are we left with after indigenous and Hispanic legitimation are
removed from the migration narratives? Perhaps a reflection of the
actual historical reality. It is clear that many migrations did actually
occur in the Precolumbian period. The linguistic map alone of
Mesoamerica shows many disjunctions and dispersions.^5 <#f5> But
linguistics alone cannot reveal the details of ancient migration
processes (Rouse 1986). Physical anthropology, which might provide a
better indication, has yet to be used extensively in Mesoamerica to
address the question (for one example, see Christensen 1997). Thus
archaeology provides the best proof of any population movements.

Unfortunately, across all of Mesoamerica it seems that the murkiest
period in the archaeological record is the Early Postclassic, when most
of the documented migrations would seem to have taken place. It is clear
that it was a time of transition and change everywhere, but specific
evidence for population movements is hard to come by. The situation is
best in central Mexico, where an Epiclassic archaeological horizon has
been defined that seems to correlate very well with what is known
linguistically and historically about the Nahua migrations (Beekman and
Christensen in prep.). However, this pre-Toltec horizon antedates most
of the ethnohistorical sources. A careful examination of these texts
indicates that many, if not all, refer to the movement of a large number
of very small groups of various linguistic affiliations. No clear
archaeological signature has been found for any of these groups,
although there are some promising efforts (Smith 1983).

In the Maya area, there is clear ceramic and artistic evidence for
increased foreign influence in the Terminal Classic, but the
significance of these influences remains unclear (Christensen 1991).
Some populations probably did move, but the strong overall cultural
continuity indicates that the migrants were limited in number and
probably at least as "Maya" as they were "Mexican." Migration may be a
less appropriate term than population shift in this case, as the
geographical and cultural distances traversed were probably not very
large. The evidence from the Guatemalan Highlands is similar (Fox 1989).
There small migrant groups may be responsible for the lowland-related
architecture and ceramics that appear in the Early Postclassic (Fox
1980), but the ethnohistorically known migrations are most verifiable on
a very small scale (e.g., Hill 1996).

In all of these cases, there is some agreement between the
ethnohistorical sources and the archaeological ones. But the time frames
are different. The best archaeological data refers to the end of the
Classic and beginning of the Postclassic, perhaps the last two or three
centuries of the first millennium AD. The ethnohistoric accounts may not
realistically be extended back further than the first few centuries of
this millennium, a period when there does not appear to be nearly as
much archaeological evidence for migrations. Thus the amount of
historical "truth" found in the sources is probably low. Rather than a
precise record of historical events, they best serve to demonstrate the
importance of migrations and otherness within the Mesoamerican
tradition. While it is true that migrations would probably never have
become this important historiographically if they did not actually
occur, one cannot assume that a historic migration is at the root of
each individual migration narrative.

*References*

Alford, John A.

1992 /The Scriptural Self. In The Bible in the Middle Ages: Its
Influence on Literature and Art/. Bernard S. Levy, ed. Pp. 1-21.
Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies.

Barr?re, Dorothy B.

1967 Revisions and Adulterations in Polynesian Creation Myths. In
/Polynesian Culture History: Essays in Honor of Kenneth P. Emory/.
Genevieve A. Highland, Roland W. Force, Alan Howard, Marion Kelly, and
Yosihiko H. Sinoto, eds. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special
Publication 56.

1969 /The Kumuhonua Legends: A Study of Late Nineteenth Century Hawaiian
Stories of Creation and Origin/. Honolulu: Pacific Anthropological
Records 3, Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Baudot, Georges

1995 /Utopia and History in Mexico: The First Chroniclers of Mexican
Civilization (1520-1569)/. B.R. Ortiz de Montellano and T. Ortiz de
Montellano, trans. Niwot: University Press of Colorado.

Beekman, Christopher S., and Alexander F. Christensen

in prep. A Synthetic Analysis of the Nahua Migrations.

Boone, Elizabeth Hill

1991 Migration Histories as Ritual Performance. In /To Change Place:
Aztec Ceremonial Landscapes/. Dav?d Carrasco, ed. Pp. 121-51. Niwot:
University Press of Colorado.

1994 Aztec Pictorial Histories: Records without Words. In /Writing
without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes/.
Elizabeth Hill Boone and Walter D. Mignolo, eds. Pp. 50-76. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.

Bricker, Victoria Reifler

1981 /The Indian Christ, the Indian King: The Historical Substrate of
Maya Myth and Ritual./ Austin: University of Texas Press.

Carmack, Robert M.

1981 /The Quich? Mayas of Utatl?n: The Evolution of a Highland
Guatemalan Kingdom/. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Castillo, Crist?bal del

1991 /Historia de la venida de los mexicanos y otros pueblos e Historia
de la conquista/. Federico Navarrete Linares, ed. and trans. Mexico, DF:
Instituto Nacional de Antropolog?a e Historia, Proyecto Templo Mayor.

Chimalpain Cuauhtlehuanitzin, Domingo Francisco de San Ant?n Mu??n

1991[1631] /Memorial breve acerca de la fundaci?n de la ciudad de
Culhuacan/. Victor M. Castillo F., ed. and trans. Mexico, DF:
Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico.

Christensen, Alexander F.

1991 Teotihuacan, Tollan, and Mexicanized Maya: Foreign Influences in
Baktun Ten. Senior essay in Archaeological Studies, Yale University.

1996 Crist?bal del Castillo and the Mexica Exodus. /The Americas/ 52:
441-64.

1997 Cranial Non-Metric Variation in North and Central Mexico./
Anthropologischer Anzeiger /55(1).

Clavigero, Francisco Xavier

1787 /The history of Mexico/. Charles Cullen, trans. London: G.G.J. and
J. Robinson.

Coe, Michael D.

1984 /Mexico/. Third edition. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Davies, Nigel

1977 /The Toltecs until the Fall of Tula/. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.

1980 /The Toltec Heritage from the Fall of Tula to the Rise of
Tenochtitlan/. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Denison, T.S.

1908 The Primitive Aryans of America: Origin of the Aztecs and Kindred
Tribes, Showing their Relationship to the Indo-Iranians and the Place of
the Nauatl or Mexican Language in the Aryan Group of Languages. Chicago:
printed by the author.

Dur?n, Diego de

1994[ca. 1581] /The History of the Indies of New Spain/. Doris Heyden,
trans. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Duverger, Christian

1983 /L'origine des Azt?ques/. Paris: ?ditions du Seuil.

Edmonson, Munro S., trans. and ed.

/1982 The Ancient Future of the Itza: The Book of *Chilam* *Balam* of
Tizimin./ Austin: University of Texas Press.

Florescano, Enrique

1994 /Memory, Myth, and Time in Mexico: From the Aztecs to
Independence/. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Fornander, Abraham

1878 /An Account of the Polynesian Race: Its Origins and Migrations, and
the Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Time of Kamehameha I./
Vol. 1. London: Trubner and Co.

Fox, John W.

1980 Lowland to Highland Mexicanization Processes in Southern
Mesoamerica. /American Antiquity /45:43-54.

1989 On the Rise and Fall of Tul?ns and Maya Segmentary States.
/American Anthropologist /91:656-81.

Gossen, Gary H.

1996 Maya Zapatistas Move to the Ancient Future. /American
Anthropologist /98: 528-38.

Gradie, Charlotte M.

1994 Discovering the Chichimecs. /The Americas /51:67-88.

Graham, John A.

1973 Aspects of Non-Classic Presences in the Inscriptions and Sculptural
Art of Seibal. In /The Classic Maya Collapse/, T. Patrick Culbert, ed.
Pp. 133-63. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

1990 /Excavations at Seibal: Monumental Sculpture and Inscriptions/.
Cambridge, MA: Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnography, Harvard University, vol. 17, no. 1.

Gruzinski, Serge

1989 /Man-Gods in the Mexican Highlands: Indian Power and Colonial
Society, 1520-1800/. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Haskett, Robert

1996 Paper Shields: The Ideology of Coats of Arms in Colonial Mexican
Primordial Titles. /Ethnohistory /43:99-126.

Henige, David P.

1982 /Oral Historiography/. New York: Longman.

Hill, Robert M. II

1996 Eastern Chajoma (Cakchiquel) Political Geography: Ethnohistorical
and Archaeological Contributions to the Study of a Late Postclassic
Highland Maya Polity. /Ancient Mesoamerica/ 7:63-87.

Hodge, Mary G.

1984 /Aztec City-States/. Ann Arbor: Memoirs of the Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan 18.

Kaufman, Terrence

1976 Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland and
Associated Areas of Meso-America. /World Archaeology /8:101-18.

Kelly, Leslie G.

1940 Some Problems in the Study of Maori Genealogies. /Journal of the
Polynesian Society/ 49:235-42.

Kirchhoff, Paul

1961 Se puede localizar Aztl?n? /Universidad Aut?noma de M?xico Anuario
Hist?rico/ 1:59-73.

Landa, Diego de

1978[1566] /Yucatan Before and After the Conquest/. W. Gates, trans. New
York: Dover.

Leibsohn, Dana

1993 The Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca: Recollecting Identity in a Nahua
Manuscript. PhD. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

Lincoln, Charles E.

1990 Ethnicity and Social Organization at Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico.
PhD. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.

Mathews, Peter, and Gordon R. Willey

1991 Prehistoric Polities of the Pasion Region: Hieroglyphic Texts and
Their Archaeological Setting. In /Classic Maya Political History:
Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence/, T. Patrick Culbert, ed. Pp.
30-71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, Joseph C.

1972 The Imbangala and the Chronology of Early Central African History.
/Journal of African History /13: 549-74.

Motolinia, Toribio de Benavente

1951[1541] /Motolinia's History of the Indians of New Spain/. Francis
Borgia Steck, trans. and ed. Washington, DC: Academy of American
Franciscan History.

Olmos, Andr?s de

1990[1553] /Tratado de hechicer?as y sortilegios/. Georges Baudot,
trans. and. ed Mexico, DF: Universidad Aut?noma de M?xico.

Pollard, Helen Perlstein

1993 /Tar?acuri's Legacy: The Prehispanic Tarascan State/. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.

Qui?ones Keber, Eloise

1995 /Codex Telleriano-Remensis: Ritual, Divination, and History in a
Pictorial Aztec Manuscript/. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Recinos, Adri?n, and Delia Goetz, trans.

1953 /The Annals of the Cakchiquels/. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Reyes Garc?a, Luis

1977 /Cuauhtinchan del siglo XII al XVI: Formaci?n y desarrollo
hist?rico de un se?or?o prehisp?nico./ Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Ringle, William M.

1990 Who Was Who in Ninth-Century Chichen Itza. /Ancient Mesoamerica
/1:233-43.

Rouse, Irving

1986 /Migrations in Prehistory: Inferring Population Movement from
Cultural Remains/. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Roys, Ralph L.

1967 /The Book of *Chilam* *Balam* of Chumayel./ Originally published
1933. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Sahlins, Marshall

1981 The Stranger-King, or Dum?zil among the Fijians. /The Journal of
Pacific History /16:107-32.

Sanders, William T.

1989 The Epiclassic as a Stage in Mesoamerican Prehistory: An
Evaluation. In /Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan, A.D.
700-900./ Richard A. Diehl and Janet C. Berlo, eds. Pp. 211-8.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel

1990 /A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya/. New
York: William Morrow and Co.

Schroeder, Susan

1991 /Chimalpahin & the Kingdoms of Chalco/. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.

Seler, Eduard

1990[1898] Quetzalcoatl-Kukulcan in Yucatan. In /Collected Works in
Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology: English Translations of German
Papers from Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und
Alterthumskunde./ J. Eric S. Thompson and Francis B. Richardson, eds.
Vol. 1, pp. 198-218. Second Edition. Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos.

1991[1894] Where Was Aztlan, the Home of the Aztecs? In /Collected Works
in Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology: English Translations of
German Papers from Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach-
und Alterthumskunde/. J. Eric S. Thompson and Francis B. Richardson,
eds. Vol. 2, pp. 18-27. Second Edition. Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos.

1993[1905] The Ancient Inhabitants of the Michuacan Region. In
/Collected Works in Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology: English
Translations of German Papers from Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur
Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde./ J. Eric S. Thompson and
Francis B. Richardson, eds. Vol. 4, pp. 3-66. Second Edition. Culver
City, CA: Labyrinthos.

Smith, Michael E.

1983 Postclassic Culture Change in Western Morelos, Mexico: The
Development and Correlation of Archaeological and Ethnohistorical
Chronologies. PhD. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

1984 The Aztlan Migrations of the Nahuatl Chronicles: Myth or History?
/Ethnohistory /31: 153-86.

Southall, Aidan

1954 Alur Tradition and its Historical Significance. /Uganda Journal/
18: 137-65.

Stone, Andrea

1989 Disconnection, Foreign Insignia, and Political Expansion:
Teotihuacan and the Warrior Stelae of Piedras Negras. In /Mesoamerica
after the Decline of Teotihuacan, A.D. 700-900/. Richard A. Diehl and
Janet C. Berlo, eds. Pp. 153-72. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Taube, Karl A.

1992 The Temple of Quetzalcoatl and the Cult of Sacred War at
Teotihuacan. /Res /21: 53-87.

Tedlock, Dennis, trans.

1985 /Popol Vuh: The Definitive Edition of the Maya Book of the Dawn of
Life and the Glories of Gods and Kings./ New York: Touchstone.

Thompson, J. Eric S.

1970 /Maya History and Religion/. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Tira de la peregrinaci?n

1944 /Tira de la peregrinaci?n/. Mexico, DF: Librer?a Anticuaria G.M.
Echaniz.

Tozzer, Alfred M.

1957 /Chichen Itza and Its Cenote of Sacrifice/. Memoirs of the Peabody
Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 11-12. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.

Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K.

1994 Nahua Presence on the Mesoamerican Gulf Coast. In /Chipping Away on
Earth: Studies on Prehispanic and Colonial Mexico in Honor of Arthur
J.O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble/. Eloise Qui?ones Keber, ed. Pp.
177-86. Lancaster, CA: Labyrinthos.

1. This passage from the /Memorial breve/, like at least one other in
the same work, was apparently borrowed directly from del Castillo
without any acknowledgement.

2. The exact referent of this term is uncertain. If pronounced with a
soft "x", this strictly refers to the members of the small Nahuatl tribe
which founded Tenochtitlan; with a hard "x," it refers to the modern
Estados Unidos de Mexico. Only the fourteenth and fifteenth century
remains from within the Aztec empire belong in the first category; a
large portion of all Maya sites belong in the second. These Maya sites
include, logically enough, those in which the most "Mexican" influence
has been seen. So, by (anachronistic) definition, the entire population
of Chichen Itza, the Puuc sites, and Palenque, to name a few, were Mexican.

3. Maya dates are here rendered into the Gregorian calendar, according
to the 584285 correlation.

4. Schele and Freidel suppose that new strategy, tactics, and technology
were a part of this shift (1990:145-9). This clearly hearkens back to
the Cocom's introduction of bows, axes, lances, and armor to Yucatan, as
described by Landa (1978[1566]:15).

5. While language change and population movements do not always
correlate, they often do, whether due to large-scale population
replacement or the superimposition of a small elite group.