AZ: Aztec Date (2)

[jim gomez (by way of "John F. Schwaller" <schwallr@selway.umt.edu>)]

Whoops. On second thought, I should detail my original post a bit
more:

I.  M.E. Smith (1984:174) notes that the general consensus in the
histories is that most Chichimec migrations occurred at, or after,
the fall of Tollan.

The Aztlan movements are here treated here as a subset of the
Chichimec (non-Nahuatl). The Aztlaneca are Nahuatl, such as the
Culhua (of Toltec heritage) and Mexica. For relevant distinctions
on the use of these terms in the histories, see P. Carrasco (1971)
and Smith (1984:163-165). Unfortunately, the most recent study by
Smith (1996) is too general in his migration section to be of
help in tracking individual groups.

N. Davies refers to the date 1111 as the "traditional date" for
the departure of the Mexicas from Aztlan (1987:16) and in all
probability, they were not a homogeneous group. Note that Duran's
history falls under the Cronica X textual group, but the Mexica
are also mentioned in Sahagun (bk 10:195), Anales de Tlateloca
(1948:31f), and Torquemada (1969, I:78).

In the Historia de los Mexicanos por Sus Pinturas, The Mexica
(Tenochca) depart from Aztlan in 1116 (Nicholson, 1978:289). And
in the Codex Boturini, shown in many discussions of Aztec history,
also has a departure date of 1116, 1 Tecpatl (or one cycle later,
1168 as in Seler); see Nicholson's table (10.1: 1978).

II.   The dates Smith tabulates as arrival dates of various
Nahuatl groups fall after A.D. 1175 agrees with the date Davies
(1977:410-414) gives as the probable date for the fall of Tollan.
For instance, when this date is combined with the cross over of
Xolotl and his Chichimecs to Culhua in 5 Tecpatl, this is 1179.

In tabulating Nahuatl "arrival dates," Smith (184:167) considers
convergence to within a decade or so to be significant. He notes
that at least four other calendar counts in use at the time,
other than the prevalent Tenochca count (1 Acatl =3D 1519), and
is major obstacle, among others, when comparing different
histories.

Also compare with E.M. Moctezuma (1992:3), who dates the
destruction to around A.D. 1165 and calls the Aztec departure
from Tula as a liberation from the Toltecs (i.e., from probable
service, tribute, and obedience).

III.  For other year-count annuals, pictorial and textual, see
also Nicholson (1978:289). For an interesting perspective on the
historicity question and who appears to accept the main accounts
at face value, see P. Carrasco (1950,1971).

Ethnohistorians Kirchoff & J. Moreno have also been prepared to
take the general migration saga at face value and have sought to
locate Aztlan, Chicomoztoc, and Teoculuacan on the modern map (N.
Davies "Aztec Origins" BAR 402ii, 1988:659).

IV.  The archeological indicators for dating the fall of Tula
(around A.D 1200), are still of a more general nature in
comparison to dating the relatively fast paced migrations, which
is the main concern here.

See "Tula of the Toltecs: Excavations & Survey" D.M. Healen ed.
(1989, chap 3.; 247-248) and "Tula and the Toltecs" M.P. Weaver
(1993, 439-441) for discussions on the decline and final fall of
Tula with further breakdowns on the date  "A.D 1200". See also
the "Chronological Research in Central Mexico" section in AnMeso
1996.

 jim