LATN AMERICAN INDIAN

LITERATURES JOURNAL
A Review of American Indian Texts and Studies

Vol. 24, No. 2

Penn State Greater Allegheny

Fall 2008

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

151

Codex Azcatitlan and

theWork of Torquemada:
A Historiographic Puzzle in
the Aztec-Mexica Sources
Mara Castaeda de la Paz
Instituto de Investigaciones Antropolgicas
Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico
The historical sources used to study Aztec-Mexica migrations are to a large extent the product of the endeavors of Spanish
and indigenous chroniclers, as well as painters of cdices from
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It has become clear that
these authors did not simply copy a single historical source but
rather used several sources in order to formlate a coherent and
true history, giving rise to new compositions in the process.
Today, researchers working with historical documents do not pay
much attention to this formation process and, consequently, often
overlook the fact that the alphabetic and pictographic material we
use is for the most part an amalgamation of different versions and
traditions. By discussing how two distinct historical sources were
formed, I will demnstrate the need for a rigorous philological
analysis of the existing accounts. The Codex Azcatitlan, a pictographic document, and the Monarqua Indiana by Fray Juan de
Torquemada are eclectic works which, although different in format and origin, show very similar structure and composition.

152 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

One History, Different Versions

As I have previously argued (Castaeda de la Paz 2006:
13-16, 2007:206), given the lack of homogeneity evident in the
historical sources, our understanding of the history of the Mexica
migration must take as a starting point its very complexity.
Spanish chroniclers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
particularly complained about this problem. For example, when
Fray Juan de Torquemada wrote his Monarqua Indiana (1975),
he knew of the existence of historical variability in Mexica society and consequently expressed his frustration and even doubts
regarding the historical veracity of the accounts:
They used a means of writing (which were Pictures)
which they understood; because each one of them
meant something, and sometimes it turned out that a
single Figure contained the Major part of the event that
occurred, or everything . . . so that the Characters and
Figures were not in agreement, or did they have the
same form in all cases: so that it was easy to vary the
way of History, and often to depart from the truth, and
even to remove it entirely. And so it is that although at
the beginning of the Conquest, there were many Books,
which dealt with the arrival of these People to these
parts, not all of them were in agreement; because in
many matters they differed one from the other . . .
(Torquemada 1975, Book I, Chapter XI:30-31)
Such variety in the historical sources is also apparent in
those written by Spaniards. For example, in his Historia natural y
moral de las Indias, the Jesuit Jos de Acosta (1987, vol. II, cap.
II: 150) gives Chicomoztoc as the place of origin of the Aztecs, an
aspect profusely criticized by Torquemada. The latter must have
had a pictorial source that showed the Aztecs leaving Aztlan and
passing through Chicomoztoc, as is the case, for example, in the
Codex Azcatitlan. This would explain why it was so obvious to
Torquemada that Acosta's versin of the Aztec-Mexica migration
was erroneous. Given that Torquemada recognized the possibility

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

153

of different and mistaken readings of the pictorials, as is expressed in the citation above, he concluded that Acosta's narration was simply inaccurate.
Still, even though the existence of two places of origin
(Aztlan and Chicomoztoc) for a single people was unacceptable
to Torquemada and consequently led him to doubt Acosta's
history of the Aztec-Mexica migration, the accounts do in fact
vary in regard to the protagonists, the route, and the rituals that
were performed, etc. It is this aspect that Torquemada, like other
chroniclers and historians after him, did not understand and thus
tried to homogenize or explain in one way or another.
It seems that this phenomenon of variability results from
various factors, one of which is the ethnically heterogeneous
composition of Central Mxico. Ethnohistorical sources register
continuous arrivals, beginning at the end of the classic period, of
migratory waves from the North, a process that is confirmed by
the archaeological data (Smith 1984:172-173). These influxes,
added to the preexisting population of this regin,1 only confirm
that different ethnic groups lived together in the Basin of Mxico.
Tenochtitlan was certainly not an exception to this rule.2
Obviously, this kind of multi-ethnic society generated
documents with very particular histories, and this explains, to a
certain extent, the important differences among the historical
accounts. Thus, in agreement with Gillespie (1989:xxvii, xxxvixxxvii), the indigenous texts and pictorials are not attempts to
reconcile the variations with the goal of (re)constructing one
historical sequence, as was the purpose of the Spanish chroniclers. Rather, these versions were ways to explain the existing
cultural diversity, permitting each group to maintain its identity
and meet particular objectives.
Within this discussionthe role of Itzcoatl (1427-1440), the
fourth ruler of Tenochtitlan, is important. Many scholars have
said that during his reign, an official Mexica history was devel-

154 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

oped.3 Without doubt, the historical sources make it clear that
Tenochtitlan began to undergo great transformations during Itzcoatl's rule. For example, such favorable events as the victory in
the Tepanec war and the liberation of Tenochtitlan from Azcapotzalco's political and military control allowed Itzcoatl to unify
the heterogeneous population. He did so around a common or
shared history that actually followed or imitated historical models
in Mesoamerica, with which the general population could identify
(Castaeda de la Paz 2005c). However, Navarrete (1999:246247) has shown that certain groups resisted incorporaron into this
offcial history,4 which has resulted in the survivals of different
versions. This same aspect was commented on by Lpez Austin
(1998:175) who refers to the power of the ancianos, or elderly
people of the calpulli (component units of the altepetl). With their
writings, they were the keepers of the od, legitmate historical
traditions.
Another explanation for the variability in the sources comes
from the necessity to write accounts with specifc goals and objectives. Such is the view of Duverger (1987:32-138), who arges
that the Aztec-Mexica history was a late construction made for
propagandistic reasons. For Castaeda de la Paz (2006, 2007) the
incentive for the Pintura de la Peregrinacin was to show the
Culhua-Toltec ascendance of the Tenochcas, while the Tira de la
Peregrinacin was created to mark the Chichimec ascendance of
this same group. Although the arrival of the Spaniards surely
brought changes, the practice of producing documents that incorporated different traditions and motivations continued (Glass
1975b:16).
A final factor to be considered is that of the colonial context. No pre-Hispanic document concerning the Aztec-Mexica
migration exists. All known sources were made during the early
colonial period, which as Umberger (2002:86) explains, implies
that the majority of the alphabetic sources may preserve certain
pre-Hispanic aspects, but in the end are European adaptations of
information from the oral tradition, the od lost texts, and the

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

155

pictorials. Such adaptation can clearly be recognized in the work

of Torquemada, who after his initial complaint about the historical variety in the sources, insisted on giving a uniform structure
and coherence to his account according to the Western historical
approach.5

The Composition of History by

the Colonial Croniclers and Painters
Torquemada's pattern of compiling a comprehensive history based on varied sources was also employed by indigenous
writers, as in the cases of Chimalpahin, Tezozomoc, and Ixtlilxochitl, respectively the chroniclers of Chalco, Tenochtitlan, and
Texcoco.6 However, unlike the Spaniards, these indigenous historians did not seem to doubt the reliability of sources, or did
they have any problems in reconciling the different accounts of
the same historical event.
Pictorial documents were not exempt from such composition. The Codex Azcatitlan (1995) and the illustrations for
Durn's (1995) work, to mention only two cases, are good examples.7 A meticulous philological analysis of the Codex Azcatitlan
(see below), shows that the tlacuiloque (singular: tlacuilo), or
scribes/painters, had access to more than one document from
which they gathered information in order to assemble the present
codex. The same can be said of the images in Durn's work,
which carne from one or more earlier documents that were destroyed in the process of cutting and pasting the drawings into
what is now know as the Atlas or Codex Duran (Jaln 1989:11).
An interesting pre-Hispanic example of documentary
composition comes from the Mixteca Alta in Oaxaca. According
to the observations of Anders, et al. (1996:29, 31) regarding the
Codex Nuttall, this pictorial manuscript is actually a collection of
notes or rough drafts. They reached this conclusin because the
obverse contains different chapters of Mixtee historywithout
any historical sequencewhile the reverse records a copy of the

156 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

biography of 8 Deer. The latter is not only incomplete, but it is
also full of inconsistencies and errors. It seems that, based on the
information provided by Castillo Farreras (1997:lvii-lviii), Chimalpahin's Tercera Relacin was yet another compilation of
notes. According to this scholar, the third Relacin was the first of
eight to be written, and Chimalpahin did so as a preliminary
versin for the complete work. Subsequently, he did use passages
from the Relaciones to write his later Memorial (1991). According to Castillo Farreras, this would explain the similarity between
these two sources.
This leads us to question how history was written in both
pre-Hispanic and colonial times. Although there are only a few
documents from the period prior to the Spanish arrival, the Codex
Nuttall is a fascinating example due to its notebook-like nature. It
is a collection of unrelated historical fragments that were to be
used to form another codex, which evidently would have placed
the fragments in the proper sequence, that is, proper according to
the tlacuilo. Documents, alphabetic or pictographic, thus become
amalgamations of scenes taken from different predecessors, oral
traditions, or simply from the artistic and historical freedom of a
scribe, that are combined to fulfll certain objectives. The result of
this complex process is, no doubt, a historical jigsaw puzzle, or as
Len-Portilla (1995:90) says, "works in which the indigenous and
Hispanic cultural trends intertwine and blend in many ways."
Nevertheless, despite awareness that this was the modus
operandi in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, very few of
the historical sources have received critical study to establish why
some parts are related, the degrees of the relationships among
sections, and the nature of the similarities, or to determine the
existence of traditions within the document(s) and the extent to
which these are mixed. The necessity of such studies was noted
many years ago by Nicholson in discussing the major problems of
the ethnohistorical sources:

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

157

Especially for anthropologists untrained in the tcchniques of critical cxamination of sources, is that of
determining the genuinely primary versin of a particular passage, a problem exacerbated by the common
practicc of the early chroniclers of freely copying each
other without explicit acknowledgment. Too often, say,
have Motolona, Lpez de Gomara, Zorita, Romn y
Zamora, Mendieta, and Torquemada been cited as independent and corroborating authorities for a particular datum without recognition that the last five simply
copied, directly or indirectly, from the frst. Nicholson
(1975:490).
Nicholson was not the frst scholar to note this problem; Aubin
had already recognized it in the sources about the Aztec-Mexica
migration. It appears that he was the frst to note the parallels
between Ms. Mex. 85 and the texts by Tezozomoc.8 Barlow
(1949:02) tnen linked the Codex Azcatitlan not only with the
pictographic scenes of the Tira de la Peregrinacin, the Codex
Aubin, and the Mss. Mex. 40 and 85, but also with various written
texts like the Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas, the
Anales de Cuauhtitlan, and the Anales de Tlatelolco. Dibble
(1963:12) continued the discussion by saying that some fragments of the Nhuatl text of the Codex Aubin correspond word for
word with certain paragraphs of Tezozomoc and Chimalpahin's
Memorial (1991). Similarly, Zimmermann (1963-1965) pointed
out the relationship between the text of the Ms. Mex. 85 and the
works of Chimalpahin and the Crnica X, while Gibson in
personal communication with Glass (1975b:163) indicated the
possible relationship between this same text and the Codex Aubin.
This probably prompted Glass (ibid., 88-89) to affrm that the frst
part of the text in the Codex Aubin had parallels with other sources
like the Ms. Mex. 85 and 40, and the Tira de peregrinacin.
Notwithstanding all this
search has been done with these
the Codex Azcatitlan, Graulich
observad that this pictorial was

evidence, little philological resources recently. In his study of

(1995:26, 28, 44, note 9) only
closely related to other sources

158 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

like the Tira de la Peregrinacin, the Codex Aubin, the Crnica
Mexicayotl, the Monarqua Indiana, and the writings of Chimalpahin. Medina Gonzlez (1998:14, 60) in his commentary on the
Ms, Mex. 40 notes the similarities with Chimalpahin's texts and
particularly with the Codex Aubin, while Boone (2000:213) compares the Aztec-Mexica migration histories and concludes that the
"Azcatitlan, Boturini and Aubin seem to belong to one versin of
the narrative as does Torquemada's . .. alphabetic rendering."
Thus, the fact that the Tira de la Peregrinacin, the Crnica Mexicayotl, the Codex Aubin, the Monarqua Indiana, and
Chimalpahin all contain the detail about the Mexica who sat down
next to a tree that then breaks is in itself not an argument that this
particular history was more widely known or accepted than another history.9 Rather, it shows that this versin was recorded in
one pictorial or source that for some reason had a wider distribution among chroniclers and tlacuiloque (painters) than another
pictorial or source that did not contain it. Furthermore, we should
keep in mind that the endeavor to reconcile traditions gave rise to
new historical compositions that may have altered the original
ones.

Sources on Mexica History

The Mexica documents can be divided into three welldefmed groups representing historical traditions and a fourth
group of miscellaneous documents that do not fit into any particular tradition. The frst two groups contain detailed accounts of
the Aztec-Mexica migration, while in the third group, only the
Codex Azcatitlan nrrales this theme. The historical traditions can
be identifed through a comparative analysis of the sources.

The Crnica X
In 1945 Robert Barlow hypothesized the existence of an
alphabetic text with few illustrations, which he suggested was the
source for later chroniclers. He named this document the Crnica

CODLX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

159

Figure I. Aztln-Teoculhuacn in the Tira de Peregrinacin.

After handmudc facsmile ovvned by the authur.

A'(see Table I). According to his hypothcsis this text was used by
Tezozomoc as a source for his first work, the Crnica Mexicana
(1987), and by Fray Diego Duran for his Historia Je las Indias
(1995). Another priest, Juan de Tovar, based his work on that of
Duran, just as Jos de Acosta based his work on that of Tovar.
This formation process explains the similarities among these
works. 10 Nevertheless, it is importan! to remember that originally
there must have been a purely pictographic document or documents." At some point this document was translated into an
alphabetic Spanish text, eliminating forever the rich and complex
resources of oral tradition related to pictorials.

The Codex Y':

This is a purely pictographic document, also lost, that
served as the basis for the preparation of the Tira de la Peregrinacin (fig. 1) and subsequently of a group of documents related to
it that represen! a histrica! tradition distinct from the Crnica X
(see Table 1). The Tira retained its purely pictorial character,
unlike the other mcmbers of the group that also contain alphabetic
texts. 13 These include the Codex Aubin, and the Mv.v. Me\. 40 and
85 (see Table II).' 4 An importan! feature of the documents of the
Crnica Y group is that they are written in Nhuatl. I have been

160 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

Table 1
Codex Y
Aztlan. Chimalma can be rccognizcd by thc glyph of a shicld (chimalli).
Nolc: Chicomoxloc is nol includcd in this tradition
Teoculhuacan. Huitzilopochtli dwclls hcrc
Seven groups of peoples: Matlatzincas, Tcpanccs, Chichimccs, Acolhuacas, Cuitlahuacas,
Xochimilcas, Chalcas, and Hucxotzincas
Kour teomamaque or priests: Chimalma, Iztac Mixcoatl, Apanccatl, and Tctzcacoatl.

Chichimec Ritual: sitling ncxt to thc brokcn trcc, a ritual on cactus, and rccciving thc ame
Mexitin.
Route: Cucxtccatl ychocayan
Coatepec/Coatlicamac
Note: Ihe Aztccs only pass through. and nevcr give any importance to thc place
Routc: Tula, Atlitlaquian, Tlcmaco, Atotonilco, Apazco (Huitzcotl), Tzonpanco, Xaltocan,
Acalhucan, Ehecatepec, Tolpetlac, Cohuatitlan, Chalco, Huixachitlan, Tecpayocan (war),
Pantitlan (Cocolistli), Amalinalpan, Pantitlan, Aculnuhuac, Popotlan, Techcalitlan,
Atlacuihuayan.
Chapultepec-Acocolco
War ugainst thc Tcpanecs and C'olhuas
H u i t z i l i h u i t l and Chimalaxoch are takcn captivo (this is not mcnlioncd in thc Crnica X)
- Construction of an altar to sacrificc a Culhua
Note: Atlacuihuayan is mcntioncd bcforc Chapultcpcc.
Culhuacan-Contitlan. Coxcox rules. War against Xochimilco; cutting off of cars
Routc: Acatzintitlan-Mexicaltzinco. Ncxticpac, Iztacalco (hill festival), Zoquipan,
Temazcatitlan
Tenochtitlan.
liagle on thc prickly pear cactus. Pictograph:
- Eaglc with scrpcnt in bcak (C Aubin)
- Kaglc without anything (Ms. Mex. 40)
- liaglc wilh serpcnl in taln (Ms. Mcx. 85)
- Construclion of an altar lo sacrificc at Culhua
- Teomamaque: Cuauhcoatl and Axolohua communicate with Tlaloc

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

161

Table 1

Chicomoztoc (Aztlan) 17

Note: Tcoculhuacan is nol includcd.

Sevcn gods or barrios: Yopican, Tlacochcalca, Uitznahuac, Cihuatccpan, Chalmccatl,
Tlacatccpanccatl, and Izquilccat' 8
Four teomamaque: Quautliquczqui, Axoloa, Cuauhcoatl, and Ococaltzin (only in
Tczozomoc)
Michoacan. Account of thc abandonmcnt of Malinalxoclntl, sistcr of Huitzilopochtli.

Route: Ocopita and Achuallzinco'1'

Coatepec. Thc god shows thc place of thc future foundation. Thc sacrificc of Coyolxauhqui
and Ccntzohuitznahuac in thc tlachitli (ballcourt) and/or thc tzonpantli (skull wall)
Thc fcar fclt by thc Olomics causcd by thc arrival of a ncw groupo, thc Mcxica.
Routc: Tula, Atlitlaquian, Tcquixquiac, Tzonpanco, Xaltocan, Ecatepec, Tolpetlac.
Tczozomoc adds: Eycoac, Aculhuacan, (he omits Ecatepec), Huixachitlan, Tecpayocan,
Alepeilac, Coatlayauhcan, Tctcpanco, Acolnauac, Popotlan, and Techcatitlan.
Chapultepec 20
- War against Copil. Cuauhtliquczqui sacrificcs him and throws his heart in Tlacocomolco
- War againsl ncighboring towns: Azcapolzalco, Tacuba, Coyoacan, Xochimilco, Culhuacan,
and Chalco
Atlacuihuayan (thcy invcnt thc atlull or "spcar-throwcr"
Culhuacan-Ii/aapan. Achilometl rules. Sacrificc of his daughter !o Toci:l
Routc: Acatzintitlan, Temazcalli-IVIexicatzinco, Iztacalco (hill festival). Mixiuhcan,
Temazcatitlan
Tenochtitlan.
Eaglc on prickly pcar cactus. Pictograph.
-Eaglc with scrpcnt in bcak (writtcn tcxt from Tczozomoc and pictograph from Duran)
-Eaglc with bird in talons (writtcn tcxt and pictograph from Duran) 21
-Teomama: Cuauhtloquczqui (only in thc Onica Mexicana)
-Construction of an altar. No mcntion is madc of a sacrificc
-Dcscriplion of thc site as al I whitc

162 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

Table II: The Migration Route
Tira de Peregrinacin
(BNAH)

Cdice Aubin
(Bodician Library)

Mx. Mcx. 40(BnF)

Aztlan

Aztlan, Quinchuayan

Aztlan, Quinchuayan

2
3

Tcoculhuacan

Colhuacan

Colhuacan

rbol

rbol

rbol

Cucxtccatl ichocayan

Cucxtccatl ychocayan

Cucxtccatl yn chocatica

Coatcpcc

Cohuatl ycamac/
Cohuatcpec

Cohuatl yn icamac/
Cohuatcpec

Tula

Tollan

Tolan

Atitlalaquia

Atlitlacyan

Atlitlalacyan

15

Tlcmaco

Tlemaco

Tlemaco

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Atotonilco

Atotonilco

Atotonilco

Apazco/Huitzcoltcpec

Apazco/Huitzcotl

Apazco/Huitzoltcpcc

Tzompanco

Tzonpanco

Tzonpanco

Xaltocan ?

Xaltocan

Xaltoca[n]

Acalhuacan

Acalhuacan

Acalhuacan

6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14

Ehecatepec

Ehecatepec [sic]

Ecatepcc

Tolpctlac

Tolpctlac

Tolpctlac

Cohuatitlan

Cohuatitla[n]

Cohuatitlan

Huixachitlan

Vixachtitlan

Huixachitlan

25

Tccpayocan

Tccpayocan

Tccpaioca[n]

26

Pantitlan

Pantitlan

Pantitlan

27

Amalinalpan

Amallinalpan

Amalinalpan

2X

Pantitlan

Pantitlan

30

Acolnahuac

Acolnahuac

31

Popotla

Popotlan

29

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

163

Table II: The Migration Route

Ms. Mcx. 85 (BnF)

Cdice Azcatillan (BnF)

Azcatitla [Aztlan]

2
3

Tcpcmaxalco

Chicomosstoc

[Tco]culhuacan

5
6

Cohuatlycamac [bclow in
C. Aubin and Ms. Mcx.
40)

Huacallcpcc

Huixachitlan
Cohuatcpcc

9
10

Tcscatcpcc

11

Xiuhcocoan

12
13
14

Tolla

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Tclmaco

Tollan

Atlitlalacya
Huchuctoca
Tlemaco

Atotonilco
Apazco/Hujcol

Apasco

Tzonpa[n]co

Tzonpa[n]co

Xaltoca[n]

Xaltoca

Acalhuaca[n]

Acalhuacan

Ecatcpcc

Eccatcpcc

Tolpctlac

To[l]petlac

Cohuatintla[n]

24

Hucxachtitlan

25

Tccpanyocan

26

Pa[n]titlan

27
28
29
30

Amallinalpan

Yohualltccatl

Pantitlan

Pantitla[n]

31

Popo[tlan, brokcn]

Tccpaiocan

Pantitla[n]
[brokcn: Acolnahuac]

164 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

Table II: The Migration Route
Tira de la Peregrinacin
(BNAH)

Cdice Aubin
(Bodlcian Library)

32

Tcchcatitlan

Techcatitlan

33
34

Atlacuihuayan

Allacuivayan

35
36
37

Chapultcpec/Acocolco

Chapoltcpec/Acocolco

Culhuacan

Colhuacan

Contillan

Contitlan

Ms. Mcx. 40 (BnF)

38
39

Ticaapan

40

Acatzintitlan/
Mcxicalzinco

41
42

43
44
45
46
47
48

Ncxlicpac
Iztacalco (Amatcpctl)
coquipan
Tcmazcaltitlan
Tenochlitlan
(Axolohua, Xomimitl)

Tenochtitlan
(Axolohua, Xomimitl)

able to establish that this was the most widely used historical
tradition in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, by authors
like Torquemada, Chimalpahin, and Tezozomoc, who at times
copied the sources of this tradition almost word for word
(Castaeda de la Paz 2008).15 For example, Tezozomoc used the
Codex y to write his second work, the Crnica Mexicayotl (1992).
However, the authorwho had already completed his first work,
the Crnica Mexicanaalso incorporated into this second work
information that he had gathered from the Crnica X. It is curious
to note that when Tezozomoc takes from the Crnica ^tradition,
he does not do so based on his Crnica Mexicana but rather he
relies on Durn's Historia General, a subject that merits further
research.

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

165

Table II: The Migration Route

Ms. Mcx. 85 (BnF)

Cdice Azcatitlan (BnF)

32
33
34

Tcchcatitlan

35

ChapoUcpcc/jbrokcn]

36

Colhuaca[n]

[Colhuacan]

37

cotitlan

Contitla[n]

Atlacuihuaya[n]
Tcnaiocan

Acatzmtitla[n] [Bcsidc Mcxicatzinco en

C. Aubin]

38
39

Chapoltcpcc/Acocolco

Ticaapan

Ticaapa[n]

40

Mcxicatzinco

41

Cohuaatlycham

42

Ystacallco [Bclow in c. Aubin]

43

Ncxtipac

44
45

46
47
48

Mixiuhca

Mixiuhcan

Tcmazcaltitla|n]

Tcmascaltitlan

Tcnochtillan (Axolohua,
Quauhcohuatl, Xomimitl)

[Tcnochtillan] (Copil)

The Tlatelolco Papers

This is a group of documents that, from preliminary results of my ongoing investigation, appears to have been produced
by a school of painters from Tlatelolco. An important part of these
papers forms what is known as the Ixhuatepec Group. Ana Rita
Valero (2004) has identifed this as a set of documents having
cise thematic relationships with the most important member,
Codex Cozcatzin. Furthermore, based on style, Barlow (1949:
103) had rightly noted the similarity between the Cozcatzin and
Codex Azcatitlan and concluded that both had to have come from
the same school. My own iconographic analysis has confirmed
that the tlacuiloque of these two documents copied their glyphs
from other pictographic manuscripts that are now lost (work in
preparation). It is interesting to note that both pictorials were used
by the painter of another much later documentprobably dating

166 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

to the frst half of the eighteenth centuryto produce the Codex
Techialoyan Garda Granados (1992).l6
In the following discussion we will focus on the Codex
Azcatitlan for two reasons: (a) The Azcatitlan is an eclectic document in the sense that its formulation was based on the Codex Y
and the Codex Chavero, another member of the Ixhuatepec Group
(Valero 2004). (b) It seems that the Azcatitlan was one of the
documents consulted by Torquemada as part of the history of the
Aztec-Mexica migration.

Miscellaneous Documents
This group is formed by a number of documents that do
not belong to any particular tradition, or can they be related with
one another. Examples of manuscripts are the Codex Mexicanus,
the Codex Tellerianus-Remensis, the Tira de Tepechpan, and the
Pintura de la Peregrinacin.

Methodology for Delimiting Historical Traditions

Having established that the historical sources were formed by amalgamating information from other accounts and a consequent process of copying, it is thus necessary for the modern day
historian to apply a rigorous philological analysis in order to
determine the relationships between the sources and the valu of
the information contained in them, as noted above.
The existence of Barlow's hypothetical Crnica X has
long been accepted among Mesoamericanists. Although typifed
by Tezozomoc's Crnica Mexicana and Duran's Historia General, it should be pointed out that some differences exist between
these two versions which may be explained by the use of different
sources or different oral information received by the respective
authors. Based on the Crnica X and comparison of the information in a particular group of manuscripts, we have suggested
the existence of another tradition derived from a hypothetical

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

167

Codex Y. In order to illustrate how colonial authors formed their

accounts it is paramount to first demnstrate the particular contents of each of these traditions and how they contrast.
The main historical contents of the two traditions are
assembled in a comparative table, Table 1, that will serve as a
guide for the discussion of Codex Azcatitlan and Torquemada's
Monarqua Indiana.
Two aspects of this table should be emphasized: The
pictorial accounts of the Crnica X tradition never depict Aztlan,
the Tenochca place of origin, but rather represent Chicomoztoc, a
place of origin of a broader nature. Boone (2000:214-215) has
already observed that some sources refer to Aztlan as a place of
origin while others mention Chicomoztoc. She suggests that the
situation was not that inconsistent, and resolves the problem by
saying that the Aztecs "understood Chicomoztoc generally as a
place of origin, but they claimed Aztlan as their own homeland,"
only to conclude that "Many prose sources reconcile any difference simply by equating the two places." We opine that both
Duran and Tezozomoc added Chicomoztoc to Aztlan because
they had heard of such a place in the oral tradition of MexicoTenochtitlan, or they may have seen it represented in other
Tenochca sources and could, therefore. not deny its existence.
Torquemada, working with the Cdice Y tradition, has a similar
problem with Chicomoztoc that was resolved by incorporating it
into the migration route (see the section on Monarqua Indiana
below).
A second aspect that needs clarification is the considerable geographic confusin in the Crnica X. According to
Tezozomoc, the Mexicas went to Michoacan and from there to
Malinalco (in the state of Morelos). However, he related the latter
to Patzcuaro (in the state of Michoacan). He then continued to
explain that Malinalxochitl, sister of Huitzilopochtli, was abandoned in Patzcuaro after which she went to Texcaltepetl in
Malinalco (Tezozomoc 1992:41). According to Duran, the Mexi-

168 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

ca went to Patzcuaro where, although not mentioned specifcally,
Malinalxochitl was abandoned as she went to Malinalco alone.
This explains, according to Duran, why the people of Michoacan
and Malinalco were relatives. It seems, therefore, that the chroniclers did not know how to explain the relationship between these
different places and constructed a confusing account. With this
information about the two main traditions, let us now consider the
Codex Azcatitlan and the Torquemada's Monarqua Indiana.

Codex Azcatitlan: An Eclectic Document

Codex Azcatitlan consists of three parts. The first, which
is of interest for the present discussion, deals with the AztecMexica migration from the departure from Aztlan until the
founding of Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco. The other two parts refer
to the reigns of the lords of these two cities, their respective
conquests, the arrival of the Spaniards, and the frst years of
colonial life.
As with other documents, Codex Azcatitlan is based on
previous sources. In this case, these were from different historical
traditions that were fused in such a way that this pictorial is highly
eclectic. The Codex Y tradition, exemplified by the Tira de
Peregrinacin, can be discerned in:24
a. The departure from Aztlan and the arrival in
Teoculhuacan (figs. 2 and 3). The representation is almost identical to that in the Tira (fig. 1), the iconic document of the Codex Y
tradition. Due to the European book format of the Codex Azcatitlan, Aztlan and Teoculhuacan are depicted on two consecutive
pages,25 but this is the only document that follows the Tira in
representing a priest crossing the waters to reach Teoculhuacan. It
also sitales the event in the same year, ce tecpatl or 1 Flint.
b. The temple of Mixcoatl-Amimitl (figs. 1 and 2). The
presence of this temple in Aztlan is highly significant, because we

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

**

169

> .W 1^!^^
.

-^V

.i'if^;.

VaV^^.

Q-,#^^"
Figure 2. Aztln. CodexAzcatitlan, omina II (afterGraulich 1995).

Figure 3. Teoculhuacn. Codcx Acatitln. Lmina III (atter Graulick 1995).

can only fmd it here and in the Tira de la Peregrinacin. The

temple is the characterized by a staff or a water arrow.
c. As in the Tira, the god Huitzilopochtli is shown in the
Codcx Azcatitlan inside the cave of Teoculhuacn, or Twisted
Hill (figs. 1 and 3). The Azcafitlan depicts him as an eagle rather
than a hummingbird, as seen in the Tira, although in both manuscripts his head peeks out from the bird's beak producing a scroll.
The painter of the Azcatitlan also integrated another pictographic
versin of Huitzilopochtli in Aztln: a full human figure with a
hummingbird helmet (fig. 2). It is unclear whether such representation comes from another unknown source or is a creation of
the painter.

170 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

Figure 4. Groups that lea\ with the Aztecs and tctiintiiiiui/iie.

Tira Je la Peregrinacin (after handmade facsmile owned by the author).

d. The presence of the four teoimimaque of the Codex Y:

Tezcacohuatl, Quauhcoatl, Apanecatl, and Chimalma, who
appear in the same order in the Codex Azcatitlan (figs. 3 and 5).
An importan! difference is that the Azcatitlan shows additional
priests on either side. All carry bundles, but in the Tira de la
Peregrinacin, Tezcacohuatlwho is missing the mirrors of his
ame glyph here (Graulich 1995:46, note 12)carries that of
Huitzilopochtli in his manifestaron as a hummingbird. U may be
deduced that the tlacuilo had extra space to fill, which seems to
have led him to incorprate scenes from other unknown docu-m
ents. This would also explain the presence of certain elements or
details alien to the Tira, such as the style of the bundlesexcept
for that of Chimalmaand the attire of these figures.

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

171

Figure 5. Ritual on spiny plunts. Tira lc la Peregrinacin

(after handmade facsmile owned by the author).

e. The representation of each of the groups that set out on

the migration with the Aztecs (figs. 3 and 4). These are the exact
same groups and in the very same, yet inverted, order of appearance as in the Tira. It should also be pointed out that for some
reason the scribe of the Azcailan modified the glyph of the
Chalca trom the representation of a precious stone orchalchilniitl
to that of two stone beads strung on a thread, and the glyph of the
Xochimilcas is more elabrate than that of the Tira. All that
remains to be noted is that next to the list of groups the tlacuilo
included a temple that does not appear in the pictograph from the
Tira.
f. The migration route is practically the same as that of the
Group ofthe Tira de la Peregrinacin, except for some inferences
or omissions (see Table II). However, the omission in the Code.x
AzcatUlan ofthe scene ofthe broken tree and the Chichimcc ritual
deserves spiny plants deserves some commentary (fig. 5). Instead
of these scenes the painter of the Azcatitlan drew Chicomoztoc
and a river that carries away naked people and their possessions
(fig. 6). This scene is iconographically similar to another scene.

172 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

Figure 6. Chicomoztoc. Codex Azcatitln, Lmina V (after Graulich 1995).

scene, also next lo Chicomoztoc, on fol. 16r of the Historia

Tolteca- Chichimeca (1989), where a naked person is situated in a
stream originating in a hill. The other iconographic elements (a
New Fire ritual, a curved hill or Citlhuacan, and the whole page as
such) suggests that this scene is related to the concept of origin.
That the Azcatitln situates this Chicomoztoc and its related
elements on the route to Central Mxico makes us think that it
concerns a decontextualized scene, or a case of disjunction. That
is, there has been a rupture between the signifier and the signified,
or the represented and its meaning. Whereas Chicomoztoc, and its
related pictographic scenes, was originally meant to be read as
"origin" or "beginning," in the Azcatitln this meaning has been
lost, without the loss of iconographic complexity, and now simply
has to be read as a place along the Mexica migration. It is
therefore not possible to relate the meaning of the Chicomoztoc
scene to that of the broken tree.
The painter of the Codex Azcatitln was thus inspired by a
document of the Codex Ftradition, but he also used others. It has

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

173

Figure 7. Districts and barrios of Tenochtitlan.

Codex Chavero, Folio 4 (after Valero 2004).

been possible to detect the influence of an unknown pictorial that

also affected the painter of the Codex Chavero (2004). This
argument is based on the representation of Aztlan on Pate II of
the Azcatitlan (fg. 2).26 Four standing figures are situated in front
of a large temple. They lack ame glyphs but are associated with a
house (call) or palace (tecpan) that can be identifed through
pictorial elements on its roof. These figures represent four barrios
that later, after Tenochtitlan was founded, would be established in
the four sections of the city. Folio 4 of the Codex Chavero (2004:
220, 244) corroborates this information, as it shows these four
sections with the eagle on the prickly pear cactus in its centn27
A comparison of the four pictorial elements in the Azcatitlan and the Codex Chavero (fg. 7) makes the relationship
between the two pictorials clear:

174 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

a. House or palace (tecpari) with a banner (pantlf). The
glyph from the Codex Azcatitlan is identical to that in the lower
left crner of the Codex Chavero where a gloss reads tecpan. Such
reading simply refers to the ame of the barrio in question, with
the banner (pan-tl) serving as a phonetic glyph reinforcing this
reading. The Chavero furthermore clarines that this barrio was
located in the section of San Sebastin Atzacoalco as is indicated
by an arrow associated with the martyrdom of this saint.
b. House or palace with two barrel cactuses (comitl). This
barrio has its equivalent in the upper right crner of the Codex
Chavero. However, to express the same ame the Chavero depicts
two clay vessels which were read as cihuatecpan. First, it is
important to know that such vessels received their ame, comitl,
due to similarity with the shape of the barrel cactus. Now, cihuatecpan is not related to clay vessels (comil) or to woman (cihud)
but rather to the spine of the cactus (tziuac or tzihuac). This
explains the representation of the cactus in the Azcatitlan that was
misunderstood by the painter of the Chavero, who thought that the
glyph referred to the comil as a whole rather than its spine and
thus lost the relationship between the glyph and what it represents. Nevertheless, the Codex Chavero does inform us that this
barrio was located in the section of San Juan Moyotlan as is
indicated by the poisoned cup of St. John the Baptist.
c. House or palace with the glyph of a precious stone
(chalchihuitl) strung on a thread. The barrio is represented in the
upper left crner in Codex Chavero, but rather than a bead its
glyph depicts a vessel. A gloss reads chalmeca, that, as in the case
of Cihuatecpan, cannot be a reading of the vessel. We can therefore safely conclude that the Chavero painter did not understand
the glyphs he copied from the original document, or the meaning
of the glyphs he had before him. That is to say, he could not
identify the precious stone (chal-chihuitl) strung on a thread
(mecatl), which indeed gives the reading chalmeca. Still Codex
Chavero does represent a sword, the attribute of St. Paul, which

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

175

indicates that this barrio was located in the section San Pablo
Zoquipan.
d. House with darts. This barrio corresponds to that in the
lower right comer of the Codex Chavero, where the house has
three darts on its roof. The gloss reads it as tlacochcalca from
darts (tlacoch-tlf) and house (cal-li). The Christian glyph of the
barrio, the crown of the Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven, is
drawn above the door and indicates that this place was situated in
Santa Mara Cuepopan.

Torquemada: The Case of a Spanish Chronicler

As mentioned above, in writing his Monarqua Indiana
Torquemada (1557-1624?) consulted a Codex Azcatitlan-like
document,28 as well as one of the versions of the Codex Y. He also
knew the versin of the Crnica X represented in the work of
Acosta; but, as noted previously, he preferred to ignore it as much
as possible, as he found it difficult to intgrate it into his account
due to the historical inconsistencies it contained in comparison
with his principal sources. Torquemada himself referred to these
sourcesand othersin the beginning of his Aztec-Mexica history:
One must begin with their history, which I do, having
sought their origin in books that the natives kept hidden
away... (Torquemada 1975, prologue toBook 11:110)
According to the paintings that the most curious of
these native Indians had and I at prcsent have in my
power, it seems that to come from the first place from
which they departed . . . they passed a river or a small
strait and branch of a sea, which painting seems to
show half an island . . . (Torquemada 1975, Book II,
Chapter 1:113).29

In Book II, Chapter I Torquemada writes that after the

Aztecs left the island, they reached Huey Colhuacan.30 Here they

176 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

encountered the god Huitzilopochtli, who asked the Aztecs to
take him with them, and he designated four teomamaque or 'god
bearers to carry him in a chair of reeds. These god bearers were:
Quauhcoatl, Apanecatl, Tezcacohuacatl, and Chimalma. This
description is an almost exact reading of the first two pages of the
Tira de Peregrinacin that is ampie evidence that Torquemada
had access to a versin of the Codex 7 (see Table I).
Torquemada also incorporated information from historical traditions other than that of Codex Fin his account. This can be
deduced from several elements in his text:
a. Despite looking at a pictorial where the Aztecs leave
from an island (i.e., Aztlan), in the prologue to the second book
Torquemada mentions that the "false Seven Caves" were also
given as the Aztec place of origin (ibid., Book 11:105, 109). Here
Torquemada used the term fingidas, "false," because, as already
mentioned, Chicomoztoc as place of origin did not agree with his
most trusted sources, which showed it as a place on the migration
route. However, he could not ignore its existence due to its appearance in several historical sources and oral traditions.
b. The almost literal reference to the words of Huitzilopochtli inviting the Aztecs to leave Aztlan: tihui, "let's go,"
which almost certainly comes from an oral account.
c. The reference to Huitziton and Tecpatzin, ames totally
lacking from any known source, as leaders who initiate the migration. In order to connect these figures with the Codex Y, at a later
point Torquemada says these were of a higher rank than the four
teomamaque chosen at Huey Colhuacan.
d. Torquemada's discussion of the Aztec internal organization in Aztlan where he recognizes variations in the historical
information: (1) Some sources refer to four groups: the Mexicanos, the Tlacochcalca, the Chalmeca, and the Calpilco, an organization that is closely related to the divisin of the four barrios

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

177

in Aztlan as depicted in the Codex Azcatitlan and Codex Chavero,

discussed earlier. Yet, it seems that the informants of Torquemada
read two of the glyphs differently. (2) Other sources refer to nine
groups: Chalca, Matlatzinca, Tepaneca, Malinalca, Xochimilca,
Cuitlahuaca, Chichimeca, Mizquica, and Mexica. This information is almost identical to that given in Codex Y, but also to that of
Codex Azcatitlan^ This seems to be further confirmation that
Torquemada had such pictorials at hand when he wrote his Monarqua Indiana.
After leaving Huey Colhuacan, the Torquemada narration
contines with the description of the Aztec arrival at a place with
a large tree, where they built an altar and began to eat. Clearly, he
follows Codex Y. Torquemada contines with a reading of the
next pictorial scene:
While eating, the tree made a great noise and broke in
two. As the Aztecs were afraid . . . they consulted their
god . . .who . . . told them: say goodbye to the eight
familics and tell them to Icave . . . And then their devil .
.. told them: as my clcctcd oncs, you will not be called
Aztecs, but Mexicas . . . (Torquemada, Book II,
ChapterII:114).32

This precise explanation of the somewhat complex pictorial text suggests that Torquemada received his information
from an indigenous informant who knew the Mexica history very
well and was able to read cdices. It was thus that Torquemada
could continu his account with the detailed description of how
Huitzilopochtli changed the ame of the Aztecs to Mexitin, and
all the rituals related with the conversin of the Mexitin to great
warriors (i.e., the ritual of the spiny plants, Tira de la Peregrinacin, fig. 5).33 It is interesting that Torquemada situated these
events in Chicomoztoc because, whereas this place does not occur
in Codex Y but in the Codex Azcatitlan, it follows the scene of
Huey Colhuacan, interrupted by a landscape painting. This
strongly suggests that our author tried to join the information from
both pictorials that he had at hand.

178 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

Continuing the account, after the scene where the Aztecs
become great warriors and Mexitin, the Monarqua Indiana goes
directly to Coatlicamac34 while the Azcatitlan represents Tepemaxalco and Codex Y (i.e., the Tira) shows Cuextecatl ichocayan.
In Coatlicamac Torquemada interrupts the migration to incorprate an account of a dispute over two bundles, which would
later crystallize in the separation of the Tenochcas and Tlatelolcas. It is difficult to determine why Torquemada sitales this
event in Coatlicamac, since he is the only author that mentions it.
For the next section of the migration our author seems to
pick up another account, as he refers to Matlahuacallan, followed
by Apanco, where a Chichimec story similar to one from the
Anales de Cuauhtitlan (1992:3-4) and the Leyenda de los Soles
(1992:122-125) is told. Its protagonists are Mixcoatl, Xiuhnel,
and Quilaztli. Finally, after passing through Chimalco and Pipiolcomic, Tula is reached, and the group settles at the hill of Coatepec. From Coatlicamac onwards, this part of the migration route
shows strong similarities to that represented in the Codex Mexicanus and the Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas.
Now, for events taking place in Coatepec, Torquemada
opted for a story from the Crnica X, a source he knew, as was
discussed above in relation to Chicomoztoc. His preference, as
well as that of other chroniclers (Tezozomoc in the Crnica
Mexicayotl, for example), may have been due to the detailed
narration in the Crnica Xof the events that occurred in Coatepec.
Whereas in Codex Y it is only mentioned as yet another place on
the route, the Crnica X (i.e., Duran and Tezozomoc) describe
how Huitzilopochtli creates a landscape very similar to what
would be Tenochtitlan, their final destination. As it is such a
wonderful place, the Mexica forget that they need to move on, and
wish to stay. Huitzilopochtli responds with great anger and
sacrifices a number of people by removing their hearts.
Torquemada's route to Chapultepec is again, with some
additions and omissions, that given in Codex Y (see Table II).

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

179

However, he also incorporales information from Codex Azcatitlan, as is confirmed by the statement that this place was controlled
by the Tepanecs of Tenayuca. The pictorial shows Tenayuca
facing Chapultepec, but this is clearly not part of the Mexica
migration. Rather, it seems to indcate its importance in relation to Chapultepec, which was exactly what Torquemada deduced. The event that took place here is the famous war of the
neighboring towns against the Mexica in order to forc them
out. Torquemada specifically notes that the people of Xaltocan
made them take refuge in Acocolco. From there two historical
versions are developed:35 (a) The arrival of a captain from
Culhuacan who invited the Mexica refugees to come and live in
his town. Those who went were sacrifced. (b) The other
versin, which according to Torquemada is closer to the truth,
is that of a war involving Cocoxtli, ruler of Culhuacan, against
the Mexica,who did not pay tribute while living in Acocolco, in
Culhua territory. During this war the Culhua captured Huitzilihuitl and his sister Chimalaxochitl. 36
The first versin is very short, and may be inspired by
pate XI of the Codex Azcatitlan, which depicts the Cihuacoatl (a
political position) of Culhuacan, referred to by Torquemada as a
captain. This Culhua lord is represented next to a place glyph of
his town facing Huitzilihuitl and his daughters. A Nhuatl text
explains that these Mexica died before the Cihuacoatl. The
second versin comes from Codex Y, which explains why
Torquemada thinks it is closer to the truth. In fact, the Tira de la
Peregrinacin shows precisely Chimalaxochitl and Huitzilihuitl,
captured and taken before Coxcoxtli. This is corroborated by the
further events that took place in Culhuacan, as described in the
Monarqua Indiana (chapter IX), which are parallel to those
depicted in the Codex Y. This section relates how the Mexica had
to serve Coxcoxtli and fight against the Xochimilcas, whom they
took as captives before cutting off their ears. In the next chapter
Torquemada refers to the sacrifce of people from Xochimilco,
which seems to nave come from pate XI of the Codex Azcatitlan
or the Anales de Tlatelolco (2004:69).

180 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

As for the route from Chapultepec to the foundation of
Tenochtitlan, Torquemada contines with the account from the
Codex Azcatitlan, as he cites the exact same places and events:
Acatzintitlan, Mexicaltzinco, Nexticpac, Iztacalco (where both
sources mention a feast of the hill or amatepetl), Mixiuhcan (where,
according to Torquemada, Huitzilihuitl's sister gave birth), and
Temascaltitlan. On Pate XII of the Azcatitlan fishing nets are
drawn between the last two places. This scene is common in
several sources of the Crnica X, but it is also given pictographically and alphabetically on f. 5v of the Ms. Mex. 85, where
nets are represented in the foundation scene. It is thus difficult to
determine the source of this information.
All historical sources say the Mexica built an altar for
their god in Tenochtitlan. However, while the Crnica Xdozs not
mention any sacrifce at this altar, the sources derived from Codex
Y do.37 It is possible that mese documents inspired Torquemada to
record the construction of an altar and the sacrifce of a Culhua
called Tlacochichil at the hands of a Mexica called Xomimitl.
Other sources, such as the Anales de Tlatelolco (2004:73) and the
Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas (Garibay 1979:55-56),
claim that the sacrificial victim was Chichilquauhtli.38 In fact,
Garibay (1979:10) suggests that Torquemada possibly took his
information from the latter document.
Finally, Torquemada introduces the description of the
foundation of Tenochtitlan in Book III of the Monarqua Indiana
as follows:
And retuming to our history and foundation of our
great Mexican city, the ancient histories, which I have
seen and examined with great care, say, . . . that they
entered the lagoon seeking the oracle that would point
them to the site of the foundation . . . as in the book of
their migration and coming is told" (Torquemada 1975,
Book III, Chap. 22:396-397).

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

181

He then very briefly describes that the Mexica saw a

tenochtli, or cactus, and some very green waters, and how the
teomama Axolohua got into the water in order to communicate
with Tlaloc. Axolohua transmitted his message to another teomama, Quauhcoatl, who in turn communicated it to the Mexicas.
This account was taken from Codex Y(Codex Aubin andMs. Mex.
40).39 Oddly enough, the eagle on top of the cactus seems to be of
secondary importance to Torquemada. Only chapter XI of the
second book includes a brief allusion to the eagle.

Conclusions
I have demonstrated that a series of different historical
versions existed in ancient Central Mxico. As these were transmitted through time, either orally or copied in pictorial and
alphabetic texts, the information was restructured and interwoven. This formation process makes the use of such sources
particularly difficult for modern historical research, a problem
that is often ignored by scholars (or often recognized at first and
subsequently ignored during the analysis). As with historical
sources from the Ancient World, for example, Homerus and the
Illiad, the Mesoamerican historical sources require a rigorous and
meticulous philological analysis in order to understand the valu
of the informationcontained in these texts.
In an exemplary philological study, Robert Barlow demonstrated the existence of a hypothetical Crnica X, an alphabetical text with illustations, which was the source for later
chroniclers like Jos de Acosta, Diego Duran, Hernando Alvarado
Tezozomoc (Crnica Mexicana), Juan de Tovar, and the anonymous author of the Codex Ramrez. Recently I have suggested the
existence of a hypothetical Codex Y, a pictorial, which was the
source for the Codex Aubin, and Mss. 40 and 85, and which was
also used by Tezozomoc, Domingo Chimalpahin, and Juan de
Torquemada. These studies, and many others, show that chroniclers applied a kind of cut-and-paste manner of compiling in such
complex historical accounts.

182 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

Although it may seem difficult to believe that the different
chroniclers had access to the same manuscript, based on my
research it has become clear that Chimalpahin and Tezozomoc
(Crnica Mexicayotf) had access to the Codex Aubin, without
excluding the possibility that they also may have had other documents from the Codex Y group. Although I have shown that
Chimalpahin had access to Ms. Mex. 85, from which he made
literal transcriptions (Castaeda de la Paz 2005a, 2008), it is more
difficult to demnstrate that he also had the Tira de la Peregrinacin at hand. The abstraction of information from this pictorial would have involved an interpretation of the pictograms,
which is difficult to recognize in a written text.
While the Crnica X and the Codex Y represent two distinct historical traditions that reflect the existence of at least two
distinct versions of history, as these were used by chroniclers the
information was mixed together, even though these authors
complained about their contradictory nature. The existence of
several histories, and the difficulty of understanding this aspect
by the chroniclers is evident in Duran's versin of the Crnica X.
This author notes that Aztlan was the second ame for Chicomoztoc. However, Aztlan was not mentioned in the Crnica X,
just as Chicomoztoc was not present in Codex Y. In my opinin,
the irrefutable presence of two distinct and even contradictory
historical versions in the sources led to the creation of new
sources in anattemptto reconcile traditions. The Codex Azcatitlan
is no more than another result of this process. As has been seen
above, its creation involved influence from the Tira de la Peregrinacin (Aztlan-Teoculhuacan, or the temple of Amimitl, for
example), the Crnica X (Chicomoztoc), and a pictorial scene
also employed by the painter of the Codex Chavero (for the four
barrios of Tenochtitlan and Aztlan), in addition to other unknown
sources.
The particular formation process of the Central Mexican
historical sources has resulted in complex compilations that are
now our primary tools for research. Taking into account this

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

183

process, it is evident that these sources should be approached with

a highly critical mind, applying a thorough philological method.
Otherwise, it will be diffcult, if not impossible, to reach any valid
interpretaron of them and, thus, an understanding of the preHispanic and colonial past. A non-philological investigation of
the Mesoamerican historical sources will inevitably lead to mere
descriptions and assumptions and will not respond to the fundamental historical questions of who made the document, why,
where, and when (Nicholson 1975:490, Umberger 2002:88,
Castaeda de la Paz 2006:14).

Notes
1. This was demonstrated by excavations of Noguera, Espejo,
Pina Chan, Gussinyer, Garca Cook and Arana, and Vega Sosa, as well
as the studies by Lehman and Van Zantwijk (after Graulich 1990:222).
Duverger (1987:403-404, note 22) mentions the archaeological invcstigations of Manuel Reyes Corts and those of Constanza Vega.
2. On the existence of pueblos compuestos, see the pioneering
studies of Reyes Garca (1977) and Kirchhoff et al. (Historia ToltecaChichimeca, 1989). This line of investigation was continued by
Yoneda (1991), Doesburg (2001), Roskamp (1998), Lockhart (1992),
and Oudijk (2000).
3. See, among others, van Zantwijk (1985:110-112, 127, 187),
Duverger (1987:393-395), Len-Portilla (1992:108-109, 1995:252253), and Lpez Austin (1998:173-177).
4. He does so by using a document that explains how, at the
time of the arrival of Corts, two noblemen orpipiltin who were related
to the Tenochca tlatoque were enemies of Moctezuma II. This was
because they had never burned their od pictorials, as had been ordered
by Itzcoatl.

184 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

5. By the Western historical approach, I refer to a scheme that
tries to reconcile different traditions in order to construct a clear
historical sequence (Gillespie 1989:xxvii). From this perspective sacred
accounts are given a historical character (Lpez Austin 1998:214;
Gillespie 1989:208-209).
6. Ixtlilxochitl (1975, Book II, Chapters XXXVI:92 and
XXIX:76) claimed to follow paintings, histories, and songs for certain
parts of his work. Similarly, in his text he mentions he is finishing a
certain source and contines with other histories and annals. Many
authors have dealt with his method of writing, ranging from LenPortilla (1995:87-100) to Romero Calvan (2003:16-18) more recently.
Regarding the way Chimalpahin and Tezozomoc wrote their histories,
see Castaeda de la Paz (2008).
7. The Codex Azcatitlan, kept in the Bibilothque Nationale de
France (BnF), is a purely pictographic document that in its frst section
describes the Aztec-Mexica migration. Its date is unclear; Boban dated
it to 1572 (in Barlow 1949:103); Graulich (1995:16) suggests that it
may be from the last thirty years of the sixteenth century, and Robertson
(1994:184-185) wonders if it could be a seventeenth- or eighteenthcentury copy. In my opinin, the style suggests the first half of the
seventeenth century. As for the work of Fray Diego Duran kept in the
Biblioteca Nacional de Espaa, it is from the sixteenth century and also
deals with the migration. Contrary to the Azcatitlan, Duran's work is
basically alphabetic (in Spanish), and is accompanied by a series of
drawings on lose leaves.
8. Several cdices will be dealt with in the following discussion. The most important are the Codex Azcatitlan (see note 7), the
Tira de la Peregrinacin, which is in the Biblioteca Nacional de
Antropologa e Historia (BNAH), the Ms. Mex. 40 and the My. Mex. 85
both in the BnF, and Codex Aubin, which is kept in the Bodleian Library
in Oxford. All these documents seem to be from the second half of the
sixteenth century.
9.1 base this argument on a comparison of the Nhuatl text on
this part of the migration written by Tezozomoc, Chimalpahin, and the
authors of the Codex Aubin and Ms. Mex. 40 (Castaeda de la Paz 2008
2005a). There is no doubt that these authors were copying each other,
henee the importance of the cited text by Nicholson and the observations of so many other scholars about this issue. It is important to note
that Torquemada's text could not be compared, as he wrote in Spanish.

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

185

10. For a more recent study, see also Romero Galvn (2003:
185-195).
11. That is, thcre must have been at least one versin that at a
certain moment in pre-Hispanic times was composed with a particular
objective, accordingly with the selcction of thematical units to express
the goals of the group that ordered the documcnt to be made.
12. Following the suggestion of an anonymous rcvicwer and to
make the reading easier, I have changed the ame of this hypothetical
source from Codex X to Codex Y.
13. An iconographic analysis of the group indicates that more
than one document like the Tira de la Peregrinacin existed. Due to the
fact that today the Tira is the most ancient document in the set, the
corpus has been designated the "'Tira de la Peregrinacin Group."
Given the similarity between the Tira and the Codex Aubin, Boonc
(2000:213) suggested that they may derive from one prototype.
14. See note 8. All of these documents were published by
Lehmann and Kutscher (1981) in Germn. For a study in Spanish of the
Codex Aubin and the Ms. Mex. 40, see Dibble (1963) and Medina
(1998) respectively. Johansson (2004) partially published the Ms. Mex.
85 and 40, in addition to the Codex Aubin.
15. See note 9. For a pictorial analysis of the group, see
Castaeda de la Paz (2005a and 2005b). For a comparative analysis of
their texts in Nhuatl and their respective translation, see Johansson
(2004:214-240), who only did a partial translation of them. For the
study of the historical conten of the Tira de la Peregrinacin, see
Castaeda de la Paz (2007).
16. This indicates that this techialoyan would also have been
closely linked with families from Tlatelolco. A report on the iconographic study of this group of documents was presented at the 52nd
International Congress of Americanists held in Seville, Spain, July 2006.
17. Aztlan is mentioned in some of the accounts of the Crnica
A'tradition, but only incidentally.
18. On thcse seven, Tezozomoc (1987 1:224) adds the ame of
the seven barrios that bore the ames of their deity, although in mentioning them, he gives the number as eleven, and he says that once thcre
were more. Obviously, this information was taken from another source.

186 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

19. Ocopita appears as Ocopipilla in Tezozomoc. These spelling variations are very common in the sources, which is why they are
not always mentioned in this analysis.
20. The Crnica Mexicana (1987 1:225) mentions four teomamaque at Chapultepec (Cuauhtliquezqui, Axolohua, Cuauhcoatl, and
Ococaltzin, the second and third of whom are the protagonists in the
Codex Y). For the foundation, only Cuauhtliquezqui remains, and he is
also the protagonist of the Codex Y. Nevertheless, some of the folios
were lost from the Crnica Mexicana. Regarding this loss, see the important argument of Roco Corts (2003:143).
21. The Crnica Mexicayotl incorporales the two traditions,
and therefore it says that first Coxcoxtli ruled and then Achitometl. It
omits the cutting of ears (Codex Y) but it includes the sacrifce of
Achitometl's daughter (Crnica X).
22. The alphabetic text of the Codex Aubin (fol. 24v) and the
Ms. Mex. 85 (fol. 4v) only speak of the rich decoration of the eagle's
nest, and say nothing of the serpent in their respective pictographs. The
Ms. Mex. 40 (fol. 8r) does not mention anything about the foundation of
Tenochtitlan, but it does refer to that of Tlatelolco.
23. Two different pictographs are incorporated in Durn's work.
24. Some years ago I identifed several of these elements
(Castaeda de la Paz 1997:278-279) that were recently corroborated by
Boone (2000:214-215).
25. A similar situation occurs in the Historia ToltecaChichimeca where Chicomoztoc-Coliuhquitepetl (fol.lr) was separated from the ballcourt of the Nahuales (fol. 16v), although the author
of the Nhuatl text (1989 [par.] 172:160) read both folios together as
dealing with a single scene.
26. Graulich (1995:42, note 8) has already used the Codex
Chavero to interpret the glyphs that are on the roofs of each of the four
houses of Aztlan. However, he did not establish the relationship among
this group of documents, or did he undertake a comparative analysis of
the pictographs that demonstrates that the painter of the Chavero no
longer understood what he was drawing.
27. In this section Valero (2004:219, 220) not only interpreted
the ames of each one of the sectors of Tenochtitlan, but also those of
the barrios located in them. For the ames of each town in the colonial

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

187

period associated with a saint or some symbolic element that represented it, see Valero (2004: 208-209).
28. Torquemada may have had acccss to such a document, as he
lived in Tlatelolco at the end of the sixteenth century and probably
knew, therefore, sources like thc Codex Azcatitlan that were related to
the city.
29. "Se debe comenzar la historia de ellos, lo cual hago yo,
habiendo buscado su origen en libros que lo naturales tenan guardados
y escondidos . . . "Segn las pinturas que los ms curiosos de estos
indios naturales tenan y yo al presente en mi poder tengo, parece que
para venir del lugar primero de donde salieron . . . pasaron un ro o
pequeo estrecho y brazo demar, cuya pintura parece hacer media
islcta."
30. The history of the migration is narrated in Book II, from
Chapter I to IV and from Chapter IX to XII, except when we depart from
some of these chapters, at which times I will give the references;
otherwise the citation would be virtually continuous.
31. Obviously with ccrtain altcrations, the tree that gives its
ame to the huexotzincas (alntexoll) was interpreted by Torquemada as
a mesquite (mizquitl) to rcfcr to the Mizquica. Why he associated the
glyph br Cuitlahuac with the Mexica is diffcult to understand. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that Johansson (1999:86; 2000:66) has
also done so by offering different arguments, which, nonetheless, I do
not sharc (Castaeda de la Paz 2007).
32. "Estando comiendo hizo un grande ruido el rbol y quebr
por medio. Espantados los aztecas . . . consultaron a su dios . . . que . . .
les dijo: despedid a las ocho familias y decidles que se vayan [. . .]
Entonces el demonio... les dijo: como escogidos mios, ya no os llamis
aztecas, sino mexicas. . . (Torquemada Book II, Chapter 11:114).
33. For a detailed interpretation of these rituals of Chichimec
origins and their purpose in the versin of the Tira de la Peregrinacin,
see Castaeda de la Paz (2007:189, note 18).
34. Coatlicamac, or "In the Mouth of the Serpent," is a glyph
represcnted by a serpent with an open mouth. The authors of the
alphabetic text of the Tira de la Peregrinacin Group (Codex Aubin and
Ms. Mex. 40} also read this ame in the site of Coatepec due to the fact
that the serpent of this glyph has an open mouth. To be more specific,

188 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

they say that they passed through Coatlicamac-Coatepec. This leads me
to consider two possibilities: the painters of the Azcatitlan thought these
were two different places, which is why in their codex they were
independen! places, or that those who wrote the conten of the Tira for
the first time in alphabetic text may have heard of that place and, given
their doubts, they may have associated it with Coatepec.
35. He also makes the same comment for the events that
occurred at Chapultepec, and for the foundation. His information comes
from songs. Be that as it may, he mentions a series of teomamaque that
we have not found in any other historical versions, at least not in the
context of Chapultepec.
36. Here he stops to tell a variant of the events at Tzonpanco.
According to Torquemada (1975, Book II, Chapter IV:122), mis was
the birthplace of the Mexica leader Huitzilihuitl, son of Ilhuicatl, who in
tum was the son of Tochpanecatl, Lord of Tzonpanco.
37. These sources are the Codex Aubin (fol. 25r), the Ms. Mex.
85 (fol. 5r-5v), and the Ms. Mex. 40 (fol. 8r). Chimalpahin (1997) also
says that it is Xomimitl on fol. 9r of his Tercera Relacin, which suggests that he had access to the Codex Aubin (Castaeda de la Paz 2008).
38. It seems these sources refer to the same person, but the
authors read the ame glyph in different ways: a thin stick (tlacotl) or a
cae (quauh-), and the root was read the same way, Chichil-foaJ (to
turn red) (Simen 1996:96, 407, 577) respectively, or Molina 88r, 19v
for quauill and chichiloa, and 118r-l 19v for entries related with tlacoas stick).
39. Codex Aubin and Ms. Mex. 40 represent this pictographically, while only the Nhuatl texts in the Codex Aubin and in the Ms.
Mex. 85 tell this versin verbally (Castaeda de la Paz 2005b: 31-42).

Bibliography
Acosta, Jos de Historia natural y moral de las Indias. Two
vols. Facsimilar Edition. Sevilla: Hispano-Americana de Publicaciones, S.A., 1987.
Anales de Cuauhtitlan. Cdice Chimalpopoca. Anales de
Cuauhtitlan y la Leyenda de los Soles. Translation from Nhuatl by

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

189

Primo Feliciano Velzquez. Mxico City: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, 1992.
Anales de Tlatelolco. Paleography and translation by Rafael
Tena. Mxico City: Cien de Mxico, 2004.
Anders et al. See Codex Nuttall, 1996.
Barlow, Robert H. "El Cdice Azcatitlan." Journal de la
Socit des Amricanistes N.S. 38 (1949):101-135.
. "La Crnica X: versiones coloniales de la historia de los mexica
tenochca". Revista mexicana de estudios antropolgicos 1 (1945):
65-87.
Boone, Elizabcth H. Stories in Red and Black. Pictorial
Histories ofthe Aztec and Mixtees. Austin: University of Texas Press,
2000.
Castaeda de la Paz, Mara. "Los Anales del Grupo de la Tira
de la Peregrinacin o el Cdice X. Copias, duplicaciones y su uso por
parte de los cronistas." Tlalocan XV (2008): 183-214.
. "El Cdice X o los anales del 'Grupo de la Tira de la Peregrinacin .'Evolucin pictogrfica y problemas en su anlisis interpretativo. '".Journalde la SocidesAmericaniste9l,no. 1 (2005a):7-40.
. "Los cdicess histricos mexicas. El Cdice Azcatitlan." Estudios
de Historia Social y Econmica de Amrica 14, January-June (1997):
273-299.
. "Itzcoatl y los instrumentos del poder." Estudios de Cultura Nhuatl
36 (2005c):l 15-147.
. Pintura de la Peregrinacin de los culhuaque-mexitin (El Mapa de
Sigenza). Anlisis de un manucristo de origen tenochca. Toluca and
Mxico City: El Colegio Mexiquense and Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, 2006.
. "Y se fund Tenochtitlan. Anlisis pictogrfico y alfabtico del
Grupo de la Tira de la Peregrinacin." Quaderni di Thule III, Atti del
XXV Convegno Internazionale di Americanistica, edited by Argos,
Perugia, Italy, May 9-11, 2003-Xalapa, Mxico, October 21-24, 2003,
no. 2 (2005b):29-40.
. "La Tira de la peregrinacin. La ascendencia chichimeca de los
tenochca." Estudios de Cultura Nhuatl 38 (2007): 183-212.
Castillo Farreras, Victor. See Chimalpahin, 1997.

190 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

Cdice Aubin. Historia de la Nacin Mexicana. Color reproduction of the Cdice de 1576 (Cdice Aubin). Facsmile edition,
introduction, notes, ndex, paleography and translation from nhuatl to
Spanish by Charles E. Dibble. Madrid: Ediciones Jos Porrua Turanzas,
1963.
Codex Azcatitlan. Facsmile with commentary in Spanish and
French by Michael Graulich. Paris: Biblioteca Nacional de Francia and
the Sociedad de Americanistas, 1995.
Codex Chavero. See Valero, 2004.
Codex Nutall. Crnica mixteca. El rey 8 Venado, Garra de
Jaguar, y la dinasta de Teozacualco-Zaachila. Libro explicativo del
llamado Cdice Zouche-Nuttall. Introduction and explanation by
Ferdinand Anders, Maarten Jansen, and Gabina Aurora Prez Jimnez.
Graz and Mxico: Sociedad Estatal Quinto Centenario, Akademische
Druck-und Verlagsanstalt and Fondo de Cultura Econmica, 1996.
Codex Techialoyan Garca Granados. Introduction and description by Xavier Noguez, study of towns and genealogies by Rosaura
Hernndez. Toluca, Mxico: Gobierno del Estado de Mxico and El
Colegio Mexiquense, 1992.
Corts, Roco. "El misterio de los captulos perdidos de la
Crnica Mexicana de Hernando de Alvarado Tezozomoc." Colonial
Latn American Review 12, no. 2 (2003): 149-167.
Crnica Mexicana. Annotated by Manuel Orozco y Berra and
preceded by the Codex Ramirez. Mxico City: Editorial Porrua, 1987.
Crnica Mexicayotl. Translated from Nhuatl by Adrin Len.
Mxico City: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, 1992.
Chimalpahin, Domingo de San Antn. Primer Amoxtli Libro.
3a. Relacin de las dffrenles histoires originales. Edited by Vctor M.
Castillo F. Mxico City: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico,
1997.
. Memorial Breve acerca de la fundacin de la ciudad de Culhuacan.
Study, paleography, translation, notes and analytical ndex by Victor
Castillo F. Mxico City: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico,
1991.
Dibble, Charles E. See Codex Aubin, 1963.

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

191

Doesburg, Sebastian van. Cdices cuicatecos. Porfirio Daz y

Fernndez Leal. Mxico City: Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de
Oaxaca, 2001.
Duran, Fray Diego. Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espaa e
islas de tierra firme. 2 vols. Mxico City: Cien de Mxico, 1995.
Duverger, Christian. El origen de los aztecas. Mxico City:
Grijalbo S.A., 1987.
Garibay, ngel Ma. See Historia de los mexicanos por sus
pinturas, 1979.
Gillespie, Susan D. Aztec Kings: The Construction ofRulership
in Mxico History. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1989.
Glass, John. "A Census of Native Middle American Pictorial
Manuscript" (in collaboration with Donald Robertson). In: Handbook
of Middle American Indians 14, edited by Howard F. Cline, 81-252.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1975a.
. "A Survcy of Native Middle American Pictorial Manuscripts." In
Handbook of Middle American Indians 14, edited by Howard F. Cline,
3-80. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1975b.
Graulich, Michcl. Mitos y rituales del Mxico antiguo. Madrid:
Colegio Universitario del ediciones Istmo, 1990.
. See Codex Azcatitlan, 1995.
Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas. Teogonia e historia
de los mexicanos por sus pinturas. Edited by ngel Mara Garibay.
Mxico City: Porra, 1979.
Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca. Facsmile, translation and commentaries by Paul Kirchhoff, Lina Odena Gemes, and Luis Reyes
Garca. Mxico City: Fondo de Cultura Econmica, Coleccin Puebla,
1989.
Ixtlilxochitl, Fernando de Alva. Obras histricas. 2 vols.
Mxico City: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, 1975.
Jaln Gutirrez, Mara Mercedes. Tres cdices mejicanos del
siglo XVI en la Biblioteca Nacional. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura,
Direccin General del Libro y Bibliotecas, 1989.

192 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

Johansson, Patrick. La palabra, a imagen y el manuscrito.
Lecturas indgenas de un texto pictrico en el siglo XVI. Mxico City:
Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, 2004.
. "Estudio comparativo de la gestacin y del nacimiento de Huitzilopochtli en un relato verbal, una variante pictogrfica y un 'texto' arquitectnico." Estudios de Cultura Nhuatl 30 (1999):71-111.
Kirchhoff, Paul et al. See Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca, 1989.
Lehmann W. and Gerdt Kutscher. Geschichte der Azeken.
CodexAubin und verwandte Dokumente. Translated from Nhuatl and
with commentary by Walter Lehmann and Gerdt Kutsher. Preface by
Gnter Wollmer. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1981.
Len-Portilla, Miguel. Toltecayotl. Aspectos de la cultura
nhuatl. Mxico City: Fondo de Cultura Econmica, 1995.
. Mxico-Tenochtilan. Su espacio y tiempo sagrados. Mxico City:
Plaza y Valds S.A. de C.V., 1992.
Leyenda de los Soles. Cdice Chimalpopoca. Anales de Cuauhtitlan y la Leyenda de los Soles. Mxico City: Universidad Nacional
Autnoma de Mxico, 1992.
Lockhart, James. The Nahuas After the Conquest. A Social and
Cutural History of the Indians of Central Mxico. Sixteenth Through
Eighteenth Centuries. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1992.
Lpez Austin, Alfredo. Hombre-dios, Mxico City: Universidad
Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, 1998.
Manuscrit Mexicaine 40. Histoire mexicaine depuis 1221
jusqu 'en 1594. Manuscrito nm. 40 del Fondo de Manuscritos
mexicanos, Biblioteca Nacional de Francia. Paleography, study, and
translation by Xchitl Medina. Mxico City: Instituto Nacional de
Antropologa e Historia, 1998.
Manuscrit Mexicaine 85. See Lehmann y Kutscher, 1981.
Medina Gonzlez, Xchitl. See Manuscrit Mexicaine 40, 1998.
Memorial Breve acerca de la fundacin de la ciudad de Culhuacan. See Chimalpahin, 1991.
Molina, Fray Alonso de. Vocabulario en lengua Castellana/
Mexicana- Mexicana/Castellana. Mxico City, Editorial Porra, 2001.

CODEX AZCATITLAN AND TORQUEMADA

193

Monarqua Indiana. See Torquemada, 1975.

Navarretc, Federico. "Las fuentes indgenas ms all de la
dicotoma entre historia y mito." Estudios de Cultura Nhuatl 30
(1999):231-256.
Nicholson, H. B. "Middle American Ethnohistory: An Overview." In Handbook of Middle American Indians 15, edited by Howard
F. Cline, 487-504, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1975.
Oudijk, Michel R. Histography ofthe Bnizaa. The Postclassic
and early colonial periods. Leiden: CNWS publications and the
University of Leiden, The Netherlands, 2000.
Reyes Garca, Luis. Cuauhtinchan del siglo XII alXVI'; Formacin y desarollo histrico de un seoraprehispnico. Wicbaden: Franz
Steiner Verlag, 1977.
Robertson, Donald. Mexican Manuscript Paining ofthe Early
Colonial Period. The Metropolitan Schools. Foreword by Elizabeth
Hill Boone, Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press
(Originally published, 1959,NewHaven: Yale University Press), 1994.
Romero Galvn, Jos Rubn. Historiografa novohispana de
tradicin indgena 1. Mxico City: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de
Mxico, 2003.
Roskamp, Hans. La historiografa indgena de Michoacn. El
Lienzo de Jucutcato y los Ttulos de Carapan. The Netherlands:
CNWS Publications and University of Leiden, 1998.
Simen, Rmi. Diccionario de la lengua nhuatl o mexicana.
Mxico City, Editorial Siglo XXI, 1996.
Smith, Michael, 1984 "The Aztlan Migrations ofthe Nhuatl
Chronicles: Myth or History?" Ethnohistory 31, no. 3 (1984): 153-186.
Tezozomoc, Hernando de Alvarado. See Crnica Mexicayotl,
1992.
. See Crnica Mexicana, 1987.
Tira de la Peregrinacin. "Tira de la Peregrinacin o Cdice
Boturini." In Antig edades de Mxico Il.Commentaries by Jos Corona
Nucz, based on the compilation of Lord Kingsborough. Mxico City:
Secretara de Hacienda y Crdito Pblico, 1964.

194 LATN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

Torquemada, Juan de. Monarqua Indiana. Facsmile. Mxico
City: Editorial Porra, 1975.
Umberger, Emily. "Notions of Aztec History: The Case of the
Great Temple Dedication." RES 42, Autumn, (2002): 87-108, 2002.
Valero, Ana Rita.. Los Cdices de Ixhuaepec. Un testimonio
pictogrfico de dos siglos de conflicto agrario. (Electronic versin).
Mxico City: CIESAS [Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologa Social], Colegio de San Ignacio de Loyola
Vizcanas, 2004.
Yoneda, Keiko. 05 mapas de Cuauhtinchan y la historia
cartogrfica, Mxico City: CIESAS [Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologa Social], 1991.
Zantwijk Rudolf A. M. van. The Aztec Arrangement. The Social History of pre-Spanish Mxico. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press, 1985.
Zimmermann, Gnter von. Das Geschichtswerk de Domingo
de Mun Chimalpahin Quauhleuanitzin (Quellenkrische studien zur
frhindianischen Geschichte Mexicos). Hamburg: Im Selbstverlag des
Hamburgischen Museums fir Vlkerkunde und vorgeschichte, 19631965.