Note 24 — Chapter II

Of all regions of primitive America, ancient Mexico is represented by the most extensive literature; and here, too, more has been transmitted directly from native sources than is the case elsewhere. The hieroglyphic codices, the anonymous Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas and Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacan y de Mexico (better known and commonly cited as The Annals of Quauhtitlan), and the writings of men of native blood in the Spanish period, notably Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, and Chimalpahin, are the most important of these sources; unless, as is doubtless proper, the works of Sahagun, originally written in Nahuatl from native sources, be here included—undoubtedly the single source of greatest importance. Among Spanish writers of the early period, after Sahagun, the most important are Cristobal del Castillo, Diego Durán, Gómara, Herrera, Mendieta, Motolinia, Tobar, and Torquemada. Boturini, Clavigero, Veytia, Kingsborough, Prescott, and Brasseur de Bourbourg are important names of the intermediate period; while recent scholarship is represented by Brinton, Bancroft, Hamy, García Icazbalceta, Orozco y Berra, Peñafiel, Ramirez, Rosny, and most conspicuously by Seler. The most convenient recent introductions to the subject are afforded by Beuchat, Manuel; Joyce, Mexican Archaeology; Spinden, Ancient Civilizations of Mexico; while the best guide to the whole literature is Lehmann's "Ergebnisse und Aufgaben der mexikanistischen Forschung," in Archiv für Anthropologie, new series, vi, 1907 (translated as Methods and Results in Mexican Research, Paris, 1909). But while the material is relatively abundant, it is so only for the dominant race represented by the Aztec. For the non-Nahuatlan civilizations of Mexico the literature is sparse, especially upon the side of mythology. Sahagun gives certain details, mainly incidental, except in X. xxix, which is devoted to a brief description of the peoples of Mexico. Gómara, Herrera, and Torquemada afford added materials, touching several regions. For the Totonac-Huastec region the sources are particularly scanty, except for such descriptions of externals as naturally appear in the chronicles of Cortez, Bernal Diaz, and other conquistadores who here made their first intimate acquaintance with the mainland natives. Fewkes [g] deals with the monuments of the Totonac region, and expresses the opinion (p. 241, note) that the Codex Tro-Cortesianus, commonly said to be Maya, was obtained in this region, near Cempoalan; Holmes [b], and Seler, in numerous places, are also material sources for interpretation of the monuments. For the Tarascans of Michoacan the most important source is an anonymous Relacion de las ceremonias, rictos, población y gobernacion de los Indios de Michuacan hecha al illmo. Sr. D. Ant. de Mendoza (Madrid, 1875; Morelia, 1903), while of recent studies Nicolás León's Los Tarascos (see León [c]) is the most comprehensive. The Mixtec-Zapotec area fares better, both as to number of sources and later studies. Burgoa, Juan de Córdoba, Gregorio García, Balsalobre, Herrera, Las Casas, and Torquemada are the primary authorities; while the most significant later studies are doubtless those of Seler, "The Mexican Chronology with Special Reference to the Zapotec Calendar," and "Wall Paintings of Mitla," both in 28 BBE. Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], bk. ix, deals with the Mixtec-Zapotec and Tarascan peoples, and is still a good introduction to the literature. Cf. also Alvarez; Castellanos (himself a Zapotec); Génin; León [d]; Mechling; Portillo; Radin.