We introduce nothing new or arbitrary into the calculation, except considering the scales on divisions of the serpents as indicative each of one xipoualli. This does not involve an absurd conjecture. The serpent is time, which grows by fixed periods; each part of its body represents without doubt a new period. What could this be except that symbolized in the tails of the emblematic beings, the cycle of 52 years? The native belief that serpents carry their age marked in this part of their body is well known.
The result has been the number 5,120 of the Indian chronology. Related to our calendar, starting from the year 5097, which we already know was the year 700 of the vulgar era, we find it to be 1323 of the Christian Era. The date not only belongs sharply to the Aztec history, but is in a certain sense the most important in its annals, since it was the date of the founding of Mexico. This the Icazbalceta Codex, commonly known as the Fuenleal, clearly affirms. Very natural that the Tenochca, whether they were of the time of Axayácatl or whatever other monarch, in putting upon the relief their chronological system (admitting the supposition) such as they had received it from the civilizing race, should desire to add to it the record of the foundation of their own metropolis, date memorable for them. If our reading is correct, the monument decides definitely a historic point, which has been bitterly discussed: Tenochtitlan was founded in the year which, with little variation, the Mendoza Codex, Chimalpahin, Clavijero, and the learned Orozco y Berra maintain.
No one is ignorant of how much historical writers have vacillated upon this point, Durán, the illustrious Don José F. Ramirez, and Chavero have decided upon 1318, upon the authority of the Anales de Cuauhtitlan; on their part, the Tira de Tepechpan, the Aubin and the Vatican codices lend their support to the date 1312, although the two first documents apparently declare the year 1364;[1] the cacique of Tlaxcala, Juan Ventura Zapata, inclined to 1321; Tezozómoc preferred 1326: and Sigüenza y Góngora, Vetancurt, and the Franciscan relations arrive at 1327, although Torquemada fixed 1341 and Enrico Martínez 1357. But the Mendoza Codex, Mendieta, Chimalpahin, Clavijero, and Don Manuel Orozco y Berra incline in favor of the years 1324 or 1325; and the said Codex Fuenleal, most important document, gives exactly 1323. The stone; unimpeachable text, demonstrates that, with very slight difference, these last find themselves in the certainty, at least so far as relates to the official
- ↑ See our study, La fundación de Tenochtitlan.
41
