[Aztlan] Sahagun book 12 geography

[David Hixson]

While this does not directly answer your question, I'd
like to point out that archaeologists have not
difinitively located Xicalanco on the ground (despite
some claims to the contrary).  While there are
historic reasons to believe it was in the Laguna de
Terminos, there is no clear candidate for ruins
matching its description.  Small sites in the region
have certainly been found, (such as Atasta which has
been proposed as one candidate), but none have
evidence of the facilities one would expect for such
an important trading node.

See A. Andrews 1990, Berlin 1956, Gadacz 1979, and M.
Smith 1990.

Therefore, your confusion may not only arise from an
interpretation of the historic literature.

Hope that helps.

-Dave

--- Dan Deneen <drd30 at columbia.edu> wrote:

> Dear Listeros,
> 
> Once more, I wrestle with a "Xicalanco" problem...
> The following ambiguous
> text occurs in the Sahagun description of the flight
> of Moteuczoma's
> emissaries following their meeting at or near San
> Juan de Ulua with Cortes
> in 1519:
> 
> "By water they quickly reached the place called
> Xicalanco, where they did
> nothing but catch their breath, then again came
> running along as fast as
> possible.  Then they reached Tecpantlayaca,
> whereupon they again left and
> came fleeing.  They quickly got to Cuetlaxtlan,
> where they caught their
> breath and also quickly came away."
> 
> ("Iciuhca acitivetzico in atl iitic in itocaiocan
> xicalanco, can tequitl
> vncan oalihiocuitiquizq, ic ie no ceppa centlaquauh
> oaltotoca: niman acico
> in tecpan tlaiacac, niman ie no ic aolmeoaltia,
> oalmotlaloa, acitivetzico in
> cuetlaxtlan, canno aolquiztiquizque, vncan
> ihiocuique.")  (transcription and
> translation-- Lockhart, 1993)
> 
> As far as I can find out, there is no present-day
> known location for
> Tecpantlayaca.  Cuetlaxtlan is assumed to have been
> about 20 miles SW of
> modern Veracruz.  If the following passage from the
> Anales de Tlatelolco can
> be relied upon, then Tecpantlayacac seems to have
> been right there by
> Chalchiuhcueyecan/San Juan de Ulua/Veracruz:
> 
> "In the year of One Reed the Spaniards appeared at
> Tecpantlayacac.
> Thereupon the Captain came.  When he appeared at
> Tecpantlayacac,
> Cuetlaxtecatl met him; there he gave he suns of
> precious metal, one yellow
> and one white . . ."
> 
> SO THE PROBLEM IS... Why,in the Book 12 account,
> would one flee location "A"
> (Veracruz) to go to location "B" (Xicalanco) only to
> rush right back to
> location "A", still apparently in haste and fright.
> One possible answer is that there was some other
> "Xicalanco" nearby, part of
> this same group of places in present-day Veracruz. 
> (There is apparently a
> little puebla called Xicalanco up in the Huasteca
> near Chicontepec -- but
> going there would make no more sense in the present
> context than fleeing
> down to the famous trading depot at the Laguna de
> Terminos.)
> 
> or... somewhere along the line, whatever original
> information about this
> journey that found its way to Sahagun's colleagues
> got mangled.
> 
> The most LOGICAL of sequences would have the
> emissaries (on their way to
> meet Cortes) going first to Xicalanco (being the
> nearest Mexica logistical
> support point to where the Spaniards were known to
> be at the time the
> emissaries would have left Tenochtitlan) and then
> following the Spaniards up
> the coast, catching up to them at San Juan de
> Ulua---and this interpretation
> is reasonably supported by Sahagun.  The LOGICAL
> (and shortest) path of
> return would have been straight back up the
> mountains towards Tenochtitlan,
> and not back to Xicalanco in Campeche.
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts on this puzzling Book 12
> passage?
> Muchas gracias,
> Daniel D.
> Xalapa
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com