Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T18:18:10.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Historical Validity of the Codex Xolotl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Edward E. Calnek
Edward E. Calnek*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Rochester
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Parsons (1970) has attempted to prove that the first part of the Codex Xolotl (Dibble 1951, Planchas I-IV) is based on “folk tradition” rather than actual history. He notes that the codice's claim that the northern and eastern sectors of the Valley of Mexico were depopulated in the early thirteenth century A.D. is contradicted by the archaeological evidence. He believes that this fact, in itself, is sufficient to invalidate the entire text of this important pictographic manuscript. This paper summarizes historical evidence which confirms the general validity of the Codice’s references to persons, places, dates, and events; illustrates the kinds of errors and misrepresentations which characterize early Mesoamerican historical sources of this type; and suggests that the contradiction between historical and archaeological evidence, which is a central issue in Parsons’ “folk tradition” hypothesis, is more easily explained in terms of the political and ideological objectives of prehispanic historians, and by the conventions and standards of historical relevance which they employed in the composition of their narratives.

Information

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , October 1973, pp. 423 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Berlin, H. (Editor) 1948 Anales de Tlatelolco. Unos Annates Historicos de la Nacion Mexicana y Codice de Tlatelolco. Fuentes para la historia de Mexico 2. Robredo. Mexico D.F. Google Scholar
Chimalpahin, Domingo 1958 Das Memorial breve acerca de la fundacion de la ciudad de Culhuacan und weitere ausgewählte Teile aus den “Diferentes historias originates,” translated by Lehmann, W. and Kutscher, G.. Quellenwerke zur alten Geschichte Amerikas aufgezeichnet in den Sprachen der Eingeborenen, VII. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Dibble, C. E. 1951 Codice Xolotl. Instituto de Historia, Publication 22.Google Scholar
Guzman, E. 1938 Un manuscrito de la coleccion Boturini que trata de los antiquos señores de Teotihuacán. Ethnos 111:89–103.Google Scholar
Icazbalceta, J. G. 1941 Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas. In Nueva coleccion de documentos para la historia de Mexico, pp. 209–240. Mexico.Google Scholar
Ixtlilxochitl, Fernando de Alva 1952 Historia de la nacion chichimeca. Edited by A.|Chavero. Mexico.Google Scholar
Muñoz Camargo, D. 1892 Historia de Tlaxcala. Mexico.Google Scholar
Parsons, J. R. 1970 An archaeological evaluation of the Codice Xolotl. American Antiquity 35:431–440.Google Scholar
Recinos, A. 1947 Popul-Vuh. Las Antiguas Historias del Quiche. Fondo de Cultura Economica. Mexico-Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Recinos, A. 1950 Memorial de Solola, Anales de los Cakchiqueles. Fondo de Cultura Economica. Mexico-Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Robertson, D. 1959 Mexican manuscript painting of the Early Colonial period, the metropolitan schools. Yale Historical Publications, History of Art 12. New Haven.Google Scholar
Rendon, S. 1965 Relaciones originales de Chalco Amaquemecan escritas por Don Francisco de San Anton Muñon Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin. Fondo de Cultura Economica. Mexico-Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Torquemada, Juan de 1723 Primera (Segunda, Tercera) parte de los veinte i un libros rituales i monorchia indiana. Madrid.Google Scholar