Identidad

I. THE BASIC TOPILTZIN QUETZALCOATL OF TOLLAN TALE

In this section, relying particularly on the six sources I assigned to the first category, I attempted to reconstruct the versions of the history of TQ closest to those that might have been taught in the priestly schools, the

calmecac, of the leading communities of the Basin of Mexico and adjoining

territory at Contact. This reconstruction was, of course, quite hypotheti- cal—but, hopefully, about the best that could be done with the scattered, uneven, and often contradictory sources that are available to us. It must be considered only a working hypothesis, a tool of analysis to be appropriately modified whenever relevant new data appear.

II. THE POSSIBLE HISTORICITY OF THE TOPILTZIN QUETZALCOATL OF TOLLAN TALE

Even if my proposed reconstruction of the Contact-period basic tale was essentially accurate, it does not necessarily mean, of course, that it can be regarded as recounting the life and career of a real person who lived several centuries before the Conquest. Clearly, it was accepted as genuine history in Central Mexico at the advent of Cortés, above all by the rulers of the para- mount polity of western Mesoamerica, Mexico Tenochtitlan, who claimed direct descent from this great Toltec lord. While it could be regarded as a politically motivated tradition of dubious historical validity, I still believe, considering all of the available evidence, both archaeological and ethno- historical, that a case can be made for some degree of genuine historicity in the basic tale. I would, however, tend to be somewhat more cautious in speculating along these lines than I was in 1957. Perhaps only fresh archaeo- logical discoveries could provide the kind of evidence necessary to determine whether at least some of the events recounted in the basic tale actually occurred. Certainly, the recovery of any amount of evidence that would throw additional light on Mesoamerica’s most famous ruler, whether legendary or real, would be highly welcome. Further work at the site of Tula, particularly, might someday provide more satisfactory answers to the many questions that still surround this enigmatic figure.

LX

III. SUPPLEMENTARY ASPECTS OF THE TALE

In these four sections I discussed TQ in relation to the “Toltec problem” and discussed various chronological, geographical, and nomenclatural as- pects of the tale. Although, as indicated, since 1957 considerable additional archaeological work has been pursued at Tula and other Toltec-period sites in Central Mexico—as well as at Chichen Itza and other sites in Northern Yucatan—that has added substantially to our knowledge of Early Postclassic Mesoamerican civilization, apparently no significant new information spe- cifically relating to Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl of Tollan has emerged. Regarding the chronological aspect, many more radiocarbon dates are now available, but it does not appear that they greatly alter the overall schemes of Jiménez Moreno and others that were current in 1957. In my 1978 article discussing the chronology of the Postclassic as revealed in western Mesoamerican ethno- historical records, I again concluded that the case for positioning TQ near the beginning of the Toltec period rather than at its end appears to have the most evidence in its favor. I also recognized that establishing exact dates for TQ is extremely difficult because of the chronological disparities in even the earliest and putatively most reliable key primary sources. As for my discus- sions of the geographical and nomenclatural aspects of the tale, I would only add that I entered into a more extended discussion of the meaning and significance of Nacxit(l) in my article in the forthcoming Mary Elizabeth Smith Festschrift (Nicholson n.d.a).

Finally, in reviewing the “Conclusions” section, I would still stand by most of them, in spite of the appearance, since 1957, of a plethora of articles and books on Quetzalcoatl by many authors and in many languages, some of them advancing interpretations and hypotheses quite different from those I adumbrated in my dissertation. A thorough critical review and discussion of these recent discussions of the “Quetzalcoatl problem” would constitute a valuable contribution to Mesoamerican studies—but I must leave this task to a younger generation of scholars.

I would only like to reiterate my view that while a certain degree of historicity is probably conveyed by the earliest and ostensibly most authen- tic versions of the Basic Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl of Tollan Tale, today I more clearly recognize—without invoking the ghost of Lord Raglan and other hyper-skeptical students of all traditional “hero tales”—the hazards in push- ing this view too vigorously. In any case, concerning one aspect of the tale there can be no doubt. Versions of it, accepted as genuine history, were widespread throughout late pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica—and it may well have played a significant role in influencing the initial reaction of the most pow- erful ruler of its western portion to the arrival of the European invaders. And, undeniably, the remarkable Lord of the Feathered Serpent has exerted a powerful fascination on all those interested in ancient Mexico since the 2001 INTRODUCTION

LXI

time of the Conquest—and I venture to predict that he will continue to do so for a long time to come.