We may add that the general representation of the monument is of years and not of days, a fact which for the most part has escaped archaeologists; for this reason they did not succeed in the reading.
The stone expresses directly (that is, with sign of fixed value among the Indians) the dates 4992, 5096, 5097, of the Indian chronology; also the years 624 and 780 may be read, which added to the last (itself being included) read 5720 and 5876 of the Indians, which correspond to 1323 and 1479 A.D. The former is the date of the founding of the city of Mexico; 1479 is a year in the reign of Axayácatl.
The date 4992 appears twice, that of 5096 once. Ce técpatl the year following, 5097 (700 of our era). Inferentially it is possible, and not inconsistently or by straining the truth, to encounter the date 1064 of the Christian Era, date of the exodus from Aztlan. This would suppose that the date of the tablet is not 699 A.D., but 1479; an exact cycle of 416 separates this from 1064, an observation which did not escape Dr. Valentini. We ourselves arrive at it in a different maner:
1064 (inclusive) + 416 = 1,47+9.
Ixtlilxóchitl gives the years 4992, 5096, and 5097, and Orozco y Berra admits them; Clavijero also has the date 4992: (596 of the vulgar era) setting at it the arrival of the Toltecs upon the Plateau; the Texcocan historian asserts the same. Motolinia (with a difference of six years), and the Anales de Cuauhtitlan mention the year 5097 (700 of our era); the date is assigned as that of the foundation of Tula, or, perhaps better, as that of the election of the first monarch; thus Chavero understands it. Torquemada states it, referring it to the king Totepeuh. We believe it more probably should be the beginning of an era, as Fray Toribio and Gómara declare. The illustrious writers, Count Juan Reinaldo Carli and Juan Carlos Buschmann, also name it, having encountered it in their investigations.
The canon Ordoñez de Aguiar gives approximately the year 3432 of the natives (964 B.C. ) alluding to the Quich’es. Chavero admits it with reference to the, Vixtoti. The Anales mention it in connection with the Ulmecas, from which we infer affinities between these peoples.
Tezozomoc, Chimalpahin, Veytia, and Gama mention the year 1064 of our chronology as the date of the of the wanderings of the Aztecs; and it is inferred from the Tira del Museo, codex which places the exodus of the Aztecs from Aztlan 183 years before the first
72
