The identity in character, teachings, and actions between Cukulcan and Quetzalcoatl, suggests the first appearance in Yucatan, at this time, of Nahua tribes or Nahua institutions, corresponding to a certain extent with the appearance of the Olmecs and Xicalancas in Anáhuac, and indicating that the Nahua influence was exerted during its earliest period of development in the north-east as well as in the north-west. Indeed, Veytia records a tradition to the effect that Yucatan was settled by the Olmecs and Xicalancas driven from Mexico at the coming of the Toltecs; this author justly rejects the latter part of this report, but expresses his belief that bands from these nations did actually settle in the peninsula. When to the analogies already noticed between Quetzalcoatl and Cukulcan we add the fact that their names are etymologically identical, both signifying 'plumed serpent,' little reason remains to doubt that the Maya tradition refers, like the others that have been noticed, to the first coming into prominence of the Nahuas in America.
The next prominent event in Yucatan history, as it is also the last that has any special bearing upon the period now under consideration, and the most important in that connection, is the arrival of the Tutul Xius. According to the traditions of the natives as recorded by the Spaniards, this peaceful but highly cultivated people came from the south, perhaps from Chiapas, after wandering for forty years in the unsettled and mountainous portions of the country, and settled near Mayapan. The Cocomes, successors to the Itza brothers and Cukulcan, having at the time governed the country long and prosperously, received the new-comers kindly and formed an alliance with them, an alliance which continued for a long time until the Cocome kings, becoming tyrannical, were overthrown by a revolution in which the Tutul Xius were the most prominent actors. It is, however, with their arrival and not with their subsequent actions that we have to do here. The mere tradition of their arrival after a long migration from the southern highlands would at best furnish only slight grounds for the conjecture of the Spaniards that they came from Chiapas; but another document unknown to the Spanish missionary-authors throws great light upon this people, and invests their appearance in Yucatan with increased importance. The document referred to is the Maya manuscript translated by Pio Perez, first published in Mr Stephens' work on Yucatan, and later with the work of Bishop Landa, which begins as follows:--"This is the series of katunes elapsed since the four Tutul Xius departed from the house of Nonoual, which was west of Zuina, and came from the land of Tulapan. Four katunes passed after they set out before they arrived here with Holonchan Tepeuh and his companions, before they reached this peninsula; the 8 Ahau had passed, the 6 Ahau, the 4 Ahau, and the 2 Ahau--eighty-one years before they arrived in this peninsula, eighty-one years that they spent in their journey from their country to this peninsula of Chacnouitan." Here we find it distinctly stated that this people came from Tulapan, 'capital of Tula,' the very place from which, according to the Quiché record, the Nahua nations migrated, and it is more than likely that Zuina should be Zuiva, defined in the _Popol Vuh_ as the Seven Caves. This, in connection with the Quiché lamentation over that division of their brothers which they had left in the east, is amply sufficient to identify the Tutul Xius as one of the Nahua tribes that migrated from the original centre. The family of Nonoual seems to have given a name to the tribes that occupied Tabasco down to the Conquest. This document assumes to give the date of the Tutul Xiu migration, a most important date, since it is also that of the overthrow of Nahua power in Chiapas and its transfer to Anáhuac; but until the Maya system of Ahau katunes[III-88] shall have been the object of much additional research, there is little hope of arriving at an accurate interpretation of the date. Sr Perez gives it as 144 A.D. The Abbé Brasseur, relying on the same document, gives the date repeatedly as 171 A.D.; but in his translation of the document in Landa's work he concluded that it should be 401 A.D., reckoning each Ahau katun as twenty years, and remarking that this date agrees much better than the earlier one with Ixtlilxochitl's chronology. Of the Perez manuscript Mr Gallatin remarks that it contains all we know of the history and chronology of Yucatan. To ascertain dates is out of the question; but it is probable that the events are stated in their respective order.[III-89]