with its starting-point so indefinitely located, is meaningless and confusing, and so far as the reader is concerned, practically begins nowhere and ends in nothing. At Tulancingo they remained eighteen years, living in a house sufficiently large to accommodate them all. Their knowledge of architecture must have been quite advanced to have enabled them to construct such an edifice. The third year after their arrival at Tulancingo, marked a Toltec age of 104 years from the time they left their home in Hue hue Tlapalan. Finally, eighteen years having elapsed, they transferred the capital to Tollan, afterwards the centre of the Toltec empire. Tollan is stated to have been eastward of Tulancingo (in all probability a mistake).[386] In this migration we have a distance of 1150 leagues traversed; the first two moves, aggregating 130 leagues, is in an unknown direction; the next advance is 100 leagues in an easterly direction, according to one author, and westerly according to another; however, it is agreed that the point was on the sea-shore. The next move of 100 leagues is still along the sea-shore, but the direction is not stated. We then have two advances amounting to 180 leagues, in an easterly direction. The confusion is completed in the following advances, aggregating 460 leagues in unknown directions. Of the remaining 180 leagues, 100 were traveled in a northern direction, while the remaining 80 leagues were taken toward an unknown quarter. It is quite plain to any one, that the distances traversed in the directions stated could not be traced consistently with the geography of Mexico and Central America, upon the assumption that Tamoanchan and Hue hue Tlapalan are identical and situated in the Rio Usumacinta region. The itinerary would carry the emigrants far out upon the Gulf of Mexico. It is evident that a broader territory than that of Southern Mexico and Central America is required for the realization of such distances. The account of the migration is no doubt faulty; but even if we disregard the gaps, it presents insuperable difficulties when applied to the South-Mexican region. It is manifest that Sahagun and Ixtlilxochitl refer to different migrations. The former to the Olmecs, who came by sea to Pánuco and thence to Tabasco, from which they migrated north to Teotihuacan. The latter narrates the wanderings of the Toltecs who subsequently came into Mexico by land. If this distinction is borne in mind, much of the obscurity attending the subject is cleared away. We are inclined to think that the accounts of the two distinct migrations have become confused, and the details of one substituted for the details of the other. Every one familiar with the study of traditional histories is aware of this danger, or even more, this tendency among semi-civilized peoples. No better illustration of this fact can be presented than the sad confusion which has been wrought by nearly every writer who has attempted to describe