and secondly it would seem to imply a Huaxtec or Maya origin for the much-debated Toltec culture.
A discussion of these points must begin with the question, “Has the myth of Quetzalcoatl’s civilizing mission to the Mexican plateau any historical justification?” Regarding the reality of the civilization known as Toltec there is now no question, although I fully admit that it took me a long time to realize this, thanks principally to my acceptance of Brinton’s well-known theory on the subject, to which I attached far too much weight. But admitting Toltec reality, what proof do we possess that such a civilizing agency as that of Quetzalcoatl gave an impetus to the “prehistoric” culture of Tollan? But little—that is if we are to regard Quetzalcoatl as a man. But in his guise as the gentle trade-wind that ushers in the rains, we have every reason to see in him the founder of the Toltec civilization. Such a culture as the Toltec must undoubtedly have had its origin in agricultural efficiency. Only through agricultural efficiency can the corvée system arise and extensive building become possible. The god whose bountiful patronage of growth assisted the arts in this manner seems in time to have been ‘humanized.’91 Legends of his civilizing prowess clustered around his supposititious memory, he was thought to have been a culture-hero who actually moved and had his being among the people. Kings or rulers were called by his name—a lucky name of happy associations—and the illusion that he actually existed was thereby heightened. These rulers seem to have flourished in Mexico ere yet the offices of king and priest had become separate, so that it is not surprising that Quetzalcoatl was regarded as having been the priest of his own cult, or that the Mexican pontiffs of historical times bore his name. From this point of