pre-eminently peaceful people. Probably two facts had combined to bring about this result, first that the valley was not at this early period so thickly populated as to render collision between the different cities inevitable; and second that war was not yet, as it was destined to become, the handmaid of religion. It would seem that the moral effect, upon each wave of rude invaders, of the more cultured, settled tribes whom they were destined to conquer, was enormous. Settlement, increased prosperity, expansion and conquest demanded some form of administration more elaborate than that which a general, a high-priest, and a council of elders could provide. The evolution of a complicated ritual based upon astronomical calculation provided the priesthood with too much work of a highly specialized character to leave it time to undertake temporal rule, especially as that rule now involved the superintendence of an elaborate military system. The result was that the general was replaced by a "king," and, owing to the moral ascendancy which each earlier body of settlers exercised over its successors the first ruler selected either was himself a descendant of some previous ruling house, or received as consort a daughter of such and held his office in virtue of that alliance. So we find that when the Aztec were at Coatlichan, before Tenochtitlan was founded, they elected as leader (he does not seem to have been counted among the "kings") Uitziliuitl, whose father was an Aztec of no particular rank, but whose mother was a daughter of the ruler of Tzompanco: while Acamapitzin, the first "king" of Tenochtitlan, was, by his mother, grandson of Coxcoxtli, ruler of Colhuacan, and might therefore lay claim to Toltec descent; also Quaquapitzauac, first king of Tlaltelolco, was son of the Tepanec ruler of Azcapotzalco. Moreover it was Toltec descent which really counted most, as may be seen in the fact that the Mexican "kings" were installed as the representatives of Quetzalcoatl.
