|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
area. Consequently Chimalpahin avoids the ethnocentrism of Aztec accounts but substitutes a Chalco bias. Thus while he records Chalca events in greater detail than do Aztec accounts, their significance is overemphasized. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. Chimalpahin 1965:157 [relación 6]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Chimalpahin 1965:157 [relación 6]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Chimalpahin 1965:82 [relación 3]; 182 [relación 7]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. The actual conquest of Chalco Atenco is more convincingly placed the reign of Huitzilihhuitl, as attested by numerous sources (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:66; Berlin and Barlow 1980:53; Clark 1938, 1:28; Chimalpahin 1965:185; García Icazbalceta 188692, 3:251; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Mendieta 1971:149; Mengin 1952:444; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118). But Chimalpahin clearly records wars during the reigns of Acamapichtli (1965:82 [relación 3]) and Huitzilihhuitl (1965:185 [relación 7]) and, while neglecting to record their initial conquest, two other sources (Berlin and Barlow 1980:53; Mengin 1952:444) list the conquest under Huitzilihhuitl as resulting from rebellion by the Chalcas, implying their earlier subjugation. Consequently the war with Chalco can be assumed to have occurred, but it was a xochiyaoyotl without a conquest victor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. The conquests most prominently mentioned are of Xochimilco, Mizquic, Cuitlahuac, and Cuauhnahuac (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:34, 66; Barlow 1949b:118; Berlin and Barlow 1980:5152; Chimalpahin 1965:82; Clark 1938, 1:27; García Icazbalceta 188692, 3:250; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Mendieta 1971:148; Mengin 1952:44243; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118), although neither the timing nor the sequence of these conquests is without contradictory data in the sources. Most of the sources (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:34, 66; Barlow 1949b:118; Mendieta 1971:148; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118) and all of those supplying dates for these events (Berlin and Barlow 1980:5152; Chimalpahin 1965:82, 182; Mengin 1952:44243) place the conquests in the sequence I have listed. Some sources list them as occurring in the same year (Clark 1938, 1:27, 1383, 8 Acatl), while others spread them out over an extended period (Berlin and Barlow 1980:5152; Mengin 1952:44243)one by as much as fifteen years (García Icazbalceta 188692, 3:250). However, none of the sources offering dates for the conquests (however questionable those may be) includes Cuauhnahuac. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Cuauhnahuac listed as a conquest of Acamapichtli has been identified as present-day Cuernavaca, Morelos, which indisputably bore the Nahuatl name Cuauhnahuac, and that identification has both its supporters (Davies 1973:111; 1980:22627; Holt 1979:22) and opponents (Kelly and Palerm 1952:282n.2). The proponents of this identification believe that the conquest of the city at present-day Cuernavaca was feasible and accept the sources at face value. The opponents point to alternative sites bearing the in same name but located elsewhere. For example, Kirchhoff, Odena Gümes, and Reyes García (1976:177) place it near Xiquipilco northwest of the basin of Mexico. But Cuauhnahuac is invariably grouped with these southern cities, so that identification is unlikely as the town was conquered in the same campaign as the southern basin of Mexico lake cities. |
|
|
|
|
|