|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
ently refers to either a town or the area northwest of Tolocan centered on what is now called the Sierra de Tlalpujahua (standardized form, Tlalpoxahua) and occupied at that time by the ethnic Mazahuas (Durbin 1970:31). While there is no evidence attesting to this conquest during the reign of any of the preimperial Aztec kings, its location adjacent to Xilotepec and testamentary evidence (Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:36 [chap. 14]) grouping Mazahuacan with the northern basin conquests (and emphasizing the primary role of the Tepanecs and the auxiliary role of the Aztecs) indicates that this conquest, too, belongs to the reign of Huitzilihhuitl. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. Berlin and Barlow 1980:5152, 2 Calli. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14. Cuauhhuacan is also mentioned as a conquest (Berlin and Barlow 1980:5152, 6 Calli) after the southern lakes campaigns. The location of this site is uncertain but is presumably nearby in the basin of Mexico (see Kelly and Palerm 1952:282n.6). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15. Mengin 1952:44243. Of the preimperial kings, this is mentioned only for the reign of Acamapichtli and is without contrary attestation elsewhere. Matlatzinco was an area west of the basin of Mexico between Tolocan and Malinalco (Durbin 1970:23; Zorita 1963:194 [chap. 18]). This conquest is highly improbable as an Aztec venture but is possible if the Aztecs were serving as auxiliaries of the Tepanecs, who did control that area. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16. The recorded conquest of Cuauht-Inchan (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:34, 10 Tochtli; Berlin and Barlow 1980:5152, 3 Tochtli) is a problem. It was both far from the basin of Mexico (substantially farther than present-day Cuernavaca) and in a direction not in the Tepanec area of interest. Such a conquest does not fit into the pattern of campaigns at this time (i.e., limited to the basin) and there is no apparent reason for such a conquest despite the evidence in the historical sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One possible explanation of the "conquest" of Cuauht-Inchan lies in the distinction between having conquered a city and having fought people from that city. One source mentions Acamapichtli's conquests in two separate contexts: in one context Cuauht-Inchan is mentioned (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:34), but in another (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:66), Mizquic, Xochimilco, Cuauhnahuac, and Cuitlahuac are mentioned, yet Cuauht-Inchan is not. However, neither source attesting to its conquest (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:34, 66; Berlin and Barlow 1980:5152) mentions the city of Cuauht-Inchan. Rather, the term used is Cuauht-Inchantlacathe people of Cuauht-Inchan. Given the great tactical and logistic constraints on conquering Cuauht-Inchan at this time, it seems highly unlikely that the Aztecs actually conquered the city, although the possibility still exists that the Aztecs engaged in a battle with the people of Cuauht-Inchan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This explanation offers a satisfactory solution to this peculiar conquest. Unfortunately, however, the Historia Tolteca Chichimeca (Kirchhoff, Odena Güemes, and Reyes García 1976:218) specifically mentions the conquest of the city of Cuauht-Inchan in the year 10 Tochtli by Cuauhtlahtoa, ruler of Tlatelolco, which the editors (1976:218n.1) place during the reign of Acamapichtli. As a result of this battle the ruler's daughter was taken by Cuauhtlahtoa as his wife. There is, however, a problem with this account. This conquest occurs in the year 10 Tochtli, which is 120 years before the arrival |
|
|
|
|
|