|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
of the Spaniards. At that time Cuacuauh was the king, not Cuauhtlahtoa, who was his grandson. Since the Anales de Tlatelolco (Berlin and Barlow 1980:52) lists Cuacuauh as the conqueror of Cuauht-Inchan, albeit in 3 Tochtli, and the time120 years before the arrival of the Spaniardsfits his reign, the Historia Tolteca Chichimeca account is apparently correct, except for crediting the wrong participant. But given the physical constraints on the Aztecs, as well as the anomalous geopolitical location of Cuauht-Inchan from the Aztecs' point of view, it is unlikely that a legitimate conquest was involved. Rather, some ritualized combat may have occurred in which the daughter of one king was taken by another king as his wife, thereby establishing an alliance. Consequently, I suggest that while contact was clearly made with Cuauht-Inchan, it may have been a political conquest but was presented in the chronicles as a military one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17. Códice Ramírez 1975:41. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18. Torquemada 197583, 1:148 [bk. 2, chap. 17]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19. Códice Ramírez 1975:41; Durán 1967, 2:66 [chap. 7]; Torquemada 197583, 1:151 [bk. 2, chap. 17]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20. Torquemada 197583, 1:146 [bk. 2, chap. 16]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21. Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 1:322. This northern campaign has been attributed to Acamapichtli but actually occurred under Huitzilihhuitl. During this incursion Xaltocan, Xilotepec, and Tepotzotlan were conquered and probably also the nearby centers of Tollan, Cuauhtitlan, and Toltitlan (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:66; Clark 1938, 1:28; García Icazbalceta 188692, 3:251; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, Davies (1980:24243) believes that Tollan refers to an estancia (a spatially distinct but politically incorporated calpolli of the main town) of Temazcalapan rather than to present-day Tula de Allende and that Xilotepec refers to present-day Jilocingo in the district of present-day Hueypoxtla rather than to present-day Jilotepec de Abasolo. If his interpretation is correct, the result would be a much smaller northern extension than is traditionally accepted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The conquest of Tequixquiac is attested by only one source during this reign (García Icazbalceta 188692, 3:251) and placed in the following reign by many more, but the logic of its location in relation to the other conquered towns and the distance from other conquests in Chimalpopoca's reign argue strongly for its inclusion here. Tepanohuayan cannot be located with certainty, but Kelly and Palerm place it in the northern portion of the basin of Mexico just northeast of Toltitlan (1952:284n.1) and its conquest is also cited in the Anales de Cuauhtitlan (1975:36). While these towns are listed largely as undated conquests, they fit within the trajectory of the northern conquest and were easily accessible via treks on relatively level terrain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22. Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:36 [chap. 14]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23. Although clearly recorded as a conquest of Chimalpopoca, Chiapan (present-day Chapa de Mota) was conquered during the preimperial years and more convincingly fits into this time period than into that assigned by the Anales de Tula (1979:34). This reassessment of its position is made for two reasons. Geographically, this is the only major conquest into which it |
|
|
|
|
|