|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
mexicana's general pattern of attributing Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's conquests to Itzcoatl, argue for their inclusion in Itzcoatl's campaigns. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51. Clark 1938, 1:30; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118. While these towns apparently formed a less significant part of this campaign, their locations indicate that they were conquered en route. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52. The route of this campaign is uncertain, but all of the towns were within easy reach of Tenochtitlan. Only a single difficult passage was required for those to the westover the mountains from the basin of Mexicobefore entering the level lands of the valley of Tolocan. Those to the north were accessible via interconnected valleys either from the valley of Tolocan or by going directly north from Tenochtitlan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:66; Clark 1938, 1:30; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118. The area was accessible via a pass running directly south from the valley of Tolocan into the conquest area and then along a series of interconnected valley floors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54. Paso y Troncoso 190548, 6:148. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55. Davies (1980:24144) points out that there are two schools of thought concerning the size of the Tepanec Empire, one claiming extensive areas and the other accepting a more modest size. But both accept some penetration of the area of present-day Morelos and Guerrero. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56. Maurice 1930:212. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57. Hassig 1985:7384. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:48; Barlow 1949b:121; Berlin and Barlow 1980:55; Chimalpahin 1965:96 [relación 3], 195 [relación 7]; Clark 1938, 1:30; Códice Aubin 1980:66; Durán 1967, 2:122 [chap. 14]; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:106 [chap. 39]; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118; Torquemada 197583,1:208 [bk. 2, chap. 42]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59. Torquemada 197583, 1:208209 [bk. 2, chap. 42]. Ixtlilxochitl (197577, 2:107 [chap. 39]) offers some muddled data that suggest additional conquests may have taken place in this area in conjunction with the conquest of Cuauhnahuac, and he is unique in listing "Tepozotlan" as a conquest. While this conforms to the general pattern of expansion in the northern area during that campaign, the reference is in conjunction with Huaxtepec, which indicates a southern location. Thus he probably intended to record Tepoztlan in present-day Morelos, which would be a logical target in any campaign against Cuauhnahuac. Kelly and Palerm (1952:28990n.18) feel that Tepoztlan was intended, as apparently does Holt (1979:93). While either Tepoztlan or Tepotzotlan could have been conquered during Itzcoatl's campaigns and both possibilities would fit his general conquest patterns, given the context of the reference I agree that Tepoztlan was meant and that Ixtlilxochitl's entry was an error. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, even if Ixtlilxochitl intended to record Tepoztlan rather than Tepotzotlan, there is the further question of whether Tepoztlan was, in fact, conquered. Ixtlilxochitl is unique in crediting Itzcoatl with this conquest and with that of Huaxtepec. Moreover, several other sources place the conquest of Tepoztlan and Huaxtepec in the reign of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina (Clark 1938, 1:31; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128). Support for these south- |
|
|
|
|
|