|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
ern conquests has been assumed by examining which other towns were conquered. Tetellan is listed as one of Itzcoatl's conquests (Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118) and has been assumed to refer to present-day Tetela del Volcán, Morelos, which, as a logical extension eastward from Cuauhnahuac by way of Tepoztlan and Huaxtepec, would support the claim for a larger southern expansion. However, Barlow (1947:217) interprets Tetellan as referring to present-day Tetela del Río, Guerrero, and by examining the place of Tetellan in the recorded sequence of conquered towns, it becomes obvious that he is correct. Once Tetellan is removed as supporting an eastward expansion from Cuauhnahuac, there is little evidence that Tepoztlan and Huaxtepec were conquered during the reign of Itzcoatl, and they should be understood as belonging to the next king. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several other enumerated conquests that present specific problems in interpretation and others that offer general difficulties in acceptance. There is one indication (Durán 1967, 2:122 [chap. 14]) that Itzcoatl also conquered Huexotzinco, but there is little supporting evidence. A battle with Huexotzinco also occurred during the reign of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:56; Códice Telleriano-Remensis 196465:280; Mengin 1952:451; Torquemada 197583, 1:22223 [bk. 2, chaps. 4849]), so Itzcoatl's battle may be a confusion with that of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's. However, Huexotzinco was (or became) a traditional foe of Tenochtitlan and was involved in numerous xochiyaoyotl battles. As a result it is difficult to deny the validity of any recorded battle with Huexotzinco, as each may be a separate event and not merely the misplaced record of a single event. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional conquests are credited to Itzcoatl that appear unlikely, for several reasons. They are so farflung that they would be very difficult logistically, if feasible at all. They violate the patterns of conquest demonstrated by the more reliably recorded campaigns. And also, neither Ixtlilxochitl's (197577, 2:106 [chap. 39]) nor the Crónica mexicana's (1975:24950 [chap. 9]) reported conquests in part of present-day Morelos (Tepoztlan, Huaxtepec) southern Puebla (Itzyocan, Tecalco, Teohuacan, Cozcatlan, Xolotlan, Cualtepec, Tepeyacac), Oaxaca (Coaixtlahuacan, Pochtlan, Tecuantepec, Huaxyacac, Xoconochco), Guerrero (Tlalcozauhtitlan), and Veracruz (Cuetlachtlan, Ahuilizapan, Tozapan, Izhuatlan, Cuauhtochco, Tochpan) find support from other sources. In fact, all indications are that these conquests took place during the reign of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina instead. The two exceptions are the town of Tozapan, in Veracruz, and Totomihuac, in southern Puebla, which are listed as conquests of Itzcoatl (Berlin and Barlow 1980:56). However, these are attested nowhere else and fit more convincingly with the conquests of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina. Consequently, I regard these farflung "victories" as erroneous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Torquemada 197583,1:209 [bk. 2, chap. 43]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. For a fuller discussion of the economic and political significance of the structure of the Aztec Empire, see Hassig 1985:3150. |
|
|
|
|
|