|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
14. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15. Clark 1938, 1:31; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Paso y Troncoso 193942,10:118; Sahagún 1954:1. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16. If the present-day Morelos cities were captured as a separate campaign, the logical route would have been through the pass at the southwestern end of the basin of Mexico, to Ocuillan, then to Cuauhnahuac, Xiuhtepec, Yauhtepec, Huaxtepec, Yacapichtlan, then southeast down the valley to Tecpantzinco and on to Itzyocan, before doubling back to Atlatlauhyan, Totolapan, and Tepoztlan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The location of ''Tecpatzinco'' is in some doubt. Both Kelly and Palerm (1952:292) and Holt (1979:155) locate Tecpatzinco in Morelos between Tepoztlan and Yauhtepec, indicating a relatively small and insignificant place. Kelly and Palerm give the present-day name for this site as Tepetzingo, Morelos, but Tepetzingo is located about ten kilometers (6 miles) south southeast of present-day Cuernavaca, which is not the location indicated on the maps of either Kelly and Palerm or Holt. At issue, then, is whether this relatively minor town was the one actually conquered by Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina. Another candidate is present-day Tepalcingo, Morelos, located approximately fifteen kilometers (9 miles) southeast of present-day Cuautla. The sole source for this town is the Codex Mendoza (Clark 1938, 1:31), and while the geographical proximity of Tepetzingo fits the Mendoza context, the significance of the town does not. The Codex Mendoza lists major towns, not minor ones. Tepalcingo, however, fulfills the criteria of both geographical proximity and urban significance and is the likely candidate. Consequently, the remaining portion of the conquest route is southeast down the valley to Tecpatzinco. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One other town was probably conquered during this campaignItzyocan. Only one chronicle lists the town (Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:107 [chap. 39]), and then with the Tepeyacac campaign. However, two lists of conquests (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118) include it, but in the context of the Morelos towns. While the latter are not determinative, there are reasons to accept the conquest of Itzyocan at this time. First, the conquest of Tepeyacac would have been undertaken most easily via Itzyocan, which could explain its listing in Ixtlilxochitl. Second, if Tepeyacac was conquered late in Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's reign, rather than early, it would fall after the conquest of Coaixtlahuacan, which in the context of the other towns conquered in that campaign virtually demands passage through Itzyocan. Third, the conquest of Itzyocan would require only a modest extension of the thrust to Tecpatzinco, and the town is easily accessible within the same level drainage basin. Consequently, I include both Tecpatzinco and Itzyocan in the Morelos campaign (and the conquest of Cuauhquechollan is likeliest here as well, even though it is credited to Itzcoatl (Chimalpahin 1965:96 [relación 3], 194 [relación 7])), which has important implications for the campaign into the Tepeyacac region. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is possible that the Guerrero and Morelos conquests were undertaken as a single campaign rather than as two, but there is little direct evidence to support such a reading. While some of the conquest lists offer towns in both areas (e.g., Clark 1938, 1:31; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Sahagún |
|
|
|
|
|