|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
since Tepeyacac is listed as a conquest along with other cities that are equally unlikely candidates for conquest during that reign. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another problem is with the interpretation of the Crónica mexicana. In the Lista de los reyes de Tlatelolco, the list of Cuauhtlahtoa's conquests records several towns, then "Tepeaca," followed by additional towns and then (after a break in the text of the original document, indicated by three dots in the published version) "Tepeyacac," followed by additional towns. Despite the peculiarity of corrupting Tepeyacac ("Mountain-nose-place'') to a perfectly valid Nahuatl name, Tepeaca (Tepeacan; "Mountain-water-place,"), Tepeyacac is generally considered to refer to present-day Tepeaca, apparently correctly except for an eastward shift of the present-day town (Gerhard 1972:280.). If there is an absolute correspondence between the two names, there is no apparent reason for the two references under different names, even if it had been conquered twice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The two different references do not refer to two different conquests of the same place but to conquests of two different places. Tepeyacac was a pre-Columbian city and a state (Gerhard 1972:278) and referred to an area in the latter capacity. Similarly, Tepeaca was the post-Columbian name, but of both a city and a province (e.g., El libro de las tasaciones 1952:399). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without deciding which refers to town and which to region, the two different entries do, in fact, reflect this distinction, just as other conquests list areas, such as Mazahuacan, Matlatzinco, Cohuixco, and towns within those areas, such as Xocotitlan, Tolocan, and Chilapan, respectively (Crónica mexicana 1975:250 [chap. 9], Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:109 [chap. 40]). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second evidence of two Tepeyacac campaigns is Torquemada's (197583, 1:228 [bk. 2, chap. 50]) reference to Tepeyacac as having rebelled. However, Torquemada fails to list its prior conquest. The statement could simply be an error, but, assuming that it is not, it can be reconciled with the bulk of the historical accounts in at least two different ways. First, Tepeyacac's prior status is not necessarily one of subjugation. Rather, Tepeyacac may have been on peaceful terms with Tenochtitlan, so that any shift in relations could have been considered a rebellion. In fact, Aztec merchants traveled through the region without difficulty, and free transit was apparently a common feature of Mesoamerican polities, even for armies, as long as the transit areas were not the targets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second, the rebellion could have been directed toward the region designated by Tepeyacac and not toward the town. Such an interpretation could then encompass the actions of Cuauht-Inchan, which was, in some way, subjugated by the Aztecs during the reign of Acamapichtli and which figures prominently in the wars in the region during Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's reign. The former interpretation appears likelier. Any resistance to Aztec domination was interpreted as rebellion, regardless of any previous political relationship between the cities. For example, the Crónica mexicana (1975:343 [chap. 34]) records Cuetlachtlan and Cempohuallan as having rebelled for a second time. Yet there is no record of more than one previous conquest-their initial armed resistance was apparently considered to be the first rebellion, and their initial overthrow of Aztec domination thus |
|
|
|
|
|