|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
constituted the second rebellion. In short, references to rebellions by previously unconquered cities seem to reflect their initial armed resistance to Aztec domination and not to some previous conquest and its subsequent overthrow. Thus, the first source (Torquemada) contains no direct evidence of two conquests and is useful only in the context of such evidence. And the second source (Lista de los reyes de Tlatelolco) contains ambiguities about the conquest chronology and fails to record more than one conquest of Tepeyacac (the town). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A further difficulty with accepting the earlier campaign (and hence two campaigns) into the Tepeyacac area rests on the sources themselves. While this documentation (Códice Ramírez 1975:127; Crónica mexicana 1975:306308 [chap. 27]; Durán 1967, 2:15456 [chap. 18]) is impressive in its detail, it does not reflect three different accounts of the conquest sequence but only one since all three apparently derive from a common sourcethe hypothesized Crónica X (Barlow 1945). Thus these three must be assessed as one account when weighed against those containing the competing version of the later conquest of Tepeyacac (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:54; Berlin and Barlow 1980:59; Chimalpahin 1965:103 [relación 3], 206 [relación 7]; Torquemada 197583, 1:228 [bk. 2, chap. 50]). (A fourth source [Ixtlilxóchtil 197577, 2:107 (chap. 40)] lists an earlier Tepeyacac conquest, though not a later one, but this account is confused and at variance with other accounts on a variety of conquests.) In addition to the difficulties addressed above in accepting the Crónica X version of the Tepeyacac campaign, Durán's (1967, 2:153 [chap. 18]) version also contains internal evidence pointing to a confusion between the "earlier" and later conquests. In the "earlier" campaign Tenochtitlan's armies were assisted by those of Tetzcoco, Xochimilco, the Tepanecs, and Chalco. An earlier Tepeyacac conquest would place it after the war began between Chalco and Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's Tenochtitlan but before Chalco's definitive conquest, which occurred at the end of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's reign. It is highly improbable that this enemy state would have assisted the Aztecs in a further conquest. It is likelier that Durán has confused the temporal relationship of the Tepeyacac conquest, projecting factual details that belong later in the sequence of conquests onto an "earlier" (and nonexistent) campaign. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taking all the evidence together, there is little support for the proposition that Tepeyacac suffered two conquests by Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina. Two campaigns are theoretically possible (and so reconstructing the conquests does ease the burden of reconciling confusing and contradictory data), but there is no more evidence supporting such an interpretation than in any other instance in which the various accounts put conquests at conflicting times in the king's reign. Consequently, I feel that Tepeyacac was conquered only once by Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina and that the campaign occurred near the end of his reign. Thus the Tepeyacac campaign will be discussed later, as appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17. Torquemada 197583, 1:21920 [bk. 2, chap. 47]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18. Chimalpahin 1965:99 [relación 3]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19. See Hassig (1981) for a detailed consideration of this famine. See Berlin and Barlow 1980:57; Torquemada 197583, 1:22022 [bk. 2, chaps. |
|
|
|
|
|