|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
4748], but contra Ixtlilxochitl (197577, 2:10910 [chap. 40]), who is generally unreliable for the conquests of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20. Códice Ramírez 1975:128; Crónica mexicana 1975:310 [chap. 28]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21. The status of this town is unclear at this time. Although the conquered towns in this area are listed as Aztec tributaries by the Codex Mendoza (Clark 1938, 1:31), they had apparently been conquered by King Nezahualcoyotl (Chimalpahin 1965:200 [relación 7]; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 1:446) and had formed a traditional part of the Acolhua domain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22. Crónica mexicana 1975:312 [chap. 28]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23. Durán 1967, 2:16869 [chap. 19]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24. Códice Ramírez 1975:128; Crónica mexicana 1975:31418 [chaps. 2930]; Durán 1967, 2:167 [chap. 19]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25. Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 1:446. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26. Torquemada 197583, 1:228 [bk. 2, chap. 50]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67; Clark 1938, 1:31; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118; Sahagún 1954:1. Tepotzotlan, located in the same area, is also listed, but this is an error for Tepoztlan (Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:107 [chap. 39]). The route to Xilotepec is relatively direct and over level land, but as no other towns are definitely chronicled as having been conquered, the other towns probably offered obedience after the defeat of Xilotepec, or else they quickly submitted when the Aztec army approached. This was probably all carried out during the same campaign. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holt (1979:110) is correct in reading the Códice Telleriano-Remensis as reflecting a battle between the people of Xiquipilco and Michhuacan (Michoacan) and not as an Aztec conquest of Xiquipilco. The town had been conquered by Itzcoatl and may have received Aztec assistance, but it was not one of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's reconquests. The addition of Chiucnauhtlan, however, is untenable, since it was conquered by Moteuczomah Xocoyotl, not by Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The actual extent and significance of the Huaxtec expansion is also debated. Barlow (1947:218) suggests a considerable conquest of the Huaxtec region, while Kelly and Palerm (1952:268) feel that the area was the object of only modest conquests. Holt (1979:10812) describes the campaign as a major military excursion but includes the Tetzcoco expansion to the north in so doing. The actual incursion into the northern Totonacapan area appears to have been relatively slight, carrying out the apparent objective of penalizing the area that had killed the empire's merchants and conquering towns passed en route but with a net result of few conquestsXiuhcoac, Tamachpan, Tochpan, Tozapan, Chapolicxitlan, Tlapacoyan, Cuauhchinanco, Pahuatlan, and Xolotlan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on the reference to Tochtepec (located in present-day southern Veracruz) in Ixtlilxochitl (197577, 2:107 [chap. 39]) and Alvarado Tezozomoc (Crónica mexicana 1975:311), Kelly and Palerm (1952:26870) reconstruct the Aztec conquests as then either continuing on from the Huaxtec region southward down the Gulf coast or as taking place in a separate but simultaneous thrust to the south. But Holt (1979:113) concludes (correctly, I believe) that, given the other associated towns in these two sources, Toch- |
|
|
|
|
|