|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
tepec is an error for Tochpan (Tuxpan) and that no southern incursion occurred at this time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The next problematic campaign was the thrust toward Cuetlachtlan. Holt (1979:11315) and Kelly and Palerm (1952:27072) feel that it was the next campaign, following the Huaxtec incursion (and the thrust into the southern Gulf coast region, according to Kelly and Palerm). As all acknowledge, however, there is a problem in the data. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most sources record these Gulf area conquests, but the order in which they occurred is in doubt. All three sources offering the best descriptive evidence (Durán 1967, 2:185 [chap. 22]; Códice Ramírez 1975:129; Crónica mexicana 1975:32831 [chap. 32]) place the Cuetlachtlan campaign next, before the Huaxyacac incursion. Other sources (Berlin and Barlow 1980:57; Torquemada 197583, 1:22225 [bk. 2, chaps. 4849]) place the Cuetlachtlan campaign after the Huaxyacac area campaign. While none of the lists reflects more than a single conquest of the Cuetlachtlan region, the three sources claiming priority for the Cuetlachtlan conquest also record a second conquest of that area following the Huaxyacac campaign. Thus, Holt (1979:11317) and Kelly and Palerm (1952:26872) feel that there were, in fact, two campaigns and that the sources that mention only one are referring to the second and simply fail to list the first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accepting the maximum number of conquests more easily reconciles the conflicting data, and the quality of the data describing two conquests is compelling. But all of these sources derive from a single original sourcethe Crónica Xand thus merely represent three variations of a single account. And there are reasons to doubt that version. First, the Crónica X accounts also erred (I believe) in their accounts of the Tepeyacac campaign (as spelled out above). They uniformly place that campaign earlier than it should be, leading to the conclusion that they probably did the same for Cuetlachtlan. Second, there were indeed two campaigns into the Cuetlachtlan region, but other accounts place the first in the reign of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina and the second in the reign of his successor, Axayacatl. And third, rebellions tended to occur following the death of a ruler and the installation of his successor as a kind of test of his martial and political resolve. While this was not invariably the case, it does suggest that the rebellion is likelier to have occurred after the death of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consequently, it is likely that the two-campaign accounts unjustifiably compress the temporal sequence, placing the actual campaign (of Cuetlachtlan and of Tepeyacac) earlier in the reign of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina and then putting the later conquest of Cuetlachtlan (by Axayacatl) into this reign as well. Thus I accept the conquest of the Cuetlachtlan area, but only one later in the reign following the Coaixtlahuacan campaign. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28. Crónica mexicana 1975:311 [chap. 28], 315 [chap. 29]. Tozapan (Tuzapan) and Xolotlan in the Huaxtec area were erroneously attributed to King Itzcoatl (Crónica mexicana 1975:250 [chap. 9]). Another listed town that fits into this campaign is Tlapacoyan (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67; Clark 1938, 1:31; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118). |
|
|
|
|
|