|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
29. Durán 1967, 1:95103 [chap. 9], 2:17274 [chap. 20]. Chalco was also listed, but erroneously. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:52; Anales de Tula 1979:35; Berlin and Barlow 1980:57; Chimalpahin 1965:100 [relación 3], 202 [relación 7]; Clark 1938, 1:31; Códice Ramírez 1975:129; Crónica mexicana 1975:33437 [chap. 33]; Durán 1967, 2:185 [chap. 22]; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118; Torquemada 197583, 1:222 [bk. 2, chap. 48]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31. Chimalpahin 1965:100 [relación 3], 202 [relación 7]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32. Torquemada 197583, 1:222 [bk. 2, chap. 48]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33. Códice Ramírez 1975:129; Crónica mexicana 1975:33437 [chap. 33]; Durán 1967, 2:185 [chap. 22]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34. Torquemada 197583, 1:22022 [bk. 2, chaps. 4748]. Chalco, Huexotzinco, and Cholollan are also listed as helping the Aztecs, but erroneously. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35. Códice Ramírez 1975:129; Crónica mexicana 1975:33537 [chap. 33]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36. Torquemada 197583, 1:222 [bk. 2, chap. 48], 228 [bk. 2, chap. 50]. Holt (1979:117) includes Texopan (Texupa) among the conquests of this campaign, based on the Relación de Texupa (Paso y Troncoso 190548, 4:55). But Texopan cannot be reliably included as a conquest at this time on textual evidence alone, since the Relación merely lists the town as subject to Moteuczomah, without distinguishing between the two rulers of that name. Its location on the probable campaign route makes its conquest a logical possibility, but many other towns on the same route were not conquered at this time, so there is insufficient reason to claim Texopan as a conquest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further extension of this campaign is uncertain, with few attestations in the sources. By Torquemada's account the Aztecs and their allies conquered not only Coaixtlahuacan but also Tochtepec, Tepzol, Tzapotlan, Tototlan, Tlatlactetelco, and Cuauhnochco (Torquemada 197583, 1:22223 [bk. 2, chap. 48]). However, the latter towns were doubtless conquered in the following campaign against Alahuiztlan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tamazolapan is also listed as a conquest (Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:109 [chap. 40]) but in a context that makes it doubtful. The city of Huaxyacac (Oaxaca), too, is listed as a conquest (Códice Ramírez 1975:13132; Crónica mexicana 1975:35560 [chaps. 3738]; Durán 1967, 2:230 [chap. 28]), the result of more Aztec merchants having been killed. Although three accounts substantiate this conquest, they are all Crónica X accounts and hence represent a common version that is doubtful in this reign, if my earlier analysis of the Cuetlachtlan and Tepeyacac conquests is accurate. The Origen de los Mexicanos (in García Icazbalceta 188692, 3:300) does list Huaxyacac as one of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's conquests, but this apparently refers to the region (where conquests were made) rather than to the city (which is doubtful). Thus the conquest of the city of Huaxyacac appears at variance with other accounts and cannot be accepted as reliable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37. Crónica mexicana 1975:335 [chap. 33]. |
|
|
|
|
|