|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
38. Durán 1967, 2:194 [chap. 23]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39. Torquemada 197583, 1:223 [bk. 2, chap. 49]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40. Durán 1967, 2:21114 [chap. 26]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41. Durán 1967, 2:195 [chap. 23]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42. If, as discussed above, there was only a single overall Gulf coast campaign (referring to the conquest of Cuetlachtlan), it occurred at this time, after the conquest of the Coaixtlahuacan area and before the final subjugation of Chalco. However, it is unclear how long this campaign took. Some sources place the conquests together without any appreciable temporal span, but others indicate a conquest lasting several years (Berlin and Barlow 1980:57; Torquemada 197583, 1:22225 [bk. 2, chaps. 4849]). And if Tlatlauhqui-Tepec is included, as it should be on geopolitical grounds, a campaign of some duration is indicated, albeit one that may have continued after the initial main thrust at an intermittent low level between and during other campaigns. Since, as discussed above, I feel that those sources listing two conquests of Cuetlachtlan during this reign are presenting its actual conquest early in Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's leadership and incorporating the conquest by Axayacatl into the later years of the reign, I shall use otherwise unsubstantiated material from those sources only for the first conquest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43. Muñoz Camargo 1892:113. As Davies (1968:104) notes, Huexotzinco was more important than Tlaxcallan at this time, and the numerous references to the latter can generally be considered as reflecting that city's later importance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44. Crónica mexicana 1975:331 [chap. 32]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45. Torquemada 197583, 1:224 [bk. 2, chap. 49]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46. Berlin and Barlow 1980:57; Códice Ramírez 1975:12829; Crónica mexicana 1975:32531 [chaps. 3132]; Durán 1967, 2:185 [chap. 22]; Torquemada 197583, 1:22425 [bk. 2, chap. 49]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67; Barlow 1949b:122; Clark 1938, 1:31; Códice Aubin 1980:72; Garcia Icazbalceta 188692, 3:253; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118; Torquemada 197583, 1:22228 [bk. 2, chaps. 4850]. Teohuacan (Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 1:106 [chap. 39]) may have belonged to this campaign as well, as probably did Cozcatlan and Izhuatlan, despite having been credited to Itzcoatl (Crónica mexicana 1975:250 [chap. 9]). Maxtlan was also likely included here despite having been credited to Itzcoatl. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48. There is no indication of the route taken in this campaign. Ahuilizapan and Cuetlachtlan are listed as the primary conquests (Barlow 1949b:122; Chimalpahin 1965:104 [relación 3]; Códice Ramírez 1975:129; Códice Vaticano 196465:244; Crónica mexicana 1975:331 [chap. 32]; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 1:107 [chap. 39]; Torquemada 197583, 1:223 [bk. 2, chap. 49]) and if Ahuilizapan was the first target, the route probably followed that of previous conquests, southeast out of the basin of Mexico to Itzyocan; from there southeast to Acatlan; and then striking toward Teohuacan. Another possibility for the route between Itzyocan and Teohuacan is east through the Tepeyacac region (or skirting it on the south) and then southeast to Teohuacan. The Tepeyacac region had not been conquered, but its rela- |
|
|
|
|
|