|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
tions with the Aztecs were not hostile so passage through the area was possible. From Teohuacan the route runs northeast up a valley through Coxolitlan to Ahuilizapan. Thereafter the Aztecs would have followed the terrain north, conquering towns en route as far north as Tzapotlan. From the northernmost conquest (Tzapotlan or Tlatlauhqui-Tepec) the journey back to Tenochtitlan may have taken any of several routes, the likeliest of which entered the level area to the south, allowing an easy march to the Teohuacan area. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tlatlauhqui-Tepec is frequently listed as Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's last conquest (Anales de Tula 1979:36; Chimalpahin 1965:103 [relación 3]; Durán 1967, 2:248 [chap. 31]). On geopolitical grounds, however, that conquest belongs with this campaign, although the campaign may have taken place over some considerable time span. The towns listed as conquests but not included in the chronicles of the campaign may have been physically conquered, but if so they were not overly important conquests. It is likelier that they submitted with the approach of the victorious Aztec army. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they were physically conquered, the Totonac towns of the coastal lowlands present no difficulties in transit and could have been approached at any time during the campaign, although the most probable time would have been after Ahuilizapan or immediately after Tzapotlan. However, the recorded conquest of Cuetlachtlan appears to refer to the general region and not to the town per se. Moreover, the other lowland townsOceloapan, Cempohuallan, and Quiahuiztlanare given only on conquest lists and not in chronicles, possibly indicating their nonresisting submission but certainly their secondary status in the campaign. It is probable that they submitted and were not physically conquered. This would obviate the necessity of the Aztec army making the arduous coastal descent and ascent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49. Listing Teotitlan as a conquest during the reign of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina is the sole exception I have made to my general practice of listing only those conquered towns for which a timeat least a specific reigncan be established in reconstructing the sequence of Aztec conquests. However, Barlow's (1949a) influential assessment of the extent of the Aztec Empire, based on the Codex Mendoza and the Relaciones geográficas of 157985, maintains that Teotitlan was an independent kingdom, unconquered by the Aztecs. And while a specific record of such a conquest is lacking, I concur with Davies' (1968:1415) position that the city was not independent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A sixteenth-century record of Aztec tributaries (Paso y Troncoso 193942, 14:12021) lists Teotitlan, and the Relación geográfica of 1581 for Teotitlan (Paso y Troncoso 190548, 4:216) admits an alliance with the Aztecs, although it denies the payment of tribute. But clearly by the time of King Ahuitzotl, Aztec commercial interests along the route dominated by Teotitlan were enormous (Sahagún 1959:17, 22), to the extent that a merely casual relationship appears doubtful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enabling the army to transit vast distances was crucial to the maintenance of the empiremore so than the total domination of all intermediate settlements. As a result the way various towns were integrated into the empire differed. How tightly different communities were bound varied |
|
|
|
|
|