|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
193942, 10:118; Sahagún 1954:1; Torquemada 197583, 1:22627 [chap. 50]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54. Torquemada 197583,1:227 [bk. 2, chap. 50]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:53; Anales de Tula 1979:35, 1465; Berlin and Barlow 1980:59; Chimalpahin 1965:102 [relación 3], 204205 [relación 7], 1465; Durán 1967, 2:153 [chap. 18]; Códice Telleriano-Remensis 196465:280; 1465. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56. Chimalpahin 1965:3948 [relación 3]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57. Calnek 1982:57. See also Carrasco 1984b. Specific rulers were removed, albeit temporarily in most cases, to be replaced by others who also possessed legitimate claims to local rulership and who were more amenable to Aztec demands. For example, when Huehueh Chimalpilli, the lord of Ecatepec, died in 1465, the Aztecs installed a military governor even though the town had long been an Aztec subject and had apparently posed no difficulties to their control. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58. Chimalpahin 1965:209 [relación 7]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59. Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:112 [chap. 41]. The battle began at the hill of Tliliuhqui-Tepetl between Tetzcoco and Tlaxcallan (Códice Telleriano-Remensis 196465:282.). This may indicate not only the location of the battle but also the likely participation of the town of Tliliuhqui-Tepec. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Various sources date this war differently, either before the final conquest of Chalco (Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:111 [chap. 41], 126 [chap. 45]) or afterward (Códice Telleriano-Remensis 196465:28082). Since this was not a formal campaign of conquest and it occurred roughly simultaneously with other military exploits, I do not consider the uncertainty of its sequential placement crucial, and its discussion here does not necessarily argue for this order. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60. In the Tepeyacac campaign the Aztec army apparently marched south from the basin of Mexico through the present-day Morelos area following the valley southeast to Tecpatzinco and thence to Itzyocan. Thereafter the army marched to Huehuetlan, which introduces a difficulty in this campaign. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly and Palerm (1952:295n.4) say that the conquest of Huehuetlan is doubtful, having found their sole reference to this town in the Códice Chimalpopoca. However, this conquest is also supported by the Anales de Tula (1979:35), but there is a problem in establishing the town's location. As with many Mesoamerican towns, the names are common to several settlements, often in relatively close proximity to one another. In the case of Huehuetlan there are two possible candidatespresent-day Huehuetlan el Chico, Puebla, and present-day Huehuetlan el Grande (also known as Santo Domingo Huchuetlan), Puebla. Kelly and Palerm (1952:29192) identify the town as Huehuetlan el Chico but locate it at the site of Huehuetlan el Grande on their map. Thus, the identification of Huehuetlan is probably erroneous, but the location is the one they intend. Holt (1979:156) places the town at the site at Huehuetlan el Grande without comment. Both sources that list Huehuetlan put its conquest after the subjection of Chalco. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two sources list the conquest of Huehuetlan, the Anales de Cuauhtitlan (1975:53) and the Anales de Tula (1979:35), both in 12 Calli, the year before the conquest of Tepeyacac. Itzyocan is listed by only one source (Ix- |
|
|
|
|
|