|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
tlilxochtil 197577, 2:107 [chap. 39]), which puts its conquest before Tepeyacac and after Chalco. Taken together, these sources indicate a sequence of conquests following the final subjugation of Chalco, proceeding to Tepeyacac by way of Itzyocan and Huehuetlan (or perhaps the reverse, depending on which location actually refers to Huehuetlan). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The historical sources show that the conquests of Itzyocan and Huehuetlan precede that of Tepeyacac, but because they are listed by separate sources, no temporal or geographical priority can be assigned between Itzyocan and Huehuetlan. Consequently, either site for Huehuetlan is potentially correct if only the written sources are considered. However, I agree that the conquered city was probably Huehuetlan el Grande rather than Huehuetlan el Chico, since passage from the basin of Mexico through Itzyocan is indicated for the campaign in the Huaxyacac region (which would require passing through Huehuetlan el Chico), while the conquest of Huehuetlan is mentioned in conjunction with that of Tepeyacac. Thus Huehuetlan el Grande, which is on the route to Tepeyacac (although not on the best route, which was straddled by Tenochtitlan's enemies Atlixco and Cholollan) is a likelier candidate than Huehuetlan el Chico, which is on the route to present-day Oaxaca. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To assume an earlier conquest of the Tepeyacac region would require the forces of Tenochtitlan to have passed through major expanses of unconquered territory, which the sequence presented above does not. Thus, while there may have been some earlier disturbance at Tepeyacac, the basic sequence of conquest appears to be an extension through the previously conquered Morelos area to Itzyocan, Huehuetlan, Tepeyacac, Tecalco (Tecali), Cuauht-Inchan, Acatzinco, Tecamachalco, Coatepec, Yohualtepec, Oztoticpac, and Tetl-Icoyoccan (Teticoyocan) (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:54, 67; Berlin and Barlow 1980:56, 59; Chimalpahin 1965:102 [relación 3], 206 [relación 7]; Clark 1938, 1:31; Códice Ramírez 1975:127; Crónica mexicana 1975:306, 308 [chap. 27]; Durán 1967, 2:15051 [chap. 17]; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:107 [chap. 39]; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118; Torquemada 197583, 1:228 [bk. 2, chap. 50]). All of these cities were actually conquered. Tetl-Ianallan (Tetlanallan) (Berlin and Barlow 1980:4) may also be a conquest in this area but is unlocated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61. Códice Ramírez 1975:127; Crónica mexicana 1975:306307 [chap. 27]; Durán 1967, 2:15758 [chap. 18]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62. Códice Ramírez 1975:131; Crónica mexicana 1975:35455 [chap. 37]; Durán 1967, 2:225 [chap. 28]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63. Crónica mexicana 1975:359 [chap. 38]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64. Códice Ramírez 1975:131; Crónica mexicana 1975:346 [chap. 34], 354 [chap. 37], 360 [chap. 38]; Durán 1967, 2:230 [chap. 28]; Garcia Icazbalceta 188692, 3:300; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:109 [chap. 40]; Torquemada 197583, 1:223 [bk. 2, chap. 49], 1:228 [bk. 2, chap. 50]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65. Códice Ramírez 1975:131. Tecuantepec is listed as a conquest (García Icazbalceta 188692, 3:306), but it was not. Rather, the area to Tecuantepec was conquered, probably reflecting much of the route between Mictlan and Quetzaltepec. Torquemada (197583, 1:228 [bk. 2, chap. 50]) and Ixtlilxochitl (197577, 2:10910 [chap. 40]) both provide extensive lists of |
|
|
|
|
|