|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
1938, 1:33; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:119. It is tempting to consider most of these conquests as examples of Axayacatl merely taking credit for completing the subjugation of the area begun by Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina, particularly since all the towns listed as conquered en route to Ahuilizapan, except for Matlatlan, had been conquered previously by Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina. However, reconquest fits into the fragile nature of the Mesoamerican alliance system, and this campaign does make important additions to these previous conquests in the Cuetlachtlan area and was probably waged by Axayacatl in his own right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. The route taken on this campaign is not given, but the likeliest one went south out of the basin of Mexico via Cuauhnahuac, Tecpantzinco, and Itzyocan to the Tepeyacac area and then via Tetl-Icoyoccan to Matlatlan, Ahuilizapan, and Cuetlachtlan. Cuezcomatl-Iyacac and Tototlan are close and relatively easily accessible to the north of this route, while Poxcauhtlan, Tlaollan, Mixtlan, and Quetzaloztoc are all clustered just to the south. The route thus may have run directly to Cuetlachtlan, with side trips for ancillary conquests. But since Cuetlachtlan refers to the area rather than just to the town of the same name, the conquest of all the towns in the region can be accounted for more satisfactorily by two side trips, north and south (or a very truncated loop), which may not have even reached the towns at either extreme to accomplish its purpose. Such a route has the advantage of shortness and of avoiding any major descents or ascents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12. Anales de Tula 1979:36; Anales México-Azcapotzalco 1903:67; Chimalpahin 1965:104 [relación 3], 208 [relación 7]; Mengin 1952:453. Cuauhxoxouhcan (Coaxoxouhcan) is identified by Kelly and Palerm (1952:297) as Cuaxoxoca in the present-day state of Mexico, which is a reasonable placement based on the single source used in their reconstruction. However, its context in all four sources and its identification with Totonacapan Cuauhxoxouhcan makes clear that it refers to a region rather than to a city and puts it in the Cuetlachtlan campaign. Only Xochitlan (Anales México-Azcapotzalco 1903:67; Códice Aubin 1980:73; Chimalpahin 1965:104 [relación 3]; Mengin 1952:453, planche 69) and Chiapan (also called Tepeticpac) (Chimalpahin 1965:104 [relación 3], 208 [relación 7]) remain attested. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since three additional accountsChimalpahin (1965:105106 [relación 3], 20811 [relación 7]), the Codex Mexicanus (Mengin 1952:45254), and the Códice Telleriano-Remensis (196465:28494)place the initial incursion into the Matlatzinca area before the conquest of Tlatelolco, they reflect this limited incursion, which may have resulted from unrest following the death of Nezahualcoyotl, who had conquered much of the area, rather than the major thrust following the conquest of Tlatelolco. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The conquests during this limited incursion probably occurred together, with the army marching into the relatively level areas north of the basin of Mexico. The line of march probably proceeded almost directly north, first to Xochitlan and then Chiapan (both during campaign season 147273) before returning home. Xilotepec is in the line of march and was probably conquered at this time. However, only one source claims such a conquest at this time (Chimalpahin 1965:104 [relación 3]), but even considering the possibil- |
|
|
|
|
|