|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
49. Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:119. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50. Berlin and Barlow 1980:61; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:184 [chap. 73]; Torquemada 197583, 1:290 [chap. 76]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51. Precisely where this occurred is unclear:Amatlan is in the mountainous zone south of Huaxyacac, but a blizzard en route from Tenochtitlan is likelier in the higher mountains surrounding that city than in the lower hills around Amatlan. If that was the case, however, an immediate return home would be expected, but since that did not happen, the setback probably occurred near the objective. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52. Chimalpahin 1965:120 [relación 3], 232 [relación 7]; Códice Telleriano-Remensis 196465:308. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53. Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:181 [chap. 72]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54. Torquemada 197583, 1:29394 [bk. 2, chap. 78]). By recording the conquests in two places with only a partial overlap of the town names, Torquemada makes it appear as though there were two separate campaigns for these towns. However, the listing of these towns in the same year and the separation of these conquests and the next by two years indicates that they were, in fact, conquered in a single campaign in 1511 (Chimalpahin 1965:120 [relación 3], 232 [relación 7]). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55. Barlow 1949b:127; Berlin and Barlow 1980:61; Clark 1938, 1:41, 58; Códice Aubin 1980:80; Crónica mexicana 1975:599 [chap. 88]; Dibble 1981, 1:41; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:180 [chap. 71]; Torquemada 197583, 1:285 [bk. 2, chap. 75]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67; Berlin and Barlow 1980:18; Clark 1938,1:41; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:119. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57. Burgoa's (1934, 2:34145) seventeenth-century description of Tzapotec resistance to a seven-month Aztec siege at Guiengola, resulting in a marital alliance with the Aztecs rather than conquest, is inconsistent with Aztec practice elsewhere. Marital alliances were made, but prolonged sieges were not carried out, for reasons already discussed. If a determined effort had been made by the Aztecs, as at Quetzaltepec, Guiengola could have been conquered. However, destroying the garrison would not necessarily have ended the site as a locus of harassment, endangering passage through the valley and hindering military movements. Instead, a more satisfactory resolution for the Aztecs was one guaranteeing pacification of the area, and for this, limited transit rights were conveyed in tribute, but the relationship between the Aztecs and Tzapotecs was assuredly asymmetrical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67; Barlow 1949b:127; Berlin and Barlow 1980:18; Clark 1938, 1:41, 58; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:180 [chap. 71]; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:119; Torquemada 197583, 1:293 [bk. 2, chap. 78]. The probable route went from the basin of Mexico and traversed the well-traveled road to Huaxyacac, thereafter dropping southeast through the Tecuantepec area before doubling back through Xochitepec and Icpatepec and heading northwest through the Malinaltepec area. The entire campaign stretched 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) and required 63 to 104 days of march (probably more toward the high end, since the terrain was particularly difficult on this route), exclusive of days for combat, rest, and regrouping. |
|
|
|
|
|