266 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY PUBLICATION NO. 13 



only passive resistance, hence the victors pro- 

 claimed him the legal heir to the remnants of the 

 Tepanecan realm. 



With the restoration of Netzahualcoyotl in Tex- 

 coco, and with the recognition of Tacuba as heir 

 of the now demised Azcapotzalco, the famous 

 Triple Alliance came into being (Ixtlilxochitl 

 2:153-154; Torquemada 1:146). According to 

 the agreement, the three powers — Tenochtitlan, 

 Texcoco, and Tacuba — collaborated in war, and 

 the spoils were divided in five parts, of which two 

 went each to Tenochtitlan and Texcoco, and the 

 remaining fifth, to Tacuba. 



In the course of time (table 16), this military 

 organization was felt over a great part of Mexico. 

 Even in the days of Itzcoatl, campaigns were by 

 no means confined to the Valley of Mexico. By 

 the end of his rule, subject pueblos extended north 

 to Tula (map 13, No. 22), in modern Hidalgo; 

 east to Totimehuacan (map 13, No. 27) , in Puebla ; 

 and south, into Morelos and on to Guerrero, where 

 a number of important centers came under the 

 control of the Triple Alliance. To the west, there 

 were few conquests, a situation which held like- 

 wise for the succeeding reign, that of the elder 

 Moctezuma. 



Table 16.— The dated wars of Itzcoatl (U27-40)' 



Key 

 No., 

 map 

 13 



Pueblo 



Codice Chimalpopoca 



Anales de Tlatelolco 



Historia de los mexica- 

 nos por sus pinturas 



Ixtlilxochitl 



1 



Coatlinchan ' 



3 tochtli 

 (pp. 46-48) 



4acatl 



(pp. 49, 66) 



[1430] 

 [1431] 









2 



Huexotla ' 









3 



Acolman ' 









4 



Tultitlan 1 







1(2:151) 

 (2:152) 



1428 

 1430 



6 



Azcapotzalco'." 





alio 108 b [1430] 

 (p. 230) 



6 



Coyoacan '.« 



2calli 

 (p. 55) 



1 tecpatl 

 (P- 55) 



6 calli 

 (p. 55) 



[1429] 



[1428] 

 [1433] 



7 



XochimUco '■".« 



8 



Tepanecas '•'• l3 



9 









10 



Jaltocan * 





(2:151) 



(2:152) 



(2:151-152) 



(2:151) 



(2:151) 



1428 

 1430 

 1430 

 1428 

 1428 



11 



Tlahuac<-'» 





12 



Texcoco ••> 



3 tochtli 

 (p. 55) 



[1430] 





13 



Tacuba' _. 







23 



Cuautitlan 







alio 117 [1439] 

 (p. 230) 



26 



Matlatzincas '•'. 





5 tecpatl 

 (p. 55) 



7 tochtli 

 (p. 56) 



[1432] 

 [1434] 



27 



Totimehuacan 8 









31 



Tlatelolco •• l ° 





alios 112,"> [1434] 

 113 [1435] 

 (p. 230) 





35 



Churubusco 







1(2:151) 



1428 



36 











37 



"Tepanoaya" •' 









38 



Culhuacan 





















» If the source indicates the date in the Mexican calendar, or by other local 

 reckoning (Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas), it appears on the left 

 side of the column, with the corresponding year in our calendar opposite. 

 When the latter is based on calculation, either ours (Torquemada) or that of 

 the editor (Codice Chimalpopoca, Anales de Tlatelolco), the date is bracketed. 



In some cases, a source states deflnitelythat a certainipueblo was conquered 

 by the Mexicans in a given year. But in other instances, it reports war in a 

 certain year, without identification of the aggressor, or without clear indica- 

 tion of the outcome. Or, it may state merely that the ruler of a certain pueblo 

 "perished, "or that the town was destroyed by "pestilence." Barlow (1947 d, 

 p. 521) has pointed out that the latter, in the Codice Chimalpopoca, is a mis- 

 leading translation from Nahuatl to Spanish and that reference actually is 

 to Mexican conquest. In all the above instances, when other sources are con- 

 firmatory and report war with the Mexicans during the reign in question, the 

 pueblo has been included in the table. 



Mexican expansion was under way. By the 

 year 5 tecpatl (1432) , Itzcoatl "reigned in all parts 

 and over the kings of the pueblos; it was when 

 began, forever, the glory of the Tenochca Mexi- 

 can" (Codice Chimalpopoca, p. 49). 



These doubtful cases are discussed individually in the footnotes to map 13. 

 All numbered references in the table refer to the comments which accompany 

 that map; lettered footnotes, concerned primarily with chronology, are ap- 

 pended below. Braces apply only to the columns within which they 

 are placed. 



b The dates given by this source (p. 230) for the wars with Azcapotzalco 

 and Tlatelolco are somewhat ambiguous. For Azcapotzalco, tbe year might 

 be interpreted either as aHo 108 or 112. We have chosen the former, which 

 coincides roughly with the dating given bv other sources; our impression 

 is that the year 112 refers to Tlatelolco. The Coleccion de Mendoza also 

 reports the conquest of Tlatelolco but does not date it. 



c The Codice Chimalpopoca (p. 47) places tbe destruction of Xochimilco 

 in the year 3 tochtli, but remarks (p. 48) that tbe Colbuas date it from the 

 succeeding year, when Netzahualcoyotl was "crowned." 



MOCTEZUMA I ( 1440-69 ) 32 



The great era of Mexican expansion under the 

 elder Moctezuma started modestly, with essen- 



32 The terminal date discussed in footnote 47, p. 272. 



