270 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY — PUBLICATION NO. 13 



But in honor of the occasion, the temple was pre- 

 pared especially, an undertaking which required 

 2 years. Accordingly, the conquest would fall 

 during the thirteenth year, or in 1452. The 

 Codice Ramirez (p. 177) differs slightly, placing 

 the campaign in the eleventh year, or 1450. 



Not content with his laurels, Moctezuma em- 

 barked on a second campaign, which was designed 

 to place the southern Gulf coast in the hands of 

 the Triple Alliance. He took the initiative by 

 sending an embassy to the rulers of "Cempoala" 

 and "Quiahuixtlan" — two coastal Totonac cen- 

 ters — asking that they send him "fine shells, 

 turtles, and pearls," stipulating, moreover, that 

 "the turtle be alive" (Tezozomoc, p. 122). Ac- 

 cording to current custom, acceptance would have 

 been an act of submission. Perhaps Moctezuma 

 believed that the Totonac, impressed by his vic- 

 tories in the north, would offer no resistance 

 (Duran, 1 : 180). But such was not the case, and 

 with this demand, the first Cotaxtla war began. 



For some obscure reason, the ambassadors of 

 Moctezuma did not go to "Cempoala" and 

 "Quiahuixtlan"; instead, they journeyed via 

 Orizaba to Cotaxtla, on the southern Gulf coast, 

 where they announced their intention of continu- 

 ing to "Cempoala." At the moment, there were 

 Tlaxcalan visitors in Cotaxtla; they said indig- 

 nantly to their hosts, "By chance, are you slaves 

 or tributaries of the Mexicans? Have you been 

 conquered in war?" They induced the Cotax- 

 tlans 38 to kill the messengers, and offered the mili- 

 tary support of Tlaxcala in case of reprisal. 

 There was a general massacre of Mexicans, both 

 official messengers and merchants, in Cotaxtla, in 

 "Quiahuixtlan," and in the environs of Tlaxcala. 39 

 The Tlaxcalans returned happily to home base, 

 bearing handsome gifts, lavished upon them in 



38 This passage of Tezozomoc (pp. 122-123) unfortunately Is 

 confusing. He speaks first of dual leadership at Cotaxtla, with 

 one chief called Zeatonalteuctli, the other, Tepeteuhtli. Im- 

 mediately thereafter, he has the Tlaxcalans address "the king of 

 Cuetlaxtlan and Zempoala," which implies not only a single ruler, 

 but a single one for both pueblos. Yet in the next breath, he 

 speaks of the "principales de la costa." 



As a result, it is not easy to understand the local political 

 situation. There is a bare chance that we have here an indica- 

 tion of Cotaxtla dominance over "Cempoala," which might explain 

 why the messengers of Moctezuma headed for Cotaxtla instead of 

 going direct to "Cempoala" and "Quiahuixtlan." 



38 Duran (1:180-181) and the C6dice Ramirez (p. 178) have 

 the Mexican embassy remain in Orizaba, while the latter pueblo 

 sent messengers to Cotaxtla, to relay Moctezuma's request. Ac- 

 cording to this version, the embassy was slaughtered In Orizaba, 

 not In Cotaxtla. 



return for their moral support, and the Cotax- 

 tlans awaited repercussions from Mexico. 



They did not wait long. A few merchants who 

 escaped notified Moctezuma, and the forces of the 

 Triple Alliance were mustered. They marched on 

 Orizaba and Cotaxtla (map 14, Nos. 82, 14) and 

 extended their conquests far to the north. The 

 great Totonac center of "Cempoala" (map 14, No. 

 80) fell, and with it, "Ozeloapan" *° (map 14, No. 

 89) and apparently "Quiahuixtlan" (map 14, No. 

 81). The inevitable arrangements were made for 

 collecting tribute and Moctezuma installed his 

 local representative as "mayordomo a Cuetlaxtlan, 

 Zempoala y Cuextla^'' (Tezozomoc, p. 131). 



The dating of this Cotaxtla campaign (table 17, 

 No. 14) is confused. 41 Tezozomoc (p. 122) has 

 it follow the Huastecan conquests (which he ap- 

 pears to place in 1452) and precede the war with 

 Coixtlahuaca, in the Mixteca. Duran (1: 180) is 

 in agreement; and the Codice Ramirez (pp. 177- 

 178) gives the same sequence, although with a dif- 

 ference of 2 years. In other words, the three 

 sources which are related to the hypothetical 



40 "Ozeloapan" presumably is to be identified with the late 

 Totonac archeological site of the same name, between Jalapa and 

 Veracruz (Garcia Payon, 1947, p. 308). 



Other pueblos conquered at this time included : "Chichiquilan, 

 Teoyzhuacan, Quimiehtlan, Tzactlan ["Tzauctla," Duriin 1 : 185], 

 Macuixochitlan, [and] Tlatictlan" (Tezozomoc, p, 128). 



Chichiquila, "Teoyzhuacan" (modern Ixhuacan), and Quimix- 

 tlan (map 14, Nos. 83, 84, 85) lie southwest of Jalapa, on the 

 Puebla- Veracruz border ; during the sixteenth century, all were 

 Mexicano in speech (Epistolario 14 : 86 ; Paso y Troncoso 5 : 122- 

 123). "Tzactlan" or "Tzauctla" perhaps is to be identified with 

 modern Zacatla (map 14, No. 86). Modern Zautla, in Puebla, 

 seems too far north and west to have been included in this 

 campaign. 



The identification of the remaining pueblos is problematical. 

 We find mention of a "Macuilsuchil" in Oaxaca and of a 

 "Macuilsuchitl" in the Panuco (Suma, Nos. 348, 353; Colecci6n 

 de Mendoza 5 : 80) . Both seem too distant. Another possibility 

 is "Macuilxochitlan." located by the Codex of Tonayan (Barlow, 

 1947 b) in the broken country just north of Jalapa. This pueblo 

 must have been relatively obscure, for we find no other report 

 of it. If the "Macuixochitlan" conquered by Moctezuma is 

 identified with this pueblo (map 14, No. 87), his conquests would 

 be extended thereby into the Totonac zone immediately north of 

 Jalapa. Such an extension is not out of the question, especially 

 since the area abuts on "Ozeloapan" (map 14, No. 89) ; neverthe- 

 less, it seems odd that of all the pueblos in this zone, this pre- 

 sumably insignificant one alone is mentioned. In the lists of 

 Tezozomoc and Duran, "Macuixochitlan" follows Quimixtliin and 

 "Tzactlan" and precedes "Tlatictlan," rather suggesting a loca- 

 tion in the Chichiquila-Quimixtlan area southwest of Jalapa. 



In name. "Tlatictlan" may have survived in modern Tetitlan 

 (map 14, No. 88) or Tatela, respectively east and southeast of 

 Chichiquila. But current maps place both modern settlements 

 well up the slopes of the Sierra, whereas, in 1609, "Tlatectla" 

 (presumably old "Tlatictlan") was located in the hot country 

 (Mota y Escobar, p. 206). 



41 It is discussed further, following the second Cotaxtla cam- 

 paign (footnote 45, p. 272). 



