282 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY — PUBLICATION NO. 13 



Legend to map 10 — Continued 



Key 

 No. 



Source pueblo 



Page 



Pueblo identification 



10 

 11 

 12 

 13 



C6dice Chimalpopoca: 



Cuauhtinchantlaca ' 



Mi zquic 



Xochimilco 



Cuauhnahuac 2 



Cuitlahuac 



Anales de Tlatelolco: 3 



Chichimeca de Metztitlan 4 



Mizquica 



Chimalhuaque 



Xochimilca 5 



Quauhtinchantlaca ' 



Cuitlahuaca 



Quauacatl 6 



Colecci6n de Mendoza: 



• Quauhnahuac 



Mizquic 



Cuitlhuac 



Xochimilco 



Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas 



Suchimilco 7 



Mezquique 



Cuitralauaca 



Codex Telleriano-Remensis: 



Chuluachan 8 



Ixtlilxochitl : 



Cuitlahuac 9 



Xaltocan 10 



Cuauhtitlan 



Tepotzotlan 



Mazahuacan u 



34 

 66 



51 



52 



5:42 



229 



5: 148 



2: 70 



2: 77-78 



2: 78 



Cuautinchan, Puebla. 

 Mixquic, D. F. 

 Xochimilco, D. F. 



Tlahuac, D. F. 



See 2. 



Chimalhuacan, Mexico. 



See 3. 



See 1. 



See 5. 



See 4. 

 See 2. 

 See 5. 

 See 3. 



See 3. 



See 2. 

 See 5. 



Culhuacan, D. F. 



See 5. 



Jaltocan, Mexico. 



Cuautitlan de Romero Rubio, Mexico. 



Tepotzotlan, Mexico. 



1 At first blush, the identification may appear dubious, for Cuautinchan 

 is far removed from the somewhat restricted zone where early Mexica opera- 

 tions were concentrated. However, it is fully confirmed by the Historia 

 tolteca-chichimeea (p. 114), although the latter attributes the conquest to 

 Tlatelolco, and the Anales de Tlatelolco (p. 52) make the same implication. 

 The Codice Chimalpopoca (p. 34) appears to credit the conquest Jointly to 

 Tlatelolco and Tenochtitlan. 



2 The obvious identification would be Cuernavaca, in modern Morelos. 

 However, it seems more likely that the pueblo in question is now extinct 

 but formerly was located in the southern part of the Valley of Mexico. 

 Both possibilities, accompanied by interrogation point, appear on the map. 



Under Aeamapichtli, this pueblo appears as a conquest, in both the Co- 

 dice Chimalpopoca and the Coleccion de Mendoza; under Huitzilihuitl, in 

 the Anales de Tlatelolco. In each of these three cases, "Cuauhnahuac" is 

 mentioned in company with Mixquic, Xochimilco, and Tlahuac. Later, 

 during the reign of Itzcoatl, a pueblo of similar name crops up, but in such 

 association that reference cleary is to the well-known modern settlement 

 in Morelos. 



However, the earlier references during the reigns of Aeamapichtli and 

 Huitzilihuitl, evidently do not apply to the same pueblo. That there was 

 more than one town of that name is obvious, for the Historia tolteca-chichi- 

 meea (p. 98) mentions a "Quauhnauac" a day's journey from "Xiquipileo." 

 The latter evidently is Jiquipilco, in the State of Mexico, hence identifica- 

 tion of "Quauhnauac "with Cuernavaca of Morelos is quite out of the 

 question . 



Kirchhoff likewise has considered the identification of this pueblo. His 

 first inclinination (1940, p. 82) is to identify it with modern Cuernavaca; 

 but later (1947, ftn. 3, p. xxvi) he concludes that it must be sought in the 

 Valley of Mexico, close to Chapultepec. However, on the map accompany- 

 ing his later paper, Kirchhoff places "Quauhnauac" north of the Federal 

 District, in the vicinity of Jiquipilco and Cuautitlan, in the State of Mexico. 



We agree that a location should be sought in the Valley of Mexico but are 

 inclined to favor the southern limits of that zone, because of the consistent 

 association of "Cuauhnahuac" with Xochimilco, Tlahuac, and Mixquic. 



On an early sixteenth-century map attributed to Alonso de Santa Cruz 

 (Linne, 1942), the name Cuernavaca, appears immediately beside Tlahuac. 



3 Except for the Chichimecs, the Anales de Tlatelolco do not state ex- 

 plicitly that the pueblos in question were conquered; the expression used 

 is "they perished" (perecieron). However, most of the settlements men- 

 tioned are listed as conquests in other sources, hence the implication of 

 conquest is strong: 



Mixquic: Codice Chimalpopoca, Coleccion de Mendoza, Historia de los 

 mexicanos por sus pinturas. 



Xochimilco: Codice Chimalpopoca, Coleccion de Mendoza. 



Cuautinchan: see footnote 1. 



Tlahuac: Codice Chimalpopoca, Coleccion de Mendoza, Historia de los 

 mexicanos por sus pinturas; see note 9 below. 



Chimalhuacan: not confirmed in other sources. 



"Quauacatl": see footnote 6, below. 



« Not shown on our map. The Anales de Tlatelolco refer to the defeat 

 of a group of Chichimecs, which Ixtlilxochitl (2: 77) calls Otomfs. Following 

 the defeat, they withdrew to Metztitlan, in modern Hidalgo. Ixtlilxochitl 

 (2: 77-78) himself states that the Mexicans participated in this war as allies 

 of Azcapotzalco, to which they were tributary. 



1 The Anales de Tlatelolco imply that the war against Xochimilco was 

 waged by Tlatelolco, for, at the conclusion, captives were sacrificed at the 

 inauguration of a temple there. Nevertheless, the Codice Chimalpopoca, 

 the Coleccion de Mendoza, and the Historia de los mexicanos por sus 

 pinturas attribute this war to Mexico-Tenochtitlan. 



6 Not identified, but presumably close to the modern City of Mexico. 

 Sahagun (3: 175) speaks of ". . . el lugar de esta laguna que llaman Quau- 

 hatcUco, que es la fuente que viene al Tlatilulco"; and Ixtlilxochitl (2: 91) 

 mentions a resort called "Quaubyacac," which was popular with Texcocan 

 rulers. Our source is not explicit; this conquest may be attributable to Tlate- 

 lolco alone, or to Tlatelolco-Tenochtitlan jointly. 



7 Indication of conquest is not clear in the Historia de los mexicanos por 

 sus pinturas but is confirmed by both the Codice Chimalpopoca and the 

 Coleccl6n de Mendoza. 



8 Indication of conquest Is far from clear in the Codex Telleriano-Remengis, 

 and we do not find confirmation in other sources. The Codex suggests that 

 the Mexicans took the city, fired the temple, but were unable to keep Culhua- 

 can in the role of tributary. This may have been the beginning of the series 

 of struggles between Tenochtitlan and Culhuacan. 



• Ixtlilxochitl states that Tlahuac belonged to the Mexica but was sub- 

 jected anew, following an uprising. He indicates that the war was waged 

 by the Mexicans In their role of vassals of Azcapotzalco. 



io According to Ixtlilxochitl, Azcapotzalco, with the assistance of Tenochti- 

 tlan, bore down on the "kingdom of the Otomis," including Jaltocan, Cuauti- 

 tlan, and Tepozotlan. After their defeat, the Otomi retired to Metztitlan, 

 and as a reward for their assistance, the Mexicans received several unspec- 

 ified "pueblos and places." This war evidently is the same as that men« 

 tioned above, in footnote 4. 



" Not shown on our map. Reference is to the territory inhabited by the 

 Mazahua, west and northwest of the present Federal District. 



