

THE TAJIN TOTONAC PART 1 KELLY AND PALERM 



Legend to map 14 — Continued 



295 



1 The Codice Chimalpopoca mentions war with Tlahuac, in the course of 

 which the Mexicans took the city. Nevertheless, Tlahuac does not appear in 

 other lists of conquests. It may be that the war reported by the Codice 

 Chimalpopoca was merely a byproduct of the Triple Alliance aggressions 

 against "Chalco," in the course of which the Mexican troops forced their way 

 through Tlahuac (Torquemada 1: 151). 



2 The Codice Chimalpopoca states merely, "fueron a combatir a Atez- 

 cahuacan." But the conquest of Tehuacan is confirmed by Ixtlilxochitl 

 (2: 196), although he attributes it to Itzcoatl (see footnote 19, map 13). 



> The Codice Chimalpopoca (p. 53) appears to indicate that, following a 

 long period of wars with "Chalco," the latter finally was subjected by the 

 Triple Alliance, under Moctezuma I (see footnotes 3, 9, map 11; footnote 3, 

 map 12; footnote 5, map 13). 



The conquest appears to be confirmed elsewhere (p. 67) in the same source, 

 as well as in the Coleecion de Mendoza, the Codex Telleriano-Eemensis, 

 Tezozomoc, Codice en Cruz, and Ixtlilxochitl. The latter, however, places 

 the conquest during the reign of Itzcoatl (see footnote 19, map 13). 



Torquemada (1: 153) makes it clear that, despite the alleged defeat, "Chal- 

 co" continued in rebellion for 30 years more, and he mentions (1: 158, 161, 163) 

 new uprisings and subjugations during the reign of Moctezuma I, following 

 the supposed conquest. 



* Doubtful. The Codice Chimalpopoca does not state definitely that 

 Huehuetlan was conquered by the Mexicans, and the implication of conquest 

 is not particularly strong. Moreover, no confirmation of this supposed 

 victory is found in other sources which we have examined. 



«• Identification of "Tecalco" with modern Tecali is well-founded. "Te- 

 calco" usually appears in association with Tepeaca (legends to maps 14, 15). 

 Moreover, the shift in final syllable is recorded by Munoz Camargo (p. 247). 

 4 Following the conquest of Cuautinchan, Netzahualcoyotl decided to 

 dedicate a new temple. In honor of the occasion, he planned a campaign against 

 Zumpango, Jilocingo, and "Citlalt6petl,"and in this the Mexicans participated 

 (Codice Chimalpopoca, p. 54) . Apparently this was the war in which Totonac 

 and Huasteca were defeated (ftn. 46, p. 272). 



• The Matrfcula de tributos (5: 76) groups this town with pueblos located in 

 modern Guerrero; moreover, Torquemada (1: 157) writes it thus, "Quauh- 

 teopan." These two facts suggest identification with Cuautipan, Guerrero. 



' Not identified (ftn. 36, p. 268). 



8 For each pueblo to which footnote 8 refers, the Anales do not speak explic- 

 itly of conquest, but use merely the expression "they perished." However, 

 the conquests are confirmed elsewhere: 



Coatepec: Codice Chimalpopoca. 



Coixtlahuaca: Codice Chimalpopoca, Coleecion de Mendoza, Historia de 

 los mexicanos por sus pinturas, Torquemada, Tezozomoc. 



Huatusco: Codice Chimalpopoca, Coleecion de Mendoza, Torquemada. 



Cotaxtla: Codice Chimalpopoca, Coleecion de Mendoza, Historia de los 

 mexicanos por sus pinturas, Codex Telleriano-Remensis, Torquemada, 

 Tezozomoc. 



Tepeaca: Codice Chimalpopoca, Torquemada, Tezozomoc. 



Moreover, Ixtlilxochitl (2: 196) confirms the conquests of Coixtlahuaca, 

 Huatusco, Cotaxtla, and Tepeaca, although he places them during the 

 reign of Itzcoatl (see footnote 19, map 13). 



In fact, Oxtotipan is the only pueblo whose conquest is not confirmed by 

 other sources. Nevertheless, the close agreement between the list given by 

 the Anales de Tlatelolco and the conquests enumerated by other sources, 

 leads us to suspect that Oxtotipan should be regarded as a Mexican con- 

 quest—the more particularly since it lies in the Tepeaca area of modern 

 Puebla, a zone profoundly affected by the conquests of Moctezuma I. 



8 Not shown on our map. "Estos couixcat y llapanecas son unos que . . . 

 estan poblados en Tepequacuilco y Tlachimalacac, en la provincia de Chila- 

 pan" (Sahagun 3: 133). The northeastern area of modern Guerrero clearly 

 is indicated. 



According to the Anales de Tlatelolco (p. 57), Cucrnavaea took the in- 

 itiative in the conquest of the Cohuixca but allowed the Mexicans to share in 

 the booty. Nevertheless, Torquemada (1: 157) and Ixtlilxochitl (2: 201) re- 

 gard the victory as one of the Triple Alliance. 



10 The Anales de Tlatelolco do not state that Huejotzingo, Tlaxcala, and 

 Cholula were conquered, but explain that their warriors were defeated in the 

 course of one of the Cotaxtla campaigns (ftn. 43, p. 271). 



" The Anales de Tlatelolco do not speak explicitly of conquest, but it is 

 clearly evident that there were repeated hostilities between the Mexicans and 

 "Chalco" during the reign of Moctezuma I (see footnote 3, above). 



" Not identified; the association with "Tenanco" and "Chiconquiauhco" 

 suggests the location which has been assigned in map 14. 



13 Identification dubious. The Codice Chimalpopoca sandwiches "Yo- 

 hualtSpec" between a town in Puebla and one in Guerrero; the "Yoaltepec" 

 of the Coleecion de Mendoza appears in the list between a pueblo in modern 

 Morelos and one in Guerrero. The "Hualtepec" of Ixtlilxochitl is associated 

 with "Teohuacan, Cuetlachtlan, Quauhtochco," all relatively close to mod- 

 ern Yehualtepec, in eastern Puebla, with which we have tentatively identi- 

 fied the conquest. 



14 See footnote 11, map 13. 



11 The Codex Telleriano-Remensis does not claim a conquest, but men- 

 tions a battle in this pueblo, which probably was related to the conquest of 



various Otoml-Mazahua pueblos in this same general area (Nos. 26, 27, 44> 

 46; Codice Chimalpopoca, Coleecion de Mendoza). 



!• The Codex Telleriano-Remensis merely reports a battle with Tlaxcalans 

 on the fringes of Texcoco. At this time, the Triple Alliance was beginning to 

 take steps to surround and isolate Tlaxcala. 



17 See footnote 3, above. 



18 Torquemada reports a war between Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco, in 

 which the ruler of the latter perished. Nevertheless, Tlatelolco did not 

 become a tributary of Tenochtitlan until the days of Axayacatl (See No. 3, 

 map 15, table 18). 



19 This settlement no longer exists, but its ruins are known by the name of 

 the old pueblo. 



20 Identification doubtful. The pueblo is mentioned in company with 

 others of modern Guerrero, and there is a slight resemblance between the 

 ancient name and that of the modern pueblo with which it dubiously has 

 been identified. 



21 There is a Tzompahuacan in modern Puebla, but we believe it more 

 likely that the town in question is to be identified with Zumpahuacan, in 

 Mexico, for Torquemada mentions the conquest in company with pueblos 

 which lie in northwestern Guerrero. 



22 Torquemada does not give Tlaxcala and Huejotzingo as conquered pue- 

 blos but notes that their warriors were defeated in the course of the Triple 

 Alliance war with Coixtlahuaca. 



"Not identified. The association with "Tochtepec, . . , Tzapotla, 

 Tototlan" and "Tlatlactetelco" suggests a location in northeast Oaxaca or in 

 adjacent Veracruz. 



14 Not identified with any modern pueblo, but the name appears on a six- 

 teenth-century map (No. 57, of the Coleecion Orozco y Berra), and the 

 location shown there is confirmed by the Suma (No. 843). 



24 The source is not explicit and may refer either to a town or to the province 

 of the Cbinantecs. One of the pueblos of the latter is "Tochtepec," which 

 Torquemada lists among the Mexican conquests. Elsewhere, Torquemada 

 (1: 187) speaks of "Chinantla" as a province. Nevertheless, in the sixteenth 

 century, there was a pueblo of this name in the zone touched by the present 

 campaign; it is possible that this town (Suma, No. 6) is intended rather than 

 the province. 



28 Not identified; perhaps "Quauhtochco" (Huatusco, No. 15) is intended. 



27 Not identified: see ftn. 37, p. 269. 



28 Not identified; the pueblos in association suggest a location in modern 

 Puebla. 



s» "Cempoala"and"Quiahuixtlan"were involved in Moctezuma's campaign. 

 But in the long description given by Tezozomoc (pp. 122-131), they did not 

 become the scene of battle. Nevertheless, subsequently, they were considered 

 tributaries of the Triple Alliance (pp. 272-273), although, strangely enough, 

 their conquest is not reported in other sources and neither "Cempoala" 

 nor "Quiahuixtlan" appears in the Matrlcula de tributos. Both pueblos are 

 extinct, but both are well known archeologically. 



88 Not identified. The presumed location has been indicated on the basis 

 of the Codice Tonayan (Barlow, 1947 b) (ftn. 40, p. 270). 



30s The pueblo no longer exists but the name still is associated with its 

 ruins (Garcia Payon, 1947, p. 303). 



81 At this time, Tezozomoc does not speak of the conquest of Oaxaca, but 

 remarks that prisoners from there were sacrificed in Tenochtitlan. Neverthe- 

 less, later, (p. 160) he does describe the conquest of the pueblo of that name. 



82 Dibble's interpretation of the Codice en Cruz (pp. 50-51) is a year of 

 plenty. However, he suggests that the glyph is similar to that of "Quiyauh- 

 teopan" as shown in the Coleecion de Mendoza (5: 45), although noting 

 that in the Codice en Cruz it is not accompanied by any sign which would 

 indicate war or conquest. 



The conquest of Cuautipan is reported in other sources (Codice Chimal- 

 popoca, Coleecion de Mendoza, Torquemada, Ixtlilxochitl), and it is by no 

 means impossible that the Codice en Cruz actually gives us, somewhat 

 ambiguously, the date for this victory. 



Dibble's interpretation of Coixtlahuaca likewise is dubious, but we have 

 confirmation in other sources (see footnote 8 above). 



88 See footnote 16, map 13. 



8 < See footnote 18, map 13. 



84 See footnote 19, map 13. 



88 Following the conquest of Huatusco, Ixtlilxochitl has Netzahualcoyotl 

 conquer Tuxpan, Ohicontepec, and Tuxtepec. These victories he claims 

 for Texcoco, not for the Triple Alliance. 



But other authorities credit Mexico with the conquest of Tuxpan (Tezo- 

 zomoc, p. 105), Chicontepec (Codex Telleriano-Remensis 5: 150; Tezozomoc, 

 p. 105), and Tuxtepec (Torquemada 1: 160). 



Moreover, Ixtlilxochitl reports other conquests for Texcoco alone; these 

 are mentioned elsewhere (ftn. 37, p. 269). 



8 ' See footnote 11, map 10. 



88 Ixtlilxochitl apparently places these conquests in the days of Itzcoatl, 

 although his statement is confused. Other sources attribute them to 

 Moctezuma I. "Mazahuacan" is within the area mentioned in footnote 15, 

 above, and Tlapacoyan and Tlalcozotitlan appear in the Codice Chimal- 

 popoca (p. 67) and the Coleecion de Mendoza (5: 45), all three as conquests 

 of Moctezuma I. 



