Chiconquiauhtzin

Chiconquiauhtzin (or Chiconquiauitl) was a tlatoani (king) of Tepanec altepetl (city-state) Azcapotzalco.

He was likely a son of the king Matlacohuatl and queen Cuitlachtepetl.

He ruled from 1222 to 1248 and married princess Xicomoyahual. Their son was possibly his successor, Tezcapoctli.[1]

Notes

In the García Granados Codex the Azcapotzalco blood line is outlined (without dates) in the following order: Maxtlacozcatl (Matlacohuatl), Chiconquiauitl, Tezcapoctli, Tehuehuactzin, Micacalcatl, Xiuhtlatonac, Acolnahuacatl and Tezozomoc; the Tlatelolco annals provide another list in which the first three and the two last names appear but misses the other three; the advantage of the second list is that these are the proposed dates in the article. The three missing names could be accommodated in an alternate sequence, considering data from other sources that placed the rise of Acolnahuacatl 1302, creating a "brief lagoon" from 1283 to 1302, even if no document suggests so.

gollark: Water is really just very bland and not good-tasting.

gollark: I just use Firefox's password manager, since most of my accounts are on websites and not... other account-using things I guess?

gollark: Also, COVID-19 randomly kills (a few) seemingly healthy people anyway.

gollark: I mean, unless immunity turns out to not last very long, it *should* be over (at least in Western countries...) once a vaccine is developed and distributed. Or everyone gets infected I guess.

gollark: Orbital laser strike. It's the only way to be sure.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[1] In the García Granados Codex the Azcapotzalco blood line is outlined (without dates) in the following order: Maxtlacozcatl (Matlacohuatl), Chiconquiauitl, Tezcapoctli, Tehuehuactzin, Micacalcatl, Xiuhtlatonac, Acolnahuacatl and Tezozomoc; the Tlatelolco annals provide another list in which the first three and the two last names appear but misses the other three; the advantage of the second list is that these are the proposed dates in the article. The three missing names could be accommodated in an alternate sequence, considering data from other sources that placed the rise of Acolnahuacatl 1302, creating a "brief lagoon" from 1283 to 1302, even if no document suggests so.