92 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY — PUBLICATION NO. 2 



The general . situation of the municipio has 

 already been discussed in the first section of 

 this paper. Tliat discussion and maps 1, 2, and 



3 indicate the main features, and no further 

 amplification seems necessary. 



The municipio has fairly well defined boun- 

 daries, although there are usually disputes with 

 neighboring communities. Thus Cheran cur- 

 rently has disputes with Cheranastico and 

 Arantepacua. The boundaries are marked in 

 various ways. In the cultivated areas the 

 boundaries are marked with stone walls. 

 Where water courses form the boundaries, no 

 markers are placed, but in the woods, a strip 



4 or 5 meters wide is cleared along the 

 boundary. This is done by communal labor, 

 and when the line needs clearing again an 

 assembly is called and a day fixed for the work. 

 Every male is supposed to go. The Municipal 

 Representative (described later) is supposed to 

 lead the party. 



THE TOWN AND ITS SUBDIVISIONS 



Cheran is a compact and essentially urban 

 settlement with a population of about 5,000. 

 Few North Americans, unfamiliar with the 

 concentrated settlement forms of Mexican 

 towns, would imagine it contained anything like 

 this population. There are no suburbs and 

 very little straggling out of houses from the 

 main center. Around the outskirts the lots are 

 a little bigger and the density of population is 

 less but the transition from town to open fields 

 is nevertheless abrupt. 



The layout of the town is undistinguished. 

 A central plaza with a fountain, portalcs or 

 sidewalks covered with arches about it, the 

 municipal building, school, priest's residence, 

 and church may be duplicated in hundreds of 

 Mexican towns. The plaza is not today the 

 center of the settlement geographically. Un- 

 doubtedly the town has grown since the time of 

 its founding, and because of the deep barranca 

 to the north, expansion has been in the other 

 directions, leaving the plaza north of the pres- 

 ent center of town by two or three blocks. 



Radiating from the plaza is a network of 

 streets laid out in a rectangular grid Vv^hich 

 makes only minimal concessions to the irregu- 

 larities of the terrain. The enclosed blocks or 

 manzanas are utilized as administrative divi- 



sions of the town. This feature will be dis- 

 cussed later. 



A larger subdivision than the block is 

 furnished by the barrio as indicated in maps 

 4 and 5. These divisions function in relation 

 to elections, oflice holding, and certain munici- 

 pal and ceremonial obligations. Barrio No. I 

 is to the northwest and is known as Jalukutin, 

 or in Hispanicized form Uriikutin. This name 

 is said to mean "something on edge" or "some- 

 thing in a small corner," apparently referring 

 either to its position on the edge of the largest 

 barranca or its position against the small hill 

 on the northeast edge of town. Barrio No. II 

 is called "Keiku," "down," or the lower barrio 

 (barrio cle aba jo), and is the southwest barrio. 

 The southeast barrio, No. Ill, is "Kalakua," 

 "up," the upper barrio {barrio cle arriba) . 

 Barrios II and III are usually known by their 

 Spanish terms, and not everyone knows the 

 Tarascan names. The fourth barrio is Paricu- 

 tin. This means "to pass to the other side" 

 and refers to the position of the barrio on the 

 other side of a barranca. 



The barrios show very few differences. 

 Paricutin is less populated, has larger lots, and 

 is said formerly to have been more isolated and 

 backward, with fewer people speaking Spanish. 

 The staff of the investigation all had the im- 

 pression that this is still true to some extent, 

 although little concrete evidence could be 

 secured. Certainly, as the staff can well attest, 

 the dogs of Paricutin are far less socialized 

 than those of the remainder of the town. 



Membership in the barrio is based entirely 

 on residence. Property owners who reside in 

 another barrio have barrio obligations only in 

 the place of residence. There is no rivalry 

 between barrios nor any instances in which 

 barrios act as units on their own initiative. 

 All the functions of the barrio appear to be 

 derived from the municipio. There is no evi- 

 dence whatever that the barrio has anything to 

 do with regulating marriage or other social 

 relationships. Even barrio chapels are lack- 

 ing. In all probability the subdivisions are of 

 Spanish origin and the only reason for suspect- 

 ing otherwise lies in the mention of barrios by 

 early Spanish writers in nearby areas.-^ 



" On the other hand, as Silvio Zavala has shown fairly con- 

 vincingly. Bishop Quiroga, first bishop of Michoac&n and sreat 



