152 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY — PUBLICATION NO. 1 1 



series of laws and regulations issued by the vice- 

 regal government requiring each tributary Indian 

 to raise a certain number of chickens each year. 

 At one time the requirement was that every trib- 

 utary Indian should raise at least 12 chickens 

 igallinas de Castillo) and 1 turkey gobbler and 6 

 turkey hens {gallinas de la tierra). Although the 

 donkey or burro and the goat are not mentioned 

 for the Patzcuaro area in the first few years after 

 the Conquest, they were midoubtedly there many 

 years before 1560. The goat never became pop- 

 idar in the area, but the burro soon became the 

 work companion of the Indian. It is claimed 

 that the first burros were brought to Mexico in 

 1531, primarily so that mules could be bred. The 

 Old World mulberry and the Asiatic silkworm 

 were brought into the basin before the 1570's, and 

 there is some indication that it might have been 

 as early as the 1530's. However, the silk industry 

 never prospered in the Patzcuaro Basin. Among 

 the Old World animals that entered the area 

 without benefit of historical record were cats, 

 Eui-opean bees, European rabbits, and a few 

 ducks, geese, and peafowl. Of these only the 

 first two attained any local importance. 



ANIMALS OF THE INDIANS 



Archeology, the Relaci6n de Michoacan, and 

 various reports of the sixteenth century, provide 

 some information concerning the animals, domes- 

 ticated, tamed, or captured by the Tarascans. 

 Definite domesticates were the dog and the tur- 

 key; and possibly a duck was domesticated. The 

 cochineal bug and a honeybee were semidomes- 

 ticates; and it is likely that the "hump-backed 

 dog of Michoacan" reported in the 1570's by 

 Hernandez was the coati which is a common pet 

 in the warmer portions of Michoacan. A number 

 of carnivores were kept in a "zoo" in Tzintzun- 

 tzan, and many buds with colorful plumage were 

 kept on hand to provide the feathers used in the 

 beautiful Tarascan featherwork which is now a 

 decadent and practically extuict art. Although 

 snakes played an important part in the mythology 

 and the ceremonial life of the Tarascans, there is 

 no evidence that any were kept as "mousers" as 

 is stiU done in some parts of Mexico. Actually 

 the only truly domesticated animals the Tarascans 

 had were the dog and the tm'key. 



MODERN DOMESTICATED ANIMALS 



The modern Quiroga farmer is essentially a 

 crop farmer, as were his Indian ancestors. How- 

 ever, he has taken over the Old World ox, burro, 

 and horse to help him with his work; beef and 

 pork have supplanted the food obtained by hunt- 

 ing deer, rabbits, and peccaries; and chickens have 

 nearly displaced the domesticated turkey and the 

 wild quail, pigeons, ducks, and chachalacas as 

 providers of flesh and eggs. In addition, wool 

 from sheep provides a supplement to the native 

 cotton from the tierra caliente, and cats afford a 

 certain amount of protection from rodents. How- 

 ever, it is doubtful that the prehistoric Tarascan 

 farmer suffered much loss of maize through ro- 

 dents, once the maize was placed in the granary, 

 since the most harmful rodents are the rats and 

 mice which came over with the Spaniards. 



In order to obtain some idea concerning the 

 animal economy of Quiroga we questioned every 

 one of the 797 households as to what domesticated, 

 tamed, and caged animals they possessed. We 

 were greeted with some amusement, when after 

 jotting down the understatements on oxen, 

 chickens, burros, and other economic ani- 

 mals, we asked for the number of dogs, cats, 

 tamed pets, caged birds, and any and all other 

 animals that belonged to the household. How- 

 ever, these last items are the only ones for which 

 we feel that we have accurate statistics. The 

 degree of accuracy for the other animals varies 

 considerably. The numbers we obtained (by ques- 

 tioning, supplemented by observation) for such 

 animals as pigs, chickens, and beehives are not 

 far wrong since these animals commonly were 

 present and within our view. On the other hand, 

 animals which usually were at work or at pasture 

 (oxen, sheep, goats, burros, and horses) we were 

 not able to check carefully, and the figures we 

 present may be as much as 50 percent too low in 

 some cases — especially for oxen and horses. In 

 table 28 are listed the animals by common names 

 (with no consideration for age, sex, or other condi- 

 tion), with the absolute number of each and the 

 number of households which owned them. Com- 

 parative figures are given from the 1900 and 1930 

 censuses of the greater municipality. 



