14 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY PUBLICATION NO. 13 



In the west, there has been a strong retraction 

 in the vicinity of Pahuatlan, Acaxochitlan, and 

 Zacatlan. The reduction is somewhat greater than 

 map 3 suggests, inasmuch as Totonac pueblos are 

 found today only in the eastern parts of the mu- 

 nicipalities of Huauchinango and Villa Juarez. 

 The abandonment by the Totonac of these high- 

 land areas has been noted previously (pp. 5, 10). 



Numerically, the Totonac still are important. 

 According to the published 1940 census, there are 

 59,242 Totonac monolinguals ; our count, based on 

 the original census sheets, yields 59,506 monolin- 

 guals, 30,872 bilinguals. In short, there is a total 

 Totonac population of 90,378 persons, not includ- 

 ing children under 5 years of age who in many 

 communities constitute 20 percent of the 

 inhabitants. 



Of this Totonac population, 10,774 monolinguals 

 and 6,948 bilinguals live in the district (munici- 

 pio) of Papantla (total population: 34,257). In 

 other words, even with small children excluded, 

 Papantla today is about half Totonac. For the 

 most part, the Totonac live in the small outlying 

 settlements, although the town of Papantla itself 

 has a significant element. 28 



Far higher percentages of Totonac are found 

 along the still inaccessible parts of the Puebla- 

 Veracruz border (map 2), where some communi- 

 ties are essentially monolingual. Yet of lowland 

 areas, Papantla today has the strongest ingredient. 

 This is of particular interest, for certain sixteenth- 

 century sources (table 14, Appendix A) mention 

 Mexicano in this zone, along with Totonac; and 

 in the mideighteenth century, Villasenor (1 : 319), 

 almost certainly through error, reports only Mexi- 

 cano. It is clear that in Papantla, Totonac has 

 not yielded to Mexicano, as has been the case about 

 Zacatlan; or to Mexicano and Otomi, as in 

 Pahuatlan. In the Papantla area, the Totonac 

 element still is substantial and probably will man- 

 age to hold its own for a good many years. 



HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 



ARCHEOLOGY 



Since their discovery in 1785 (Gazeta de Mexico, 

 pp. 349-351), the ruins of Tajin have aroused the 



28 In 1804, Papantln was credited with a population of 2,837, of 

 which 2,170 were Indians ; 520, gcnte de raz6n; and 147, unspeci- 

 fied (Relaciones estadisticas de Nueva Espafia pp. 44—45). In 

 1845, it was calculated that two-thirds of the inhabitants of the 

 town of Papantla were Totonac (Bausa, p. 380). 



interest and admiration of all visitors, and a sizable 

 bibliography has accumulated. 29 A study of local 

 archeology is in itself a major undertaking, and, 

 in large measure, our comments will be confined 

 to a repetition of the conclusions which have been 

 reached by other investigators. 



In the immediate vicinitj 7 of the modern settle- 

 ment of Tajin, the archeological ruins of that 

 name are those of outstanding interest, because of 

 their spectacular nature, their relative antiquity, 

 and their external relationships. Apparently the 

 occupation dates roughly from A. D. 600 (Garctfa 

 Payon, 1947, p. 331) , so was, at least in part, coeval 

 with Teotihuacan. The Tajin center came to a 

 violent end, presumabfy through conquest, about 

 A. D. 1200, an approximate date which Garcaa 

 Payon (1947, p. 305) assigns on the basis of ce- 

 ramic association. 30 If we accept this dating, 

 which appears reasonable, Tajin was destroyed a 

 relatively few years after the abandonment, in 

 1156 or 1168 (Jimenez Moreno, 1942 b, p. 125) , of 

 Tula, the great Toltec site in modern Hildalgo. 



Of the site of Tajin, only a relatively small part 

 has been excavated; occupation was virtually 

 continuous over a wide area, some of which still is 

 forested. Moreover, surface sherds crop up in a 

 number of clearings throughout the modern com- 

 munity, and sizable mounds still are half-hidden 

 by the dense vegetation. Detailed and systematic 

 surface collections have not been made in the im- 

 mediate vicinity of Tajin, but it seems certain that 

 sites later than the main ruin eventually will be 

 recognized. In other words, although the main 

 site was abandoned about A. D. 1200, the area as 

 a whole was not. One plowed field, on the borders 

 of Tajin, but actually within the political con- 

 fines of adjacent Tlahuanapa, produces surface 

 sherds whose painted decoration suggests affilia- 

 tion with late wares from the nearby Huasteca. 31 



Of major archeological sites, Tajin is not the 

 only one in the general vicinity of Papantla; 

 Garcia Payon mentions several others, as yet 

 unexcavated. The famous Teayo, a few kilo- 



:9 Garcfa Pay6n, 1943, has published a bibliography of works 

 which touch directly and indirectly upon Tajin and the Totonac. 



30 Independently, Gordon Ekholm (letter of Oct. 29, 1948), 

 gives the same tentative date. 



"Ekholm (letter of Oct. 29, 1948) says that he has not studied 

 this lot in detail, but his impression is that some of the "painted 

 types . . . are as late as Period VI of the Huasteca, so . . . there 

 is good possibility of post-building occupation around the site." 

 DuSolier (pp. 7, 8, 41) also mentions decorated sherds of Huasteca 

 type but considers them to be early and intrusive at Tajfn. 



