12 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY — PUBLICATION NO. 13 



For comparison, the table shows the modern 

 (1940) density within the same municipal units 

 which appear, as far as we can tell, to coincide 

 with ancient Totonacapan. Again, the figures are 

 no more than suggestive. The modern density 

 is somewhat less than that calculated for the early 

 sixteenth-century province, although the differ- 

 ences are not excessive. 



All told, the population estimates for 1519 seem 

 not to be unduly exaggerated. Southern Totona- 

 capan, at least, boasted large urban centers 25 at 

 the time of the Conquest; and Papantla, to the 

 north, also was essentially urban. Lowland To- 

 tonacapan, as a whole, was an exceptionally favor- 

 able zone for human occupation, and later it will 

 be seen that, since early times, its natural riches 

 attracted the attention and aroused the greed of 

 the peoples of the central highlands. 



25 For example, a sixteenth-century author writes as follows : 

 "De aquf ["Sempual"] adelante, hasta Pilnuco, podra haber hasta 

 cincuenta leguas. Habfa, asf en la costa como esviados de ella, 

 muy grandes villas, poblaclones y provincias, todas muy llenas de 

 gente y muy pobladas : muy grandes poblaciones y muy lindas 

 al parecer, llenas de frutales, y ahora, estd todo desierto y con 

 muy poquitos indios" (Aguilar, p. 97). 



Archeological evidence likewise confirms the impression of a 

 dense population, and although the survey avowedly is incom- 

 plete, 606 archeological sites have been reported, scattered be- 

 tween the Rfo Panuco, on the north, and the Tancochapa, on the 

 south (Garcia Pay6n, 1947, pp. 301-302). Although a consid- 

 erable time span may be represented, nevertheless, the fact re- 

 mains that archeological sites are plentiful. 



MODERN DISTRIBUTION AND 

 POPULATION 



The present-day distribution of Totonac 

 speech 26 is shown in map 2, and the succeeding map 

 compares the extent during the sixteenth century 

 and modern times. 



Shrinkage has, of course, taken place, particu- 

 larly in the south, where nothing remains save two 

 small islands of Totonac in the rough country 

 north of Jalapa. 27 Moreover, the narrow connect- 

 ing neck, which formerly united northern and 

 southern Totonacapan in the Jalacingo-Atzalan 

 area (map 1), no longer is Totonac. In short, 

 southern Totonacapan has all but disappeared, 

 and the small cists which remain are rapidly ab- 

 sorbing both Spanish speech and Mexican mestizo 

 culture. 



26 Our modern distribution does not accord in detail with that 

 published by Gonzalez Bonilla, on the basis of the 1930 census. 

 He reports small Totonac elements in Tenango and Acayucan 

 (both in Veracruz) and in Tlaltenango (Puebla). Moreover, he 

 credits Reyes (Veracruz) with an extraordinarily high occurrence 

 of Totonac. All these pueblos lie far afield of our Totonac block 

 and, according to the 1940 census, are innocent of Totonac speech. 



27 Actually, Totonac speech has survived in a number of adjacent 

 municipalities (table 15, Appendix A), but since it amounts to 

 less than 3 percent of the population, it has been disregarded in 

 maps 2 and 3. This holds, incidentally, for Misantla. However, 

 it may be that here census records are inaccurate, since Prof. 

 Jose' Luis Melgarejo, intimately acquainted with Misantla, is 

 under the impression that most of the inhabitants are Spanish- 

 Totonac bilinguals. 



Legend to map 2 



Modern Totonacapan. As a base, we have enlarged a map of municipal units, issued by the Secretaria de la Economia 

 Nacional, Direcci6n General de Estadistica, Direcckm de Geografia, Meteorologfa e Hidrologfa, 1941. 



The present-day distribution of speech here shown is taken from the 1940 Federal census records — not the published 

 reports, which ignore bilinguals, but the original census sheets, on file in the offices of the Direcci6n General de Estadfstica. 

 The published census considers as Spanish-speaking all bilinguals who control both Spanish and a native tongue; we have 

 reversed the procedure and here have counted such bilinguals as of native speech. 



Table 15, of Appendix A, gives the key to municipal units, as well as the numerical basis for the language distribution 

 here shown. The key to the five native languages of the area — Totonac, Tepehua, Mexicano, Otomf, and Huastec — 

 appears on the map; other native idioms scarcely occur. 



Within each municipal unit is a circle, whose sectors correspond in size to the percentages of the languages shown. 

 Occurrences of less than 3 percent have been ignored because of the difficulty of depicting such a small area; they have 

 been absorbed automatically by the white sector. However, table 15 gives all ratios which exceed 1 percent, as well as 

 the complete incidence. 



The white sector is essentially residual. We have just noted that it includes (a) occurrences of less than 3 percent 

 of the native languages mentioned above. Apart from this negligible element, it corresponds to the percentage given in 

 the last column of table 15. Thus it includes (6) all languages other than the five specified. In many municipal units, 

 Spanish monolinguals are the chief ingredient, but there is a sprinkling of other Indo-European and of native languages. 



Likewise, the white sector includes (c) all children under 5 years (5 anos cumplidos) , irrespective of speech. Although | 

 they are represented in the totals on which our percent ratios are based, their speech is not reported by the census. | 

 Through lack of foresight, we did not keep count of the number of children thus eliminated linguistically. In some pueblos, 

 this age group accounts for 20 percent of the entire population. Accordingly, some of the municipal units along the | 

 Puebla- Veracruz border show a sizable white sector, although, actually, the communities are almost wholly Totonac. | 

 In fact, in Camocuautla (No. 100), the white sector is comprised exclusively of children under 5 years of age. 



