10 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY PUBLICATION NO. 13 



it would appear that they were less significant 

 among highland than among coastal Totonac 

 pueblos. Moreover, in the Sierra, flight and con- 

 cealment of the natives appears to have been 

 practiced on a large scale. 24 



In fact it would seem that in northern Toto- 

 nacapan, especially among the highland pueblos, 

 decimation did not attain the same extremes as 

 in the south ; at least in a number of cases, 24 the 

 reduction evidently was more apparent than real. 

 As a matter of fact, since the rugged area along 

 the scarp front of the Sierra served as an asylum 

 for Totonac fleeing from elsewhere, it is by no 

 means impossible that, owing to the influx of refu- 

 gees, the population in parts of northern Totona- 

 capan actually increased during the sixteenth 

 century. 



However, there is evidence of a major retraction 

 from west to east. Originally, northern Totona- 

 capan included pueblos in the open country of the 

 highlands — Zacatlan and Acaxochitlan, for exam- 

 ple — but by the end of the sixteenth century, the 

 Totonac had withdrawn from these two settle- 

 ments, as well as from Pahuatlan, apparently mov- 

 ing eastward to the rugged country along the 

 fringes of the Sierra Madre. In any event, today, 

 the surviving Totonac are concentrated in the 

 broken country along the scarp front of the Sierra. 



In summary, the most important aspects of pop- 

 ulation in northern Totonacapan may be charac- 

 terized thus: (1) absence, with the sole exception 

 of Papantla, of great urban centers at the time 

 of the Conquest; (2) scant Spanish colonization; 



(3) an appreciable retraction from west to east, 

 with pueblos on the high plateau abandoned, but 



(4) combined with less actual reduction in popu- 

 lation between 1519 and 1550 than that which took 



M It is said of Chichilintla that the number of tributarios had 

 not been counted (Epistolario 14: 77), and of Chumatlan, that 

 the tributarios should be somewhat more than reported "because 

 they always hide" (Mota y Escobar, p. 232). 



Concerning Pahuatlan, ". . . habfa en el dicho pueblo gran 

 cantidad de gente y despu^s aca por los ecesivos tributos habia 

 venido en gran diminuci6n" (Epistolario 8:14-15). For 

 Papantla, "Tuzapan," Tihuatlan, Jalpan. and Tancoco (the latter 

 In the Huasteca), one document says flatly that the number of 

 tributarios is not indicated, ". . . porque no se puede saber, y la 

 causa es por que en toda esta tierra tienen los yndios por cos- 

 tumbre de andarse mudando de un pueblo a otro, por gozar de vn 

 aiio de libertad que tiene un idio recienvenido a un pueblo de no 

 pagar tributo, y otros se huyen por la dotrina . . ." (Doctrinas, 

 p. 220). Perhaps the population decline in Papantla, which is 

 comparable to that of large centers of southern Totonacapan, is 

 to be explained in part by this tribute exemption, in part by the 

 establishment in that zone of a large number of stock ranches 

 (ftn. 67, p. 37). 



place in southern Totonacapan; (5) an influx of 

 refugees to the more rugged parts of the zone; 

 and (6) as the final outcome, a concentration of 

 surviving Totonac along the rugged slopes of the 

 Sierra Madre scarp front. 



TOTONACAPAN AS A WHOLE 



Columns G and H of table 14 (Appendix A) 

 give subtotals of the sixteenth-century population, 

 according to the modern states in which the pueb- 

 los are located. These may be combined as 

 follows : 





Population 



State 



1565 



(after Cook and 

 Simpson) 



Ca. 1550-1610 



(sum of averages, column 

 H, table 14) 



Veracruz 



Puebla.. 



31, 341 

 i 63, 462 



37, 417 

 59, 884 



Hidalgo 



3,699 









Total. 



94, 803 



101, 000 



1 Including Acaxochitlan, in modern Hidalgo. 



These figures must fall far short of the actual 

 sixteenth-century population, for the following 

 reasons: (1) Parts of the population evidently 

 contrived to hide, despite the fact that they resided 

 near pueblos. (2) A large number of Totonac 

 escaped direct Spanish domination, through 

 flight to inaccessible areas. (3) Some records, 

 based on number of tribute payers, presumably 

 are incomplete, since during the first year of resi- 

 dence, families were exempt from taxes. (4) 

 There are no data whatsoever for large parts of 

 Totonacapan — for example, the area between 

 Misantla and Papantla ; the stretch of country just 

 north of Papantla; that east of Atzalan and 

 Jalacingo; the zone between Zacatlan and 

 Huauchinango; the area north of Chila; and 

 the rugged strip along the Sierra Madre, which 

 functioned as a large-scale refuge site. Mani- 

 festly, the sum of these combined omissions must 

 be very considerable, but it is not possible even 

 to guess at the extent of the error. 



As an aside, the estimated 101,000 for the six- 

 teenth-century population of Totonacapan is 

 pretty close to the modern figure. Our count, 

 based on the 1940 census, shows 90,378 Totonac, 



