8 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY — PUBLICATION NO. 13 



plentiful concerning this area. Population figures 

 for southern Totonacapan may be summarized as 

 follows : 





Population 



Pueblo 



Ca. 1519 

 (from column 

 E, table 14) 



1565 



(after Cook 



and Simpson) 



Ca. 1550-1610 



(average, from 



column H, 



table 14) 



Acatlan (No. 1) > 



Almolonga (No. 3) 



"Cempoala" (No. 5)_. 



2,000 



6,000 



80, 000- 



120, 000 



80, 000 



120, 000 



80, 000 



8,000 



4,000 



3,200 

 24, 000 

 120, 000 

 4,000 

 8,000 

 6,000 

 4,000 

 8,000 



400 

 82 



48 



388 

 82 



72 















Chapul tepee (No. 6)._ 

 "Ciguacoatlan" (No. 

 12) 



525 

 200 

 577 



547 



167 



Coacoatzintla (No. 

 13) 



505 



Colipa (No. 15) 



Jalapa (No. 18) . _ 



Ji'otepec (No. 19) 



Miahuatlan (No. 23) __ 



Naolinco (No. 26) 



Tepetlan (No. 33) 



Tlacolulan (No. 34).. 



467 



2, 556 

 1,493 



600 

 2 860 



426 

 2,800 



3,868 



1,289 



333 



902 



376 



1.975 



i Numbers refer to table 14, Appendix A. 



a With Coipa, "Almeria," "Malinalcingo," Tlapacoyan, and "Tamo- 

 molo," the latter pueblo in the Huasteca. 



This tabulation brings three points into strong 

 relief: (1) the presence of large centers of popu- 

 lation such as "Cempoala," Colipa, and Jalapa, 

 together with other pueblos of moderate size; (2) 

 the major decline in population following the Con- 

 quest; and (3) the relative stability between 1565 

 and 1610. 



The presence of urban centers perhaps is to be 

 explained by intensive agriculture, combined, at 

 least in some pueblos, with irrigation (p. 99). It 

 is evident from early accounts that, far from be- 

 ing merely a ceremonial center, "Cempoala" was 

 an urban settlement with a large productive popu- 

 lation. Moreover, references to the number of 

 warriors in "Cempoala" and its immediate vicin- 

 ity confirm the impression of a dense population. 17 

 Cortes (Gayangos, p. 53) places the number at 

 50,000, as does Oviedo (3:261). Other authors, 

 among them Torquemada (1 : 402), raise the num- 

 ber to 100,000. Even if we take the lower figure, 

 a total population of 250,000 would be indicated 

 for "Cempoala" and neighboring pueblos, follow- 



ing the ratio suggested by Cook and Simpson (pp. 

 22-30 ). 18 



The sharp reduction in population and the dis- 

 appearance of urban centers is explained in vari- 

 ous ways by contemporary and slightly later 

 sources. Illness seems to be the dominant motif. 

 In only one case (Almolonga) is depletion at- 

 tributed to war (Paso y Troncoso 5:118). In 

 others ("Ciguacoatlan," Coacoatzintla, Tepetlan) 

 the reason is said to be, in part, "personal service" 

 which the Indians are obliged to give in Veracruz 

 (Paso y Troncoso 5:110, 116, 117). Diaz del 

 Castillo (3 : 150) blames a sugarmill with the de- 

 struction of "Cempoala"; Cortes places the re- 

 sponsibility on Narvaez, 19 which may, of course, 

 be no more than a reflection of the enmity between 

 the two Spanish leaders. However, in 1529, the 

 steward of Cortes reports that "Cempoala" is in 

 such a state that with major difficulties can 20 

 Indians be collected for "service" (Epistolario 

 1:141). 20 



There also is evidence that at least two great 

 epidemics swept Totonacapan : the first, about 

 1545, and the second, in 1576 (Paso y Troncoso 

 5:100). 21 



17 Shortly after the Discovery, Escalnnte was able to muster 

 6,000 Totonac warriors rapidly, for an attack on Nautln (Epis- 

 tolario 1:76) (p. 29). 



18 The above discussion applies only to "Cempoala" and vicinity. 

 But other sources confirm the impression of a dense population 

 in southern Totonacapan. For example : ". . . al tiempo que los 

 espafioles entraron en ella auia dentro de seis leguas a la rredonda 

 desta ciudnd nittehos lugares y poblaciones grandes de yndios los 

 quales an benido en tanta diminution que rnuchos dellos se an 

 despoblado de todo punto sin quedar rrastro dellos nl mas 

 memoria que solos los nombres y otros tienen agora tan poca 

 vegindad de gente que para lo que fueron antes es lastima de ver 

 el estremo en poquedad a que an benido . . ." (Relaci6n de 

 Veracruz). 



10 He writes (Gayangos, p. 125) that with the arrival of 

 Narvaez, ". . . ya estaba casi destruida, porque los que con el 

 dlcho Narvaez en ella estaban la habian robado, y los vecinos 

 della estaban ausentes y sua casas solas . . ." 



a °In 1585, "Cempoala" still is mentioned (AGN, No. 3), but 

 by about 1598, only three or four persons remained and they were 

 shifted elsewhere. The place is not specified, and we know only 

 that they were moved to a pueblo visted from the Franciscan 

 center in Jalapa (Torquemada 1 : 397). 



21 Both were general in New Spain. Concerning the earlier 

 epidemic, it is said : ". . . en diez leguas a la redonda de 

 Mexico de eumbres abajo que se ha llevado la enfermedad de siete 

 nieses a esta parte mas de cuatrocientos mil cuerpos . . ." 

 (Epistolario 4: 232). 



The great epidemic of 1576 ". . . fue tan grande, que arruino 

 y destruio casi toda la Tierra, y aim casi quedaron despobladas 

 las Indias, que llamamos Nueva Espafia . . . quiso saber el 

 Virrei Don Martin Enriquez, la Gente que faltaba, en esta Nueva- 

 Espafia, y fuese tomando racon de esto por los Pueblos y Barrios, 

 y hall6se, que avian sido los muertos mas de dos millones . . . 

 exccdi6 esta mortandad a las pasada del Afio de 1545, en doce 

 veces cien mil Personas. Porque en la Pestilencia del Afio de 

 1545. murieron ochocientas mil Personas . . ." (Torquemad.'i 

 1 : 642-G43). 



However, it is evident that there were more than these two 

 great epidemics. Motolinfa (pp. 17-28) speaks of the "ten 



