INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY — PUBLICATION NO. 13 



case, it appears that this stretch of country is one 

 which does not lend itself to intensive agriculture, 

 and in all likelihood, it was not heavily peopled at 

 the time of the Conquest. Certain it is, there is 

 no mention of any large Totonac centers in this 

 zone, nor, so far as we know, have archeological 

 remains of importance come to light. 



The over-all configuration of ancient Totona- 

 capan was curiously like a dumbbell, laid across the 

 map from northwest to southeast (map 1) . To the 

 northwest was a heavy concentration of pueblos, 

 with another in the southeast, the two connected 

 by a narrow neck. The southerly cluster received 

 the first impact of Spanish conquest and coloniza- 

 tion. Its principal centers either disappeared 

 early or became progressively acculturated, and 

 today there are few remnants of Totonac speech 

 in this area (map 2) . On the contrary, the north- 

 westerly cluster of Totonac pueblos managed to 

 remain relatively aloof from Spanish influence. 

 On the fringes of the Sierra Madre, it lay in 

 rugged country, evidently off the beaten path in the 

 sixteenth century as today. At present, as the re- 

 sult of this isolation, it is the zone strongest in 

 Totonac speech and presumably in Totonac 

 culture. 



The neck which connected the two main bodies 

 of Totonac language during the sixteenth century 

 was surprisingly spindly and tenuous. Map 1 

 shows it to have been comprised of three pueblos 

 only: Jalacingo (No. 17), Atzalan (No. 4), and 

 "Yohualtlacualoyan" (No. 37) . However, the di- 

 rect route from the Valley of Mexico to the Mexi- 

 can garrison in Nautla runs across this belt, and it 

 may be that this stretch of country received strong 

 impact from the campaigns of the Triple Alliance. 

 We find no record of the speech current in the area 

 immediately northeast of the narrow neck; but 

 northwest and west, the pueblos Avere exclusively 

 Mexicano. 12 It is not impossible that this strange 

 bifurcation of Totonacapan represents one of the 

 separating wedges so favored by the Mexicans and 

 their allies. 



We have seen that along the borders of ancient 

 Totonacapan, there is evidence of mixing with 



"For example, Ixtacamaxtitlan, Zautla, Tlatlauquitepec, 

 Atempan, Altotonga, Teziutldn, Zacapoaxtla, Nauzoutla, and 

 Cuetzalan (Mota y Escobar, pp. 195, 196, 198, 223-225, 286). 



other languages — with Mexicano on the south and 

 west; with Mexicano and Otomi on the northwest. 

 Within Totonacapan, it is possible that there may 

 have existed an isolated nucleus of Mexicano in 

 the Nautla area, owing to the establishment of a 

 Mexican garrison at that point. However, we have 

 found no mention of the linguistic affiliations of 

 Nautla during the sixteenth century, and our one 

 source states that it was Totonac in pre-Conquest 

 times. 



Nevertheless, throughout Totonacapan, there is 

 constant reference to Mexicano and Totonac side 

 by side (map 1). Ordinarily, the source states 

 that Totonac is the mother tongue {lengua ma- 

 terna) , Mexicano, the "general" language, spoken 

 and understood by large numbers of the popula- 

 tion. For this apparently bilingual character, 

 various explanations, not mutually exclusive, may 

 be offered. 



In the first place, the political influence of the 

 Triple Alliance and its military control through- 

 out most of Totonacapan undoubtedly were con- 

 tributing factors, although we doubt they can be 

 considered basically responsible. Mexican hegem- 

 ony seems to have been largely nominal and not 

 of long standing. In the second place, it is well 

 known that the Spaniards relied heavily on Mexi- 

 cano in the course of their administrative and 

 evangelization endeavors. This, too, undoubtedly 

 played a role in emphasizing Mexicano in the 

 j-ears following the Conquest. 



Nevertheless, a number of facts suggest that we 

 must look more deeply for the real explanation. 

 The general dearth of Totonac place names today 

 is suggestive (pp. 51-53). In fact, the want of 

 known Totonac equivalents for such important 

 centers as "Cempoala" and "Quiahuixtlan" is ex- 

 traordinar} 7 , the more especialty since the Span- 

 iards did not know these towns through Mexican 

 introduction, but through direct, first-hand contact 

 with the Totonac. Moreover, the Spaniards spent I 

 considerable time in both pueblos, and their Toto- 

 nac hosts were important allies. In addition, it is 

 evident that Mexicano was not confined to what ' 

 might be called the ruling class, but apparently , 

 was quite generally known to the Totonac as a 

 whole. At least, in Papantla, Mota y Escobar 

 (pp. 232-233) preached in Mexicano, and was of [ 



