THE TAJIN TOTONAC — PART 1 KELLY AND PALERM 



263 



Footnote to table 15 



1 This table shows the distribution of language and population in modern 

 Totonacapan and environs. It is based on the 1S40 data on file in the archives 

 of the Federal census office, where the original material is recorded person by 

 person, and community by community. However, in the table, grouping 

 is by municipal unit. Publication of the data for each community would 

 require many pages. Moreover, to have language distribution meaningful, 

 it must be presented graphically (see map 2), yet it is quite impossible to 

 locate all individual settlements within a municipal unit. No available map 

 is sufficiently large-scale to show the smaller communities. Moreover, 

 villages may spring up like mushrooms, only to be abandoned within a few 

 years. In short, for practical reasons, we have chosen the larger, more stable, 

 and easily identified municipal units. To be sure, this results in a less 

 accurate picture, for it does not reveal the internal distribution of language 

 and population. For example, it clouds the fact that in Huauchinango 

 (No. 81), Totonac speech is eflectively confined to two settlements and is not 

 generally distributed throughout the municipal unit. 



For each municipal unit, the table gives the incidence of Totonac, Tepehua, 

 Mexieano, Otomi, and Huastee speech. We have considered Totonac the 

 language which the census taker in Chapultepec (one settlement of Coaccat- 

 zintla, No. 55) has designated as "Zempoaiteco." Native languages other 

 than those just mentioned scarcely occur, and such isolated elements are 

 included in the penultimate column. The latter also includes Spanish; a 

 negligible ingredient of other Indo-European languages, chiefiy French; and 

 all children under 5 years of age, irrespective of speech. 



In other words, the penultimate column gives merely the residue, once the 

 occurrence of Totonac, Tepehua, Mexieano, Otcmi, and Huastee speech has 

 been deducted. Figures in this column are not based on an actual count of 

 the census records. They have been derived by subtracting from the total 

 population, as given in the 1940 published census, the combined incidence of 

 tbe 5 native languages mentioned above. 



In some communities, native-language monolinguals demonstrably are 

 excessive, simply because the census taker has neglected to indicate the 

 presence of Spanish speech. In these instances, we have calculated bilinguals 

 on the basis of schooling and literacy. For example, if an individual has 

 attended school several years or if he is credited with knowledge of reading 

 and writing, it may be assumed that he controls Spanish, as well as his native 

 language. 



Only for the Totonac does our table distinguish between monolinguals and 

 bilinguals, that is, Totonac-Spanish bilinguals. Entries under other 

 languages include both monolinguals and persons who speak Spanish, in 

 addition to a native language. Thus Mexieano monolinguals and Mexicano- 

 Spanish bilinguals both appear in the tables as Mexieano. This is the re- 

 verse of the procedure followed in the published census, which recognizes 

 only monolinguals as of native speech. 



We find an expectable overlap in language. There are some Totonac- 

 Mexicano bilinguals, as well as Totonac-Mexicano-Spanish trilinguals. 

 Moreover, there are Mexicano-Otomf and Mexicano-Huastec bilinguals. 

 We found no mention of Totonac- torn f, Totonac-Huastec, or Otcmf- 

 Huastec bilinguals, nor did we find Tepehua combined with another native 

 language. 



In the table, native-language polyglots have been credited with each lan- 

 guage concerned. Accordingly, a Totonac-Mexicano bilingual has been 



counted once as a Totonac (one who speaks no Spanish) and once as a Mexi- 

 eano. A Totonac-Mexicano-Spanish trilingual is entered as a Totonac- 

 Spanish bilingual and also as a Mexieano. In all such cases of overlap, the 

 residue, shown in the penultimate column of the table, is not entirely accu- 

 rate; it lacks the numberof individuals who have been duplicated in the entries 

 under native languages. As will be seen below, such duplication is numeri- 

 cally insignificant. 



The whereabouts of native-language bilinguals should be of importance 

 to anyone who contemplates linguistic work in the zone covered by the 

 table. A ccordingly, below, we give the specific occurrence of such accom- 

 plished individuals. Language is abbreviated thus: T, Totonac; M, Mexi- 

 eano; O, Otomi; H, Huastee; S, Spanish (the latter specified only for those 

 who likewise speak Totonac). The municipal unit is identified by number, 

 to agree with the table, and the settlement within it is given by name. 



Veracruz. 1. Tantoyuca, 7 M-H; Buena Vista (Chial Perez), 1 M-H. 

 3. Teteco, 2M-H. 4. Amatlantepetl, 5 M-H. 5. El Cafe tal, 2 M-H. 17. 

 Huayacocctla. 3 M-O. 21. Poza Rica, 1 T-M-S. 22. Joloapan, 1 T-M-S; 

 Pajasco, 1 T-M-S; Paso de Correo, 2 T-M-S; Primero de Mavo, 2 T-M-S; 

 Pueblillo, 4 T-M, 4 T-M-S. 27. Espinal, 1 T-M-S; El Pacffico, 1 T-M-S. 



Puebla. 77. Palo Blanco, 1 T-M. 78. Villa Juarez, 1 T-M-S; San Agu- 

 stin, 14 T-M, 4 T-M-S. 82. Necaxa, 1 T-M-S. 83. Ocomantla, 1 T-M; 

 La Union, 1 T-M-S. 86. Chiconcuautla, 1 T-M, 1 T-M-S. 92. Ahuacatlan, 

 1 T-M-S. £8. San Pedro, 1 T-M-S. 101. Ixtepec, 2 T-M-S; Zitlala, 2 T- 

 M-S. 103. Jonotla, T-M-S. 107. Taxco, 1 T-M; Tequiquilco, 1 T-M-S. 

 116. Tenexapa de Azueta, 1 T-M-S; Tepetitan, 2 T-M-S. 118. Cinco de 

 Mayo, 4 T-M-S. 119. Zacapoa>tla, 1 T-M-S. 



Hidalgo. No native-language bilinguals noted. 



In addition to incidence, the table gives percent ratio, with the latter figures 

 in italics. When less than 1 percent is involved, incidence is shown but 

 percent ratio has been disregarded. An entry in italics opposite a subtotal 

 or total indicates percent ratio calculated on the basis of subtotal or total 

 population. Thus, the 72 municipal units in the State of Veracruz have a 

 total population of 033,861. Of this figure, 44,440 persons, or 7 percent, speak 

 Totonac. Similarly, the 142 municipal units in Veracruz, Puebla, and 

 Hidalgo have a total population of 1,126,280; of this number, 90,378, or 8 per- 

 cent, are of Totonac speech. 



For some municipal units, the original records are incomplete. If the 

 number of missing entries is negligible, no note is made here; but, in some 

 cases, tbe data are so faulty that the picture may be altered somewhat. 

 Such instances are listed below. Again, the municipal unit is identified by 

 number, to agree with tbe table, while the individual settlement is entered 

 by name. 



Veracruz. 10. Cruz Blanca: page torn, ca. 30 entries missing; Tecalco: 

 page torn, ca. 17 entries missing. 20. La Piedad: page torn, ca. 30 entries 

 missing. 22. Morgadal: page torn, 11 entries missing; Poza Verde: entire 

 sheet missing, with possibly 65 entries. 



Puebla. 123. Record for half the settlements of the municipal unit of 

 Zautla missing. The entry on the table is based on 8 settlements, with a 

 total of 5,086 inhabitants; actually, the municipal unit consists of 17, with a 

 total of 10,814 individuals. 125. Ocotla: entire page missing, with possibly 

 65 entries. 



