Preferred Citation: Cook, Sherburne F., and Woodrow Borah Essays in Population History, Vol. III: Mexico and California. Berkeley:  University of California Press,  1971-1979. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft5d5nb3d0/

Essays in Population History: Mexico and California: Volume Three Sherburne F. Cook and Woodrow Borah UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford © 1979 The Regents of the University of California

Preferred Citation: Cook, Sherburne F., and Woodrow Borah Essays in Population History, Vol. III: Mexico and California. Berkeley:  University of California Press,  1971-1979. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft5d5nb3d0/

Preface and Acknowledgements

This is the last volume of Cook and Borah Essays , for Sherburne F. Cook died on November 7, 1974. His death necessarily forced changes in our plans. By the fall of 1974 we had brought one essay near completion; it is Chapter I of this volume. For two more essays, we were in the middle of the inquiry and discussions that over the years we found mutually stimulating and creative. I have completed them—although one, on the California mission records, has been considerably reduced from the scope of our original project. These are Chapters II and III. A fourth inquiry, to identify the epidemics that so devastated the Indian population of central Mexico during the colonial period, we had planned but not begun; that I have abandoned. Implementation would require my collaboration with a scholar trained in physiology or medicine—in short, an intellectual partnership would have to be developed anew.

Accordingly, our third volume has three essays. Chapter I locates the low point of the Indian population of central Mexico at the end of the long decline unleashed by the Spanish Conquest. With that point finally in place, we are able to sketch a reasonably complete outline of the course of Mexican population since 1518 and to demonstrate that the destructive forces introduced by the Europeans brought the Indian population of central Mexico within a century to approximately 3 percent of its 1518 value. The document which furnished the basic data also gave much information on the royal fiscal system, which we have analyzed in the same chapter.

Our second chapter, on food production and nutrition in central Mexico during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, reopens inquiries that had deeply interested a generation of anthropologists in the 1930's and 1940's. So much has come

to light since those years that we thought the topic worthy of new attention. Our tentative reopening took the form of a paper read at the symposium on socio-economic history at the XLII International Congress of Americanists, held in Mexico City in September 1974. Although that paper excited considerable interest, it was not published in the proceedings because shortage of funds led the secretariat of the Congress to omit all symposium papers. The content of that paper, here included in a considerably extended essay, revises views we had published earlier: We propose a theory of sustained undernutrition as the lot of the bulk of the population of central Mexico in late aboriginal times.

Chapter III, on the registers of eight northern California missions, moves our focus from central Mexico and the Caribbean to California. The shift was not a departure from our central concern with the impact of the coming of the Europeans upon the Indians of Mexico, but rather an extension of that concern. For Sherburne Cook, further, it meant returning to the territory of many of his earlier studies. He had long wished to apply to the California mission registers the kinds of analysis we had learned for Mexican materials. When we found that the research funds available to us—modest indeed by present standards for demographic or social science research, but generous by any terms we had had before—would cover the costs, we agreed to collect data to analyze the registers of the California missions. Our plan was to start with those among the Costanoan Indians and widen our scope gradually to include those of the rest of the state. We also hoped to complement materials from the California missions with study of one or two comparable groups elsewhere in the Southwest of the United States and the North of Mexico. At the time of Sherburne Cook's death, we had collected data for seven northern California missions, were drawing off data on Mission Santa Clara, and were about to begin negotiations for access to the registers of the other northern California missions. Chapter III in this volume thus represents a truncated implementation of our project; it covers the eight missions for which we had collected or were collecting data. Now that we have shown what can be done, others may carry out similar, and perhaps better, work on the other missions. Our essay indicates need for considerably more examination of the functioning of the California missions; the potential for new insight is far from exhausted.

In preparing the essays of this volume, as for those of the earlier ones, we have had much help and kindness, which we should want remembered. Film and permission freely to use the document basic to Chapter I, we owe to the gracious understanding of His Excellency, the Duque del Infantado; to the good offices of his sister, the Reverend Mother Cristina de la Cruz de Arteaga; and to the disinterested and generous wish to further scholarly inquiry of E. William Jowdy, then a graduate student working in the archives of Madrid. In the preparation of Chapter II, we have needed and have had much advice and help from colleagues on the various campuses of the University of California. They are, among others, Martin Baumhoff, Lincoln Constance, Robert Heizer, Jonathan Sauer, and John M. Tucker. For access to materials and assistance of other kinds for Chapter III, we are indebted to the officials of the diocesan archive of the Monterey- Salinas diocese; to the library of the University of Santa Clara; to the good will toward all scholars of Father Norman Martin, S.J., of the University of Santa Clara, and to the librarians and archivists, past and present, of that institution; to the Genealogical Society of Utah through its branch in Oakland, California; and to Father Stafford Poole, C.M. Finally, our work on California missions has been greatly aided by the assistance of Thomas Workman Temple III, Dr. María C. Puerta, and Dr. Harry Cross. Dr. Cross has served not merely as research assistant but also as statistical aide. His help has been indispensable in reducing a mass of data into comprehensive parallel tables. Finally, let me record my deep personal gratitude to my co-author for a quarter of a century of warm and stimulating partnership.

WOODROW BORAH

Abbreviations Used in Citations

A NOTE ON MONEY

Colonial Mexican money (silver pesos of 8 reales, each real of 12 granos) is written as in the old English system: 1/3/11. If there are no granos, the third grouping is omitted, but there is always a notation for the peso, as 1/ and 0/7.

Chapter I—
Royal Revenues and Indian Population in New Spain, ca. 1620-1646

1—
Introduction

In a series of earlier studies, we examined materials on the Indian population of central Mexico and made calculations of numbers based upon our analysis of those materials. We have thus been able to present estimates for various years in the sixteenth and the first decade of the seventeenth centuries. For the convenience of the reader we list them:

These are based upon samples whose extent and ease of interpretation vary considerably. The estimate for 1568, the most firmly based, derives from a sample of perhaps 90% of the towns in central Mexico, which were newly counted in terms of a reformed and relatively uniform classification of tributaries and half-tributaries. That for 1605 is based upon a small sample of towns whose populations had shrunk so badly that they were relocated in new larger towns under the policy of congregación .^[1]

At the other end of the colonial period, calculations of Indian population are comparatively simple for various years of the eighteenth century, since tribute counts for that century are

[1] Sherburne F. Cook and Woodrow Borah, The Indian Population of Central Mexico, 1531–1610 (IA 44), pp. 47–49 and correction at end; Borah and Cook, The Aboriginal Population of Central Mexico on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest (IA 45), p. 88; Borah and Cook, The Population of Central Mexico in 1548: An Analysis of the Suma de visitas de pueblos (IA 43), passim . The discussion of sources is found throughout all three works.

frequent and careful, and the viceregal administration was making the first attempts at general civil censuses. So for the eighteenth century, scholars have abundant material, subject to the new problems that arise from the increasing number of racial mixtures in the population and the growing confusion in the application of social and racial criteria to them.^[2]

The span of years from 1610 to perhaps 1700, in contrast, has presented a gap in evidence. Yet those years contain the point at which the Indian population of central Mexico reached its nadir and began to recover from the long decline unleashed by the European Conquest. Our difficulty, like that of other students, has been to find materials that under treatment could provide evidence. In recent years a number of papers have appeared that offer partial or regional approaches to the problem. In August 1962, in a paper read at the XXXV International Congress of Americanists in Mexico City, José Miranda presented comparisons of prevailing tribute assessments for a number of towns in the bishoprics of Mexico, Puebla, and Michoacán for two periods in the seventeenth century: 1644–1657 and 1692–1698. He found them in accounts of the half-real for cathedral construction (medio real de fábrica ) levied annually on every Indian tributary and directly convertible to the prevailing tribute assessment. There was no indication of the precise year when the assessments were made. Miranda's material showed a substantial increase in Indian population, on the order of 28%, between assessments in force in 1644–1657 and in 1692–1698. He conjectured that the low point of the Indian population came in the 1620's or 1630's.^[3]

Subsequently, in our study of the historical demography of one small region in central Mexico, the Mixteca Alta, published in 1968, we made use of the Montemayor y Córdova de Cuenca count of that region in 1661, found in the Archivo General de Indias, in Seville. Analysis of the count indicated that the nadir of Indian population in the Mixteca Alta probably came in the decades 1600–1620 at a value of from 20% to 25% of the population in 1569, and as little as 3% or 4% of the pre-Con-

[2] Cook and Borah, Essays in Population History , I and II, passim , but esp. chap. 1 of vol. I.

[3] José Miranda, "La población indígena de México en el siglo XVII," pp. 182–189. See also Miranda, "La población indígena de Ixmiquilpan y su distrito en la época colonial."

quest level. The Montemayor y Córdova de Cuenca report also gave the dates of the previous counts and so provided the first clear evidence of the extent to which prevailing accounts should be adjusted to an average year some time back.^[4]

Another study, which we published in 1971, of the population of west-central Mexico, 1548–1960, indicates that the low point of Indian numbers in that region occurred around 1650, with a value of slightly over 12% of that for 1548 and 33% of that for 1570.^[5] Much of west-central Mexico, however, was conquered and settled later than central Mexico. Moreover, it remained essentially a frontier area until late in the colonial period. Accordingly, the experience of west-central Mexico cannot be extrapolated directly, without adjustment, to central Mexico.

More recently, a study by Günter Vollmer on Indian towns in southern Puebla sets the low point of the Indian population at approximately 1650, when he estimates it to have been 27% of the value for 1570.^[6] Another study, by Claude Morin, of Santa Inés Zacatelco in the Puebla basin suggests also that the low point of population in central Mexico occurred around 1650, with perhaps 816,000 Indians.^[7] A more general study of central Mexico in the seventeenth century, by J. I. Israel, holds that "the Indian population of central Mexico, having fallen to a level of between 1 1/2 and 2 million in 1607, continued to decline at least until the middle of the century." Increase did not become manifest until 1671.^[8] So the effort to fill the gap has continued, with fair agreement that the low point of the Indian population came in the seventeenth century, although there has

[4] Cook and Borah, The Population of the Mixteca Alta, 1520–1960 (IA 50), pp. 33–38 and 71–75.

[5] Cook and Borah, Essays , I, chap. 5, esp. p. 310.

[6] Günter Vollmer, "La evolución cuantitativa de la población indígena en la región de Puebla (1570–1810)."

[7] Claude Morin, "Population et épidémies dans une paroisse mexicaine: Santa Inés Zacatelco, XVII –XIX siècles," esp. p. 70.

[8] J.I. Israel, Race, Class and Politics in Colonial Mexico, 1610–1670 , pp. 27–28. Israel cites the estimate of Landeras de Velasco, 10 January 1607, that there were 344,000 full tributaries, presumably in the Audiencia of Mexico without Yucatan. Israel must be using a multiplicative factor of close to 5.0 to estimate total Indian population, for at the factor we have established on the basis of very careful inspection of evidence (2.8), the total Indian population would be 963,200. Even with adjustment to include the Indians of Nueva Galicia, the total, using the factor of 2.8, would not reach a million. See Cook and Borah, Essays , I, p. 309, for estimates of Nueva Galicia.

been no agreement on a more exact placing of the point within that span of years nor on the value to be assigned to the Indian population at that point. Our own two studies, it will be noticed, differ on placement of the point, admittedly for two very different regions.

Clearly the resolution of this question required more data in the form of counts of Indian population in the early and middle decades of the seventeenth century. Since there had been available as yet almost no tribute counts for that period, we turned to another possible source of information in the records of the pastoral inspections of bishops, some of them published, others unpublished but available in manuscripts. Unfortunately, those for the seventeenth century did not give adequate information on numbers of Indian tributaries, total population, or some group in the population that would give a clue to total number.^[9] So this attempt met a dead end.

Ideally, we wanted a set of counts taken in a relatively short period of time and covering all of central Mexico, either like the Montemayor y Córdova de Cuenca count for the Mixteca Alta or those of the tribute reform of the 1560's. In the absence of the ideal, we could use a statement of prevailing assessments, like those in the encomenderos' petition of 1597, but would have to understand that the data referred to the time when each count was made and that an average year should be calculated to adjust for the lag in the set as a whole. In 1958–59 Woodrow Borah spent a sabbatical year in Spain for the purpose inter alia of hunting for just such material. The search turned up the Córdova de Cuenca count and a great deal of eighteenth-century data, but only a few scattered town counts for the rest of central Mexico. After that and searches in Mexico, we had decided that the hunt would have to be left to the next generation of scholars exploring as yet ill-known reaches of the Archivo General de Indias, the bodega of the Archivo General de la Nación in Mexico City, or the largely unknown private archives of Spanish noble families, few of which in 1958–59 were open to scholars. Then, literally out of the blue, an airgram dated October 24, 1971, came to Woodrow Borah from E. William Jowdy, then a graduate student at the University of Michigan and doctoral candidate under the guidance of Charles

[9] Many records of pastoral inspections are valuable sources of demographic data. See Cook and Borah, Essays , I, chap. 1, esp. pp. 47–48.

Gibson, doing archival research in Madrid. Jowdy reported finding a document in the archive of the Duques del Infantado which gave much information on royal revenues and tribute assessments in the Audiencia of Mexico in 1646. A reply by return mail indicating that the find might be very important brought a generous offer to try to secure a film copy for our use. Jowdy brought the matter to the attention of the Duque del Infantado through the good offices of the latter's sister, the Reverend Mother Cristina de la Cruz de Arteaga, whereupon the duke graciously gave full permission to film the document and use it in any way.

The document of thirty-three folios is found among the papers of the Conde de Salvatierra, viceroy of New Spain from November 1642 to May 1648, when he moved to Peru. It forms folios 148–180 in volume 54 of the archive, the entire volume being correspondence and reports of various kinds of the Conde de Salvatierra for the years 1645–46^[10] The document consists of a one-folio letter of transmittal and thirty-two folios of report, both dated at Mexico City 4 September 1646, and signed by Juan de Cervantes Casaus, Contador Mayor of the Tribunal de Cuentas.^[11] It is addressed merely to an excelentísimo señor , who could be either the viceroy or the visitador-general, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, but since the closing paragraph of the report states that it was prepared at the express command of the visitador-general, it seems probable that the report and covering letter are addressed to him. On the other hand, since the document is among the Salvatierra papers, it may be that we deal here with a second clean, signed copy prepared for the viceroy as well. The personal papers of both men have become part of the archive of the Duques del Infantado.

It is worth recalling here that the Palafox visita, a remarkably stormy one, occurred during years of unusual strain for the monarchy in Spain—continuation of the Thirty Years' War, the dissolution of the Crown Union with Portugal, and the revolts

[10] The published description is as follows: "Libro LIV. Correspondencia, informes y otros papeles referentes a América del conde de Salvatierra, 1645–6." Spain, Dirección General de Archivos y Bibliotecas, Guía de fuentes para la historia de Ibero-América conservadas en España , II, p. 90.

[11] Genealogical details may be found in Guillermo Lohmann Villena, Los americanos en las órdenes nobiliarias , I, pp. 103–105 and 173–174. Juan de Cervantes Casaus was an important Creole figure in the early and middle seventeenth century. See Israel, passim .

of Catalonia and Naples—and of perhaps the low point of decay and inefficiency in royal administration in New Spain. The royal government was in ever greater need of funds just when the treasury in the Audiencia of Mexico found that local costs absorbed almost all local revenues. New taxes, such as stamped paper, were imposed, but were just coming into yield in 1646. On royal command Palafox removed one viceroy, the Marqués de Villena, a relative of the Duke of Braganza and new King of Portugal, through fear of disloyalty, and governed the colony until the arrival of the Conde de Salvatierra. In the end, the political storms arising from attempts at church reform delayed attempts at reforming civil administration, despite the cooperation of Salvatierra and Palafox in finding funds for remittance to Spain. Salvatierra was promoted to be viceroy of Peru; Palafox was recalled to Spain shortly afterward and left Mexico in June 1649.^[12] A normal element in any general inspection would have been a review of the royal finances; in the special circumstances of the Castilian monarchy in the 1640's, one was especially necessary and incumbent upon both visitador-general and viceroy. The report of 1646 was at least part of such a review.

The closing paragraph of the report clearly states that the review was ordered by Palafox, at what date we have no clear indication. The covering letter asks pardon for delay in preparing the report, blaming the delay upon burden of work and upon the difficulty of obtaining precise figures, since collections of royal revenues in the provinces (alcaldías mayores ) were sometimes placed in charge of the governors and sometimes entrusted to others at the decision of the Comptroller of Tributes and Sales Tax. The report, therefore, must have been asked for some months or even years before the date it bears. Preparation, even in terms of the leisurely processes of that period, was delayed and made difficult by the complex subdivision of administration of royal finance, which defeated any attempt at centralized supervision and accounting. The amounts due as royal tribute, one of the principal sources of revenue, could be ascertained by consulting the assessments of the Indian towns; but, without resort to the Comptroller of Tributes and Sales Tax, there was no way of determining amounts paid and in

[12] Israel, p. 247.

arrears, the latter a considerable sum. The yield of taxes leased out could be ascertained easily, and averages estimated for some revenues of variable yield, directly administered by the Crown, such as the state monopoly of mercury and other taxes upon mining. Even so, the clerks collecting the material worked with surprising negligence, since, as we shall see, they passed over the folios of tribute assessments for a large number of Indian towns. The report is a substantial sample rather than a full statement. It is, nevertheless, a remarkable view of the royal finances in the Audiencia of Mexico for what were probably the years of most corrupt and inefficient fiscal administration during the entire colonial period. In the 1650's there was a drastic overhaul of the administration of Indian tributes and the royal monopoly of mercury after a quarter-century of virtual paralysis.

We now discuss the report under the rubrics of data on Indian population and the royal fiscal system.

2—
Indian Population

The initial determinations that must be made are how complete is the coverage of the data on Indian tributaries—i.e., how many towns are represented in the report and what is their proportion to the total number in the Audiencia of Mexico at the time; and further, what year should be set as the average date for the counts on which the assessments were based, since all of them must have been made some time before the formal tribute was set and an even longer interval before the listing in the report. Let us start with the second matter.

In terms of mid-sixteenth-century town boundaries, there are approximately 740 towns in the 1646 list. The statements of tribute for towns held by the Crown give the amounts due under the standard tribute assessment of money, maize, cacao, cotton cloth, etc.; the amount of money due as servicio real , an additional tax of four reales per tributary; and usually an additional statement on the number of tributaries found at the count on which the assessment was based. For example, the statement on Atoyac finishes "respecto de tener ciento y quarenta y tres tributarios" ["since it has 143 tributaries"]. For towns held partly by the Crown and partly by an encomendero, the statement of standard tribute usually covers only the share of the Crown, and so it is the servicio real and statement of

number of tributaries that provide the data. For towns held entirely by encomenderos, there is usually no statement of standard tribute or number of tributaries; but the servicio real, which was levied on all Indian tributaries whether in Crown or encomienda towns, is given, and since it had a standard relation to the number of tributaries, is directly convertible to the number in the prevailing assessment.

There is unfortunately no statement in the report on the date when the assessments were made. Nor is it likely that the interval between the date of the count and the report was so short that we may ignore the matter. For, in the closing years of the sixteenth century, the rhythm of recounts and reassessments began to slacken and the intervals between counts to lengthen. In the neighboring Audiencia of Nueva Galicia, a survey of tributes in 1594 reported that in that treasury jurisdiction, Crown towns were paying under assessments made an average of nine years five months earlier, and that for the six towns reassessed in 1594 the average interval to the preceding count was fourteen years one month.^[13] Nueva Galicia was a separate treasury jurisdiction, although in general it followed the lead of the Audiencia of Mexico. Accordingly, its experience is no more than an indication. We do know that in the second quarter of the seventeenth century the administration of tributes in the Audiencia of Mexico was under an unusually fraudulent and inept administration. In 1653 charges were brought against the Comptroller, and the entire administration eventually was shaken up and reorganized. One of the failures of the Contaduría General de Tributos in that period was in carrying out recounts and reassessments—some indeed were made, but few.

The most useful testimony we have for the Audiencia of Mexico is that of Montemayor y Córdova de Cuenca about the Mixteca Alta in 1661. His reporting gave the dates of previous tribute counts, and inter alia has enabled us to determine that the 1646 report embodies the latest count up to 1646 for the towns of the Mixteca Alta. The average interval between time of assessment and the reassessment by Montemayor y Córdova de Cuenca in 1661 was thirty and a half years.^[14] One cannot

[13] Woodrow Borah, "Los tributos y su recaudación en la Audiencia de la Nueva Galicia durante el siglo XVI," pp. 40–42.

[14] Cook and Borah, The Population of the Mixteca Alta , pp. 33–35.

subtract fifteen years (1661–1646) from this average and apply it without further adjustment, for in the reporting for the Mixteca Alta there are a number of towns counted and reassessed after 1646 which bring down the average. The intervals between those counts and the preceding ones would raise it. Neither can we apply the thirty and a half years without downward adjustment, for Indian towns nearer Spanish centers may well have been counted and reassessed more frequently than those in the Mixteca Alta; and the lag in recounts must have built up at some time after the period in the second half of the sixteenth century when recounts were frequent. An average lag of thirty and a half years probably represents the low point of tribute administration. The adjustment we must make is thus fifteen years plus another term of years ranging from five to ten, a total of twenty to twenty-five. The average date of the assessments in the 1646 list should be set somewhere between 1620 and 1625. If the reader demands a single year, 1622 or 1623.

The other matter to be determined here is the extent to which the 1646 list covers the Indian towns of the Audiencia of Mexico. Our basis for comparison is the assessments of the tribute reform with an average date of 1568, which give us our fullest list with least adjustment. Indian towns in the Audiencia of Nueva Galicia would automatically be excluded because they lay in another treasury jurisdiction, that of Guadalajara. Similarly, Tabasco would be excluded because it lay in the subordinate but separate government of Yucatán. Its Indian tributes were administered by the subcaja of Santa María de la Victoria, reporting to the caja of Mérida, for Yucatán was also a separate treasury jurisdiction. These automatic exclusions remove from either list some hundreds of towns of the approximately 2,000 which existed in the early sixteenth century in central Mexico as we have defined it. Another group of towns on neither list is those that went out of existence in the first half-century of Spanish rule. In all, the 2,000 towns would come down to perhaps 1,400.

Comparing the two lists is also complicated by the changes of the nearly eighty years separating them. During that long interval, shrunken towns were consolidated through congregación; settlement shifted within the territory of towns remaining formally intact; within other towns dependent units (sujetos ) be-

came autonomous, for they saw no reason to continue in a status of dependency forced upon them by former rulers when the current overlords were willing to annul it; in some regions where population almost vanished, new towns were created; and in the zone to the north which had been the territory of nomadic Indians in 1520, the Spanish founded new settlements.^[15] The identification of relationships and shifts has been a detective job of considerable difficulty. One surprise has been the uncovering of a substantial number of towns on the 1646 list which we knew existed in the first half of the sixteenth century, but thought had gone out of existence by the 1560's. In terms of number of towns, we may tabulate our findings:

Relative to the 1568 list there is, then, a coverage of approximately 50%; in terms of the number of towns in the district of the royal treasury of Mexico City, the 1646 list gives information on 54%.

Another way of approaching this determination is in terms of proportion of aggregate population involved in coverage and omission. The best approach here is to compare the aggregate population reported by the 1646 list with that calculated by ratio through comparison with the 1568 list. (We jump to our results here; the detail is in Table 1.2, part C.) For the plateau, the omission is 18.6%; for the coasts, 37.0%; for the district of the caja of Mexico City as a whole, 24.1%. In other words, the 1646 list reports 75.9% of the reconstructed total population, and in these terms is an even better sample. The difference in the findings by number of towns and aggregate population is easily explainable as due to a tendency to pass over smaller rather than larger towns in preparing the 1646 list.

The omissions from the 1646 list cast further light on the way the Contaduría de Tributos kept its records of Indian tribute counts and assessments. We know through the discovery

[15] On the shifts in town jurisdictions and relationships, see Peter Gerhard, A Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain, passim . This volume is an invaluable and now indispensable guide to a remarkably intricate local history.

and publication of a substantial part of the second colonial set of such records that they were kept in looseleaf fashion. The records of a single town, especially if important; of towns held initially by one encomendero, even if dispersed geographically; or of contiguous towns were entered on a single folio or group of folios. We do not know how these were filed in relation to each other, for the present alphabetical order of the records, manuscript and printed, reflects a recent arrangement of the scattered folios discovered. The second colonial matrícula de tributos was superseded in the 1570's, presumably by copying off the latest assessments on fresh folios to form a new set of records.^[16] The 1646 list may have been taken from the third colonial matrícula de tributos, or even a fourth one, although the slowing down of tribute reassessments suggests that the creation of a fourth set by 1646 was unlikely. The 1646 list indicates that there was a tendency to file together the folios of town assessments for a single region. The partial listing together of towns in the Zapotecas, the Veracruz coast, Colima, etc., can only have come about in this way. We may surmise that the tribute records of many towns in 1646 were filed together by alcaldía mayor, but that systematic grouping by province was to wait until the eighteenth century. The order of towns in the 1646 report, as well as the omissions in it, must arise either directly or at one remove from the perhaps hasty work of a scribe taking off the information from the folios of the Contaduría de Tributos. It was easy to miss folios, especially if the assessments for any group of towns ran to more than one folio so that it was necessary to locate the end of one set of records and the beginning of the next.

Let us turn now to our procedure in taking off and using the information in the 1646 report for calculating Indian population. Our first step was to identify the towns one by one, ascertain their geographical location and their identity or relation to towns on the 1568 list, include data for 1595 where possible, and prepare working charts by region. The regions were automatically those we had laid out for our calculations of population in the sixteenth century.^[17] The data for Indian population in 1568 and 1595 had been segregated previously

[16] Mexico, AGN, El libro de las tasaciones de pueblos de la Nueva España, passim .

[17] A full description with map may be found in Cook and Borah, The Indian Population of Central Mexico, 1531 –1610 , pp. 33–36.

and published for those regions.^[18] As we have already suggested, identification of the towns involved a long series of problems in detection. Many towns in Mexico have identical names; others have nearly identical ones, which in the more haphazard spelling of the seventeenth century become identical. Here the tendency of the 1646 report to list together contiguous towns or towns of one region helped very greatly. Changes brought by the nearly eighty years between 1568 and 1646 also created serious problems of identification, for many towns had changed their names, or moved the location of the main settlement within their territory, sometimes keeping the name and sometimes taking on the name associated with the new site; others had become consolidated; others were sujetos of towns in 1568, but had since become autonomous and dealt directly with Spanish authorities; others represented new settlement on abandoned land—a phenomenon particularly of the lower altitudes; yet others were new settlements within what had been nomadic Chichimec territory in 1520, but was being brought under control by the Spaniards. In all probability, the task of identification would have been impossible for at least a quarter to a third of the names if we had not been able to use the newly published A Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain by Peter Gerhard. This remarkable volume, organized by the alcaldías mayores of the eighteenth century, permits tracing the territorial history and changes of towns in the district of the treasury of Mexico City. It even gives the history of encomiendas and parishes. In the end, we were unable to identify and locate just three of the towns in the 1646 list.

Once towns in the 1646 report were segregated by region and listed with information, where possible, on population in 1568 and 1595 and numbers of tributaries in 1646, the second step was to convert tributaries into total population. We have explored at considerable length elsewhere the problems and evidence for arriving at appropriate multiplicative factors for various years in order to convert tributary number into total Indian population.^[19] There is accordingly no need to repeat the

[18] Ibid. , pp. 59–109.

[19] Borah and Cook, The Population of Central Mexico in 1548 , pp. 75–102; Cook and Borah, The Indian Population of Central Mexico, 1531 – 1610 , pp. 59–109; Cook and Borah, The Population of the Mixteca Alta , pp. 39–47; Cook and Borah, Essays , I, chaps. 3 and 4.

exploration here. For 1568 and 1595, our data already applied the factor of 2.8 (which implies a factor of 3.3 for a married man or casado ). That value, although low, is derived from a substantial mass of evidence and must be regarded as solidly based. It is, however, clearly inapplicable to a later period when the number of tributaries reached nadir but demographic changes within the Indian population were preparing the way for the fairly steady increase that was characteristic from some time in the first half of the seventeenth century to the end of the colonial period. Equally, the relatively high factors necessary for conversion of eighteenth-century tributary numbers to total Indian population, although they are very firmly based on a substantial mass of data—some of the best we have for Mexico at any time—cannot be applied to the years in the seventeenth century when the population was in transition from one demographic pattern to another. Accordingly we returned to our explanation and the graph in our study of the population of the Mixteca Alta and chose 3.4 as the most appropriate value for application to the data in the 1646 report, understanding that the data should be regarded as falling in the years 1620–1625.

We had hoped to verify our calculations further by a comparison of the data in the 1646 report with the tribute counts of the early eighteenth century, approximately 1715–1733, for which there survives an unusually full series of new counts for the treasury district of Mexico. The appropriate factor for converting tributaries to total Indian population for those data would be 3.8. Unfortunately for our needs in this study, the eighteenth-century tribute counts and assessments were made under a new system which handled a province at a time. Comparison on any extensive basis with earlier counts and assessments by individual towns accordingly required so much adjustment that we abandoned the attempt.

Our next steps were to rearrange the regional data on new worksheets, breaking down the regional division into further categories which we applied uniformly to the eleven regions (which are numbered from I to X, with a IIA). For each region, Table 1.1, part A for that region lists all towns or other places which occur on both the 1568 and 1646 lists. From the total of these we have calculated the ratio of the two populations 1646/1568. Table 1.1, part B for the region gives the names of places which occur in the 1646 reporting but are not on the 1568 list. The aggregate of these populations must be added to

Central Mexico, 1531 - 1610, showing the regions discussed in this book.

the regional total in order to calculate the percentage of deficiency in the 1646 reporting for the region. Table 1.1, part C for each region gives the names of places for which only the 1568 list has a value, i.e., they are missing from the 1646 list. We have not included towns or places for which we had calculated hypothetical populations for 1568 on the basis of information of earlier date. The numerical weight of places with a population value in 1568, but not in the 1646 reporting, can be estimated by dividing the total of their population by that of the entire region. The resulting value, expressed as a percentage, gives an index to the degree of deficiency found in the 1646 reporting for the region.

Since the population reported in the 1646 list is deficient in all regions, the probable true population must be calculated. An estimate may be obtained by the use of simple proportions based upon the logical assumption that the mean ratio found for each region from the paired values for places in Table 1.1, part A holds equally for each region for the towns in Table 1.1, part C for which we have no information in the 1646 reporting. Since the proportion of places for which we have information in each region is large—for some regions very large—the ratios, although not absolutely precise, are reasonably close to the true value. We then applied the ratio for each region of the population reported in the 1568 data for that region to the totals in parts A and C. The resulting value is the reconstructed Indian population of the region in 1620–1625 (our adjusted average date for the tribute assessments).

As a check upon the results secured by comparing the data in the 1568 and 1646 reporting, we have turned to the data of average date of 1595. For each region, Table 1.1, part D shows the towns for which we have data in the 1568 and 1595 reporting, together with the ratios 1595/1568. We determine the mean ratio and apply it to the total Indian population of the region in 1568, a procedure which yields an estimated population for the entire region in 1595. A similar operation is performed with those towns of each region for which we have population figures in both the 1595 and 1646 reporting. The numerical values and ratios of 1646/1595 are in Table 1.1, part E for each region. In all cases, the populations in 1595 calculated from those in 1646 are smaller than the populations calculated from the 1568 data. This difference, or deficiency, in

the values calculated from 1646 confirms the result of direct, town-by-town comparison of 1568 and 1646.

We turn now to the analysis of the data region by region. Our explanation is deliberately arranged to be as uniform as possible for each region, in accordance with the uniform organization of the data.

Region I

The Central Plateau, a culturally homogeneous area that was the core of ancient Mexico at the time of the Spanish Conquest and still has substantial unity today. On the north, the boundary is the Chichimec frontier of 1550. On the east, it is the Atlantic escarpment at approximately the contour line of 1200 meters to the meeting point of the state boundaries of Veracruz, Oaxaca, and Puebla. On the south, the boundary runs along the Balsas River, including the south bank, as far as Michoacán. From there it runs north along the Mexico-Michoacán state line and then east along the Hidalgo-Querétaro state line to the Moctezuma River.

We find 206 places, not necessarily towns, which occur on both the 1568 and 1646 lists. In 1568 the population of these 206 places is 1,321,329; in 1646 it is 303,717. The ratio 1646/1568 is 0.230. (See Table 1.1, Region I, part A.)

TABLE 1.1, REGION I, PART A Towns Found on Both 1568 and 1646 Lists Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1646 Ratio Acamixtla Gro. 1,264 213 .169 Acatlán Hid. 2,352 122 .052 Acatlán and Totoltepec Pue. 2,612 892 .341 Acayuca Hid. 2,288 92 .040 Actopan Hid. 20,295 3,090 .152 Ahuatlán Pue. 112 44 .393 Ajuchitlán Gro. 3,780 578 .153 Alahuixtlán Gro. 825 342 .414 Atempan Pue. 1,129 508 .450 Amatepec and Sultepec and Almoloya Mex. 3,440 889 .258 Amecameca Mex. 4,976 1,182 .238 Apaxco Mex. 3,814 286 .075

Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1646 Ratio Atenango Gro. 1,823 877 .481 Atengo Hid. 1,860 158 .085 Atitalaquia Hid. 4,673 275 .059 Atlacomulco and Xocotitlán and Temascalingo Mex. 13,959 3,325 .238 Atlapulco Mex. 3,478 472 .136 Atlatlauca and Xochiac Mex. 1,125 298 .265 Atotonilco Hid. 4,735 241 .051 Atotonilco Hid. 12,672 358 .028 Atzcapotzalco D.F. 5,082 1,482 .291 Axacuba Hid. 13,398 315 .024 Axapuxco and Zaguala Mex. 3,699 241 .065 Ayotzingo Mex. 1,278 22 .017 Calimaya Mex. 5,379 1,391 .259 Calpan Pue. 13,761 2,795 .203 Calpulalpan Tlax. 3,666 177 .048 Capulhuac Mex. 1,653 742 .448 Coatepec Mex. 1,419 1,275 .899 Coatepec Mex. 3,947 206 .052 Coatlán and Aquitlapan Gro. 1,177 439 .373 Coatzingo Pue. 139 46 .331 Coxcatlán Pue. 1,472 554 .376 Coyoacán D.F. 13,629 5,457 .400 Coyotepec Mex. 1,591 141 .089 Cuatinchán Pue. 5,874 3,009 .513 Cuautitlán and Xalascan Mex. 9,587 3,531 .369 (Cuautla) Amilpas and Ahuehuepan and Tetelcingo Mor. 4,184 914 .218 Cuernavaca Mor. 39,336 6,967 .177 Culhuacán Mex. 2,864 404 .141 Cutzamala Gro. 2,805 503 .179 Chapa de Mota Mex. 8,118 456 .056 Chapantongo Hid. 5,808 145 .025 Chapulco Pue. 565 308 .546 Chapulhuacán Hid. 2,618 517 .198

Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1646 Ratio Chiautla Pue. 9,488 1,413 .149 Chiconautla Mex. 1,688 214 .127 Chicoloapan Mex. 789 116 .147 Chichicastla Hid. 3,366 150 .045 Chietla and Atzala Pue. 2,567 1,080 .421 Chila Pue. 1,564 278 .178 Chila Pue. 1,690 498 .295 Chilcuautla Hid. 3,409 107 .031 Chimalhuacán Mex. 2,541 262 .103 Chimalhuacán Mex. 5,854 2,081 .362 Chinantla Pue. 2,690 272 .101 Cholula and sujetos Pue. 35,772 9,768 .273 Ecatepec and Coacalco and Coacalco, No. 2 Mex. 7,333 573 .079 Eloxochitlán Pue. 825 353 .428 Epatlán Pue. 1,907 668 .350 Epazoyuca Hid. 5,481 173 .032 Huauchinango Pue. 11,312 2,775 .245 Huaquechula Pue. 10,329 2,922 .283 Huatlauca Pue. 1,766 986 .558 Huayacocotla and Zontecomatlán and Tlachichilco Ver. 6,237 2,446 .392 Huazalingo Hid. 2,254 646 .287 Huejotzingo Pue. 26,285 5,651 .215 Huexotla Mex. 8,250 515 .062 Hueyapan Mor. 1,851 65 .035 Hueypoxtla Mex. 8,036 619 .077 Huitzitzilapan Mex. 1,594 286 .179 Huitzuco Gro. 4,406 170 .039 Ilamatlán and Tehuitzila Ver. 5,300 1,225 .231 Istapaluca Mex. 1,805 388 .215 Ixcuinquitlapilco Hid. 20,988 624 .030 Ixmiquilpan Hid. 6,056 2,360 .390 Ixtacamaxtitlán and Tustepec Pue. 3,214 2,585 .805

Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1646 Ratio Ixtapalapa D.F. 1,972 257 .130 Ixtapan de la Sal Mex. 1,693 289 .171 Ixtlahuaca Mex. 4,079 1,549 .380 Ixtepec Pue. 564 172 .305 Izucar and Cuylucan and Tlatectla Pue. 5,247 1,957 .372 Jalacingo Ver. 3,020 1,153 .382 Jalatlaco and Tianguistengo Mex. 4,498 2,195 .448 Jicotepec Pue. 4,950 999 .202 Jilotepec de Abasolo Mex. 19,471 4,950 .254 Jilotzingo Mex. 566 265 .468 Jipiquilco Mex. 9,389 1,131 .120 Jonacatlán Pue. 3,241 1,036 .320 Jonotla Pue. 2,624 519 .198 Jumiltepec Mor. 3,062 317 .104 Malinalco Mex. 7,046 2,251 .320 Mexicalcingo D.F. 621 257 .414 México, San Juan D.F. 52,000 16,369 .315 Michimaloya Mex. 4,402 75 .017 Mizquiahuala Hid. 3,851 345 .090 Molango and Malila Hid. 11,705 639 .055 Necoxtla Pue. 320 243 .759 Nextlalpan Mex. 2,541 61 .024 Nopaluca Pue. 789 617 .782 Noxtepec Gro. 2,694 177 .066 Oaxtepec Mor. 17,870 333 .019 Ocuituco Mor. 4,458 427 .096 Ostuma Gro. 849 359 .423 Otumba Mex. 16,368 449 .027 Papaloticpac Pue. 1,247 173 .139 Piaxtla Pue. 1,848 549 .297 Puebla, Barrios Pue. 2,168 761 .351 Pungarabato Gro. 2,960 150 .051 Quicholac Pue. 14,603 3,260 .223 Quetzala and Tlacotepec and Xochic uautla Mex. 3,838 1,524 .397

Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1646 Ratio San Salvador Pue. 3,383 122 .036 Soyanaquilpan Mex. 1,752 44 .025 Suchitlán Pue. 845 389 .460 Sultepec Tlax. 2,343 83 .035 Tacuba D.F. 13,266 2,670 .201 Talasco Mex. 1,521 510 .355 Tasco, total partido Gro. 7,306 1,454 .199 Tecali Pue. 14,735 7,860 .534 Tecama Mex. 1,782 37 .021 Tehuacán Pue. 7,788 4,828 .620 Tejupilco Mex. 1,782 850 .477 Teloloapan Gro. 2,303 428 .186 Temascaltepec Mex. 1,211 1,112 .918 Temoac Mor. 2,260 221 .098 Tenancingo Mex. 3,310 437 .132 Tenango and Ayapango and Guazacongo Mex. 8,154 3,054 .375 Tenayuca D.F. 2,671 476 .178 Teoloyucan Mex. 2,967 876 .295 Teopantlán Pue. 1,482 503 .339 Teotenango Mex. 3,154 410 .130 Teotihuacán Mex. 4,689 510 .109 Teotlalpa Hid. 5,854 2,283 .380 Tepapayeca Pue. 4,356 1,352 .310 Tepeaca Pue. 21,879 8,220 .376 Tepeapulco Hid. 17,408 359 .021 Tepeji de la Seda Pue. 7,409 4,185 .552 Tepetitlán Hid. 2,162 167 .077 Tepezoyuca Mex. 1,013 236 .233 Tepotzotlán Mex. 8,900 1,080 .121 Tequisistlán Mex. 1,244 537 .432 Tetela de Ocampo Pue. 1,396 575 .412 Tetela del Volcán Mor. 4,726 495 .105 Tetepango Hid. 1,386 112 .081 Tetipac Gro. 1,320 248 .188 Texaluca Pue. 141 48 .340

Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1646 Ratio Texcaltitlán and Ixtapa Mex. 1,408 719 .511 Texcoco and Tezoyuca and Chiautla and Coatlinchán Mex. 25,212 4,825 .191 Teyuca Pue. 2,538 194 .077 Tezontepec Hid. 1,607 214 .133 Tezontepec Hid. 2,267 63 .028 Teziutlán Pue. 3,442 1,182 .343 Tianguistengo Hid. 1,690 437 .259 Tilapa Pue. 1,225 291 .238 Tizayuca Hid. 3,433 177 .052 Tlacotepec Mex. 1,441 297 .206 Tlacotepec Mor. 1,409 138 .098 Tlahuac (Cuevas) D.F. 3,887 578 .149 Tlahuelilpa Hid. 2,501 372 .149 Tlamaco Hid. 2,244 85 .038 Tlamanalco and Chalco Atengo Mex. 19,067 2,275 .120 Tlanalapan Hid. 2,115 126 .060 Tlaquilpan and Guaquilpa Hid. 2,402 134 .056 Tlaquiltenango Mor. 13,959 1,530 .110 Tlatelolco D.F. 14,982 4,255 .283 Tlatlauquitepec Pue. 4,231 1,542 .364 Tlatzintla Hid. 3,332 253 .076 Tlaxcala, province Tlax. 165,000 54,400 .330 Tlayacac Mor. 726 85 .117 Tlayacapan Mor. 4,241 2,263 .534 Tochimilco Pue. 4,521 1,161 .257 Tolcayuca Hid. 2,970 109 .037 Toluca and Atengo Mex. 16,550 6,398 .386 Tonatico Mex. 763 282 .370 Tornacustla Hid. 2,330 37 .016 Totimehuacán Pue. 2,822 1,257 .445 Totolapan and Atlatlauca Mor. 10,659 2,853 .268 Tula and estancias Hid. 14,593 943 .065 Tultitlán Mex. 4,686 1,710 .365

Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1646 Ratio Tututepec Hid. 10,643 4,165 .392 Tuzantla Gro. 1,340 299 .223 Xalostoc Mor. 536 32 .060 Xipacoya (Jaso) Hid. 6,155 379 .062 Xochimilco and Milpa Alta D.F. 31,008 8,257 .266 Yahualica Hid. 2,228 992 .445 Yautepec Mor. 13,352 1,632 .122 Yecapistla Mor. 14,240 624 .044 Yetecomac Hid. 1,047 117 .112 Zacango Gro. 190 168 .885 Zacatlán Pue. 8,465 2,980 .352 Zacualpan and Malinaltenango Mex. 1,974 343 .174 Zacualpan Mor. 706 226 .320 Zapotitlán Pue. 6,056 1,530 .253 Zapotlán Hid. 1,106 20 .018 Zempoala Hid. 3,571 109 .305 Zicapuzalco Gro. 564 124 .220 Zinacántepec Mex. 6,056 2,775 .459 Zinguilucan Hid. 2,402 105 .044 Zitlaltepec Mex. 1,934 143 .074 Zoquitlán Pue. 798 529 .664 Zoyatitlanapa Pue. 548 343 .626 Zumpahuacán and Joquitzingo Mex. 3,392 1,296 .382 Zumpango Gro. 1,475 862 .584 Zumpango Mex. 6,369 1,006 .158 Las Tlalnaguas Jantetelco, Amayuca, Jonacatepec, Tetela, Amacuitlapilco, Axochapan, Chalcacingo, Atotonilco, Atlicahualoya, Amayuca, Jonacatepec, Jantetelco, Tepancingo, Tetela, Tlalistac Mor. 13,706 1,843 .134 Total 1,321,329 303,717 0.230 Number of cases 206

Part B of the table for Region I shows 21 places found on the 1646 list which had to be omitted from part A because the name did not appear on the 1568 list, because the place was part of another town for which no population was given, or for various other reasons. The total population of these 21 places is 9,662, making the total for the 1646 list 313,379. Of this, the population deleted (9,662) is only 3.1%, an insignificant amount. We conclude, therefore, that the 1646 reporting for Region I, within plus or minus 3%, can be found in the 1568 list, and that the population ratio of 0.230 for these places is valid.

Table 1.1, Region I, part C gives the names of 125 places which occur in the 1568 list but are not found in the 1646 reporting. Some of these are of considerable size and cannot possibly have been depopulated or lost in congregation between the two dates; for example, Metztitlán and Tulancingo in Hidalgo; Acolmán, Amecameca, and Oxtotipac in the state of Mexico; Tacubaya and Churubusco in the Distrito Federal; and Tecamachalco in Puebla. The only explanation is that the 1646 reporting is incomplete and that a relatively large number of towns has been omitted. The total population in 1568 of the 125 places which are missing from the 1646 reporting is 396,306. The aggregate for 1568 would be 1,321,329 plus 396,306, or 1,717,635, of which the towns missing in the 1646 report would account for about 23%.

We may calculate the probable true population of Region I in 1620–1625 (our estimated average date) simply by using proportions and assuming that the ratio between the two sets of data was the same for all towns alike (in totals). This would mean that 1,717,635 × 0.230 = 395,056. The latter figure should be taken as the population of Region I in 1620–1625.

The data in the 1595 list may serve to verify our calculations for the other two dates and, in turn, may be verified by them. Table 1.1, part D shows the population of 119 places in 1568 and 1595. The total of the former is 668,867 and of the latter 332,256. The ratio 1595/1568 is 0.497. By proportion, the entire population of Region I in 1595 would be 1,709,793 × 0.497 = 849,767. Table 1.1, Region I, part E shows similar data for 1595 and 1646, with 81 places. Here the totals are respectively 231,140 and 93,572, and the ratio 1646/1595 is 0.405. The entire population of Region I in 1595, calculated from the total in the 1646 reporting (313,379 as above), would be 773,775. The two results differ by 10% but, allowing for omissions in the 1646 list, are remarkably close.

TABLE 1.1, REGION I, PART D Towns Found in Both 1568 and 1595 Lists Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1595 Ratio Acamixtlahuaca Gro. 1,264 766 .607 Acaxuchitlán Mex. 1,974 1,007 .511 Acaxuchitlán Hid. 2,540 1,493 .588 Acolman Mex. 10,085 3,345 .332 Actopan Hid. 20,295 10,770 .531 Acuitlapan Gro. 613 847 1.317 Apaxco Mex. 3,814 934 .245 Atlapulaco Mex. 3,478 1,242 .357 Atotonilco Hid. 12,672 5,445 .430 Atotonilco and Zacamul Hid. 4,735 968 .205 Axacuba Hid. 13,398 2,110 .157 Calimaya Mex. 5,379 2,724 .507 Capulhuac Mex. 1,653 2,406 1.455 Coyoacán D.F. 13,639 9,420 .705

Name Loc. Population n 1568 Population in 1595 Ratio Cuatinchán Pue. 5,874 4,115 .701 Cuernavaca Mor. 39,336 21,780 .553 Cuevas Mex. 3,887 2,574 .662 Culhuacán Mex. 2,864 1,750 .611 Cutzamala Gro. 2,805 1,131 .403 Chapa de Mota Mex. 8,118 2,751 .339 Chapulco Pue. 565 983 1.685 Chapulhuacán Hid. 2,618 1,375 .525 Chichicaxtla Hid. 3,366 2,080 .618 Chila Pue. 1,690 815 .482 Chimalhuacán Mex. 2,541 1,188 .467 Churubusco D.F. 1,320 697 .528 Ecatepec Mex. 7,333 1,270 .173 Eloxochitlán Pue. 825 728 .882 Epazoyuca Hid. 5,481 1,945 .355 Huaculco Mor. 406 260 .640 Huauchinango Pue. 11,312 7,450 .658 Huaquechula Pue. 10,329 5,625 .545 Huazalingo Hid. 2,254 1,252 .555 Huehuetlán Pue. 2,254 1,368 .602 Hueypoxtla Mex. 8,036 2,225 .277 Huizuco Gro. 4,406 1,563 .355 Ilamatlán Ver. 5,300 5,820 1.098 Ixitlán Pue. 1,056 262 .248 Ixtacamaxtitlán Pue. 3,214 2,665 .829 Ixtapaluca Mex. 1,805 708 .392 Jantetelco Mor. 2,680 833 .311 Jicotepec Pue. 4,950 3,470 .701 Jojupango Pue. 2,475 2,050 .828 Jonacatepec Mor. 55,640 1,425 .252 Jonacatlán Pue. 3,241 1,185 .366 Jumiltepec Mor. 3,062 812 .265 Malinalco Mex. 7,046 6,660 .945 Metepec Mex. 6,640 3,765 .567 Metztitlán Hid. 24,638 20,450 .830

Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1595 Ratio Mexicalcingo Pue. 4,349 2,717 .624 Michimaloya Mex. 4,402 702 .159 Mimiapan Mex. 243 383 1.575 Mixquic Mex. 2,363 1,744 .738 Mixtepec Pue. 2,934 1,073 .365 Mizquiahuala Hid. 3,851 2,468 .641 Nextlalpan Mex. 2,541 705 .277 Oaxtepec Mor. 17,870 5,700 .319 Ocuilan Mex. 5,214 1,668 .320 Oxtotipac Mex. 10,907 2,975 .273 Pahuatlán Pue. 6,346 2,288 .360 Papaloticpac Pue. 1,247 1,433 1.149 Petlalcingo Pue. 422 319 .756 Piaxtla Pue. 1,848 1,664 .902 Quecholac Pue. 14,603 4,950 .339 Sultepec Tlax. 2,343 1,170 .495 Tacuba D.F. 13,266 5,460 .411 Tacubaya D.F. 2,016 1,805 .896 Tecalco Pue. 14,735 11,400 .775 Tecamachalco Pue. 17,688 14,400 .815 Temoac Mor. 2,260 1,207 .535 Tenancingo Mex. 3,310 866 .262 Teotenango Mex. 3,154 2,220 .704 Teotihuacán Mex. 4,689 2,896 .617 Tepapayeca Pue. 4,356 2,763 .635 Tepecuacuilco Gro. 6,468 2,650 .410 Tepeojuma Pue. 2,538 1,311 .517 Tepetitlán Hid. 2,162 919 .425 Tepetlaoxtoc Mex. 9,867 4,525 .458 Tepexi del Río Hid. 11,237 3,740 .333 Tepexpan Mex. 1,548 1,353 .875 Tepoztlán Mor. 7,498 4,890 .653 Tequisistlán Mex. 1,244 1,555 1.250 Tetipac Gro. 1,320 804 .610 Texcatepec Hid. 8,663 808 .093 Tezontepec Hid. 1,607 550 .342

Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1595 Ratio Tianguistengo Hid. 1,690 1,486 .880 Tlacotepec Mor. 1,409 302 .214 Tlacotepec Mex. 1,441 1,148 .797 Tlacuilotepec Pue. 2,696 1,846 .685 Tlachichilpa Mex. 4,165 2,703 .649 Tlalnepantla Mex. 9,587 3,275 .342 Tlatelolco D.F. 14,982 513 .034 Tlanalapa Mex. 2,115 592 .280 Tlapanaloya Mex. 610 770 1.262 Tlaquilpan Hid. 2,402 1,359 .565 Tlaxmalac Gro. 3,346 1,420 .424 Tlayac Mor. 726 364 .502 Tolcayuca Hid. 2,970 558 .188 Toluca Mex. 16,550 6,220 .376 Tornacustla Hid. 2,330 414 .178 Totimehuacán Pue. 2,822 1,455 .515 Tulancingo Hid. 15,510 6,535 .421 Tultitlán Mex. 4,686 3,456 .738 Tututepec Hid. 10,643 6,110 .574 Xalatlaco Mex. 4,498 2,740 .609 Xalostoc Mor. 536 344 .642 Xilozingo Mex. 566 420 .742 Xilotzingo Mex. 1,550 1,013 .654 Xiquipilco Mex. 9,389 3,640 .388 Yautepec Mor. 13,352 6,585 .493 Yecapixtla Mor. 14,240 4,560 .320 Zacatlán Pue. 8,465 5,945 .703 Zacualpan Mex. 1,974 900 .456 Zacualpan Mor. 706 305 .432 Zapotitlán Pue. 6,056 4,945 .817 Zicapuzalco Gro. 564 649 1.151 Zinacantepec Mex. 6,056 3,360 .555 Zoquitlán Pue. 798 880 1.103 Zumpahuacán Mex. 3,392 1,856 .547 Total 668,867 332,256 0.497 Number of cases 119

Towns Found in Both 1595 and 1646 Lists Name Loc. Population in 1595 Population in 1646 Ratio Acatlán Hid. 707 122 .173 Actopan Hid. 10,770 3,090 .287 Apaxco Mex. 934 286 .306 Atengo Hid. 766 158 .205 Atlapulco Mex. 1,242 472 .380 Atotonilco Hid. 968 241 .249 Atotonilco Hid. 5,445 358 .066 Axacuba Hid. 2,110 315 .149 Calimaya Mex. 2,724 1,391 .511 Capulhuac Mex. 2,406 742 .308 Coyoacán D.F. 9,420 5,457 .579 Cuatinchán Pue. 4,115 3,009 .732 Cuernavaca Mor. 21,780 6,967 .320 Culhuacán Mex. 1,750 404 .231 Cutzamala Gro. 1,131 503 .444 Chapa de Mota Mex. 2,751 456 .166 Chapulco Pue. 983 308 .314 Chapulhuacán Hid. 1,375 517 .376 Chichicastla Hid. 2,080 150 .072 Chila Pue. 815 498 .612 Chimalhuacán Mex. 1,188 262 .221 Ecatepec Mex. 1,270 573 .451 Eloxochitlán Pue. 728 353 .485 Epazoyuca Hid. 1,945 173 .089 Huaquechula Pue. 5,625 2,922 .520 Huauchinango Pue. 7,450 2,775 .373 Huazalingo Hid. 1,252 646 .518 Hueypoxtla Mex. 2,225 619 .278 Huitzuco Gro. 1,563 170 .109 Ilamatlán Ver. 5,820 1,225 .210 Ixtacamaxtitlán Pue. 2,665 2,585 .971 Ixtapaluca Mex. 708 388 .548 Jalatlaco Mex. 2,740 2,195 .801 Jicotepec Pue. 3,470 999 .288 Jilocingo Mex. 420 265 .631

Name Loc. Population in 1595 Population in 1646 Ratio Jilotzingo Mex. 1,013 506 .500 Jiquipilco Mex. 3,640 1,131 .307 Jonacatlán Pue. 1,185 1,036 .875 Malinalco Mex. 6,660 2,251 .338 Michimaloya Mex. 702 75 .117 Mizquiahuala Hid. 2,468 345 .140 Nextlalpan Mex. 705 61 .086 Oaxtepec Mor. 5,700 333 .058 Papaloticpac Pue. 1,433 173 .121 Piaxtla Pue. 1,664 549 .330 Quecholac Pue. 4,950 3,260 .659 Tacuba D.F. 5,460 2,670 .489 Tecali Pue. 11,400 7,860 .689 Temoac Mor. 1,207 221 .183 Tenancingo Mex. 866 437 .505 Teotenango Mex. 2,220 410 .185 Teotihuacán Mex. 2,896 510 .176 Tepapayeca Pue. 2,763 1,352 .489 Tepetitlán Hid. 919 167 .182 Tequisistlán Mex. 1,555 537 .345 Tetipac Gro. 804 248 .309 Teyuca Pue. 1,311 194 .148 Tezontepec Hid. 550 214 .389 Tianguistengo Hid. 1,486 437 .294 Tlacotepec Mex. 1,148 297 .259 Tlacotepec Mor. 302 138 .457 Tlahuac (Cuevas) D.F. 2,574 578 .225 Tlanalapan Hid. 592 126 .213 Tlaquilpan Hid. 1,359 134 .099 Tlayacac Mor. 364 85 .234 Tolcayuca Hid. 588 109 .185 Toluca Mex. 6,220 6,398 1.025 Tornacustla Hid. 414 37 .089 Totimehuacán Pue. 1,455 1,257 .864 Tultitlán Mex. 3,456 1,710 .495 Tututepec Hid. 6,110 4,165 .682

Name Loc. Population in 1595 Population in 1646 Ratio Xalostoc Mor. 344 32 .093 Yautepec Mor. 6,585 1,632 .248 Yecapistla Mor. 4,560 624 .137 Zacatlán Pue. 5,945 2,980 .502 Zacualpan Mor. 305 226 .742 Zacualpan and Malinalco Mex. 900 343 .381 Zapotitlán Pue. 4,925 1,530 .310 Zinacantepec Mex. 3,360 2,775 .826 Zoquitlán Pue. 880 529 .601 Zumpahuacán and Zoqui Mex. 1,856 1,296 .699 Total 231,140 93,572 0.405 Number of cases 81

Region II

Valles–Pánuco. This is the coastal plain and foothills of the Huaxteca from southern Tamaulipas to northern Veracruz as far south as latitude 20°N. There are 28 places which occur in both the 1568 list and the 1646 list. In 1568 the population of these 28 places is 35,316; in 1646 it is 8,559. The ratio 1646/1568 is 0.242. The data are given in detail in Table 1.1, Region II, part A. Part B shows 9 places found in the 1646 report which had to be omitted from part A. The total population of these 9 places is 353, making the total for the 1646 list 8,912. Part C shows 122 places which occur in the 1568 list but which are not found in that for 1646. The total 1568 population of these 122 places is 37,818. The aggregate for 1568 would be 35,316 plus 37,818, or 73,134, of which the towns missing in the 1646 list would account for 52.2%.

We may calculate the probable true population of Region II by using proportions and assuming that the ratio between the two sets of data was the same for all towns alike (in totals). This would mean that 73,134 × 0.242 = 17,698. The difference between this value and that of the 1646 list (8,912) is very great and may invalidate the assumption. It may be necessary to assume additionally that many of the places on the 1568 list disappeared before 1646.

Table 1.1, Region II, part D shows the population of 22 places in 1568 and 1595. The total of the former is 26,991 and of the latter 23,752. The ratio 1595/1568 is 0.880. By proportion, the entire population of Region II in 1595 would be 73,134 × 0.880 = 64,358. Part E shows similar data for 1595 and 1646, with only 5 places. Here the totals are respectively 14,087 and 5,039, and the ratio 1646/1595 is 0.358. The entire population of Region II in 1595, calculated from the total in the 1646 data (8,912 ÷ 0.358), would be 24,894. The two results are discrepant, a fact probably referable to the disappearance of many small towns in the region.

TABLE 1.1, REGION II, PART A Towns Found in Both 1568 and 1646 Lists Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1646 Ratio Alcececa Ver. 554 83 .150 Atlán Ver. 350 94 .268 Chaltitlán, Picula, Chalchicuautla Ver. 2,015 428 .212 Chicontepec Ver. 1,693 1,336 .790 Chichilintla Ver. 3,416 950 .278 Huejutla Hid. 2,881 330 .115 Mecatlán Ver. 608 105 .173 Metatepec and Tantoyuca Ver. 3,290 223 .068 Metateyuca Ver. 125 23 .184 Nexpa, Huehuetlán, Tauzán Ver. 1,181 209 .177 Ozuluama and Moyutla Ver. 282 197 .699 Tamahol S.L.P. 47 0 .000 Tamohí S.L.P. 644 221 .343 Tamalol and Suacacasco S.L.P. 336 146 .434 Tamoxol S.L.P. 36 107 2.972 Tamiutla and Las Laxas Ver. 91 114 1.253 Tampamolón S.L.P. 822 289 .351 Tanbaca Ver. 161 119 .739 Tancuayalab S.L.P. 403 71 .177 Tanchinamol Ver. 99 121 1.222 Tancuiche Ver. 825 138 .167 Tancuiname Ver. 58 71 1.223

Name Loc. Population in 1568 Population in 1646 Ratio Tenampulco Pue. 495 248 .501 Tezapotitlán Ver. 213 44 .207 Tlacolula (de Busto) S.L.P. 55 68 1.236 Tlaculula and Magueyes Ver. 601 171 .285 Tlanchinol and Acuimantla Hid. 12,474 2,308 .185 Tonatico, Zozocolco Ver. 1,561 345 .221 Total 35,316 8,559 0.242 Number of cases 28