Ouweneel 1991 - HAHR - Growth, Stagnation, And Migration - Tributario Series of Anahuac

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Hispanic American HistoricalReview.

http://www.jstor.org

Growth, Stagnation, and Migration: An Explorative Analysis of the Tributario Series of Anahuac(1720-1800) Author(s): Arij Ouweneel Source: The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Aug., 1991), pp. 531-577Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2515882Accessed: 13-05-2015 13:57 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 13:57:48 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.orghttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2515882http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Hispanic American Historical Revietw 71:3 Copyright ? iggi by Duke University Press ccc ooi8-2i68/9s/$1.5o

Growth, Stagnation, and Migration: An Explorative Analysis of the Tributario Series of Anahuac (1720-1800)

ARIJ OUWENEEL

H oow to analyze the demographic patterns in eighteenth-century rural Central Mexico is a question that has occupied me during my research into its

agrarian history. Most social and economic historians of the region would acknowledge that their work is still considerably hampered by the lack of demographic data. One almost never finds a direct answer to the questions of how many persons lived in a certain town or village, province, or dis- trict; the published parochial and census data must be considered nothing more than rough estimates. Even more challenging is the reconstruction of the precise rhythm and subregional differentiation of demographic developments during the eighteenth century. In the long run parish data may supply the missing links; in the short term the office of the tribute collectors seems to be the best place to begin building a framework for future local or parish studies. For this reason I have chosen to fill out the printed record of census data with new tributario figures.

Although the calculations based on tribute materials do not capture demographic patterns in non-Indian groups, they are in line with estimates from other demographic studies and confirm the general impres- sion of growth, with possible extreme periodic and regional variations. Rapid growth in some central valleys and a few downslope areas seemed to coincide with stagnation around the city of Puebla. Where previous research has emphasized epidemics as the motive force behind these

I would like to thank Pete Mason for his linguistic assistance, Catrien Bijleveld for valuable statistical assistance, Julia van der Valk for copying the tributary data of 1790 and 1795, and D. A. Brading, B. H. Slicher van Bath, and William B. Taylor for helpful criticisms on the several drafts of this study. I also pay tribute here to the collegial criticisms of three anonymous reviewers.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

532 2 HAHR I AUGUST I ARIJ OUWENEEL

eighteenth-century developments, I hypothesize that migration is another factor influencing provincial and subregional fluctuations in the number of tributaries, and that urbanization and rural industrialization may have contributed to the loss of Indian tributaries in the villages. These possibilities remain hypothetical until the potential variant of differential natural increase can be removed on the basis of new parochial data.' The heuristic value of these hypotheses may be that, in light of regional differences, the future study of demographic material from some specific parishes will be more valid.2

The term "Central Mexico" generally refers to a region stretching from coast to coast-from Veracruz to Acapulco and from Tampico to Maza- tlan-and might in the context of this article cause misunderstanding. To avoid possible confusion I use the designation Anahuac, as referring to a region formed by the three valleys of the central highlands, 2000-2600 meters above sea level (see Map i). The valleys of Toluca in the west, Mexico in the center, and Puebla in the east were enclosed by rugged and impenetrable mountains, creating a degree of isolation with respect to the other regions in the viceroyalty of New Spain. The mountain area is generally referred to as faldas (slopes), and although considerably fewer people lived there than in the highlands, thefaldas were economically and socially integrated in the life of the highlands. The highlands contained the two large cities, Mexico City and Puebla de los Angeles, as well as a few smaller provincial towns like Toluca, Tepeaca, Tlaxcala, and Texcoco; the level of urbanization was remarkably high. The region consisted, according to my classification, of fifty-one provinces, most of them alcaldias mayores, most of which became subdelegaciones after the administrative reform of 1786-87. It was a densely populated area accommodating some 6o percent of the population of New Spain.3

i. On this topic, see the essays in Migration in Colonial Spanish America, ed. David J. Robinson (New York, 1990), discussing migration in Parral and northern Mexico, in Guada- lajara and western Mexico, in colonial Guatemala and Costa Rica, and in Lima, Cuzco, and other regions of colonial Peru and Upper Peru. None deal with Andhuac, the most heavily populated region of colonial Mexico. For northern Mexico, see also Michael Swann, Migrants in the Mexican North: Mobility, Economy and Society in a Colonial World (Botil- der, 1989).

2. The best methodology has been demonstrated by David J. Robinson and Carolyn G. McGovern, "La migraci6n regional yucateca en la 6poca colonial El caso de San Francisco de Umdn," in Historia Mexicana (hereafter HMex), 30:1 (Jul.-Sep. 1980), 99-125.

3. On this classification, see Arij Ouweneel, Onderbroken groei in Amahuac. De achter- grond van ontwikkeling en armoede op het platteland van Centraal-Mexico (1730-1810) (Amsterdam, 1988), passing. Included in the subregion of the valley of Mexico are 12 provinces: Xochimilco, Mexicalzingo, Chalco-Tlayacapa, Coatepec, Texcoco, Teotihuacdn, Cuautitldn, Ecatepec, Tacuba, Apan, Otumba, and Coyoacain. The valley of Toluca consists of 4 "provinces": Malinalco, Toluca-Lerma, Xilotepec, and Metepec-Ixtlahuaca-Tenango del Valle; the latter was administrated by several alcaldes mayores or subdelegados, but the


_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t Y

0 0~ v In A4

c


534 | HAHR I AUGUST I ARIJ OUWENEEL

Growth or Stagnation?

Population data in colonial Mexico are in general of three kinds: (I) census data of several parishes or provinces; (2) data based on parochial registration; and (3) tax rolls used by collectors of Indian tribute. Most of them are incomplete. There were always people who escaped registration and officials who reclassified people, who made different classifications per province, who copied previous counts or simply counted wrong. And, of course, one struggles with the thorny problem of the "coefficient": most researchers, for example, always put the number of tributaries tribute payers at between four and five members per family head, without in- vestigating the changes in family size through time. Conversion factors are variable, not constant.4 Although all this is bound to arouse suspicions about the overall rhythm of any curve derived from population data, as well as about the competence of cross-checking methods at the provincial level, it should not prevent us from trying. My purpose is to verify the general conviction of population growth in the region of Anahuac, on the basis of published materials. Few data exist at present for the region in general. More is known of Oaxaca, the Mixteca Alta, Yucatan, Michoacan, or Guadalajara. Even the calculations of Sherburne Cook and Woodrow Borah cannot provide a detailed view of demographic development in the central highlands.5

A country's exact population can only be determined by means of a census, but no population list will be totally accurate. (Even contemporary censuses of modern industrialized nations err. Noble David Cook reminds

population figures should be taken together. The valley of Puebla is made up of 9 provinces: Huejotzingo, Cholula, Puebla-Amozoc, Tecali, Atlixco, Tochimilco, Tepeaca, San Juan de los Llanos, and Tlaxcala. I combined 12 provinces into a subregion named by me the North- ern Faldas: Tula, Tetepango (including Atitalaquia, Mixquiahuala, and Huichapan), Actopan, Ixmiquilpan, Metztitldn, Tulancingo, Zempoala, Zacatldn, Tetela de Xonotla, Xochicoatldn- Yahualica, Huayacocotla, and Pachuca. The Eastern Faldas consist of 3 provinces: Ori- zaba (without Zongolica), C6rdoba, and Xalapa; and the Southern Faldas of ii provinces: Zimapdn, Temascaltepec-Sultepec, Cuautla Amilpas, Taxco, Chilapa, Tlapa, Iz6car, Tepeji- Cuatlatlahuaca, Acatldn, Tehuacdn, and Cuernavaca. On the combination of various provinces, the description and historical survey by Peter Gerhard, A Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain (Cambridge, 1972).

4. B. H. Slicher van Bath, "The Calculation of the Population of New Spain, Especially for the Period before 1570," Boletin de Estudios Latinoamtericanos y del Caribe, 24 (June 1978), 67-95.

5. Among others: S. F. Cook and W. W. Borah, Essays in Population History: Mexico and the Caribbean, 2 vols. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1971-1974); David Brading, Hacien- das and Ranchos in the Mexican Bajio. Le6n 1700-i86o (New York, 1978); Claude Morin, Michoacdn en la Nueva Espaiia del siglo XVIII. Crecirniento y desigualdad en una economtia colonial (Mexico City, 1979); William B. Taylor, Landlord and Peasant in Colonial Oaxaca (Stanford, 1972); John K. Chance, Race and Class in Colonial Oaxaca (Stanford, 1978); Eric Van Young, Hacienda and Market in Eighteenth-Century Mexico. The Rural Economy of the Guadalajara Region, 1675-1820 (Berkeley, 1981).


GROWTH, STAGNATION, AND MIGRATION IN ANAHUAC, 1720-1800 535

us of the weakness of the U. S. census of 1980, which suffers from under- enumeration in major cities.) Three colonywide censuses were made in eighteenth-century New Spain: the so-called Fuenclara census of 1742- 46, the Aranda census of 1776, and the Revillagigedo census of 1790-94. Besides these censuses researchers have at their disposal the very detailed Matricula de tributaries of 1805, with date of count and a partial break- down by age and marital status. For each area the Matricula shows the count for indios de pueblo, indios laborios y vagos, negros, and ntulatos, but no Spaniards or other groups that did not belong to the Rep6blica de Indios. According to Cook and Borah this Matricula was the result of an improved and more centralized reporting and examination of tribute counts.6

The first census gives only totals of families of Indians and non-Indians in each parish. The data are grouped and published by Peter Gerhard. The reports by local administrators varied from careful to fairly cursory and show that the administrators in general only copied the latest of the regular tributary counts and "translated" the number of tributaries into the number of families, the information the viceroy had asked for.7 The Aranda census would have followed the 1768 census in Spain itself, but much material gathered in the Americas is now either lost or still lying un- discovered in the archives. However, some padrones for various parishes of the dioceses of Oaxaca, Puebla, and Durango, listing the population by name, have been found in Seville. The requests for information had been transmitted through the bishops and therefore to the parish priests. The data are partly published by Cook and Borah. The Revillagigedo census, which should not be confused with the contemporaneous military enu- merations, was the most successful of the three censuses. By the time Revillagigedo left New Spain in July 1794, his viceregal office lacked only the returns for the intendancy of Veracruz and the jurisdiction of Coa- huila. The results have been analyzed by several authors, including again Gerhard and Cook and Borah. It is clear that, although these censuses may give occasional information on the population of parishes, provinces, or regions, they can only be used to indicate a rough pattern of colonywide growth between 1742 and about i8oo or, for Oaxaca, Puebla, and Durango, between 1742 or 1776 and about 1800.8

6. Noble David Cook, "Population Data for Indian Peru: Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries," HAHR, 62:1 (Feb. 1982), 73-120, esp. 119; Cook and Borah, Essays in Popula- tion History, I, 276-277.

7. Archivo General de Indias, Seville (hereafter AGI), Indiferente General 107 and io8; Gerhard, Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain.

8. On these censuses see Keith Dominic Peachey, "The Revillagigedo Census of Mexico, 1790-1794: A Background Study," Bulletin of the Society for Latin America Studies (hereafter Bulletin SLAS), 25 (1976), 63-80; D. G. Browning, "Preliminary Comments on the



Analyzing the data of these censuses allows one picture to emerge: rapid growth. For example, Gibson noted a doubling of the population in the valley of Mexico from about 12o,ooo Indians in 1742 to about 275,000 by i8oo, an increase of roughly 3 percent per annum. Trautmann calculated a growth of almost 300 percent of the Indian population in Tlaxcala between 1742 (iLiL,ooo Indians) and 1793 (42,878 Indians), an increase of 5.7 percent per annum. For the regions in Western Mexico, including Guadalajara, parts of Michoacan, and the far North, Cook and Borah have calculated rates of population growth per annum by decade that indicate fluctuations between 2 and 3 percent per annum for each decade from 1710 to i8oo. However, for the whole of colonial Mexico, Brading calculated a more moderate growth rate of 83 percent, or 1.2 percent per annum, between the 3,336,ooo inhabitants in 1742 and the 6,122,000 in i8io. He attributed this growth in large measure to the resurgence of the Indian population. Slicher van Bath, who has used the data published by Gerhard, calculated a population growth rate of o. 9 percent per annum for some 129 provinces of the gobierno of New Spain from 2,094,000 inhabitants in 1742 (of whom 75 percent were registered as Indian) to 3,254,000 inhabitants in about i8oo (of whom 78 percent were registered as Indian). These figures indicate also a relative expansion of the Indian population. Lopez Sarrelangue estimated an increase of the Indian population of about 1 percent per annum (44 percent in this period). According to Thomson the intendancy of Puebla contained 357,239 persons in 1743 (of whom 69 percent were Indian) and 506,654 persons in 1793 (of whom 74 percent were Indian); again a relative growth of the Indian population, but here by only o.6 percent per annum. Miranda, studying the province of Ixmi- quilpan in the northern faldas of Anahuac, noted spectacular growth of the local Indian population in the eighteenth century, but his data indicate a decline of o. il percent per annum between 1751 and 1791, followed by a growth of 1.9 percent per annum until 1804. On the other hand, in his excellent overview of Mexican agriculture at the end of the colonial period, Van Young discusses evidence from other regions, based on data from Guadalajara, Michoacan (including the Bajio), and Oaxaca, noting a process of stagnation after about 1760. Interestingly, Cook and Borah had registered the same stagnation in late eighteenth-century Mixteca Alta.9

1776 Population Census of the Spanish Empire," Bulletin SLAS, 19 (1974), 5-13; R. C. West, "The Relacion-es Geogrdficas of Mexico and Central America, 1740-1792," in Handbook of Middle American Indians, ed. R. Wauchope, i6 vols. (Austin, 1964-76), XII, 396-449; Cook and Borah, Essays in Population History. For a recent analysis of one part of the Revilla- gigedo census, see Rodney D. Anderson, "Race and Social Stratification: A Comparison of Working-Class Spaniards, Indians, and Castas in Guadalajara, Mexico in 1821," HAHR, 68:2 (May 1988), 209-243.

9. Slicher van Bath used the census of 1742-46 and the Matricula de tributaries of



For periods in which no regular censuses were taken, data are usually to be found in tax or church registers, although in general these data were not intended to serve demographic purposes. Interesting, nevertheless, are data based on parochial registration. For the rural areas of the region of Anahuac-Central Mexico the four available studies all concentrated on the valley of Puebla: the villages of Zacatelco (Tlaxcala), Acatzingo (Tepeaca), and Tecali (Tecali) and the small town of Cholula. These studies stress demographic stagnation in the valley of Puebla. At first sight their figures confirm the trends in the Mixteca Alta calculated by Cook and Borah: after decades of rapid increase between i66o and 1735, population growth was low here after the 1740s, and, in fact, during the last decade of the eighteenth century it virtually stood still. However, looking at the background of the stagnating birth rates, the authors conclude that the stagnation resulted from out-migration. Although Morin also stresses ethnic transformation, these four parishes were obviously part of an out- migration area. Research shows that in the smaller villages of the parish of Zacatelco as many as three out of every five families emigrated. It was above all the younger generation that sought its fortune elsewhere. Every generation went through an epidemic or years of dearth, especially in the late eighteenth century, and the poor in particular were affected. Malvido for Cholula, Morin for Zacatelco, and Calvo for Acatzingo conclude that the villages were losing their economic viability in the eighteenth century; particularly disastrous were the years after 1770."'

1805, both published by Gerhard; for the Matricula de tributaries of i8o5 see also Archivo General de la Naci6n (hereafter AGN), Ramo de Tributos, vol. 43, exp. 9. Slicher van Bath, "Dos modelos referidos a la relaci6n entre poblaci6n y economia en Nueva Espafia y Per6 durante la 6poca colonial," in Ernpresarios, indios y estado. Perfil de la economina inexicana (Siglo XVIII), ed. Arij Ouweneel and Cristina Torales Pacheco (Amsterdam, 1988), 15-44, esp. 2o, and Bevolking en econornie in Nieuw Spanje (ca. 1570-1800) (Amsterdam, 1981). Also, Brading, Miners and Merchants inl Bourbon Mexico, 1763-1810 (Cambridge, 1971), i.; Guy P. C. Thomson, Puebla de los Angeles: Industry and Society in a Mexican City, 1700-1850 (Boulder, 1989), 150-151; Charles Gibson, The Aztecs under Spanish Rule. A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810 (Stanford, 1964), 140-144; Delfina L6pez Sarrelangue, "La poblaci6n indigena de la Nueva Espafia en el siglo XVIII," HMex, 12:4 (Apr.-June 1963), 515-530, esp. 529-530; Wolfgang Trautmann, Las transformnaciones en el paisaje cultural de Tlaxcala durante la 6poca colonial (Wiesbaden, 1981), 76-78; Jose Miranda, "La poblaci6n indigena de Lxmiquilpan y su distrito en la 6poca colonial,' Estu- dios de Historia Novohispana, 1 (1966), 121-130; Van Young, "The Age of Paradox: Mexican Agriculture at the End of the Colonial Period," in The Economies of Mexico and Peruz Dur- ing the Late Colonial Period, 1760-1810, ed. Nils Jacobsen and Hans-Jiirgen Puhle (Berlin, 1986), 64-go, esp. 72-73; Cook and Borah, Essays in Population History, I, 107-117, 310- 312, 320-321. These sets of data are not reproduced in my analysis to cross-check the tribute data, because of inconsistent administrative boundaries.

so. Morin, Santa InAs Zacatelco (1646-1812): Coitribtici6n a la deinografia hist6rica del Mexico Central (Mexico City, 1973); Thomas Calvo, Acattzingo: Demografia de una parroquia mexicana (Mexico City, 1973); E. Malvido, "Factores de despoblaci6n y de repo- sici6n de la poblaci6n de Cholula (1641-1810)," HMex, 23:1 (July-Sep. 1973), 52-110; Lutz



Where did these people go? The first port of call for migrants, writes Thomson, would probably have been the provincial capital of Puebla de los Angeles. But Puebla's population veered between stagnation and decline, while evidence provided by Thomson and others reveals the magnetic attraction of Mexico City for migrant Poblanos."1 Fragmentary evidence provides additional clues as to the direction of the out-migration. The birth and death figures collected by Humboldt in the parish of Singuilucan in the province of Tulancingo between 1750 and i8oi are the mirror opposite of the figures for the valley of Puebla and are the only published parochial data in Anahuac outside that valley I could lay hands on. While the valley of Puebla displayed a stagnating birth pattern, Singuilucan in the northeastern faldas revealed a rapid rise in the number of births toward the end of the 178os. Calvo, Morin, and Malvido saw the stagnant birth rate as a sign of out-migration; Thomson confirmed these findings for the city of Puebla: although not necessarily so, the rapid increase in the birth rate in Singuilucan could be interpreted as a sign of in-migration. Indeed, Martin found similar signs of in-migration in the southern falda parish of Yautepec in Cuernavaca, as did Osborn in the northern falda valley of Metztitlan. However, these authors did not indicate where the migrants came from.'2

So we are left with the contradiction between rapid growth, according to mid- and late-eighteenth-century census data, and demographic stagnation, according to some parochial information. The analysis and publication of more evidence from rural areas, especially evidence of parochial origins, would be most welcome. Tributary data, which are easier to recover and could substitute for parochial evidence, are rarely used in the overviews of regional historical developments because the registers of tribute collectors can provide only rough estimates. How do we know whether an increase reported in tribute figures results from reproductive pressures, migration, reclassification, or all in combination? Without an analysis of how the tribute data were collected, who did the enumeration in each of the villages, and what were or might have been their agendas in compiling these lists, it seems impossible to assess such evidence, much less to draw conclusions from it.

Brinckmann S., "Natalidad y mortalidad en Tecali (Puebla): 1701-1801," Siglo XIX Revista de Historia, 4:7 (Jan.-June 1989), 219-269. Morin noted a three-fold increase of the non-Indian population in Zacatelco (Tlaxcala), compared to only two-fold for the Indians in the town.

11. Thomson, Puebla de los Angeles, 155-167. 12. Alexander von Humboldt, Ensayo politico sobre el reino de la Nueva Espaia

(Mexico City, 1822; reprint, 1978), 571; Cheryl English Martin, Rural Society in Colonial Morelos (Albuquerque, 1985). The same conclusion appears in Wayne Osborn, "A Commu- nity Study of Metztitlhn, New Spain, 1520-1810" (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1970), 19-22.



Cook and Borah state that from the 178os to about i8io tribute counts were made more frequently than before, usually at close to five-year intervals. I have found little trace of this specific administrative improvement, for counting in five-year intervals was attempted by the Spanish administration during the whole eighteenth century. There was, however, an effort to lower the costs of collection by using fewer collectors. Up to 1795 this reform was not executed, because of the objection of some in- tendants. Manuel Flon, the intendant of Puebla, for instance, calculated that it would result in a net loss of revenue. Also the projected schedule of the new collectors was not appropriate according to his calculations: the proposed registration of three hundred tributaries a day was impossible, for even an assiduous intendant, who knew his provinces with all the officials, priests, and Indian elites, could count only two hundred tributaries a day, working from sunrise until well after sunset (with a short lunch break at noon).13

Nevertheless, turning the pages of some legajos and expedientes in the archives, I could not help being impressed by the care tribute enumerators took to record the people in house after house, accompanied by village leaders, priests, alcaldes mayores, or corregidores. Fraud existed, since the basis of the count was fiscal, but I tend to agree with Noble David Cook that the presence of officials who had different interests at stake in the counts kept the level of fraud within limits.'4 Of course, people were no less ingenious at avoiding taxes then than now, and their cleverness could probably have caused variations in tax lists that were at least partly related to the zealousness of administrators. However, paying the tribute benefited the villagers, because it gave them access to a village plot that was part of the collectively owned land, tierras de cornfin repartiniento. Such plots were distributed for agricultural use, worked individually, and supervised, in general, by the Indian caciques in their role of village officials of the landowning communities. The rule was a simple one: no pay, no plot.'5 And the ones who paid were registered.

Indeed, the tributary data show some striking similarities with the results of the above-mentioned research. In the parish of Singuilucan, for example, which formed part of the province of Tulancingo, the number of tributaries rose from 3,751 in 1730 to 5,200 in 1790, a growth of o.6 percent per annum. In Metztitlan we find a growth of 0.7 percent per annum, from 5,079 in 1730 to 7,300 in 1790; and in the province of Cuautla Amilpas, near the parish of Yautepec, the number of tributaries grew 0.3

13. AGN, Tributos, vol. 37, exp. 6. 14. Cook, "Population Data for Indian Peru," 120. 15. Ouweneel, Onderbroken groei in Andhuac, 164-168.



percent per annum, from 2,036 in 1730 to 2,439 in 1790. But in the province of Tepeaca the number fell 0.3 percent per annum, from 13,938 in 1730 to ii,o8i in 1790; in Cholula it fell 0.4 percent per annum, from 6,103 inL 1730 to 4,651 in 1790; and in the city of Puebla it declined from 10,047 in 1730 to 5,048.5 in 1795 (-o.8 percent per annum). In Ixmi- quilpan the Indian population figures dropped by 0.3 percent per annum (4,137.5 tributaries in 1750 to 3,670.5 in 1790), but increased in the following decade by 2.1 percent per annum (to 4,314.5 tributaries in i8oo). Purely coincidence? Despite all the problems of analysis, in the absence of more accurate data the number of tributaries might be a symptom of population growth that can contribute to a more detailed picture of demographic development in Anahuac, increase understanding of subregional differentiation, and link the known censuses with parochial data.

Tribute Counting and Provincial Comparisons

Initially the tributaries were the people belonging officially to the Reptib- lica de Indios. The distinction between those registered by the colonial authorities as Indians or as non-Indians stems from the administration introduced after the conquest, which divided the society of Spanish America legally into a Republica de Espaiioles and a Repiiblica de Indios in order to keep the Indian and Spanish residents of the colony separate and so protect the Indians against exploitation by the conquerors. Although this strategy did not work, the viceregal state kept records of Indian tax- payers-the tributarios-to establish who was and who was not a member of the Repu'blica de Indios.'6 The system of classification continued almost unchanged from about the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth century. In principle it was an easy matter. The "Indians" were the residents of the landholding villages in the countryside (the so-called pueblos de indios) and of special districts in the towns. Every inhabitant of a pueblo had the rights and duties laid down by law, including the usufruct of village plots. In return for juridical protection and agricultural benefits, the crown collected an annual amount, the tribute. This obliga- tion applied to the male head of the family and after 1786 also to his adult

i6. An overview of the concepts can be found in Slicher van Bath, Indianen en Span- jaarden. Een ontmnoeting tussen twee werelden, Latijns Amnerika 1500-1800 (Amsterdam, 1989); Woodrow Borah, Justice by Insurance: The General Indian Court of Colonial Mexico and the Legal Aides of the Half-Real (Berkeley, 1983), and "El status juridico de los indios en Nueva Espania," America Indigena, 45:2 (Apr.-June 1985), 257-276; and Murdo J. MacLeod, "La situaci6n legal de los indios en Am6rica Central durante la colonia: Teoria y pnictica," ibid., 485-504. See also E. Castro Morales, "Los cuadros de castas de la Nueva Espafia," Jahrbuch fiir Geschichte von Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Lateinamerikas (hereafter JbLA), 20 (1983), 671-690.


GROWTH, STAGNATION, AND MIGRATION IN ANAHUAC, 1720-i8oo 541

sons: each male member of the Republica de Indios between the ages of eighteen and fifty years, head of a household or not, was eligible to pay this tribute every year and paid it collectively with his fellow villagers. Several other changes were proposed but never fully implemented, and the tribute data I found were based mostly on the older classification.'7

A small percentage of the tributaries worked as factory hands or manual laborers in the urban centers. In such cases the employer paid the tribute in advance to the treasury. The same applied to tributaries who lived on haciendas. The hacendado paid the tribute in advance, so the tributaries on the haciendas were also included in the accounts of the Spanish fiscal authorities. Throughout the eighteenth century the number of tributaries and their families amounted to roughly 8o percent of the total population. Most of these people some 85 percent lived in pueblos de indios. "In the Spanish conception," Taylor writes, "Indians in the colonial system were inseparable from their pueblos." 18 This was also the Indian conception, for the link was based on the right to usufruct lands of their village. If they moved, the tributarios could be transferred from one list to another. (But I think it was more common for a tributario who settled and worked in one of the towns to be regarded there as a mestizo or even a mulatto. The original and official "ethnic" name of a resident of New Spain seems to have decreased in importance in proportion to the distance from his birth place, suggesting an open stratification.) '9

Included among the tributaries were people of other ethnic origins.

17. The 1786 change may have contributed to all increase of the 18oo figures. But it proved extremely difficult to register all males from eighteen to fifty years as full tributarios. Where it was enforced, one might have found higher numbers of tributarios, but such provinces would have been exceptions. Gibson published a short list of test areas, some provinces in the valley of Mexico where the new form was introduced as all experiment. The Spanish state wanted to determine the increase in the number of tributaries under the new definition. The results were inconclusive, for the "Indians" who were to be included in the counts moved to contest areas where the traditional system was still operating. Never- theless, the counts of the new system of 1797-1804 resulted in a statistical increase of about 17 percent compared to counts according to the old system in the same provinces. How- ever, official reports state that the measure was certainly not in effect during the 1790s ill most provinces. This change would have influenced the sums of money collected, but not the number of tributaries, for the adult sons had been included in the counts from the seventeenth-century reforms onward and widows were already subject to registration. In the 1740s and 1750s women had been exempted from payments, although villagers continued to hold women using corporate lands responsible for payment. See also Gibson, Aztecs Under Spanish Rule, 208.

18. Taylor, "Indian Pueblos of Central Jalisco on the Eve of Independence," in Iberian Colonies, New World Societies: Essays in Memorty of Charles Gibson, ed. Richard L. Gar- ner and William B. Taylor (private printing, 1985), 161-183, quote from 162 (I would like to thank Eric Van Young for sending me a copy of this volume),

19. Ouweneel, Onderbroken groei in Andhuac, passim; Cook and Borah, Essays in Population History, I, 21-23. Borah, "Race and Class in Mexico," Pacific Historical Review, 23:4 (Nov. 1954), 331-342.



The archives contain many examples of mestizos or even Spaniards who were registered on the tribute lists and were therefore eventually regarded as members of the Reptiblica de Indios. In the late colonial period, according to Taylor, in the region of Guadalajara "Indian" meant "village tributary." In the sixteenth century one pueblo de indios had already been founded by black slaves, and its residents were routinely called indios in official records even though nearly all were ethnically mulattos and "afro- mestizos." In order to increase the number of contributors to village fiestas and other public expenses, some pueblos allowed mestizos, mulattos, and Spaniards to register as Indian members, live within the village, and share in the lands assigned to Indian families. The situation in the region of Guadalajara as described by Taylor might be typical for other regions in New Spain as well. I have found similar examples from pueblos de indios of the central highlands of Anahuac, where tribute-paying mestizos and Spaniards pleaded before the court that they too had rights to usufruct lands of their pueblo. Indeed, the tribute accounts listed them as Indi- ans. Also in the Sierra Norte de Puebla in Anahuac's northeastern faldas, analyzed by Garcia Martinez, groups of runaway slaves of West African descent formed pueblos de indios with the recognition of the crown. It is important to note cases like this, for, naturally, the number of tributaries would increase through such royal recognition. After 1798 the free mulattos were included among the tributaries anyway, since most of them had become residents of the pueblos de indios by then and it was virtually impossible for the government to distinguish them from other residents. This measure led to a minor increase in the number of tributaries during the following census around 1800.20

The government was deeply interested in the demographic development of the Repu'blica de Indios. It wanted to be able to determine the level of tribute per pueblo de indios and to have some assurance of the well-being of their inhabitants. The standard tribute procedure required a careful listing of provincial headtowns, called cabeceras, and their subor- dinate villages, called sujetos, and a detailed record of tribute collectors. The comisionados de matricula, officials who assisted the alcaldes mayores or corregidores in counting the tributarios, based their counts at least partially on ecclesiastical records of baptism, marriage, and death. The priests also kept counts for other purposes, for example to keep track of

20. Taylor, "Indian Pueblos of Central Jalisco," 166; Ouweneel, Onderbroken groei in Anuhuac, 166-167; Bernardo Garcia Martinez, "Pueblos de Indios, Pueblos de Castas: New Settlements and Traditional Corporate Organization in Eighteenth-Century New Spain," in The Indian Community of Colonial Mexico: Fifteen Essays on Land Tenure, Corporate Organizations, Ideology and Village Politics, ed. Ouweneel and Simon Miller (Amsterdam, 1990), 103-116.



those eligible for communion and of those who fulfilled their precepts annually. Tributary residents were not counted every year. As indicated above, a particular region had to be covered within a period of five years, so that five-year counts were carried out in each village.2' Of course, this interval was the ideal, probably implemented better in the early eighteenth century than in the seventeenth, and very well in the rest of the eighteenth century.

The tribute lists enable us to trace the changes in the numbers of tributarios in the Anahuac region with a reasonable degree of accuracy for the eighteenth century. I was able to use half of the lists which must have been compiled in the eighteenth century: 1720, 1725, 1730, 1745, 1750, 1765, 1775, 1780, 1785, 1790, and 1800.22 In the archives the results are included for the last year of each five-year period. For instance, the statistics for the period 1773-1777 are given as the 1777 figures but do, in fact, contain mainly the counts of 1775 (see Map 2). So the statistics for 1720 include the period of 1718-22, for 1725 the period of 1723-27, for 1730 the period of 1728-32, and so on until i8oo, for the period 1798-1802. The other half of the eighteenth-century series of tribute lists was missing or incomplete in the dossiers that I consulted. I have been unable to trace the lists for 1700 (1698-1702), 1705 (1703-07), and 1710 (1708-12) in the Seville or Mexico City archives. Some of the data for 1715 (1713- 17) are missing or were never gathered. I suspect that the counts for 1735 (1733-37), 1740 (1738-42), and 1760 (1758-62) were only partly carried out because of major crises such as bad harvests and epidemics. There was little point in counting heads in epidemic years, since so many of the peasants were searching for means of survival or were on the road to escape the epidemic. However, this does not entirely explain the absence of the 1770 (1768-72) list, since a count was carried out in 1785-86- two years in which harvest failures and famine affected the provinces. The 1795 (1793-97) list was compiled on an irregular basis, because of the energy devoted to the Revillagigedo census of 1790-94, although this task was officially executed independently from the tribute counting.23

The data from the counts for the region of Anahuac are featured in the appendix and grouped by subregion in Table i and Figure i (in terms of the geographical characteristics of Anahuac). Because they were not in-

21. See also Gibson, Aztecs under Spanish Rule, 204-211. 22. The figures for 1720, 1725, 1730, 1745, and 1750 can be found in AGI, Mexico 798;

1775 and 1780 in AGI, Mexico 2106; 1765 in AGN, Tributos, vol. 2, exps. 1 and 2; 1785 ill AGN, Tributos, vol. 36, exp. 17; 1790 in AGN, Tributos, vol. 37, exp. 6; and 18oo in AGN, Ramo de Tributos, vol. 43, exp. 9, as well as in Gerhard, Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain, passing.

23. Peachey, "Revillagigedo Census of Mexico 1790-1794," 3-17. Some of the 1795 data can be found in AGN, Tributos, vol. 37, exp. 6.


v A


GROWTH, STAGNATION, AND MIGRATION IN ANAHUAC, 1720-L800 545

eluded in the counts of the early decades of the eighteenth century, I have excluded all registered mulatos from the figures of the later decades. The "ethnic" mulatos cannot be separated from the tributary population, because they were not clearly identified in the tables (neither were "ethnic" mestizos or even espafioles who were registered as tributaries). In this investigation 561 figures are available, of which several are copies of a preceding one. Such copying took place in 1730 in Tula and Zacatldn, in 1745 in Teotihuacn, in 1750 in Malinalco, in 1765 in Atlixco, Actopan, Zimapdn, and Tlapa, in 1775 in Coyoacn, in 1780 in Cuautitlkn and Metz- titlan, in 1785 in Tecali, Tepeaca, San Juan de los Llanos, Tulancingo, Zacatlkn, Huayacocotla, Cuautla Amilpas, Chilapa, Tlapa, Tepeji, Aca- tlan, Tehuacn, Orizaba, and Zimapdn, in 1790 in Teotihuacan, Ecatepec, Otumba, Ixmiquilpan, Tlapa, and C6rdoba, and in i8oo in Metztitlhn and Tehuacn; thirty-three times, totaling almost 6 percent of the figures. Most of this copying nineteen times occurred during or shortly after the 1785-86 disaster; 1786 was the only famine year of the eighteenth century, which of course made the counting of the population an almost impossible undertaking.

On the graphs in Figure 1, two periods of population increase stand out: the 1720S and from the 1780s onward. Between these peaks, the number of tributaries for all provinces of Andhuac the alcaldias mayores and subdelegaciones stagnated or fell. Overall totals grew by 45 percent between 1720 and i8oo, for an average increase of o.6 percent per annum. This low rate is the result of the drop between 1730 and 1765, reflecting the severe matlazahuatl epidemic of 1736-39. The great number of deaths combined with out-migration to create a general decline in the number of residents of the pueblos de indios that lasted until roughly 1765. This was a decline of about 20 percent (an average of o.5 percent per annum). However, the falda provinces experienced slight decline. The residents of the highlands could have left for the provinces in the faldas, where it was apparently possible to accommodate the migrants. After the epidemic of the 176os, the population in the pueblos de indios of the 51 provinces of Andhuac began to increase again, with a growth of 52 percent (an average of 1.5 percent per annum) between 1765 and i8oo, but it is not clear whether this was initiated by a wave of births or by remigration. There were incidental fluctuations, such as the notable growth in 1750 and a decline after the crisis of 1785-86. Growth between 1765 and 1785 had been at a moderate 22 percent, or about i. l percent per annum. After 1785 the rise in the number of tributaries continued almost uninterrupted until i8oo, increasing by almost 19 percent or 1.2 percent per annum.

Although the growth of the number of tributaries coincides, for example, with the loosening of legal restrictions on non-Indians within the


(0i s u) u)1)) K u - s C ) O 6 6 0 a o 8 ^4 ^, oo N 0)t 00)f)1 0 oo oo CO 1- 01 co t o oo H t -eC>i 00 -4 in N

n i)O in f-l in) in 't (0 (c tl 01 0 H H

O O00 (6 in

Ct 0? 4 't CD O 00 C, li 1 O 1s D6 Ub CD ^ .c~ i o Of) in 1U) i 0 i) H H

t O^ t H

c 0 U C if) d if) 1-

c0 i n oo U)0 if a) S to) 0 (0 4 o

Z~~~~~~f HX H ( ]XO DOI s ), : l 6 t) i)1-1' s in)

H (01-1- ^ H t CO -

O 0 0C) in0 Ci t co (0 O) 00 oo O

N C 00 c 1 H I

C 6 H oO 0) 6

O -0 1'- 0t0 0) ).

Nco t" o(I 1- H 1-1- O C c t H C o H1d ds dF co co

s ~~~~ot' CO (01 K z>sOAD sC r 0

- 00C co

N H 6 t 6 H ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ c"' in) -0~ H HHH H 0)

OA o co t- e H CO

o ~ H

5H~~~~~~t loo U) 0r U)

q d? "

00

cq

1

N CO

0 C

t D N - CO O 0 H

CO s > H Cs cO O1 - O fc i If 1- 1t Q C

co oe 'I - if) C t? H O dCU = K ci 00 ()010 H c

C) ~~~~~00 in ci 0 in U co t- I co 01 c ~O 0 0 0 elt' C C 0 - ? Hd Ht N CO 1- 4 H

co) H'

O >)fe ifCf) if)O CO t"--C CI( 00)s O

O s oo K U) 1- if H(1 H ( *%H CO~CO 00)1-He c

CO

U} > ci 0t b ~~ c s O' I- ?. CD I X0- (. ) co) ?, d- :~~ ~ ~~ in C O 0' N in CO t- 4

OO U) (0 C' ID CO 00 U 1-( H C) OH '

t 0

)1-h t 4 6; t 2 ~ '

H1 (0 tH CO CO

E~~~~~O~ ~ ini fC) N n 0 14N i Q 0(o I 1Z N 0

1f 0if

)Clif 0 H 1f)0 (00) O

int- t$C ~

0c6 4 th t 4 in Hin) - 10) H H H H

t- th O - - N c ; 6

17' co )0 " e HCIC 0)

0

> 11, ~~~~~~~~~CO .. 0) m co (0 t-0) t 1-- 01) C

t-H(c Z-0- 0 co O H CO'CO (~~~ ~~~~1H -CO ) - 6 c l - -

COD o co~~~C cofC) 0OCA

C )

"0

0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~~.0' U

0 0 .

0 "~~~~~~~~~ H r. +, Q0 H~~~~~a)C 0 C


If0 in t,.'- -4 0 N i I -~ inH ~- in 0~ ce)t~- C,, HO NC0N0 ci u 6i 66

t~~~~~~~c N co Ao

H U)C~ (0 C0L) > O C'1 U 1-4

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HO

N in O6Hu ce) 00 in in 11 000> 0- CO n - O oH i OH

OIO C 0 tt0l 0 N 00 C0 ifo '

N 00 > N 0n 00 C3 0 00 CI co CIO

0 C) cr MO N > 1c OOO 1-4 ci 6-i 666 66

< H ~ ~ i I I I I I I I

0>CD 00 t 0> 0 O H(0 C 000 CO COCO

,0>0 % t ti 6 > > i O

H0 0> 0 I ~ 0H 0A OA>0 C~0 H

0co00 N t>Cm C

I N i I

1- 1 ci1 t < < H ci C C 66 c

000 ~ 000 0 ? H H H H H, H1 ? N

m~~~~~~r Z 0 % X cA~~~~~~~~V F .pD s'X: wX==q , ;7 5 CA a 0)0

Cd0 0 l0~0>

> Z.0 - Z0

_ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 44 H ( C


548 j HAHR j AUGUST I ARIJ OUWENEEL

(thousands) 70

A , \ 60 // \ Toluca

50 ~~~~~~Puebla-

40 t# 40 - ~~~ - - ~ Mexico

30

20

10

0 10 10 10 01 00 0 cN Nc co D 00 CO N oooo) 0

(thousands) 60 Faldas

Southern 7 50

40 __/ ,, ^_ | No~~~rthern

30

20 Mining provinces

10

L I I , * I I I I I I

C) JC\C) Ul( C) c') N'o COOU) 0)C cN C IO t LO W r- oo OD O)C

FIGURE 1: Number of Tributarios in Seven Subregions of Anahuac, 1720- i8oo



TABLE 2: Demographic Change during the Epidemic 1736-39 in Selected Parishes of the Valleys of Toluca and Mexico

Number of Tributarios

Parish 1730 1734 1737 1742 1750

Toluca Temascalzingo 1,296 972- 890 IxtIahuaca 1,074 1,826 1,031 Atlacomulco 1,042 912 833 Xocotitldn 757 741 534 Cambay 1,200 1,200 662 662 844 Xilotepec 4,567 5,190 3,399 3,399 4,191 Malinalco 775 1, 1o8 578 796 8o6

Mexico Coatepec 348 437 337 337 352 Tepeapulco 84 45 6i 61 100 Otumba 314 402 405 405 480 Teotihuacdn 135 156 94 127 130

Source: AGN, Tributos, vol. 61, exp. 6.

pueblos de indios, in light of the nature and comprehensiveness of the archival material we may conclude that few administrative changes were introduced in the latter decades of the century. The population increase in all of the 51 provinces of Anahuac during, for example, the decade 1790-1800 was at a modest 1.4 percent per annum, the same as the increase during the decade 1765-75, only slightly higher than for the period 1745-50 (1.3 percent per annum) or the period 1780-85 (I. I percent per annum), and somewhat lower than in the period 1725-30 (i.6 percent per annum). The odd 2.6 percent per annum for the period 1720-25 can probably be attributed to deficit counting in the early 1720S. Cook and Borah defend the reliability of the Matricula de tributaries of 1805, and I tend to agree, for an average growth rate of 1.4 percent per annum was not un- usual. This observation is underscored by a look at the annual growth rates of the individual provinces during the decade. The rates range from a low -2.3 percent per annum (the small province of Puebla) to a high 4.6 percent per annum (the provinces of Tetepango and Ecatepec). Exceptional rates of 7.4 and 8.5 percent per annum can be found for the mining provinces of Taxco and Zimapain. Nevertheless, the moderate growth rate of the 51 provinces was influenced by the low rates of the provinces belonging to the valley of Puebla (only o. 5 percent per annum) and the provinces in the faldas, particularly the eastern (o. l percent). The growth rates per annum for the provinces belonging to the valleys of Mexico and Toluca during this decade were impressively higher: 2.2 and 2.4 percent. These



rates resemble the figures of the period of rapid growth during the 1730s, before the matlazahuatl epidemic of 1736-39. The number of residents in the pueblos de indios around i8oo was much higher than it had been in the middle of the century, thanks to a continuous increase during the latter decades of the century, an increase as substantial and widespread as that of the 1720S and 1730s.

Other figures confirm this trend. The account of 1795 (1793-97) has been preserved for 27 of these 51 provinces. In general the figures are halfway between 1790 and i8oo, as could be expected. Moreover, for the valley of Mexico Gibson published figures of 1805 (1803-8), indicating still further growth.24 Some examples: Xochimilco had 3,666 tributaries in 1790, 4,226 in 1795, 4,281.5 in i8oo, and 4,821 in 1805, with per annum growth rates of 3.0 (1790-95), 0.3 (1795-1800), and 2.2 (i8oo- 1805); Coatepec had 1,118.5 in 1790, 1,123 in 1795, 1,319 in i8oo, and 1,596 in 1805, rates of o. I, 0. 1, 3.5, and 4.2; Coyoacain had 3,011 tributarios in 1790 and 3,272.5 in 1795, a rate of 1.7 percent, 3,722.5 in i8oo, a rate of 2.7 percent, and 4,401 in 1805, a rate of 3.6 percent per annum. Most of the 1795 figures are closer to the counting of i8oo than to that of 1785. Some provinces had an even higher number of tributaries in 1795 than in i8oo: Tepeaca (11,786.5 in 1795 and 11,431.5 in i8oo, a rate of - o.6 percent), Zempoala (904.5 and 896.5, a rate of -0.2 percent), Cuer- navaca (1lo, 263 and 9,352.5, - 1.2 percent), Cordoba (3,057 and 2,353.5, -4.6 percent), and Huejotzingo (4,200 and 4,129.5, -0.3 percent).

Despite a recognizable general pattern, notable differences exist between the subregions. The decline in the number of residents in the pueblos de indios after the epidemic of the late 1730S was particularly dramatic in the valleys of Puebla and Toluca in the highlands, with rates of -1.9 and - i.8 percent per annum, as well as in the eastern falda provinces (Orizaba, Cordoba, and Xalapa), - 1.5 percent per annum (see Figure i). The figures for the valley of Mexico do indicate a period of stagnation after the 1730S, but certainly no dramatic decline. The falda provinces to the north and south even showed a modest growth of o. 2 and 0.3 percent per annum. It is striking here that even the stagnation that followed upon the epidemic soon turned into a stronger growth in population figures. The growth of the pueblos de indios in the northern and southern faldas was caused by an increase of the inhabitants of the six silver-mining provinces that formed part of thefaldas (Zimapain, Taxco, Pachuca, Tetela de Xonotla, Temascaltepec-Sultepec, and Cuautla Amilpas). These mining provinces witnessed an almost uninterrupted increase in the number

24. Gibson, Aztecs under Spanish Rule, 142-143; AGN, Tributos, vol. 37, exp. 8.



of residents in the pueblos de indios, especially in the second half of the century. The interruptions in 1765 (-o.6 percent) and in 1790 (-o.7 percent) were caused by epidemics and the famine of 1786, less notable in the highland provinces. There was also considerable growth of tributaries per annum in the eastern faldas, particularly during the periods of 1745-50 (2.8 percent), 1765-75 (i.8 percent), and 1780-85 (2.8 percent). However, the high rate of 7.7 percent per annum in the valley of Toluca for the decade of 1765-75 must be looked upon with caution.

Beginning in the 178os, the population figures were higher than the 1720 starting point and even higher than the peaks of the early 1730s, with just two exceptions: Puebla and Tlaxcala. Because of the stagnation in Puebla, it is tempting to return to the research mentioned in the previous section in which authors like Morin, Calvo, Malvido, and Thomson identified the valley of Puebla as an out-migration area. The tribute figures presented here confirm their conclusion that population growth in the valley of Puebla was low or declining between the 1730s and the 1780s and improved only moderately during the last decade of the eighteenth century. The low Indian birth rates fit a stagnating tributary population.25 Also the birth and death figures collected by Humboldt in the parish of Singuilucan in the province of Tulancingo between 1750 and i8oi are confirmed as a sign of in-migration to the northeastern faldas in the late eighteenth century; it was precisely Tulancingo that emerged from my calculations as a province with an above-average population increase between 1785 and i8oo. And adding another hypothesis, combining the figures presented here with the conclusions of Morin, Calvo, and Mal- vido: the valley of Mexico and the provinces in the northern and southern faldas could have been in-migration areas.

Particularly illustrative are the relative figures per year (see Table I and Figure 2). The population of the valley of Mexico represented between 16.2 and 17.7 percent of the total number of tributaries in Anahuac. It had a regular development; no dramatic declines, no spurts. The percentage corresponding to the valley of Puebla fell from about 27.5 percent in the early eighteenth century to about 20 percent around i8oo. Rela- tively speaking, fewer "Indians" were living there, especially since the 1740S and 1750s. The "Indian" part of the valley of Toluca had grown in i8oo to 20.2 percent of the number of tributaries in Anahuac. Although the percentage of 1720 was somewhat lower, 18.9, by the middle of the eighteenth century it had fallen to about i6 percent, also indicating a dif-

25. Morin, Santa In6s Zacatelco; Calvo, Acatzingo; Malvido, Factores de despobla- ci6n"; Thomson, Puebla de los Angeles.



ficult period during the 1740S and 1750s. The population again increased here during the 1770S. The "Indian" population of the faldas increased relatively more in the middle of the eighteenth century, stabilized for a while, but experienced another spurt during the 178os. The population rates especially of the northern and southern faldas marched to a different drummer than those in the valleys.

If we look at the 51 provinces individually, we can readily identify five patterns in the growth rates for the period between 1730 and i8oo:

1. The number of tributaries increased rapidly over the entire period; this was the case for five provinces out of twelve in the valley of Mexico, one out of nine in the valley of Puebla, one out of four in the valley of Toluca, five out of twelve in the northern faldas, six out of eleven in the southern faldas, and one out of three in the eastern faldas.

2. The number of tributaries decreased after an initial period of growth and started to grow rapidly again in the latter decades of the eighteenth century; this was the case in only two provinces, Chalco and Huayaco- cotla.

3. The number of tributaries stagnated or decreased during most of the eighteenth century but started to grow rapidly in the latter decades; this was the case in four provinces in the valley of Mexico, six out of nine in the valley of Puebla, two in the valley of Toluca, one in the northern faldas, and one in the southernfaldas.

4. The number of tributaries increased rapidly during the eighteenth century but stagnated or decreased somewhat in the latter decades (the mirror image of variant 3); this was the case for one province in the valleys

100 a South faldas 0 East faldas

80 ElI North faldas cu U Toluca 78 60 0 Puebla

60

1720 1740 1760 1780 1800

FIGURE 2: Changes in Relative Number of Tributarios in Seven Subre- gions of Anmhuac, 1720-1800



of Mexico and Puebla, five out of twelve in the northern faldas, three out of eleven in the southern faldas, and one in the eastern faldas.

5. The number of tributaries decreased during the first half of the eighteenth century, increased during most of the second half, but stagnated or decreased around the 1790S and i8oo; this happened mostly in the pueblos de indios in the provinces of Xochimilco, Puebla, Cuernavaca, and Cordoba, urban areas that saw their populations leave for the nearby cities.

Map 3 shows the distribution of these five patterns by subregion. The valley of Puebla, of course, was dominated by provinces with stagnating rates during most of the eighteenth century. The northern faldas were dominated by a cluster of provinces near the valley of Mexico with strong growth, but some stagnation around the 1790S and i8oo, and by a cluster of provinces farther north or northeast with continuous growth or some stagnation during an earlier period. The same pattern can be seen in the southern faldas, with the exception of Cuernavaca. In fact, Cuernavaca formed a "family" of provinces with Malinalco and Xochimilco.

To summarize the results of this part of the inquiry, there is one major provisional conclusion: the tributary figures confirm both the picture that emerged from analyses of the censuses and the results of the parochial material from the valley of Puebla. The number of tributaries in Ana- huac increased between the middle and the last decades of the eighteenth century, with an accumulative acceleration during the last decades. This growth followed a period of stagnation after the epidemics of the 1730s. The valley of Puebla never wholly recovered from the loss of the 1730s, a situation that should be attributed mainly to out-migration, probably to thefalclas and some western provinces of the region.

Interpreting Provincial Shifts

To this point the ground has been fairly solid, but the footing now becomes less certain. Although the relationship is not inevitable (other possible explanations include natural increase and better counting), it is possible that a drop in one subregion was connected with a rise in another-in other words, with migration. The use of net population change between jurisdictions like the provinces of Anahuac to indicate migration is known to be beset with problems. In fact, using tributary data, migration can never be "proven." My calculations have only the hypothetical and heuristic goals indicated above, seeking to broaden the picture of Ana- huac's demographic development, particularly with regard to subregional distinctions. Because for heuristic reasons in my hypothetical "model"


554 | HAHR I AUGUST ARIJ OUWENEEL

Northern Faldas

Toluca a Tolca MeoEastern

Faldas

_ ~~~~~~Patterns

|12

21J 4

5

(for explanation, see text)

MAP 3: Different Types of Provinces, Based on Five Demographic Pat- terns, 1720-1800



migration will be an all-or-nothing proposition, the major restrictions must be noted. First, the "model" design is not sufficiently sophisticated to include either temporary migrants, such as individuals leaving for some years to work on haciendas (the so-called tlaquehuales) or to live in mining communities, or people who had left their pueblos but still appeared on their pueblos' tribute rolls because they continued to pay tribute there. Second, in some provinces the number of tributaries in the pueblos de indios might have been swollen by arriving non-Indians as the crown loosened the segregation laws in the late eighteenth century. This would have been the case with "ethnic" mulattos or mestizos registered as indios. Third, some government officials might have done their counting better than others; several figures are therefore masked by a bureaucratic component. Cases of "rapid growth" (5.5, 6.5, or 8.5 percent per annum) in one period, immediately followed by rapid decline of almost the same rate per annum over the next period, might be attributed to this bureaucratic component. Last, the territorial limits of Anahuac prevent our following the presumably great internal migration in most of the adjacent regions like the Bajfo or the valley of Valladolid. In-migration provinces in the western and northwestern parts of Anahuac in particular might have been fed both by out-migration from the central provinces of the region and by in-migration from beyond Anahuac. Yet any interpretation of the results of province-to-province comparisons should not overlook the possibility that changes in tributary figures may be caused only partly by migration; the bureaucratic component and shifting fertility and mortality rates will have played their roles too.

The two kinds of migration I will discuss are: i. Migration from one pueblo de indios to another, probably from

the highlands to the provinces in the faldas. In principle this migration maintained a balance in the number of tributaries and may be considered primitive migration under the pressure of bad harvests and epidemics; this was a push factor.

2. Migration from a pueblo de indios to a site where the people did not belong to the Repuablica de Indios, such as neighborhoods in many provincial headtowns and cities. In this case the tributaries disappeared from the tribute lists; this might be considered a pull factor, in light of the employment opportunities provided by towns and cities.

Migration from Village to Village

In order to investigate possible migration, I refer again to the growth rates for each province (see the appendix). However, it is not the average increase or decrease that is significant in this case, but instead any excessive


556 J HAHR I AUGUST I ARIJ OUWENEEL deviation from that average. For that reason z scores are introduced, the standardized score showing the relative status of a score with regard to the general trend discussed above, the overall tributaries curve of Anahuac. Each growth rate in the sample was converted into a z score, express- ing the deviation from the mean in standard deviation units. The z score tells how many standard deviations x is from a mean of zero. A perhaps arbitrary but prudent margin of 2o percent (z scores beyond the + 1.28 or -1.28 significance level) was adopted, and the explorative (not testing) statistical investigation was directed toward those provinces that deviated either way from the average line of development: the higher the score, the greater the deviance. In the following analysis I therefore presume that a province with a score of + 1.28 or more had above-average growth, possibly due to in-migration, and that a province with a score of - 1. 28 or less had below-average growth, probably a fall, possibly as a result of high mortality or out-migration. These figures are underlined in the appendix.

The pattern that results from these statistics is divided into four periods: 1720-30, 1730-65, 1765-85, and 1785-1800 (see Maps 4a-4d). Does it make sense? Two points suggest a moderately positive answer. First, clusters of provinces with "deviant" scores can be recognized. It is understand- able that possible out-migration areas (with below-average performances) and possible in-migration areas (with above-average performances) were generally close to one another and that clusters of "in-migration" and "out- migration" provinces were close to one another. Only these clusters will be discussed; individual provinces with a deviant result will be ignored unless some provinces in their neighborhood had the same deviance or unless they are mining provinces, which always attracted people from all over the colony. As stated above, not included in the calculation is the in-migration from outside Anahuac, but it would contribute to above-average peifor- mances in several provinces. Second, a superficial examination shows the effect of some well-known epidemics and agrarian crises as heavy fluctuations, caused by migration and re-migration.26 The re-migration of people who left only temporarily explains why tribute populations sometimes recovered in only ten to fifteen years. Permanent in-migration would also affect tribute figures positively after a lag of about ten to fifteen years, the consequence of high birth rates. Although the counting of several of these provinces had been done in different years, the results show coherence.

The provinces with an above-average performance during the first decades of the eighteenth century were located in the northern falclas: Acto-

26. On agrarian crises and epidemics, see Gibson, Aztecs under Spanish Rule, passing, and Enrique Florescano, Precios del maiz y crisis agricolas en Mexico (1708-1810) (Mexico City, 1969).



exceptiona exceptional

Ha X

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~745, 1750)

exceptional z scores~~~~~~~~~~~~ coe 1775,1780, c lxetionlal J \ 1785, z t 1790, 1800)

0 t Z scores above the average ( 1.28) O I Z scores below the average (-1.28)

MAPS 4a-4d: Demographic Shifts in Andhuac by Province, 1720-1800



pan, Ixmiquilpan, Metztitlain, Huayacocotla, and Xochicoatlan-Yahualica (see Map 4a). Also Ecatepec and Otumba had above average scores. Below average were Apan, Texcoco, Xochimilco, and Taxco. In 1729 a measles epidemic was reported in Apan and Texcoco.' The results of the counting after 1745 (1743-47) show all the traces of the matlaZzahuatl epidemic of the late 1730S (see Map 41)). Provinces with above-average growth rates can be found in the northern, southern, and eastern faldas. Provinces with below-average performance are to be found in the central highland valleys, especially in the valley of Puebla. On the other hand, the mining province of Pachuca must have had spectacular growth in the 1750s and 1760S. Some provinces evidenced considerable fluctuations. Metztitldn, for instance, had a rapid increase followed by a rapid decrease. According to the data, Tetepango saw people come, then go, and finally return again. The reverse was the case in Orizaba. Of course, it is difficult to conclude from these figures whether the "above-average growth" provinces show excessive in-migration or relatively high birth rates after the epidemics. Abrupt changes could have been caused by a complicated problem of villages that were in protest over a new tax, an abusive priest, etc.; Taylor gives evidence of villagers leaving their homes for such reasons.28 But, as indicated above, fluctuations like these would mainly have been the consequence of faulty counting, harvest failures, or epidemics. Independent church counting in iio parishes of the archbishopric of Mexico tends to confirm especially the possibility of harvest failures and epidemics.29 The number of tributaries in these parishes decreased almost 34 percent, and it took them some ten years to recover. Data from this register referring to the same provinces (see Table 2) confirm the tributary accounts made by the state officials: the valley of Toluca suffered heavily in contrast to the valley of Mexico where the epidemic had not struck so badly. In sum, based on the deviant tributario figures, the epidemic resulted not only in a high mortality rate and out-migration to nearby provinces, but also in an evident migration to thefaldas. Many people gradually returned home when the epidemic was over.

In the second half of the century, the spotlight again shines on the faldas more than on the central highlands. Nevertheless, more indications of both above-average growth and below-average performances occur in the valleys of Mexico and Toluca (see Maps 4c and 4d). The Indian population might have left the valley of Puebla, the northeasternfaldas, and the drier provinces in the valley of Mezquital around Actopan. An agrarian crisis in

27. AGN, Tributos, vol. 47, exp. 10. 28. Taylor, Drinking, Homicide and Rebellion in Colonial Mexican Villages (Stanford,

1979), 124. 29. AGN, Tributos, vol. 6s, exp. 6.



o 120 - 0 0

1 110 \ CO) 0 I.r

Mxco,13-71

.100

0 90

E z 80, 14

1730 170 1750 1760 1770 1780

FIGURE 3: Number of Trihutarios in n~io Parishes of the Archbishopric of Mexico, 1L737-1-781L

1771 would have led to such a westbound migration. Besides this, in both maps the province of Metztitlan shows signs of in-migration and prolonged demographic growth. Not far away from Metztitlan were Actopan, Tete- pango, Tula, Pachuca, Xochicoatlan, Huayacocotla, and Zempoala, which had below-average growth rates during some of the years, although Tula and Tetepango recovered quickly. The people of Metztitlan might have come from these nearby provinces. During the 1770S and the early 1780s the valley of Toluca and provinces like Actopan experienced decreases in the tributario population, probably caused by epidemics.30 During the early 1780s provinces directly northeast of Mexico City saw heavy demographic losses, while nearby Apan and Tacuba, like Cuernavaca somewhat later, were growing rapidly.

Most interesting should be a look at the figures for the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Harvest failures, famine, and disease combined forces to establish the late 1780s and the 1790S as one of the most disastrous periods apart from the epidemics of the 1730s.3' A series of poor

30. AGN, Tributos, vols. 44, exp. 8, and 52, exps. 1-7. 31. Donald B. Cooper, Epidemic Disease in Mexico City 1761-1813: An Administra-

tive, Social and Medical Study (Austin, 1965), 70-84; Florescano, Precios del maiz, 148-172; Ouweneel, Onderbroken groei in Andhuac, 53-66.


560 I HAHR I AUGUST I ARIJ OUWENEEL

harvests resulting from unseasonably cold weather and droughts caused massive famine among the subsistence sector of the populace, especially during 1785 and 1786, "el aho de hambre." The year of hunger led to mortality and out-migration in the provinces of the northern faldas, perhaps to migration into the valley of Mexico, for Cuautitlan, Tacuba, and Ecatepec had above-average scores in that time. The same can be said, once again, of Metztitlan and Xochicoatlan in the far north of Anahuac, where there was still enough maize and less danger of being caught by the epidemic. The semiarid provinces to the north of the valley of Mexico all experienced harvest failures, while in the faldas people could save parts of the harvest or tried to produce a second maize crop in the win- ter season.32 Nevertheless, Anahuac was much less affected by the harvest failures than were its western neighbors. It is useful to compare these patterns with a map published by McGovern-Bowen based on figures provided by Spillman, which shows that the impact of the disaster was most intensely felt in the regions of Michoacan and Guadalajara; Spillman docu- mented a 200 to 300 percent increase in the number of burials between 1784 and 1786 in many parishes there. In general, the overall intensity of mortality during this crisis decreased with distance from the central core of Guanajuato, San Miguel de Allende, Leon, and Celaya. But the disaster would have caused migration to regions where the problems were still not as great, and death totals in the region of Anahuac were much lower, leaving the central highlands relatively free from mortality above 50 percent.33 Possible in-migration from Michoacan can be recognized in the results of the 1790 counting, with its overall increase; Metztitlan, Xochicoatlan, and Zimapain stand out.

To summarize, we may note first the confirmation of the consequences of epidemics and subsistence crises. Beyond this, the faldas have a strong profile as an overall in-migration area and the valley of Puebla as an out-migration area, especially during the middle decades of the eighteenth century. If by further research part of this pattern could defi- nitely be established as migration, I think it will be of the first kind of migration mentioned above, from pueblo to pueblo. The people who left their pueblo de indios could be integrated into another pueblo de indios, although sometimes only temporarily. I suspect, but cannot prove at the

32. See the documents in Fuentes para la historia de la crisis agricola de 1785-1786, ed. Florescano and Rodolfo Pastor, 2 vols. (Mexico City, 1981).

33. Carolyn G. McGovern-Bowen, Mortality and Crisis Mortality in Eighteenth-Cen- tury Mexico: The Case of Pdtzcuaro, Michoacdin (Syracuse, 1983); Robert C. Spillman, "The Disaster Complex of 1785-1786 in New Spain: Prologue to a Geographical Analysis" (paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Phila- delphia, 1979); Morin, Michoacdn en la Nueva Espaha del siglo XVIII, 56-58.



present stage of research, that even in years of crisis the Indians showed a preference for communities of the faldas, where the indigenous languages were still spoken and popular Catholicism still flourished, i.e., where traces remained of the link with the altepere organization-the founda- tion upon which the pueblos were first established.34 These tributaries remained tributaries, and their migration should therefore be considered as originating from push factors: epidemics and harvest failures. The Ramo de Tributos and Ramo de Indios in the Mexican National Archive are full of reports indicating this kind of migration. The maps discussed above mirror crises in the countryside of eighteenth-century Anahuac.

But the tributaries went to the faldas for another reason. They were probably warmly received, an issue addressed by only one study, Daniele Dehouve's description of the separation of villages in the province of Tlapa in the southern faldas.35 She traces the origins of the pueblos de indios and the division into cabeceras and sujetos, the latter administered by Indian leaders of the cabecera. During this process in the sixteenth century, especially in the thinly populated faldas, several pueblos de indios were formed by Indians of different ethnic backgrounds and united former rival villages. From the beginning of the seventeenth century the subject villages of Tlapa wanted to free themselves from domination by the cabeceras, but they could only do so if they possessed "a very decent church," a "community house and community property," and especially a specific minimum number of "Indian" families, i.e., tributaries. The church, community house, and community property could be arranged, but the necessity to count at least eighty Indian families according to Spanish standards remained difficult throughout the eighteenth century. Only when "Indian" migrants came to their villages and decided to stay and to contribute to the tributo could this last goal be reached. How- ever, it did happen in the late eighteenth century. In 1767 Tlapa still had seventy sujetos, but only thirty years later the province had totally disin-

34. On popular Catholicism, see: Adriaan van Oss, Catholic Colonialism: A Parish His- tory of Guatemala, 1524-1821 (Cambridge, 1986); Brading, "Tridentine Catholicism and Enlightened Despotism in Bourbon Mexico," Journal of Latinr Amterican Studies (hereafter JLAS), 15:1 (May 1983), 1-22; Serge Gruzinski, "La 'segunda aculturaci6n': el estado ilus- trado y la religiosidad indigena en Nueva Espafia (1775-1800)," Estudios de Historia Novo- hispana, 8 (1985), 175-201, and "Normas cristianas y respuestas indigenas: apuntes para el estudio del proceso de occidentalizaci6n entre los indios de Nueva Espan-a," Historias, 15 (1986), 31-41; John M. Ingham, Mary, Michael and Lucifer: Folk Catholicism in Central Mexico (Austin, 1986). On the relationship between altepetl and pueblo de indios, see Garcia Martinez, Pueblos de la sierra.

35. Daniele Dehouve, "Las separaciones de pueblos en la region de Tlapa (siglo XVIII)," HMex, 33:4 (Apr.-June 1984), 379-404, also published in English in Indian Community in Colonial Mexico, 162-182. Taylor's "Indian Pueblos of Central Jalisco" is suggestive too in this respect.



tegrated and most of the subject villages had attained the rank of cabecera of their own pueblo de indios.

To the preliminary conclusions I can now add the following hypothesis. It can be seen that the period of bad harvests in the Anahuac region corresponded to a period of increased migration in the countryside. Rural migration in Anahuac has not been studied in much detail, and my provisional picture has been reconstructed with the aid of tribute lists. Despite its limitations, this picture reveals a combination of push and pull factors. It is difficult to distinguish between these factors, but it is the push factor alone-the rural disorganization resulting from the agricultural crises and relative overpopulation-that seems to fit what can be called "migration from pueblo to pueblo." This was by and large a migration to the faldas. Many Indians did their best to continue as farmers in the larger Indian settlements in the faldas or in the highlands, even if only for the duration of the crisis.

Migration from Village to Town

The second type of migration is much more difficult to grasp and cannot be illustrated in maps. One factor that determined the migration from village to town was the hope of making a better living there. Leaving village life, of course, was a big step, not the first to come into a peasant's mind. In New Spain it was even more difficult to cross the threshold, for it involved a change of diet (more bread, less maize), of language (more Spanish, less of one's indigenous language), and of labor (fewer agrarian activities, more industrial). Only those peasants who abandoned the countryside for good because there was no more work for them or because they were attracted by employment possibilities in the towns were prepared to become "non-Indians" according to viceregal standards. In the course of time they became detached from the peasant setting; they became professional artisans, the majority of whom settled in a few larger villages, towns, and cities. During the last decades of the eighteenth century, many Indians, particularly young males from the peasant villages, took their chances in the cabecera or the town in the neighborhood and tried to make a living there that was no longer possible in the old villages.

How can we measure and classify the number of lower-class urban inhabitants over time? Theoretically, migration in Anahuac must be re- flected in the balance of the tributaries figures. If it had been the first kind of migration, the number of "Indian" out-migrants from the countryside would have matched the number of "Indian" in-migrants to the towns. As Cook and Borah, Seed, Valdes, and Anderson have already stated,



one major flaw in this kind of research is the scarcity of urban Indian population data for the late colonial period. The military census of the 1790S excluded Indians, for they were not subject to military service. But according to Anderson and Chance we should not look for "Indians" to identify the in-migrants from the rural areas but instead look among the non-Indian groups in the towns. Chance has found traces of changing group identity among the urban Indians of Antequera de Oaxaca in southern Mexico. The curate of the village of Jalatlaco, near the city, observed in 1777 that Nahuatl was no longer spoken there and had virtually ceased to be used in three other villages. Many Indians were drawn to the city of Antequera as spinners and weavers, as masons, bakers, and artisans. Anderson convincingly argues that among those individuals labeled "Span- iards" by the census takers at that time in Guadalajara were low-status individuals virtually indistinguishable from the city's Indian and casta residents in every significant social and economic category.36 The second type of migration must thus have had an interesting effect: the number of non-Indians should have increased.

Who were the non-Indians? The social system discussed here made use of an ethnic terminology and was called the regimen de castas. The concept of casta originates in the sixteenth century as a Spanish classification of a group descended from a common ancestor or from two ances- tors with different ethnic backgrounds. As such, the term can be found in contemporaneous etymological dictionaries and even in the twentieth- century Diccionario de la Real Academia. Over a period of time the term came to be used by Spanish officials to classify urbanized non-Indians who were also non-Spaniards. Most of the Spaniards possessed a Spanish birth certificate, which can be seen as a sort of "passport," although birth cer- tificates were rarely called for outside the elite. One could pass into the category of Spaniard if one sufficiently resembled a European. This category comprised two subgroups: the europeos, who were born in Spain- although a few came from other European countries-and the criollos, who were born in New Spain. In general in the eighteenth century, all the groups not included among the Spaniards or the Indians were referred to as castas; they possessed neither the "passport" nor the relevant somatic characteristics. They consisted of variously named subgroups: the commonest were castizos, mestizos, and mulattos, but in official documen-

36. Anderson, "Race and Social Stratification," 212-213; Patricia Seed, "Social Dimen- sions of Race: Mexico City 1753," HAHR, 62:4 (Nov. 1982), 569-606, esp. 576-577; Dennis Nodin Valdes, "The Decline of the Sociedad de Castas in Mexico City" (Ph.D. diss., Uni- versity of Michigan, 1978), 24-26, 54-55; Cook and Borah, Essays in Population History, LI, 180-269; Chance, Race and Class in Colonial Oaxaca, 151-152.



tation other names like moriscos, lobos, or negros were frequently used as well.37

Legally, each main casta stratum had distinct civic and fiscal rights and obligations. For instance, the members of the mulatto category, which was quite important in western New Spain, had slave ancestry, paid tribute, and were prohibited from entering certain professions. The result was that many mulattos tried to "cross over" into another category, which in the cities would have entailed becoming a craftsman. Marriage was a suitable avenue for attaining or maintaining a higher position on the social ladder or for a step down, because where, for example, the sex ratio was unfavorable, women readily mar

Date post:	26-Sep-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	arij-ouweneel
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Ouweneel 1991 - HAHR - Growth, Stagnation, And Migration - Tributario Series of Anahuac

Documents