-
Macehuales and the Corporate Solution: Colonial Secessions in
Nahua Central Mexico
Stephen M. Perkins*Oklahoma State University
This investigation of the legal separation, or secession,of
indigenous subjectvillages from municipal governments in the
Tepeaca district of Puebla, Mexicofinds that early colonial
(15211650) and late colonial (16511821) cases dif-fered in their
litigation and consequences. Early Spanish officials decided
casesbased predominantly on pre-Hispanic tradition, only permitting
separationsthat preserved older indigenous social units. Bourbon
officials of the late era,in contrast, enabled an entirely new type
of pueblo to develop. Indigenouscommoners (macehuales) used
secessions to rupture relations with indige-nous nobles (caciques)
and local Spanish agriculturalists. The corporateorganization of
new pueblos in Puebla was without pre-Hispanic precedent.
En este artculo, investigo la separacin legal, o secesin, de
sujetos ind-genas de sus municipios en el distrito de Tepeaca,
Puebla, en Mxico. Ah,los trmites coloniales tempranos (15211650)
contrastaban con los trmitescoloniales tardos (16511821) tanto en
su litigio como en sus consecuencias.Los funcionarios espaoles del
primer perodo resolvan los casos basndosesobre todo en la tradicin
prehispnica, y permitiendo tan slo separacionesque preservaban las
entidades sociales indgenas previamente existentes. Encontraste,
los funcionarios borbones permitan el desarollo de un nuevo tipode
pueblo. Los macehuales hacan uso del proceso de secesin para
rompersus relaciones con caciques y agricultores espaoles locales.
La organizacincorporativa de los pueblos nuevos en Puebla no tuvo
precedente en la eraprehispnica.
Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos Vol. 21, Issue 2, Summer
2005, pages 277306. ISSN 0742-9797
electronic ISSN 1533-8320. 2005 by the Regents of the University
of California. All rights reserved. Please
direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce
article content through the University of
California Presss Rights and Permissions website, at
www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
277
*Acknowledgments: A Fulbright-Garca Robles Fellowship and a
grant from Wenner-Gren(Gr. 6023) funded research. I owe much to
John Chance. I appreciate the advice of RachelAdler, Brian Larkin,
and Blaire McPherson. Two reviewers comments improved and pol-ished
the final draft. All errors are mine.
-
On the morning of June 9, 1800, Nahuatl-speaking gaanes
(laborers)gathered at the chapel of the Hacienda of San Miguel
Villanueva, locatedin the Valley of Puebla. They watched a Spanish
surveyor prepare tomeasure a new townsite (or fundo legal). The act
itself hardly meritedmuch excitement, but they must have been
overjoyed: They had movedone step closer to independence. Once
landless peons, they had litigatedfor over five years against their
landlords, the Villanuevas, one of Pueblasoldest and most prominent
Spanish families, descendants of an originalconquistador. The
gaanes had pooled their meager funds to hire alawyer. The lawyer
convinced colonial officials that they possessed thenecessary
attributesa church, a robust population, adequate
naturalresourcesto incorporate as a pueblo. Over the objections of
the Villa-nuevas attorney, the government agreed and ordered
measurement ofa townsite on the haciendas lands.
The surveyor began at the church door. Walking west, he used a
cordmeasuring fifty varas (approximately forty-two meters) to mark
off 600varas (503 meters). He then repeated the procedure for each
cardinaldirection. Upon completion, the townsite of San Sebastian
Buenavistameasured some 250 acres.
A year later, responding to further entreaties by San Sebastians
cit-izens, colonial officials separated the pueblo from the
municipality ofAcatzingo to facilitate better government and more
efficient collectionof tribute. Officials also ordered the
establishment of a town council inSan Sebastian led by a locally
elected gobernador (governor, or mayor).
Thus, on lands once belonging to the hacienda of San Miguel
Villa-nueva, the pueblo of San Sebastian Buenavista emerged. Known
todayas San Sebastian Villanueva, it remains a viable community
with 4,372inhabitants.1
Remarkably, legal challenges like this one happened frequently
incolonial Mexico (or New Spain). San Sebastian Buenavista began as
anhacienda. Other pueblos originated in the fission, or
secession,of sub-ject communities (sujetos) from their municipal
head town (cabecera).Disputes between head towns and subject towns
frequently ended insecession. But whether originating as an
hacienda or a subject town theresult was often the same:
designation as a pueblo, establishment of amunicipal council
(cabildo), and measurement of corporate lands.
Historians and anthropologists commonly note these judicial
casesin regions they study (e.g., Garca Martnez 1987; Gibson 1964;
Taylor
278 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
1. I found the case in Mexicos National Archive: Archivo General
de la Nacin (here-after AGN), Tierras, vol. 1296, exp. 6.
Statistics on Mexicos demographic characteristicscome from the
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografa e Informtica (hereafter
INEGI)1991:3.
-
1996). Yet few investigate in much depth the timing, processes,
or con-sequences for local indigenous social organization and land
tenure. JamesLockhart (1992) concludes that the cases represent a
continuation of pre-Hispanic processes carried forth into colonial
years (see also Terraciano2001). He proposes that the cellular
organization of Nahua society, inwhich larger sociopolitical units
develop through the aggregation ofsmaller units, predisposed
smaller units to fission. Decentralization con-tinued after the
conquest, an embodiment of small-unit ambitions thathad existed
since remote times (Lockhart 1992:57).
This article reports my archival study of colonial secession
litigationin the Tepeaca political district, located in Central
Mexicos Valley ofPuebla.2 I will periodize the districts cases to
argue that early colonial(15211650) cases differed fundamentally
from late colonial (16511821)ones. My data lead me not to
contradict, but to qualify Lockharts (1992)argument. Many early
cases did involve disputes and units of organiza-tion that predated
colonial years. But later cases differed. First, they in-volved
issues of the colonial present, not the pre-Hispanic past.
Second,they resulted in social units without pre-Hispanic roots.
Cells did not somuch separate as disintegrate. Finally, the history
of secessions in theCastile region of Spain (Nader 1990), suggests
a strong Old World legalprecedent for New Spains cases.
My investigation also addresses Eric Wolfs closed corporate
peas-ant communitymodel. In a series of publications beginning in
1955, Wolfproposed that modern indigenous community organization
stemmednot from isolation, but from capitalist integration. Wolf
(1955:456457)theorized that corporate communities developed in the
seventeenth-century era of indigenous depopulation and colonial
economic depres-sion. He argued that society-wide economic
depression could weakenexternal linkages between a colony and the
wider world and disrupt orweaken urban commerce and industry. In
rural areas strong communitystructures could flourish, meeting the
limited demands of the largersociety for labor and products without
surrendering local autonomy toexternal middlemen or commercial
firms. To guard against external in-trusion, communities developed
corporate controls: while individualcommunity members might use
land and other resources for their ownpurposes, the land could not
be sold or transferred to outsiders. Com-munity officials elected
by the adult males of the community oversawand protected these
insular, corporate privileges (see Wolf 1955, 1956,1957, 1959,
1960).
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 279
2. As cited in the text and tables, the data derive from
documents housed in Mex-icos AGN, and in Pueblas State Notarial
Archive, the Archivo General de Notaras del Es-tado de Puebla
(hereafter AGNP).
-
By explaining community closure to outsiders, corporate
landtenure, cultural traits, and community identity as reactions to
wider po-litical and economic fields, Wolf sought to identify the
significant vari-ables and processes underpinning these
communities. Unfortunately, likeprominent historians of his day
(e.g., Gibson 1964:165), he also assumedthat colonization
compressed indigenous society into a single impover-ished social
and economic stratum (Wolf 1959:212213). Consequentlyhe envisioned
closed corporate peasant communities as largely egali-tarian (but
see Wolf 1986).
Later investigations demonstrate how indigenous
noblestermedcaciques by the Spanishremained viable and very
important inmany colonial, and even post-colonial, indigenous
communities (Chance1996, 2003; Garca Martnez 1987; Gruzinski 1989;
Haskett 1991; Mon-aghan, Joyce, and Spores 2003; Van Young 1984).
In this vein, SteveStern (1983) revamps Wolfs scenario to
hypothesize how an eighteenth-century struggle for solidarity
between indigenous caciques and com-moners actually led to
organizations approximating the corporate com-munity model (Stern
1983:39; see also Van Young 1984;Wolf 1986). Stern(1982,1983)
illustrates how pre-Hispanic class or ethnic distinctionsmight
influence New Spains indigenous community organization.
I will argue that secessions represent one manifestation of
Sternsstruggle for solidarity. Later secessions, especially, led to
communitiesnot unlike those first postulated by Wolf (1959) in his
closed corporatecommunity model. The resulting pueblos operated
outside the frame-work of older noble and commoner estates. Pueblo
officers elected byall adult males, not just caciques, managed
pueblo lands and finances.Pueblo townsites designated by Spanish
officials allowed non-noble In-dians (termed macehuales) to
cultivate crops on pueblo lands notowned by caciques. Such land
tenure, at least in Puebla, was withouthistorical precedent.
Overall, I will follow other investigators in sug-gesting that
Wolfs model, while still inspirational, requires a revisionof the
specific historical processes and timing underlying these
com-munities origin.
I begin by discussing Pueblas pre-Hispanic institutions to
better ex-plain the regions post-conquest reorganization. I then
discuss Spanishideas about community organization, before reviewing
early colonialcases from the Tepeaca political district. Over time
Spanish ideas evolvedand I discuss the enactment of legislation
designed to protect Indian com-munities and landholdings. I then
turn to Tepeacas late colonial cases.The surprising acceleration of
secessions all over New Spain during theseyears is reviewed in the
context of the Bourbon reforms. I conclude bysuggesting that late
colonial community processes, especially, must beunderstood within
New Spains wider political and economic conditions.
280 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
-
Altepetl and Teccalli in Puebla
Located east across the volcanic divide from the more renowned
Valleyof Mexico, Central Mexicos Valley of Puebla (hereafter
Puebla) has along record of occupation.3 In pre-Hispanic and
Spanish accounts of na-tive society, city-states termed altepetl
appear as the most important in-stitutions. Within Pueblas
altepetl, however, a pivotal institution was theteccalli, or noble
house. Each altepetl contained multiple teccalli, butthe number
varied greatly. Altepetl like Tepeaca, Tecali, or Cuauhtinchanmight
have ten or fewer teccalli, while a larger altepetl such as
Hue-jotzingo or Tlaxcalas Ocotelulco could have forty or more
(Anguianoand Chapa 1976:142147; Chance 2000:488; Dyckerhoff and
Prem1976:172).4
Every noble and commoner identified with a particular teccalli.
Theupper stratum of the teccalli consisted of relations of
authority and rec-iprocity between the lord of a teccalli and his
dependent nobles. A lordgranted nobles the right to receive labor
and agricultural products fromspecific commoner households. In
return, nobles compensated him witha share of their tribute.
The number of nobles, commoners, and land parcels in each
tec-calli likely correlated with its political influence. The ruler
of a large anddominant teccalli often served as king of the entire
altepetl. Or multipleteccalli rulers might jointly lead an
altepetl, as with the four kings of Te-peaca at the time of the
Spanish conquest. As segments comprising thelarger altepetl, each
teccalli was a relatively independent social entity.Population
pressure, warfare among competing city-states and inter-marriage
likely welded fractious teccalli to one another, but new alte-petl
could also be created through their fissioning (Chance 1999:6;
Oli-vera 1978:7374; Reyes Garca 1977:76118).5
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 281
3. The most important primary document for Pueblas pre-Hispanic
history is theHistoria tolteca-chichimeca (Kirchhoff, Odena Gemes
and Reyes Garca 1989). Analy-ses and summaries of the Historia are
found in Martnez (1984b), Olivera (1978), and ReyesGarca
(1977).
4. For Nahuas (the Nahuatl-speaking peoples of Central Mexico),
altepetl, teccalliand similar organizational terms remain
unmodified in plural form. Pluralization denotesmembers (e.g.,
altepemeh).
5. I should note at this point that the term teccalli is absent
from documents in theValley of Mexico. Adolph F. Bandelier
(1878,1880) initiated investigation of Central Mex-ican social
organization by focusing on the Valley of Mexicos calpulli
organizations. Fol-lowing his work, many scholars assumed that
calpulliinitially conceptualized as local-ized lineages (Caso 1963;
Kirchhoff 1954; Monzn 1949), then as territorial wards(Carrasco
1971; Kellogg 1986; Offner 1983)organized all of Central Mexico.
Investiga-tors of Puebla and Tlaxcala, however, encounter virtually
no documents discussingcalpulli (Carrasco 1976; Chance 2000;
Martnez 1984b; Olivera 1978; Reyes Garca 1977).Addressing this
conundrum, Lockhart (1992:104108) divides Central Mexican social
or-
-
Before the Spanish conquest, teccalli were managed
collectively,even if hierarchically, by nobles and commoners.
Commoners cultivatedteccalli lands in exchange for usufruct
payments of surpluses to nobles.On a stipulated basis, commoner
households delivered a portion of theirharvest or other products to
agents of nobles. Commoners do not ap-pear to have been
genealogically related to nobles. The Historia tolteca-chichimeca
indicates that Nahua immigrants subdued local populationsas they
established teccalli and altepetl (Kirchhoff, Odena Gemes andReyes
Garca 1989). Even so, it appears that commoners remained in
ef-fective control of landincluding bequeathing it to heirsas long
asthey remained tribute-paying members of the teccalli. Each
teccalli,therefore, can be understood as a type of corporate
organization, albeit,one with a pronounced division of labor based
upon estate stratificationbetween nobles and commoners. Spanish
colonialism may have actuallyexacerbated the division between
estates, leading to more antagonismbetween caciques and macehuales
than had existed prior (e.g., Stern1983; Van Young 1984).
After conquest, Spanish officials dealt with Pueblas teccalli
bylegally equating it with their own Iberian institution of
mayorazgo. InSpain, mayorazgos were officially entailed landed
estates, in other words,a property legally designated as
inalienable and passed impartibly fromone noble to a designated
heir (Clavero 1974). Spaniards labeled NewWorld estates held by
caciques as cacicazgos. Treating teccalli as caci-cazgos privatized
them. A specific cacique owned each one (Chance1996, 2000). But
official Spanish recognition also gave the
teccalli-turned-cacicazgo a legal existence in colonial society.
The cacicazgo providedcaciques with a legal basis for their
properties under Spanish rule.
Spanish Taxonomies
Just as colonial bureaucrats dealt with the teccalli by deeming
it a caci-cazgo, a legal entity akin to mayorazgo, they drew upon
Spanish prin-ciples to categorize and structure altepetl. They
employed two tax-onomies. The first, a census taxonomy, had its
basis in population sizeand degree of urbanization. A large,
well-developed settlement might bedesignated a ciudad, or city; a
medium-sized community a villa; a small,independent settlement a
pueblo. Each designation was official in that
282 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
ganization into a western zone (i.e., the Valley of Mexico),
where the term teccalli is ab-sent from early documents and
calpulli organizations predominated, versus an eastern zone(i.e.,
the Valley of Puebla and Tlaxcala), where teccalli flourished and
calpulli remainedinsignificant organizations found in but a few
city-states.
-
it had to be awarded by Spanish officials, often in response to
a formalpetition from the community. As discussed below, this
taxonomyespecially the pueblo designationbecame critically
important for eigh-teenth- and early nineteenth-century indigenous
communities. Duringthe initial years of Spanish rule, however,
these designations carried ameasure of prestige, but little else in
terms of real benefits (Gibson1964:3233).
The second taxonomy dealt with the institutionalization of
munic-ipal administration and brought more tangible benefits and
obligations.In Puebla, as in the Valley of Mexico and elsewhere,
Spanish officials fol-lowed pre-Hispanic precedent in designating
the largest settlement ofan altepetl, with a proven line of
indigenous rulers, as the cabecera, orhead town, of a municipality.
The Spanish established a municipal coun-cil, or cabildo, in each
cabecera; by the mid-sixteenth century it was ledby an indigenous
gobernador, along with officials termed alcaldes, regi-dores, and
other minor officials. As the council leader, the
gobernadoradministered justice in indigenous disputes within the
municipality andcollected the tribute and labor demanded by Spanish
authorities.
Smaller settlements located in the hinterlands of the old
altepetl,meanwhile, were designated as sujetos, or subject towns of
the munici-pality.6 To be designated a cabecera came with a measure
of power andprestige, while the sujeto designation did not. In
comparison with cabe-ceras, sujetos tended to be populated more by
commoners, the mace-huales. The early sixteenth-century effort to
congregate isolated mace-hual households into nucleated sujeto
settlements likely accentuated thestratified settlement pattern
between caciques living in cabeceras andmacehuales occupying
sujetos (Chance 1996:489; Perkins 2000:6264,132139).
Caciques might dominate a cabildo by preventing macehuales
fromvoting. They could then monopolize elected offices.7 Macehuales
wereexpected to rely on the gobernador to represent their interests
and tocomply with his orders for tribute and labor. In this
arrangement mace-huales living in sujetos found themselves at a
distinct disadvantage: to
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 283
6. As discussed below in the case of Acatzingo, the Spanish also
occasionally assignedone altepetl to another altepetl as its
subject town.
7. Hildeberto Martnez (1984b:125165) chronicles the domination
of teccalli no-bles in Tepeacas early colonial municipal council
(cabildo). For the neighboring MixtecaAlta region of Oaxaca, Ronald
Spores (1984:172173) documents cacique domination inthe electoral
system, as does Robert Haskett (1991:2934) working in Cuernavaca,
More-los. In the Sierra Zapoteca of Oaxaca, John K. Chance
(1989:141142) reports that mace-huales in these small pueblos did
participate, but always beginning in the lowest officesof the
cabildo, while caciques began in mid- to upper-level offices.
-
make requests or air grievances they dealt with a cacique whose
ownclass or political interests potentially conflicted with their
own. Thus,in the relations between a cabecera and its sujetos the
Spanish not onlycreated the infrastructure for the local level
extraction of indigenous la-bor, products, and wealth, but also
provided a municipal framework thathelped to preserve the
indigenous social structure.8
Interestingly, while Spanish officials reorganized Central
Mexicosaltepetl within the municipal cabecera-sujeto taxonomy, a
movementcontrary to this sort of hierarchical organization was well
underway inthe region of Castile, Spain. Helen Nader (1990) reveals
that beginningin the fifteenth century and becoming especially
prominent under theHapsburg dynasty (15161700), Spanish monarchs
increasingly gener-ated revenue by allowing Castilian villages to
secede from their rulingtowns or cities. For a stipulated price
villagers could buy a township char-ter, establish an autonomous
municipal council, and take greater con-trol of political and
judicial affairs within their own municipality. Thesesales
generated funds for a cash-starved monarchy. They also
resolveddisputes between head towns and their subordinate villages,
relation-ships fraught with tension in Spanish society. Over the
course of theHapsburg dynasty, the political geography of Castile
became a patchworkof small municipalities. All reported directly to
the national government.With the ascension of Spains French
Bourbons in 1700, the new dynastysought to reverse this process and
institute provincial governing insti-tutions. In the end, however,
the Bourbons too resorted to further salesof town liberty to gain
revenue (Nader 1990:10).
Much as Spanish villages seceded from their head towns,
secessionsbegan occurring in colonial New Spain. Early colonial
secession caseswere often adjudicated based on the pre-Hispanic
status of the peti-tioning community: in cases where a community
proved its pre-Hispanicstatus as an independent altepetl secession
might be permitted, leadingto the replication of the
cabecera-sujeto structure (i.e., a new cabecerawith its own
sujetos). In contrast, in late colonial secession cases, thefirst
Spanish taxonomic system (ciudad-villa-pueblo) was used by
plain-tiffs to disrupt and dismantle the second one
(cabecera-sujeto). Late colo-nial cases turned on whether
indigenous commoners, living in a sujetoor on a hacienda, could
justify their designation as a pueblo with all therights inherent
in this official title, and therefore achieve political andeconomic
separation from their cabecera. If so, the community couldestablish
its own autonomous cabildo. As an official pueblo it was
thenentitled to an allotment of corporate-controlled landholdings,
even if land
284 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
8. Lockhart (1992:5253) discusses how received ideas of the
cabecera and sujetoimpacted Nahua thinking about the altepetl.
-
had to be appropriated from adjacent Spanish haciendas or
Indiancabeceras.
Neither early nor late colonial cases suggest that subject
communi-ties bought their autonomy, as occurred in Castile. But the
parade of casesbefore the colonial government, the discourse used
by Spanish lawyersin proceedings, and the frequently favorable
rulings by Spanish judgesduring late colonial years suggest that
Old and New World cases stemmedfrom a common ruling philosophy and
judicial tradition.
Early Colonial Secessions (15211650): Litigating the
Pre-Hispanic Legacy
At the time of the Spanish Conquest, the powerful altepetl of
Tepeaca,located in Puebla, shared a long and complex history with
two nearbyaltepetl: Acatzingo, located northeast some ten to twelve
km., and Oz-toticpac, located approximately five km. north.9 Nobles
of several tec-calli from nearby Cuauhtinchan founded Acatzingo in
the fourteenth cen-tury. Mixteca-Popoloca immigrants settled
Oztoticpac earlier in thethirteenth century. In 1458, Tepeaca
overthrew Cuauhtinchans re-gional domination and aggregated both
Acatzingo and Oztoticpac intoits own altepetl. Both altepetl now
owed tribute and fealty to Tepeaca,but maintained their own
leadership and teccalli. One ruler each fromAcatzingo and
Oztoticpac were recognized as kings, and together withtwo others
drawn from Tepeaca, they constituted the four kings of Te-peacas
dominion.
After the conquest, colonial officials designated Tepeaca as the
headtown of the new Spanish-style municipality. As subject towns,
Acatzingoand Oztoticpac experienced even greater subordination than
before.Most obligations ultimately fell to the macehuales. Not only
did they pro-vide tribute and personal services to the caciques of
their respective tec-calli in Acatzingo or Oztoticpac, but they now
fulfilled similar demandsto Tepeaca as the cabecera. Such demands
strained the prosperity of theteccalli in these communities and
provided caciques and macehualesalike with an incentive to form
municipalities apart from Tepeaca. Evenso, the people of Oztoticpac
apparently never challenged their subjectstatus and the community
remained a small sujeto throughout the colo-nial era and beyond.
Perhaps Oztoticpacs dwindling numbers made asecession attempt
unfeasible.10
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 285
9. Except where cited otherwise, Martnez (1984b:3749; 167184)
provides thesixteenth-century information concerning Tepeacas
disputes.
10. To this day Santa Mara Oxtotipan remains a small settlement
of 1,654 personswithin Tepeacas municipality (INEGI 1991:160).
-
The caciques of Acatzingo, on the other hand, litigated
vigorouslyto escape Tepeacas dominion (Carrasco 1969;Reyes Garca
1988:1178;Martnez 1984a:243247). Sometime after 1555, Acatzingo
gained per-mission to elect its own gobernador, and shortly
thereafter to obtain, ifonly temporarily, the official designation
of ciudad (Carrasco 1969:6).Spanish officials resisted granting
Acatzingo outright independence,which Tepeaca lobbied against.
Eventually, however, after more than acentury of litigation,
Acatzingo finally did secure its independence fromTepeaca in the
mid-seventeenth century and became a head town in itsown right,
taking with it a number of subject towns.
Acatzingos secession case echoes others of the same period.
Headtowns and subject towns usually cited pre-Hispanic altepetl
history toargue their case: Traditions of local seoro [lordship]
were evoked indemonstration of cabecera rank, but Indian
testimonies on the one sideand the other took opposite positions on
what the pre-conquest statushad been (Gibson 1964:54). A well
researched example of a colonialmunicipality fragmenting into its
former altepetl comes from the south-ern Valley of Mexico, where
Rebecca Horn documents the division ofthe head town of Coyoacan
into its four original altepetl (Horn 1997:3037). Kevin Terraciano
reports similar conflicts in the Mixteca Alta of Oa-xaca where
legal cases centered on whether settlements housed dynasticrulers
prior to conquest. As the sixteenth-century litigation between
Yan-huitlan and Tecomatlan attests, Spanish officials sought
verdicts by at-tempting to reconstruct the complex pre-Hispanic
relations betweenthese localities (Terraciano 2001:124130).11
Early Colonial Class Conflicts
At the same time, more radical class conflicts in Puebla
threatened thestability of both the indigenous teccalli and the
Spanish cabecera-sujetohierarchy. In the Tepeaca district,
Hildeberto Martnez (1984b:176184) describes the growing
sixteenth-century rift within teccalli be-tween caciques and
macehuales concerning land, tribute obligations
286 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
11. Bernardo Garca Martnez (1987:217221), working in the Sierra
Norte de Puebla(located north of the Valley of Puebla), discusses a
slightly different situation in the conflictbetween the cabecera
Tlatlauquitepec and its sujeto Zacapoaxtla. While Zacapoaxtla
ap-pears not to have been a pre-Hispanic altepetl, it had been
designated as the seat of a parishin the mid-sixteenth century. In
its secession case against Tlatlauquitepec, Zacapoaxtla usedthis
status to achieve its independence in 1580. Nevertheless, the
resulting secession re-sembles others discussed here in that
Zacapoaxtla became an autonomous cabecera, tak-ing with it two
sujetos formerly under Tlatlauquitepec.
-
and municipal government control. In various sujetos, macehuales
at-tempted to bypass caciques by paying royal tribute directly to
the colo-nial government, claiming that caciques no longer
rightfully controlledteccalli lands. In rulings concerning Tepeaca
in 1571 and again in 1581,Spanish officials formally designated
teccalli as cacicazgos and empha-sized the right of particular
teccalli caciques to collect macehual trib-ute (Martnez
1984a:447514). The rulings were consistent with colo-nial laws. The
Recopilacin de leyes de los reynos de las Indias([1681]1973)
specifically mandated the preservation of caciques pre-Hispanic
right to cacicazgos and to the macehual labor and tribute em-bodied
in them.12
In separate litigation between 1568 and 1571, macehuales of
bothTepeaca and Acatzingo sought access to the offices of municipal
gov-ernment. They undoubtedly appreciated the necessity of
representationin reducing the omnipotence of the gobernador and his
fellow caciques.The colonial government agreed. In 1571 it ordered
that in Tepeaca inthe elections . . . of alcaldes, regidores,
alguaciles, mayordomos, and othermunicipal officials, half of the
offices belong to the [caciques] and theother half to the
macehuales (AGNP, Tepeaca, paq.41, exp.28, fol. 2v.).Yet, no
evidence suggests that local Spanish officials ever carried out
thissweeping decree, especially for the highest offices of the
municipal coun-cil. Tepeacas caciques, no doubt in league with
local Spanish officials,found a way to bypass the governments
ruling and keep their fellowmacehuales disenfranchised.
These legal conflicts abated by the seventeenth century. As
else-where in Mesoamerica, Pueblas indigenous population declined
rapidly.By 1650 epidemic disease reduced the population of Tepeaca
and sur-rounding indigenous communities to one-fourth of their
estimated sizein 1570 (Vollmer 1973).13 For Tepeaca a variety of
sources indicate thecollapse of the citys indigenous population
(Table 1). This holocaustdecreased the need for land among those
who survived. In cases wheremacehuales did petition for land,
viceregal officials rejected them in fa-vor of maintaining cacique
land tenure. Officials viewed the preserva-tion of the indigenous
social structure as essential to maintaining eco-nomic and
political stability (Garca Martnez 1987:182187, 215217;Lockhart
1992:54).
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 287
12. See the section ttulo 7, libro 6, entitled De los caciques,
in the aforementionedRecopilacin (1973).
13. Vollmer (1973) utilizes tributary counts from 1560 and 1570
as a baseline formeasuring subsequent losses, but it is important
to recognize that even by 1560 the in-digenous population had
already been drastically reduced from its pre-conquest size.
-
288 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
Tab
le 1
.Se
lect
ed E
stim
ates
of
Ind
igen
ou
s Po
pu
lati
on
,Tep
eaca
,Pu
ebla Es
tim
ated
Yea
r:U
nit
of
An
alys
is:
Enu
mer
ated
:M
ult
iplie
r:Po
pu
lati
on
:So
urc
e:
1520
su
nsp
ecifi
ed g
ener
al a
rea
30,0
00
ho
mb
res
100,
000
Ger
har
d (
1993
:280
)15
48p
ueb
lo (
?)32
,597
Bo
rah
an
d C
oo
k (1
960:
147
)15
52p
ueb
lo9,
122
trib
uta
ries
3.3a
30,1
03Pa
so y
Tro
nco
so (
1940
[150
518
18]:
155)
1568
city
(?)
21,8
79C
oo
k an
d B
ora
h (
1979
:20)
1646
mu
nic
ipal
ity
(?)
8,22
0C
oo
k an
d B
ora
h (
1979
:20)
1702
city
326
trib
uta
ries
3.8b
1,23
9A
GN
,Tie
rras
,vo
l.27
30,e
xp
.1.
1742
city
457
fam
ilies
c4.
9d2,
239
Vill
ase
or
y S
nch
ez (
1952
[17
46
48]:
248
)17
85ci
ty2,
118
2,11
8B
riti
sh L
ibra
ry,
Mex
ico
,vo
l.22
5,fo
l.4v
.18
00m
un
icip
alit
y11
,432
tri
bu
tari
es5e
57,1
60G
erh
ard
(19
93:2
80)
1990
city
16,9
67 p
erso
nsf
16,9
67I.
N.E
.G.I
.(19
91:2
19)
1990
mu
nic
ipal
ity
49,0
89 p
erso
nsg
49,0
89I.
N.E
.G.I
.(19
91:2
19)
aFo
llow
ing
Bo
rah
an
d C
oo
k (1
960:
102)
.b
Follo
win
g C
oo
k an
d B
ora
h (
1979
:13)
.c
Follo
win
g C
oo
k an
d B
ora
h (
1968
:46
),I
red
uce
d t
he
481
enu
mer
ated
fam
ilies
by
5 p
erce
nt
(or
app
rox
imat
ely
24)
to a
cco
un
t fo
r w
idow
s an
d
wid
ower
s.d
Co
ok
and
Bo
rah
(19
68:4
6).
eC
oo
k an
d B
ora
h (
1968
:40)
.fw
ith
ou
t re
gard
to
eth
nic
or
raci
al d
iffe
ren
ces
gw
ith
ou
t re
gard
to
eth
nic
or
raci
al d
iffe
ren
ces
-
Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Townsite Legislation
While macehuales unsuccessfully petitioned for direct access to
land andgovernment, Spanish colonial officials enacted statutes
that would even-tually serve as the legal basis for more successful
litigation during the eigh-teenth and early nineteenth centuries.
In a series of rulings (summarizedin Wood 1990:118), the Spanish
colonial government delineated the min-imum amount of land to be
held by each Indian pueblo as its townsiteand the distance to be
maintained between the townsite and Spanish en-terprises such as
haciendas, ranchos and ganados mayores (livestockranches) (Gibson
1964:292293; the original decrees are published inSolano
1984:365367, 384385). By 1695, the government had ordereda
standardized 600 vara measurement beginning at a pueblos church,
typ-ically located in the center of the settlement. As in the
opening case ofSan Sebastian Buenavista, if a surveyor measured 600
varas outward froma pueblos church in each of the four cardinal
directions with the quad-rants squared off, the total area of the
townsite measured approximately1,440,000 square varas, or about 250
acres (Wood 1990:119123).
Paradoxically, Spanish bureaucrats repeatedly framed this
legislationin the idiom of pueblos (towns), rather than in the
sixteenth-centurylanguage of municipal cabeceras and sujetos
(Gibson 1964:293; Wood1984:183). Nevertheless, the legislation was
consistent with languageused in the laws of the later Recopilacin
de leyes de los reynos de lasIndias ([1681]1973), where more was
said about the rights of pueblosthan those of cabeceras or sujetos.
But what constituted a pueblo? Weresujetos eligible for pueblo
status and land rights? Or were only cabecerasto be so designated?
There existed no standard criteria (Lockhart1992:56; Wood
1984:190). An example of this ambiguity is evident in1567, when the
government vaguely stated that 500 varas associated withcabeceras
were to be protected, as well the surrounding area of othersthat
requested and required it (Solano 1984:366). Whether done
inten-tionally or not, the rulings contributed to the decline of
the cabecera-sujeto hierarchy. By the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries lawyers rep-resenting various settlements seized upon the
ambiguities concerningpueblos to support their macehual
clients.
Late Colonial Secessions (16511821): Macehuales and the
Corporate Solution
In comparison with earlier years, several significant changes
occurredin the late colonial period. First, Pueblas indigenous
population beganto recover, much like the rest of Central Mexico.
The tributary popula-tion in the political district of Tepeaca from
1626 until 1800 reflects this
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 289
-
general trend, an overall recovery punctuated by epidemics and
out-migration (Table 2).
Puebla remained heavily indigenous in its ethnic composition,
sec-ond only to Oaxaca in the number of Indians per capita: In
1793, Span-iards and castas (individuals of mixed racial ancestry)
constituted only25 percent of Pueblas population, while the
remaining 373,752 personswere identified by Spanish enumerators as
Indians (indios) (Thomson1989:149). By 1777 nearly a quarter of the
district of Tepeacas popula-tion resided on Spanish haciendas. Many
haciendas possessed moregaanes than the macehuales living in
adjacent settlements (Garavagliaand Grosso 1990:261).
Second, the attitude of Mexico Citys viceregal bureaucracy
towardcaciques and macehuales began to change. With the colonys
matura-tion, cacique privileges were increasingly challenged by
officials of thecolonial government. Unlike their predecessors,
late colonial officials feltless compelled to rely on caciques as
their primary liasons with indige-nous society, or on the
cabecera-sujeto structure to collect tribute andrecruit labor
(Gibson 1964:5557;Lockhart 1992:54). Increasingly, theyviewed this
settlement hierarchy as a liability that concentrated too muchpower
in the hands of gobernadoresusually caciquesopening thedoor to
tribute fraud and other abuses.
One way to break cacique dominion was to allow subject
commu-
290 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
Table 2. Late Colonial Tributary Population, Political
District(Alcalda Mayor) of Tepeacaa
Year: Number of Tributaries:
1626 4,1381696 7,1891720 10,0171725 13,3911730 13,9381745
9,8851750 9,3931765 9,2361775 9,8631780 10,1621785 10,1621790
11,0811800 11,431
a Source: 1626 and 1696 figures derive from Cuenya (1987:65);
other figures derivefrom Ouweneel (1991:573).
-
nities to secede from their head town. As Danile Dehouve argues
inher investigation of Tlapa, Guerrero during the late eighteenth
century,the secessionof villages was aimed at restraining the power
of the In-dian government by dividing it (1990:169). In these years
it was morecommon to create new pueblos than to establish new head
towns. Thepueblo designation differed significantly from the
cabecera-sujeto struc-ture. A head town governed subject towns. A
pueblo usually possessedno subject towns at all. It remained within
the municipality, but was po-litically and economically independent
of the head town. By revampingsubject towns as autonomous pueblos,
each with its own municipalcouncil, the political and economic
power of the old head town and itscaciques was undercut, while
tribute revenue moved more directly toSpanish coffers. Thus
local-level macehuales and high-level Spanish bu-reaucrats each
achieved their different ends, often to the detriment ofcabeceras,
caciques, or Spanish hacienda owners.
But what sort of settlement qualified as a verdadero pueblo, a
truetown? In contrast with the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
case ofAcatzingo versus Tepeaca, officials in the eighteenth and
nineteenth cen-turies expressed little concern or interest in
whether settlements hadbeen the seat of an altepetl ruler, or even
had any nobles at all. Unin-terested with historical tradition, and
without a set list of objective re-quirements to determine if a
settlement should be designated as a pueblo,colonial officials
evaluated late colonial pueblo requests based on vari-able
attributes more related to the present or future of the
settlement:its population and potential for growth; its ability to
remit tribute pay-ments; the adequacy of its church for weekly
mass; the suitability of itscitizens for holding public office; the
distance from its cabecera and theruggedness of the intervening
terrain; and the relationship of the sujetowith its cabildo. A
number of environmental variables, such as wateravailability,
climate, availability of wood, and amount of arable soils,might
also be discussed in determining a settlements suitability as
apueblo.14 Lawyers hired by macehuales or gaanes touted the
benefitsa community would enjoy if it achieved pueblo status.
Table 3 lists cases in Mexicos National Archive concerning the
sep-aration of sujetos from their cabecera. Macehuales often
complained ofthe treatment they received at the hands of the
cabeceras gobernadoras the primary reason for their petition to
fission. As head of the mu-nicipality, the gobernador was the
indigenous authority with the mostpolitical and economic leverage
over sujetos. Macehuales, like those inSantos Reyes (municipality
of Tepeaca) and Santa Mara Ixtayucan (mu-nicipality of Nopaluca),
accused gobernadores of abuse in matters of
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 291
14. Wood (1984:184212) discusses similar factors in the Valley
of Toluca.
-
292 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
Tab
le 3
.Su
jeto
sPe
titi
on
ing
for
Des
ign
atio
n a
s a
Pu
eblo
,Po
litic
al D
istr
ict
(Alc
ald
a M
ayo
r)o
f Te
pea
ca
Mu
nic
ipal
Yea
r(s)
:Su
jeto
(s):
Juri
sdic
tio
n:
Ou
tco
me:
Sou
rce(
s):
1751
San
Sim
n
T
laco
tep
ecT
laco
tep
ecs
cab
ildo
co
mp
lain
s A
GN
,Tie
rras
,vo
l.56
,ex
p.1
12.
Yeh
ual
tep
ecab
ou
t Y
ehu
alte
pec
1751
53
San
ta M
ara
Act
ipan
,A
catz
ingo
sep
arat
ion
ap
pro
ved
;600
var
as
AG
N,
Ind
ios,
vol.
56,e
xp
.100
;Sa
nti
ago
,San
Ju
an
no
t co
nsi
der
edvo
l.56
,ex
p.1
07;v
ol.
56,e
xp
.A
cosa
qu
e10
8;vo
l.56
,ex
p.1
09;v
ol.
56,
exp
.123
;vo
l.56
,ex
p.1
30;v
ol.
56,e
xp
.141
;vo
l.56
,ex
p.1
43.
1752
57
San
tos
Rey
esTe
pea
case
par
atio
n r
ejec
ted
AG
N,
Ind
ios,
vol.
56,e
xp
.129
;vo
l.58
,ex
p.3
9;vo
l.58
,ex
p.4
6.17
51,1
764
San
Lu
is d
e lo
s T
laco
tep
ecse
par
atio
n a
pp
rove
d;6
00 v
aras
alr
eady
A
GN
,In
dio
s,vo
l.56
,ex
p.1
12;
Ch
och
os
po
sses
sed
by
San
Lu
isvo
l.60
,ex
p.5
9;vo
l.60
,ex
p.7
7.17
707
3Sa
n S
ebas
tian
Q
uec
ho
lac
sep
arat
ion
ap
pro
ved
;600
var
as m
easu
red
AG
N,T
ierr
as,v
ol.
942,
exp
.5;
Cu
aun
op
ala
vol.
1443
,ex
p.2
.17
81A
caje
teTe
pea
case
par
atio
n c
on
sid
ered
AG
N,T
ierr
as,v
ol.
1056
,ex
p.7
.17
941
804
San
Ger
n
imo
Sa
n A
nd
rs
sep
arat
ion
ap
pro
ved
;200
0 va
ras
app
rove
dA
GN
,In
dio
s,vo
l.69
,ex
p.3
34;v
ol.
Aljo
juca
Ch
alch
ico
mu
la69
,ex
p.3
43;v
ol.
70,e
xp
.250
.17
98Sa
nta
Mar
a I
xta
yuca
nN
op
alu
case
par
atio
n a
pp
rove
dA
GN
,In
dio
s,vo
l.71
,ex
p.1
5.
-
royal tribute collection or labor requisition. They also accused
gober-nadores of colluding with local Spanish magistrates or
priests. A gober-nador could aid such officials by collecting
illicit exactions or illegallydrafting laborers for personal
use.
Such was the case in litigation involving the government of
Acat-zingo versus the allied sujetos of Santa Mara Actipan,
Santiago, and SanJuan Acosaque. Previously associated with
Acatzingos successful liber-ation from Tepeaca, by the
mid-eighteenth century these three sujetosbegan protesting their
treatment by Acatzingo, much as Acatzingo de-cried its treatment by
Tepeaca two centuries earlier. Unlike Acatzingoscampaign,
macehuales headed these rebellious sujetos. Santa Mara Ac-tipan,
Santiago, and San Juan Acosaque were contiguous barrios
(asAcatzingos officials derisively referred to them).
By 1752, the sujetosmacehuales had acquired a Spanish legal
coun-sel. He accused Acatzingos gobernador, Don Domingo Gutirrez,
of forc-ing individuals to purchase the local Spanish magistrates
mules at inflatedprices (sometimes called the repartimiento de
mulas). He also reportedthat the gobernador demanded macehual labor
for the official and priestwithout due compensation. Moreover, the
magistrate and gobernador hadrecently imprisoned the sujetos
elected leaders for failing to collect theroyal tribute. The
leaders maintained that they did pay the tribute, butbecause of
past problems they had bypassed Acatzingos gobernador anddelivered
it directly to their Spanish magistrate. Now the latter was
back-ing Gobernador Gutirrez while the sujeto leaders languished in
jail.
The lawyer for the sujetos recommended in June of 1752 that
thebest solution was to separate them from Acatzingo. He suggested
thatSanta Mara Actipan be designated the cabecera of the new
municipal-ity, with Santiago and San Juan Acosaque as its sujetos.
The colonial gov-ernment commissioned a local Spanish scribe and a
priest to examinethis possibility. They also recommended
separation. The priest, however,warned that replicating the
cabecera-sujeto hierarchy among the threesettlements would likely
lead to similar problems. He advised that offi-cers for the new
government be drawn equally from all three sujetos.Colonial
officials agreed and designated all three as pueblos but withone
unified political body. Their decision to erect three new
pueblos,rather than one new municipality, reflects the declining
interest incabecera-sujeto hierarchies during late colonial years.
It satisfied the in-habitants of the sujetos, who could now take
political control of theircommunity, bypassing the gobernador of
Acatzingo in all matters, in-cluding tribute payments and labor
drafts.15
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 293
15. Over time the three juxtaposed settlements became a single
pueblo. ModernActipan de Morelos numbers some 4,328 inhabitants,
the third largest pueblo in the mod-ern municipality of Acatzingo
(INEGI 1991:2).
-
In this case, as in others, the late colonial enfranchisement of
mace-huales and former gaanes established a modern cargo system,
likethose reported by ethnographers of contemporary Mesoamerica. In
con-trast to reserving offices for only a select few (i.e.,
caciques), modernvillagers encourage, even coerce, all men of the
pueblo to serve in mu-nicipal government.16
Besides political autonomy, macehuales sought land (Tables 3
and
294 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
16. Frank Cancians (1965) description in Zinacantan, Chiapas,
remains the defini-tive ethnographic analysis of the
civil-religious cargo system, while John K. Chance andWilliam B.
Taylor (1985) document the historical development of these systems
duringthe colonial and early independence eras.
Table 4. Other Settlements Petitioning for an Allotment of 600
Varas or Larger,Political District (Alcalda Mayor) of Tepeaca
MunicipalYear(s): Settlement(s): Jurisdiction: Outcome:
Source(s):
17014 Tepeaca Tepeaca 4 leagues AGN, Tierras, vol.recommendeda
2730, exp. 1.
1794 San Agustn San Agustn 600 varas approved; AGN, Tierras,
vol.del Palmar del Palmar feasibility of 1,800 2694, exp. 8.
varas to be investigated1798, 1807 Santa Mara Tepeaca 600 varas
recommended; AGN, Tierras, vol.
Techachalco feasibility of another 600 2725, exp. 24.varas to be
investigated
1804 Santa Margarita Tepeaca 600 varas approved; AGN, Tierras,
vol.Mazapiltepec investigation is recom- 1354, exp. 4.
mended concerning other landsb
1807 Santa Mara unknown 600 varas recommended AGN, Tierras,
vol.Tlachichuca (subdele- 1384, exp. 4.
gacin de Tepeaca)
181011 San Hiplito San Hiplito 600 varas for each AGN, Tierras,
vol.Soltepec, Soltepec pueblo approved 1411, exp. 6.Santa Margarita
Mazapiltepec,and San Antonio Xoquitzingo
a As an officially designated city, Tepeaca was entitled to 4
leagues of land. Perkins (2000:112117).b As evident in this table,
Santa Margarita Mazapiltepec reappears in 181011 along with
several
other pueblos to again request a 600 vara allotment.
-
4). Pueblo status and townsites came to be highly associated
with oneanother. Stephanie Wood (1990:23), working in the Valley of
Toluca, ar-gues that the approximately 250 acre townsite must have
been used formore than simply houses, although its center did
contain the pueblo.As in Toluca, petitions by Tepeaca district
pueblos repeatedly state theagricultural importance of townsites
for feeding its members (AGN, Tie-rras, vol. 1320, exp. 7, fols.
1r.-2r.; vol. 1443, exp. 2, fol. 68r.; vol. 1354,exp. 4, fols.
3v.-4r.; vol. 2725, exp. 24, fols. 3r.-3v.). The townsite pro-vided
an important starting point for a pueblo, though whether the
town-site land alone could support the entire population is
difficult to reckon.Macehuales or gaanes frequently petitioned for
allotments in excess of600 varas in cases from Puebla (AGN, Indios,
vol. 70, exp. 250; AGN,Tierras, vol. 1354, exp. 4, fols. 3r.-5r.;
vol. 1411, exp. 6, fols. 4r.-4v.; vol.2694, exp. 8, fols. 3v.-4r.;
vol. 2725, exp. 24, fols. 3r.-5r.).
In late colonial Puebla, townsites had to be carved from a
landscapefilled with haciendas, pueblos and cacicazgos. Even so,
when no otheroption existed, royal surveyers never hesitated to
appropriate lands forincorporation into a townsite. In 1770, for
example, caciques of the gov-ernment of Quecholac vigorously
protested, but to no avail, the sepa-ration and establishment of
San Sebastian Quacnopala as a pueblo, sincethe townsite would come
directly from Quecholacs official communityproperty (bienes de
comunidad) (AGN, Tierras, vol. 1443, exp. 2, fol.78r.). Likewise,
as described in the opening case of San Sebastian Bue-navista, when
gaanes incorporated as a pueblo, their old hacienda in-variably
lost land and labor (see Table 5). Even in extreme situationswhere
Spanish lands had been legally entailed through the Spanish
prac-tice of mayorazgo, officials saw fit to suspend entailment and
redistrib-ute lands. In one case, the colonial government spoke of
its right, evenits obligation, to override its own earlier grant of
mayorazgo for the goodof the pueblo (AGN, Tierras, vol. 1296, exp.
6, fol. 7v.-8r.).
In the few late colonial cases that Charles Gibson reviews in
the Val-ley of Mexico, he maintains a pessimistic view of the
likelihood of gansuccess since by this time many such populations
had lived on hacien-das for over a century (Gibson 1964:297). In
contrast, Stephanie Wood,in her later analysis from the neighboring
Valley of Toluca, finds that thelarger, the older, and the more
permanent the gan settlement on anestate, the better its chances
were for the successful pursuit of pueblostatus (Wood 1992:396397).
In cases from Tepeacas district, the is-sue was not whether a group
of gaanes had been a community in thepastgaanes often freely
admitted that they and their ancestors hadbeen hacienda laborersbut
whether the group had the size and ac-coutrements to exist as a
viable pueblo.
In this regard the chapel of a hacienda, very often equal in
size and
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 295
-
296 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
Tab
le 5
.H
acie
nd
a G
a
an
esPe
titi
on
ing
for
Des
ign
atio
n a
s a
Pu
eblo
,Dis
tric
t (A
lca
lda
Mayo
r) o
f Te
pea
ca
Pro
po
sed
Mu
nic
ipal
Yea
rs:
Hac
ien
da(
s):
Pu
eblo
Nam
e:Ju
risd
ic-t
ion
:O
utc
om
e:So
urc
e(s)
:
1783
180
9Sa
ntu
ario
de
San
Jo
s d
e C
hia
pa
No
pal
uca
pu
eblo
cre
ated
;A
GN
,Tie
rras
,vo
l.10
91,e
xp
.5;
Se
or
San
Jo
s
600
vara
s m
easu
red
AG
N I
nd
ios,
vol.
71,e
xp
.181
.C
hia
paa
1790
180
5Sa
n P
ablo
San
tsi
ma
Trin
idad
de
Qu
ech
ola
cu
nkn
ow
nA
GN
,Tie
rras
,vo
l.13
66,e
xp
.3;
Teco
lote
pet
itla
nA
GN
,In
dio
s,vo
l.69
,ex
p.2
65.
1799
180
3Sa
n M
igu
el V
illan
uev
aSa
n S
ebas
tian
Bu
enav
ista
Aca
tzin
gop
ueb
lo c
reat
ed;6
00
AG
N,
Ind
ios,
vol.
71,e
xp
.37;
vara
s m
easu
red
vol.
71,e
xp
.79;
vol.
71,e
xp
.10
6;A
GN
,Gen
eral
de
Part
e,vo
l.77
,ex
p.7
3;vo
l.77
,ex
p.
91;
AG
N,T
ierr
as,v
ol.
1296
,ex
p.6
.18
031
805
La A
sum
pci
n
San
Ju
anTe
cam
ach
alco
pu
eblo
cre
ated
;600
A
GN
,Tie
rras
,vo
l.13
20,e
xp
.7va
ras
app
rove
d.
1809
181
8C
apill
a d
e N
ues
tra
Nu
estr
a Se
o
ra d
e lo
s Sa
n A
gust
n
pu
eblo
cre
ated
;600
A
GN
,Tie
rras
,vo
l.14
02,e
xp
.3Se
o
ra d
e lo
s D
olo
res
Do
lore
s d
e C
ues
ta B
lan
cad
el P
alm
arva
ras
mea
sure
dC
ues
ta B
lan
cab
aT
his
cas
e in
volv
ed t
he
agg
rega
tio
n o
f ga
an
es f
rom
th
e fo
llow
ing
hac
ien
das
:Se
o
ra S
anta
An
a;Se
o
r Sa
n J
uan
de
Ojo
de
Agu
a;an
d S
an F
ran
cisc
o
las
Min
illas
.b
Th
is c
hap
el w
as lo
cate
d o
n la
nd
s en
taile
d t
o t
he
Span
ish
no
ble
,th
e C
on
de
de
Ori
zab
a.
-
grandeur to a regular pueblos church, could serve as the nucleus
for aproposed pueblo. That gaanes would rally around a chapel is
logicalsince royal decrees mandated that surveyors begin measuring
townsitesat the church of a pueblo. Thus, as in the opening case of
San SebastianBuenavista, the chapel served not only as the
figurative heart of the newpueblo, but the actual axis for its
townsite.
As alluded to earlier, the late colonial arguments presented by
Span-ish lawyers on behalf of Indian clients were strikingly
similar in contentand style to those made by lawyers for villagers
in Castile who soughtliberation from head towns (Nader 1990:125,
130, 133). As in Castile,lawyers representing clients in Tepeaca
always made sure to convey thecolonial governments vested interest
in the proposed pueblo creation,emphasizing the viability of the
settlement as a tribute-paying entity. Inthe case of a sujeto, they
also usually outlined the improved religious in-struction that
would follow from holding mass in the settlements ownchurch, rather
than forcing the populace to arduously journey to thecabecera each
week. On both sides of the Atlantic, it appears, Spanishlawyers
appealed for justice using the same well-rehearsed lines. Indi-ans
retained Spanish lawyers to articulate this philosophy in view of
theirlocal circumstances.
Placed in this larger context, the arguments made by
indigenouscommunities appear less original and more formulaic, more
a construc-tion by lawyers than an original discourse set forth by
the natives them-selves. Even so, the issues raised in the
litigation, though framed in pre-conceived categories, still
conveyed particular local facts and issues thatshed light on
macehual motivations. All indications suggest that the im-petus for
such cases came from the macehuales themselves.
Secessions and the Bourbon reforms
Of the nineteen cases of macehual and gan secessions
investigated inthe Tepeaca district of Puebla, fifteen took place
between 1764 and 1821.Such findings reflect those of other
investigators. Surely the most strik-ing aspect of the entire
picture of indigenous central Mexican sociopo-litical structure in
the eighteenth century is the recognition of an in-creased number
of independent units, most of them formerly constituentparts of
larger units (Lockhart 1992:52). For example, in the Sierra Nortede
Puebla north of the Valley of Puebla, Bernardo Garca
Martnez(1987:377379) identifies twenty-two secessions in the 153
years be-tween 1590 and 1743, while another twenty-two occurred in
just forty-three years between 1759 and 1805. In the large
Archdiocese of Mex-ico, William B. Taylor reports six cases of
sujetos seceding from theircabecera before 1754, while twenty-eight
cases originated after that date
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 297
-
(1996:371). Kevin Terraciano, working in the Mixteca Alta of
Oaxaca,finds that the number of autonomous governments increased by
onlysixteen (from twenty-one cabildos to thirty-seven) between 1690
and1779, while another forty-three were added (from thirty-seven to
eighty)between 1780 and 1800 (Terraciano 2001:131). In the district
of Tlapa,Guerrero, Dehouve notes that the majority of cases fell
between 1767and 1797. Originally, Tlapas government controlled the
tribute collec-tion of some seventy sujetos and a population of
well over 4,000 people,before Spanish officials ordered the
establishment of new cabeceras in1767 for more efficient tribute
collection. Afterward, a second wave oflate eighteenth-century
divisions ensued, initiated by sujeto inhabitantswho wished to
secede from their new cabeceras (Dehouve 1990:168).17
The uniform timing of these cases in the latter-half of the
eighteenthcentury suggests that population growth was a critical
factor: indigenouspopulation recovery strained agricultural
resources as never before. Italso suggests that the newly
instituted Spanish Bourbon bureaucracychanged its policies
regarding the cabecera-sujeto hierarchy.
Associated with the ascension of the Bourbon monarchy in
Spain,the Bourbon reforms were instituted most completely beginning
in the1760s. Many of them centered on restructuring Spains colonial
gov-ernments to expedite a policy of free trade to reinvigorate
colonialeconomies, together with a more efficient and centralized
system of rev-enue collection so that Spain would benefit from
these improvedeconomies. The government pursued these absolutist
policies throughadministrative reform, including the creation of
new colonial politicaldistricts and offices, the removal of certain
trading monopolies and therestraint of other interests, such as the
Church, that disrupted state au-thority and impeded the flow of
wealth into Spains coffers. Bourbonadministrators also placed a
renewed emphasis on upholding the lawsof the colony.18
On a region-by-region basis, the effect of the Bourbon reforms
forlocal indigenous societies remains generally overlooked and
enigmatic.Nancy Farriss, in her investigation of colonial Yucatn,
suggests that theyinitiated a virtual second conquest in that
region. For the first time, lo-cal Spanish officials tightly
administered Mayan communities by takingdirect control of community
tribute, ending corporate use of revenues,and effectively
undermining the corporate authority of local indigenous
298 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
17. Wood (1984; 1992) provides little summary data concerning
the chronology andnumber of secessions in Toluca. But her findings
generally concur with those of otherinvestigators.
18. Although Bourbons took over the Spanish throne in 1700,
reformers under thedynamic reign of Charles III (17591788) enacted
the most ambitious changes (see, e.g.,Brading 1971; 1987; Hamnett
1971; Lynch 1989).
-
elites. At the end of the eighteenth century in many
communities, landused by indigenous religious confraternities was
sold, while plantationagriculture expanded rapidly as the Yucatns
export economy in hene-quen grew under the Bourbon policy of free
trade (Farriss 1984:355388).
In Central Mexico such a radical second conquest is not
evident.Unlike the eighteenth-century assault on Mayan land and
organization,Central Mexicos lands had been under assault for a
long time. Farrissspeculates that in regions where the Indians had
little or no autonomyto lose, the consequences of the centralizing
policies of the Bourbonmonarchs may have been minimal or even
beneficial, to the extent thatmore effective royal government meant
stricter enforcement of the lawsprotecting Indians from Spanish
greed and ill treatment (1984:356). Ifcolonial laws aimed at
protecting indigenous rights were indeed morefully enforced, as it
appears they were, the reforms may have actuallybenefited
indigenous peoples, particularly macehuales. The creation ofnew
pueblos fit well with Bourbon policies, especially the goal of
in-creasing revenue collection: New pueblos fragmented the
political andeconomic monopoly of the old cabecera and its
caciques. They becameviable tribute-paying entities directly
accountable to the state, as lawyersfor macehuales and gaanes
repeatedly emphasized in their petitions tothe viceregal
government.
Conclusion
Scholarship over the last thirty years reveals how one of
Mesoamericasoldest analytical dichotomies, Spanish haciendas versus
Indian com-munities, is greatly oversimplified. A diverse array of
landholding insti-tutions such as cacicazgos, ranchos, and cofradas
(confraternities) alsoinhabited New Spains countryside. From an
ethnic perspective, we rec-ognize that Spaniard versus Indian
ignores the variety and fluidity ofsocial alliances prevailing
across 300 years of colonial rule, and imputesan immutability in
the categories.19
I have shown how various segments of colonial society
realignedover time: Initial government support of caciques gave way
to eighteenth-century government-approved secessions that diluted
cacique power;macehuales, whose ancestors sixteenth-century
petitions only suc-ceeded in reaffirming their tributary status to
caciques, found eighteenth-
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 299
19. A recent special issue of Ethnohistory entitled Beyond the
Hacienda: AgrarianRelations and Socioeconomic Change in Rural
Mesoamerica (Alexander and Kyle, 2003)reviews older and more recent
representations of the colonial countryside (see Alexan-der
2003).
-
century Spanish bureaucrats far more receptive to their requests
for au-tonomy; local Spaniards decried government decisions made by
fellowSpaniards to confiscate previously confirmed properties for
the benefitof Indian pueblos. Such social realignments presented
opportunities forreal, consequential resistance at the community
level;opportunities usedby macehuales to effect meaningfulif not
revolutionarychange.
As mentioned at the outset, James Lockhart (1992) hypothesizes
thatsecessions reflected an inherent predisposition in Nahua
society to frag-ment into ever smaller sociopolitical subunits. He
conceives pre-HispanicNahua units such as altepetl and teccalli as
relatively separate and self-contained, and hence cellular in
organization (Lockhart 1992:1520,436438). In this conception
colonial secessions represented a contin-uation of processes
occurring since time immemorial:
Although affected by Spanish concepts to some extent, they had
above all re-shaped notions like cabecera and pueblo in their own
minds and manipulatedthem as a means to attain their own ends.
Their goals were indigenous ratherthan Spanish in inspiration, an
embodiment of small-unit ambitions that had ex-isted since remote
times. What had happened was not so much fragmentationor
homogenization as a decentralization that was one of the
possibilities in-herent in indigenous sociopolitical organization
from the beginning [Lockhart1992:5758].
However, by periodizing Tepeacas cases, I have shown that
secessionsdiffered due to the variable relations between caciques,
macehuales, andSpanish entrepreneurs in the context of changing
viceregal policiesthrough 300 years of colonial rule. Early
colonial secessions establisheda second identical unit (a second
cabecera). It preserved teccalli socialrelations between nobles and
commoners within the liberated altepetl.In my view, these
secessions do represent a cellular division as conceivedby Lockhart
(1992). In contrast, late colonial cases saw commoners es-cape
cacique dominion, unravel municipal relations between cabecerasand
sujetos, and in some cases destroy a basic unit of indigenous
or-ganization, the teccalli. Such secessions led to entirely new
organizations.The resulting unitspuebloswere as much Spanish in
organization asthey were Nahua.
The eighteenth-century pueblo arising from hacienda or
municipalsecessions ultimately led to communities stratified along
lines familiarto modern ethnographers of Mexican pueblos. The late
colonial pueblopotentially offered an escape from hereditary
privilege. It allowed op-portunities for access to land and
government. First, a pueblo possesseda town council composed of
officers elected by all of the communitysadult male macehuales, not
just the municipalitys cacique nobility asbefore. Absent the older
cacique-macehual status system, town council
300 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
-
officers might more fully represent the will of all members.
Second, of-ficials managed community finances, including the
collection of colo-nial tribute. Third, the bestowal of townsites
created opportunities formacehuales to cultivate crops on pueblo
lands not owned by caciquesoftentimes for the first time in
recorded history. Fourth, the populationconstituted a congregation
of worshippers led by a priest within theirown church. Prior to
secessions, members of many subject towns, lack-ing their own
priest and church, traveled to the head town. Of course,this
reorganization also provided opportunities for establishing social
in-equality on new grounds.
Much as Wolf (1955, 1957, 1959) envisaged, Pueblas early
colonialhistory revolved around Indian communities declining from
European-borne disease, set against ever-expanding Spanish
haciendas. Unlike aregion such as Oaxaca or Guatemala, where we now
understand colo-nial hacienda growth to have been quite attenuated,
or the Yucatn, wherecolonial economic developments occurred
comparatively late, Pueblaexperienced explosive hacienda growth in
the sixteenth and seven-teenth centuries, en route to becoming the
primary breadbasket of earlycolonial New Spain. Nevertheless, its
history does not support the tim-ing and operative variables of
Wolfs closed corporate peasant commu-nity model. Only during the
eighteenth centurywhen populationgrowth, not decline, led to
pressure on agricultural resources, and at atime when Spain
implemented the Bourbon reforms to reinvigorate NewSpains economydo
Wolfs hypothesized corporate features crystallizein the guise of
the late colonial pueblo. My findings thus corroboratethose of
later investigators who find factors associated with
eighteenth-century indigenous population growth, not decline, and
commercial ex-pansion, not depression, leading to the development
of corporate com-munities (Farriss 1984:222223; Hill 1992:156;
Stern 1983; Van Young1984).20
I have suggested that shifting priorities in the Bourbon
colonial gov-ernment provided new opportunities for local-level
macehual agency.To operationalize its renewed penetration in the
late colonial country-side, the government used pueblos to identify
Indians, just as those sodefined appealed to the state on the same
grounds for political auton-omy and landholdings. To the extent
that it effectively managed disputesbetween local Spanish, cacique,
and macehual actors, the state imposed
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 301
20. In a later reassessment of the closed corporate peasant
community model, Wolf(1986) recognized the influence of social
stratification as an important variable within in-digenous
communities. Until his death, he continued emphasizing the approach
hehelped pioneer: to identify the operative historical processes in
the political and economicrealm that articulate community with
nation and lead to particular local arrangementsthrough time. I owe
my own approach to Wolfs perspective.
-
its philosophy of the rights and obligations encumbent upon
membersof newly formed pueblos. On the other hand, groups of
macehualesand gaanes had tangible political and economic incentives
to reor-ganize apart from their noble lords: In exchange for
remitting royal trib-ute directly to the colonial government,
inhabitants of pueblos were fullyinvested with voting rights,
officeholding, and often with grants of com-munity land. The
underpinnings of this community organization there-fore conformed
far more closely with the states jural beliefs about therights and
obligations of Indians in a Spanish-style pueblo, than it didwith
pre-Hispanic Nahua notions of the role of macehuales in an
alte-petl, or indeed, in a teccalli. Therefore, I conclude that
these strugglesfor solidarity had less to do with primordial Nahua
traditions than withan active social reconfiguration related to New
Spains late colonial po-litical and economic situation.
References
Alexander, Rani T. 2003. Introduction: Haciendas and Agrarian
Change inRural Mesoamerica. In Beyond the Hacienda: Agrarian
Relations andSocioeconomic Change in Rural Mesoamerica, edited by
Rani T.Alexander and Chris Kyle, Special Issue, Ethnohistory 50:
314.
Alexander, Rani T. and Chris Kyle, eds. 2003. Beyond the
Hacienda: AgrarianRelations and Socioeconomic Change in Rural
Mesoamerica. SpecialIssue, Ethnohistory 50: 1245.
Anguiano, Marina and Matilde Chapa. 1976. Estratificacin social
en Tlaxcaladurante el siglo XVI. In Estratificacin social en la
Mesoamericaprehispnica, edited by Pedro Carrasco and Johanna Broda.
Mexico:C.I.S.-I.N.A.H.
Bandelier, Adolph F. 1878. On the Distribution and Tenure of
Lands, and theCustoms with Respect to Inheritance, among the
Ancient Mexicans.Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology andEthnology 2(2): 385448.
. 1880. On the Social Organization and Mode of Government of
theAncient Mexicans. Twelfth and Thirteenth Annual Reports of
theTrustees of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
2(3,4):557699.
Borah, Woodrow and Sherburne F. Cook. 1960. The Population of
CentralMexico in 1548: An Analysis of the Suma de visitas de
pueblos. Ibero-Americana 43. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Brading, D.A. 1971. Miners and Merchants in Bourbon Mexico,
17631810.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 1987. Bourbon Spain and its American Emire. In Colonial
SpanishAmerica, edited by Leslie Bethell. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cancian, Frank. 1965. Economics and Prestige in a Maya
Community.Stanford: Stanford University Press.
302 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
-
Carrasco, Pedro. 1969. Ms documentos sobre Tepeaca. Tlalocan 6:
137.. 1971. Social Organization of Ancient Mexico. In Archaeology
of
Northern Mesoamerica, Part One, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm
andIgnacio Bernal. Handbook of Middle American Indians, 10,
generaledited by Robert Wauchope. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
. 1976. Los linajes nobles del Mxico antiguo. Estratificacin
socialen la Mesoamrica prehispnica, edited by Pedro Carrasco et
al.Mexico: C.I.S.- I.N.A.H.
Caso, Alfonso. 1963. Land Tenure among the Ancient Mexicans.
AmericanAnthropologist 65: 863878.
Chance, John K. 1989. Conquest of the Sierra: Spaniards and
Indians inColonial Oaxaca. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
. 1996. The Caciques of Tecali: Class and Ethnic Identity in
LateColonial Mexico. Hispanic American Historical Review 76:
475502.
. 1999. Indigenous Ethnicity in Colonial Mexico. Paper presented
atthe 68th Anglo-American Conference of Historians, London.
. 2000. The Noble House in Colonial Puebla, Mexico:
Descent,Inheritance, and the Nahua Tradition. American
Anthropologist102:485502.
. 2003. Haciendas, Ranchos, and Indian Towns: A Case from the
LateColonial Valley of Puebla, in Beyond the Hacienda: Agrarian
Relationsand Socioeconomic Change in Rural Mesoamerica, edited by
Rani T.Alexander and Chris Kyle. Special Issue, Ethnohistory 50:
1545.
Chance, John K. and William B. Taylor. 1985. Cofradas and
Cargos: AnHistorical Perspective on the Mesoamerican
Civil-Religious Hierarchy.American Ethnologist 12: 126.
Clavero, Bartolom. 1974. Mayorazgo: Propiedad feudal en
Castilla,13691836. Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno de Espaa, S.A.
Cook, Sherburne F. and Woodrow Borah. 1968. The Population of
theMixteca Alta, 15201960. Ibero-Americana vol. 50. Berkeley:
Universityof California Press.
. 1979. Essays in Population History: Mexico and California,
Volume3. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cuenya, Miguel Angel. 1987. Puebla en su demografa, 16501850.
Unaaproximacin al tema. In Puebla de la colonia a la
Revolucin:Estudios de historia regional, edited by Carmen Aguirre
Anaya, et al.Puebla: Universidad Autnoma de Puebla.
Dehouve, Danile. 1990. The Secession of Villages in the
Jurisdiction ofTlapa (Eighteenth Century). In The Indian Community
of ColonialMexico: Fifteen Essays on Land Tenure, Corporate
Organizations,Ideology and Village Politics, edited by Arij
Ouweneel and Simon Miller.Amsterdam: C.E.D.L.A.
Dyckerhoff, Ursula and Hanns J. Prem. 1976. La estratificacin
social enHuexotzinco. In Estratificacin social en la Mesoamerica
prehisp-nica, edited by Pedro Carrasco and Johanna Broda. Mexico:
C.I.S.-I.N.A.H.
Farriss, Nancy M. 1984. Maya Society Under Colonial Rule: The
CollectiveEnterprise of Survival. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 303
-
Garavaglia, Juan Carlos and Juan Carlos Grosso. 1990. Mexican
Elites of aProvincial Town: The Landowners of Tepeaca (17001870).
HispanicAmerican Historical Review 70:255293.
Garca Martnez, Bernardo. 1987. Los pueblos de la sierra: El
poder y elespacio entre los indios del norte de Puebla hasta 1700.
Mexico: ElColegio de Mxico.
Gerhard, Peter. 1993. A Guide to the Historical Geography of New
Spain,Revised Edition. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Gibson, Charles. 1964. The Aztecs under Spanish Rule: A History
of theIndians of the Valley of Mexico,15191810. Stanford: Stanford
Univer-sity Press.
Gruzinski, Serge. 1989. Man-Gods in the Mexican Highlands:
Indian Powerand Colonial Society, 15201800. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Hamnett, Brian R. 1971. Politics and Trade in Southern Mexico,
17501821.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haskett, Robert. 1991. Indigenous Rulers: An Ethnohistory of
Town Govern-ment in Colonial Cuernavaca. Albuquerque: University of
New MexicoPress.
Hill, Robert M., II. 1992. Colonial Cakchiquels: Highland Maya
Adaptationto Spanish Rule, 16001700. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Horn, Rebecca. 1997. Postconquest Coyoacan: Nahua-Spanish
Relations inCentral Mexico, 15191650. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografa e Informtica
(I.N.E.G.I.). 1991.XI Censo general de poblacion y vivienda, 1990,
Estado de Puebla, Vol.21. Aguascalientes, Mexico: I.N.E.G.I.
Kellogg, Susan. 1986. Kinship and Social Organization in Early
ColonialTenochtitlan. Handbook of Middle American Indians,
Supplement 4,edited by Ronald Spores. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Kirchhoff, Paul. 1954. Land Tenure in Ancient Mexico, a
Preliminary Sketch.Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropolgicos 14:
351361.
Kirchhoff, Paul, Lina Odena Gemes and Luis Reyes Garca, eds.
1989.Historia tolteca- chichimeca, 2nd ed. Mexico: C.I.E.S.A.S.;
Estado dePuebla; Fondo de Cultura Econmica.
Lockhart, James. 1992. The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social
andCultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth
throughEighteenth Centuries. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Lynch, John. 1989. Bourbon Spain, 17001808. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.Martnez, Hildeberto. 1984a. Coleccin de documentos
coloniales de
Tepeaca. Collecin Cientifica: Catlogos y Bibliografas 134.
Mexico:I.N.A.H.
. 1984b. Tepeaca en el siglo XVI: tenencia de la tierra y
organizacinde un seoro. Mexico: C.I.E.S.A.S.
Monaghan, John, Arthur Joyce, and Ronald Spores. 2003.
Transformations of the Indigenous Cacicazgo in the Nineteenth
Century, in Beyond the Hacienda: Agrarian Relations and
Socioeconomic Change in RuralMesoamerica, edited by Rani T.
Alexander and Chris Kyle. Special Issue,Ethnohistory 50:
131150.
304 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
-
Monzn, Arturo. 1949. El calpulli en la organizacin social de los
Tenocha.Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Instituto
deHistoria, 1st series, 14.
Nader, Helen. 1990. Liberty in Absolutist Spain: The Hapsburg
Sale of Towns,15161700. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Offner, Jerome A. 1983. Law and Politics in Aztec Texcoco.
Cambridge,Cambridge University Press.
Olivera, Mercedes. 1978. Pillis y macehuales: Las formaciones
sociales y losmodos de produccin de Tecali del siglo XII al XVI.
Mexico: C.I.S.-I.N.A.H.
Ouweneel, Arij. 1991. Growth, Stagnation, and Migration: An
ExplorativeAnalysis of the Tributario Series of Anhuac (17201800).
HispanicAmerican Historical Review 71: 531577.
Paso y Troncoso, Francisco, ed. 1940. Epistolario de Nueva Espaa
15051818, 2nd series, 8. Biblioteca histrica mexicana de obras
inditas.Mxico: Antigua Librera Robredo, de Jos Porra e Hijos.
Perkins, Stephen M. 2000. The Nahua Teccalli of Puebla, Mexico:
An Indige-nous House Society Under Spanish Rule. Ph.D. diss.,
Arizona StateUniversity.
Recopilacin de leyes de los reynos de las indias. 4 Vols. 1973
[1681].Facsim. ed. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispanica, 1973.
Reyes Garca, Luis. 1977. Cuauhtinchan del siglo XII al XVI:
Formacin ydesarrollo histrico de un seoro prehispnico. Wiesbaden:
FranzSteiner Verlag GMBH.
. 1988. Documentos sobre tierras y seoros en Cuauhtinchan,
2nd
ed. Mexico: C.I.E.S.A.S.; Estado de Puebla; Fondo de Cultura
Econmica.Solano, Francisco de. 1984. Cedulario de tierras.
Compilacin de legislacin
agraria colonial (14971820). Mexico: Universidad Nacional
Autnomade Mxico.
Spores, Ronald. 1984. The Mixtecs in Ancient and Colonial Times.
Norman:University of Oklahoma Press.
Stern, Steve J. 1982. Perus Indian Peoples and the Challenge of
SpanishConquest: Huamanga to 1640. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
. 1983. The Struggle for Solidarity: Class, Culture, and
Community inHighland Indian America. Radical History Review 27:
2145.
Taylor, William B. 1996. Magistrates of the Sacred: Priests and
Parishionersin Eighteenth-Century Mexico. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Terraciano, Kevin. 2001. The Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca: udzahui
History,Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford: Stanford
UniversityPress.
Thomson, Guy P.C. 1989. Puebla de los Angeles: Industry and
Society in aMexican City, 17001850. Dellplain Latin American
Studies No. 25.Boulder: Westview Press.
Van Young, Eric. 1984. Conflict and Solidarity in Indian Village
Life: TheGuadalajara Region in the Late Colonial Period. Hispanic
AmericanHistorical Review 64: 5579.
Villaseor y Snchez, Joseph Antonio. 1952. Theatro americano:
Descripcin
Perkins, Colonial Secessions in Nahua Central Mexico 305
-
general de los reynos y provincias de la Nueva-Espaa, y sus
jurisdic-ciones, 2o tomo. Madrid, 174648. Facsim. ed. Mexico:
Editoria Nacional.
Vollmer, Gnter. 1973. La evolucin cuantitativa de la poblacin
indgena enla regin de Puebla (15701810). Historia Mexicana 23:
4351.
Wolf, Eric R. 1955. Types of Latin American Peasantry: A
PreliminaryDiscussion. American Anthropologist 57: 452471.
. 1956. Aspects of Group Relations in a Complex Society:
Mexico.American Anthropologist 58: 10651078.
. 1957. Closed Corporate Peasant Communities in Mesoamerica
andCentral Java. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13: 118.
. 1959. Sons of the Shaking Earth. Chicago: The University of
ChicagoPress.
. 1960 The Indian in Mexican Society. Alpha Kappa Deltan 30:
36.. 1986. The Vicissitudes of the Closed Corporate Peasant
Community.
American Ethnologist 13: 325329.Wood, Stephanie. 1984. Corporate
Adjustments in Colonial Mexican Indian
Towns: Toluca Region, 15501810. Ph.D. diss., University of
California,Los Angeles.
. 1990. The Fundo Legal or Lands Por Razn de Pueblo: NewEvidence
from Central New Spain. In The Indian Community ofColonial Mexico:
Fifteen Essays on Land Tenure, Corporate Organiza-tions, Ideology
and Village Politics, edited by Arij Ouweneel and SimonMiller.
Amsterdam: C.E.D.L.A.
. 1992. The Evolution of the Indian Corporation of the Toluca
Region,15501810. Estudios de cultura nhuatl 22: 381407.
306 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.