Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
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
278
279
1996). Yet few investigate in much depth the timing, processes, or consequences for local indigenous social organization and land tenure. James
Lockhart (1992) concludes that the cases represent a continuation of preHispanic processes carried forth into colonial years (see also Terraciano
2001). He proposes that the cellular organization of Nahua society, in
which larger sociopolitical units develop through the aggregation of
smaller units, predisposed smaller units to fission. Decentralization continued after the conquest, an embodiment of small-unit ambitions that
had existed since remote times (Lockhart 1992:57).
This article reports my archival study of colonial secession litigation
in the Tepeaca political district, located in Central Mexicos Valley of
Puebla.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 organization that predated colonial years. But later cases differed. First, they involved issues of the colonial present, not the pre-Hispanic past. Second,
they resulted in social units without pre-Hispanic roots. Cells did not so
much separate as disintegrate. Finally, the history of secessions in the
Castile region of Spain (Nader 1990), suggests a strong Old World legal
precedent for New Spains cases.
My investigation also addresses Eric Wolfs closed corporate peasant communitymodel. In a series of publications beginning in 1955, Wolf
proposed that modern indigenous community organization stemmed
not from isolation, but from capitalist integration. Wolf (1955:456457)
theorized that corporate communities developed in the seventeenthcentury era of indigenous depopulation and colonial economic depression. He argued that society-wide economic depression could weaken
external linkages between a colony and the wider world and disrupt or
weaken urban commerce and industry. In rural areas strong community
structures could flourish, meeting the limited demands of the larger
society for labor and products without surrendering local autonomy to
external middlemen or commercial firms. To guard against external intrusion, communities developed corporate controls: while individual
community members might use land and other resources for their own
purposes, the land could not be sold or transferred to outsiders. Community officials elected by the adult males of the community oversaw
and protected these insular, corporate privileges (see Wolf 1955, 1956,
1957, 1959, 1960).
2. As cited in the text and tables, the data derive from documents housed in Mexicos AGN, and in Pueblas State Notarial Archive, the Archivo General de Notaras del Estado de Puebla (hereafter AGNP).
280
281
282
283
284
make requests or air grievances they dealt with a cacique whose own
class or political interests potentially conflicted with their own. Thus,
in the relations between a cabecera and its sujetos the Spanish not only
created the infrastructure for the local level extraction of indigenous labor, products, and wealth, but also provided a municipal framework that
helped to preserve the indigenous social structure.8
Interestingly, while Spanish officials reorganized Central Mexicos
altepetl within the municipal cabecera-sujeto taxonomy, a movement
contrary to this sort of hierarchical organization was well underway in
the region of Castile, Spain. Helen Nader (1990) reveals that beginning
in the fifteenth century and becoming especially prominent under the
Hapsburg dynasty (15161700), Spanish monarchs increasingly generated revenue by allowing Castilian villages to secede from their ruling
towns or cities. For a stipulated price villagers could buy a township charter, establish an autonomous municipal council, and take greater control of political and judicial affairs within their own municipality. These
sales generated funds for a cash-starved monarchy. They also resolved
disputes between head towns and their subordinate villages, relationships fraught with tension in Spanish society. Over the course of the
Hapsburg dynasty, the political geography of Castile became a patchwork
of small municipalities. All reported directly to the national government.
With the ascension of Spains French Bourbons in 1700, the new dynasty
sought to reverse this process and institute provincial governing institutions. In the end, however, the Bourbons too resorted to further sales
of town liberty to gain revenue (Nader 1990:10).
Much as Spanish villages seceded from their head towns, secessions
began occurring in colonial New Spain. Early colonial secession cases
were often adjudicated based on the pre-Hispanic status of the petitioning community: in cases where a community proved its pre-Hispanic
status as an independent altepetl secession might be permitted, leading
to the replication of the cabecera-sujeto structure (i.e., a new cabecera
with its own sujetos). In contrast, in late colonial secession cases, the
first Spanish taxonomic system (ciudad-villa-pueblo) was used by plaintiffs to disrupt and dismantle the second one (cabecera-sujeto). Late colonial cases turned on whether indigenous commoners, living in a sujeto
or on a hacienda, could justify their designation as a pueblo with all the
rights inherent in this official title, and therefore achieve political and
economic separation from their cabecera. If so, the community could
establish its own autonomous cabildo. As an official pueblo it was then
entitled to an allotment of corporate-controlled landholdings, even if land
8. Lockhart (1992:5253) discusses how received ideas of the cabecera and sujeto
impacted Nahua thinking about the altepetl.
285
286
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 conflict
between the cabecera Tlatlauquitepec and its sujeto Zacapoaxtla. While Zacapoaxtla appears not to have been a pre-Hispanic altepetl, it had been designated as the seat of a parish
in the mid-sixteenth century. In its secession case against Tlatlauquitepec, Zacapoaxtla used
this status to achieve its independence in 1580. Nevertheless, the resulting secession resembles others discussed here in that Zacapoaxtla became an autonomous cabecera, taking with it two sujetos formerly under Tlatlauquitepec.
287
and municipal government control. In various sujetos, macehuales attempted to bypass caciques by paying royal tribute directly to the colonial government, claiming that caciques no longer rightfully controlled
teccalli lands. In rulings concerning Tepeaca in 1571 and again in 1581,
Spanish officials formally designated teccalli as cacicazgos and emphasized the right of particular teccalli caciques to collect macehual tribute (Martnez 1984a:447514). The rulings were consistent with colonial laws. The Recopilacin de leyes de los reynos de las Indias
([1681]1973) specifically mandated the preservation of caciques preHispanic right to cacicazgos and to the macehual labor and tribute embodied in them.12
In separate litigation between 1568 and 1571, macehuales of both
Tepeaca and Acatzingo sought access to the offices of municipal government. They undoubtedly appreciated the necessity of representation
in reducing the omnipotence of the gobernador and his fellow caciques.
The colonial government agreed. In 1571 it ordered that in Tepeaca in
the elections . . . of alcaldes, regidores, alguaciles, mayordomos, and other
municipal officials, half of the offices belong to the [caciques] and the
other half to the macehuales (AGNP, Tepeaca, paq.41, exp.28, fol. 2v.).
Yet, no evidence suggests that local Spanish officials ever carried out this
sweeping decree, especially for the highest offices of the municipal council. Tepeacas caciques, no doubt in league with local Spanish officials,
found a way to bypass the governments ruling and keep their fellow
macehuales disenfranchised.
These legal conflicts abated by the seventeenth century. As elsewhere in Mesoamerica, Pueblas indigenous population declined rapidly.
By 1650 epidemic disease reduced the population of Tepeaca and surrounding indigenous communities to one-fourth of their estimated size
in 1570 (Vollmer 1973).13 For Tepeaca a variety of sources indicate the
collapse of the citys indigenous population (Table 1). This holocaust
decreased the need for land among those who survived. In cases where
macehuales did petition for land, viceregal officials rejected them in favor of maintaining cacique land tenure. Officials viewed the preservation of the indigenous social structure as essential to maintaining economic and political stability (Garca Martnez 1987:182187, 215217;
Lockhart 1992:54).
12. See the section ttulo 7, libro 6, entitled De los caciques, in the aforementioned
Recopilacin (1973).
13. Vollmer (1973) utilizes tributary counts from 1560 and 1570 as a baseline for
measuring subsequent losses, but it is important to recognize that even by 1560 the indigenous population had already been drastically reduced from its pre-conquest size.
Unit of Analysis:
3.8b
4.9d
326 tributaries
457 familiesc
2,118
11,432 tributaries
16,967 personsf
49,089 personsg
5e
3.3a
Multiplier:
9,122 tributaries
30,000 hombres
Enumerated:
100,000
32,597
30,103
21,879
8,220
1,239
2,239
2,118
57,160
16,967
49,089
Estimated
Population:
Gerhard (1993:280)
Borah and Cook (1960: 147)
Paso y Troncoso (1940[15051818]:155)
Cook and Borah (1979:20)
Cook and Borah (1979:20)
AGN, Tierras, vol. 2730, exp. 1.
Villaseor y Snchez (1952 [174648]:248)
British Library, Mexico, vol. 225, fol. 4v.
Gerhard (1993:280)
I.N.E.G.I. (1991:219)
I.N.E.G.I. (1991:219)
Source:
widowers.
d Cook and Borah (1968:46).
e Cook and Borah (1968:40).
f without regard to ethnic or racial differences
g without regard to ethnic or racial differences
1520s
1548
1552
1568
1646
1702
1742
1785
1800
1990
1990
Year:
288
Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
289
290
Number of Tributaries:
4,138
7,189
10,017
13,391
13,938
9,885
9,393
9,236
9,863
10,162
10,162
11,081
11,431
a Source: 1626 and 1696 figures derive from Cuenya (1987:65); other figures derive
from Ouweneel (1991:573).
general trend, an overall recovery punctuated by epidemics and outmigration (Table 2).
Puebla remained heavily indigenous in its ethnic composition, second only to Oaxaca in the number of Indians per capita: In 1793, Spaniards and castas (individuals of mixed racial ancestry) constituted only
25 percent of Pueblas population, while the remaining 373,752 persons
were identified by Spanish enumerators as Indians (indios) (Thomson
1989:149). By 1777 nearly a quarter of the district of Tepeacas population resided on Spanish haciendas. Many haciendas possessed more
gaanes than the macehuales living in adjacent settlements (Garavaglia
and Grosso 1990:261).
Second, the attitude of Mexico Citys viceregal bureaucracy toward
caciques and macehuales began to change. With the colonys maturation, cacique privileges were increasingly challenged by officials of the
colonial government. Unlike their predecessors, late colonial officials felt
less compelled to rely on caciques as their primary liasons with indigenous society, or on the cabecera-sujeto structure to collect tribute and
recruit labor (Gibson 1964:5557; Lockhart 1992:54). Increasingly, they
viewed this settlement hierarchy as a liability that concentrated too much
power in the hands of gobernadoresusually caciquesopening the
door to tribute fraud and other abuses.
One way to break cacique dominion was to allow subject commu-
291
175257
Santos Reyes
175153
Sujeto(s):
San Simn
Yehualtepec
Santa Mara Actipan,
Santiago, San Juan
Acosaque
1751
Year(s):
separation approved
separation considered
separation approved; 2000 varas approved
Tepeaca
San Andrs
Chalchicomula
Nopaluca
Quecholac
separation rejected
Municipal
Outcome:
Tlacotepec
Tepeaca
Acatzingo
Tlacotepec
Jurisdiction:
Source(s):
292
Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
293
royal tribute collection or labor requisition. They also accused gobernadores of colluding with local Spanish magistrates or priests. A gobernador could aid such officials by collecting illicit exactions or illegally
drafting laborers for personal use.
Such was the case in litigation involving the government of Acatzingo versus the allied sujetos of Santa Mara Actipan, Santiago, and San
Juan Acosaque. Previously associated with Acatzingos successful liberation from Tepeaca, by the mid-eighteenth century these three sujetos
began protesting their treatment by Acatzingo, much as Acatzingo decried its treatment by Tepeaca two centuries earlier. Unlike Acatzingos
campaign, macehuales headed these rebellious sujetos. Santa Mara Actipan, Santiago, and San Juan Acosaque were contiguous barrios (as
Acatzingos officials derisively referred to them).
By 1752, the sujetos macehuales had acquired a Spanish legal counsel. He accused Acatzingos gobernador, Don Domingo Gutirrez, of forcing individuals to purchase the local Spanish magistrates mules at inflated
prices (sometimes called the repartimiento de mulas). He also reported
that the gobernador demanded macehual labor for the official and priest
without due compensation. Moreover, the magistrate and gobernador had
recently imprisoned the sujetos elected leaders for failing to collect the
royal tribute. The leaders maintained that they did pay the tribute, but
because of past problems they had bypassed Acatzingos gobernador and
delivered it directly to their Spanish magistrate. Now the latter was backing Gobernador Gutirrez while the sujeto leaders languished in jail.
The lawyer for the sujetos recommended in June of 1752 that the
best solution was to separate them from Acatzingo. He suggested that
Santa Mara Actipan be designated the cabecera of the new municipality, with Santiago and San Juan Acosaque as its sujetos. The colonial government commissioned a local Spanish scribe and a priest to examine
this possibility. They also recommended separation. The priest, however,
warned that replicating the cabecera-sujeto hierarchy among the three
settlements would likely lead to similar problems. He advised that officers for the new government be drawn equally from all three sujetos.
Colonial officials agreed and designated all three as pueblos but with
one unified political body. Their decision to erect three new pueblos,
rather than one new municipality, reflects the declining interest in
cabecera-sujeto hierarchies during late colonial years. It satisfied the inhabitants of the sujetos, who could now take political control of their
community, bypassing the gobernador of Acatzingo in all matters, including tribute payments and labor drafts.15
15. Over time the three juxtaposed settlements became a single pueblo. Modern
Actipan de Morelos numbers some 4,328 inhabitants, the third largest pueblo in the modern municipality of Acatzingo (INEGI 1991:2).
294
Settlement(s):
Tepeaca
Municipal
Jurisdiction:
Tepeaca
Outcome:
4 leagues
recommendeda
1794
San Agustn
San Agustn 600 varas approved;
del Palmar
del Palmar
feasibility of 1,800
varas to be investigated
1798, 1807 Santa Mara
Tepeaca
600 varas recommended;
Techachalco
feasibility of another 600
varas to be investigated
1804
Santa Margarita Tepeaca
600 varas approved;
Mazapiltepec
investigation is recommended concerning
other landsb
1807
Santa Mara
unknown
600 varas recommended
Tlachichuca
(subdelegacin de
Tepeaca)
181011
San Hiplito
San Hiplito 600 varas for each
Soltepec,
Soltepec
pueblo approved
Santa Margarita
Mazapiltepec,
and San Antonio
Xoquitzingo
Source(s):
AGN, Tierras, vol.
2730, exp. 1.
AGN, Tierras, vol.
2694, exp. 8.
AGN, Tierras, vol.
2725, exp. 24.
AGN, Tierras, vol.
1354, exp. 4.
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
In this case, as in others, the late colonial enfranchisement of macehuales and former gaanes established a modern cargo system, like
those reported by ethnographers of contemporary Mesoamerica. In contrast to reserving offices for only a select few (i.e., caciques), modern
villagers encourage, even coerce, all men of the pueblo to serve in municipal government.16
Besides political autonomy, macehuales sought land (Tables 3 and
16. Frank Cancians (1965) description in Zinacantan, Chiapas, remains the definitive ethnographic analysis of the civil-religious cargo system, while John K. Chance and
William B. Taylor (1985) document the historical development of these systems during
the colonial and early independence eras.
295
4). Pueblo status and townsites came to be highly associated with one
another. Stephanie Wood (1990:23), working in the Valley of Toluca, argues that the approximately 250 acre townsite must have been used for
more than simply houses, although its center did contain the pueblo.
As in Toluca, petitions by Tepeaca district pueblos repeatedly state the
agricultural importance of townsites for feeding its members (AGN, Tierras, 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 provided an important starting point for a pueblo, though whether the townsite land alone could support the entire population is difficult to reckon.
Macehuales or gaanes frequently petitioned for allotments in excess of
600 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 landscape
filled with haciendas, pueblos and cacicazgos. Even so, when no other
option existed, royal surveyers never hesitated to appropriate lands for
incorporation into a townsite. In 1770, for example, caciques of the government of Quecholac vigorously protested, but to no avail, the separation and establishment of San Sebastian Quacnopala as a pueblo, since
the townsite would come directly from Quecholacs official community
property (bienes de comunidad) (AGN, Tierras, vol. 1443, exp. 2, fol.
78r.). Likewise, as described in the opening case of San Sebastian Buenavista, when gaanes incorporated as a pueblo, their old hacienda invariably lost land and labor (see Table 5). Even in extreme situations
where Spanish lands had been legally entailed through the Spanish practice of mayorazgo, officials saw fit to suspend entailment and redistribute lands. In one case, the colonial government spoke of its right, even
its obligation, to override its own earlier grant of mayorazgo for the good
of the pueblo (AGN, Tierras, vol. 1296, exp. 6, fol. 7v.-8r.).
In the few late colonial cases that Charles Gibson reviews in the Valley of Mexico, he maintains a pessimistic view of the likelihood of gan
success since by this time many such populations had lived on haciendas for over a century (Gibson 1964:297). In contrast, Stephanie Wood,
in her later analysis from the neighboring Valley of Toluca, finds that the
larger, the older, and the more permanent the gan settlement on an
estate, the better its chances were for the successful pursuit of pueblo
status ( Wood 1992:396397). In cases from Tepeacas district, the issue was not whether a group of gaanes had been a community in the
pastgaanes often freely admitted that they and their ancestors had
been hacienda laborersbut whether the group had the size and accoutrements to exist as a viable pueblo.
In this regard the chapel of a hacienda, very often equal in size and
Capilla de Nuestra
Nuestra Seora de los
San Agustn
Seora de los Dolores Dolores de Cuesta Blanca del Palmar
Cuesta Blancab
unknown
pueblo created;
600 varas measured
Outcome:
Source(s):
a This case involved the aggregation of gaanes from the following haciendas: Seora Santa Ana; Seor San Juan de Ojo de Agua; and San Francisco
las Minillas.
b This chapel was located on lands entailed to the Spanish noble, the Conde de Orizaba.
Tecamachalco
18091818
San Juan
La Asumpcin
Nopaluca
Municipal
Jurisdic-tion:
18031805
Proposed
Pueblo Name:
17991803
Santuario de
Seor San Jos
Chiapaa
San Pablo
Hacienda(s):
Santsima Trinidad de
Quecholac
Tecolotepetitlan
San Miguel Villanueva San Sebastian Buenavista Acatzingo
17901805
17831809
Years:
Table 5. Hacienda Gaanes Petitioning for Designation as a Pueblo, District (Alcalda Mayor) of Tepeaca
296
Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
297
298
299
300
century Spanish bureaucrats far more receptive to their requests for autonomy; local Spaniards decried government decisions made by fellow
Spaniards to confiscate previously confirmed properties for the benefit
of Indian pueblos. Such social realignments presented opportunities for
real, consequential resistance at the community level; opportunities used
by macehuales to effect meaningfulif not revolutionarychange.
As mentioned at the outset, James Lockhart (1992) hypothesizes that
secessions reflected an inherent predisposition in Nahua society to fragment into ever smaller sociopolitical subunits. He conceives pre-Hispanic
Nahua units such as altepetl and teccalli as relatively separate and selfcontained, and hence cellular in organization (Lockhart 1992:1520,
436438). In this conception colonial secessions represented a continuation of processes occurring since time immemorial:
Although affected by Spanish concepts to some extent, they had above all reshaped notions like cabecera and pueblo in their own minds and manipulated
them as a means to attain their own ends. Their goals were indigenous rather
than Spanish in inspiration, an embodiment of small-unit ambitions that had existed since remote times. What had happened was not so much fragmentation
or homogenization as a decentralization that was one of the possibilities inherent in indigenous sociopolitical organization from the beginning [Lockhart
1992:5758].
301
officers might more fully represent the will of all members. Second, officials managed community finances, including the collection of colonial tribute. Third, the bestowal of townsites created opportunities for
macehuales to cultivate crops on pueblo lands not owned by caciques
oftentimes for the first time in recorded history. Fourth, the population
constituted a congregation of worshippers led by a priest within their
own church. Prior to secessions, members of many subject towns, lacking their own priest and church, traveled to the head town. Of course,
this reorganization also provided opportunities for establishing social inequality on new grounds.
Much as Wolf (1955, 1957, 1959) envisaged, Pueblas early colonial
history revolved around Indian communities declining from Europeanborne disease, set against ever-expanding Spanish haciendas. Unlike a
region such as Oaxaca or Guatemala, where we now understand colonial hacienda growth to have been quite attenuated, or the Yucatn, where
colonial economic developments occurred comparatively late, Puebla
experienced explosive hacienda growth in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, en route to becoming the primary breadbasket of early
colonial New Spain. Nevertheless, its history does not support the timing and operative variables of Wolfs closed corporate peasant community model. Only during the eighteenth centurywhen population
growth, not decline, led to pressure on agricultural resources, and at a
time when Spain implemented the Bourbon reforms to reinvigorate New
Spains economydo Wolfs hypothesized corporate features crystallize
in the guise of the late colonial pueblo. My findings thus corroborate
those of later investigators who find factors associated with eighteenthcentury indigenous population growth, not decline, and commercial expansion, not depression, leading to the development of corporate communities (Farriss 1984:222223; Hill 1992:156; Stern 1983; Van Young
1984).20
I have suggested that shifting priorities in the Bourbon colonial government provided new opportunities for local-level macehual agency.
To operationalize its renewed penetration in the late colonial countryside, the government used pueblos to identify Indians, just as those so
defined appealed to the state on the same grounds for political autonomy and landholdings. To the extent that it effectively managed disputes
between local Spanish, cacique, and macehual actors, the state imposed
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 indigenous communities. Until his death, he continued emphasizing the approach he
helped pioneer: to identify the operative historical processes in the political and economic
realm that articulate community with nation and lead to particular local arrangements
through time. I owe my own approach to Wolfs perspective.
302
303
304
Garavaglia, Juan Carlos and Juan Carlos Grosso. 1990. Mexican Elites of a
Provincial Town: The Landowners of Tepeaca (17001870). Hispanic
American Historical Review 70:255293.
Garca Martnez, Bernardo. 1987. Los pueblos de la sierra: El poder y el
espacio entre los indios del norte de Puebla hasta 1700. Mexico: El
Colegio 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 the
Indians of the Valley of Mexico,15191810. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gruzinski, Serge. 1989. Man-Gods in the Mexican Highlands: Indian Power
and 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 Government in Colonial Cuernavaca. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Hill, Robert M., II. 1992. Colonial Cakchiquels: Highland Maya Adaptation
to Spanish Rule, 16001700. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Horn, Rebecca. 1997. Postconquest Coyoacan: Nahua-Spanish Relations in
Central 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 Colonial
Tenochtitlan. 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 de
Puebla; Fondo de Cultura Econmica.
Lockhart, James. 1992. The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and
Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth through
Eighteenth 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 organizacin
de 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 Rural
Mesoamerica, edited by Rani T. Alexander and Chris Kyle. Special Issue,
Ethnohistory 50: 131150.
305
306
general de los reynos y provincias de la Nueva-Espaa, y sus jurisdicciones, 2o tomo. Madrid, 174648. Facsim. ed. Mexico: Editoria Nacional.
Vollmer, Gnter. 1973. La evolucin cuantitativa de la poblacin indgena en
la regin de Puebla (15701810). Historia Mexicana 23: 4351.
Wolf, Eric R. 1955. Types of Latin American Peasantry: A Preliminary
Discussion. 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 and
Central Java. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13: 118.
. 1959. Sons of the Shaking Earth. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
. 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: New
Evidence from Central New Spain. In The Indian Community of
Colonial Mexico: Fifteen Essays on Land Tenure, Corporate Organizations, Ideology and Village Politics, edited by Arij Ouweneel and Simon
Miller. Amsterdam: C.E.D.L.A.
. 1992. The Evolution of the Indian Corporation of the Toluca Region,
15501810. Estudios de cultura nhuatl 22: 381407.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.