You are hereForos / Genealogy Research / Tlaltenango Population

Tlaltenango Population

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/lafamilia/nuestrosranchos.com/sites/all/modules/mailhandler/mailhandler.module on line 123.

By lunalatina1955 - Posted on 06 September 2006

This is from Peter Gerhard, The North Frontier of New Spain. He has compiled this from various historical sources:

1570 8,000 indian inhabitants in valley of which 2,400 tributaries

1573 large plague kills off nearly half of the population, leaves only 960 tributaties in valley by end of 1570s

1650 1,753 indians at Tlaltenango, 600 at El Teul, 150 espanoles, 150 mestizos and 56 negros y mulatos

1760 10,350 inhabitants in valley

1799 24,570 inhabitants in valley

1854 23,700 inhabitants in valley - 6,577 in Tlaltenango and 6,316 in El Teul (from my Cubas map)

what are tributaties?
--
Esther A. Herold

-------------- Original message from arturoramos : --------------

>
> This is from Peter Gerhard, The North Frontier of New Spain. He has compiled
> this from various historical sources:
>
> 1570 8,000 indian inhabitants in valley of which 2,400 tributaries
>
> 1573 large plague kills off nearly half of the population, leaves only 960
> tributaties in valley by end of 1570s
>
> 1650 1,753 indians at Tlaltenango, 600 at El Teul, 150 espanoles, 150 mestizos
> and 56 negros y mulatos
>
> 1760 10,350 inhabitants in valley
>
> 1799 24,570 inhabitants in valley
>
> 1854 23,700 inhabitants in valley - 6,577 in Tlaltenango and 6,316 in El Teul
> (from my Cubas map)

Tributaries are those people required to pay tribute to the Spanish Crown.
This usually meant male adults or heads of households.

2006/9/7, eaherold@att.net :
>
> what are tributaties?
> --
> Esther A. Herold
>
>
> -------------- Original message from arturoramos :
> --------------
>
>
> >
> > This is from Peter Gerhard, The North Frontier of New Spain. He has
> compiled
> > this from various historical sources:
> >
> > 1570 8,000 indian inhabitants in valley of which 2,400 tributaries
> >
> > 1573 large plague kills off nearly half of the population, leaves only
> 960
> > tributaties in valley by end of 1570s
> >
> > 1650 1,753 indians at Tlaltenango, 600 at El Teul, 150 espanoles, 150
> mestizos
> > and 56 negros y mulatos
> >
> > 1760 10,350 inhabitants in valley
> >
> > 1799 24,570 inhabitants in valley
> >
> > 1854 23,700 inhabitants in valley - 6,577 in Tlaltenango and 6,316 in El
> Teul
> > (from my Cubas map)
> > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> > Nuestros Ranchos Research Mailing List
> >
> > To post, send email to:
> > research(at)NuestrosRanchos.com
> >
> > To change your subscription, log on to:
> > http://www.NuestrosRanchos.com

Thank you Arturo,

Do you think that the 2,400 tributaries were of Spanish extraction, or
"indios"?

How does this census data compare to growing towns/villages throughout
Mexico such as Guadalajara, Monterrey, Zacatecas proper?

Was the original interest in settling the valley due to good land for
farming or was it due to mining?

I am just curious about the reasons for settlement by the early Spaniards
and others.

Esperanza
Chicagoland area

Up until the late 1600s nearly 100% of the population in Tlaltenango was
indigenous... mostly native Caxcanes, although certainly there was some
migration of other groups including Tlalxcaltecs from their colony in nearby
Colotlan and perhaps Tepecanos from the nearby sierras.

As you can see from the 1650 census, there were only 150 "espanoles" in the
whole valley out of nearly 2700 inhabitants, less than 5 percent.

The Spanish families that eventually moved there did so for the
agriculture. The river valley is very fertile and has abundant water from
high water tables and the river and its tributaries that flow down from the
surrounding sierras. Most of the valley is today irrigated farmland and
grazing land for cattle. There is no mining activity in the Valley. The
closest mines are in Bolanos.

I don't think there was ever a very large Spanish population in
Tlaltenango... it was historically considered an Indian town. This is in
contrast to say Jerez, which was a Spanish presidio, with large Spanish
populations from its foundation. There was also a substantial number of
blacks in the town from very early times... they seem to grow as time goes
on from what I have been able to gather from reading the 1600s marriage
film. I think that marriage of mulatos libres to indios in places like
Tlaltenango where the indios still had land was an easy way to get out of
the yoke of Spanish oppression... they basically became part of the
indigenous community.

2006/9/7, Latina1955@aol.com :
>
> Thank you Arturo,
>
> Do you think that the 2,400 tributaries were of Spanish extraction, or
> "indios"?
>
> How does this census data compare to growing towns/villages throughout
> Mexico such as Guadalajara, Monterrey, Zacatecas proper?
>
> Was the original interest in settling the valley due to good land for
> farming or was it due to mining?
>
> I am just curious about the reasons for settlement by the early Spaniards
> and others.
>
> Esperanza
> Chicagoland area

As far as the general population of Mexico over time, there is a very good
summary table that I have taken from La Poblacion Negra de Mexico by Gonzalo
Aguirre Beltran.

It is in the file folder with the chapters that I have scanned from that
book:

http://www.nuestrosranchos.com/node/14174

Opciones de visualización de comentarios

Seleccione la forma que prefiera para mostrar los comentarios y haga clic en «Guardar las opciones» para activar los cambios.

Navigation

En línea

En este momento hay 0 usuarios y 2 invitados en línea.

Languages