The Colonial Mixtec Community

Indigenous communities in Mexico have intrigued generations of historians and anthropologists and have influenced the conceptualization of agrarian “folk” or “peasant” communities worldwide. Since at least the 1940s ethnographers have lived and worked in Mesoamerican communities, observing cultures in their own day while imagining the preconquest past.1 In the last three decades especially, historians have used both Spanish- and native-language sources from the colonial period to analyze the internal organization of indigenous communities, considering how these structures survived in altered yet recognizable forms after the Spanish conquest.2 In the past, both historical and anthropological studies focused on corporate communities such as the Nahua altepetl (local ethnic state), Maya cah, and the undifferentiated pueblo of modern Mexico; however, findings from the two disciplines are not usually integrated or even compared.3 In contrast to previous research, this article uses a variety of Mixtec- and Spanish-language sources to define the nature and internal organization of Mixtec communities in the sixteenth century, and examines some aspects of their reorganization and transformation during the colonial period.4 In particular, I focus on two components of the colonial community in the light of a recent ethnography from the Mixteca Alta region of Oaxaca.Mixtec-language writings reveal how individuals referred to the groups to which they belonged. The sources speak of the corporate community as a complex sociopolitical entity or multilevel structure, as well as a set of social relations and obligations.5 People identified and affiliated themselves with multiple overlapping “communities” or associations of households. Some ethnographers have addressed the same topic by listening to the ways in which indigenous people referred to their own communities. John Monaghan’s book, for example, shows how Mixtecs of modern-day Santiago Nuyoo talk about their community in terms of a big house, where people shelter and feed one another.6 In Nuyoo people spoke about various social acts related to these unifying principles, such as feasting, gifting, marriage, and cargo or community service. Similarly, the first part of this essay analyzes how Mixtecs in the colonial period wrote about their communities as sociopolitical entities and places, and how indigenous- and Spanish-language sources reflect changes and continuities in those structures. The second part examines two indigenous institutions in the colonial period that organized many of the social acts analyzed in Monaghan’s ethnography by reading what Mixtecs and Spaniards wrote about them. The first institution, the Mixtec royal palace or lordly establishment, called the aniñe, was literally a big house; the second institution, tniño, was a system of reciprocal labor and responsibility. Changes in the aniñe and tniño reflected changing social relations and obligations in the colonial period. The gradual decline of the aniñe and the continued importance of tniño to this day reflect significant changes and continuities within Mixtec communities.The collection of Mixtec-language archival sources with which I am working includes more than 20 types of writing genres generated by notaries of the native cabildo, including last wills and testaments, records of community accounts, criminal records, land transactions, municipal council election results, and petitions to Spanish authorities. Since the language was not transformed in the early colonial period, Mixtec nobles continued to refer to specific sociopolitical institutions and general cultural categories in their own terms. Extant Mixtec-language sources span three centuries, from the 1560s to the first decade of the nineteenth century. My work is based on some 400 documents ranging in length from 1 to 70 pages; the collection is distributed evenly across time, representing more than 60 Mixtec communities, covering the entire culture area from the Mixteca Baja to the Valley of Oaxaca, excluding the Pacific Coast.Unlike most ethnographies, my study does not focus on a particular community. Instead, this essay is based on a close examination of documentation from many communities in the region, especially from the Mixteca Alta, and more specifically from the alcaldía mayor of Teposcolula and Yanhuitlan. During the colonial period, this jurisdiction comprised several dozen indigenous communities that are well represented in a superb collection of archival records stored in Oaxaca and Mexico City. I focus on shared institutions and concepts, identified by a common vocabulary, while noting regional and local variation whenever possible. Colonial indigenous-language sources are indispensable to my philological approach, but Spanish-language legal cases are also extremely valuable sources of information; in fact, each type of record sheds light on the other. Thus I use Spanish-language sources as well as native-language documents.Before proceeding, I would like to point out that indigenous-language sources indicate that people from the Mixteca did not use the name “Mixtec” to refer to themselves. Rather, indigenous writers consistently used the term Ñudzahui (pronounced ñu sawi or ñuđawi, depending on the dialect area), meaning “the rain place,” to describe the region, people, communities, language, flora and fauna, and cultural artifacts of the area.7 Thus, I use this term, which is still used by many people who live in the Mixteca.The term native community is deceptively simple, as if it were a discrete and universal entity. Previous studies have relied on Spanish or Nahuatl terms to describe preconquest and colonial Ñudzahui structures. In their own language, however, Ñudzahui writers rarely used terms such as comunidad, ciudad, pueblo, cabecera, sujeto, rancho, estancia, or barrio to describe their sociopolitical organization and affiliation. Even translations of indigenous-language texts reduce important words to rough Spanish equivalents or simply omit complex terminology altogether. Spanish-language sources indicate how colonial officials understood indigenous settlements in terms of their own experiences and pragmatic concerns, and how they attempted to relocate and reorganize them. Colonial policies and depopulation had a major impact on indigenous settlement patterns, but indigenous forms of organization were not transformed entirely. The fact that Ñudzahui writers continued to employ traditional terminology in reference to structures, sometimes modifying or qualifying standard terms with descriptive vocabulary and loanwords, demonstrates the vitality of this organization. Let us consider, then, how they spoke about their communities in the early colonial period.Ñudzahui-language sources show that all settled places were called ñuu. This term conveyed “place” in the broad sense of the word, as a settlement or even a region. Many place-names contain ñuu as a prefix, often reduced to ñu, such as Ñunduhua, Ñundaa, and Ñundecu.8 In the colonial period and beyond, people continued to use their own names for places that were renamed by Nahuas and Spaniards; for example, the three places mentioned above were known to Spaniards as Guaxaca or Oaxaca (from the Nahuatl Huaxyacac), Texupa or Tejupan (from Texocpan), and Achiutla (from Achiotlan), respectively. Fray Francisco de Alvarado’s Vocabulario en lengua mixteca, published in 1593, employs the term ñuu alone or modified to define terms such as “pueblo,” “territory,” “villa,” and “site of a pueblo.”9 To settle a site was literally “to make a ñuu” (yoquidza ñuundi).10 Ñudzahui writers called the world in which they lived ñuu ñayehui or “places and people,” referring to all the people collectively in their innumerable ñuu.11 The ñuu was as central to local indigenous organization and identity as the altepetl in central Mexico and the cah in Yucatan. At the time of the conquest, the Mixteca contained hundreds of ñuu and well over a million inhabitants.Many of the most prominent and populous ñuu in the Mixteca, however, were better known as yuhuitayu and were only referred to as ñuu in the most general sense as a settled place. A yuhuitayu resulted from the marriage of a male and a female ruler who each represented the lordly establishment of a separate ñuu. For example, in the mid-sixteenth century, doña María de Guzmán represented Ñundecu (Achiutla) and don Felipe de Saavedra represented Disinuu (Tlaxiaco), and the yuhuitayu resulting from their marriage joined the resources of both ñuu until both rulers died.12 When don Felipe gave his last will and testament in 1573, he reaffirmed that his wife was to rule the yuhuitayu until she died, and then the couple’s eldest daughter would inherit don Felipe’s part belonging to Disinuu.The yuhuitayu is represented in preconquest-style codices and postconquest pictorial writings as a royal couple facing one another, seated on a petate (reed mat). The term yuhuitayu is a metaphorical doublet: yuhui is “reed mat” and tayu is “seat” or “pair,” depending on tone (Mixtec is a tonal language); as a writing convention in the codices, tayu is a tone pun for both the seat of ruler-ship and the married, ruling couple (see figure 1).13 This pictorial image has been interpreted as simply a royal marriage, but the glyph also represented a place and its rulership. The petate or seat motif was a Mesoamerican symbol of authority or government. Nahua authors of the Florentine Codex and Primeros Memoriales associated the reed mat throne (petlatl icpalli) with the altepetl and its rulers. The Nahua historian Chimalpahin suggested that the petlatl icpalli was a synonym of tlatocayotl or “rulership.” However, it is important to note that Nahua and Ñudzahui painters depicted the mat motif differently. Whereas the Nahua tlatoani (male ruler) is depicted in codices from central Mexico seated alone on a reed mat, the Ñudzahui man and woman shared the mat, facing and gesturing toward one another. Ñudzahui codices reflected a construction of hereditary rule and succession that required direct descent from two royal parents.14 The yuhuitayu represented an alliance of two lordly establishments from two separate ñuu, each represented by a male or a female ruler.The ancient yuhuitayu of the preconquest codices survived the conquest and persisted throughout much of the colonial period. The term appears in the earliest and latest extant native-language archival sources dated 1571 and 1807.15 In Alvarado’s Vocabulario the yuhuitayu, or “tayu” for short, is associated with a number of Spanish terms, such as “ciudad” (tayu canu meaning “large tayu”), “cabecera del pueblo” (sacaa tayu meaning “where there’s a tayu”), “comunidad,” and “pueblo” (yuhuitayu).16 Both ñuu and yuhuitayu were consistently used terms in all parts of the Mixteca represented by colonial documentation—the Valley of Oaxaca, the Mixteca Alta, and the Mixteca Baja around Huaxuapa (Ñuudzai) and Tonalá (Ñuuniñe). It is difficult to find a document that does not use one or the other term, but it is important to note that not all ñuu were yuhuitayu. Only a ñuu which was represented by a royal couple could be called a yuhuitayu. In general, the term yuhuitayu was not used in reference to smaller settlements which lacked a lordly establishment. For example, an indigenous official distinguished between the yuhuitayu of San Pedro y San Pablo Yucundaa (Teposcolula) and the nearby ñuu of Santiago Yodzonduhua in 1681.17 Likewise, don Domingo de Celís, who came from San Pedro Mártir Yucunama to make his testament in Yucundaa, consistently called the latter place a yuhuitayu and the former a ñuu.18Ñuu and yuhuitayu were divided further into smaller constituent parts; terminology for these subunits varied by region. In the Mixteca Alta around Teposcolula, Tamasulapa, and Tlaxiaco, the term used was siqui. In the Mixteca Baja the term for a subunit of the ñuu was dzini, and in the area of Yanhuitlan it was siña. The differences among these three terms, apart from regional usage, is unclear. They may be somewhat analogous to three Nahua terms for subdivisions of the altepetl—calpolli, tlaxilacalli, and chinamitl.19 Indigenous aides who worked with Alvarado on the Vocabulario defined the Spanish term “barrio” as siqui.20 Other entries reveal additional terms; for example, the term collacion reads “vide barrio” (see barrio); “a cada barrio” is listed as ee siqui ee siqui (each siqui), and “a cada collacion” is listed as ee siña ee siña, ee dzini ee dzini (each siña, each dzini).21 Thus the Vocabulario indirectly equates siqui, siña, and dzini. The term siña appears in several other entries, such as “vezino del barrio” tai yehe tnaha ñuundi siñandi siquindi (person who belongs to a ñuu, a siña, a siqui).22 The perrochia (parish) also involves use of siña and siqui: huahi ñuhu ee siña & siqui, ee sichi ee ñuu (a church for one siña and siqui, one section, one ñuu).23 Like the ñuu, the siqui was also a named unit. In the colonial period, the number of siqui in a given ñuu varied considerably, from several to dozens.The relationship between ñuu and smaller subunits was fluid and dynamic. Phrases combining references to the ñuu and the siña, siqui, or dzini were not uncommon. Even Alvarado’s Vocabulario includes a few ambiguous equivalences. For example, for the everyday query “De qué pueblo eres?” (To which pueblo do you belong?) the given phrases are na ñuu yehe tnahando (To which ñuu do you belong?) and na siña yehe tnahando (To which siña do you belong?).24 Thus both ñuu and siña were equated with “pueblo.” Likewise, “vezino del barrio” is tai yehe tnaha ñuundi siñandi, siquindi (person who belongs to a ñuu, a siña, a siqui).25 These examples in the Vocabulario are confirmed by similar usage in mundane documents, where distinctions between ñuu and siqui could be unclear, comparable to the occasional pairing of ñuu and tayu. For example, members of the largest siña of Yanhuitlan, Ayusi, often called their home a “ñuu siña.” A siqui could achieve ñuu status by becoming independent of the composite structure. The dynamic nature of these structures reflected a complex system of sociopolitical organization at the time of the conquest. Indeed, this complexity is represented in the many elaborate pre-conquest codices or writings attributed to the Mixtecs.Thus the Ñudzahui ñuu was comparable to the Nahua altepetl and Maya cah, though its constituent subdivisions (siqui, siña, dzini) and complex alliance systems (yuhuitayu) resemble the Nahua case more than the Maya. The second section of this article considers additional comparisons between the Ñudzahui and Nahua community of the early sixteenth century, including lordly establishments, local government, and systems of rotational labor. First, however, it is important to understand how Spanish officials interpreted and reorganized these structures in the colonial period.Colonial changes altered but did not transform the yuhuitayu-ñuu-siqui configuration beyond recognition. When the Spaniards arrived in the Mixteca, they encountered several hundred settlements spread out rather evenly across the land, separated by the mountainous landscape and numerous small valleys. In terms of settlement patterns, the ñuu was less nucleated than a typical Mediterranean city-state in this period. The demographic catastrophe of the sixteenth century must have contributed to the general appearance of dispersal. Spaniards intended to create more manageable units by moving some of the outlying settlements to the center, relocating settlements from hilltops and slopes down to level valleys and plains, and re-creating the semblance of a Mediterranean city with its rural hamlets. These activities were called congregación. In general, congregación began late and was confined to only a few areas in the Mixteca; it was limited mainly to the removal of a few communities from hilltop sites to the valley floor, and the collapsing of some structures onto themselves (siqui moved to the created center of a ñuu, for example).26 The distance of this movement was often characterized in terms of “a stone’s throw” (a un tiro de piedra) or “a musket shot” (a un tiro de arcabuz). For example, the new Teposcolula (called Yucundaa by Ñudzahui) was moved to the foot of the hill, and its former site was still partially settled and referred to in some documents as “Teposcolula la vieja.”27 People from outlying areas were moved to the center, but most siqui and ñuu remained intact. By the second half of the seventeenth century, the new alignment did lead to increasing concentration, but not to the extent that Spanish officials had planned.The purpose of congregación was to shape larger settlements into cities; existing clusters of siqui were reorganized according to the traza layout with important civil and ecclesiastical buildings arranged around a central plaza.28 In many places, however, the colonial center did not meet the expectations of a typical Spanish plaza, because the type of center imagined for the traza layout had little basis in native settlement patterns. The Spanish municipality was based on a dominant urban center surrounded by scattered, subordinate settlements. But a nucleated center was not really a pivotal component of the preconquest ñuu. A concentrated center was not a defining characteristic even in densely populated central Mexico, where individual subdivisions had always been the basis of a strong separatism among and within altepetl.29Spaniards did not grasp or were not concerned with understanding the complex and dynamic nature of Ñudzahui sociopolitical organization. They envisioned the Mixteca in terms of dominant centers with nearby “barrios” and more dispersed “estancias.” They created permanent kingdoms with subordinate satellite settlements by recognizing the most prominent yuhuitayu in a given area as cabeceras (head towns) and all smaller yuhuitayu, ñuu, and siqui as or of the In densely populated valleys some yuhuitayu were to be by the new For example, several yuhuitayu in the within a few from Yanhuitlan as and were reduced to settlements. units with jurisdiction over numerous places, cabeceras ñuu and other yuhuitayu that were or associated with the larger in a more reciprocal In the new their labor and to the cabeceras but and The of cabeceras was not Spaniards were to out larger settlements and were influenced by the or of local rulers in the and Previous with the were also a especially considering the important in the early period by Nahua and also influenced congregación and reorganization did not settlement patterns, the of status and in local centers the Spanish of People continued to use their own terms for yuhuitayu and ñuu throughout the period, but the new some terminology which distinguished a from its outlying Ñudzahui that the were not the same as the yuhuitayu and ñuu, called a dzini ñuu (head and as ñuu terms only in specific and genres of legal especially in election documents and legal The new terminology level of between entities which was separate from the preconquest By the late seventeenth century, many Ñudzahui writers had such as and but much of the terminology was throughout the colonial period, including terms for subunits of the were as units into the century in many for example, references to multiple siña are as late as in the Spaniards sociopolitical relations among the various entities their structure, the area settlement or native terminology for these structures. But the new configuration sociopolitical relations and set the for the of units from In fact, the indigenous to the of a of organization began as as the nature of the Spanish Many indigenous communities independent status from the mid-sixteenth century a which by the of the seventeenth century. For example, several and from Yanhuitlan in and In the late seventeenth and centuries, of former and in the Mixteca to yuhuitayu or separate ñuu status contributed to the fluid sociopolitical colonial for represented to the sociopolitical reorganization as well as the of an of community in Ñudzahui sociopolitical Ñudzahui communities have been in terms of structures and places that were reorganized colonial This essay to of community based on social and relations within the yuhuitayu, ñuu, and recent many anthropologists have focused on internal social relations and rather than as defining of the native The on social and cultural acts as in the and of communities to native and the of a corporate It is that social relations were to the of communities in the colonial period. The yuhuitayu, for example, a set of social and relations organized by a hereditary This prominent of who represented their communities in pictorial and and who organized relations among all social groups in the Mixteca, numerous from the sixteenth century The decline of the reflected changing social relations and altered forms of which the nature of communities. This section studies some aspects of this transformation by considering the relationship between lordly establishments and the sociopolitical structures especially on three indigenous and aniñe, and of the Ñudzahui yuhuitayu were called ruler) and and female the general of and were addressed or referred to with The of or was in many ways the of the Nahua The Vocabulario a as which belongs to the or which belongs to the also appears in with “ciudad” and “pueblo” and ñuu A yuhuitayu could not an and an Thus the ruling couple was an extremely important symbol of In several during the sixteenth century, including those for the around many yuhuitayu from the Mixteca of their ruling as of (see figure In officials from Santiago a and of Teposcolula, for from the on the that they had their own ruling Spanish officials an that his ñuu to to the because have own don Pedro and doña This of yuhuitayu significant as it was to native of sociopolitical had little meaning within the Spanish local hereditary however, and they even the importance of in the Colonial officials used the term to a female of a was the of a term that Spaniards in the and to all native rulers in A was the and of all traditional and to the of a native In other the was the Spanish legal of the Ñudzahui of the two constituent parts of the yuhuitayu, Spaniards the legal of the a of royal in marriage but a male his authority in a given place from his For example, in doña de and don de were called of However, the doña was and in Teposcolula and the don came from relationship was they were called of Teposcolula, doña and the don as The Spanish of to the yuhuitayu in legal even their separate were not at In fact, the term was only a represented a the was not in the colonial legal Similarly, a and a Spanish the male represented the couple in the The Spanish legal system native and by of their and marriage, but the of Spanish male in the legal and the Mixteca, or rulers of yuhuitayu lived in royal called The aniñe was the palace of the usually equated in Spanish-language documents with a or a Nahua and that the of in the Mixteca were similar to those in central In general, and structures, each with its separate were arranged around The aniñe of was in documents as a complex of The of (called in in a palace to the new church (see figure In this separate structures are arranged around a central each with its separate with one to the entire of the layout of the The Spanish on the or at least their A of yuhuitayu from the aniñe, representing recent generations of the ruling of the the was don Francisco de is seated alone at the of the above his of the earliest of an aniñe from Yucundaa from the 1560s the aniñe of Yucundaa as a which and the on or to land named on the site where the called de la (see figure de to the of Yucundaa, to the palace with ancient and colonial The palace of separate places or within a divided by and separate When doña of aniñe, she and the entire complex with several male and female They the all the on a reed mat as a of The the image of the yuhuitayu depicted in the ruling seated on reed usually or in of a The royal palace was the site of a reed mat the seat of where the lived and The of was in each separate part or of the The of was to make a on the social of the community. The couple on y de (reed and or (from the Nahuatl document was in some Nahuatl The only part of the complex where they did not a seat was the de though the couple and of it to

Agrarian society · Agriculture · Archaeology · Colonialism · Conceptualization · Ethnography · Ethnology · Geography · Indigenous · Linguistics · Maya · Peasant · Sociology · Anthropology · Ecology · Historical Studies in Latin America · History · Latin American history and culture · Politics and Society in Latin America

• A History of the New Philology and the New Philology in History

  Open Access•Matthew Restall•Latin American Research Review•2003

  Add to list

• Filología y etnohistoria. Una breve historia de la "nueva filología" en Norteamérica

  Open Access•Matthew Restall•Desacatos•2014

  Add to list

• La historia es una

  Open Access•María De Los Ángeles Romero Frizzi•Desacatos•2014

  Add to list

• Nuevas cabeceras contra viejos señoríos

  Open Access•Manuel A Hermann Lejarazu•Anuario de Estudios Americanos•2008

  Add to list

• Nuevas cabeceras contra viejos señoríos

  Open Access•Manuel A Hermann Lejarazu•Anuario de Estudios Americanos•2008

  Add to list

• Los Procesos de Yanhuitlán

  Rosalba Piazza•Colonial Latin American Review•2005

  Add to list

• Recent Advances in Mixtec Archaeology

  Open Access•Veronica Perez Rodríguez•Journal of Archaeological Research•2012

  Add to list

• Mesoamerican urbanism

  Open Access•D M Carballo, G M Feinman et al.•Urban Studies•2025

  Add to list

• The "Original Conquest" of Oaxaca

  Lisa Sousa, Kevin Terraciano•Ethnohistory•2003

  Add to list

• Creating and Contesting Community

  Andrew B Fisher•Journal of Colonialism and…•2006

  Add to list

• Popular Religion or Lived Religion? Exploring Indigenous Religious Festival Practice in Mexico

  Open Access•I A Rieger•International Journal of Latin…•2023

  Add to list

• Lord 8 Deer "Jaguar Claw" and the Land of the Sky

  Open Access•Arthur A Joyce, Andrew Workinger et al.•Latin American Antiquity•2004

  Add to list

• From Lord to Landowner

  John K Chance•Ethnohistory•2010

  Add to list

• Alternative pathways to power in late Postclassic Highland Mesoamerica

  Open Access•Lane F Fargher, Verenice Y Heredia Espinoza et al.•Journal of Anthropological…•2011

  Add to list

• Landlord and peasant in colonial Oaxaca

  William B Taylor•Landlord and peasant in colonial…•1972

  Add to list

• The interface between the written and the oral

  Jack Goody•The interface between the written…•1987

  Add to list

• Picture writing from ancient southern Mexico; Mixtec place signs and maps.

  Mary Elizabeth Smith•Picture writing from ancient…•1973

  Add to list

• History and social theory

  Peter Burke•History and social theory•2005

  Add to list

• A guide to the historical geography of New Spain

  Peter Gerhard•A guide to the historical…•1993

  Add to list

• Tzintzuntzan

  George McClelland Foster•Tzintzuntzan•1979

  Add to list

• The Symbolic Construction of Community

  Anthony P Cohen•2013

  Add to list

• How Societies Remember

  Open Access•Paul Connerton•How societies remember•1989

  Add to list

• Maya Saints and Souls in a Changing World

  John M Watanabe•Maya Saints and Souls in a…•1992

  Add to list

• Colonial Culhuacan, 1580-1600

  Ross Hassig, Sarah Cline et al.•The American Historical Review•1988

  Add to list

• Architectural Fusion and Indigenous Ideology in Early Colonial Teposcolula. The Casa de la Cacica

  Open Access•James B Kirakofe•Anales del Instituto de…•1995

  Add to list

• Estratificación social en la Mesoamérica prehispánica

  James Lockhart•Hispanic American Historical Review•1978

  Add to list

• The Population of the Mixteca Alta, 1520-1960

  Charles Gibson•Hispanic American Historical Review•1969

  Add to list

• The Nahuas After the Conquest

  James Lockhart•The Nahuas After the Conquest•1994

  Add to list

• Maya Society under Colonial Rule

  Nancy Farri, Nancy Farriss et al.•Maya Society under Colonial Rule•1984

  Add to list

• The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule

  Charles Gibson•The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule•1964

  Add to list

• Campesinos y reformas

  Claude Morin, Rodolfo Pastor•Hispanic American Historical Review•1989

  Add to list

• The Mixtecs in Ancient and Colonial Times

  Brian R Hamnett, Ronald Spores•Hispanic American Historical Review•1986

  Add to list

• Santiago's Sword

  Miles L Wortman, James B Greenberg•Hispanic American Historical Review•1982

  Add to list

• The Caciques of Tecali

  John K Chance•Hispanic American Historical Review•1996

  Add to list

• Maya and Spaniard in Yucatán, 1648-1812

  Jeremy Baskes, Robert W Patch•Maya and Spaniard in Yucatán,…•1994

  Add to list

• Chimalpahin and the Kingdoms of Chalco

  Bernardo García Martínez, Susan Schroeder•Hispanic American Historical Review•1992

  Add to list

• Law and Politics in Aztec Texcoco

  Jane F Collier, Jerome A Offner•Hispanic American Historical Review•1985

  Add to list

• The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule

  Benjamin Keen, Christina M Gibson et al.•Hispanic American Historical Review•1965

  Add to list

• Mesoamerica's Ethnographic Past

  John K Chance•Ethnohistory•1996

  Add to list

• The Folk Culture of Yucatan

  R Redfield•Journal of Educational Sociology•1943

  Add to list

• The Mixe of Oaxaca

  Alan R Sandstrom, Frank J Lipp•Journal for the Scientific Study…•1993

  Add to list

• The Covenants with Earth and Rain

  Open Access•John M Watanabe•American Ethnologist•1997

  Add to list

• Cofradías and Cargos

  Open Access•John K Chance, William B Taylor•American Ethnologist•1985

  Add to list

• Closed Corporate Peasant Communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java

  Eric R Wolf•Southwestern Journal of…•1957

  Add to list