The Public Rituals of Life, Death, and Resurrection in , ()

The Public Rituals of Life, Death, and Resurrection in Tlayacapan, Morelos (Mexico)

By Robert H. Jackson

The Public Rituals of Life, Death, and Resurrection in Tlayacapan, Morelos (Mexico)

By Robert H. Jackson

This book first published 2020

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2020 by Robert H. Jackson

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-5275-4508-3 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-4508-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figures ...... vi

Acknowledgements ...... xiii

Chapter 1 ...... 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 ...... 7 The Colonial Origins of Tlayacapan

Chapter 3 ...... 33 in the Public Ritual of Tlayacapan

Chapter 4 ...... 70 Life, Death, and Resurrection: Semana Santa in Tlayacapan

Chapter 5 ...... 95 The Día de los Muertos

Chapter 6 ...... 131 Conclusions

Appendix 1: September 19, 2017 ...... 139

Appendix 2: Earthquake Damage to the Colonial Architectural Patrimony of other Morelos Communities ...... 166

Appendix 3: The Architectural Development of Sixteenth Century Doctrina Complexes ...... 201

Appendix 4: Engraved Embedded Stones in La Exaltación barrio chapel ...... 222

Selected Bibliography ...... 230 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables

Table 1: Political organization of Cabeceras and Sujetos of the Tributary Province of Huaxtepec under Culhua-Mexica Rule Table 2: The Estimated Population of Morelos Doctrinas, in Selected Years

Figures

Figure 1: A page from a visual catechism used in evangelization. Figure 2: The upper façade of the Tlayacapan Tecpan prior to the earthquake of September 19, 2017, showing embedded pre-Hispanic stones. Figure 3: Detail of the embedded stones in the upper façade of the Tlayacapan Tecpan. Figure 4: Embedded chalchihuitl stones in la Exaltación barrio chapel, Tlayacapan. Figure 5: An embedded chalchihuitl stone in the doctrina San Guillermo (Morelos). Figure 6: A pre-Hispanic stone in a niche in the façade of the doctrina church La Asunción Yautepec (Morelos). Figure 7: A staging of Moros y Cristianos in . Figure 8: A staged at Atlatlahucan to celebrate the coronation of the of Guadalupe. Figure 9: The mid-eighteenth century map of the Tlayacapan lands. Figure 10: Carnivale in Rome in 1650. Figure 11: A solar event at the sixteenth-century Dominican doctrina church of San Juan Bautista Coixtlahuaca, , shortly after the winter solstice. Figure 12: The last light of the day enters the church interior, runs down the center of the nave, and illuminates the main altar screen. Figure 13: A second view of the church interior showing the light shifting, and a second shaft of light. Figure 14: The copula of the parish church in Zumpango. Figure 15: A mural in one of the niches depicting the sun. Figure 16: A mural in one of the niches depicting the sun. Figure 17: A Jaguar mask from . Figure 18: Jaguar masks from Guerrero. Figure 19: The Danza del Venado in a Yoreme community in northern Sinaloa. Figure 20: Huehues in Yauhmechcan, Tlaxcala. Figure 21: Huehues and the devil in Totimehuacán, . Figure 22: Gender reversal roles in Totimehuacán, Puebla. The Public Rituals of Life, Death, and Resurrection in Tlayacapan, vii Morelos (Mexico) Figure 23: Huehues in , Puebla. Figure 24: A mask used in the Dance of the Viejitos. Figure 25: A 1940 photograph of “Viejitos” in a P’urépecha community in Michoacán. Figure 26: A staging of the Dance of the “Viejitos.” Figure 27: A c. 1939 photograph of a Chinelo in Tepotztlán, Morelos. Figure 28 A c. 1939 photograph of in Tepotztlán, Morelos. Figure 29: The procession staged during carnival in 2016 leaving the tecpan/municipal palace. Figure 30: The procession moves through the streets of Tlayacapan. Figure 31: The procession stopped in front of the Rosario barrio chapel in 2016. Figure 32: A participant dressed as a priest splashing people with “Holy Water.” Figure 33: A participant who represents Maximilian. Figure 34: Banners carried during the procession identifying the Comparsa Union. Figure 35: A banner carried during the procession. Figure 36: A procession of Chinelos in the streets of Tlayacapan. Figure 37: The banner of the Comparsa Unión. Figure 38: Chinelos followed by musicians. Figure 39: A procession staged in 2015 in front of the main entrance to the atrium of San Juan Bautista. Figure 40: The procession moving towards the tecpan/municipal palace. Figure 41: Chinelos from Tlayacapan participating in a Brinco staged in Atlatlahucan, Morelos. Figure 42: The church of San Pedro Yuririapúndaro () decorated with palm fronds on . Figure 43: A Penitential Procession depicted in a mural in the Franciscan doctrina of (Puebla). Figure 44: A penitential procession depicted in a painting in the church of Singuilucan (). Figure 45: Sayones. Figure 46: Matacueros in . Figure 47: The statue of Jesus ready for the viacrucis procession on (Jumiltepec, Morelos). Figure 48: A viacrucis staged on Good Friday with the cross in a barrio of Azcapotzalco (). Figure 49: Hooded penitents carrying the santo entierro in a silent procession staged in Queretaro. Figure 50: A silent procession staged in Morelia, Michoacán. Figure 51: Preparations for the Tlayacapan silent procession. Figure 52: The santo entierro and statues being carried from San Juan Bautista church to initiate the silent procession. Figure 53: Paper maché figures of Judas and the devil for sale on Good Friday in Morelia, Michoacán. Figure 54: Judas hung in effigy from San Agustín church, Xilitla, San Luis Potosi. Figure 55: The procession and band moving through the streets of Tlayacapan heading to the Tecpan/Municipal Palace. viii List of Tables and Figures

Figure 56: The paper maché figures used in the Quema de Judas. Figure 57: The temporary church in the atrium of San Juan Bautista. Figure 58: The Cempoalxochitl plant and flower from the Codex Florentino. Figure 59: The church of San Nicolás Bari, Santa Fe de la Laguna, Michoacán. Figure 60: 1901 photographs of Robert LeRoy Parker (left) and Harry Longabough and Etta Place (right). Figure 61: An eighteenth century representation of the Dance of Death. Figure 62: The Triumph of Death and the Dance of Death, Clusone, Italy. Figure 63: The Dance of Death, the Franciscan convent of San Francisco de Morelia, Morelia, Valencia. Figure 64: Detail of the mural showing death shooting arrows at people in a Tree of Life. Figure 65: A representation of Mictlantecuhtli the deity of death and the underworld. Figure 66: Death and an Augustinian in the lower cloister of the doctrina at Malinalco. Figure 67: The King of Death represented in the portería of the Franciscan doctrina at Cholula. Figure 68: The Triumph of Death represented in the upper cloister of the Augustinian doctrina at . Figure 69: The Triumph of Death represented in the Case del Deán. Figure 70: Detail of the mural showing death. Figure 71: A painting in the church of the Hospital of the Santa Caridad. Figure 72: A painting in the church of the Hospital of the Santa Caridad. Figure 73: A painting from the Dominican doctrina at Coixtlahuaca depicting Death and the decaying body of a warrior. Figure 74: A statue depicting the King of Death used in staged at the Dominican doctrina at Yanhuitlan, Oaxaca. Figure 75: Death represented in popular art. Skeletons attending a bull fight. Figure 76: Masked dancers during the celebration of Xantolo. Figure 77: An historic photograph of a pair of women in a during the Dia de los Muertos. Figure 78: The sale of Cempoalxochitl and pan de muertos in Tlayacapan. Figure 79: A man carrying Cempoalxochitl. Figure 80: An altar in a house in Tlayacapan. Figure 81: Decorated tombs in the Tlayacapan Municipal Cemetery. Figure 82: A decorated tomb in the Tlayacapan Municipal Cemetery. Figure 83: An altar in the Tlayacapan Casa de Cultura. Figure 84: A funeral procession in Tlayacapan. Figure 85: Musicians accompanying the funeral procession. Figure 86: A funeral procession in , Morelos. Figure 87: The funeral procession in Ocuituco, Morelos. Figure 88: A funeral procession in Tlayacapan. Mourners carry the casket from San Juan Bautista church to be buried in the Municipal Cemetery. Figure 89: A mock funeral procession staged in Tlayacapan during the celebration of Día de los Muertos in 2016. The Public Rituals of Life, Death, and Resurrection in Tlayacapan, ix Morelos (Mexico) Figure 90: The Banda de Tlayacapan playing its musical offering to the dead in the Tlayacapan Municipal Cemetery. Figure 91: The Banda de Tlayacapan playing its musical offering to the dead in the Tlayacapan Municipal Cemetery. Figure 92: The Banda de Tlayacapan playing its musical offering to the dead in the Tlayacapan Municipal Cemetery. There are decorated tombs in the foreground. Figure 93: Cornelio Santamaría, the musical director of the Banda de Tlayacapan, at the offering to the dead in the Tlayacapan Municipal Cemetery. Figure 94: Dr. Artemio Santamaría at the offering to the dead in the Tlayacapan Municipal Cemetery. Figure 95: The church façade and roof showing earthquake damage. Figure 96: Damage to the espadaña. Figure 97: Damage to the façade. Figure 98: Cracks in the lateral wall just behind the church façade. Figure 99: The church interior and rubble from the collapsed roof. Figure 100: The church interior. Figure 101: Detail of the damage to the church interior. Figure 102: Damage to the lower cloister. Figure 103: A lateral buttress that collapsed. Figure 104: The tecpan. Figure 105: Altica. Figure 106: La Exaltación. Figure 107: La Natividad. Figure 108: Magdalena. Figure 109: San Diego. Figure 110: San Martín Caballero. Figure 111: San Nicolás. Figure 112: Sr. Santiago Apóstol. Figure 113: Santa Ana. Figure 114: La Concepción. Figure 115: The initial stage: the stabilization of the Espadaña of San Juan Bautista church. Figure 116: The ongoing restoration of San Juan Bautista church in 2018. Figure 117: Ongoing restoration of San Juan Bautista church with the addition of a temporary roof. Figure 118: Ongoing restoration of San Juan Bautista church with progress through the end of 2018. Figure 119: Restoration of the façade and copula of La Exaltación. Figure 120: The barrio chapel San Martin Caballero restored. Figure 121: Restoration work on Altica barrio chapel. Figure 122: Restoration work on Concepción barrio chapel. Figure 123: Restoration work on Magdalena barrio chapel. Figure 124: Restoration work on Natividad barrio chapel. Figure 125: Restoration work on San Diego barrio chapel. Figure 126: Restoration work on San Nicolás barrio chapel. Figure 127: Restoration work on Santiago barrio chapel. x List of Tables and Figures

Figure 128: Restoration work on Santa Ana barrio chapel. Figure 129: The Totolapan church before the earthquake photographed during Semana Santa in 2017. Figure 130: The church showing earthquake damage. Figure 131: The interior of the church. Figure 132: Damage to the church ceiling. Figure 133: Damage to the cloister. Figure 134: Damage to the cloister. Figure 135: Restoration work on Totolapan. Figure 136: The Ahuatlán chapels before the earthquake. Figure 137: Showing earthquake damage. Figure 138: Earthquake damage to the late sixteenth century “open chapel. Figure 139: The church façade. Figure 140: The church interior showing earthquake damage. Figure 141: The church interior. Figure 142: The church interior. Figure 143: The church interior. Figure 144: The church interior. Figure 145: The church interior. Figure 146: Cracks in the church roof. Figure 147: Damage to the mirador in the cloister. Figure 148: Damage to the mirador. Figure 149: Damage to the roof of the mirador. Figure 150: The façade of the church and damaged bell tower. Figure 151: Damage to the church interior and restoration work. Figure 152: Detail of damage to the church roof. Figure 153: Detail of damage to the church roof. Figure 154: The cloister that was not heavily damaged. Figure 155: Damage to the façade and bell tower. Figure 156: Damage to the church interior and cloister. Figure 157: Damage to the cloister. Figure 158: The façade of Santo Domingo . Figure 159: Damage to one of the towers. Figure 160: Damage to one of the church bell towers. Figure 161: The hospital chapel. Figure 162: The hospital chapel. Figure 163: Damage to the chapel. Figure 164: Damage to the chapel. Figure 165: Damage to the church façade. Figure 166: Damage to the church roof and cloister. Figure 167: Damage to the bell tower. Figure 168: Restoration work on the church façade and bell tower. Figure 169: Damage to the church. Figure 170: The cloister that suffered only minor damage. Figure 171: Damage to the church and bell tower. Figure 172: Showing earthquake damage. The Public Rituals of Life, Death, and Resurrection in Tlayacapan, xi Morelos (Mexico) Figure 173: The progress of restoration work. Figure 174: Earthquake damage to the façade and bell tower that lost its upper sections. Figure 175: Earthquake damage to the façade and bell tower that lost its upper sections. Figure 176: Earthquake damage to the façade and bell tower that lost its upper sections. Figure 177: The church in August of 2017, one month before the earthquake of September 19. Figure 178: Damage to the church and church roof. Figure 179: The capilla de Indios at Otumba (Estado de México). Figure 180: The capilla de Indios at Tlalmanalco (Estado de México). Figure 181: The capilla de indios at Coixtlahuaca (Oaxaca). Figure 182: The Capilla Real de Naturales, Cholula (Puebla). Figure 183: The 1581 map from the Relación Geográfica of Cholula showing the completed doctrina complex. Figure 184: Detail of the map showing the capilla de indios and monumental church. Figure 185: The barrio chapel San Francisco Xocotitla (Azcapotzalco, Mexico City). Figure 186: The barrio chapel Santa Catalina (Coyoacán, Mexico City). Figure 187: The church and portería of la Asunción Tlaxcala built between 1536 and 1539/1540. Figure 188: A c. 1580 map of la Asunción Tlaxcala from the Relación Geográfica. Figure 189: The capilla de indios at Tlayacapan. Figure 190: San Pedro Tlatemaco. Figure 191: The visita chapel in Jihuico. Figure 192: The nave of the chapel in Jihuico. Figure 193: The visita chapel in Meztitquitlán. Figure 194: The visita chapel in Jilotla. Figure 195: The visita chapel in Atzolcintla. Figure 196: The nave of the church of La Comunidad and the tower added in the mid-seventeenth century. Figure 197: Detail of the church and espadaña showing the original roof line. Figure 198: Detail showing the third arch that was later filled in when the “open chapel” was reconstructed. Figure 199: The cloister of the la Comunidad complex. Figure 200: The la Comunidad complex and the barranca located behind the cloister. Figure 201: The church and convent built at the second doctrina site. Figure 202: An embedded chalchihuitl stone in the espadaña of La Exaltación barrio chapel. Figure 203: An embedded chalchihuitl stone in the espadaña of La Exaltación barrio chapel. Figure 204: An embedded chalchihuitl stone in the lateral wall of La Exaltación barrio chapel. xii List of Tables and Figures

Figure 205: An embedded chalchihuitl stone in the lateral wall of La Exaltación barrio chapel. Figure 206: A cross in the lateral wall of La Exaltación barrio chapel. Figure 207: An embedded chalchihuitl stone in the lateral wall of La Exaltación barrio chapel. Figure 208: An embedded chalchihuitl stone in the lateral wall of La Exaltación barrio chapel.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ANOTHER CHAPTER CLOSED

Tlayacapan is one of the so-called “Pueblos Magicos,” which is a government program to give funds to promote tourism. But even with this designation Tlayacapan is a magical place, as are also many other small Mexican communities. I have visited Tlayacapan on many occasions because of its proximity to Mexico City and my wanderlust that I have commented on in other publications. After moving to Mexico City I began to visit sixteenth century missions known as doctrinas. In 2016 I published a book with Fernando Esparragoza Amador titled A Visual Catalog of Sixteenth Century Central Mexican Doctrinas, which is a visual record of the architectural heritage of sixteenth century missions. It was also a result of my wanderlust. Tlayacapan became one of the places I like to visit most, not only because of its extensive architectural patrimony discussed below but also because of public displays of what has become known as “public theater.” What I mean is the manifestations of culture and religiosity represented in the practices of carnival, semana santa, the , and other important dates in the Catholic liturgical calendar. This is not to say that all of the cultural practices I discuss in these pages are strictly Catholic, but rather they represent a long history of how farming people organized time and marked the agricultural cycle. The early Christian Church grafted its liturgical calendar onto the existing pagan concept of time, and the first introduced that liturgical calendar to an agrarian society in central Mexico that had a similar organization of time to mark the agricultural cycle. This book is about how people in a small Morelos community celebrate the key dates in the annual cycle of time and celebration.

I have accumulated debts of gratitude in writing this book. First and foremost are several generations of the Santamaría family who lead the two bands that form an important part of the history and cultural tradition of Tlayacapan. The manifestations of the public ritual in Tlayacapan are both visual and musical. Music accompanies and constitutes an important element of the rituals of carnival, semana santa, el Día de los Muertos, and life and death in Tlayacapan. The older generation of Santamarías is xiv Acknowledgements represented by two brothers, Cornelio who is the musical director of the Banda de Tlayacapan, and Artemio who is a retired medical doctor and who now helps administer the band. Cornelio authored a useful book that recounts the history of the band and the public ritual of Tlayacapan. The cover photograph shows the band entering Mexico City in 1914 with the troops of . The younger generation is represented by Enrique Santamaría who is the musical director of the Banda de Tlayacapan Brígido Santamaría. Brígido Santamaría was Artemio’s and Cornelio’s father. Both bands carrying on a musical-cultural tradition that dates back to the mid-nineteenth century, and there be two bands because of a family dispute that I narrate below. All three have tolerated my presence, and have contributed in important ways to the completion of this odyssey.

I met Cornelio and Artemio through my friend the talented musician Jeisel Torres, who participated in an important festival of traditional music that Cornelio organizes. Jeisel and I have visited Tlayacapan together on a number of occasions. I remember one visit we had with Cornelio and Artemio who took time to show us several of the lesser known Tlayacapan barrio chapels. I am grateful for Jeisel’s talent and friendship, and for his introduction to Cornelio and Artemio.

September 19, 2017 marked a terrible day in Mexico. It marked the anniversary of the deadly 1985 earthquake in Mexico, but on this late summer day in 2017 there was another earthquake of 7.1 on the Richter scale that did considerable damage in Morelos, Mexico City, and surrounding areas, and killed more than 200 people. I had already started to work on this book before the earthquake, but suspended the project as Tlayacapan began to recover. The earthquake damaged much of Tlayacapan’s architectural patrimony, but restoration work proceeds slowly. Restoration of the barrio chapels nears completion, but the doctrina church San Juan Bautista is still closed. Life went on following the earthquake, and the residents of Tlayacapan continue to celebrate their cultural traditions as restoration work proceeds.

Finally, my greatest debt of gratitude, as always, is to my wife Laura Diez de Sollano Montes de Oca. She first took me to Tlayacapan in 2006, and has accompanied me on numerous trips to Morelos and Tlayacapan to eat huazontle in the municipal market, attend cultural events staged there, and to observe the practices of public ritual. Tlayacapan has become one of her favorite pueblos in Mexico. Her tolerance, constant support, and understanding have made this book possible. CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Tlayacapan is a small community and municipality located in northeastern Morelos. It was an important Náhuas community at the time of the Spanish conquest of Mexico in 1519, but has changed over the past five centuries. It was a traditional indigenous agricultural community. Spanish entrepreneurs including Hernán Córtes established that produced sugar among other crops. Today Tlayacapan is a center of what has come to be known as cultural tourism and pottery production. It is also one of the Pueblos Mágicos, which is a government program designed to promote tourism to small towns that have historical, cultural, or ecological features attractive for tourism. Tlayacapan counts all three. In 2015, the population of the municipality was 17,714, and most lived in the town itself.

There are two important elements of cultural tourism in Tlayacapan. One is its architectural patrimony which consists of colonial-era religious and civil buildings some of which date to the sixteenth century. The historic structures are important in their own right, but are also sites where the ritual life of the community takes place. Mexico is a seismically active region, and earthquakes have damaged the colonial-era structures of the town. An earthquake on September 19, 2017, badly damaged many of the buildings including San Juan Bautista church, but the residents of Tlayacapan adapted and ritual life continues. The second is the continued practice of public ritual associated with the Catholic liturgical calendar that defines the annual round of Church celebrations. Public ritual as understood here describes group activities that define collective identity and community membership, and relations of power among other elements. A volume edited by William Beezley, Cheryl Martin, and John French, and written in the mode of the co-called “new cultural history” that was in vogue some 25 years ago, examined public ritual.1 The article

1 William H. Beezley, Cheryl Martin, and John French, eds, Rituals of rule, rituals of resistance: public celebrations and popular culture in Mexico. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1994). 2 Chapter 1 written by Linda Curico-Nagy is of interest here. It examines the practice of and popular participation in the public ritual of Corpus Christi celebration in Mexico City during the colonial period.2 It was an example of a ritual that the government used to maintain social order through the entertainment of the masses. The other articles in the book examine different aspects of public ritual.

Politics is an area where public ritual is important. One example was the use of the St. Patrick’s Day parade by the Irish community of nineteenth century Lowell, Massachusetts. One of its important functions was to foster group identity and solidarity. A second was to dignify the growing Irish Catholic population, its identity, and its presence in the largely protestant .3 A second example comes from Philadelphia in the early Federal Republic of the 1780s, 1790s, and first years of the nineteenth century. Oratory and the celebration of important civic dates was a form of public ritual that helped shape popular understanding of the ideology of the young United States.4

An important aspect of this study is the history of the so-called “spiritual conquest” of Mexico, the evangelization campaign launched by Franciscan, Dominican, and Augustinian missionaries after 1523 and the indigenous responses to the effort to impose a new set of religious beliefs. As one study points out, the missionaries staged public rituals as a part of their evangelization campaign, such as religious plays and processions. In a study on this subject Edgerton identified this class of public ritual as “Theaters of Conversion.”5 Edgerton’s analysis conceptualizes the construction and decoration of the sixteenth century doctrina complexes as a set or theater for the public rituals that formed an integral part of the evangelization process. His characterization is useful for understanding the construction of the religious structures in Tlayacapan where the Augustinian missionaries staged public ritual. It was also the process of

2 Linda Curcio-Nagy, “Giants and Gypsies: Corpus Christi in Colonial Mexico City,” in Ibid, 1-26. 3 Sallie Marston, “Public Rituals and Community Power: St. Patrick’s Day parades in Lowell, Massachusetts, 1841-1874,” Political Geography Quarterly 8:3 (1989), 255-269. 4 Albrecht Koschink, “Political Conflict and Public Contest: Rituals of National Celebration in Philadelphia, 1788-1815,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 118:3 (1994), 209-248. 5 Samuel Edgerton, Theaters of Conversion: Religious Architecture and Indian Artisans in Colonial Mexico (Albuquerque: University of Press, 2001). Introduction 3 the evolution of public rituals that combined Mesoamerican and European practices.

The public ritual examined in this study is related to the observation of the Catholic liturgical calendar, and on a conceptual level the maintenance of community identity. The three principal public rituals that are the subject of this analysis are Carnival, Semana Santa, and the Day of the Dead (Día de los Muertos) as seen in their historical development and modern practice. It is important, however, to point out that two of the public rituals discussed here are not a formal part of the liturgical calendar, but rather are popular observations of the formal Catholic rituals. They are Carnival staged on Fat Tuesday which is the day before and the beginning of . The second is the Day of the Dead which is the popular practice of receiving the returning dead that occurs in conjunction with the Catholic celebration of Allhallowtide.

Public ritual has also evolved in multiple layers in Tlayacapan. For example, the celebration of the patron of the doctrina church San Juan Bautista is on June 24, and involved the entire community. However, religious life in Tlayacapan is also segmented, and also centers on the barrio (neighborhood) chapels that have different patron and celebrations. They include the celebration of the Santa Cruz on May 3 (Altica barrio chapel) that is also one of the dates that marks the beginning of the agricultural cycle. Other dates include the feast day of Santiago Apóstol on July 25, Santa Ana on July 26, the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (La Natividad barrio chapel) on September 8, the Virgin of the Rosary on 7, and the Conception of the Virgin Mary (La Concepción barrio chapel). For the barrio residents the patron feast days are as important as is that of the celebration of the patron saint of the main church.

In these pages I bring to conclusion a project that formally started some five years ago, but that was interrupted by the earthquake of September 19, 2017. The people of Tlayacapan continue to recover from the effects of the earthquake, and to reclaim their architectural patrimony. I have visited Tlayacapan on many occasions in relation to a project of photographically documenting the sixteenth century doctrina complexes in central Mexico, and because of its attraction as a center of cultural tourism. This book attempts to describe and make sense of the public rituals staged in Tlayacapan in a historical context. At the same time it is a visual representation of the public rituals that I have observed and that I describe here, with their pageantry and particularly their color. The visual 4 Chapter 1 representation presented here helps make sense of the form of the public rituals staged in Tlayacapan.

This book consists of four chapters that set out the discussion and analysis of public ritual. The practices staged today originated during the nearly three centuries of Spanish colonial rule. Chapter 2 examines Tlayacapan’s colonial background in the context of larger patterns. It first lays out the effort to evangelize the indigenous population of Tlayacapan and surrounding communities, and the resistance to this process and the evidence of the persistence of pre-Hispanic religious beliefs. This is followed by a discussion of land and of the architectural patrimony of Tlayacapan. What today is Morelos was an early site of the development of commercial agricultural founded by Spanish entrepreneurs, and this resulted in competition over land and water. A mid-eighteenth century document reaffirmed the Tlayacapan community lands, but also described the participation of workers from a nearby in the public rituals of the community, and particularly that of Carnival. This participation contributed to the evolution of the unique Carnival celebration in Tlayacapan and neighboring communities, which is the topic of Chapter 3.

Carnival today is the signature event that defines cultural tourism in Tlayacapan. Carnival is not a formal part of the Catholic liturgical calendar, but rather is a popular celebration that marks the end of pleasure and the beginning of the period of repentance during Lent that follows Ash Wednesday. The European origins of Carnival can be traced to pagan practices tied to the agricultural cycle. The Mesoamerican origin was also tied to the agricultural cycle. Historically the popular celebration of Carnival has manifested itself in a upending and challenge of the established social order, and a satirical attack on the status quo. The challenge to the status quo was possible through the anonymity of the participants. The European practice of Carnival evolved in late Medieval Italy, and spread from there to the rest of region. In the sixteenth century Carnival became a time when people could play out the intensifying Catholic-Protestant conflict that followed the beginning of the Reformation. It was also a potentially dangerous time as people mocked the powers that be.

Chapter 4 examines the public ritual of Semana Santa in Tlayacapan. Semana Santa follows Lent, and is the instance of public ritual that most closely adheres to liturgical practices. It celebrates the Passion of Christ when he entered and challenged the status quo of Roman occupied Jerusalem, Jesus’s betrayal and Crucifixion, and Resurrection, which are Introduction 5 the central Christian beliefs. The Week celebration evolved during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to its modern form. Today Easter Week is celebrated in the week leading up to Easter Sunday, but in the past the liturgical celebration followed Easter Sunday. The timing of Easter Week is an example of the imposition of the liturgical calendar on existing European pagan practices tied to the agricultural cycle, as was also the case when the missionaries introduced the liturgical calendar in Mesoamerica in the sixteenth century. The public rituals of Semana Santa include Palm Sunday and processions and theater that recreate the stages of the Passion of Christ. The key ritual occurs on Good Friday with the Viacrucis in the morning and the Santo Entierro procession at the end of the day.

Judas Iscariot is held to be the villain of Jesus’s betrayal and Crucifixion, and the popular ritual of Semana Santa in Latin America includes the retribution for his betrayal. This is the Quema de Judas where the betrayer is burned in effigy. Other variations in the practice include his hanging in effigy that follows the one biblical account of his death where he hung himself. The public ritual of Judas’s death marks the victory of good over evil and the restoration of the cosmic balance upset by Jesus’s death.

The Day of the Dead is the emblematic public ritual that Mexico is known for. The European origin of the liturgical practice of Allhallowtide was also the imposition of Christian practice on an important Celtic pagan celebration that marked the changing of the seasons, and the temporary return of the dead to the land of the living. The holds special masses to remember the dead, but there is also the popular celebration of remembrance of the dead. This is the subject of Chapter 5. The private celebration as practiced today includes the creation of an altar with offerings of food and drink for the returning dead, and the practice of visiting the dead in the cemetery. Traditionally people spent the night in the cemetery which is illuminated by candles, which is the practice in communities such as Mixquic near Mexico City, and Pátzcuaro in Michoacán. Other people visit the cemetery during the day. The practice is to decorate the tombs with flower petals. There is also a public ritual associated with Allhallowtide which is Xantolo that is still practiced today in the Huasteca region of Mexico. The public ritual is to receive the returning dead with respect, but also to confuse death. Groups wearing costumes and masks dance to receive the dead. Xantolo may have been a more generalized traditional public ritual in the past. 6 Chapter 1

The rest of the book is divided into two sections. The first is Chapter 6 where I present my final thoughts on the public rituals observed in Tlayacapan. This is followed by several appendices that provide additional information on Tlayacapan’s architectural patrimony and the effects of the September 19, 2017 earthquake. Appendix 1 offers a visual record of the earthquake damage to Tlayacapan’s colonial structures, and particularly to San Juan Bautista church. Morelos has a rich architectural patrimony, and many colonial-era structures in other communities suffered damage on September 19, Appendix 2 provides a visual record of the damage to selected structures that are representative of the disaster that Mexico’s historical architectural patrimony suffered on that tragic day. Appendix 3 discusses the evolution of sixteenth century doctrina complexes in central Mexico as well as that of Tlayacapan. Appendix 4 documents one form of evidence for the persistence of pre-Hispanic religious beliefs in the sixteenth century which was the embedding of religiously significant engraved stones in churches, chapels, and other colonial-era structures.

In presenting this written and visual study I feel privileged to have been able to spend time in and having learned about Tlayacapan and neighboring communities in Morelos. I have also been privileged to have gotten to know individuals from Tlayacapan who preserve the culture and traditions of the community. This study is a tribute to their work in preserving and disseminating Tlayacapan’s cultural heritage.

CHAPTER 2

THE COLONIAL ORIGINS OF TLAYACAPAN

At the time of the Spanish conquest Tlayacapan was a community subject to the Culhua-Mexica tributary state, and formed a part of the Huaxtepec tributary province (see Table 1). The Culhua-Mexica placed tribute collectors in Huaxtepec, and extracted tribute and labor from the communities within the jurisdiction. The Spanish modified the existing arrangement to create a system of indirect rule to also collect tribute and extract labor, and retained the jurisdictions of head towns (cabeceras) and subject towns (sujetos) as they were. In the initial decades following the conquest the organizational mechanism was the encomienda, which was a grant of jurisdiction to private individuals that gave the right to collect tribute and mobilize labor. Hernán Córtes who received the title of Marqués del Valle held several key communities in the region in encomienda, and was one of the first to start sugar production in what today is Morelos. As long as they delivered tribute and labor the leaders of the indigenous communities retained internal autonomy.

A tension existed in the 1520s to 1540s between the aspirations of the encomenderos (the holders of encomienda grants) and the Crown that attempted to limit their influence and power.6 The Crown appointed local magistrates (corregidor/alcalde mayor) to administer the communities held by the Crown, and to oversee those held in private encomienda. The Crown appointed a local magistrate in 1532 for the jurisdiction that included Totolapa, Tlayacapa, and Tlalnepantla, and it remained a separate jurisdiction until the 1670s. It was then merged into the jurisdiction of Chalco that already included a number of Morelos communities. This change most likely occurred as a result of the decline in numbers of the indigenous population. The corregidor/alcalde Mayor generally resided in Tlalmanalco. With the creation of the intendancy administrative scheme in

6 For a discussion of the conflict between encomenderos and the Crown see Charles Gibson, The Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the 1519-1810 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964), chapter 4. 8 Chapter 2 the 1780s Chalco became a subdelegación of the Intendancy of Mexico.7 As the encomienda system declined in the later sixteenth century, a process that was related to the demographic decline of the indigenous population, the local magistrates assumed other responsibilities in addition to tribute collection. One was the mobilization of labor for projects through the draft known as the repartimiento. One major project in the seventeenth century was the desagüe which was the program to drain the lakes in the Valley of Mexico. Royal officials mobilized thousands of indigenous workers in the first half of the seventeenth century to work on the project, including laborers from Totolapa, Tlayacapa, and Tlalnepantla.8 One political dynamic among indigenous communities in sujeto status was to litigate to attain status as cabeceras. The leaders of both Tlayacapa and Atlatlahuaca successfully litigated to become independent of Totolapa.9

The arrival of the Spaniards led to processes of demographic change that included shifts in settlement patterns as well as population decline. Introduced disease such as smallpox and measles was an important cause of demographic decline, and the late sixteenth century relaciones geográficas reports referenced the lethal consequences of epidemics of the newly introduced contagion.10 Tepoztlán provides an example of population loss in the second half of the sixteenth century, the period for which there is demographic information available. The population dropped from around 7,500 in 1568 to some 4,890 in 1595. Tlayacapa experienced similar population decline (see Table 2). Civil and religious officials instituted a policy known as congregación to shift and resettle population because of population decline. Some communities disappeared as a result of depopulation and/or population shifts to new settlements. Population decline, however, was not the only motive for congregación, and in some instances civil officials or the missionaries relocated existing towns from hilltops to valley locations. As the population of Tlayacapa and its subject communities declined, officials relocated the remaining population from the subject communities to Tlayacapa.

7 Peter Gerhard, A Guide to the Historical Geography of New , revised edition (Norman: University of Press, 1993), 104-105. 8 Gibson, The Aztecs, 242. 9 Gerhard, A Guide to the Historical Geography, 105. 10 The reports prepared around 1580 that are known today as the relaciones geográficas discuss the effects of disease, and in some instances make estimates of population loss. One example is the report for Tepoztlán, which describes the newly introduced diseases. See René Acuña, ed, Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI: México tomo primero (México, D.F.: UNAM, 1984), 190-191. The Colonial Origins of Tlayacapan 9

An important element of Spanish royal policy was the religious conversion of the indigenous populations, and the organization and outcome of the process is discussed in more detail in the following section. , Dominicans, and Augustinians arrived in Mexico to evangelize the indigenous populations, but faced the challenge of displacing religious beliefs and a world view that had sustained society for centuries. The missionaries also arrived with assumptions about religious conversion that proved to be superficial at best and illusionary. A major problem, as is also discussed below, was the initial approach to conversion based on the assumption that baptism marked religious conversion and acceptance of the new faith.

Evangelizing Morelos

The area of what today is the state of Morelos was an early and important Spanish frontier in central Mexico. Hernán Córtes played an important role in initial development of the region. As the Marqués del Valle, he received a grant of jurisdiction over three of the head towns and their subject communities in the province of Huaxtepec.11 The task of evangelizing the Náhuas who inhabited the region fell primarily to two of the three missionary orders. The Franciscans first arrived in Morelos in the mid-1520s, followed by the Dominicans and Augustinians. The Franciscans established their first mission in the region at Quauhnahuac (modern ), which was also in the jurisdiction of the Marqués del Valle. It was also the fifth Franciscan mission established in central Mexico. They later established a doctrina at south of Quauhnahuac, which they later ceded to the Dominicans because of a shortage of missionary personnel.12 The Franciscans also administered the doctrina at

11 Ibid, 183, 196, 212; Susana Gómez Serafín, Altépetl de Huaxtepec: Modificaciones territoriales desde el siglo XVI (México. DF: INAH, 2011).44; Elena Vázquez Vázquez, “Distribución geográfica del Arzobispado de México Siglo XVI Acapistla (Yecapixtla),” Estudios de Historia Novohispana 4 (1971), 1-25. The Matrícula de Tributos, a pre-Hispanic reporting of tribute paid to the Culhua- Mexica, listed 24 towns in the Huaxtepec tribute province. See María Teresa Sepúlveda y Herrera, La Matrícula de Tributos Arqueología Mexicana Edición Especial 14 (México. D.F., 2010), Lamina 7, 34-35. 12 Writing in the 1580s, Antonio de Ciudad Real provided the following details regarding Tlaquiltenango: “…there is another good and large one named Tlaquiltenango, of the same Indians and in the same Archbishopric, in which a convent is built that in the past when the faith was first planted in this area, was a visita of our friars, later it was given to those of Santo Domingo, who staffed and 10 Chapter 2

Jiutepec located east of Quauhnahuac. The Augustinians entered Morelos in 1534 with the establishment of a mission at Ocuituco. The relación geográfica report for Acapistla (Yecapixtla) noted the presence of the Augustinian mission staffed by three or four missionaries. Yecapixtla was one of the first Augustinian establishments in the region following the establishment at Ocuituco, and according to one source the mission there dates to 1535.13 In the same year the Augustinians founded a mission at Totolapa, which was also one of the head towns in the Province of Huaxtepec.14

As more missionaries became available the Augustinians expanded the number of their missions in Morelos. The Spanish Crown supported the recruitment of new missionaries by the three orders, both in Spain and as the Spanish population grew in Mexico and other American territories. Between 1533 and 1573, for example, some 125 Augustinians journeyed from Spain to Mexico.15 In 1554, Tlayacapa became a mission and Atlatlahucan in 1569 or 1570. Both had been within the mission jurisdiction of Totolapa.16 The same report on Yecapixtla noted that the Augustinians had elevated several communities to the status of independent doctrinas

evangelized it along with other districts when the Father General Commissioner (Fr. Alonso Ponce, O.F.M., visited it, but later when he was in Guatemala…a Royal decree returned all to our friars,…and two friars presently reside there who “…there is another good and large one named Tlaquiltenango, of the same Indians and in the same Archbishopric, in which a convent is built that in the past when the faith was first planted in this area, was a visita of our friars, later it was given to those of Santo Domingo, who staffed and evangelized it along with other districts when the Father General Commissioner (Fr. Alonso Ponce, O.F.M., visited it, but later when he was in Guatemala…a Royal decree returned all to our friars,…and two friars presently reside there who administer the doctrina.” Antonio de Ciudad Real, O.F.M., Relación breve y verdadera de algunas cosas de las muchas que sucedieron al padre Fray Alonso Ponce en las provincias de la Nueva España 2 vols. (Madrid: Imprenta de la Viuda de Caero, 1875), 1: 200. 13 Alipio Ruiz Zavala, O.S.A., Historia de la provincia agustina del Santísimo Nombre de Jesús de México, 2 vols. (México, D.F.: Editorial Porrúa, 1984), II: 385. 14 Ibid, II: 377. 15 Ibid, II: 1-22. 16 Ibid, II: 279, 376. The Colonial Origins of Tlayacapan 11

Figure 1: A page from a visual catechism used in evangelization. including Xantetelco (), Xonacatepeque (), and Tzagualpa (Zacualpan).17 The first two had been within the jurisdiction of Totolapa, and became doctrinas in 1558 and 1566 respectively. The last named had been a visita of Ocuituco.18 Altogether, the Augustinians established four missions in the head towns of the former Huaxtepec tributary province. The missionaries grafted their own organizational structure on the existing political one of cabeceras and sujetos, and identified subject communities as vistas or estancias. Reports from 1571 for Yecapixtla and Tlayacapan, for example, listed the estancias administered by the Augustinians stationed on the two doctrinas.19

The Dominicans established a presence in what today is Morelos fairly early. They founded their first mission at Oaxtepec shortly after their arrival in Mexico in 1526. As late as 1568, it had a population of some 17,900, and counted 17 subject towns. They expanded the number of their

17 Acuña, Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI: México tomo primer, 222. 18 Zavala, Historia de la provincia agustina, II: 322, 325, 389. 19 Luis García Pimentel, ed, Relación de los obispados de Tlaxcala, Oaxaca y otros lugares en el siglo XVI (México, D.F.: Private Publication, 1904), 117-120. 12 Chapter 2 doctrinas in the second half of the sixteenth century. The new missions included Yautepec founded around 1552 not far from Oaxtepec, and Tepoztlán established sometime before 1556. The convent at Tetela del Volcán dated to about 1559, during the archbishopric of the Dominican Alonso de Montúfar (1553-1559). In 1559, a doctrina dedicated to San Antonio de Florencia already existed at nearby . Juan de la Cruz, O.P., who arrived in 1562, initiated the construction of a new convent at Tetela del Volcán, and dedicated the mission to San Juan Bautista. Work on the new complex concluded before 1578, the year in which De la Cruz was sent to .20 In 1585, after the Crown ordered the return of Tlaquiltenango to the jurisdiction of the Franciscans, the Dominicans elevated Tlaltizapan, a former visita of Yautepec, to the status of an independent mission.

By the end of the sixteenth century the contours of the missionary presence in Morelos had been established with doctrinas and visitas in subject communities. Moreover, there was another level of organization within the head towns, as it was not uncommon for the residents of the individual barrios to build their own smaller chapels with different patron saints from that of the main convent, where they would celebrate their own feast days. Moreover, it was most likely that the activities of the cofradias (confraternities) that became an important element of the spiritual life of the native population developed around the barrio chapels. Barrio chapels still exist in Atlatlahucan and Tlayacapan. Those in Atlatlahucan, such as the one constructed in the Barrio de los Reyes, have the appearance of free standing open chapels that the missionaries also had built in many of the subject towns in the earliest period of evangelization. In some instances the barrio leaders had more substantial structures built. The Tlayacapan barrio chapels include simpler structures built in the sixteenth century that may have also begun as free standing open chapels, and larger and architecturally more sophisticated chapels built at later dates in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The initial effort to convert the indigenous population to Catholicism was founded on assumptions about the acceptance of the new faith that did not match Mesoamerican religious realities. From the perspective of the missionaries baptism symbolized incorporation of an individual into the Christian community. The form of the baptism ceremony became the

20 René Acuña, ed, Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI: México Tomo Segundo (México, D.F.: UNAM, 1986), 258-261, 271.

The Colonial Origins of Tlayacapan 13 subject of controversy between the three missionary orders. The Franciscans initially baptized large numbers of natives in groups that often numbered in the thousands using an abbreviated ceremony, and with minimal or no religious instruction. The Franciscan chronicler Fray Motolinía reported that the missionaries administered some five million baptisms between 1524 when the Franciscans arrived and 1536. In a letter dated June 27, 1529, Fray Pedro de Gante, O.F.M., one of the first Franciscans to arrive in Mexico in 1523, made reference to as many as 14,000 natives baptized per day.21 The Franciscans justified the baptisms on the grounds of the limited number of missionaries in Mexico, and the large native populations. During this early period the Franciscans limited the doctrinal elements they taught the natives to the concept of one all powerful God, the trinity, the of the Virgin Mary, the immortality of the soul, and the demonic threat.22

The decision that individual natives made to receive or reject baptisms was also related to politics in the period immediately following the Spanish conquest. One important factor in conversion to Christianity was the support or the lack thereof that the native lords gave the missionaries. The attitude of Ixtlilxochitl, the tlatoani (indigenous lord) of Tezcoco, was a case in point. Hernán Cortés took Ixtlilxochitl with him on his campaign to Guatemala and Honduras (1524-1526), and when Ixtlilxochitl returned to Tezcoco he found his political authority challenged by native factions favored by the Spaniards who had remained in Mexico City during Cortés’s absence. Ixtlilxochitl formed an alliance with the Franciscans to consolidate his authority in Tezcoco. He granted the Franciscans space in the central sacred precinct in the city to build their convent, and thousands of his subjects accepted baptism and Christian marriage as a result of his influence. This was a period during which the Franciscans administered mass baptisms in Tezcoco. By 1528, however, Ixtlilxochitl had consolidated his political authority, and assumed a more ambivalent attitude towards the Franciscans. Over the next few years until his death in 1532, few Tezcocans requested baptism or Christian marriage. Ixtlilxochitl’s ambivalence can also be seen in his choice of his brother don Jorge

21 Robert Ricard, La conquista spiritual de México, first Spanish Edition. (México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1986), 174-175. 22 Ibid, 166. Several sixteenth century visual catechisms with explanative text in Náhuatl survive. One representative example introduced the concepts of the trinity, an all powerful God, and the birth of Jesus as a man. See Miguel León-Portilla, “Catecismo Náhuatl en imágenes,” Arqueología Mexicana, Edición Especial 42, 70-71. 14 Chapter 2

Yoyotzin for the succession to his position as tlatoani. Yoyotzin had supported the Culhua-Mexica during the Spanish conquest, and did not embrace the Spaniards following the conquest.23

The Dominicans and Augustinians, on the other hand, did not perform mass baptisms on the same scale as the Franciscans. Some Augustinians, for example, argued that the baptismal ceremony should not be as abbreviated as the ceremony the Franciscans performed, and that adults should only be baptized on certain feast days such as Easter and . In 1534, the Augustinians in Mexico adopted a policy of baptizing adults only at , Easter, Pentecost, and on the feast day of Saint Augustine. The policy also mandated the use of the full baptismal ceremony. A papal bull of January 1, 1537 stipulated that baptisms were not to be administered in an abbreviated form, and were to be performed individually and not in large groups. A Mexican church synod held on April 27, 1539 established guidelines for urgent baptisms such as in the case of imminent death, and the form of the baptism ceremony to be used. While implementing new rules for baptism, the papacy and synod did not annul the early mass baptisms performed by the Franciscans.24

The minimal religious instruction prior to baptism meant that post- baptism catechism was important. The missionaries generally organized catechism in the convent atrium, the large enclosed space surrounding the church and convent, and relied on native catechists who received special training from the missionaries. The Doctrina (doctrinal guide) translated by Fray Alonso de Molina, O.F.M., established the basic doctrinal elements the Franciscans taught the natives. The natives were to comply with the sacraments which included baptism, marriage, confession, communion, and confirmation. Additionally, they were to learn the Credo, the Padre Nuestro, the Ave María, Salve Regina, the 14 articles of faith regarding the divinity and humanity of Jesus, the 10 commandments of God and the five of the Church, and the venal, mortal, and sins.25 One fundamental problem, however, was the translation of culturally embedded Judeo-Christian concepts into Mesoamerican terms, and in particular the early approach of associating Judeo-Christian concepts with existing Mesoamerican ones. A second equally problematic issue is what

23 Patricia Lopes Don, of Culture: Franciscans, Indigenous Leaders, and Inquisition in Early Mexico, 1524-1540 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010), 34-38. 24 Ricard, Conquista espiritual, 177-178. 25 Ibíd, 189. The Colonial Origins of Tlayacapan 15 the catechists actually said to the natives receiving religious instruction, and how the natives incorporated those teachings into their own world view. The Doctrina of the Dominican Pedro which was translated into Spanish and Náhuatl in 1548 offered a more complete doctrine for religious instruction.26 Although prohibited, the missionaries applied corporal punishment to natives who did not attend catechism.27 Nevertheless, the missionaries complained that many natives did not attend religious instruction, and identified the dispersed settlement pattern as one factor for the lack of attendance.

The missionaries used superficial criteria to measure conversion, such as the number of baptisms administered. What was the pace of baptism in the early years of the “spiritual conquest?” A series of censuses prepared between 1535 and 1540 provide clues to the extent of baptism. The censuses are for Tepoztlán, Huitzillan (?), Molotlan, Tepetenchic, Panchimalco, and Quauchchichinollan located in what today is Morelos. The location of the last five communities is not known, although historian Sarah Cline suggests that they may have been near Yautepec.28 The censuses reported the baptismal status of both adults and children.

The number of natives baptized varied between the communities. In Tepoztlán, for example, the rate of baptism among adults was high. However, the figure on total baptisms is incomplete because the census did not record the baptismal status of 521 children. If the 521 children for whom information on baptism is not given are not included in the Tepoztlán census, then Tepoztlán would have had a 65 percent rate of people baptized.29 In the communities for which the data is complete, the percentage of those baptized ranged from 84 percent at Tepetenchic, 79 percent at Panchimalco, 76 percent at Molotlan, nine percent at Huitzillan, and a mere four percent at Quauchchichinollan.30 Several factors explain the difference in the percentage of natives baptized in the six communities. One was personal choice. Some individuals elected to not become Christians. A second factor may have been related to the dynamic of the early evangelization campaign in central Mexico. The censuses date to

26 Ibíd, 194. 27 Ibid, 182. 28 Sarah Cline, “The Spiritual Conquest Reconsidered: Baptism and Christian Marriage in Early Sixteenth-Century Mexico,” The Hispanic American Historical Review 73:3 (1993), 453-480. 29 Ibid, 461. 30 Ibid, 461. 16 Chapter 2 only a decade or so following the arrival of the first missionaries in 1524. The orders had limited number of personnel, and visited most communities as time permitted. The first Dominican arrived at Tepoztlán in 1538, and began baptizing the native population. The baptism of the population of Tepoztlán had progressed at the time of the preparation of the census, as had that of Tepetenchic, Panchimalco, and Molotlan. Missionaries most likely had only recently visited Huitzillan and Quauchchichinollan, although the number of baptized natives may have increased at a later date.

The reality of the limitations of religious conversion can be seen, for example, in cases of what the missionaries categorized as idolatry and apostasy. In the 1530s the Franciscan and first bishop of Mexico Juan de Zumárraga orchestrated a series of inquisition cases that sought to root out pre-Hispanic religious beliefs. Juan de Zumárraga’s last inquisition trial in 1540 involved don Pedro, the tlatoani of Totolapa. Witnesses accused him of having buried an idol in a corn field near his residence around 1530, or some five years following his baptism. When questioned through an interpreter don Pedro identified the idol as a candle holder that he had had in his house near a window for several months. Since the statue had not been hidden, in Zumárraga’s mind it was not an idol representing a pre- Hispanic deity. Claiming its use as a candle holder satisfied the inquisitor.31

A second issue in the case involved the sexual mores of don Pedro and his brother don Antón, and the clash between pre-Hispanic elite polygamy and Spanish concepts of monogamy. Indigenous elites took a consort, but also had concubines, and often women from their own families. Don Carlos of Tezcoco, who Zumárraga had executed by burning in 1539 following a high profile inquisition case, had taken his niece doña Inés as his concubine. A commoner named Cecilia accused don Pedro’s father don Melchor of having raped and deflowered her. Following don Melchor’s death; don Pedro reportedly had taken her forcibly as a concubine until he married a noblewoman. Don Antón then took Cecilia as his concubine until he himself married a noblewoman. Following his marriage don Antón abandoned Cecilia pregnant. The charges brought against the brothers included fornication and incest in the case of Antón, and reflected Judeo-Christian sexual mores.32

31 Tavárez, The Invisible War: Indigenous Devotions, Discipline, and Dissent in Colonial Mexico (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), 38-39. 32 Ibid, 47-48.