Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:30:22.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cochineal Production and Trade in New Spain to 1600

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Raymond L. Lee
Raymond L. Lee*
Affiliation:
Stephens College, Columbia, Mo.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Beyond All Question, the most valuable export of colonial Mexico was silver. However, the exaggerated emphasis usually accorded to this fact has tended to obscure the importance of other products in the Mexican colonial economy. Prior to the development of synthetic dyestuffs, the native dyes of New Spain ranked among her more valuable products. Such important tinting agents as Campeche wood (logwood), indigo, and cochineal were discovered in Mexico shortly after the conquest, and they were soon exported to the mother coutry in considerable volume. From Spain these raw dyestuffs were reexported to all of Europe, where, although the impact of American dyestuffs on the European economy has never been fully evaluated, these New World products served to bring about a revolution in the cloth industry of the continent.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , April 1948 , pp. 449 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1947

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bancroft, H. H., History of Mexico (6 vols., San Francisco, 1883–1888), III, 624 Google Scholar. Alexander von Humboldt estimated in 1800 that Mexico’s agricultural products were more valuable than her gold and silver. Cf. Alexander von Humboldt, Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain (4 vols., London, 1811), III, 98.

2 Clough, S. B. and Cole, C. W., Economic History of Europe (Boston, 1941), pp. 121–139 Google Scholar. Gillespie, J. E., The Influence of Oversea Expansion on England to 1100 (Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, New York, 1929), pp. 131–134 Google Scholar.

3 Cochineal was of great commercial importance until 1858, when A. W. Hoffmann perfected aniline red. The introduction of azo dyes in 1880 destroyed the cochineal market, except as a special purpose dye for uniforms, unique tints, and food coloring. In 1936, cochineal sold on the Vienna market at prices ranging from ten to eleven Austrian shillings per kilogram. Wolfgang Born, “Scarlet”, Ciba Review, I (March, 1938), 226.

4 Prior to the discovery of America, Europeans had secured these tints from Polish cochineal (coccus polonicus), kermes (coccus ilicis), and lichens. An inferior red was obtained from madder. Cf. Alfred Leix, “Dyes of the Middle Ages”, Ciba Review. I (1937), 19-20. Salzman, L. F., English Industries of the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1923), p. 213 Google Scholar. Leggett, W. F., Ancient and Medieval Dyes (Brooklyn, 1944), pp. 69–82 Google Scholar. Craven, Ida, “Dye Industry; Early Dye Trade”, Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (15 vols., New York, 1930–1935), V, 296–300 Google Scholar.

5 Residents of New Spain became almost lyrical in describing the importance of cochineal. Sahagún wrote, “Esta grana es conocida en esta tierra y fuera de ella, y hay grandes tratos de ella; llega hasta la China y hasta Turquía, casi por todo el Mundo es precicida y tenida en mucho”. Bernardino de Sahagún, Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España (5 vols., Mexico, 1938), Lib. XI, cap. 11.

Englishmen also recognized the importance of cochineal. In the instructions which he prepared for the Council of Virginia in 1609, Richard Hakluyt suggested that they search for dyes “…among which I have some hope to bring you to the knowledge of the rich graine of Cochonillio, so much esteemed, and of so great price”. Richard Hakluyt, “Epistle Dedicatory to the Council of Virginia,” in Taylor, E. G. R. (ed.), The Original Writings and Correspondence of the Two Richard Hakluyts (2 vols., Hakluyt Society Publications, Series II, London, 1935), II, 502 Google Scholar.

In the eighteenth century the importance of cochineal received cynical recognition from Voltaire, who wrote “…si Colomb n’ avait pas attrapé dans une îsle de l’Amérique cette maladie [syphilis]…nous aurions ni la chocolat ni la cochenille”. Oeuvres Completes de Voltaire (13 vols., Paris, 1876-1878), VIII, 379.

6 Since the parent plant is indigenous to Mexico, well-enforced Spanish laws forbidding export of live grana preserved it as a Mexican monopoly until the late eighteenth century, when Thiéry de Menonville, a Frenchman, smuggled it into Santo Domingo. Cf. Nicolas Joseph Thiéry de Menonville, “Travels to Guaxaca in 1777”, in Pinkerton, John, A General Collection of the Best and Most Interesting Voyages and Travels in All Parts of the World (17 vols., London, 1808–1814), XIII, 753–856 Google Scholar. However, uncultivated grana was widely distributed throughout the New World, being produced and consumed locally in modern Bolivia and Argentina. Clark, Charles U. (trans.), Compendium and Description of the West Indies by Antonio Vásquez de Espinosa (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, Vol. 102, Washington, 1942), pp. 655, 676 Google Scholar.

7 Tordesillas, Antonio de Herrera y, Historia general de los hechos de los castellanos en las islas y tierra firme del mar océano (4 vols., Madrid, 1730)Google Scholar, Decada IV, lib. 8, cap. xi.

8 An excellent description of cochineal production and cultivation may be found in Antonio Alzate y Ramírez, “Memoria, en que se trata del insecto grana ó cochinilla…“, Gracetas de literatura de México (4 vols., Puebla, 1831), III, 243-314. This article was first published serially in 1794, and it was reprinted as a separate volume, published in Madrid in 1795. Likewise of value is the “Descripción de la cochinilla Mixteca, y de su cria y beneficio”, Boletín de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística, III (Primera época, 1852), 82-86.

9 Regarding the derivation of the terms “grana” and “cochinilla” there is no general agreement. Alzate suggests that grana was derived from grain and cochinilla from a many-legged Mexican tropical insect which it resembled. He points out that both terms are feminine, indicating an early awareness of the nature of the insect dye. Hernández declares that cochinilla is derived from the Latin coccum. It is commonly said that cochineal was named after a small female hog, the Spanish cochina. Early Spanish writers often combined the two terms, calling the insect grana cochinilla. Cf. Alzate y Ramírez, op. cit., Ill, 250. Leggett, op. cit., p. 84. Antonio Peñafiel (ed.), Francisco Hernandez, Cuatro libros de la naturaleza y virtudes de las plantas y animales, de uso medicinal en la Nueva España (Mexico, 1888), p. 55.

10 These terms were used earlier to describe cloths dyed with kermes. Cf. Friis, Artrid, Alderman Cockayne’s Project and the Cloth Trade (London, 1927), p. 41 Google Scholar. n. 5. Richards, G. R. B., Florentine Merchants in the Age of the Medici (Cambridge, Mass., 1932), p. 308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Born, op. cit., pp. 214-222.

12 Humboldt, op. cit., Ill, 62.

13 In listing the towns to this point the spelling given by Edward K. Kingsborough, Antiquities of Mexico (9 vols., London, 1831-1848), I, Plates 45-47 and V, 79^81, has been followed. In the Purchas reproduction of this section of the same codex (Samuel Purchas, Hakluytus Posthumus, or Purchas His Pilgrimes [20 vols., Glasgow, 1905-1907], XV, 464-466) the following variations appear: Tamacolapan becomes Tamaçoladan, Yanantitlan (Zancuitlan), Tepuzculula (Tepuzcululan), Coaxomulco (Coaxomalo), Cuicatlán (Cuicalta), Coplapan (Coyolan), Guaxaca (Guauxacac), Quatzontepec (Quautzontepec), Teticpa (Teticpac), Tlalcuechahuaya (Tlalcuechahnayan), Tlachquiaucho (Tlachquiarico), Achioatlan (Achiotlan). Wigberto Jiménez Moreno, Codice de Yanhuitlán (Mexico, 1940), pp. 10, 33, suggests that the first group of eleven towns should be spelled: Coaixtlauacan (the head town), Texocpan, Tamazolapan, Yancuitlan, Tepozcolollan, Nocheztlan, Xaltepec, Tamazolla, Mictlan or Mictlantongo, Coaxomulco, and Cuicatlán. He would add a twelfth town to this group in the codex—Zozollan.

14 Clavigero, Francisco Javier, Historia antigua de Mexico y de su conquista (2 vols., Mexico, 1883)Google Scholar, I, 238. Biart, Lucien, Les Azteques, histoire, moeurs, coutumes (Paris, 1885), pp. 139–140 Google Scholar.

15 Bourbourg, L’Abbé Brasseur de, Histoire des nations civilisées du Mexique et de l’Amérique Centrale (4 vols, Paris, 1857–1859)Google Scholar, III, 267, n. 1.

16 Ibid., III, 239-243. Thompson, J. Eric, Mexico Before Cortez (New York, 1933), p. 128 Google Scholar.

17 Roys, Ralph L., The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan (Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 548, Washington, 1943), p. 107 Google Scholar.

18 Ibid., p. 110.

19 Ibid., p. 51.

20 Brasseur de Bourbourg, op. cit., III, 31.

21 Biart, op. cit., pp. 240-241.

22 Bancroft, H. H., The Native Races of the Pacific States of North America (5 vols., New York, 1875–1876), II, 371 Google Scholar. Kelemen, Pal, Medieval American Art (2 vols., New York, 1944), I, 215 Google Scholar.

23 Gacetas de México, II, 213-220.

24 Thompson, op. cit., p. 82. Many of the foregoing activities are preserved in the Codice de Florencia. Both the nopal cactus and cochineal are pictured, and Indians are shown selecting nocheztli, making cakes of dye, displaying and selling their cakes, and employing them as a paint. Cf. Sahagún, op. cit., III, 355-356.

The Spanish at a later date were inclined to minimize the importance of preconquest production and trade in cochineal. Herrera declared that the natives did not recognize the value of grana until the conquest. Francisco Burgoa wrote that the Dominican friars taught cochineal culture to the Oaxacan natives. Clavigero denounces this thesis. Herrera, op. cit., Decada IV, lib. 8, cap. viii. Francisco de Burgoa, Geografica Descripción (2 vols., Publicaciones del Archivo General de la Nación, Vols. 25-26, Mexico, 1934), II, 279. Clavigero, op. cit., I, 47, n. 1.

25 Alfred P. Maudslay (trans.), The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Dias del Castillo (5 vols., London, 1908-1916, Hakluyt Society Publications, Series II), II, 72. This passage is omitted in the translation of Keatinge, Maurice, The True History of the Conquest of Mexico (New York, 1927)Google Scholar, which first appeared in London in 1800.

26 Cortés, Hernán, Cartas de relación de la conquista de México (Madrid, 1940), pp. 96–100 Google Scholar.

27 Herrera, op. cit., Decada III, lib. 5, cap. iii.

28 Gillespie, op. cit., p. 133. Antonio de León Pinelo, El paraíso en el Nuevo Mundo (2 vols., Lima, 1943), II, 247, gives the date of the first exportation as 1543, but this is questionable in the light of other developments.

29 France V. Scholes, “Tributos de los Indios de la Nueva España, 1536”, Boletín del Archivo General de la Nación, VII (April, 1936), 185-226.

30 Troncoso, Francisco del Paso y, Papeles de la Nueva España (7 vols., Madrid, 1905–1946), I, 293 Google Scholar.

31 Ibid., I, 68.

32 Ibid., I, 66-67.

33 Zavala, Silvio, New Viewpoints on the Spanish Colonization of America (Philadelphia, 1943), p. 86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fonseca, Fabián de and Urrutia, Carlos de, Historia general de la real hacienda (6 vols., Mexico, 1845–1853), I, 416 Google Scholar. Pedro de Ledesma proposed in 1563 that all Indians who raised cochineal be compelled to pay a royal tribute. He assured the king that this would greatly augment, treasury receipts. Pedro de Ledesma to Philip II, May 22, 1563. Colección de documentos inéditos para la historia de Ibero-America (16 vols., Madrid, 1927-1932), I, 379.

34 Troncoso, Francisco del Paso y, Epistolario de la Nueva España, 1505-1818 (16 vols., Mexico, 1939–1940), XV, 224 Google Scholar.

35 Ibid., XV, 221.

36 Torquemada, Juan de, Primera, segunda, tercera parte de los veinte i un libros rituales i monarchia indiana (3 vols., Mexico, 1943–1944, 3rd edition)Google Scholar, Lib. V, cap. 10.

37 Marín was active at Coaixtlahuacan after 1546 (Jiménez Moreno, op. cit., p. 22). This particular town had paid tribute in cochineal to Montezuma II (Kingsborough, op. cit., V, 79).

38 Valdes, Gonzalo Fernández de Oveido y, Historia general y natural de las Indias (4 vols., Madrid, 1851–1855)Google Scholar, Lib. XXXIII, cap. 7.

39 Francisco López de Gómora, Historia de México, con el descubrimiento dela Nueva España (Antwerp, 1554), pp. 114-115.

40 Colección de documentos inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista, y colonización de las antiguas posesiones españoles en America y Oceania (42 vols., Madrid, 1864-1884), XXIII, 423-445. Cited hereinafter as DII.

41 “Relación de varios pueblos de la Nueva España que en deposito y encomienda tenía Hernán Cortés…“, in Cuevas, Mariano (ed.) Cartas y otros documentos de Hernán Cortés (Seville, 1915), pp. 183–187 Google Scholar.

42 Ibid., pp. 253-256.

43 O’Gorman, Edmundo (ed.), “Mandamientos del virrey D. Antonio de Mendoza”, Boletín del Archivo General, X (April, 1939), pp. 209–311 Google Scholar.

44 DII, VI, 485-515. Aiton, Arthur S., Antonio de Mendoza, First Viceroy of New Spain (Durham, N. C., 1927), pp. 109–113 Google Scholar, discusses agriculture and industry under the first viceroy without mentioning cochineal.

45 DII, XXIII, 520-547.

46 Puga, Vasco de, Prouisiones, cédulas, instrucciones de su Magestad, ordenanças de difuntos y audiencia… (2 vols., Mexico, 1879)Google Scholar.

47 Benavente, Toribio de (Motolinia), Historia de los Indios de Nueva España (Mexico, 1941), p. 197 Google Scholar. It is noteworthy that an informed person such as Motolinia apparently knew little about the actual cultivation of cochineal. In his Memoriales he gives but slight reference to it, although he expands at length on the silk industry. Cf. Pimental, Luis García (ed.), Memoriales de Fray Toribio de Motolonía (Mexico, 1903), p. 159 Google Scholar.

48 Salazar, Francisco Cervantes de, México en 1554 (Mexico, 1939), pp. 105, 144 Google Scholar. According to this author grana were small worm-like insects grown on the flowers of the nopal cactus.

49 Gómora, op. cit., p. 345.

50 Veytia, Mariano Fernández Echeverría y, Historia de la fundación de la ciudad de la Puebla de los Angeles (2 vols., Puebla, 1931; first edition published in 1790), I, 310–311 Google Scholar.

51 Cristóbal de Benavente to Charles V, June 1, 1544. Paso y Troncoso, Epistolario, IV, 96.

52 Motolinia, Memoriales, 11. Borah, Woodrow W., “Silk Raising in Colonial Mexico”, Ibero-Americana, XX (1943), 35 Google Scholar.

53 Instrución a Don Martin Enriquez vissorrey de la Nueva España, June 7, 1568. Archivo General de Indias, Audiencia de México, 1089, Libro C5. For this and other manuscript material employed in this article, I am indebted to Professor France V. Scholes, University of New Mexico.

54 Enriquez to Philip II, September 21, 1575. AGI, Audiencia de Mexico, 19.

55 Haring, Clarence H., Trade and Navigation between Spain and the Indies in the Time of the Hapsburgs (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), p. 318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Paso y Troncoso, Epistolario, IX, 139. Ibid., XI, 66-67.

56 Gonzalo Gómez de Cervantes, La vida económica y social de Nueva España al finalizar el siglo XVI (Vol. XIX, Biblioteca Histórica Mexicana de Obras Inéditas, Mexico, 1944), p. 163.

57 Philip, Enriquez to II, January 9, 1574. Cartas de Indias (Madrid, 1877), p. 298 Google Scholar.

58 Enriquez to Philip IL September 21, 1575. AGI, Audiencia de México, 19.

59 Enriquez to Philip II, March 20, 1576. Cartas de Indias, p. 318.

60 Raymond L. Lee, “Grain Legislation in Colonial Mexico, 1575-1585”, The Hispanic American Historical Review, XXVII (November, 1947), 647-650.

61 Report from Antwerp, February 20, 1580. Klarwill, Victor von (ed.) The Fugger News-Letters; Second Series (New York, 1926), p. 37 Google Scholar.

62 Enriquez to Coruna, September 25, 1580. Instrucciones que los vireyes de Nueva España dejaron a sus successores (Mexico, 1867), p. 246.

63 Gómez de Cervantes, op. cit., p. 165.

64 Acosta, José de, Historia natural y moral de las Indias (Mexico, 1940), p. 290 Google Scholar. The Acosta figures may be compared with those of the Venetian ambassador, who reported that 5,600 arrobas were imported. Cf. Venetian Ambassador to Spain to the Doge and Senate, August 26, 1587. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice, 1581-1591 (London, 1894), p. 308.

65 Report from Lisbon, October 19, 1591. Klarwill, op. cit., p. 232.

66 Report from Antwerp, October 15, 1594. Klarwill, Victor von (ed.), The Fugger News-Letters (New York, 1925), p. 186 Google Scholar. François Chevalier, “Les Cargaisons des Flottes de la Nouvelle-Espagne vers 1600”, Revista de Indias (año IV), p. 327, gives the value of that year’s cochineal exports as 485,281 ducados, thus supplying additional confirmation to the Antwerp report. If an arbitrary value of fifty pesos de oro común (of 272 maravedís each) per arroba is assigned to the cochineal, a total of 13,381 arrobas is secured.

67 Report from Rome, April 8, 1596. Klarwill, First Series, p. 194.

68 Paso y Troncoso, Epistolario, XIII, 241.

69 Ibid., XIII, 350. Sir William Browne to Sir Robert Sydney, December 18, 1600. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of Lord de L’sle and Dudley (London, 1934), p. 493.

70 Gómez de Cervantes, op. cit., p. 163.

71 Galdácano, Gervasio de Artíñano y de, Historia del comercio con las Indias durante el dominio de los Austrias (Barcelona, 1917), p. 167 Google Scholar.

72 Hakluyt, Richard, The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation (12 vols., Glasgow, 1904), IX, 363–367 Google Scholar.

73 Gage, Thomas, A New Survey of the West Indies (London, 1699), pp. 420–421 Google Scholar. As early as 1583, a shipment of cochineal reached Seville from Tierra Firme, suggesting that the route described by Gage was then being used {Colección Ibero-America, XI, 425-426, 452).

74 Echeverría y Veytia, op. cit., I, 310-311.

75 is Ibid., I, 310-311.

76 Colección Ibero-America, XI, 303.

77 Enriquez to Philip II, September 21, 1575. AGI, Audiencia de Mexico, 19.

78 Paso y Troncoso, Papeles, VI, 63.

79 Torquemada, op. cit., Lib. Ill, cap. 21.

80 Klarwill, Second Series, pp. 37, 45. Colección lbero-America, XI, 300-301.

81 Colección lbero-America, XI, 271, 272, 301, 303. Ibid., XIV, 236, 247, 321, 322.

82 Viceroy Contreras to Philip II, December 1, 1585. Paso y Troncoso, Epistolario, XII, 158-159.

83 Gage, op. cit., p. 221.

84 Vásquez de Espinosa, op. cit., p. 216.

85 Recopilación de leyes de los reinos de las Indias (3 vols., Madrid, 1783), Lib. IV, tit. 18, ley xxi.

86 Que los negros y mulatos no rescaten grana, y las demas personas que lo hicieren la manifiesten ante la justicia, y que se guarde la orden que ha de tener la juez de grana en los registros que hiciere, Boletín Archivo General, XI (October, 1940), 741.

Para que los indios criados de espanoles puedan rescatar grana, y los que lo hacen lo manifiesten de quince en quince días. Que entre los rescatadores no haga rescate por vía de encomienda. Ibid., pp. 741-742.

87 Gómez de Cervantes, op. cit., p. 164. Artíñano, op. cit., p. 156.

88 Gómez de Cervantes, op. cit., p. 138. Recopilación, Libro VII, tit. 1, ley xxviii. Francisco de Florencia as quoted in José Antonio Gay, Historia de Oaxaca (2 vols., Mexico, 1881), II, 167. Geronimo de Mendieta, Historia eclesiástica indiana (Mexico, 1870), Lib. IX, cap. xliii.

89 Enriquez to Philip II, September 21, 1575. AGI, Audiencia de México, 19. In all probability this estimate is too low. Eighty-five arrobas sold by Diego Ançúrez in 1580 brought the seller 1,860,856 maravedis. Thirty-eight and one-third arrobas sold for the account of Luis de Caravajal brought 868,686 maravedís. Apparently the prevailing price for prime cochineal in Seville that year was near eighty pesos de oro común (of 272 maravedís) per arroba. Cf. Colección Ibero-América XI, 247. Ibid., XIV, 321-322.

90 Acosta, op. cit., p. 290.

91 Archbishop Contreras to the King, December 1, 1585. Paso y Troncoso, Epistolario, XII, 158-159.

92 Gómez de Cervantes, op. cit., p. 163.

93 Hamilton, Earl J., American Treasure and the Price Revolution in Spain, 1501-1650 (Cambridge, Mass., 1934), p. 33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Chevalier, op. cit., pp. 327-329.

95 Two centuries later, in 1803, cochineal exports of 29,610 arrobas were valued at 2,238,673 pesos—thirty per cent of silver exports. The preceding year they had been valued at 3,368,557 pesos, and, in 1793, 23,600 arrobas were valued at 1,770,000 pesos. Cf. Bancroft, History of Mexico, III, 620, n. 2. Francisco Banegas Galván, Historia de México (4 vols., Mexico, 1939-1940), II, 51-52.

96 Silvio Zavala and María Castelo, Fuentes para la historia del trabajo en Nueva España (8 vols., Mexico, 1939-1946).

97 Burgoa, op. cit., I, 279, 286. It should be noted that the Dominicans were located in those regions best adapted to cochineal culture.

98 Enriquez to Coruna, September 25, 1580. Instrucciones que los vireyes dejaron…, p. 246. The viceroy attributed the bountiful harvest of 1576 to these provisions (Enriquez to Philip II, March 20, 1576. Cartas de Indias, p. 318). A local official of Chichicapa, in the diocese of Oaxaca, reported in 1580 that considerable pressure was being placed on the natives of that town to seed and harvest cochineal (Paso y Troncoso, Papeles, IV, 118).

99 Gómez de Cervantes, op. cit., p. 164. Such drastic govermental action was not required in some regions. Juan Rodriguez of Sucopo, Yucatan, complained in 1579 that the Indians of that area were neglecting their food crops to raise cochineal. The king was asked to forbid this excessive zeal. Cf. Germán Latorre, “Relaciones geográficas de Yucatán”, Boletín del Centro de Estudios Americanistas, VII. (1920), 33.

100 Recopilación, Lib. IV, tit. 17, ley xvii.

101 Gómez de Cervantes, op. cit., pp. 180-181.

102 Paso y Troncoso, Papeles, I, 19, 20, 35, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 104, 105, 116, 122, 129, 131, 150, 151, 163, 175, 201, 207, 245, 250, 289, 290, 293, 295, 314. Echeverría y Veytia, op. cit., I, 310-311. Towns marked with an asterisk in the above list paid cochineal tribute to Montezuma II.

103 Diego Quijada to Philip II, May 20, 1566. Paso y Troncoso, Epistolario, X, 149. Solis, Juan Francisco Molina, Historia del descubrimiento y conquista de Yucatán (Merida, 1896), p. 851 Google Scholar.

104 Paso y Troncoso, Papeles, IV, 31, 97, 103, 107, 142, 146, 161, 165; V, 68, 76, 79, 83, 88, 167; VI, 63. Ocelotepec was described as a producing center in 1609 (DII, IX, 224). Enriquez mentioned the additional towns of Calpa and Guaxozinco in 1580 (Enriquez to Coruña, September 25, 1580. Instrucciones que los vireyes dejaron…, p. 246).

105 Herrera, op. cit., Decada II, lib. 7, cap. iii. In 1674, Burgoa described the natives of Tlapalcatepeque as wealthy cochineal growers, who dressed in silks and rode horses with saddles (Burgoa, op. cit., II, 263).

106 Ibid., Decada IV, lib. 9, cap. xii-xiii; Decada VIII, lib. 6, cap. xv. Also see the “Relación de la Provincia de Nuestra Señora de Sinaloa, 1601”, Boletín Archivo General, XVI (January, 1945), 179.

107 Gómez de Cervantes, op. cit., pp. 57-58. Torquemada, op. cit., I, 276, 282, 336.

108 Vasquez de Espinosa, op. cit., pp. 123, 133, 135-137, 177-178, 206.

109 Gage, op. cit., pp. 56, 156, 190, 194, 219.

110 Ibid., p. 287. Vasquez de Espinosa, op. cit., pp. 237, 249, 260. Vincente Riva Palacio, Mexico á través de los siglos (5 vols., Mexico, 1887-1889), II, 499 n. 1, 514.

111 Gómez de Cervantes, op. cit., p. 165 et seq. Unless otherwise indicated, the following description has been withdrawn from the account of this contemporary chronicler. To accompany his text, Gómez de Cervantes inserted pictures of the different processes involved in cochineal culture.

112 Other diseases and pests are described in “Descripción de la cochinilla Mixteca”, op. cit., pp. 82-86.

113 Sahagún, op. cit., Lib. XI, cap. 11.

114 Born, op. cit., pp. 216-217.

115 This is one of the few portions of Gómez de Cervantes’ manuscript that bears these marginal notes. Since the entire book is directed to Eugenio de Salazar of the Council of the Indies, the notations may well have been made by a Council member. In the nineteenth century, cochineal was classified as “Regenerida”, “Jaspeada”, or “Negra” (sometimes “Zacatula”), depending on whether it was dried in the sun, an oven, or in heated pans (Ibid., p. 216).

116 Velasco ordinances in all likelihood followed closely the recommendations submitted to the audiencia by the alcalde mayor of Puebla, Luis de León Romano, on March 6, 1555. León Romano suggested that any adulterated cochineal be confiscated from the purchaser without compensation and that the seller lose all money received from the sale. In addition, both seller and purchaser were to be fined 200 pesos de oro de minas. Mestizos, Negroes, and Indians selling falsified grana were to be fined an equal amount and given one hundred lashes publicly. No merchant was to export cochineal to Spain without having it examined, registered, and sealed by veedores which the king was to appoint at Puebla and Antequera. Teamsters transporting the sealed cochineal to Veracruz were to carry a registration certificate issued by the veedor, under penalty of having their grana confiscated. (Echeverría y Veytia, op. cit., I, 311-312). Oaxaca was a weighing and registration base in 1572.

117 Mandamientos del virey D. Martin Enriquez sobre la grana cochinilla, Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid, Cartas de Indias, Caja 2. The preceding and following Enriquez legislation is contained in this document of sixteen folio pages, in which individual autos are not identified separately by title. Some of the ordinances given here may also be found in the Archivo General de la Nación, México. Cf. Boletín Archivo General, XII, 301-302.

118 Export cochineal was apparently boxed in 125 pound lots (cajones).

119 On November 12, 1617, royal treasury officials were ordered to forward from Veracruz a statement of the quantity and classification of cochineal shipments in the official registers. Recopilación, Lib. IX, tit. 33, ley xxvi.

120 This modification allowed fraud to creep into the trade. The original ordinance was reënacted on July 1, 1580. (Que se guarde lo que esta mandado, acerca de que la grana se cuide en casa y en poder del juez de la grana, conforme al capítulo de Ordenanza de 6 de octubre, Boletín Archivo, XI (October, 1940), 742).

121 Gómez de Cervantes, op. cit., pp. 176-180. Also see Sahagún, op. cit., Lib. XL cap. 11.

122 Enriquez to Coruña, September 25, 1580. instrucciones que los vireyes dejaron…, p. 246.

123 Gay, op. cit., II, 361. Humboldt, op. cit., II, 79.

124 Viceroy Coruña to Philip II, April 1, 1581. Cartas de Indias, p. 344.

125 Vázquez de Espinosa, op. cit., pp. 291-295.

126 Recopilación, Lib. VII, tit. 1, ley xxviii.

127 Hernández, op. cit., p. 55. Hernández declared that the deepest red was obtained by grinding the cochineal and then steeping it in liquid obtained from cooking tezhuatl wood with alum. When thi mixture settled it was known as grana en pan. When mixed with other native ingrelients, a fine purple was produced. Sahagún, op. cit., Lib. XI, cap. 11. Vasquez de Espinosa, op. cit., pp. 166-167.

128 Borah, op. cit., p. 35.

129 William H. Dusenberry, “Woaen Manufacture in Sixteenth-Century New Spain”, The Americas, IV (October, 1947), p. 229. Antonio Xavier Pérez y López, Teatro de la legislación universal de España? Indias por orden cronològica de sus cuerpos y decisiones no recopiladas (28 vols.,Madrid, 1791-1798), XV, 175; XXI, 221.

130 Enriquez to Philip II, Septenber 21, 1575. AGL Audiencia de México, 19.

131 Luis Pérez Verdía, Historia prticular del estado de Jalisco (3 vols., Guadalajara, 1910-1911), I, 281.

132 Hernández, op. cit., p. 55.

133 “Cochineal as a Medicine”, Ma Review (March, 1938), I, 240.