We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hello everybody, and welcome to Tinto Maps, the happy Fridays for map lovers! Today, we will be looking at Central America, which includes the Caribbean. Before we start, I want to introduce you @RaulTrullenque , the only member of our Content Design team who had not yet gone public, and who worked really hard on the maps and content of the Central American and South American regions.
And now let’s get started without further ado!
Countries
Welcome to the Mesoamerican Thunder Dome! This area is characterized by its numerous Altepetl, more or less comparable to city-states. Most of them are ruled in 1337 by peoples of Nahua origin, something that you may see much more clearly in the culture map. The biggest power in this moment is the Empire of P’urhépecherio, though, founded by the Purepecha people. In any case, you may notice that there’s a lot of detail in this area, including a tiny Nahua settlement recently founded on an island over Lake Texcoco, Tenochtitlan. This is the first time in a PDX GSG that we have the island itself present on the map, although the location covers some more land over the lake coast, to make it playable. Finally, we also have the Mayan polities of the Postclassic Period, of which Cocom, with its capital Màayapáan, was the most important, along with others, such as K’iche’ and its capital Q’umarkaj.
SoPs
On the outskirts of the Mesoamerican polities, there are plenty of peoples organized on different ways. To the north, we have the ones that populate the area known as Aridoamerica, which were collectively termed by the Nahua as ‘Chichimeca’. We also have plenty of societies close to the Mayan lands and the Isthmus. And, finally, the Taíno people populate some of the biggest islands in the Caribbean.
Locations
Plenty of locations here! I just want no note that the Darien Gap is an impassable wasteland, which means that any army trying to cross from modern Panama and Colombia will need transport ships to be able to do it.
Provinces
Areas
Terrain
A very diverse region! Most of it is covered by Tropical Jungles and Forests, but Sierra Madre Occidental and Oriental make for very specific conditions in the Mexican Altiplano, which are not only visible in the Topography map but also in the climate and vegetation of the area.
Development
The most developed regions in Mesoamerica are the Valley of Mexico and the Mayan coastline.
Natural Harbors
There are some good ports in the Caribbean, no surprise that most of them would later become important cities in the Colonial Period.
Culture
Tons of cultures!
Language
And also languages! The first two maps are the Dominant Languages per location, while the third is the Court Languages one. The dark blue language is ‘Totozoquean’, as it is not so easily readable (something we have to change).
Religions
This map is today in a more advanced state, as we have merged plenty of cultural religions into regional groupings. Of these, Tonalism, Nahua, and Mayan are part of the Tonalist religious groups, while the others are part of the Folk American group (a regional split of the former ‘Animist’ group). Nahua and Mayan have their different mechanics, which we’ll talk about in future Tinto Talks. Let us know what do you think of this design and any suggestions about the religious grouping!
Raw Materials
Maize is king in Mesoamerica, although there are plenty of other resources, including juicy Gold and Silver. Obsidian is not a separate resource, as it’s too regional-specific, so it’s included under the Gem coverage, but we have ways to represent it in-game; for instance, there’s a production method to produce Weaponry using Gems as an input.
Markets
A couple of bugs were reported while taking the screenshot of this map! But well, you can see that Azcapotzalco, Màayapáan, and Noh Petén (capital of the Itza people) are the most important ones.
Population
We have solved a couple of issues with the pop editor, and this week this map is in a decent state to be shown! Yay! Total numbers in the region are roughly 8.6M pops, distributed this way:
523K in Aridoamerica (includes the lands to the North-West of the Purepecha Empire)
6.947M in Mesoamerica (including North-Western Mayan lands)
1.003M in Central America (including South-Eastern Mayan lands)
151K in the Caribbean Islands
And that’s all for today! We hope you enjoyed these meaty maps! Next week we will be taking a look at the Levant Feedback, on Monday 16th, and South America, on Friday 20th! Cheers!
In the latest Tinto Maps of the entire world I noticed that all mesoamerican tags are monarchies, but there did exist republics in mesoamerica. Most famously Tlaxcallan which managed to resist Aztec expansion until the Spanish arrived. Here is a good video on it.
OK, here there is the framework of my suggestion for Western Mexico, including Michoacán, Colima, Jalisco, Nayarit, Sinaloa, Durango, Zacatecas, Aguascalientes, Guanajuato, western San Luis Potosí and southern Coahuila.
The provinces are distributed following the most relevant Altepeme and/or colonial administrative cores, while trying to fit into the scale needed for PC. Whenever possible locations are named after proper historical cities/towns with native naming. On the northern part the use of particular tribes as locations names was used only when there were no options.
For the areas the mesoamearican naming for broader regions in the case of Michihuacán (Michoacán) and Chichimecapan, then post-hispanic native naming based in particular locations like Xalisco, Sinaloa and Coahuila. In the particular example of Coahuila not all the area is shown in the suggestion but it is supposed to include all of the contemporary states of Coahuila, Nuevo Léon and the northen and central Tamaulipas, the southern part of the later should be part of a Huastec area with eastern San Luis Potosi, northern Veracruz and northern Hidalgo.
Then the locations in a more detailed views with their frontiers guides and particular sites. All thje three subregions have general redrawing corrections.
* Added the locality of Carapoa to northen Sinaloa.
* Topia is extended to high slopes while Tamazula represent the piedmonts.
* Tayoltita turn into Guarisamey and Guarisamey into Hetasi.
* Maloya is extended to include the site of Copala (near site of equal importance).
* O'dam name changed to Bayacora. Also Inde to Indehé.
* The locality of Tepecan divided into Tepec, Huexuquilla, Mezquitic and Colotlán (now Tepec is its own province).
* Added the localities of Susticacán, Xalpan and Teulinchan(Teúl) to the Teulinchan province (the others are Tlaltenango, Xochipilla adn Nochistlán).
* Yuac renamed to Chalchíhuitl. While Yamanquex, Zain and Papantón are redistributed.
* Fixed the spanish plurals in Alamama and Miopacoa.
* Since Irritila could be used in a broader sense and there is a Irritila culture in PC, Irritila locality is changed to Vasapalle. Distribution fixed in the map of cultures.
* Changed the localities of Guazapayogliglas to Bobole, Osatayogliglas to Contótor, and Cauitaome to Bauzarigame. The replaced names are from groups that should be at north/west Coahuila, the suggested correction are the ones historical for the zone.
* Use the historical and simpler name of Matehuala over a complex contemporary spelling of an uncertain native meaning. Also Hñahñu changed to Guaxaban (wrongly placed near Aguascalientes) since the Otomi from Mezquital Valley should be to the southeast while the Guaxaban were the ones living around Santa María del Río.
* Added Wirikuta and Maticoya to western San Luis Potosí.
* On the region around Aguascalientes, Sauza in singular form, the mentioned Guaxaban(on Aguascalientes) changed to Tepezalá, and Cuxtaque changed to Pechititlán (current Lagos de Moreno).
* Teocaltiche instead of Mezquititlan, since the sources always note the first Tecuexe later Caxcan Teocaltiche as a more relevant site.
* From what is now Guanajuato the Pechichitane location changed to Coecillo, Mooti to the recognized Quanaxhuato, Penlamu to Epénxamu, the uncertain Xiriquitzio to Irapuato, and "Nat tha hi" to the historical Apatzeo.
* Divide the "Otomitl" location on northeast Guanajuato into Quijay and Xichú locations.
***Details to be added soon***
***Details to be added soon***
Here also the map for the cultures.
* Considering that we have SOP it is kind of redundant to have small cultures for single SOP tags when could be more efficient to when possible have various SOP tags sharing common cultures, for example the Cahita culture would include Mayo and Yaqui SOPs instead of these being 1SOP cultures.
* Guasave culture could be represented but there were coastal fishermen that were far from control the whole locations shared with inland Cahita peoples.
* Irritila is an umbrella term for a likely heterogenous group but we lack sources to classify them anyway. What is fixed is the location of the particular groups.
* Corachol (Cora+Huichol) were in definitive broader distributed, even now are the more significative group of the region. Still the early sources mix a lot the names Coras, Coanos, Tepehuanes, Tepecanos, Huaynamotas, Caramotas, Huazamotas, Tecaules, Xuxucte Cuanes, Uzares, Tezoles, Huicholes, Vizuritas, etc. So is safer to have Corachol and Tepecan.
* Southern Jalisco was shared by Sayultecas(Tzaultecas) of likely Nahua affinity and the Pinome and "Otomi", these later could have be the same groups of at least Otomanguean/non-Utoaztecac peoples. So since there are already the Otomi the name Pinome would be the best option.
* Tecuexe and Coca are two related but clearly different and relevant groups for the region.
* Teco cover similar situation to Pinome, when nahua peoples were well know always present with the spaniards there was a differentiation. Here the Purepecha identification of the Tecos in relation to the Nahua could be problematic being "outer-group".
* Guamar and Pame fixed in their distribution.
* Mazahua could be separated from the Otomi.
* Since there is more certainty that Cuyutec were a group of Nahua I leave this to consideration of if is the best option in terms of game mechanics to keep all Nahua as the same or different groups.
Aguilar-González, J. R. 2005. Tzintzuntzan Irechequa. Política y sociedad en el Estado Tarasco. Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás Hidalgo.
Aguilera-Calderón, R. 2018. Corporeidad, gestualidad e intransigencia: Las danzas entre los Xi’oi (Pames) de Santa María Acapulco. Universidade Federal do Pará.
Balboa-Trasviña, M. A. 2007. La conquista de la provincia de Sinaloa y la evangelización de los indios Zuaques de Mochicahui. Ra Ximhai. Vol. 3. n° 2. pp. 325-342.
Bernal, I. 1952. Relación de Tancítaro (Arimao y Tepalcatepec). Tlalocan. vol. 3. nº 3. pp. 205-235.
Bravo-Magaña, J. 1985. El significado de Colima: estudio lingüístico. Relaciones. n°24. pp. 69-90.
Calderón-Aragón, G. 1998. Geografía de riesgos. Fundamentos económicos y sociales. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Carrillo-Cázares, A. 2000. El debate sobre la guerra chichimeca, 1531-1585: Cuerpo de documentos. El Colegio de Michoacán.
Cárdenas-Munguía, F. J. 2000. Los asentamientos humanos en el siglo XVII en la provincia de Colima. Sistema de poblados y su estructura interna. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Castro-Gutiérrez, F. 2006. La colonización del pasado: Pénjamo y la memoria del poblamiento de las fronteras novohispanas. Fronteras de la Historia. nº 11. pp. 121-151.
Chávez-Hernández, G., y Mancilla-Aguilar, L. A. 2010. San Luis de la Paz. Nación Chichimeca. Gobierno del Estado de Guanajuato.
Delgadillo-Galindo, S. 2019. La resistencia ante la conquista de la Sierra Madre Occidental (1563-1618). Los casos Acaxee y Xixime. Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango.
Delgadillo-Galindo, S. 2020. El primer contacto y dominio de los acaxees y xiximes. Revista de Historia de la UJED. nº 12. pp. 7-34.
Delgadillo-Galindo, S. 2020. El proceso de extinción de los acaxees y xiximes. Tribus de tradición antropófaga de la Sierra Madre Occidental entre los estados de Sinaloa y Durango. Siglos XVI-XVIII. Boletín del Archivo General de la Nación. vol. 9 n°4. pp. 9-42.
Diguet, L. 2013. Por las tierras occidentales: entre sierras y barrancas. Centro de estudios mexicanos y centroamericanos.
Enriquez-Valencia, R. 2018. Fronteras imaginarias y representación de la alteridad en la conquista y evangelización del Gran Nayar. Oficio. Revista de historia e interdisciplina. n.°6. pp. 55-74.
Gallardo-Arias, P. 2022. Movilizaciones de los Pames del Norte. Cuicuilco. Revista de Ciencias Antropológicas. vol. 29. n° 85. pp. 289-310.
García-Ayala, G. 2018. El lago Magdalena-Etzatlán: Un análisis del paisaje a través del tiempo. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
García-Flores, E. 2017. Patria del Cielo y de la Tierra. Universidad de Guanajuato.
Gerhard, P. 1986. Geografía Histórica de la Nueva España, 1519-1821. Universidad Autónoma de México.
Gerhard, P. 1996. La frontera norte de la Nueva España. Universidad Autónoma de México.
Giudicelli, C. 2008. Un cierre de fronteras…taxonómico. Tepehuanes y tarahumara después de la guerra de los tepehuanes (1616-1631). Anuario, Instituto de Estudios Históricos-Sociales. vol. 21.
Gómez-Canedo, Lino. 2009. Huicot: antecedentes misionales. Estudios de Historia Novohispana. nº 9. pp. 95-145.
Goyas-Mejía, R. 2011. Pueblos indios y propiedades en la alcaldía mayor de La Barca durante el virreinato. LiminaR, Estudios Sociales y Humanísticos. vol. IX. n.°2. pp. 165-180.
Goyas-Mejía, R. 2013. Asentamientos y pueblos indios desaparecidos en Los Altos de Jalisco durante el virreinato. Signos Históricos. n.°30. pp. 32-63.
Goyas-Mejía, R. 2017. Selvas yermas. Los pueblos de indios desaparecidos en la costa sur de la Nueva Galicia durante el periodo colonial. Revista de Historia Regional y Local. vol. 9. n°17. pp. 407-440.
Goyas-Mejia, R. 2023. Conquista y desaparición de los indígenas coanos en la Nueva Galicia. Revista de historia de América. n°2. pp. 2-28.
Goyas-Majia, R. 2024. Pueblos de indios y tierras en las Fronteras de Colotlán durante el siglo XVIII. Secuencia. n°119.
Griffin, W. B. 1969. Culture change and shifting populations in central Northern Mexico. Anthropological papers of the University of Arizona, n° 13.
Güereca-Durán, R. E. 2016. Milicias indígenas en la Nueva España, reflexiones del derecho indiano sobre los derechos de guerra. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas.
Jaramillo-Arango, A., Cossich-Vielman, M. and Navarrete-Linares. 2021. Un mapa de la conquista de la Nueva España: El ‘Lienzo de Tlaxcala’. Glocalism. Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation.
Lastra, Y. 2015. Los hablantes de chichimeco jonaz a través de la historia. UniverSOS, Revista de Lenguas Indígenas y Universos Culturales. nº 12. pp. 9-41.
López-Portillo y Weber, J. 1943. Los cronistas de la conquista de la Nueva Galicia. Memorias de la Academia Mexicana de la Historia. Tomo II. nº 3. pp. 209-230.
Martín-Ruiz, J. 2010. Irapuato. Colección Monografías Municipales de Guanajuato. Guanajuato, Gobierno del estado.
Martínez, R., and Valdez, I. 2009. Guerra, conquista y técnicas de combate entre los antiguos Tarascos. Tzintzun, Revista de estudios históricos. n.º 49. pp. 17-52.
Martínez-Aguilar, J. M. 2020. Formación y usos de los conventos en la provincia franciscana de Michoacán durante el virreinato. Historia Mexicana. vol. 70. nº 2. pp. 599-643.
Martínez-Romero, D. R. 2020. Matehuala. Poblamiento e incorporación de una zona de frontera de la América septentrional a la monarquía hispánica, 1600-1750. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social.
Martínez del Río, P. 1954. La Comarca Lagunera a fines del siglo XVI y principios del XVII según las fuentes escritas. Historia Novohispana, n° 9. pp. 49-94.
Medina-Arandas, H. 2020. Tras la pista de los Wixaritari: Los pueblos indígenas de la Sierra Madre Occidental en las crónicas tempranas (S. XVI-XVII). Revista Euroamericana de Antropología. n°9. pp. 45-60.
Mendieta, L. 1940. Los Tarascos. Monografía histórica, etnográfica y económica. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Meyer, J. 1997. Breve historia de Nayarit. El Colegio de México.
Mota-Padilla, M. Á. 1742. Historia de la conquista de la provincia de la Nueva Galicia. (Edición 1870. Imp. de Gobierno).
Novella, R. 1996. La Costa de Michoacan, Mejico, en el siglo XVI. Anales del Museo de América. n°. 4. 25-37.
Nicolás-Caretta, M. 2012. Asentamientos caxcanes en el Cañón de Juchipila y el primer intento del camino Real de Guadalajara a Zacatecas. Relaciones. n°130. pp. 66-90.
Ortega-León, V., and Grave-Tirado, L. A. 2019. Por tierras no sabidas y tan estrañas. Geografía protohistóricas de la costa noroccidental del Pacífico. La ruta de Nuño de Guzmán. Secretaria de Cultura.
Pacheco-Rojas, J. y Quiñones-Hernández, L. C. 2012. Formación de la Nueva Vizcaya y la fundación de la villa de Nombre de Dios. Un territorio en disputa. Revista de Historia de la Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango. n° 4.
Pollard, H. P. 2004. El Imperio Tarasco en el Mundo Mesoamericano. Relaciones.vol. XXV. n° 99.
Pomedio, C. M., Lefebvre, K., Pasco-Saldaña, G. M., and Gutiérrez-Cruz, C. D. 2021. El mapa de Cuzalapa, Jalisco, un primer acercamiento territorial. Letras Históricas. nº 24. pp. 229-257.
Portillo, E. L. 1886. Apuntes para la historia antigua de Coahuila y Texas. El Golfo de México.
Powell, P. W. 1984. La Guerra Chichimeca (1550-1600). Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Pulido- Méndez, S. 2002. Etnias, lenguas y lugares en el Estado tarasco. Una revisión sobre los habitantes y sus idiomas en el Michoacán prehispánico a partir de la lectura de las Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI. Estudios Mesoamericanos. n°3. pp. 23-33.
Quintero, F. L. 2007. Historia integral de la región del Río Fuerte. El Fuerte nuestra historia, Tomo 4. Creativos7.
Rangel-Guzmán, E. and Marín-García, J. L. 2014. Desplazamientos territoriales y nuevos asentamientos tepehuanes. Relaciones. Estudios de historia y sociedad. vol. 35. no. 137. pp. 149-178.
Rangel-Silva, J. A. 2009. Pames, Franciscanos y Estancieros en Rioverde, Valles y sur de Nuevo Santander, 1600-1800. Relaciones. n°120. vol. XXX. pp. 225-266.
Rivera-Villanueva, J. A., Riojas-López, M. E. and Mellink, E. 2019. El Tunal Grande y los tunales asociados, hábitat de recolectores cazadores. vol IX. n°19. pp. 151-176.
Rodriguez-Palma, B. and Gerardo-Santos, L. 2019. Bartolomé Rodríguez Palma, un clérigo minero portugués en Nueva Galicia, 1676-1698. Historia y Grafía, Universidad Iberoamericana. n°52. pp. 159-186.
Romero-Pérez, J. F. 2011. La conquista militar de los Altos de Jalisco. Archivo Histórico, Tepatitlán de Morelos. n°. 17.
Roskamp, H. 1998. La Historiografía Indigena de Michoacán, El lienzo de Jucutácato y los Títulos de Carapan. CNWS. Leiden University.
Salinas-Ramos, M. S. 2014. El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro y la colonización en la jurisdicción de las villas de San Miguel y San Felipe en el siglo XVI. Legajos. n.°3. pp. 45-71.
Sánchez, G., Carpenter, J. and Vicente, J. 2011. Catálogo científico de los de petrograbados del sitio Cerro de la Máscara, El Fuerte, Sinaloa. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Santoscoy, A. 1903. Diversos errores acerca de las lenguas indígenas del antiguo obispado y del actual arzobispado de Guadalajara.
Sauer, C. 1976. Colima de la Nueva España en el siglo XVI. JUS.
Téllez-Lozano, V. M., Miranda-García, C. M., and Fregoso-García, V. M. 2019. La construcción de paisajes políticos en la Pintura del Nuevo Reino de Galicia. Letras históricas. n.°20. pp. 239-296.
Valdés, C. M. 1995. La Gente del Mezquite. Los Nómadas del Noreste en la Colonia. Centro de Investigación y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social.
Weigand, P. C., García de Weigand, A. 1997.Un legado prehispánico del municipio de Magdalena. Estudios Jaliscienses n.° 29. pp. 5-15.
Wright-Carr, D.C., and Vega-Macías, D. 2014. Los pueblos originarios del estado de Guanajuato. Pearson Educación. Universidad de Guanajuato.
Zapata-Ramírez, T. L. 2013. Etnicidad e identidad étnica Guachichil en el Tunal Grande, 1560-1620. El Colegio de San Luis.
Continuing with the central part of Western Mexico:
* The location Mezquital change name to Taxicoringa (Taxicaringa) or alternatively Xécora (Xícora).
* Nayarit location is splitted into Nayar (north) and Huaynamota (south) locations.
* Added the location of Aztatlán on the northern coast.
* The location named Tepic is clearly too big for the regional consistency and its historical relevance. So (from north to south) it turns into the locations of Huaristemba, Cactlán and Tintoc.
* Also related to Tepic, the site of Tepic is right to the northeast of Xalisco's site (the main altépetl on the zone), both are at the inland side near to "Santa María (del) Oro" site. So the proper solution is to redraw and rename the Santa María location to represent Xalisco location (Tepic turned to be more relevant until the Spanish colonial rule).
* Hostotipaquillo is another similar case. There was a altépetl relevant for the Mixton War referred as Xochitepec, but the site of proper Xochitepec was very close to the east of what is now Magdalena, heading east further to the also close Tequila. Meanwhile early sources including some of the earliest maps of the region represent more importantly the site of Guaxacatlán (Huajacatlán), this site also is more into the rough terrain that characterize the region, unlike Xochitepec at the margin of the plateau that seems to be a tributary state of the nearby Etzatlán. So on this same zone it is also the site Ostoticpac (Hostotipaquillo) that turned to be more relevant than Guaxacatlán only after the spanish retaliation and mining activity.
To add to this the spaniards used Hostotipaquillo (hispanized diminutive form to differentiate it from the more western Ostoticpac) as the administrative center to control the zone further to the northwest beyond the Santiago(Grande) and Bolaños(Tepeque) rivers and canyons. Those mountainous land to the northwest were refuge of Tepecans and Huicholes still for some more decades. So the suggestion to represent all these is to change Xochitepec to Guaxacatlán and Hostotipaquillo to Xora.
* Then the Hostoticpac to the west should be Ostoticpac. It need to be moved a little to the south that bring us to the difficulty of represent all Ostoticpac, Amaxocotlán(Mascota) and Tlalpan(Talpa). My solution is to reuse the location of Tlalpan for the Tecolotlán location at the east of Tenamaxtlán, meanwhile Amaxocotlán absorbs Talpa's zone.
* At the coast Xihutla renamed to Tuitlán.
* Allong redrawing the zones of Melahuacan, Autlán, Amollan and Zihuatlán, the coast need a couple of extra mountainous wastelands. There already are the Cacoma Sierra and Colima volcano-peak, but there were also relevant the El Cuale Sierra between Tuitlán(Xihutla) and Amaxocotlán, and the Manantlán Sierra between Autlán and the Tepetitango(Tlacalahuastla) locations.
* Huitzquillic is another location that was not that relevant for the scale, the proper representation is to extend Ameca to the east and Cocollan to the north of the valley while the mountainous south should be Tlapalpán(Tapalpa). So re-use Huitzquillic to have Tlapalpán.
* Also difficult is the situation between Zapotlán and Tochpan. Historically these two plus Tamazollan were disputed between Tzintzuntzan(Purepecha) and Colima, and later the spanish administration even used the name of the three sites for a combined administrative partition. For the scale of PC I find a separated Tamazollan justified being more to the mountainous east, but Zapotlán and Tochpan are pretty close and restrained by other locations around them. Then is better to re-use Tochpan (already are others more relevant Tochpan locations in Mesoamerica) for the Mazamitlán location to the northwest of Tamazollan.
* Cutzalan should be renamed to Tzacualco and Sayula to Tzaulan ceding some of its land to adjacent locations (Tzacualco, Tlapalpán and Mazamitlán).
* On PC's map it seems like the locations of Tlajomulco and Tala are tagless, I suppose is because at the time of the spanish conquest these were depicted as adandoned, but beyond how much this really was the case, the cause was the Purepecha invasion over 150 years after PC's starting date. So these locations should not be tagless at PC´s start.
* Add the Magdalena-Etzatlán lake to Etzatlán location.
* Change the name Huaxtla to Tecuilan (Tequila) and move this location a little to the northwest. Tequila was both a relevant native site to link the Santiago river basin to the plateau and a spanish administrative center. And yes here is from here where the Tequila destilled beverage comes.
* Considering the representation and importance of Tlaxomulco(Tlajomulco) and Tonallan(Tonalá) then is natural to also add the location of Atemaxac to cover what is now the are of proper Guadalajara (capital of all the Kingdom of Nueva Galicia) and Zapopan.
* Use Tlacotlán instead of Ixtlahuacan.
* Unlike the others Tecuexe altepeme of Los Altos the locations of Mitic and Metzquititlán do not seem to be justified at this scale when like was said before Teocaltiche is so close. Then I suggest to also re-use Mitic for the location of Ayotlán.
* Like the case of Tepic, PC's Coinan location is notoriously oversized. It should be divided into Ayotlán to the east, proper Coinan to the northwest and Cuitzeo (do not confuse with the other Cuitzeo site at northeastern Michoacán) at the southwest.
Returning a little to the northern part.
* Add the Tlahualilo lake between Mapimí and Vasapalle locations, the Mayran lake between Vasapalle, Contótor and Miopacoa, and lake Viesca between Vasapalle and Miopacoa.
* Added three mountain wastelands at the sierras and canyons of southwestern Zacatecas.
For the southern part of Western Mexico that covers the states of Colima and Michoacan the main changes and additions are these:
* Tlacalahuastla locality changed to Tepetitango.
* A little change to the name of Coliman to Colliman. By the way, looking deeper into Colima's name it does not seem to be a solved issue, between "Colima" the region, the site and the king. From the spanish contemporary sources like Cortés IV Carta de Relación Colima is referred as a province or kingdom, "E yendo este dicho capitán y gente a la dicha cibdad de Zacatula tuvieron noticia de una provincia que se dice Coliman..." the importance of Colliman is noted but as a region not as a leader. It was after 129 years later that we have Tello's Crónica Miscelánea de la Sancta Provincia de Xalisco talking about the king Colimán.
We know that the spanish Villa de Colima was founded under the order "y que le pusiese de nombre Coliman, como dicha provincia..." again referring the region not a leader.
I mean there are even doubts about the whole double foundation and/or relocalization of the the Villa de Colima. The first "old" spanish place of the Villa de Colima was Caxtitlán a cocoa production area near to Tecomán on the coastal zone. Then there is the second "new" Villa de Colima inland, here another issue about its relation to Tuxpan. Even more Caxitlán was supposed to be in the "provincia" of Colimotl while the "new" ville was in the "provincia" of Coliman, so yes some sources present two different areas Colimotl and Coliman, the first closer to the coast and the second inland near the volcano.
This bring us to the final controversy, the meaining of Coliman. One interpretation is that is comes from Acolman "place where the water twists" refering to a bend of the Armería river, but the other is Colliman that mean "place of the old ones" referring to both the twin volcano and snowy peak mountains that dominate the region.
So considering these alternatives and lacking a notorious alternate name for the valley, the volcano of the modern city, I think the most recognizable name of Colliman should be used for the northern location, this considering also that between the other option Caxitlán is supossed to be to the south overlapping with Tecomán.
* The coastal part of Coahuayana changed to Aliman (Alima/Alimanzi), while the northestern half should be the new location of Coalcomán.
* Add also Pomaro on the coast between Aliman(Coahuayana) and Chucutitlán.
* Take the northwestern part of Chucutitlán for the location of Arimao. Also add the mountainous wasteland of Las Conchas between Coalcomán and Arimao.
* The western part of Apatzingan turn into be the location of Tepalcatepec.
* Redraw Tancítaro and Uruapan, instead of be south>north be west>east.
* Jiquilpan should be Xiquilpan and be at the coast of Lake Chapala on the northwest from Xacona. Meanwhile add the Chocandirán location where PC have Jiquilpan.
* Take the east of Jiquilpan a little west of Erongaricuaro to add Paracho.
* Move Zacapu a little north, pass its Pátzcuaro lake coast to Tzintzuntzan.
* Turn Tiripetío into Ihuatzio by giving it the entrance to the lake Pátzcuaro between Tzintzuntzan and Pátzcuaro locations.
* Expand Tacambaro over the south of Ihuatzio(Tiripetío).
* Aguacana is more northwest>southeast oriented.
* Change Cutzeo name to Huetamo.
* The border locations on current Guerrero's side that were controled by the Purepecha need to be added in their proper suggestion, but in the map (Southern Part Localities) we can see the locations Zirándaro to be added where Cutzamala is and this Cutzamala be moved to western side of Oztoman. Add also Pungarabato between Zirándaro and Cutzamala. Some wasteland of the Sierra Madre del Sur on Guerrero should be added also.
I want to give some comments about the P'urepecha state (Tzintzuntzan).
Greatest expanse of the Tzintzuntzani empire in XVI century
For their high degree of societal and political development, very little has been studied about the Purepecha or Tarascan people in comparison to the Nahutal or the Maya. The historical sources have been scarse and that has lead to many narratives that are currently being questioned through the advances of archeology.
In particular, I am citing the paper ""Señores” y “señoríos”: la constitución territorial en el Michoacán temprano. Una visión desde la historia y la arqueología" ("Lords" and "lordships": the territorial constitution of early Michoacán. A view from history and archeology)
Based on what we known from history (mainly the Relación de Michoacán) coupled with the latest archeological advances, there is a better picture now that never. Before, the usual narrative has been based almost exclusively on the Relación, an incomplete document written based on the official ideology of the late Tzintzuntzani state.
This document tells us a lot about Tzintzuntzan and the Patzcuarlo Lake Basin, in particular its ruling class; the Uacusechas or eagle lords. The Uacusechas were essentially a warrior clan within the larger P'urepecha cultural community, that were able to centralize power around Patzcuaro through the imposition of their military power.
A. Cazonci or Irecha, Uacusecha lord and ruler of Tzintzuntzan. B. Uacusecha general. C. Funeral mound of the Cazonic. D. Different chieftains.
This document tells us that the Tzintzuntzani state was a extremely centralized empire, where the power of the Irecha was direct and complete. Certainly, records on the conflicts between the Triple Alliance and the Tzintzuntzani state show that they had military power to back them.
Archeology, however, tells a different picture. The greater Michoacán has been inhabited for thousands of years, and great populations and cultures develop through centuries in the past before the rise of Tzintzuntzan. In the late centuries, around which the Relación de Michoacán is written, archeological records back the rise of the Uacusecha's material culture in the Patzcuaro Basin as the dominant in the record. The same can not be said of the outer dominions of the empire, in which Uacusecha culture is very scarsely found. Even when it is found, it coexists at the same time as distinct, local material cultures, either of general P'urepecha origin or corresponding to different cultures.
Does this mean the P'urepecha state was not what it claimed to be? Well, yes and no. Evidence shows that the Tzintzuntzani realm was able to establish a hegemonic empire, in which they were to militarily and diplomatically vassalize many, many distinct lords of different cultures which paid their dues to the Uacusecha capital. At the same time, the Tzintzuntzani ruler class established a very centralizing ideology, in which they clearly had great ambition to more directly rule the territories under their ideology.
At military terms, they certainly did, but the local administration remained at hands of local rulers that swore fealty to the Irecha, at least as late as the empire remained. The Relación de Michoacán mentions many local rulers in the outer lands. It's entirely possible this represents these same vassal states, that in the official state policy they declared were directly annexed, when material records shows vassaldom was more the case.
In the alternate history of Project Caesar, the Uacusechas might be finally able to achieve their ambitions. But the start situation should show their reality. At 1337, a limited dominion over the Patzcuaro Lake Basin, that would quickly in the following centuries expand and vassalize the surrounding in Michoacán. Recent historias propose 1470 as the date in which a consolidated Tzintzuntzan with similar sizes to the one shown in Tinto Maps might have appeared at the earliest.
Before the unification of the Patzcuaro Basin itself, the Uacusecha "lordships" might have looked like this:
Sources.
1. L. E. Pauwells, Jose Luis Punzo Díaz, "Señores” y “señoríos”: la constitución territorial en el Michoacán temprano. Una visión desde la historia y la arqueología", 2022
2. J. L. Punzo Díaz, J. Robles Camacho, G. Sosa Caballos, La guerra y los señores Uacúsecha en Michoacán: Sus símbolos de poder, 2020.
For their high degree of societal and political development, very little has been studied about the Purepecha or Tarascan people in comparison to the Nahutal or the Maya. The historical sources have been scarse and that has lead to many narratives that are currently being questioned through the advances of archeology.
In particular, I am citing the paper ""Señores” y “señoríos”: la constitución territorial en el Michoacán temprano. Una visión desde la historia y la arqueología" ("Lords" and "lordships": the territorial constitution of early Michoacán. A view from history and archeology)
Based on what we known from history (mainly the Relación de Michoacán) coupled with the latest archeological advances, there is a better picture now that never. Before, the usual narrative has been based almost exclusively on the Relación, an incomplete document written based on the official ideology of the late Tzintzuntzani state.
This document tells us a lot about Tzintzuntzan and the Patzcuarlo Lake Basin, in particular its ruling class; the Uacusechas or eagle lords. The Uacusechas were essentially a warrior clan within the larger P'urepecha cultural community, that were able to centralize power around Patzcuaro through the imposition of their military power.
View attachment 1246380 A. Cazonci or Irecha, Uacusecha lord and ruler of Tzintzuntzan. B. Uacusecha general. C. Funeral mound of the Cazonic. D. Different chieftains.
This document tells us that the Tzintzuntzani state was a extremely centralized empire, where the power of the Irecha was direct and complete. Certainly, records on the conflicts between the Triple Alliance and the Tzintzuntzani state show that they had military power to back them.
Archeology, however, tells a different picture. The greater Michoacán has been inhabited for thousands of years, and great populations and cultures develop through centuries in the past before the rise of Tzintzuntzan. In the late centuries, around which the Relación de Michoacán is written, archeological records back the rise of the Uacusecha's material culture in the Patzcuaro Basin as the dominant in the record. The same can not be said of the outer dominions of the empire, in which Uacusecha culture is very scarsely found. Even when it is found, it coexists at the same time as distinct, local material cultures, either of general P'urepecha origin or corresponding to different cultures.
Does this mean the P'urepecha state was not what it claimed to be? Well, yes and no. Evidence shows that the Tzintzuntzani realm was able to establish a hegemonic empire, in which they were to militarily and diplomatically vassalize many, many distinct lords of different cultures which paid their dues to the Uacusecha capital. At the same time, the Tzintzuntzani ruler class established a very centralizing ideology, in which they clearly had great ambition to more directly rule the territories under their ideology.
At military terms, they certainly did, but the local administration remained at hands of local rulers that swore fealty to the Irecha, at least as late as the empire remained. The Relación de Michoacán mentions many local rulers in the outer lands. It's entirely possible this represents these same vassal states, that in the official state policy they declared were directly annexed, when material records shows vassaldom was more the case.
In the alternate history of Project Caesar, the Uacusechas might be finally able to achieve their ambitions. But the start situation should show their reality. At 1337, a limited dominion over the Patzcuaro Lake Basin, that would quickly in the following centuries expand and vassalize the surrounding in Michoacán. Recent historias propose 1470 as the date in which a consolidated Tzintzuntzan with similar sizes to the one shown in Tinto Maps might have appeared at the earliest.
Before the unification of the Patzcuaro Basin itself, the Uacusecha "lordships" might have looked like this:
Sources.
1. L. E. Pauwells, Jose Luis Punzo Díaz, "Señores” y “señoríos”: la constitución territorial en el Michoacán temprano. Una visión desde la historia y la arqueología", 2022
2. J. L. Punzo Díaz, J. Robles Camacho, G. Sosa Caballos, La guerra y los señores Uacúsecha en Michoacán: Sus símbolos de poder, 2020.
I would suggest possibly adding Amber as a trade goods to Chiapas. It was and still is a major source of amber in the region, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_amber and was known to the Mayas, who worked it, used it medicinally and also as an incense.
Quire is a digital publishing framework built on top of the Hugo static site generator. Generate Web, PDF, and print books (with Epub coming soon) from a single …
I hope the Chichimeca will be hard to conquer. They were not going to found any big empires themselves, but the Spanish had a lot of trouble fighting against them because of their expert archery skills and ability to hide in the landscape. It was actually missionary efforts that "conquered" the Chichimeca. This article has some information about this.
The Mixe of Oaxaca were also never militarily conquered, by the Zapotecs, Mexica nor Spanish, and were also pacified by Spanish missionaries.
I hope the Chichimeca will be hard to conquer. They were not going to found any big empires themselves, but the Spanish had a lot of trouble fighting against them because of their expert archery skills and ability to hide in the landscape. It was actually missionary efforts that "conquered" the Chichimeca. This article has some information about this.
The Mixe of Oaxaca were also never militarily conquered, by the Zapotecs, Mexica nor Spanish, and were also pacified by Spanish missionaries.
Were the Chichimeca really added to the Spanish domain by missionary effort? If so, how did that work? Were they taught a heterodox version of Christianity which required paying taxes to Spain?
Were the Chichimeca really added to the Spanish domain by missionary effort? If so, how did that work? Were they taught a heterodox version of Christianity which required paying taxes to Spain?
The important factor was that the Spanish gave them food, clothing and settled them in towns. Yeah I'm sure that their Christianization was a bit skin-deep. Also most of the Chichimeca, perhaps excepting the Caxcan, did not have any organized religion prior to Christianization, and religion really didn't play that much importance in their culture. This is in sharp contrast to the cultures of Mesoamerica proper, who, although not drawing up borders between religions in the Abrahamic understanding, mostly had highly organized and developed religions. I think the Chichimeca did use peyote in a spiritual context though, and some of them had some sort of reverence for the wind.
I'll let wikipedia summarize: View attachment 1248616
The important factor was that the Spanish gave them food, clothing and settled them in towns. Yeah I'm sure that their Christianization was a bit skin-deep. Also most of the Chichimeca, perhaps excepting the Caxcan, did not have any organized religion prior to Christianization, and religion really didn't play that much importance in their culture. This is in sharp contrast to the cultures of Mesoamerica proper, who, although not drawing up borders between religions in the Abrahamic understanding, mostly had highly organized and developed religions. I think the Chichimeca did use peyote in a spiritual context though, and some of them had some sort of reverence for the wind.
This just leaves me confused. It seems to treat the Chichimeca like an integral part of the Spanish Empire which was in rebellion, implying that peace inherently makes them part of Spain rather than leaving them independent but more Spain-like as it sounds like should have been the logical result of Spain's missionary efforts.
This just leaves me confused. It seems to treat the Chichimeca like an integral part of the Spanish Empire which was in rebellion, implying that peace inherently makes them part of Spain rather than leaving them independent but more Spain-like as it sounds like should have been the logical result of Spain's missionary efforts.
Well Spain was actively colonizing and building roads, towns, mining etc in this region while this was was going on. Although the war forced it to go slowly, the rich silver deposits were too lucrative to ignore. Also, Spain considered itself to take legal ownership of places pretty much as soon as they showed up by reading the "requirement" of submitting to the King as vassals to local natives. They ended up claiming to own a lot more territory throughout the Americas than they actually controlled.
This just occurred to me, but in light of recent changes, are you going to also rename the Gulf of Mexico, at least for the American players? If the Byzaboos get a naming rule, surely the Muricans deserve the same treatment, otherwise Paradox might get slapped with a dedicated GSG tariff
This just occurred to me, but in light of recent changes, are you going to also rename the Gulf of Mexico, at least for the American players? If the Byzaboos get a naming rule, surely the Muricans deserve the same treatment, otherwise Paradox might get slapped with a dedicated GSG tariff
Keeping in line with my suggestion to represent the Taino chiefdoms as settled states I want to point out that it was recently brought to my attention that studies provide compelling evidence that the Tainos practiced terrace farming in the Caribbean one example of these agricultural terraces can be found in Puerto Rico’s Reserva Natural Planadas-Yeyesa, located in the municipalities of Cayey and Salinas. According to the Memorial Plan Sectorial Reserva Natural Planadas-Yeyesa (2016), stone-faced terraces were discovered in this region. These structures, reaching heights of up to 3 meters, were built using volcanic stones stacked without mortar. The terraces were engineered to retain fertile soil while allowing water drainage through layers of smaller rocks and gravel, preventing erosion.
Archaeological research by Ortiz Aguilú et al. (1991) further supports the pre-Columbian origins of these terraces. Their study, Intensive Agriculture in Pre-Columbian West Indies: The Case for Terraces, describes terraces in the Reserva Natural Planadas-Yeyesa of Puerto Rico, linked to a multi-component indigenous village site. The ceramics found at the site, including Puerto Rican Saladoid, Ostionoid, and Capá (Taino) pottery, suggest that these agricultural structures were used between 400 AD and 1500 AD.
Images:
Lidar Imagery:
Sources:
Memorial Plan Sectorial Reserva Natural Planadas-Yeyesa (2016) – Public hearing document on the protected area.
Intensive Agriculture in Pre-Columbian West Indies: The Case for Terraces – Ortiz Aguilú, Rivera Meléndez, Principe Jácome, Meléndez Maiz, & Lavergne Colberg (1991).
Here the information about the Raw Materials for the suggestion about Western Mexico.
Here like in the official set up for Raw Materials there are included natural ocurring resources like metal ores and native prehispanic cultivated crops.
* About the metal ores the locations occupied by non-playable SoPs (Aridoamerican nomads and seminomads) were exploited just until the colonial period.
* Prehispanic "Livestock" location were reduced just to the couple that had significative production of turkey and ducks.
* Greatly improved the Sierra Madre Occidental and Central Michoacán redundancy of Lumber redundancy.
* Spices represent Chili, Incense Copal, Fiber Crops Agave, Fruits on arid regions are Tunas and Pitayas, Dyes are Cochineal, Plicopurpura and Longwood, and the Wild Game locations in Michoacan cover Feathers from Hummingbirds, Macaws, Trogons, etc.
ID
LOCATION
RAW MATERIAL
1
Bauzarigame
Fiber Crops
2
Contótor
Sand
3
Bobole
Wild Game
4
Cuauchichil
Wild Game
5
Miopacoa
Wild Game
6
Vasapalle
Sand
7
Cuencamé
Wild Game
8
Coneto
Silver
9
Alamama
Fish
10
Mapimí
Salt
11
Indehé
Gold
12
Guanaceví
Lead
13
Tepehuan
Gems
14
Papasquiaro
Iron
15
Canatlán
Cotton
16
Bayacora
Gems
17
Nilapohuana
Wild Game
18
Carapoa
Maize
19
Ahome
Fish
20
Sinaloa
Salt
21
Badiraguato
Lumber
22
Topia
Lumber
23
Tamaluza
Fiber Crops
24
Culhuacán
Legumes
25
Quetzallan
Maize
26
Otáez
Silver
27
Guarisamey
Stone
28
Piaxtla
Fiber Crops
29
Mazatlán
Maize
30
Chiametlán
Salt
31
Maloya
Silver
32
Hetasí
Lumber
32
Hetasí
Lumber
33
Aztatlán
Clay
34
Acaponeta
Legumes
35
Taxicoringa
Lumber
36
Nayar
Medicaments
37
Huaynamota
Fiber Crops
38
Xora
Lumber
39
Sentispac
Pearls
40
Huaristemba
Cocoa
41
Xalisco
Maize
42
Ahuacatlán
Maize
43
Cactlán
Fruit
44
Timtoc
Pearls
45
Tiutlán
Fish
46
Tomatlán
Cocoa
47
Melahuacan
Cotton
48
Cuzalapa
Copper
49
Zihuatlán
Salt
50
Ostoticpac
Silver
51
Guachinango
Stone
52
Amaxocotlán
Fruit
53
Cuautla
Copper
54
Etzatlán
Livestock
55
Ameca
Maize
56
Cocollán
Maize
57
Tecolotlán
Stone
58
Tenamaxtlán
Gems
59
Autlán
Maize
60
Amollan
Gems
61
Tlapálpan
Lumber
62
Tzaulan
Salt
63
Tzacualco
Sand
64
Zapotlán
Maize
65
Xilotlán
Fiber Crops
66
Tamazollan
Dyes
67
Mazamitlán
Lumber
68
Chapallan
Legumes
69
Cuitzeo
Fish
70
Ayotlán
Maize
71
Coinan
Maize
72
Xalostotitlán
Sand
73
Mexticacán
Medicaments
74
Tepactitlán
Lumber
75
Yahualican
Spices
76
Acatic
Maize
77
Tlacotlán
Maize
78
Atemaxac
Stone
79
Tonallan
Clay
80
Tlaxomulco
Maize
81
Tlallan
Maize
82
Tecuilan
Fiber Crops
83
Guaxacatlán
Gems
84
Tepec
Silver
85
Huexuquilla
Stone
86
Mezquitic
Lumber
87
Colotlán
Wild Game
88
Susticacán
Wild Game
89
Xalpan
Fruit
90
Tlaltenango
Lumber
91
Teulinchan
Fiber Crops
92
Xochipilla
Cotton
93
Nochistlán
Dyes
94
Teocaltiche
Maize
95
Pechititlán
Silver
96
Xiconaque
Wild Game
97
Sauza
Wild Game
98
Tepezalá
Copper
99
Tlacuitlapán
Silver
100
Yamanquex
Mercury
101
Chalchícuitl
Gems
102
Papantón
Silver
103
Zain
Cotton
104
Mazatlpilli
Gold
105
Wirikuta
Silver
106
Guanchenis
Salt
107
Matehuala
Wild Game
108
Mazatepec
Wild Game
109
Maticoya
Fiber Crops
110
Tangamanga
Silver
111
Guaxaban
Mercury
112
Copúz
Wild Game
113
Cocomacán
Clay
114
Quijay
Fiber Crops
115
Xichú
Silver
116
Apatzeo
Maize
117
Irapuato
Legumes
118
Quanaxhuato
Silver
119
Coecillo
Cotton
120
Epénxamu
Gems
121
Angamacutiro
Maize
122
Tlazazalca
Gems
123
Zula
Maize
124
Xacona
Fruit
125
Xiquilpan
Spices
126
Chocandiran
Livestock
127
Paracho
Lumber
128
Tancítaro
Fruit
129
Uruapan
Fruit
130
Erongaricuaro
Lumber
131
Zacapu
Stone
132
Tzintzuntzan
Wild Game
133
Ihuatzio
Maize
134
Pátzcuaro
Fish
135
Tacámbaro
Lumber
136
Guayangareo
Copper
137
Huandacareo
Clay
138
Yuririapundaro
Maize
139
Acambaro
Fiber Crops
140
Zinapécuaro
Gems
141
Maravatio
Maize
142
Tlalpujahua
Silver
143
Taximaroa
Lumber
144
Tzitácuaro
Fiber Crops
145
Cusaro
Medicaments
146
Cutzeo
Cotton
147
Carácuaro
Incense
148
Turicato
Maize
149
Churumuco
Copper
150
Aguacana
Wild Game
151
Apatzingán
Cocoa
152
Tepalcatepec
Cotton
153
Arimao
Fruit
154
Chucutitlán
Tobacco
155
Pómaro
Fish
156
Coalcomán
Incense
157
Aliman
Dyes
158
Tecomán
Cocoa
159
Colliman
Maize
160
Tepetitiango
Salt
extra 01
Zirándaro
Incense
extra 02
Pungarabato
Wild Game
Now the raw materials produced until the colonial period as both introcuded crops/livestock from the Old World and New World crops expanded to northern arid regions.
The reference of the locations that change their Raw Materials.
ORIGINAL
RM
COLONIAL
RM
Bobole
Wild Game
Monclova
Livestock
Cuauchichil
Wild Game
Saltillo
Wheat
Miopacoa
Wild Game
Parras
Wine
Cuencamé
Wild Game
Cuencamé
Maize
Alamama
Fish
Nazas
Legumes
Nilapohuana
Wild Game
Nombre de Dios
Livestock
Piaxtla
Fiber Crops
Piaxtla
Livestock
Cactlán
Fruit
Compostela
Sugar
Etzatlán
Livestock
Etzatlán
Sugar
Amollan
Gems
Amula
Sugar
Tzacualco
Sand
Zacoalco
Sugar
Cuitzeo
Fish
La Barca
Wheat
Ayotlán
Maize
Arandas
Livestock
Tepactitlán
Lumber
Tepatitlán
Livestock
Colotlán
Wild Game
Colotlán
Maize
Susticacán
Wild Game
Jerez
Wheat
Tlaltenango
Lumber
Tlatenango
Wool
Xiconaque
Wild Game
Aguascalientes
Horses
Sauza
Wild Game
Pinos
Wool
Matehuala
Wild Game
Matehuala
Livestock
Mazatepec
Wild Game
El Venado
Maize
Copúz
Wild Game
San Felipe
Livestock
Coecillo
Cotton
León
Livestock
Epénxamu
Gems
Pénjamo
Wheat
Tlazazalca
Gems
Tlazazalca
Wheat
Tzintzuntzan
Wild Game
Tzintzuntzan
Livestock
Acambaro
Fiber Crops
Acambaro
Wool
Zinapécuaro
Gems
Zinapécuaro
Wheat
Aguacana
Wild Game
La Huacana
Sugar
Colliman
Maize
Colima
Sugar
Of course here is also the reference for the locationts with an ID number and the provinces and areas they belong to.
Include ID number, original location names, colonial names, provinces and areas to which they belong.
ID
LOCATION
COLONIAL
PROVINCE
AREA
1
Bauzarigame
San Buenaventura
****
Coahuila
2
Contótor
Cuatrociénegas
Cuauchichil
Coahuila
3
Bobole
Monclova
Cuauchichil
Coahuila
4
Cuauchichil
Saltillo
Cuauchichil
Coahuila
5
Miopacoa
Parras
Cuauchichil
Coahuila
6
Vasapalle
San Pedro de La Laguna
Cuauchichil
Coahuila
7
Cuencamé
Cuencamé
Cuencamé
Sinaloa
8
Coneto
San Juan del Río
Cuencamé
Sinaloa
9
Alamama
Nazas
Cuencamé
Sinaloa
10
Mapimí
Mapimí
Cuencamé
Sinaloa
11
Indehé
Real del Oro
Cuencamé
Sinaloa
12
Guanaceví
Guanaceví
Bayacora
Sinaloa
13
Tepehuan
Tepehuanes
Bayacora
Sinaloa
14
Papasquiaro
Papasquiaro
Bayacora
Sinaloa
15
Canatlán
Canatlán
Bayacora
Sinaloa
16
Bayacora
Durango
Bayacora
Sinaloa
17
Nilapohuana
Nombre de Dios
Bayacora
Sinaloa
18
Carapoa
El Fuerte
Sinaloa
Sinaloa
19
Ahome
Ahome
Sinaloa
Sinaloa
20
Sinaloa
Sinaloa
Sinaloa
Sinaloa
21
Badiraguato
Badiraguato
Sinaloa
Sinaloa
22
Topia
Topia
Culhuacán
Sinaloa
23
Tamaluza
Tamazula de Victoria
Culhuacán
Sinaloa
24
Culhuacán
Culiacán
Culhuacán
Sinaloa
25
Quetzallan
Cosalá
Culhuacán
Sinaloa
26
Otáez
Otáez
Culhuacán
Sinaloa
27
Guarisamey
Guarisamey
Chiametlán
Sinaloa
28
Piaxtla
Piaxtla
Chiametlán
Sinaloa
29
Mazatlán
Mazatlán
Chiametlán
Sinaloa
30
Chiametlán
Chametla
Chiametlán
Sinaloa
31
Maloya
Maloya
Chiametlán
Sinaloa
32
Hetasí
San Pablo de Hetasí
Chiametlán
Sinaloa
33
Aztatlán
Astatlán
Nayar
Xalisco
34
Acaponeta
Acaponeta
Nayar
Xalisco
35
Taxicoringa
Mezquital
Nayar
Xalisco
36
Nayar
Nayar
Nayar
Xalisco
37
Huaynamota
Huaynamota
Nayar
Xalisco
38
Xora
Xora
Nayar
Xalisco
39
Sentispac
Senticpac
Xalisco
Xalisco
40
Huaristemba
San Blas
Xalisco
Xalisco
41
Xalisco
Tepic
Xalisco
Xalisco
42
Ahuacatlán
Aguacatlán
Xalisco
Xalisco
43
Cactlán
Compostela
Xalisco
Xalisco
44
Timtoc
Banderas
Xalisco
Xalisco
45
Tiutlán
Tuito
Tomatlán
Xalisco
46
Tomatlán
Tomatlán
Tomatlán
Xalisco
47
Melahuacan
Purificación
Tomatlán
Xalisco
48
Cuzalapa
Cuzalapa
Tomatlán
Xalisco
49
Zihuatlán
Cihuatlán
Tomatlán
Xalisco
50
Ostoticpac
San Sebastián
Amaxocotlán
Xalisco
51
Guachinango
Guachinango
Amaxocotlán
Xalisco
52
Amaxocotlán
Mascota
Amaxocotlán
Xalisco
53
Cuautla
Cuautla
Amaxocotlán
Xalisco
54
Etzatlán
Etzatlán
Autlán
Xalisco
55
Ameca
Ameca
Autlán
Xalisco
56
Cocollán
Cocula
Autlán
Xalisco
57
Tecolotlán
Tecolotlán
Autlán
Xalisco
58
Tenamaxtlán
Tenamaxtlán
Autlán
Xalisco
59
Autlán
Autlán
Autlán
Xalisco
60
Amollan
Amula
Tzaulan
Xalisco
61
Tlapálpan
Tapalpa
Tzaulan
Xalisco
62
Tzaulan
Sayula
Tzaulan
Xalisco
63
Tzacualco
Zacoalco
Tzaulan
Xalisco
64
Zapotlán
Zapotlán
Zapotlán
Xalisco
65
Xilotlán
Jilotlán
Zapotlán
Xalisco
66
Tamazollan
Tamazula
Zapotlán
Xalisco
67
Mazamitlán
Mazamitla
Zapotlán
Xalisco
68
Chapallan
Chapala
Coinan
Xalisco
69
Cuitzeo
La Barca
Coinan
Xalisco
70
Ayotlán
Arandas
Coinan
Xalisco
71
Coinan
Tototlán
Coinan
Xalisco
72
Xalostotitlán
San Miguel el Alto
Tepactitlán
Xalisco
73
Mexticacán
Mexticacán
Tepactitlán
Xalisco
74
Tepactitlán
Tepatitlán
Tepactitlán
Xalisco
75
Yahualican
Yahualica
Tepactitlán
Xalisco
76
Acatic
Acatic
Tepactitlán
Xalisco
77
Tlacotlán
Cuquío
Tepactitlán
Xalisco
78
Atemaxac
Guadalajara
Tonallan
Xalisco
79
Tonallan
Tonalá
Tonallan
Xalisco
80
Tlaxomulco
Tlajomulco
Tonallan
Xalisco
81
Tlallan
Tala
Tonallan
Xalisco
82
Tecuilan
Tequila
Tonallan
Xalisco
83
Guaxacatlán
Hostotipaquillo
Tonallan
Xalisco
84
Tepec
Bolaños
Tepec
Chichimecapan
85
Huexuquilla
Huejuquilla
Tepec
Chichimecapan
86
Mezquitic
Mezquitic
Tepec
Chichimecapan
87
Colotlán
Colotlán
Tepec
Chichimecapan
88
Susticacán
Jerez
Teulinchan
Chichimecapan
89
Xalpan
Jalpa
Teulinchan
Chichimecapan
90
Tlaltenango
Tlatenango
Teulinchan
Chichimecapan
91
Teulinchan
Teúl
Teulinchan
Chichimecapan
92
Xochipilla
Juchipila
Teulinchan
Chichimecapan
93
Nochistlán
Nochistlán
Teulinchan
Chichimecapan
94
Teocaltiche
Teocaltiche
Pechititlán
Chichimecapan
95
Pechititlán
Lagos
Pechititlán
Chichimecapan
96
Xiconaque
Aguascalientes
Pechititlán
Chichimecapan
97
Sauza
Pinos
Pechititlán
Chichimecapan
98
Tepezalá
Tepezalá
Pechititlán
Chichimecapan
99
Tlacuitlapán
Zacatecas
Tlacuitlapán
Chichimecapan
100
Yamanquex
Fresnillo
Tlacuitlapán
Chichimecapan
101
Chalchícuitl
Chalchihuites
Tlacuitlapán
Chichimecapan
102
Papantón
Sombrerete
Tlacuitlapán
Chichimecapan
103
Zain
Sain
Tlacuitlapán
Chichimecapan
104
Mazatlpilli
Mazapil
Tlacuitlapán
Chichimecapan
105
Wirikuta
Catorce
Matehuala
Chichimecapan
106
Guanchenis
Charcas
Matehuala
Chichimecapan
107
Matehuala
Matehuala
Matehuala
Chichimecapan
108
Mazatepec
El Venado
Tangamanga
Chichimecapan
109
Maticoya
Bocas
Tangamanga
Chichimecapan
110
Tangamanga
San Luis Potosi
Tangamanga
Chichimecapan
111
Guaxaban
Santa María del Río
Tangamanga
Chichimecapan
112
Copúz
San Felipe
Cocomacán
Chichimecapan
113
Cocomacán
Dolores
Cocomacán
Chichimecapan
114
Quijay
San Luis de la Paz
Cocomacán
Chichimecapan
115
Xichú
Xichú
Cocomacán
Chichimecapan
116
Apatzeo
Apaseo
Quanaxhuato
Chichimecapan
117
Irapuato
Irapuato
Quanaxhuato
Chichimecapan
118
Quanaxhuato
Guanajuato
Quanaxhuato
Chichimecapan
119
Coecillo
León
Quanaxhuato
Chichimecapan
120
Epénxamu
Pénjamo
Quanaxhuato
Chichimecapan
121
Angamacutiro
Puruándiro
Xiquilpan
Michihuacán
122
Tlazazalca
Tlazazalca
Xiquilpan
Michihuacán
123
Zula
Aramutarillo
Xiquilpan
Michihuacán
124
Xacona
Zamora
Xiquilpan
Michihuacán
125
Xiquilpan
Xiquilpan
Xiquilpan
Michihuacán
126
Chocandiran
Tingüindin
Xiquilpan
Michihuacán
127
Paracho
Paracho
Tzintzuntzan
Michihuacán
128
Tancítaro
Tancítaro
Tzintzuntzan
Michihuacán
129
Uruapan
Uruapan
Tzintzuntzan
Michihuacán
130
Erongaricuaro
Erongaricuaro
Tzintzuntzan
Michihuacán
131
Zacapu
Zacapu
Tzintzuntzan
Michihuacán
132
Tzintzuntzan
Tzintzuntzan
Tzintzuntzan
Michihuacán
133
Ihuatzio
Tiripetío
Tzintzuntzan
Michihuacán
134
Pátzcuaro
Pátzcuaro
Tzintzuntzan
Michihuacán
135
Tacámbaro
Tacámbaro
Tzintzuntzan
Michihuacán
136
Guayangareo
Valladolid
Tzintzuntzan
Michihuacán
137
Huandacareo
Cuitzeo
Zinapécuaro
Michihuacán
138
Yuririapundaro
Yuriria
Zinapécuaro
Michihuacán
139
Acambaro
Acambaro
Zinapécuaro
Michihuacán
140
Zinapécuaro
Zinapécuaro
Zinapécuaro
Michihuacán
141
Maravatio
Maravatio
Zinapécuaro
Michihuacán
142
Tlalpujahua
Tlalpujahua
Zinapécuaro
Michihuacán
143
Taximaroa
Taximaroa
Zinapécuaro
Michihuacán
144
Tzitácuaro
Zitácuaro
Zinapécuaro
Michihuacán
145
Cusaro
Tuzantla
Cutzeo
Michihuacán
146
Cutzeo
Huetamo
Cutzeo
Michihuacán
147
Carácuaro
Carárcuaro
Cutzeo
Michihuacán
148
Turicato
Turicato
Cutzeo
Michihuacán
149
Churumuco
Churumuco
Apatzingán
Michihuacán
150
Aguacana
La Huacana
Apatzingán
Michihuacán
151
Apatzingán
Apatzingán
Apatzingán
Michihuacán
152
Tepalcatepec
Tepalcatepec
Apatzingán
Michihuacán
153
Arimao
Aguililla*
Colliman
Michihuacán
154
Chucutitlán
Acalpican
Colliman
Michihuacán
155
Pómaro
Pómaro
Colliman
Michihuacán
156
Coalcomán
Cuacomán
Colliman
Michihuacán
157
Aliman
Coaguayana
Colliman
Michihuacán
158
Tecomán
Tecomán
Colliman
Michihuacán
159
Colliman
Colima
Colliman
Michihuacán
160
Tepetitiango
Mazatlán
Colliman
Michihuacán
Of course here are the addtional sources of information to add to the previously presented.
Albiez-Wieck, S. 2011. Contactos exteriores del Estado Tarasco: Influencias desde dentro y fuera de Mesoamérica. Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität.
Beltrán-Henríquez, P. 2008. Cosmovisión y Ritual en el Michoacán Prehispánico: un acercamiento etnohistórico a las fiestas del calendario anual. El Colegio de Michoacán.
Bolaños-Abraham, V. H. 2006. La Hacienda de Quenchendio en la región de Huetamo: generadora de un microsistema de producción. Surgimiento, consolidación y decadencia. Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo.
Cabezas-Bolaños, E. and Espinoza-Esquivel, A. M. 2000. El arroz en América: su introducción y primeras siembras. Revista de Historia de América. nº 126.
Cisnero-García, D. Y. 2009. Representaciones de patos en Mesoamérica. Arqueología. nº 42.
Coll-Hurtado, A. and Sánchez-Salazar, M. T. 1999. La minería en el Obispado de Michoacán a mediados del siglo XVIII. Investigaciones Geográficas. n° 39.
Cramaussel, C. 2020. El Bolsón de Mapimí: un hábitat indígena en la época colonial. Caminos y vertientes del septentrión mexicano: Homenaje a Ignacio Del Río. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Gamboa, J. 2019. The modern ontological natures of the Cairina moschata (Linnaeus, 1758) duck. Cases from Perú, the northern hemisphere, and digital communities. Anthropozoologica. vol. 54. nº 13.
Gámez-Cortez, R. E. 2012. Apatzingán. Su importancia regional y su papel en la guerra de independencia 1785-1821. Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo.
Gómez-Murillo, A. G. 2020. Abastecimiento de productos básicos a Zacatecas durante los siglos XVI y XVII. Estudios de Historia Novohispana. nº 63. pp. 3-32.
Gómez-Murillo, A. G. 2022. Ganadería en Zacatecas durante los siglos XVI a XVIII. Punto CU Norte. vol. 8. nº 15. pp. 176-196.
Guzmán-Pérez, M. 2012. Otomíes y Mazahuas de Michoacán, siglos XV-XVII. Trazos de una historia. Tzintzun, Revista de Estudios Históricos. nº 55.
Heyden, D. and Velasco, A. M. L. 2018. Aves van, aves vienen: el guajolote, la gallina y el pato. Conquista y comida: consecuencias del encuentro de dos mundos. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Hillerkuss, T. 2013. Las minas de la Nueva España en los mapas del Siglo XVI. ¿Un secreto del Estado? Apuntes. vol. 26. nº 1. pp. 10-25.
Janacua-Benites, J. 2025. Jimando agave para destilar mezcal en Charo, Michoacán. Antrópica. Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades. vol. 11. nº 21. pp. 173-179.
Lefebvre, K. 2018. Los procesos de colonización agropecuaria de la región de Acámbaro-Maravatío durante el siglo XVI. Estudios de Historia Novohispana. nº 58. pp. 31-71.
León-Meza, R. 2020. Comercio transfronterizo de ganado en el reino de la Nueva Galicia durante el siglo XVII. Fronteras de la Historia. vol. 25. nº 2. pp. 180-207.
Lozano-Armendares, T. 2005. Las fábricas y los fabricantes de chinguirito. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Machuca, P. 2013. El arribo de plantas a las Indias Occidentales: el caso del Balsas-Jalisco a través de las Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI. Relaciones. nº 136. pp. 73-114.
Machuca, P. 2019. Las plantas que llegaron para quedarse. Quinientos años de arraigo en Michoacán. pp. 159-173. Michoacán, Patrimonios del Alma de México. El Colegio de Michoacán.
Pacheco-Urista, L. Y. and González-Rizo, J. E. 2017. Entre el silencio y el olvido. Prácticas agrohidráulicas en la cuenca de Magdalena, Jalisco. Letras Históricas. nº 15. pp. 17-41.
Peristein-Pollard, H. 2004. El Imperio Tarasco en el mundo mesoamericano. Relaciones, Estudios de historia y sociedad. vol. XXV. nº 99. pp. 115-145.
Pétrequin, P. 1994. Ocho mil años de la Cuenca de Zacapu. Centro de estudios mexicanos y centroamericanos.
Pulido-Mendez, S. 2003. Los Tarascos y los Tarascos-Uacúsecha, su cultura arqueológica y sus implicaciones sociales. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Punzo-Díaz, J. L., Robles-Camacho, J. R., and Sosa-Ceballos, G. 2020. La guerra y los señores Uacúsecha en Michoacán: sus símbolos de poder. Arqueología Iberoamericana. nº46. pp. 118-124.
Quezada-Ramírez, O. and Darras, V. 2023. Caracterización espacial de un paisaje de extracción prehispánico: el yacimiento de dacita de Las Minas, Zacapu, Michoacán. Ancient Mesoamerica. vol. 34. nº 3. pp. 1-29.
Rivero-Weber, L. and Feest, C. La Sombra de los Dioses, El arte plumario en el México del siglo XVI. pp. 41-60.
Roskamp, H. 2009. Las Matrículas de Tributos de Cutzio y Huetamo, Michoacán, siglo XVI. Caminos y mercado de México. pp. 221-238.
Sánchez-Díaz, G. Bosquejo histórico del tabaco en Michoacán.
Zárate-Hernández, J. E. 2001. La Tierra Caliente de Michoacán. El Colegio de Michoacán.
I've been trying to find more information on the Chiefdom of Zui online but Google hasn't given me much to work with. All I could find is the Wikipedia page (which tells us that Jaragua emerged as the union of the two cacicazgos, Zui and Yáquimo) and of course this forum where we discuss it! Zui does sound like it would be in the northeast region of Jaragua while Yáquimo is in the southwest with the Tiburon Peninsula but I was hoping for more information on a location. However, while looking at Google Maps, I noticed that there is a lake in Haiti called Lake Azuei located to the east of Port-au-Prince. I don't suppose that there's someone on here who's familiar with the etymology and may be able to see if there could be a connection between Lake Azuei and the Zui Chiefdom?
Edit: A slight correction, the only other thing I've found on Google is that there is a hotel in Santo Domingo called Renaissance Jaragua which houses a spa called Zui Spa. Not exactly helpful for Tinto Maps feedback but hopefully it's helpful to someone traveling!
I haven't found more on Zui, but I did think it would be nice to have at least a rough visualization on where it would be located. Therefore, I made this image based on it being located in the northeastern half of the Jaragua chiefdom and based on the beautiful maps by @Apukispay
The "Nahua" religion of the Aztecs (broader proper meaning) and the "Tonalist" of the Zapotecs were closer to each other than any of these to the Purepecha religious traditions and divinities.
I know this was a while ago, but I wanted to ask how you would design the religious map of the region. Would you keep it somewhat ethnicity-based, or make it more regionally-based? For instance, does it make sense for Nahuas of western Mexico to practice the same religion as those from the center? (of course, I know our information is unfortunately pretty severely limited in Jalisco/Colima). And would it be plausible to combine the Nahua religion with the "Tonalist" populations in Oaxaca, or is it too much of a stretch despite the similarities you mention?
Welcome to the Mesoamerican Thunder Dome! This area is characterized by its numerous Altepetl, more or less comparable to city-states. Most of them are ruled in 1337 by peoples of Nahua origin, something that you may see much more clearly in the culture map. The biggest power in this moment is the Empire of P’urhépecherio, though, founded by the Purepecha people. In any case, you may notice that there’s a lot of detail in this area, including a tiny Nahua settlement recently founded on an island over Lake Texcoco, Tenochtitlan. This is the first time in a PDX GSG that we have the island itself present on the map, although the location covers some more land over the lake coast, to make it playable. Finally, we also have the Mayan polities of the Postclassic Period, of which Cocom, with its capital Màayapáan, was the most important, along with others, such as K’iche’ and its capital Q’umarkaj.
On the outskirts of the Mesoamerican polities, there are plenty of peoples organized on different ways. To the north, we have the ones that populate the area known as Aridoamerica, which were collectively termed by the Nahua as ‘Chichimeca’. We also have plenty of societies close to the Mayan lands and the Isthmus. And, finally, the Taíno people populate some of the biggest islands in the Caribbean.
