Food is also a way of knowing a territory

An everyday tortilla, a tamal offered in a ceremony and a stew sold at market tell different stories of relationships. Understanding them takes more than a list of dishes: who grows or obtains ingredients, who transforms them, who is being fed and on what occasion? The same food can circulate through home, celebration and commerce while retaining its local history. [2]

Totonacapan is a space of contact between peoples and trajectories. INPI locates Tepehua communities in municipalities across Hidalgo, Puebla and Veracruz, and recognises Nahua presence in the Sierra Norte de Puebla. Sharing maize, beans or chilli does not make their kitchens interchangeable. Nor does a preparation located in a municipality allow us to assign a single language or identity to all its inhabitants. [5][8]

Plants in the landscape and plants in the diet

Espinoza-Pérez and colleagues studied 146 plots belonging to 69 families in nine localities across seven municipalities of Puebla’s Totonacapan. Their 2022 work included 63 milpas, 47 coffee plantations, 27 homegardens, seven horticultural plots and two acahuales, or secondary regrowth plots. They compared these with 270 dietary surveys conducted in 2020. This is those authors’ fieldwork, not interviews conducted by the Institute. [1]

Families were selected according to dietary profiles from earlier research. The localities fall within Atlequizayan, Zapotitlán de Méndez, Olintla, Jonotla, Camocuautla, Amixtlán and Huehuetla, Puebla. The sample represents neither every household in Totonacapan nor the regional proportions of cropping systems. Its strength lies in relating plots, knowledge and recorded consumption within a clearly bounded set of cases.

Having a plant does not mean eating it all the time

The 2024 article’s results and Table 3 report 102 edible species; 48 appear both in the inventoried plots and in the dietary surveys. The authors thus show an important difference between availability and recorded consumption. Coffee plots, homegardens and milpas contain overlapping species: their species counts must not be added as if each environment had entirely separate flora. [1]

Nor does the difference prove that the other species have disappeared from cooking. The surveys covered nine months, recorded food eaten at home and preceded the inventory by two years. Fruit eaten in a field or a seasonal species may be missed. The article itself also alternates between totals of 102 and 101; we make that discrepancy visible in Sources and comparison rather than correcting it without evidence.

Maize changes form and occasion

Erika María Méndez Martínez’s research on the Totonac milpa of the Sierra de Papantla describes a polyculture, growing several crops together, that combines maize with beans, squashes, chillies and other plants, with local variations. Her food discussion distinguishes transformations hidden by a simple ingredient list: mature maize treated through nixtamalisation for tortillas and certain doughs, as against tender maize used for bollitos de elote. [2]

She also records tamales with different wrappers and preparations. Pintos may contain beans, with broad-bean or pea variants; púlaclas combine dough and milpa produce. Differences in texture and use matter as much as names. We do not reproduce these observations as a universal recipe or instructions for identifying wild plants: they are situated descriptions of culinary knowledge.

From landscape to food: relationships to investigate

1. ObtainGrow, gather or buy. Milpa, coffee plot, homegarden and market do not offer the same things at the same time.
2. TransformNixtamalise, grind, wrap or cook. Technique changes texture, labour and uses.
3. Share and circulateHome, sale and ceremony: who the food is for and who takes responsibility both matter.

Reading diagram derived from [1–4]. It represents neither a single chain, a universal division of labour nor a regional calendar.

Coxquihui: table, ritual and market

In the pages devoted to Coxquihui, Méndez Martínez associates púlaclas with petitions for rain, Holy Week and the Day of the Dead. Her documentation includes a photograph dated 28 March 2018 of molenderas preparing them. Date and context explain a particular practice; they do not turn every tamal sale or domestic kitchen into a ritual act. [2]

The author also describes everyday sales and atole preparations. Molenderas appear as women with specialised knowledge, alongside the responsibilities of mayordomos and fiscales on certain occasions. Transmission here involves more than keeping a formula: it means adjusting doughs, organising labour, recognising timing and meeting obligations. Commercial and ceremonial circulation are related, without being identical.

Two pascales from Mecapalapa, two published voices

Two bilingual SEP books document preparations with named contributors and schools. In Los animales que a mí me gustan, Librada Sánchez Zamora contributes “Pollo en pascal”, from Emiliano Zapata school in Mecapalapa, Pantepec, Puebla. The text mentions smoked chicken, sesame, pipián and dried chillies ground on a metate. Its documentary value includes place and contributor, as well as ingredients. [3]

In El conejo que vendía maíz, María Angélica Albino Domínguez, from the same school and locality, contributes “Pascal de hongo”, with mushrooms, chile de Mora, maize dough and pipián. Both books identify themselves as Tutunakú-language publications: we do not reclassify them as Tepehua on geographic grounds. The second recipe uses “sardina” as a local measure; it is neither a fish ingredient nor a quantity we can convert into grams without calibration. [4]

Coast and mountains broaden the conversation

The Tecolutla municipal inventory compiled by INEGI names guatape de camarón. Its Cuetzalan inventory mentions, among other foods, bean tamales and mole tamales. These entries locate culinary references beyond Papantla, but identify neither an individual cook nor every variation. A municipal or visitor-oriented entry does not offer the same depth as ethnographic research into practices and relationships or a signed contribution. [6][7]

INPI’s Tepehua ethnography includes maize, chilli, beans, squash, chayote, sesame, fruit, leafy greens and mushrooms in food and domestic production. It concerns another cultural setting; it does not authorise assigning every preparation with these ingredients to it. Nahua localities and regional mestizo kitchens likewise require their own provenance and names to be retained: exchange does not erase differences. [5][8]

Transmission also means writing, selling and deciding

A school recipe book, a festive kitchen and a plot study preserve different things. The first makes a contribution and vocabulary visible; ethnography explains occasions and responsibilities; the inventory relates cultivated diversity to recorded eating. Read together, they reveal a living culture sustained by decisions, knowledge and work, without requiring every practice to remain identical in order to matter.

Further research needs to listen to people who cook and sell in each place, with permission and recognition of their contributions. It also needs to record variants, changing measures, ingredient access and the division of labour. We do not replace those voices with imagined interviews: we bring together those already published and identify what evidence each supplies. Kitchens can thus be understood rigorously without being reduced to a catalogue of dishes.

On connaît aussi le territoire en mangeant

Une tortilla quotidienne, un tamal d’offrande et un ragoût vendu au marché racontent des relations différentes. Les comprendre exige plus qu’une liste de plats : qui cultive ou obtient les ingrédients, qui les transforme, pour qui et à quelle occasion cuisine-t-on ? Le même aliment peut circuler entre maison, fête et vente tout en conservant son histoire locale. [2]

Le Totonacapan est un espace de contact entre peuples et trajectoires. L’INPI situe des communautés tepehuas dans plusieurs municipalités d’Hidalgo, de Puebla et du Veracruz et reconnaît la présence nahua dans la Sierra Norte de Puebla. Partager maïs, haricots ou piment ne rend pas leurs cuisines interchangeables. Une préparation localisée dans une municipalité ne permet pas non plus d’attribuer une seule langue ou identité à tous ses habitants. [5][8]

Les plantes du paysage et celles de l’alimentation

Espinoza-Pérez et ses collègues ont étudié 146 parcelles de 69 familles dans neuf localités de sept municipalités du Totonacapan de Puebla. Le travail de 2022 portait sur 63 milpas, 47 caféières, 27 jardins familiaux, sept parcelles horticoles et deux acahuales, parcelles de recrû secondaire. Ils les ont confrontées à 270 enquêtes alimentaires de 2020. Il s’agit du terrain de ces auteurs, non d’entretiens réalisés par l’Institut. [1]

Les familles ont été sélectionnées selon des profils alimentaires issus d’une recherche antérieure. Les localités relèvent d’Atlequizayan, Zapotitlán de Méndez, Olintla, Jonotla, Camocuautla, Amixtlán et Huehuetla, Puebla. Ce n’est ni un échantillon de tous les foyers du Totonacapan ni une proportion régionale des systèmes de culture. Sa force est de relier parcelles, savoirs et consommation enregistrée dans un ensemble de cas bien délimité.

Disposer d’une plante ne signifie pas la manger toujours

Les résultats et le tableau 3 de l’article de 2024 indiquent 102 espèces comestibles ; 48 figurent à la fois dans les parcelles inventoriées et dans les enquêtes alimentaires. Les auteurs montrent ainsi une différence importante entre disponibilité et consommation enregistrée. Caféières, jardins et milpas abritent des espèces communes : il ne faut pas additionner leurs nombres d’espèces comme si chaque milieu avait une flore entièrement distincte. [1]

La différence ne démontre pas davantage que les autres espèces auraient disparu de la cuisine. Les enquêtes couvrent neuf mois, enregistrent les aliments consommés à domicile et précèdent de deux ans l’inventaire. Un fruit mangé au champ ou une espèce saisonnière peut échapper au relevé. L’article alterne aussi entre 102 et 101 comme total ; nous rendons cet écart visible dans Sources et confrontation au lieu de le corriger sans preuve.

Le maïs change de forme et d’occasion

La recherche d’Erika María Méndez Martínez sur la milpa totonaque de la Sierra de Papantla décrit une polyculture, où plusieurs plantes poussent ensemble, associant maïs, haricots, courges, piments et autres plantes, avec des variations locales. Ses pages sur l’alimentation distinguent des transformations qu’une liste d’ingrédients masquer[Truncated]