GUATEMALA VILLAGES OF THE 16TH CENTURY

Dan Stanislawski

ENCOMIENDA DEVELOPMENT IN CENTRAL AMERICA 

These were "unreduced" areas, poorly known—or unknown to Spaniards—but from which there was hope of profit. For example, Sancho de Figueroa testified that he held part of a pueblo named Aganyla in the Chontales in his encomienda, but that he knew nothing about it. Alonso de Alvarado testified that he held two pueblos in the Chontales but that the number of houses was not known because they "were at war." Miguel Diaz testified similarly regarding a town that was in his encomienda.

The names of fifty-seven encomenderos appeared in the 1532 document but only twenty-seven of those appeared on the tribute list of 1548 (See supplement no. 7): that is to say, more than one half of those men had disappeared in the sixteen year period, most of them, it seems, without heirs. It may be assumed that the men were, for the most part, vigorous and young: life was short for most of the conquerors.

Of the twenty-seven whose names did appear, fifteen held larger encomiendas, ten had lost tributaries, and two controlled about the same numbers. Of the fifteen who gained, most had modest increases, but four men had gained considerably: Juan Garcia Matamoros acquired 370 more tributaries than he had held, mostly by the acquisition of the town of Potonico in modern Chalatenango province, a name that did not appear on the 1532 list. An increase almost as large—332--was that of Antonio Docampo. He had held a large number of tributaries in 1532 (600 putatively. The exact number was probably unknown). He had relinquished a laim to the town by the 1536-41 period in the acquisition of several other towns made available by the deaths of other encomenderos. Garcia de Alfaro also took over the properties of two deceased men. Juan de Medina gave up claim to two towns but acquired the very important town, Çacatecoluca, with 400 tributaries.

The ten decreases totalled slightly more than had the fifteen increases. Three decreases seem striking: the largest was that of Christoval Ceron, whose town of Apocopa may have been over-estimated in 1532, and the population of his town Aguachi, in unknown territory (Chontales) may have been mostly imagination. The large decrease may not have been real. Nuñez de Guzman's holdings of 1532 similarly may have been inflated and his loss less than appears. The case of Miguel Diaz is baffling. Why should he have given up his part of Xalocinagua to keep the remote town of Arcatao? It may have been a case of choosing the sole control of relatively prosperous town, even though it was remote.

Two encomenderos held about the same number of tributaries in 1548 as in 1532. In each case the original towns were materially diminished but additional tributaries were added from other towns.

The fractional amounts of tributaries shown for some encomenderos represented earlier divisions and were only approximations. For example, in 1532 Garcia de Alfaro held "one half" of the town of Coyo, with 100 tributaries; The other "half", with 120 tributaries, was held by Gines Muñoz. The 1548 tribute list showed Alfaro's "half" as including 108 tributaries. The "half" under Muñoz in 1532 had become, in 1548, part of the encomienda of Christoval de Campos. The number of tributaries was then shown to be 60.

As there were forty four encomenderos in 1548, seventeen newcomers had been granted encomiendas (see supplement no. 8). The names of a large proportion of them were not further recorded in history, and most had been granted moderate size encomiendas of towns whose earlier encomenderos had died, but a few names stand out. The most prominent is that of Hernan Perez, who had been one of the conquerors of Guatemala with Pedro de Alvarado . He was not in San Salvador province in 1532, but some time afterward he had acquired a large encomienda: by 1548 his minor sons had inherited one with 570 tributaries, including the town of Cuxutepeque with 400. In 1532 that town had been divided between three men: Puella, Rodrigo Diaz, and Sancho de Figueroa. The first two had died by 1548; Figueroa had been compensated by the allotment ot two other towns.

Also listed as having come to Guatemala at the time of the conquest (having come with Pedro de Portocarrero), was Louis Dubois. It seems that this man's French name looked or sounded like Luis Dibues to the Spanish scribes. He was thus listed - and with 260 tributaries ("Adiciones y aclaraciones" section of Tomo II of the 1883 Madrid edition of Fuentes y Guzman). Two others of the newcomers who were allotted more than the average number of tributaries were Bartolome Garcia and Lope Pardo.

In Marroquin's report of 1532, a few of the items of tribute were mentioned, but obviously not all; and amounts were not given. The inquiry basic to the report is indicative of early, stumbling attempts on the part of Crown officials to curb the excesses of the encomenderos; but the instructions were apparently vague, and the answers evasive and with an obvious belittling of the quality of the holdings; but it was the land that was disparaged, the number of tributaries held seem to be given fully, and perhaps even augmented, and claims of production probably were more hopeful than real. For example Alonso de Alvarado testified to holding two pueblos in the Chontales, named Cocoyagua and Tulua, "which were at war and it is said that their number of houses is not known"; but later he testified that the number would probably be 400 (p. 218). Cristoval Ceron testified that his town, Aguachi, had "come into peace a few days previously" and "they say there may be 400 houses". Miguel Diaz testified that he held the town of Xuzclan in the Chontales which was at war ("en guerra"). Under the circumstances it would seem that making a count of tributary families would be impossible, yet he gave the number 280. Perhaps encomenderos were trying to establish figures from which they could bargain with authorities regarding future grants.

Gomez de Alvarado, brother of the adelantado, testified as to his holding of the pueblo called Nunualco with "1,000 dwellings, more or less"; further, he testified that it was in hot, sterile, broken land and paid as tribute very little maize, chickens, salt, fish, chili, and cotton textiles. Its people were "very poor" (p. 205). (The question of the Nonualcos is vexed. See the consideration of all the towns of the 1548-49 tribute list. The town that Gomez de Alvarado held in 1532 may have been Zacatecoluca).

Sancho de Figueroa (misspelled Figueria) testified that he held parts of two towns, that the Indians of the towns made their planting of maize and beans (from which they paid his tribute), and they paid him "some" chickens and other products of the land in support of him, his house and horse. From one of the towns, the Indians paid both while and colored (striped?) textiles, honey, some chili, and olomina ( Fundulus guatemalensi), a prized small fish) from the lake. Apparently some sugar had been planted for him and some bananas and lemons. But then, in testimony similar to that of Gomez de Alvarado, the land was rocky, dry, and sterile. But one of the villages is near the sea and it was able to pay "some fish, salt, chickens and a very little cacao" and, at times, white textiles. He also held part of a pueblo named Aganyla in the Chontales about which he said he knew nothing (p.210).

Many towns listed in 1532 did not appear on the 1548-49 record. Absence from the later list could indicate destruction of the town, absorption by another (congregacion ), or being included for purposes of tribute as an annex of another town. More than one entry of the same town name indicates in a few cases more than one town with the same name; but in the majority of such cases it indicates the division of tributes of one town between more than one encomendero.

Some towns in 1548-49 listed higher population figures than did the same town in 1532. As the general population had diminished, the increase must have been by the addition of populations of towns that had been eliminated in the congregaciones.

The evidence of the tribute lists indicates that payments were vetted by the officials according to encomiendas. Town payments varied widely and, in many cases, had been omitted, whereas those made to encomenderos usually fell within expectable limits.

One view of the evolution of the encomienda in Central America may be seen in the record of a man listed as Antonio Docampo. Although little is known about him (Kramer, Lovell, and Lutz. 1986, n. 54), he may have been with Pedro de Alvarado in the conquest of San Salvador: at least he was of sufficient importance in the further exploitation of the region to be named as alcalde by Jorge de Alvarado in 1529 and confirmed by Pedro de Alvarado in the following year (Remesal, Vol. 11, pp. 273-74), He appears in the Marroquin document of 1532 (p. 228), and again in the reports regarding important encomenderos of 1536-'41 (Kramer, Lovell, and Lutz, 1986, pp. 367-69). In the tribute list of 1548, he is shown as holding the largest encomienda in the province of San Salvador, including the town of Ciguateoacan (present Santa Ana), which apparently was later sold by Docampo for a large sum of money to a relative of Cerrato (Sherman, '79, p. 169; Kramer, Lovell and Lutz '86, loc. cit.).

The document of 1532 shows him as holding one town, "Tecoylata", but gives no figures as to tribute paid nor any suggestion of the importance of the town, except to note that it had 600 houses (i.e. heads of houses: tributaries), a figure that may be dubious as he reported that it had been about a year since he had visited the place. Furthermore, contradictions in his report may indicate that he really knew little—perhaps nothing— about it. For example, in one place he expressed the opinion that the area would probably be good for grazing animals; but later in the same report he suggested that it would not be because it was swampy in the rainy season; that maize did not grow well because the area was hot and the land sterile. Sugar cane had been planted but he could not say whether or not it would be satisfactory. Fowler (p. 175) points out the curious fact that he did not mention cotton-growing of which it was shown to be one of the most important producers in later reports. The Indians had built his house and planted crops from which the tribute was paid. Among the payments were salt, fish, textiles (ropa), and other supplies needed for the house, the encomendero and his horses. The Indians, he reported, exchanged salt and fish for maize.

That he deprecated the value of the property was made evident in 1536-'41 (Kramer, Lovell and Lutz, '86, pp.370-71) when it (Teculuca) was part of the encomienda of Cristoval  la Cueva, and in 1548 (Teculuca, #1) when, albeit under the Crown, its tributes suggest a large population and large production of several valuable products including 1500 lbs. of fish, 1,000 lbs. of cotton planted, and 2500 lbs. of salt. The town is not far from the Jiquilisco Lagoon and the Estero de Jaltepeque, both long important for salt production (Andrews, 1983, pp. 105-06).

Although its payments may have been considerable, Docampo saw more value in other places. By the 1536-'41 period he had relinquished it to Cristoval cie la Cueva and had acquired four other towns: Tonacatepeque, Xilopango, Cuyapango, and Ciguateguacan. The first three had been, in 1532, under Juan de Aguilar (although the name Cuyapango does not appear on the list), who had held an encomienda with 490 tributaries. By 1548 Aguilar had disappeared. Ciguateguacan was shown to be held by Diego Usagre, who also had disappeared by 1548.

The tribute reductions made by the Cerrato reforms of 1548 can be seen in a comparison of the payments made by the four towns in 1536-41 period with those of 1548.

The figures given below for maize, beans, cotton, and wheat signify fanegas of 100 lbs. each planted if there is no abbreviation after them. With "pl.g" after them the signification is "planting" but with no amount specified. Eggs are by dozens. Honey, given in cantaros , each of which is assumed to be an arroba of 25 lbs. Beeswax is given in panes, these, too, are assumed to be arrobas. The figures given below for these items signify pounds. Cacao is given in xiquipiles of 8,000 beans each. Figures for chilis, fruit, salt, olomina, and vinegar represent pounds. Fruit was paid "when in season." Figures for sandals (cutaras and alpargatas) represent pairs. Pottery, either pots (ollas), jugs (cantaros), or griddles (comales), which were of the same value, are given in pieces, as are mats (petates).