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).
|
|
Tonacatepeque |
Xilopango |
Cuyapango
|
Ciguateguacan |
||
|
|
'36-41 '48 |
'36-41 '48 |
'36-41 '48 |
'36-41 '48 |
||
| Beans |
1 plg 200 |
--- --- |
1 plg 100 |
1 plg --- |
||
|
Beeswax |
100 100 |
50 50 |
50
50
|
250 75 |
||
|
Cacao |
--- --- |
--- --- |
--- --- |
500 350 |
||
|
Chia |
1 pl |
|
||||
Chickens |
208 156 |
104 48 |
--- 60 |
208 156 |
||
Chili |
1 pl. 400 |
--- --- |
1 plg. 200 |
1 plg. --- |
||
Cotton |
1 pl.2 500 |
1 plg.3 200 |
1 pl.4 |
2 1pl.5 |
||
Eggs6 |
--- 156 |
--- 52 |
--- 104 |
--- 208 |
||
Fish7 |
416 |
408 |
250 |
208 |
||
Fruit |
(8) 50 |
(8) --- |
--- 50 |
(8) 50 |
||
Honey |
50 50 |
50 25 |
50 25 |
125 75 |
||
Maize |
20 16 |
8 6 |
8 7 |
30 14 |
||
Salt |
250 |
|||||
Sandals |
||||||
Cutaras |
80 50 |
40 --- |
30 --- |
100 50 |
||
Alpargatas |
100 80 |
40 50 |
40 50 |
100 50 |
||
Servants9 |
6 4 |
3 2 |
1 2 |
10 4 |
||
Herders10 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
||
Sweet potatos |
1pl. -- |
--- -- |
1 pl. --- |
---- --- |
||
Xicamas (Pachyrhizus angulatus Rich.) |
1pl. --- |
--- --- |
1 pl. --- |
---- --- |
||
2. From which
various textiles and clothes were to be paid: 40 toldillos, 20 pieces
of cloth for jubones (garments reaching from shoulder to waist: Kramer
et al, n. 57), 40 skirts (naguas), and 30 blouses (huipiles ).
In the tribute
list of 1548, the various garments had been eliminated and the tax was
300 toldillos.
3. From which 40
toldillos, and 25 mens' shirts (camisas de onbre) were to be
paid. The 1548 tax was simply 96 toldillos.
4. From which 20
toldillos, 20 skirts (naguas), and 20 pieces of cloth for jubones were
to be paid. The 1548 tax was simply 100 toldillos.
5. From which 50
skirts (naguas ), 60 blouses (guipiles ), and 25 sheets (savanas) were
to be paid. The 1548 tax was simply 100 toldillos.
6. Tonacatepeque
was instructed to pay eggs "if they wish". For
Xilopango the instruction was "as they wish". Cuyapango was not
required to pay them. Ciguateguacan, like Xilopango, could pay "as they
wish."
7. In
1536-'41, three towns paid fish "as they wish" or "if they wish." In
Cuyapango they did not have to decide whether or not "they wished." In
the 1548 tribute list, only Ciguateguacan paid - four lbs. per week.
8. "As they
wish" or "if they wish".
9.
Most of the servants reported in the 1536-'41 document, were used at
the mines of Metapa: 6 from Tonacatepeque, 2 from Xilopango, and 10
from Ciguateoacan. The others: 1 from Xilopango, and 1 from Cuyapango
served in San Salvador.
10. Either
herding
had not developed sufficiently by the late 1530s or interest was
concentrated on mining. No herders were listed for the four towns in
that period of time, but 10 were listed in 1548. Livestock and pigs
were mentioned for Aviles in San Miguel and for Perez Dardon,
apparently none at that time for Francisco de la Cueva. "Care for
livestock" was mentioned for Cristobal de la Cueva. And in the case of
Docampo, the servants not involved in mining were only two. Herding was
apparently not important.
In addition to
the above tributes, the following materials and services were to be
supplied in 1536-41: From Tonacatepeque: 20,000 lbs. of supplies
for the mines of Metapa.
An
obvious requirement veiled by cant appears in the statement "If, when
the bearers of the supplies are shown the necessity of repair of houses
or construction of a "rancho" at the mines, they may do the work".
Also required
was care of livestock, repair of the sheds and of the encomendero's
dwelling.
From Xilopango:
Aid in the delivery of 20,000 lbs. of supplies for the mines of Metapa,
"conforming to possibility".
From Cuyapango:
All of the
textiles could be exchanged - but for what and at what rate is not
stated.
With
sanctimony it is suggested that "the conscience of all pueblos is
charged to provide the house with maize and other necessities, care for
livestock and sheds, maintenance of the house........each pueblo
according to its ability."
Also provisions
of chili, beans, vegetables for the house and slaves were to be
supplied.
If
the Indians have a surplus of maize, they may exchange it for salt (as
the Indians needed no instructions in trade, the statement must have
meant an additional levy of salt).
Pottery and mats
(petates) to be supplied as necessary.
Repair of ox
carts.
Another
suggestion of pious benevolence is that "if the Indians want to go—for
pay—to Gracias a Dios with supplies for the house of the encomendero,
he may send them."
The Indians are
to supply products of hunting, and henequen for fetters, headstalls,
and lead ropes (sueltas, xaquimas, and cabestros) .
From Ciguateguacan:
Make sheds to
store grain, gather fodder for livestock.
Cacao, wax,
honey, and pita (henequen) to be put either in San Salvador or in
Acaxutla (i.e. for maritime trade. D. Stanislawski)
Maize, plaster
if necessary, and wild game for the house.
The encomendero
may exchange the textiles for other tribute.
30,000 lbs. of
supplies for the mines.
Repairs of the
house and other structures, including ox carts.
Food for the
encomendero
when he is in the pueblo.
"If they wish,
the Indians may go, for pay, to bring supplies to the house in Gracias
a Dios."
Henequen for
fetters , headstalls and lead ropes.
Differences
in Tribute Payments Between Those of 1536-41 and 1548-49
The
first notable difference is in the absence of vagueness and casuistry
in 1548-49, particularly with regard to Indian labor. In 1536-41 the
Indians were apparently to work under the guidance of that gem of
sophistry "theconscience of all pueblos is charged to provide the house
with.............", or the Indians
were to make "a planting" with no specification as to the quantity of
seed to be planted. Also such phrases as "gather fodder", "repair the
house, the sheds, the ox carts", etc. appeared without further
elaboration. Others: "as they wish", "as they may wish", "materials for
the house", "as necessary", appearing in 1536-41, all without precise
figures, were replaced by exact figures and times in the 1548-49
tribute list which had specifics. In the latter, payments were
generally reduced from one fifth to one half of those for which figures
were stated in 1536-41.
Some
information regarding the reductions made by the "Cerrato Reforms"
appears in the document showing payments of 1530-31 by the town of
Huehuetenango to its encomendero Juan de Espinar. The levy of textiles
in 1530-31 was 800 mantas , 400 loincloths (masteles ), 400 jackets
(xicoles ), 400 sleeveless blouses (guipiles ), 400 skirts (naguas );
also 400 sandals (cutaras ), 400 mats (petates ), and large numbers of
male and female servants and slaves to work either in the town or in
his gold mines (Kramer, Lovell, and Lutz, Washington, 1991).
In
the tribute list of 1548-49, the clothing had all been eliminated, as
had 400 mats, and the sandals. The mantas had been reduced to 200.
Chickens had been reduced from 2268 to 144. The servants allotted were
six.
More information
regarding changes in the encomienda becomes apparent in a
comparison of the document of 1536-41 which reported on the holdings
of five encomenderos
, with the document of 1548-49. By the time of the later document
consolidations had for the most part been made. Of the five
encomenderos, one, Antonio Docampo, had relinquished his one town but
acquired four others. Christoval de la Cueva's encomienda (See
pp. 22-27) had been
expropriated by the Crown. But three of the encomenderos held
the same towns in 1548-49 that they had held in 1536-41. Consideration
of those three follows.
Francisco de
la Cueva
Weighty reasons
may have made it wise for the dour Cerrato not to inquire too closely
into the encomienda
of this man, son of Pedro de la Cueva, a nephew of the Duke of
Alburquerque, and the cousin of the two sisters who were married to
Pedro de Alvarado (The first died soon after her arrival in the New
World, Palomo, p. 35).
But it would
seem that Cerrato did not yield entirely to discretion: the record of
Cueva's encomienda
offers additional information regarding the reduction of tribute
payments. It appears in three entries of the 1548-49 tribute list for
Santiago: Tacuba (#32), a town with 100 tributaries that paid eighty
xiquipiles of cacao and nothing more; Jumaytepeque (#105), whose number
of tributaries is not shown, but is estimated to have been seventy
five; and Çacatepeque and Ostuncalco (#106), with 2,000
tributaries.
The first two entries were of relatively unimportant towns in southeast
of present Guatemala. The important part of the encomienda was
the large territory and towns in the southwest, including Ostuncalco
and Çacatepequel and towns subsidiary to them. (The town of
Çacatepeque, present San Martin Sacatepéquez, is one of
seven with that
name. Three are in the area of the Cueva encomienda. Aside from
the one named, two others: San Antonio, and San Pedro, of lesser
importance were included without being specifically mentioned. The four
other towns with the name were—two each— parts of the encomiendas
of Bernal Diaz and Francisco de Monterroso respectively; they are west
and northwest of present Guatemala City).
The east and
north borders of the encomienda
were approximately those of a line connecting the towns of present
Retalhuleu, San Martin Sacatepéquez, Ostuncalco,
Cabricán, Tejutla; and
from there west to the Mexican border of Chiapas. In elevations it rose
from sea level to more than 8,000 feet (Ostuncalco: 2502 meters: 8208
feet).
The
holding was enormous and included upland territories supporting some of
the most dense populations of Guatemala at the time of the Spanish
arrival (MacBryde, 1971, pp. 3,6,10,14-16, 128). Also to the
Spaniards-who were largely from the southwest of present Spain—the area
would have been appealing because it was not dissimilar in climate from
their homeland and it was promising for grazing European livestock (in
1549, fourteen herders are listed). Part of the area had been seized by
the conqueror, Pedro de Alvarado for himself, and the important
conqueror, Pedro de Portocarrero, a cousin of the count of Medellin,
chose another part for his encomienda. Portocarrero's part apparently
included most of the territory of early Otzoya which contained the
highlands of San Marcos, Ostuncalco, Quezaltenango, part of the valley
of Totonicapan, the mountains of Ixtlahuacan, and some of the plains of
Xuchitepéquez. It was described thus in a Quiché document
referring to
Mam pueblos of the 1300s. (The original document, in Quiche, was in the
hands of "an illustrious family of Totonicapan" and is printed as
Titulos de la casa Ixcuin-Nihaib, 1941, pp. 244-252).
By
1549 Portocarrero's encomienda
was in the hands of Francisco de la
Cueva, who was not one of the conquerors. He came to the New World with
Pedro de Alvarado upon the return of the conqueror from Spain in 1539;
but Cueva was the nephew of the Duke of Alburquerque. That family
connection gave him position. Of further importance was the inheritance
of the woman he married: Leonor, Pedro de Alvarado's natural daughter
by Luisa, the daughter of a
Tlaxcalan cacique. Leonor had been married briefly to the old
campaigner, Pedro de Portocarrero and had inherited his large
encomienda.
That holding came to Cueva.
His importance
in the affairs of the New World was obvious. It was to him that the
Spanish Crown gave authority in Guatemala during the absence of
Alvarado; and he governed after the deaths of Alvarado and his widow,
Beatrice, until March 1542 when Maldonado took authority as head of the
Audiencia.
In
spite of his obvious importance (perhaps because of it), the payments
to him were changed by the Cerrato reforms. Tributes were still large
but a comparison with those paid in the period 1536-41 show a material
reduction.
Çacatepeque and Ostuncalco
1536-'41
1549
Maize
—
80,000 lbs. (i.e. approx. 8 sown fanegas)
Beans
—
3,000 lbs (i.e. approx. 3 sown fanegas)
Mantas
2400 (presuming that the
statement 400 de setenta a
setenta dias should have read
each sixty days, i.e.
each two months
1,600
Chickens.
On occasional days,
300
&nbs