THE LIBRARY OF IBERIAN RESOURCES ONLINE
GUATEMALA VILLAGES OF THE 16TH CENTURY
Dan Stanislawski
Products
of dramatic commercial value have been studied by many authors and
information regarding them made available; but the ordinary things of
living have not received the same attention. That gap can be partially
filled for mid-sixteenth century Central America by the tribute lists
made under the so-called Cerrato reforms. The record that throws light
on the general condition of such affairs is found in the bundle of
papers listed in the Archive of the Indies as legajo #128. It is a
fairly thorough account of the things that the natives produced and,
because it had become evident by the mid-sixteenth century that most
Spaniards were not going to profit greatly from the "precious" things
in Central America, but could be compensated by payments of the
products of agriculture and native handicrafts, these things make up
the bulk of the items on the lists.
Throughout
central America several items had been considered as fundamental
tributes to be paid by Indians to the native overlords. These were
mostly taken over in the same form by the Spanish conquerors, both to
support their ménages and, if possible, to yield cash, e.g.
cacao,
mantas, or another marketable product (Jose Miranda, 1952, pp. 35, 93;
Chamberlain 1947, p. 642 ). The most important items were maize, beans,
cotton (although in some areas the product was not mentioned, only the
textiles made from it), mantas of woven cotton, chickens, honey,
beeswax, and services. Also, but not as comprehensively paid for
obvious reasons, were salt, fish, reed or rush mats (petates ), chili
peppers, and pottery. In some provinces eggs, sandals, plum wine, and
vinegar were part of the list.
Native Tributes,
Pre-Hispanic
Orellana
refers to the fact that the Quichés, in the earliest period of
their
residence in Guatemala, continued to pay tribute to their ancestral
lords of Tula, in Mexico ('84, p. 63).
Later
documents indicate that Indians paid their native lords common services
such as planting the fields, and personal services in their lords'
dwellings. Also they made material
contributions such as cotton textiles, cacao, and honey (op. cit. pp.
64-66; and see Carmack, '79, pp. 30, 81-82).
But
there were differences. Charles Gibson pointed out that the precious
stones and precious metals, with which both Cortés and Bernal
Díaz
began their lists, received less attention in later reports.
Cervantes de Salazar, about 1550, observed that Motolinía's list no
longer applied with respect to the objects of gold, silver, feathers,
and precious stones (Gibson, p.353).
The
fact may be indicated by the difference in tributes paid to the "Aztec"
empire by Soconusco (Xoconochco) at the time of the Spanish conquest
and those paid in 1549 by its neighboring area (in Guatemala). At the
time of the conquest Soconusco paid its native conquerors a
considerable list of luxury items including ocelot skins, elaborated
drinking cups made of gourds, gold and amber, highly valued jadeite
beads (Chalchihuitles), 8,000 bunches of feathers including quetzal,
green, blue, red, and yellow ones, bird skins as well as cacao (Borah
and Cook, 1963, pp. 142-43). Whereas, in 1549 the neighboring area paid
Guatemala's most important encomendero , Francisco de la Cueva, tribute
of various standard food items, mantas , and a relatively modest amount
of cacao. The only extraordinary items were thirty two bedspreads, and
twenty eight decorative cloths (paramentos).
A half dozen
years after the date of the "Cerrato" tribute list, one of the judges (oidores)
of the high administrative court (the Audiencia ), Alonso de Zorita,
suggested that a fair tribute would be six reales for a married man and
three for widows and single men. (p. 252). Cook and Borah (1971, p.
330) write that by the mid 1570s tributes (in Nueva Galicia) had been
standardized so that virtually all tributaries paid six reales in
silver, plus one hundred pounds of maize, and one chicken per year.
Such standardization was certainly not the case in the tribute reports
regarding the isthmian provinces of Central America in the
mid-sixteenth century.
Another
practice—for
which Spaniards later were criticized—was that of sending people from
one climatic zone to another to work for their masters; but it, too,
was part of native custom (op. cit. p. 78). Lovell ('85, pp. 52-53)
refers to the tribute demanded by the Quiché from other native
peoples
after military conquests. Fowler ('89, pp. 191, 269) relates that the
evidence for the tributary base of the Cuzcatlan state (i.e. the Pipil
state: essentially present El Salvador, west of the Lempa River) is
clear.
To make
sure that the tributes were forthcoming, the native lords appointed
official collectors. The Spaniards found it convenient to continue that
practice with themselves as beneficiaries of most of the same tributes
that had been paid previously (Orellana, '84, pp. 138, 167, 223-24).
But there was a difference: tributes paid by natives to other natives
in pre-Columbian society had been adjusted through the generations so
that a balance had been recognized between the needs of the tributaries
and the surplus that they could pay to their overlords. Spanish
conquerors in many cases superimposed their demands upon those that had
been previously made. Often the result was an unconscionable burden on
the natives.
A report by the
Indian leaders of the town of Atitlan in 1571 stated:
"We submitted to
Pedro de Alvarado.............This pueblo gave men and women—400 to
500--to work as
servants or in mines. Also they paid mantas, cacao, honey, chickens,
salt, chili, copper,
pita, and many other things...............Many were badly
treated-------many died.............until
came Licenciado Zarrato (Cerrato) who moderated the
tributes...............he
cancelled slavery". (Report on Atitlan. RAH Munoz coll. sol. 42, f
115-118).
Regional
variation in Tributes
Differences
in the matter of payments among the provinces were an outcome not only
of variances in the native schedule of tributes which were taken over
by the Spanish, but because of differences among the Spanish
conquerors. Pedrarias and his men in Nicaragua, for example, created a
desolation greater than that in any other province except perhaps Honduras.
Because of that, there was a comparative paucity of tributes paid.
A
quite different attitude from that of the Pedrarians was shown by the
Montejos and the Franciscans in Yucatan. Payments there were simple,
and perhaps in the context, reasonable.
The
organization of San Salvador was an inheritance from the Mexican
traders and settlers who, through many centuries, had brought an
efficient organization to that part of Central America.
Differences between San
Salvador and San Miguel—the area east of the Lempa River—were largely a
result of
physical differences in geology and soils, but especially in climate:
east of the Lempa unpredictable droughts occur. For that reason
agricultural production is at hazard. The region was not considered
desirable by the Mexican immigrants (the so-called Pipiles)
and remained under the control of the less sophisticated Lenca. The
fact that the Lenca used poisoned spears and arrows may have
contributed to their ability to cling to the territory.
Santiago
province was a tangled product of the disparities of choice and control
by the various Mayoid groups who inhabited the highlands and extended
their influence into the lowlands. The fact of the "untimely" death of
Pedro de Alvarado undoubtedly reduced the potential exploitation of
those natives. That sanguine and sanguinary man might well have
established a greatly different—and more extortionate—tribute list from
the one put into effect by the Crown and the Church.
Of
the nine provinces included in the tribute list, little need be said
regarding Tabasco. Of its ten towns, five were under the Crown and two
were under Francisco de Montejo, who received half of the tribute of
another. Of this latter town, two encomenderos shared the half not paid
to Montejo. Two other encomenderos held one town each. For two of the
largest towns, Champoton and Xicalango, the number of tributaries is
not shown. For the other eight towns a total of 1020 tributaries are
listed. Aside from those of the Crown and
Montejo, 325 tributaries were held by four encomenderos, who had plots
of maize planted for them, received some Indian service, fowl (European
or indigenous), chili, beans, a little pottery, and, most important,
180 xiquipiles of cacao.
In
the matter of payments, the two other provinces of Yucatan, Merida and
Campeche, were obviously similar to each other in organization and
quite
different from the other
seven provinces of the tribute list. Beeswax was paid to encomenderos
in greater quantities and chickens in greater numbers than anywhere
else except for San Salvador; but aside from these two items, tributes
were modest and the list is short.
The
two provinces of Nicaragua, Leon and Granada can also be considered
together because the tributes are generally comparable, and they differ
considerably from the others. Leon encomenderos were paid at the
highest rates in maize and beans planted, and those of Granada at a
rate only somewhat less. The crops of those plantings produced a
surplus which could be shipped out to the impoverished Caribbean lands.
Salt was paid at the highest rate. Servants were supplied at as high a
number in comparison with the tributary population as was the case in
any other province.
The
tributes paid in Comayagua, the only part of Honduras listed in the
document, suggest a forlorn place. The history of abuse in Honduras by
slavery for mining gangs and for shipment to the West Indies would make
it surprising if it were otherwise ( See Chamberlain, 1953, pps. 36,
53, 60, 64, 120; also Sherman. 1979, pp. 29, 42, 43). A small
compensation was made to its encomenderos for the meagreness of
resources by the number of servants allotted. Herders were supplied in
sufficient numbers to suggest that livestock may have become a
compensation for deficient agriculture.
San
Miguel, the part of present El Salvador east of the Lempa River, was,
in the light of the tribute payments, a poor relation of San Salvador
(as it certainly is today). Without distinction in anything, it trailed
behind its more prosperous neighbor.
San Salvador stood out as a
peak of efficiency in exploitation of its resources: soils and
Indians. While maize and beans were not planted in the averages per
tributary that they were in Nicaragua, the amounts were high in
comparison with all other provinces, and in the length of the list of
payments received by its encomenderos it was salient. Cotton harvests
must have offered a large surplus for sale as nearly 26,000 lbs. of
seed were planted. At a yield of twelve and one half lbs. of lint per
pound of seed, the harvest would have been 325,000 lbs.; but as
toldillos required about three and a half lbs. each, the total of
15,139 paid to encomenderos would have required about 53,000 lbs.,
leaving more than three times that amount for sale. This was true
despite the fact that payment of woven materials (calculating the toldillo
as being two thirds the value of a manta)
was the highest of the provinces. The payments of chickens was as high
as that of any other province and higher than most; and the payment of
a long list of items: honey, herders, fish, chili, eggs, alpargatas,
cutaras ,
wheat, wine, vinegar, was the highest of the provinces. Perhaps the
Spanish authorities allowed such consideration to the San Salvadorans
partly because Los Izalcos , then a cacao area (now in the southwest of
El Salvador) had been assigned to the encomenderos of Santiago.
In amounts of payments
payments received by its encomenderos, Santiago
was either at the bottom of the list of provinces or near it, except
for three items: cacao, salt, and servants. Only one quarter of the
Santiago towns paid "unusual tributes" whereas two thirds of the towns
of San Salvador did.
was a form of cash so
attractive to the Santiago men that they not only
demanded it as tribute (paid to five sixths of them) but also exchanged
their servants for additional cacao or other forms of cash (silver or
gold coin, or mantas).
In Santiago Province all
encomenderos received cash in some form (coin, mantas or
cacao), mostly
by exchanging servants. Over three quarters of those making exchanges
received coin (silver tostones or gold pesos ).
Others were paid in other forms of cash: ten received mantas , nine
received cacao. Four exchanged grain to be planted for some form of
cash (Goncalo Najara, Ovalle, Paez, and Paredes). Five exchanged one
form of cash for another (Arias, Cristobal
Lobo, Lope Lobo, Lopez de Villanueva, and Mendez de Sotomayor).
Five encomenderos exchanged
servants for grain to be planted (Aragon, Diaz de la Reguera, Francisco
Lopez, Morales, and Cristobal Salvatierra). Lopez de Villanueva
exchanged two servants for 200 feathers.
Encomendero
Exchanges
|
Encomendero
|
Exhanged |
For |
| Aleman | servants | 30 mantas |
| Go de Alvarado | 3 servants | 18 gold pesos |
| Alvarez |
7
servants
2
servants |
20 xiquipiles
of cacao
20 tostones |
| Aragon | 6 servants | 100 lbs.
planted, wheat 100 lbs. " maize |
| Arias | 200 mantas 8 servants
|
50 xiquipiles of cacao 30 gold pesos |
| Bobadilla |
10 servants 10 servants |
150 tostones 150 " |
| Bozarraez | 3 servants | 50 mantas |
| Calderon | 6 servants | 100 tostones |
| Çavallos | 3 servants 3 " |
7 1/2 xiq. of cacao 18 gold pesos |
| Celada | 10 servants | 200 tostones |
| J. Chaves | 15 servants 5 " |
400 tostones 80 " |
| Bernal Diaz | 20
servants (each day of Lent) |
400 " |
| Diego Diaz | 5 servants | 75 " |
| Diaz de la Reguera | 1 servant | 50# maize planted |
| Escobar | 12 servants | 60 gold pesos |
| Figueroa | 6 servants 2 herders |
120 tostones 20 " |
| Gonçalo Najara, Pedro |
4 servants 200 lbs. maize planted |
20 gold pesos 25 " " |
| Gutierrez de Gibaja | 150 mantas 3 servants |
37.5 xiquipiles of
cacao (from Suchitepequez
in cacao country) 30 mantas (from Cuylco, near Chiapas where the mantas were large) |
| Larios | 4 servants 4 " |
60 tostones
80 " (Larios received no other payment from Queçaltepeque, #92) |
| C. Lobo | 400 mantas 2 servants 1 servant and 1 herder |
400 tostones (if
the Indians prefer it). |
| L. Lobo | 150 mantas | 150 "(if the Indians prefer it) |
| Fr'co Lopez | 6 servants 1 servant |
120 mantas 50 lbs. maize planted. |
| Lopez de Villanueva |
50 mantas 2 servants 2 servants 3 servants |
20 xiquipiles of
cacao 40 tostones 200 feathers 7 xiquipiles of cacao |
| Luarca | 10 servants | 150 tostones |
| A. Marroquin | 10 servants | 60 gold pesos |
| B. Marroquin | 6 servants | 100 tostones |
Mendez de Sotomayor |
150 mantas 3 servants |
31 .5 xiquipiles of
cacao 30 mantas (app. large mantas: , they were from the town of Cuilco in the west near the Chiapas border) |
| Monterroso | 12 servants |
200 tostones |
| Morales |
4 servants 3 servants 2 servants 6 servants |
20 gold pesos 7.5 xiquipiles of cacao 20 tostones 200 lbs. planted, maize 20 mantas |
| Ovalle |
300 lbs. planted, wheat 6 servants |
50 mantas from Xacaltenango 80 tostones |
| Ovid |
5 servants |
80 tostones |
| Paez |
300 lbs. planted, wheat 5 servants |
40 mantas (from Aguacatlan) 14 xiquipiles of cacao (from Çacapula) |
| A. Paredes | 4 servants 200 lbs. planted, maize |
20 gold pesos 25 " |
| P. Paredes | 6 servants | 100 tostones |
| L. Perez | 4 servants | 10 xiquipiles of cacao |
| Perez Dardon | 12 servants 20 servants |
40 xiquipiles of
cacao 150 gold pesos |
| Perez Peñate | 2 servants 3 herders |
10 gold pesos 10 " " |
| Pulgar | 2 servants | 10 gold pesos |
| Resino | 3 servants 5 " |
50 tostones 75 " |
| Rodas |
6 servants 3 " |
100 " 40 " |
| Rodriguez Cabrillo |
3 servants |
7 xiquipiles of cacao |
| Salazar |
4 servants |
40 large mantas (from Xutiapa) |
| C. Salvatierra |
5 servants 6 " |
14 xiquipiles of cacao 200 lbs. planted, maize |
| R. Salvatierra |
2 servants |
40 tostones |
| F. Sanchez |
4 servants 1 servant |
20 gold pesos 5 " " |
| Sanchez Santiago |
2 servants 2 " |
30 mantas 30 " |
| Sanchez Tamborino |
4 servants 1 servant |
15 gold pesos 5 " " |
| Utiel |
4 servants |
10 xiquipiles of cacao |
| Velasco |
2 servants 4 " |
40 mantas (from Cuchil, #11, now
part
of Nebaj) 50 " (from Uçumacintlan, #71, now part of S. Pedro Necta) |
|
Modal Exchange Values: |
|
|
|
1 Toston (1/2 silver peso ) |
1 manta |
|
|
|
.067 servant |
|
|
|
.1 67 xiquipil of cacao |
|
|
|
.333 gold peso |
|
|
|
3 lbs+ maize planted |
|
|
|
.10 herder |
|
|
100bs maize planted |
37.5 tostones |
|
|
|
37.5 mantas |
|
|
|
12.5 gold pesos |
|
|
|
9.0 xiquipiles of
cacao |
|
|
|
3. servants |
|
|
1 manta |
1 toston |
|
|
|
.067 servant |
|
|
|
.167 xiquipil of
cacao |
|
|
|
.333 gold peso |
|
|
|
3 lbs. maize planted |
|
.10 herder |
||
| 1 servant/year |
15 tostones |
|
|
15 mantas |
||
|
5 gold pesos |
||
|
2.5 xiquipiles of
cacao |
||
|
3.- lbs. maize planted |
||
|
1.5 herders |
||
|
100 feathers |
||
1 herder |
10 tostones |
|
|
10 mantas |
||
|
3.3 gold pesos |
||
|
1 .67 xiquipiles of
cacao |
||
|
2 lb. maize planted |
||
1 xiquipil of cacao |
6 tostones |
|
|
6 mantas |
||
|
2 gold pesos |
||
|
.13 lb. maize planted |
||
|
.4 servant |
||
1 gold peso |
3 tostones |
|
|
9. lbs. maize
planted |
||
|
3 mantas |
||
|
.5 xiquipiles of cacao |
||
|
.2 servant |
||