[19] Virtually every Castilian city, town, and village had property of its own that was reserved for the use or benefit of the community as a whole. Much of this property had its origin during the Reconquest, when lands were assigned to the colonists of a newly founded town. Other community-owned lands were established much later by royal grants or privilegios, perhaps in exchange for some favor. In most cases these royal grants simply authorized the municipality to appropriate a certain portion of the  tierras baldías within its jurisdiction for use as arable land or as pasture for the common benefit. But not all municipal property originated through royal grants. Some town councils, apparently confusing seigneurial jurisdiction with landownership, would get the lord of the area to give his permission for a quantity of land to be reserved for community use. The nobility in this way was sometimes able illegally to control the local tierras baldías . But the most common procedure used by municipalities to secure additional lands for community use was simply to appropriate what they wanted from the  tierras baldías , using no authority other than their own (Vassberg 1974: 388; Nieto 1964: 54-7).

Probably because of the frequency with which the  tierras baldías were used as the source of municipal property, in the sixteenth century there was only a vague distinction between  tierras baldías and tierras concegiles (lands of the town council). In fact, the phrase tierras baldías concegiles was often used to describe property possessed by the municipalities, despite the fact that the juxtaposition of baldías and concegiles represented a contradiction of terms. Historians have used several different terms for municipal property ownership. Joaquín Costa called it 'agrarian collectivism' and Rafael Altamira used 'communal ownership'. But these terms are not appropriate for all the types of property involved. Noel Salomon's 'community property' would be far better (1964: 134-5) because it embraces the two basic [20] forms of municipal property: commons and propios. However, 'community property' is too inclusive for clarity, because it can also be applied to the  tierras baldías. That is why this chapter is entitled 'Municipal property', embracing the holdings of the local community and administered by the municipal council.

The juridical origin of the property of the Castilian municipalities was complex. As indicated above, some was acquired through royal or seigneurial grant. But the origin of many municipal holdings was unknown, even at an early date, because of the loss or destruction of records. Hence, many towns based the ownership of their property on 'possession from time immemorial' (posesión de tiempo inmemorial, or some similar formula), which was usually accepted by Castilian courts. Some towns had acquired their property through purchase, or through the arbitration of some dispute; others through court decisions resolving lawsuits. In early modern Castile there was a strong feeling of the inviolability of municipal property (Nieto 1964: 58-60). In his Política para corregidores y señores de vasallos, en tiempo de paz y de guerra (Madrid, 1597), the noted authority Jerónimo Castillo de Bobadilla asserted that neither the king nor the lords (even in seigneurial towns) had any proprietary right to municipal lands. ⁽¹⁾

The process of the Reconquest encouraged the development of strong municipalities with large property holdings. The Castilian kings of the time continuously sought ways to strengthen their own authority. This brought them into a confrontation with the nobles. And in Spain (as in the rest of Europe) the kings courted the support of the townspeople, trying to gain their favor by strengthening the municipalities - both the older cities and the newly conquered or newly founded ones. To provide the towns with a strong financial position, the monarchs were magnanimous in grants of property and of prerogatives. The municipal councils were usually allowed to supervise the apportionment (repartimiento) of local lands among Christian settlers who came to live there. And the towns were also granted extensive lands of their own. The municipalities founded in the first centuries of the Reconquest got their property by virtue of their charters (cartas de poblaci ó n). Sometimes the charters granted only the right to use certain types of property (which included not only land, but also markets, slaughterhouses, and other public facilities) but gradually the right of usage was transformed into full ownership. Christian settlers moving into newly reconquered areas liked to go where there was a rich municipal government, because [21] that promised economic benefits and more freedom. And the crown tended to think it easier to deal with strong cities than with strong nobles. Thus, from the very beginning Castile had strong municipal governments that controlled large amounts of property (Nieto 1964: 103-13; Higueras 1961: 112-13; Alvarez 1963: 8-18).

The property owned by the Castilian municipalities fell into two distinct juridical categories. On the one hand was common property, set aside for the free use of the residents of the place. On the other hand there were the propios , also called  propios de los pueblos, propios de los concejos, or bienes de  propios. The  propios were lands or any other kind of property owned by the municipality as a juridical entity. Legally, the  propios were treated as private property owned by the town government. They were usually rented out by the town council, with the proceeds going to defray the costs of public works or toward lightening local tax assessments. Municipal property of the propio type had existed in Spain as far back as Roman times. The ager colonicus of the Roman cities were usually rented out for short terms, and could not legally be leased for periods exceeding five years. During the Middle Ages, the Spanish monarchs tried to provide their newly founded (or newly conquered) municipalities with a strong financial position by granting them extensive  propios (Vassberg 1974: 389-90). Usually the  propios were in the form of land to rent out for income, but the kings often also turned over to the municipalities certain taxes and other royal perquisites. Because of the need for defense in areas bordering on Moslem states, the Reconquest monarchs were especially generous to frontier cities such as Toledo, and later, Seville and Murcia. The need for defense against the Moslems continued even after the taking of the kingdom of Granada in 1492. In recognition of this, Queen Isabella gave the cities of Granada, Málaga, and Almería a number of Islamic sources of revenue (the tiguales and haguela, and the office of gelices) to add to their propios to aid them in funding coastal defense against Moslem pirates (Alvarez 1963: 8-18).

Despite royal largesse, municipal treasuries tended to be perpetually short of funds. Cities with the greatest incomes also had the greatest expenses. To improve their financial position, the municipalities were constantly on the watch for opportunities to add to their propios. [22] Sometimes this was effected through purchase. For example, in 1284 the city of Toledo bought from Fernando III the 2,500 square kilometer area known as the Montes de Toledo for the sum of 45,000 gold alfonsís. The Montes then became a propio of the city, which profited from its investment by charging fees for the use of the land and the other resources of the area (Weisser 1976: 24-5). Another way of getting additional propios was to take lands at a perpetual rent (enfiteusis, or censo perpetuo), as the town of Villarramiel de Campos (Palencia) did in 1466 (Fernández Martín 1955: 61-3, 92-5). More propios could also be obtained by encroaching on the local tierras baldías . Sometimes this was done with the connivance of the local lord. For example, the city of Arcos de la Frontera (Cádiz) got the permission of the duke of Arcos to plow 1,534 fanegas of tierras baldías for use as its  propios . And some places, such as the village of Parada de Rubiales (Salamanca), secured title to new  propios as the result of the arbitration of disputes with local landowners. ⁽²⁾

In the thirteenth-century code of law, the Código de las partidas (partida III, título 28, ley 10)  propios were thus defined:

The cities or towns can have fields, and vines, and orchards, and olive groves, and other property, and livestock, and slaves and other similar things that themselves produce fruit or that provide income, and although they belong in common to all the dwellers of the city or town to which they belong, nevertheless the people can not use such things as these for their individual benefit; rather, the fruits and income coming from them shall be used for the public welfare of the entire city or village . . . such as maintaining the walls or gates, or the fortresses, or holding the castles, or paying contributions, or in other similar things pertaining to the general welfare of all the city or town. ⁽³⁾

The character and the value of  propios varied enormously from place to place. Most propios were in the form of land, which was rented out for cultivation or for pasture. But, as has already been established,  propios could include any type of income-producer. And some towns came to acquire some unusual  propios . For example: Cieza (Murcia) owned a tavern (mes ó n) and some salt works (salinas) (Salmerón 1777: 91, 99); Monteagudo (Cuenca) owned a half interest in an oven, and a half-interest in a two-stone grain mill ; ⁽⁴⁾ and Cazorla (Jaén) was the owner of a tile works (tejar) and a half interest (the other half was owned by the nearby city of Ubeda) in a ferry crossing the Guadalquivir (Polaino 1967: 75-7). It was quite common for the revenue from certain propios to be earmarked for specific purposes. For instance, the city of Baeza (Jaén) owned as  propios a large quantity of land, the proceeds from which were designated for the city's public granary (pósito). In some cases, the  propios were created expressly for the purpose of funding a certain need. The city of Toro (Valladolid) is a good example: it needed funds to pay for hiring the carts that were used to help move the court of the Emperor Charles V from Valladolid to Madrid. Therefore it requested, and received royal approval to plow a certain piece of land, and to rent it out as apropio to help defray the moving costs. ⁽⁵⁾

Some places had few  propios, or even none. In 1586 residents of the town of Castilbianco (Badajoz) testified that the place had no propios at all. ⁽⁶⁾ On the other hand, cities like Toledo were rich in  propios. Toledo had its Montes, from which it collected an annual tax called the doçavo, representing one-twelfth of the annual production of the area. This was a huge amount, yet it represented only one of Toledo's  propios (Weisser 1976: 25). Another extraordinarily wealthy city was Trujillo (Cáceres), whose  propios included not only land, granted at the establishment of the municipality after the Reconquest, but also houses, corrals, property mortgages, and income from various taxes and fines. The most important of Trujillo's propios were thirty-six dehesas (enclosed pastures) known as caballerías, so named probably because they had originally been granted to noble warriors of the [24] Reconquest. But at an early date the caballerías were listed among the  propios of Trujillo, and the city rented them out, with the proceeds going into the municipal treasury to be used for various projects in the common interest. In 1485, for example, income from the caballerías was used to help pay the soldiers from the area who went to fight the Moors in Granada (Vassberg 1978: 53-4).

Despite laws designed to prevent such abuses, the councilmen of Trujillo fell into the practice of renting the caballerías almost exclusively to their noble friends and relatives. In 1502 Ferdinand and Isabella put an end to such favoritism by ordering that commoners living in the vicinity be given preference in the renting of the caballerías. However, these dehesas were so huge that the area and the expense were beyond the capabilities of most peasants. Consequently it became the practice for groups of peasants - as many as a dozen - to form partnerships in renting them. Some caballerías were rented by the councils of towns in the jurisdiction of Trujillo, who would then apportion them among local residents. Rental contracts for the caballerías were awarded by the city on the basis of competitive bidding. They were for periods as long as seven years, and could be for pasture, for cultivation, or for a combination of both. Payment was usually monetary, but occasionally was partly in grain. There were also seasonal leases for pasture, especially designed to accommodate the itinerant Mesta flocks (Vassberg 1978: 53-4).

The normal method of exploiting the  propios was to rent them for short periods. Long leases were generally looked upon with disfavor, because they smacked of favoritism. For example, in the late 1400s the city of Cáceres, which (like Trujillo) possessed enormous dehesas as  propios , was forced progressively to decrease the length of its rental contracts (Orti 1954 243-4). The crown, sensitive to expressions of popular indignation from Cßceres, ordered the city to change from five-year to four-year contracts, and finally to contracts of one or two years. ⁽⁷⁾

The  propios , unlike common lands, were not legally inalienable goods as such. They were considered to be at the free disposition of their owners, and not different from private property in relation to the nature and extension of property rights. But in practice, the municipalities in Spain (as in the rest of Europe) did not sell their  propios except in extraordinary circumstances. They tended, rather, to keep what they owned, and to increase their ownership of property [25] whenever possible - quite understandable, because in many places the  propios constituted the town's major source of income, and helped pay taxes to the crown. If a municipal council did sell part of its  propios , it might be called to task in a lawsuit launched by some vigilant citizen or jealous official (Cárdenas 1873: II, 181-2; Ulloa 1963: 436). This, in fact, happened in the 1560s in the village of Sueros de Cepeda (Le ó n), when the council sold some questionable property. Therefore, it was prudent to secure royal approval before selling  propios , as the council of Cazorla (Jaén) did in 1561 when it needed funds to pay certain debts. ⁽⁸⁾

But if the towns did not normally sell their  propios , they displayed no similar reluctance to mortgage them to provide ready cash for emergencies.  Propios could not be mortgaged without specific royal license. But this was not difficult to obtain, particularly in those cases where the crown was to be the recipient of the borrowed money. For example, in 1585 the town of Ledanca (Guadalajara) purchased from the crown certain lands for a price of 1,978,375 mrs. The sale contract provided for the price to be paid in two equal installments in 1585 and 1586. But the town council was unable to raise the amount of the first payment. Nor could it even raise one-third of the money, after the crown had agreed to a three-payment schedule. In danger of losing the newly purchased land through foreclosure, the town council petitioned the crown to allow it to mortgage its  propios for an amount equal to the first two installments. The crown approved the request, allowing the council to mortgage its  propios for 1,318,917 mrs (the requested sum) at the best terms it could find, so long as the interest rate did not exceed 7.14 percent. ⁽⁹⁾

The theoretical legal distinction between  propios and common property was perfectly clear. In practice, however, the difference could be quite hazy. In some communities, for example, a pasture might be for common use insofar as grass was concerned, but the acorns and branches of trees on the land might be sold as  propios . And there were cases where a piece of property was treated as commons during part of the year, but rented out as a propio for the remainder of the year. For example, the town of Priego (Córdoba) owned a pasture that was used as commons for eight months out of the year, during which it was reserved exclusively for draft animals. But from November through February of each year it was rented out as pasture to the highest bidder. There were also places where community [26] property was used some years as commons and other years as propios, depending upon local needs as perceived by the municipal council (Vassberg 1974: 390).

The indistinct character of community property was accentuated by the fact that the propios had frequently been usurped from the commons, and both had frequently been usurped from the baldíos. Furthermore, it seems that in the early centuries of the Reconquest there had been no distinction between  propios and common land - everything was for common use. But many towns possessed far more common land than they needed, and they rented part of the surplus to apply the proceeds to various expenses of the municipality, hence laying the basis for the differentiation between two types of community property (Cárdenas 1873:11, 181-2; Alvarez 1963: 8-11).

Sometimes, though apparently this was rare, municipalities were able to acquire temporary  propios by getting royal permission to use a certain portion of  tierras baldías as propios for a limited time. This privilege was extended to the towns in the jurisdiction of the city of Jaén in 1590 so the revenues thereby gained could be used to pay the servicio de millones (a tax for rebuilding the Armada). But it was far more prevalent for towns to appropriate lands from the baldíos for their  propios without the proper royal authority - an illegal but much used procedure. Some towns even usurped their own commons to add to their  propios . One municipality that did so was Iscar (Valladolid), the council of which would take over a portion of commons at the death of its possessor and add it to the propios of the town, charging rent from the next occupier of the plot (Vassberg 1974: 390-1).

Whereas  propios could be used only by paying rent, common property was (at least theoretically) for the free use of all the residents of the municipality. There existed several types of commons. The most prevalent were lands used for pasture or cultivation, but there were also other types of commons, all of which will be dealt with in the following sections.
 

Castilian municipalities possessed lands of several types that were used for pasture. The ejido (usually spelled exido in the sixteenth century) was a multi-purpose piece of land that could serve as [27] pasture. The ejido (derived from the Latin exitus, meaning exit) was an area of land situated just outside the town, or at its exit. It was not planted or cultivated, because it was reserved for use as a threshing floor, as a garbage dump, for loafing, and as a keeping-place for stray animals. Virtually every little village and town seems to have had its ejido , which was considered to be a necessary part of municipal life (Salomon 1964 140, fl. 5). Some  ejidos were established at the founding of a new settlement; others later, as the growing population demanded that type of property. For example, in 1353 the city of Trujillo designated  ejidos for its most populous subject villages, because the villagers considered it an undue hardship to exist without that type of facility (Naranjo 1929 187-8). The larger the municipality, the larger the  ejido would have to be. Some cities, in fact, had several  ejidos. The city of Andújar (Jaén) is an extreme example, boasting five  ejidos in the mid-sixteenth century. ⁽¹⁰⁾ But in that particular case, we should suspect that the term  ejido was used rather loosely.

The  ejido was available for the free use of the vecinos of a place. But non-vecinos were normally excluded, and there were fines for violators. For example, in the 15405 the village of Valdetorres (Badajoz) levied a fine of 100 mrs per flock of outsiders' animals who entered its ejido by day, and 200 mrs by night. The fines in this case were mild, but the seizure of the transgressing animals to ensure payment of the fine represented a great nuisance to the animal owners. In fact, in the example at hand, there arose a lawsuit between Valdetorres and the neighboring village of Guareña, over the question of fines and the exact boundaries of the  ejido . ⁽¹¹⁾

Because the use of certain communal pastures (as in the case of the  ejido of Valdetorrcs) was contingent upon having vecino status, it became vital for an animal owner to secure official recognition as a vecino. This normally was not a problem, particularly for native-born residents of the place. But there could be difficulties for newcomers who moved in. People from other regions of Spain, and even from neighboring villages, were considered to be 'outsiders' (forasteros) by sixteenth-century Castilians. Yet, despite their prejudice against outsiders, a municipal council would not normally be reluctant to confer vecino status on anyone who moved to the place, so long as he had his household and livelihood there, particularly if he was a potential taxpayer. But at times the town council was dilatory in certifying new residents as vecinos, perhaps because of rural sluggishness, perhaps because of the inborn suspicion of the 'foreigner', or [28] perhaps because of personality clashes or other factors. The council of Poveda de la Obispalía (Cuenca) acknowledged in 1578 that it did not wish to admit as a vecino a certain new resident who had lived in the village for eight months - perhaps because of the fact that he owned no property, and the council recognized that he would be a tax liability. The delay in granting vecino status, for whatever reason, could cause problems for the person involved, not only locally, but also in adjoining towns. Look what happened to Luis Alvarez, who moved to the town of Canillas de Aceituno (Málaga) in 1552: after he had lived in Canillas for around a year, with his wife and children, his herds of hundreds of goats, and his several servants and slaves, Alvarez was treated as a vecino in Canillas. But the local council never got around to officially certifying his status, and this got him in trouble with the government of nearby Vélez Málaga, which denied him certain pasture rights there on the grounds that he was not really a vecino of Canillas. ⁽¹²⁾

The importance of the  ejido , and the uses to which it was put, varied enormously from place to place. One local historian describes the  ejidos of the villages in the jurisdiction of the city of Badajoz as ægooseyards or duckyards' (ejidos ansareros o patineros) where domestic fowl and animals were left to wander about (Rodríguez Amaya 1951 433). By contrast, in 1522 the council of Albánchez de Ubeda (Jaén) created a new  ejido that was closed to all small animals and to fullgrown mares and cows. It was to be a special place for colts, calves, and asses. ⁽¹³⁾

The dehesa (from the Latin defensa, meaning enclosed) was land that was enclosed, at least theoretically, and usually destined for pasture. The dehesa frequently had some trees growing on it, and was often partly under cultivation. The term dehesa did not automatically suggest common property. Whereas all  ejidos were commons, dehesas could be common property,  propios , or even privately owned. Virtually every Castilian municipality had at least one common dehesa. And if it had only one dehesa, that one would almost surely be a dehesa boyal -- an enclosed pasture reserved exclusively for plow animals. Dehesa boyal literally means pasture for oxen, and these pastures were no doubt originally created exclusively for oxen. But in the sixteenth century mules gradually displaced oxen as the most prevalent draft [29] animals. Consequently, mules were allowed to share the use of the dehesa boyal (Vassberg 1974: 39,). Although the most-often used name given to common pasture for draft animals was dehesa boyal, there were some interesting regional variations. In Chinchilla (Albacete) it was a dehesa buyalaje or dehesa buyalage, ⁽¹⁴⁾ and in Cieza (in neighboring Murcia province) it was a dehesa boialage (Salmerón 1777: 91). In Aliaguilla (Cuenca) the name was dehesa boalaxe ⁽¹⁵⁾ and in certain mountainous areas of the province of Le ó n, these pastures were called boirías or bueyerías (Martín Galindo n. d.: 31-2 1961:177).

The ubiquitous existence of the dehesa boyal is significant, because it demonstrates the complementary relationship between stockraising and agriculture in the early modern Castilian economy. According to tradition, this type of special pasture was founded by Alfonso X (1252-84, called The Wise), who granted from the tierras realengas the use of 3 aranzadas of land per pair of oxen, to be used for the benefit of poor peasants (Salomon 1964: 135, n. 3; 136-7). The tradition notwithstanding, the dehesa boyal surely had existed long before the 1200s. However, in the early Reconquest, when the population was small in relationship to the amount of locally available  tierras baldías, there might have been little incentive to create a special dehesa boyal. But as the local pasture resources became strained, the desirability of a special ox pasture would be felt. The maturing of small settlements into municipalities, and the desire of town councils to enjoy the prerogatives of their neighbors would also explain the proliferation of dehesas boyales. In 1497 Ferdinand and Isabella ordered the corregidor of Soria to establish dehesas boyales for the villages in Soria's jurisdiction that lacked them. These newly established dehesas were probably adequate when they were founded, but in some places they soon became too small. In fifty years the population of the Sorian village of Pozalmuro trebled, growing from 25 or 30 vecinos to about 80, and the original dehesa boyal was too small for all the oxen of the place. Therefore, in 1556 the village council created a new and much larger dehesa boyal which was sufficient for local needs. It was imperative to provide adequate pastures for draft animals. This need was so acute that peasants were willing to make sacrifices to ensure that their oxen could be properly fed. For example, the villagers of Higuera de Calatrava (Jaén) voluntarily agreed to reduce the size of the local fanega of cultivated land from 12 celemines to 10, to enable them to add to their dehesa boyal. This [30] altered standard of measurement not only reduced the size of their fields, but also raised their rent payments, which were based on the fanega. ⁽¹⁶⁾

The size, the location, and the character of the dehesa boyal differed, according to local geographical and historical factors. The charter of the Mesta, an organization which was interested because its flocks could be excluded from these pastures, stipulated that the dehesa boyal should be limited in size to 3 aranzadas per pair of oxen in the town - the formula used by Alfonso X (Caxa 1631: 122). But some were much smaller, and others were far larger than that: whereas Hontova (Guadalajara), a town of 170 vecinos, had a small dehesa boyal of only about 20 fanegas (Salomon 1964: 32 137, n. 1), the town of Ajalvir (Madrid), with 124 vecinos, had one nearly eight times bigger, measuring a quarter league by an eighth of a league. The dehesa boyal of Ajalvir had some live oak trees (encinas and coscojas) growing on it (Relaciones: Madrid, p. 5). It was desirable to have a few trees in any pasture: they provided protection from sun, wind, and rain, and in a period of drought - all too frequent in most parts of the peninsula - the low-hanging branches could be used as emergency forage. The dehesa boyal would usually be located near the village, in a location where there was pasture, shade, and water. Large and wealthy cities, of course, had more than one dehesa boyal. The city of Andújar (Jaén) had five, dispersed in such a way that every peasant must have had one convenient to both field and home. Even some modest villages also possessed multiple dehesas boyales. The village of Aliaguilla (Cuenca), for instance, had three in the 1580s. ⁽¹⁷⁾

The dehesa boyal was normally reserved for the exclusive use of animals of vecinos of the place. Fines were levied on outsiders' animals and on non-draft animals. But since the dehesa boyal was usually one of the best pastures of a locality, it was difficult to keep out the wrong kind of animals. The integrity of these dehesas was always being threatened. A law of 1438 had to be formulated to stop influential local figures from introducing illegal livestock into the dehesa boyal (Novísima recopilación, libro vii, título xxv, ley I). The town of El Puente del Arzobispo (Toledo) was very specific in its Ordinances of 1547 about what animals were permitted in its large and inviting dehesa boyal. Specifically excluded were mares, horses, mules, sheep, goats, and hogs. And it was stipulated that only oxen that were broken (domados) and actually used for field work had the right to use the dehesa. ⁽¹⁸⁾

[31] In some places the dehesa boyal was only reserved for draft animals during a specified portion of the year. For example, for towns in the jurisdiction of Soria, the reserved period was from 1 March to Martinmas (II November). In distant Priego (Córdoba) the reserved period was almost identical: from 1 March to 1 November. During the non-reserved portion of the year, some places - like the villages of Soria - opened their dehesas boyales to all types of animals. Others, such as Priego, treated the dehesa boyal as a propio during the non-reserved period, and rented it out to the highest bidder During the rented period, it became a dehesa acotada (meaning enclosed) or vedada (meaning forbidden). And some towns, when pressed by financial necessity, occasionally rented parts of their dehesas boyales, even during the 'reserved' period, to provide emergency funds. The council of Aliaguilla (Cuenca) which had three dehesas boyales, did so from time to time in the late 1500s to help pay taxes. ⁽¹⁹⁾ Here was another example of the flexible character of municipal property, which unquestionably made it more valuable to the municipalities and to their citizens.

The Relaciones (answers to royal questionnaires sent out to all the towns of the realm in the late 1570s) show that the Castilian municipalities owned many common dehesas that were not specifically boyales (Salomon 1964: 136). Some of these were open to all animals without discrimination, while others were earmarked for the exclusive use of certain types of animals, the raising of which the municipal government wished to encourage. Throughout the sixteenth century there was uneasiness about the shortage of horses in Spain - a shortage caused by incessant war and by the production of mules (for agriculture and for transport) rather than horses. The Cortes (national assembly) of Castile regularly voiced its concern about the situation, and in 1573 asked the crown to allow the creation, out of the baldíos, of local dehesas de yeguas (for mares), reserved exclusively for broodmares and their young (Actas: iv, 471). Most Castilian municipalities possessed neither the space nor the funds to establish such broodmare pastures. The city of Trujillo (Cáceres), however, had both, and in 1574, with royal authorization, it began to establish a dehesa de yeguas, buying for that purpose a number of vineyards and orchards in addition to uncultivated lands. ⁽²⁰⁾

Another special-purpose pasture was the dehesa carnicera (fattening pasture). Technically, this was not a common pasture as such, but it was often selected from one of the common dehesas, sometimes on a [32] rotating basis. The dehesa carnicera was reserved for the herd of the town butcher. To provide better and cheaper meat, town government' typically allowed the butcher's herd to have the free use of a certain dehesa, or dehesas, or parts of certain dehesas. Sometimes the butcher got other special privileges as well, particularly in small towns where there were scanty profits in the meat business. The council of Puebla del Príncipe (Cuenca), a town of only 93 vecinos in 1595, put it very well: 'Because it is a town with such a small population, and poor, and with such a small consumption of meat, no one would want to take charge of the butcher shop, if we did not exempt him from the sales tax [alcabala] and give him a portion of the town's dehesa, which is called the butcher's quarter, and pasture rights in the town's vineyards, and summer pasture rights in another dehesa . . .' Notice that Puebla del Príncipe did not have a separate dehesa carnicera but used parts of two dehesas for that purpose. Places with even more limited resources might have to make a single dehesa serve several ends. The town of Monroy (Cáceres), for instance, had a dehesa which served as the dehesa boyal, as the dehesa carnicera, and which also served as pasture for cattle (ganado vacuno). ⁽²¹⁾

A term that was often used interchangeably with dehesa was coto (from the Latin cautus, meaning guarded). A coto was an enclosed piece of land much like the dehesa. The theoretical difference between the two seems to be that whereas the dehesa was normally partly in pasture, the coto could be wholly cultivated. But, in practice, this difference was usually not relevant, because most cotos were used partly for pasture (Vassberg 1974: 39,; Costa 1898: 284). Consequently, sixteenth-century Castilians did not distinguish between the two. In some places the dehesa boyal was a coto boyal, and in others the dehesa carnicera was a coto carnicero. ⁽²²⁾ Regardless of which term was used, the basic principle was that the piece of land - dehesa or coto -- was 'enclosed'. This was seldom true in a literal sense of being fenced, but usually only in the sense that they were not merely baldío but had distinct borders, and had some type of restriction, however minimal, placed by the local government on their use (Caxa 1631: 142).

Another type of pasture was the prado (from the Latin pratum, meaning meadow). The prado was an unusually high-quality pasture. Typically it was a plot of humid land, along a river or in some well-watered [33] spot, or it was irrigated land. Grass was allowed to grow in the prado, or forage crops were planted there. In semi-arid Castile, not every place could have a prado. Even the well-watered mountain areas of the north could not have an unlimited number of prados, because the prados had to compete with the arable plots for terrain. And since croplands are more efficient food producers than pasturelands, the prados were always menaced by the plow. ⁽²³⁾

In addition to the especially designated pasture areas, there was also common pasture in the spaces between cultivated fields. These were the entrepanes, literally the spaces between fields of grain - by far the most prevalent crop. The entrepanes were common pasture. However, because of the difficulty of keeping animals from moving into the grain fields on both sides, the entrepanes were practically off-limits until after harvest. Some localities had ordinances prohibiting grazing in the entrepanes until mid-August, or until the harvest had been completed. ⁽²⁴⁾ Thus, in practice, the derrota de mieses often applied to the entrepanes as well as to the stubble of the fields. It was mentioned earlier that the derrota applied to vineyards, after harvest. In Los Santos de Maimona (Badajoz), the municipal ordinances of 1583 also extended until the end of May the right to reap the spontaneous vegetation in unworked vineyards, so long as no animals were let in to damage the vines (Guerra 1952: 512).

Theoretically, common lands were available for the free use of everyone. But in practice, as we have seen, the commons of a place were likely to be restricted to officially certified vecinos. For all vecinos the local commons were free, in theory, and usually also in practice. The chief beneficiaries of the system, seemingly, were the landless poor and the small landowners. But the upper-class-dominated municipal governments championed the integrity of the commons. Even the hidalgos, who tended to be upper-class landowners whom one would not think to be likely supporters of the communitarian system, at times staunchly defended it, even against wayward municipalities. In 1515 a group of over a dozen hidalgos from the village of Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Cáceres) brought legal action against the village council for failing to respect the integrity of the local  ejido and dehesa boyal. There were times when even the most principled municipal council had to put a temporary tax on the use of common [34] property, because of financial exigencies. Such a tax would not excite much opposition if it was truly temporary, nominal, and fairly administered. Linking taxpaying with the use of common property, however, was contrary to the principle of common rights. And it could cause problems with the hidalgos, who claimed exemptions from most forms of taxation. In Fuente Obejuna (Córdoba) the town council insisted that no one could use the local  ejido and dehesa boyal who did not pay taxes (pechos). And it insisted that even hidalgos had to pay taxes if they wished to enjoy the common rights of the ordinary citizens of the town. ⁽²⁵⁾

However, despite the principle of equality in the use of common property, not all people really received equal treatment. It is hard to believe, for example, that municipal officials and other powerful local figures did not get an extra-large share. According to Antonio Domínguez Ortiz (1971: 157), the lord of a place was considered to have a double share. The local lord might have other special privileges as well. In Monroy (Cáceres), he was allowed to pasture his sheep and goats in the town's dehesa boyal, whereas all such animals belonging to ordinary vecinos were excluded. And in the late 1580s there were some places still clinging to the medieval practice of assigning blocks of municipal property to caballeros cuantiosos, warriors who were obliged, in exchange, to maintain a horse and arms for defense against the Moors. In Cehegín (Murcia) these caballeros were granted lands called caballerías for life. But by 1583 the danger from the Moors seemed remote, and the town council was assigning the caballerías not to able-bodied warriors, but to the council members themselves, and even to children or to others who were unfit to bear arms in the event of war. ⁽²⁶⁾

One would not have to look far to find other examples of unequal treatment in the allocation of common resources. And certainly, the municipal councils were often to blame, since they controlled the system. But on the whole, the councils seem to have discharged their responsibilities regarding the property under their control - a most difficult task - with surprising equity. It is facile to assert, as does Angel García Sanz in his excellent work on Segovia (1977: 264-85), that the municipal government reflected the interests of the propertied classes. That assertion is correct. But in all fairness, it must be stated that the government also looked after the interests of the lower classes, who were the chief beneficiaries of many of the communitarian regulations enforced by the municipality.

[35] The common lands were limited. Some could be expanded, and many were expanded several times, usually at the expense of adjoining tierras baldías . Where these were lacking, the councils of some villages, like Moya (Cuenca), went so far as to rent lands in neighboring places, in an effort to provide adequate pastures. ⁽²⁷⁾ But somewhere there was a limit to the capacity of common pastures to accommodate the animals of the local population. Where there was no regulation of the use of common pasture other than the custom that each person tried to benefit as much as he could from it, there was a potential danger of overtaxing the local resources. Overgrazing could fatally disrupt the local ecology, and had to be avoided, for the benefit of everyone.

The city of Segovia and its subject villages - except in those mountainous zones where pasture was abundant - met this problem by limiting the number of livestock that each vecino could pasture in the local commons. The 1514 ordinances of Segovia and its Tierra (territory, including subject villages under its jurisdiction) specified that vecino status gave a village resident the right to graze in the common pastures a maximum of 100 head of sheep, 1 ram, 1 mare, 2 cows, and 2 goats. If, in addition to being a vecino, a person was also an important landowner (heredero, with 50 obradas of land, or 25 obradas of land plus 10 aranzadas of vineyard), then he was allowed twice as many animals in each category. The double-maximum for larger landowners was not necessarily unfair: after all, the landowners contributed to the amount of common pasture through the derrota de mieses (García Sanz 1977: 264-76).

There were other places that also established a maximum number of animals for their vecinos. For example, in Zaratán (Valladolid), the ordinances of 1539 limited each vecino to a maximum of 100 sheep. Villada (Palencia) had almost the same rule, except that lambs were not counted until St Peter's Day. But the 1524 ordinances of Aguilafuerte (Segovia) were more generous: they allowed 220 head per vecino. And in Valderas (León -- ordinances of 1583 and 1585) the maximum was 300 sheep and goats, with the proviso that there be no more than 1 goat per 20 ewes; and no more than 12 cows and horses per vecino, not including draft animals. But the ordinances of Santa Fe (Granada) placed a limitation only in the number of hogs. The number there was 5 per vecino of the city, which was justified because there was a limited amount of space in the area, and too many hogs would have posed a danger to the local irrigation ditches. [36] There were also some places that limited the pasturage of animals only during a specified part of the year. For example, the town of Zaratán (Valladolid -- ordinances of 1539) banned all sheep from its territory from 11 November until Easter. If the local guards found a flock there during this prohibited period, they could kill three animals from it, the slaughtered animals to be sold, with proceeds to be used for the maintenance of the town's walls. In nearby Fuensaldaña, by contrast, the ordinances of 1576 excluded animals only during December, January, and February. During the period of proscription, to be sure, all local animals were expected to be grazed outside the town's jurisdiction, in others areas with better pasture resources (Lapresa 1955: 609-24; Huetz 1967: 639-41).
 

Much of the pastureland of early modern Castile was in monte (forest woodland). The montes varied greatly in character, ranging from great oak forests to scrub brush, depending upon the location. By the late Middle Ages the forests of Old Castile had already been reduced essentially to the mountainous or hilly areas. Hence, in the Castilian language 'mountain' and 'forest' have the same name - monte. The montes were considered to be common property, and both the crown and the municipalities watched carefully to ensure that everyone got an equitable share. The montes provided several types of pasture: not only were there grass and weeds growing between trees; there was also a valuable pasture resource in the leaves and small branches of certain trees and shrubs; and the acorns of the oaks and live oaks were a highly prized pasture, particularly for swine (Vassberg 1980: 480-1).

Many of the common pastures already described --  ejidos, dehesas, and cotos -- were partly or even wholly in monte of various thickness. In the rugged semi-arid parts of Castile these montes were often of marginal value as pasture. For example, the monte of the Sierra Morena near the city of Andújar (Jaén) was described as being dense with thickets and scrub brush (monte malo y bajo) - the vilest kind of pasture. Yet, one resident of the city insisted that there was no such thing as a 'useless' monte. Another, in 1567, confirmed this, testifying that 'all the livestock of the city . . . pasture in that Sierra . . . and especially goats and cows and mules and pigs and sheep, although [37] wool-producing animals not so much, because the monte and Sierra are so dense that they strip the wool from the animals. . .' ⁽²⁸⁾

Acorns (la bellota) constituted one of the major benefits of the monte. Not all montes had oak trees, of course, but those that were rich in these trees were prized for their acorns. The city of Trujillo (Cáceres), for example, was surrounded by montes made up principally of live oaks. Because its montes supported a flourishing livestock industry, the city government closely supervised their use, to maintain the value of this valuable resource. One of the city's major concerns in regulating the use of its montes was to control the acorn harvest (la montanera), which was a matter of great importance because acorns constituted the final filling-out diet of Trujillo's great herds of swine. It was the city's goal to enable all pig owners to share equally in the acorn harvest. Toward that end, the harvest was strictly supervised by the municipal government. The first acorns were ripe around the beginning of October, and the season lasted until the end of the year, but the swineherds often hastened the harvest by flailing the branches (el vareo) to make the acorns fall within reach of their animals (Vassberg 1978: 50-3). In an effort to guarantee the maximum benefit from the fruit, it was necessary to prohibit early harvesting, before the acorns were fully mature. The date for beginning the harvest varied, depending on the location in the peninsula. In Ubeda and Baeza (Jaén) it was St Luke's Day (18 October), whereas in La Alberca (Salamanca) the season did not start until All Saints' Day (1 November). In some places, such as Ubeda and Baeza, flailing the trees was forbidden on the grounds that it damaged the branches and gave an unfair advantage to the flailer. But in other places, it was customary to use the flail. In 1592 a resident of San Sebastián (Madrid) testified that the people of that village flailed their common oak trees every year, and that as a consequence the harvest did not normally last more than three or four days, after which there would not be a single acorn left. ⁽²⁹⁾

The acorn harvest must have been an exciting and impressive time. According to the council of Montánchez (Cáceres), the local oak woodlands produced an 'infinity' of acorns which supported numerous herds of swine and other large and small animals. ⁽³⁰⁾ And in the Relaciones, the council of Las Mesas (Cuenca) reported (Salomon 1964: 142-3) that in its acorn-rich common monte 'some vecinos gather as much as thirty fanegas [a fanega is about 1.6 bushels], [38] and others twenty, and others ten, and he who gathers the least gets over six fanegas . . .' And, waxing enthusiastic about its monte, the Las Mesas council concluded that 'This monte and dehesa is so good, and so beneficial, that the town would have become depopulated had it not been for the monte, and all the vecinos agree unanimously that the town is worth no more than the monte, and for that reason the monte deserves to be protected with walls and towers, like a castle.' Through the hyperbole, the message is clear: the monte was an exceedingly valuable resource. Acorns were not only used as food for animals, but in famine years they were also ground into a bitter flour from which acorn-bread was made for human consumption.

Since the montes were common, no fee was supposed to be charged for their use, including the gathering of acorns. But the temptation was great to assess a fee for the use of such a valuable crop. In 1543 the city of Cáceres, in the middle of the live oak forest area of Extremadura, suddenly began charging 2.5 reales per head of swine using one of its common dehesas during the acorn season. The result of this abridgement of common rights was a lawsuit which terminated in 1547 with a ruling by the Audiencia (Supreme Tribunal) of Granada that the dehesa was common and that the city had no right to levy a fee for its use. ⁽³¹⁾

The practice of ramoneo (cutting of small branches for use as animal food) was widespread in the montes of Castile. In some places the practice seems to have been the normal order of things. In areas where grass was sparse, or at times when the grass was too dry to be good pasture, livestock would spontaneously graze on the green leaves of shrubs and would stretch up to nibble on the low-lying branches of trees. It was normal for the herders to want to help their charges by cutting down a few branches to bring them within reach. A resident of Valle de Valdeporras (Burgos) described the ramoneo thus: 'They cut branches from the holly, oak, and beech trees [acebos, cajigas, and hayas], and from all the other trees that grow in the place, and at the foot of the trees they give these branches to their animals, who run loose there.' The danger of the ramoneo should be quite obvious: some overzealous herder might prune off so many branches that the trees would be stunted. For that reason, many places allowed the ramoneo only in droughty periods, and even then only with the license of the town council. ⁽³²⁾ The 1583 ordinances of Los Santos de Maimona (Badajoz) prohibited the ramoneo of branches [39] thicker than a hoe handle. And here, as elsewhere in Castile, it was absolutely forbidden to sever the trunk of a tree of any size (Guerra 1952: 507). The danger of excessive pruning was so great that some places, like the city of Trujillo, which had a compelling need to protect its montes, completely forbade the ramoneo. ⁽³³⁾

A widely used remedy for the forbidding tangle of scrub brush and thickets of the monte bajo was clearing by fire. Stockherders learned that fire clearings (rozas) would destroy most of the undesirable underbrush, and that the fire would be followed, in a few weeks, by a tender regrowth that provided an accessible and good pasture in previously unsuitable areas. Caxa de Leruela (1631: 133) defended the fires set by shepherds, saying that 'it is necessary to destroy the underbrush that impedes pasture'. Ideally, some of the larger trees would survive the flames, to provide shade or even acorns for the grazing animals. Of course, many trees would die or would be permanently stunted, but to the livestock owner with hungry flocks, the advantages of fire far outweighed its disadvantages. The stockman meant to set small and controlled fires, but occasionally the wind would whip the flames into a frightful inferno, menacing large areas of woodland, and human and animal populations as well.

Fires were set regularly in the Sierra Morena of Andalucía, which was largely in the kind of scrub brush that was so hated by sheep growers. A resident of Andújar (Jaén) testified that sheep could not pasture very well in the Sierra Morena, because they could not manipulate the area except in the burned places that 'happened' to appear in the monte. It was clear to everyone that these fires had been deliberately set. In 1542 the city of And·jar adopted a new set of ordinances designed to prevent deliberate damage to the monte. It was forbidden to set fire to the montes or to order that such fires be set, under penalty of 2,000 mrs. The authors of the new ordinances knew that there would continue to be 'accidental' fires, and to remove the temptation to instigate them, they made it illegal for cattle and sheep to pasture in the newly burned parts of the monte until three years after the setting of the fire. For goats, who were far more destructive than cows and sheep, the waiting period was four years. These new ordinances so alarmed the local livestock owners that they attempted to have them revoked by the crown. Professing innocence, the stockmen blamed the fires on 'outsiders, beekeepers, hunters, and charcoal makers'. This fooled no one, but it did succeed in retarding the [40] implementation of the new ordinances for several years. But even after the institution of the new regulations, there continued to be fires in the Sierra of Andújar. ⁽³⁴⁾

And the problem was by no means limited to Andújar. In 1536 a vecino of Córdoba reported that stockmen from that city and nearby towns 'Set fire to the montes to expand pasture for their goats [and cows], to get the tender regrowth. . . in such a way that the montes and baldíos of Córdoba have been destroyed and leveled'. In 1555 the Cortes of Castile heard a complaint that in Extremadura, Andalucía, Toledo, and other parts of the kingdom, league after league of monte was being ravaged by the fires of livestock owners and herders. As the damage increased, penalties were made more severe. In Cáceres, for example, an ordinance of 1572 specified a hundred lashes and six years in the galleys (virtually a death sentence), in addition to damages, for anyone convicted of cutting down or burning trees in the local montes. Yet, despite all laws, ordinances, and penalties, there continued to be fires in the montes (Vassberg 1980: 481-4).
 

Common lands that were used for cultivation rather than for pasture required the formulation of more complex rules. The growing of crops not only demanded a far longer occupation of the soil than did grazing; it usually also demanded its exclusive use. A given area of pastureland could be used by a large number of animals belonging to several different people, whereas the same area of land planted to grain had to be monopolized by the sower until the crop was harvested. As long as population was small in relation to the amount of common arable, the rules - whether written or unwritten - governing its use could be few and simple. But the population expanded (the sixteenth century was a period of general demographic expansion), and there was a limit to the amount of land available for each community's use. The growing demand for common arable land ultimately brought about the formulation of strict rules guaranteeing each vecino an equal share in its benefits. The density of population of sixteenth-century Castile was extremely varied, ranging from areas with a population surplus to other areas whose lack of population demanded efforts of colonization. And the customs governing the use of common arable were as varied as the population density.
 

[41] The most primitive and simple type of common land use was for a person to occupy whatever piece of land he wanted, to cultivate it for as long as he wished, and to abandon it whenever he saw fit. The sole authority for possession of the land was its use - the pure principle of public ownership. No governmental entity played any active part in the distribution of land, but local and national authorities gave their tacit approval to whatever apportionment of the land that resulted from the wishes of individuals. Common lands of this type were called entradizas (available for the entering or taking). In some places in Castile, where common land was plentiful or where there was no great demand for it, the occupier of a plot could enjoy the use of it for the rest of his life, or for the lives of himself and his spouse. At the death of the occupier, all his claim to the plot ceased, and the plot was considered to be available for the first person wishing to occupy it. Possession could not be passed on to one's minor descendants, because that would have implied a proprietary claim, whereas the only right to common land was that of possession through use (Vassberg 1974: 392-3).

A document from 1592 describes the tierras entradizas of Mohernando (Guadalajara) thus: 'Man and wife enjoy them and cultivate them and benefit from them only during their lifetime, and when one dies, the other retains possession, but if both die, although they have children, these cannot inherit the possession, which goes to the first person to go in and occupy, plow, and cultivate the lands.' A report from 1587 described the entradizas of Valdespina (Palencia) in somewhat different terms, but the principle remains the same. It said that there were around a thousand obradas of land, 'which are occupied and worked by any vecinos of the town who want to, and they leave them whenever they feel like it, and then others take them, having no ownership whatever to them'. In Malaguilla (Guadalajara) lands of this type were called tierras halladas (foundling lands), to emphasize the informal method of taking possession, and the lack of ownership. I have seen sixteenth-century documents with references to tierras entradizas in such widely scattered provinces as Badajoz, Burgos, Guadalajara, Málaga, Salamanca, Toledo, and Valladolid. And I think it highly likely that they existed in other provinces as well. ⁽³⁵⁾

Many common arable lands were actually  tierras baldías that were [42] being used as commons by the municipalities. In fact, since the town council did not play an active role in the allocation of the tierras entradizas, it could be argued that these lands were nothing but baldíos being exploited through presura. In many cases it is impossible to make a distinction between tierras baldías and municipal commons. The language used in the sixteenth century was vague, often the ownership of the lands in question was uncertain, and (as I have mentioned earlier) throughout most of the sixteenth century the crown acquiesced in municipal control over the tierras baldías .
 

Because many of the common arable lands were actually baldíos, like other baldíos they were often in monte and could not be cultivated without first doing away with the trees and shrubs. Agriculturalists normally accomplished this in the same way as did stockmen - through fire (rozas). In fact, the monte typically passed through a pastoral phase before being cultivated: the herdsmen would burn the montes to enlarge their pastures, and the farmers would grub out the stumps in the best locations for cultivation. Many agriculturalists, however, did not wait for the stock raisers' fires, but made rozas of their own. One reason for burning the monte was that the ashes served as fertilizer. But after the euphoria of the first year or two, crop yields usually dropped dramatically. The field was then abandoned to grow back in monte, and another roza was made in a different location. After a few years, when the monte had grown back again, the first plot could be burned anew, in a fresh roza, thus completing the cycle (Vassberg 1980: 482-4; Martín Galindo n.d.: 16-18; Méndez 1900: 17-25). In 1536 a resident of the city of C ó rdoba testified that there were many cultivated plots in the burned areas of the city's montes baldíos, but that the soil was so thin and weak (débil, delgada y miserable) that one could plant grain there only for one year, after which the field had to be abandoned to grow back into monte. ⁽³⁶⁾

The making of rozas for cultivation in the monte can be considered as an example of arable communitarianism. On the other hand, the rozas damaged the monte - a common resource. This placed the municipal governments on the horns of a dilemma: on the one hand, they were supposed to conserve and protect the montes baldíos and the tradition of common rights. On the other hand, the population explosion made it necessary to put new lands to the plow, and the [43] people wanted to exploit the montes through rozas. In many places, the municipalities tried to effect a compromise by means of ordinances permitting a limited cultivation in the montes. For example, the city of Córdoba allowed its vecinos to burn and plant those portions of the monte that were in dead brambles (jarales muertos). But in practice, not only these, but also living trees were destroyed, so the Cordovan attempt at compromise was a failure. ⁽³⁷⁾

An interesting and extensively used scheme to allow cultivation in the monte while maintaining its communal character was interarboreal planting (el cultivo en monte hueco), in Spanish, literally 'cultivation in a hollow forest'. This scheme allowed the underbrush to be cleared out and burned, leaving only the large trees intact. Then the spaces between trees could be plowed and planted to grain. Naturally, however, the cultivators tried to grub out and remove as many trees as possible, to favor their crops. To counteract this tendency, the municipalities established regulations requiring that a certain minimum number of trees be conserved. For example, the ordinances of Salamanca of 1568 specified thirty trees per fanega (about 1.59 acres). Through inter-arboreal cultivation, the same plot had two distinct uses: one was individual, of the crops sown; the other was collective, of the derrota de mieses, and the acorns and other traditional common monte utilizations (Cabo 1956: 610; García Fernández 1964: 145-6).

Most common arable lands that were occupied without the active approval of the local municipal council (tierras entradizas, in other words) were also cadañieras - having to be cultivated every year in order to maintain possession. Custom dictated that the occupier of a plot of land in this category could enjoy continuous possession for life on the condition that he plowed it each year to show that he still wanted it. These lands were also called tierras de año y día (lands of a year and a day), because if the occupier allowed a year and a day to pass without plowing a plot, he forfeited his claim to it, and it was considered to be abandoned and available for the use of the first person who wanted to plow it. Of course, as I have already indicated, many lands were of such poor quality that they could not be cultivated year after year, nor would anyone wish to move in and claim such lands after the passage of only a year and a day. But there were [44] other lands that were sufficiently fertile to be used every year. I have seen references to tierras cadañeras in the provinces of Burgos, Ciudad Real, Córdoba, Cuenca, Guadalajara, Madrid, Seville, and Valladolid - a good sampling of provinces that indicates that commons of this type were not limited to one particular region or peculiar set of geographical conditions, but could exist anywhere in Castile where the soil was fertile enough to permit cultivation year after year. ⁽³⁸⁾

The documentary evidence is not clear on this point, but the yearly plowing that was required in the tierras cadañeras was not necessarily tantamount to annual cropping, because a field could be plowed to maintain continued possession, but left without planting (fallow) until the next year. Nevertheless, there are enough references to soil exhaustion (tierra cansada) to suggest that overcropping was in fact a serious problem in the tierras cadañeras (Vassberg 1974: 394).

As can be easily imagined, when succession to the possession of common land was based solely on a first-come, first-serve basis, there were frequent disagreements between individuals wanting to occupy the same plot of land. As a group of vecinos of Budia (Guadalajara) wrote in 1571, 'when someone dies, there are big disputes and lawsuits'. In Torres (Jaén) it was reported that the family of a deceased possessor of common land would conceal the fact of his death, even to the extent of denying him the sacraments, until a friend or relative could take possession of the land. These difficulties could have been avoided by allowing the possessor to designate a successor, but that would have been incompatible with the principle of common land ownership. Consequently, the right to designate a successor was rare. But it was by no means unknown: in Malaguilla (Guadalajara), for example, the possessor of common arable could transfer (traspasar) the possession of his plot, but if he died before having done so, the plot automatically reverted to common status, and was considered to be available for the first person to go in and occupy it. In Alcalá de Henares (Madrid), the children of a deceased possessor could inherit the possession (but not the ownership, which rested in the community) of the best one-third of the common land held by him. And in Belinchón (Cuenca) when a possessor of common arable died, his children could inherit the use of the father's plot if they plowed it within twelve days of the death. This inheritance right in Belinchón prompted a royal agent to write in 1569 that the common lands there were 'almost proprietary', because in practice [45] they never fell vacant, but were passed down from one generation to the next. ⁽³⁹⁾

Most places, however, shrank from allowing users of common lands to choose who would succeed them. Instead, they adopted rules - albeit only by custom - governing the question of the length of tenure, which was crucial to the right of succession. In Belinchón (Cuenca) the plots of common arable had to be irrigated and plowed by 15 August of each year to maintain possession (Gómez Mendoza 1967: 524-5). In Torres (Jaén), the possessor of a plot just fallowed for a year had to show his intent to plow it by the end of April or risk losing possession. His intention could be indicated by opening a furrow around the plot's perimeter and plowing a few furrows down the middle. And in Talamanca de Jarama (Madrid) the possessor of a field of common arable could leave it lie fallow for over a year following his harvest, but by Martinmas (11 November) of the post fallow year, he was required to plow a furrow around the field to demonstrate his intent to plow it, and he needed to have it entirely plowed by the end of the next March. Failure to abide by these rules would cause the field to revert back to unoccupied common status. In places where the soil was so weak that an extended fallow period was required, the rules governing tenure might be considerably relaxed. For example, in Manzanares, Valdepeñas, and Moral de Calatrava (all in Ciudad Real), possession was not lost until the passage of three years without cultivation. In San Román de Hornija (Valladolid), a vecino was allowed continuous possession for eight years, after which the plot became open commons again. ⁽⁴⁰⁾ And in the secano (unirrigated lands) of Lorca (Murcia) possession was not lost until a plot had gone unworked for ten years, according to ordinance no. 142 of the year 1527 (Costa 1944: 262).
 

The question of succession to the possession of common lands caused so many problems that in many places the municipal council intervened in the mechanics of succession to introduce more order than that resulting solely from the free interaction of the wishes of the vecinos. It appears that it was population pressure, which caused a greater demand for the available commons, that prompted this change. For example, around 1579 the vecinos of San Román de [46] Hornija (Valladolid) made an effort to avoid some of the disorder and disputes arising over the question of succession in the use of the local common arable lands. It was agreed that no vecino could succeed in possession until he had showed the plot in question to municipal officials and registered a claim to it. This registration consisted merely of notifying the council of the location and the amount of land selected. There were many examples of this type of registration in various parts of Castile. In the Tierra of Alcalá de Henares (Madrid) the custom was to register common lands every two years before the local scrivener (escribano) in the presence of two witnesses. The would be possessor, the scrivener, and the witnesses would all go out to the plot being registered, to ensure proper identification. ⁽⁴¹⁾

In some towns, registration evolved into a quaint ceremony. In 1585 a resident of Montamarta (Zamora) described the local custom:

Around the first of January of every year, more or less, when it is time to work the [common] lands to plant them and to make use of them, the town council meets, and to the ringing of the [church] bell, everyone in town assembles [in front of the town hall], and when everybody is there, or those who want to be there, the council makes a public announcement that everyone - men, women, and widows - should go out immediately to choose for themselves and mark the common lands so they can plant them. And as soon as the announcement is made, they go right out to the common fields, and each person takes as much as he wishes and marks it [with a hoe, or in some other way], so no other person will take his plot, and the possessor can use the land he has marked for a year. . . and no longer.

Common arable lands were used not only for grain and other field crops, but also for vineyards and orchards, where the soil and other conditions were suitable. But because vines and trees required a far longer occupation of the soil than did grain - with a correspondingly greater reduction of the common rights of the community as a whole -- the municipalities nearly always exercised control over this type of planting. The normal rule was that no one could plant trees or vines on common land without first securing the permission of the town [47] council. For example, the city of Toro (Zamora) extended licenses for its vecinos to plant vines and fruit trees in the local common lands and baldíos. The planter had the right to maintain possession of his vineyard or orchard so long as it was growing, but if it became unproductive and he grubbed it out, or if he failed to cultivate it for two or three years, it then reverted back to common status, and could be used as pasture by all the livestock of the area, because the possessor of the vines and fruit trees had no ownership of the soil, but only the right to use it for a specific purpose. Lands of this type eventually developed into a disorderly patchwork of vineyards separated by abandoned vines overgrown with weeds and used as common pasture. ⁽⁴³⁾

The city of Badajoz extended similar licenses for planting vines and olive trees, with the condition that if the recipient of the license failed to make the plantings within a specified time, or if he failed to maintain them, the land would return to its original common status. Municipal governments also, and for the same reason, usually required a license to put up fences or buildings on common lands. But a license from municipal authorities did not always guarantee good order in the allocation of common lands for these more permanent purposes. The city of Trujillo (Cáceres), for instance, discovered that some of its councilmen (regidores) had been showing favoritism in the issuing of such permits. Consequently a new ordinance was adopted requiring that licenses be signed by all the councilmen present in the city hall on the day of issue. And it went on to provide for the nullification of the license if it proved to be prejudicial to the rights of any individual or of the community as a whole. ⁽⁴⁴⁾
 

The registration by the municipal government of the common lands selected by the vecinos of the place was but one step toward total municipal control of common rights. Many municipalities - perhaps most of them in sixteenth-century Castile - had already taken the next step, in which the selection of the plots of common arable was no longer left up to individuals, but was wholly controlled by the local town council. The arable lands of a town would be divided into lots of one or more parcels and distributed among the vecinos for a fixed period, or in some cases for life. This practice of a periodic allotment of common lands (sorteo periódico de tierras comunes) was [47] widespread by the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Old Castile and Le ó n. And it had existed in the Iberian peninsula at least since the tenth century (Vassberg 1974: 396-7; Costa 1944: 325; Salomon 1964: ISo, n. 2).

The method of dividing the lands was often quite picturesque. Typically, a committee of town councilmen would meet in public session to divide the common arable land into lots (normally called suertes, but in some places quiñones, cañamas, or divisas). A slip of paper representing each lot would then be placed in a jar (cántaro) and a child might be called forward to draw out the lots to be assigned to each vecino. The lot (which could consist of several parcels of land) given to each person would be recorded, of course, for the municipal records. In Jerez de la Frontera (Cádiz) the lots were drawn sometimes from a jar, and sometimes from a hat. Unfortunately, the documents from the period seldom state clearly what the method of division was, but often tell only that 'the council . . . divided the lands', or that 'the vecinos. . . [would] meet each year and divide all the lands into equal lots', or that 'the officials of the council ... named dividers [repartidores] to divide the said lands among all, making equal lots'. ⁽⁴⁵⁾ But though more often implied than specifically stated, it is clear that some form of random drawing was a widespread way (if not the prevalent way) of determining what parcels would go to whom in the periodic divisions of common lands (Vassberg 1974: 396-7; Hoyos 1947: 129-30).

Each municipality had its own customs about when the lands would be divided and who would be eligible to receive a share. Participation in the allotment was usually open to all the resident vecinos of a town, or occasionally to vecinos of a federation of neighboring towns. Documents from the period frequently emphasize the universality and impartiality of the lottery. For example, in 1587 an illiterate elderly vecino of Brincones (Salamanca) testified that 'they assign as good a lot to the little man as to the big, and to the poor as to the rich'. Some towns reserved their common lands for married vecinos, or, if the lands were assigned for life, for recently married vecinos. Although the normal custom was to allot equal shares to everyone, some towns gave larger lots to those who owned more draft animals, or who had the other resources necessary to exploit more land than their neighbors. The council of Montánchez (Cáceres) gave two lots (two was the maximum) to vecinos who had two yokes of oxen, one lot to those with one, and a half lot to those with no [49] oxen. These last would have to borrow or rent animals to work the land they were assigned, because recipients of common lands in Montánchez were required to work them properly, with the appropriate number of animals, not only during the planting year, but also during the (two) fallow years, under pain of the uncompensated loss of the lot. ⁽⁴⁶⁾

In Alaejos (Valladolid) there was also an unequal distribution of lots, depending upon the net worth (hacienda) of each vecino: everyone worth over 80,000 mrs (a moderate sum) was placed in a single category and was given lots of a standard size, but those whose net worth was below 80,000 mrs would be given only one-half or one-.third of a lot, depending upon their wealth. Alaejos also followed the practice of assigning a newly married person who asked for land following the regular division only one-half a lot, 'and no more, even though the person was very wealthy'. And in some areas, for instance in the territory of the city of Soria, participation in the lottery of common lands was available not only to vecinos, but also to outsiders living there, on an equal basis with the natives. The criterion here was residency, rather than vecino status. In fact, it seems that most places excluded from the lottery their own vecinos who were nonresidents. This was sensible - after all, why assign a lot to someone who could not use it? Following the same logic, of course, one could justify an unequal distribution of commons, to favor the more affluent, or to exclude the destitute, who might not even be able to work their lands. In 1552 a royal agent was told that some lots in the village of Yemeda (Cuenca) were left unworked, because the persons to whom they had been assigned were too poor to exploit them. ⁽⁴⁷⁾ This was a poor utilization of resources - a situation best to avoid.

In accordance with the principle that possession of common land was limited to the benefits received through personal use, most places required those who received allotments to use the plots themselves. In the lands under the jurisdiction of the city of Soria, for example, the vecinos 'could not sell or exchange them or use them for any gain other than the possession of them'. But the right to dispose of one's lot as one wished also existed. In Lumbrales (Salamanca) a vecino who did not care to (or who was unable to) work the land that fell to him could assign it to the person of his choice, or he could turn it back to the town council, which would rent it out. Some places even allowed the recipient of a lot to rent it out for whatever price he could get, but that was a rare privilege (Vassberg 1974: 398-9).

[50] Tenure of possession of common lands allotted by periodic lottery varied from one year to life, depending upon local custom. There were many places that held annual lotteries of common land, which might have been preferred on the grounds that it would allow the maximum responsiveness to demographic changes. Although some places holding a yearly lottery practiced annual cropping, the soil and rainfall did not permit that in most parts of Castile. Therefore, although there might be annual allotments, the common land was typically divided into several hojas (strips), according to the local custom of rotation, and only the hoja to be planted was subdivided into lots and apportioned in any given year. The towns of Lumbrales and Vermellar (both in Salamanca province) both used the widespread three-hoja system of rotation in which one-third of the land was sown, and two-thirds was allowed to lie fallow. The soil there must have been poor. In 1588 it was reported that some vecinos of Vermellar did not even care to use these lands, because the soil was too 'light' (ligera). ⁽⁴⁸⁾

The binary (two-hoja) system was more efficient, and was more likely to be practiced in areas with better soils, but there were also places with even poorer soils, which required three or even more years of fallow. The common lands of Valencia de Alcántara (Cáceres), for example, were organized on a four-hoja schedule in which three of the hojas lay fallow. The quality of soils varied, even within the territory of a given municipality, depending upon natural and historical factors. And a town - Valencia de Alcántara is an example - might have several types of arable commons, to take advantage of the varying soil conditions or of the differing needs of the local population. As conditions or needs changed, the municipal government might alter the existing customs. In Jerez de la Frontera (Cádiz), for instance, common lands were originally allotted for only one year, but the tenure was later increased to four years. And in the territory of the city of Soria, lots of common arable were given sometimes for four years and sometimes for eight - the reason for the change is not clear. A longer tenure, however, might have been preferred on the theory that it would encourage better care of the land. ⁽⁴⁹⁾

The allocation of lots with long tenure was somewhat unusual, but was by no means rare, and was found in various parts of Castile. In Carbajosa (Zamora) common lands were distributed for periods of eight years; in Tarifa (Cádiz) it was for six years; in Almazul (Soria) it was eight; and in Alaejos (Valladolid) the lots were assigned for [51] periods often years. I have not found much information about what would become of a lot after its possessor died. But in the village of Villalube (Zamora), which had lots given for six years, the spouse of a deceased possessor would complete the remainder of his tenure, and if both died, or if there was no spouse, that lot would be left to lie fallow until the next lottery. In Castrogonzalo (also in Zamora) if a lot became vacant through death or emigration, it would be assigned to a newly married or newly arrived vecino of the place. And in Villarramiel (Palencia) a plot of commons that fell vacant when its possessor and spouse died would be assigned by the town council to another married vecino, in order of seniority. When lands were allotted for the ultimate tenure (for life) as in the case of Villarramiel, there was obviously a far greater likelihood that the possessor would die. Perhaps that is one reason why life tenure in the periodic distribution of common lands was rare. ⁽⁵⁰⁾

There was a large variation in the size of the lots of common lands apportioned through the sorteo periódico. In Lumbrales (Salamanca) each vecino's share amounted to only about 1 fanega, whereas in Huéneja (Granada) the typical lot was of 12 fanegas (Bosque 1971: 129). The difference reflects the fact that not all towns were equally endowed with common lands, nor did they all have the same number of vecinos, and the size of both common property and population was flexible. As the years passed, the number of vecinos tended to grow far faster than the amount of communal land used in the annual divisions. Therefore, with the passage of time, the size of the lots tended to grow smaller and smaller. The repeated subdivision of the common lands sometimes resulted in some oddly shaped or oddly proportioned lots, such as extremely long and narrow ones barely wide enough to accommodate a yoke of oxen. And it should be said that the arable commons of a place were not necessarily located all together in one continuous field. The hojas might be spread around the municipal territory, located between privately owned fields. As an example of the complicated structure of the common fields of sixteenth-century Castilian towns, take the town of Villarramiel (Palencia): here there were 1,338 yugadas of common arable - a large amount comprising about a quarter of the entire territory of the town. These commons were divided into some 69 pagos (well-defined districts, possibly even fenced). The pagos were in turn subdivided into a total of 1,354 parcels: one pago of 78 yugadas, for example, was broken up into 70 parcels (Fernández and Fernández 1955: 104-21). [52] Because of the extreme subdivision of the commons of Villarramiel, the share of each vecino of the place might include several parcels in different parts of the town's territory. This would be an advantage, because it would mean that each lot could include several types of soil in several locations. ⁽⁵¹⁾

Common lands were customarily allotted free of charge. After all, the ownership of these lands rested in the community of vecinos, and they would not normally charge themselves rent. The vecinos were proud of the fact that they could use these lands without payment. In Villalube (Zamora) they bragged that they enjoyed their common lands 'without paying rent or recognition to the council or to anyone'. But the municipal governments often found that they needed funds for extraordinary expenses that their ordinary revenues could not cover. And in many cases they considered that the least onerous method of raising additional money was to set a fee for the use of the common lands. Some councils used certain special circumstances as an excuse to charge a fee. In Brincones (Salamanca), for instance, the commons were normally allotted free, but if a newly married or newly arrived vecino wanted a lot after the normal division time, he would be charged a fee of I real. If the needs of the municipal government were truly pressing, there would probably not be much resistance against the imposition of a temporary fee. In 1588 a 45-year-old resident of Vermellar (Salamanca) testified that the council of the place had never charged a fee for its commons except for that year when it levied a fee of 2 reales per lot. And he seemed to acquiesce in the necessity of the fee, although the land was of low quality, because the council needed to expend large sums of money on lawsuits and to support men-at-arms. ⁽⁵²⁾ Though the assessment of a fee was usually considered to be extraordinary, in some places the fee had become so entrenched that it had come to be considered the norm. Medina del Campo (Valladolid), for example, had certain common lands called sernas, for which the municipal government charged an annual fee of 1 or 2 fanegas of wheat per obrada, depending upon the location (and presumably the quality) of the lands (Rodríguez y Fernández 1903-4: 565).
 

Even in places where the fee had become entrenched, the amount might vary depending upon the requirements of the council for that [53] year. The council of Alaejos (Valladolid) made assessments varying from 2 to 6 reales per standard lot (the standard lot was 8 fanegas) of common arable. In places where there was a long tenure of common lands, the fee might not be assessed every year. In Alaejos, for instance, where tenure was for ten years, the fee was charged only for the first year, and the remaining nine years were free. I have seen one example - there may have existed many others - of a place that assessed a fee not in money nor in grain, but rather in personal service similar to the feudal corvée. The place was Montánchez (Cáceres), where this type of unpaid personal labor was called the dua, or las duas. In 1589 a Septuagenarian peasant farmer from the town described the custom in this way:

Those lands are public and common in this manner: the vecinos of the town can farm them . . . and in exchange for the right to farm them the said vecinos are obliged to give service, and they work without pay in the business of the council, which is to repair bridges, roads, meat markets, granaries, and other public works, and a person who does not wish to perform this free labor will be given no common lands. . . ⁽⁵³⁾

The common property of the Castilian municipalities included not only pasture and arable lands, but other resources as well. Many of these other commons were supplied by the monte, which in the sixteenth century was still very prominent in the landscape of many [54] parts of Castile. In fact, the economy of some areas, such as the Montes de Toledo, was based upon the utilization of the monte, which supplied not only land for pasture and cultivation, but also lumber (for tools and for building), firewood and charcoal (for domestic and industrial purposes), hunting and fishing, medicinal herbs, cork, fruits and nuts, bees (and the flowers to sustain them), ashes (for making soap and cupels), spring water, esparto grass (for making cordage, mats, and paper), and a host of other things. The use of these monte resources was usually common, and free. But the municipal governments typically adopted ordinances governing them in the interest of protecting the monte and of ensuring that its benefits would be equitably available for all who wished to use them. For example, most places extended a blanket authorization for the cutting of tree limbs for tool handles, but it was usually forbidden to cut down entire trees or to make rozas, which threatened to destroy the monte, without special permission. The manifold blessings of the monte are extremely interesting, and were highly important in many areas, especially to the poor, who could dabble in this and that activity to eke out an existence which, if not comfortable, was at least honorable. The subject would merit a detailed study, and the documentation is amply available in the archives of Castile, both local and central. But here, where I am interested primarily in the world of the agro-pastoralist, I must move on to other topics, returning occasionally to the benefits of the monte as it becomes necessary in other contexts. ⁽⁵⁵⁾

Water, whether for drinking (by humans or animals) or for irrigation, was considered to be public property for the benefit of the entire community, and as such was controlled by public officials. This view of water rights, which was tempered by the right of individual appropriation through presura, was a legacy from the Romans and from the Moslems, who themselves were the heirs of the Roman system. The principle of public water ownership facilitated the development of sizable irrigation works, such as those of Murcia and Valencia. By contrast, in medieval France and Italy, and along the rivers of Old Castile and León, the tendency toward the privatization of water ownership through presura resulted in the limitation of the scale of irrigation to small projects, the work of individuals or monasteries (Glick 1979: 73, 97, 101, 330 n. III; Delano 1979: 181). The subject of irrigation and water rights in Spain would itself justify a weighty tome, and has been the subject [55] of several fine local studies. But in this work I can dedicate no more space to it, because I am concentrating on dryland farming, which was (and still is) the overwhelmingly predominant type of agriculture in Castile. It is significant that water was considered to be common property, whether it came from spring, river, or even from a man-made well. However, certain compromises could be made regarding this principle. For example, the city of Jerez de la Frontera (province of Cádiz, in an area where water was scarce) had the practice of issuing licenses to individuals to dig wells (pozos) in the local tierras baldías . In theory, the water would be public property, but to compensate the well-digger for his pains, the city allowed him the exclusive use of the well for ten years. After the ten-year period, the water became common, but the digger was given the right of a first turn at the well, in cases of disputes over priority. The cupidity of the crown could also abridge the principle of free water use: in 1586 a royal agent sold to an individual a public well in Medina Sidonia (also in the province of Cádiz). ⁽⁵⁶⁾

Another common practice was the right of public gleaning (el rebusco and el espigueo), which demonstrated a special tolerance and protection for the rural poor. El rebusco was the right to gather fallen or forgotten apples, olives, grapes, or other fruits and vegetables after harvest. It enabled the destitute to get some food without begging. The custom of el espigueo, which permitted the gleaning of grain after the regular harvest, was general throughout Spain, and seems to have been a prehistoric custom designed to aid the hungry. There must have been some abuses, however, because the law specified that only the old and infirm, women and minors, and others who could not draw regular wages had the right to gather grain in that fashion (Hoyos 1947: 129-30; Guerra 1952: 524; Costa 1898: 277-80). I have earlier dealt with the importance of the acorn harvest in areas with oak forests. Not as widespread, but equally important in some areas, were chestnuts, which were also considered to be a common resource. Chestnuts were used as food for both man and livestock, and the harvest was supervised by municipal governments in much the same way that they supervised acorn gathering. Wild fruits and vegetables were also considered to be common property, wherever they grew. Wild asparagus, artichokes, mushrooms, figs and similar things could be harvested as a common resource even when they grew on 'enclosed' lands that were private property. The criterion was whether or not they were the spontaneous products of Nature. [56] If they were, then they were common, even though they might be located on private land. It should be remembered that, conversely, an individual could own private crops, vines, or even trees that he had planted - on public land. The intermeshing of private and public ownership was highly complex! ⁽⁵⁷⁾

Nearly all common property was of the sort that was provided spontaneously by Nature. But because of special circumstances, some municipalities came to own other properties which were also treated as commons although they did not meet that qualification. In 1575, for instance, Valle de Sotoscueva (Burgos) owned a water-driven flour mill on the Engaña River. All the vecinos of the place could bring their gain to be ground, each being allowed a specified length of time to operate the mill. There was no milling fee, and when the mill needed repairs, the costs were borne by the local government. ⁽⁵⁸⁾ The town of Salduero, in neighboring Soria province, had not only a common flour mill, but also a common forge and a common waterdriven sawmill (García Terrel 1958: 23-5, 109-12). Municipally owned property of that sort, however, was usually treated as a propio, rather than as commons.

The ownership of animal dung, which was highly valued as a fertilizer, was ambivalent. When it fell in fields and pastures, it was left to enrich the soil there, whether public or private. The manure that accumulated in animal pens or corrals became the private property of the owner of the pens, if they were private, but became community property if the pens were public. In an era when animals of various species regularly walked the streets, the towns were able to amass large quantities of manure through street-cleaning. The municipal dunghills (muladares, montones de estiércol, or montunos) were considered to be the common property of all the vecinos of the place, who took advantage of them primarily to manure their orchards and gardens (Guerra 1952: 519, 531-2).

1. The Castillo de Bobadilla assertion is cited in Carmelo Viñas y Mey, El problema de la tierra en la España de los siglos XVI-XVII (Madrid: CSIC, 1941), p. 64.

2. Venta al concejo de la ciudad de Arcos, 8 September i 587, AGS, CR-7, 3257; Parada y Rubiales: Venta que el Licenciado Ortiz otorgó a Don Lope de Herrera Enríquez Rojas, 17 October 1584, AGS, CG, 3254.

3. Quoted in Costa, Colectivismo agrario (1944), p. 230, n. 1.

4. Documents about Monteagudo (1575) in AGS, EH, 323.

5. The information about Baeza is found in Venta que el Doctor Brizuela hizo a Don Pedro Vázquez de Cuna, 19 August 1586, AGS, CG, 3253; that about Toro in Venta que Pedro Hernández hizo a Juan de Villar, 23 July 1586, AGS, CR-7, 3261.

6. For Castilbianco, see AGS, EH, 74-14-iii.

7. AGS, EH, 240.

8. Sueros v. el Licenciado Guzmán (1562-3), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 15 Cazorla v. El Yruela [sic] (1562-3), ACHGR, 3-1424-11.

9. Cédula to Ledanca, 13 December 1586, AGS, CG, 365. Another example is that of Valdeolmos (Madrid), which got royal permission in 1574 to mortgage its propios for ten years to help pay the royal treasury for its jurisdictional independence (villazgo). In 1584 the town asked for, and received, royal permission to extend the mortgage for an additional ten years. See an executoria, 9 December 1591, and a cédula, 14 October 1593, both in AGS, CG, 366.

10. Averiguación de And·jar (1552, 1567), AGS, EH, 220.

11. Valdetorres v. Guareuia (1548-9), ACHGR, 2-1235-2.

12. Averiguación de Poveda de Obispalía (1578), AGS, EH, 360; Luis Alvarez v. Vélez Málaga (1553) ACHGR, 511-2157-2.

13. Francisco de los Cobos y consortes v. Albánchez (1552), ACHGR, 511-2295-14.

14. Averiguación de Chinchilla (1506), AGS, EH, 219-13.

15. Aliaguilla v. Mesta (1590-1), ACHGR, 508-2072-4.

16. Mesta v. Pozalmuro (1556-8), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 28; Averiguación de Higuera de Martos (1564), AGS, EH, 209.

17. Averiguación de Andújar (1567), AGS, EH, 220; Aliaguilla v. Mesta (1590s), ACHGR, 508-2072-4.

18. See Talavera v. Villafranca (1547) ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 61.

19. The Soria information is in Mesta v. Pozalmuro (1556-7), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 28; the Priego information in a bill of sale made to the town by Alonso López de Obregón, 27 March 1590, AGS, CR-7, 3260; and that about Aliaguilla in a suit with the Mesta (1590-1), ACHGR, 508-2072-4.

20. See various bills of sale (1574-8), AAT, 1-3-82.

21. Averiguación de Puebla del Príncipe (1590-5), AGS, EH, 13o-,g-xiii; Monroy v. Mesta (1586), ACHGR, 3-947-13.

22. Gonzalo Jiménez y consortes v. El Casar (1542-43), ACHGR, 3-1627-8.

23. The difficulty of the coexistence of prados and arable plots in the mountainous north is discussed in José Luis Martín Galindo, 'Arcaísmo y modernidad en la explotación agraria de Valdeburón (León)', Estudios geográficos 22, no. 83 (1961), 175-6.

24. Santa Munilla v. Mesta (1595), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 2,; Arnedo v. Mesta (1584), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 64; Donhierro v. Rapariegos (1528), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 33.

25. Los cavalleros y fijosdalgo de Santa Cruz de la Sierra v. el concejo del lugar (1515-16), ACHGR, 3-398-4; Probanza del concejo de Fuente Obej una (1531), ACHGR, 3-518-3 (bis).

26. Monroy v. Mesta (1586), ACHGR, 3-947-13; Venta que Esteban de Gamarra otorgó a Alonso Guirao de una cavallería de tierra en Cehegín, 19 April 1583, AGS, CR-7, 3260.

27. Magdalena Marchante v. Tejadillos (1536-9), ACHGR, 3-275-2.

28. Averiguación de And·jar (1560s and 1570s), AGS, EH, 220.

29. La Alberca v. Las Majadas (1531), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 35; Don Lope Zerón Valenzuela v. Ubeda (1588), ACHGR, 508-2024-2; San Sebastián v. Alcobendas (1592), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 81.

30. Averiguación de Montánchez (1592), AGS, EH, 323.

31. Averiguación de Cáceres (1543-7), AGS, EH, 240.

32. Valle de Valdeporras v. Pedro Gómez de Porras (1577), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 81; Talavera v. Villafranca (1579), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 61.

33. Archivo de la Mesta, Executorias, Trujillo, 16 December 1521.

34. Averiguación de Andújar (1560s and 1570s), AGS, EH, 220.

35. See Executoria a Gerónimo de Silva, 1 December 1592, AGS, CG, 368; Relación a Rodrigo Vázquez de Arce de Juan Pérez Pumarejo, 14 August 1587, AGS, CJH, 239 ant. (162 mod.); Venta que Licenciado Andrés de Bueras otorgó al concejo de Malaguilla, 5 August 1585, AGS, CG, 373.

36. Córdoba v. Almodóvar del Río (1536), ACHGR, 3-716-3.

37. See the document cited in the previous note.

38. Representative samples of places with tierras cadañeras are Talamanca de Jarama (Madrid), Carmona (Sevilla), Lerma (Burgos), and many places in the region known as the Campo de Montiel of the Order of Santiago (province of Ciudad Real). Documentary references to the above can be found, respectively, in: Diego de Carbajal a Su Magestad (no date but 1569), AGS, CJH, 65 mod. (94 ant.); Comisión al Licenciado Diego López de Orozco, 14 May 1583, AGS, CG, 362; Venta que el Doctor Falconi otorgó a Lucas de Caniego, 17 November 1590, AGS, CG, 373 and an unsigned and undated draft of a cédula to Gaspar de Bustamante (in papers from 1569), AGS, CJH, 94 ant. (62 mod.).

39. Letter to crown from Xtobal Pérez and other vecinos of Budia (no date but 1571,), AGS, CJH, 78 mod. (114 ant.); for the Torres information, see Comisión a Luis Sánchez, 14 May 1583, AGS, CG, 362; Venta que el Licenciado Andrés de Bueras otorgó al concejo de Malaguilla, 5 August 1585, AGS, CG, 373. The Alcalá information is in a letter to the crown from Diego de Carbajal (no date, but apparently from 1569), AGS, CJH, 65 mod. (94 ant.); and the Belinchón information is in Gómez Mendoza, 'Ventas de baldíos', pp. 524-5; and a letter to the crown from Gaspar de Bustamante, about lands in Belinchón, 10 December 1569, AGS, CJH, 65 mod. (94 ant.).

40. The information for Torres is in Comisión a Luis Sánchez, 14 May 1583, AGS, CG, 362; that for Talamanca from a letter to the crown from Diego de Carbajal (no date but 1569), AGS, CJH, 65 mod. (94 ant.); and that for Valdepeñas, Manzanares, and Moral de Calatrava from an unsigned and undated draft of a cédula to Gaspar de Bustamante (in papers from 1569), AGS, CJH, 91 ant. (62 mod.); Venta que Pedro Hérnandez otorgó a los yecinos de San Román de Hornija, 30 January 1589, AGS, CR-7, 3260.

41. The documentary source for the San Román de Hornija registration was cited in the previous note; that about Alcalá is in the letter to the crown from Diego de Carbajal, also cited in the previous note.

42. The quote is from an Averiguación de Montamarta (1585), AGS, EH, 323; and the source for Campo de Criptana and Socuéllamos is from an undated and unsigned Relación to the crown (with papers from 1563), AGS, DC, 47, folio 19.

43. In AGS, CG, 372 there are a number of bills of sale by the royal land commissioner Pedro Hernández to vecinos of Toro in the year 1586. These contain considerable interesting information about the local communal customs.

44. About Badajoz, see a suit between the city and Juan Andrés and consorts (1551-2), ACHGR, 3-463-5. See also Huetz de Lemps, Vignobles, pp. 595-626; and Hernán Pérez v. Trujillo (1588-89), ACHGR, 3-1298-2.

45. Averiguación de Alaejos (1581), AGS, EH, 209; for Jerez, Venta que Diego de Vega otorgó a Damián de Hinojosa, 31 January 1585 AGS, CG, 3254.

46. Venta que el Licenciado Alonso Ortiz hizo al concejo y vecinos de Brincones, 24 August 1588, AGS, CG, 367; Executoria a Pedro de Guebara, 25 January 1610, AGS, CG, 373; Averiguación de Montánchez (1581, 1584), AGS, EH, 209.

47. See a letter to the crown from Pedro Díaz de Castañeda, 19 March 1585, AGS, CJH, 229; and Cardenete v. Yemeda (1588-90), ACHGR, 3-1142-3.

48. Venta que el Licenciado Alonso Ortiz hizo al concejo y vecinos de Lumbrales, 17 August 1588, AGS, CR-7, 3261.

49. About Valencia de Alcántara, see Comisión a Gómez de la Rocha, 6 July 1592, AGS, DGT-24, 1486; about Jerez de la Frontera, see Venta que Diego de Vega hizo a Damián de Hinojosa, 31 January 1585 AGS, CG, 363; about Soria, a letter to the crown from Pedro Díaz de Castañeda, 19 March 1585, AGS, CJH, 229.

50. For Carbajosa, see Venta que Pedro Hernández otorgó al Marquez de la Mota, 7 April 1587, AGS, CR-7, 3260; for Almazul, Venta queJuan de Berástegui hizo a Juan Herrero, 28 October 1588, AGS, CG, 367; for Castrogonzalo, see Gómez Mendoza, 'Ventas de baldíos', pp. 526-7; and for Villarramiel, Executoria a Pedro de Guebara, 25 January 1610 AGS, CH, 373.

51. Venta que el Licenciado Alonso Ortiz hizo al concejo de Lumbrales, 17 August 1588, AGS, CR-7, 3261; Venta que Pedro Hernández otorgó a Villalube, 16 February 1589, AGS, CG, 367; and the last document cited in the preceding note.

52. Venta que Pedro Hernández otorgó a Villalube, 16 February 1589, AGS, CG, 367; Venta que el Licenciado Alonso Ortiz hizo a Brincones, 24 August 1588, AGS, CG 367; Venta que el Licenciado Ortiz hizo a los vecinos de Vermellar, 17 August 1588, AGS, CG, 367.

53. Averiguación de Alaejos (1584), AGS, EH, 209; Averiguación de Montánchez (1589), AGS, EH, 323.

54. Venta que el Licenciado Alonso Ortiz hizo al concejo de Lumbrales, 17 August 1588, AGS, CR-7, 3261.

55. It would be tedious to list all my sources for the utilizations of the monte. Some useful ones are: Fernando Jiménez de Gregorio, 'La población en la zona suroccidental de los montes de Toledo', Estudios geograficos 26, no. 98 (1965),103-5; Averiguación de And·jar (1560s-70s), AGS, EH, 220; San Sebastián v. Alcobendas (1592), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 81; monte ordinances of the two towns in the suit Castrillo Texeriego v. Olivares (1556), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 3 Michael R. Weisser, The Peasants of the Montes; The Roots of Rural Rebellion in Spain (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), p. 102; Averiguación de Castro del Río (1564), AGS, EH, 252; Averiguación de Monteagudo (1575), AGS, EH, 323; Campillo de Altabuey v. Paracuellos (1589-1614), ACHGR, 504-838-1; Ordenanzas de la caza, Puebla de Montalbán (1529), AGS, EH, 400.

56. Bartolomé de Avila v. Jacome Adorno, vecinos de Jerez (1575-7), ACHGR, 3-1071-1; Venta que el Licenciado Chávez otorgó a Gonzalo Núñez Anca, 22 September 1586, AGS, CR-7, 3256.

57. La Alberca v. Las Majadas (1542), ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 35; Mesta v. Antonio Collacos (1555) ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 2; Alonso Moyano, en nombre del concejo de Hornachuelos, v. alcalde mayor de Córdoba (no date, but apparently from the 1500s), ACHGR, 3-792-3.

58. Valdeporras v. Pedro Gómez de Porras (1575) ACHVA, PC, FA (F), 69.