Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
-
Upload
arij-ouweneel -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
-
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
1/36
Centrum voor Studie en Documentatie van Latijns Amerika (CEDLA)is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Boletn de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe.
http://www.jstor.org
SCHEDULES IN HACIENDA AGRICULTURE: THE CASES OF SANTA ANA ARAGON (1765-1768) ANDSAN NICOLAS DE LOS PILARES (1793-1795), VALLEY OF MEXICOAuthor(s): Arij OuweneelSource: Boletn de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe, No. 40 (Junio de 1986), pp. 63-97Published by: Centrum voor Studie en Documentatie van Latijns Amerika (CEDLA)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25675295Accessed: 13-05-2015 14:11 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cedlahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25675295http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25675295http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cedlahttp://www.jstor.org/ -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
2/36
-
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
3/36
of the
hacienda
has
long
been
its
organization
as a
feudal
institution.
The
authors
of this thesis
were
above all Wistano
Luis
Orozco,
Andres
Molina
Enriquez,
George
M.
McBride,
Frank
Tannenbaum,
Jose
Miranda,
Francois
Chevalier,
Eric
Wolf
and
Sidney
Mintz.
The book
of
Chevalier
was
the
first
one
entirely
dedicated
to
the
hacienda. It
was
referred
to
recently
as a
work
that
will
remain
a
classic
because
it summarises and concludes an entire cycle of interpretation.3 This interpretation
may
now
be
seen
as
the
traditional
view.
In
this
view the
hacienda
was
an
essentially
self-sufficient,
autarchic
unit,
producing independently
of
the market
and
on a
small scale.
This view is still
echoed
in
the
words of
Berkeley
economist
Alain
de
Janvry,
who
defined the
hacienda
again
as
a
relatively
isolated
estate,
with
low levels of
investment,
inefficient
production
methods and
extensively
used
land.4
It
is
precisely
this
impression
of
agrarian
schedules
as
part
of
the
extensive,
inefficient
production
system
that dominates
development
literature.
Recent hi
storical
studies,
based
on a
wealth of
archival
records which has been
available
to
social and
economic scientists
since
the
early
seventies,
prove
that
this
impression
is
inadequate
at
least
to
label
the colonial
era.
The
estate
is
no
longer
seen as
a
seigneurial
fiefdom
characterized
by
inefficient,
extensive
production
methods
and
a
non-market orientation.
The
hacendado
appears
to
have
been
a
commercial
and
enterprising
individual, very
much
interested
in
the
management
results of
his
estate.
A
growing
stream
of
historical
studies
of
Latin America's
colonial
past
have led in
the
past
fifteen
years
to
drastic
changes
in
the
interpretation
of
the
hacienda's role in
Latin
American
history.
But this
change
in
interpretation
is
hardly
known
outside the
community
of
historians. There
seems
to
be much
sense
in
Morner's
observation that
'analytical
and
theoretical
studies have
advanced
much
more
slowly
than
those
employing
quantitative
data'. Morner has
the idea that
in
the
theoretical studies far
too
little
attention
was
paid
to
empirical
data
that
did
not
lend
themselves
easily
to
generalizations
along
their lines. As
such,
the
development
debate showed
that
development
theorists have been
less
influenced
by
historians
than
vice
versa.5
Although
recent
historical work
questioned
almost
all the basic
points
of
the
conventional
assumptions,
more
questions
were
raised than could be answered
and
the
simplicity
that
characterised
the old view
gave
way
to
a
growing
complexity.
A
lot of
work still needs
to
be
done. One of the
main
questions
to
be answered
concentrates
on
the haciendas
as
capitalist enterprises,
as
suggested by
modern
historical
research:
can we
recognize
efficient
production
methods
and
intensively
used land
on
the hacienda
fields?
In
an
earlier
article
we
expressed
the
need
for
an economic, even agricultural focus in future hacienda studies.6 From the
point
of view of
development
theory
such
a
focus,
particularly
on
the
question
of
labour,
is of
special
interest,
for
to
know what
really
happened
on
the fields
might
be
of
some
help
in
dealing
with
problems
in
the
sphere
of theoretical
analysis.
Just
such
a
description
of the
daily
routine
on
the hacienda
makes
up
the
body
of this
paper.
We will
limit
ourselves
to
a
rural
region
in
central Mexico that
has been dominated
by
haciendas
since the
seventeenth
century.
We
will
trace
the
character
of
the
agricultural
schedules
of central
Mexican haciendas
in
a
period
that is
generally
considered
as
a
period
of
major
changes:
the
eighteenth
century
as
the
prelude
to
Independence.
Central
Mexico
provides,
in
microcosm,
a
test
case for such a study. On thebasis of documents that have survived - this indicates
an
inevitable restriction
to
a
study
like
this
-
we
will
try
to
formulate
a
hypothesis
on
labour
use
and
agricultural
efficiency
on
colonial
Mexican
haciendas.
64
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
4/36
The
scene:
Palula,
Aragon
and Pilares
In
general
the haciendas
were
owned
by
Spanish
entrepreneurs,
officials
or
institutions. One
of these
entrepreneurs
was
Jose
Antonio Gonzalez
Ruiz,
who
was
in
charge
of the hacienda San Antonio
Palula
in
southern Tlaxcala.
An
analysis
of
one
of his
account
books, 1765-1766,
confirmed the
great
interest of
hacendados
in
profitability.
It seems that Gonzalez
kept
these
personal
accounts,
diaries of
daily
expenses,
precisely
to
improve production.
It
was a
decade of
economic
stagnation.7
The
analysis
reveals
a
close connection between the
use
of
labour
and
the
agricultural
cycle
of
the
crops
(wheat,
barley,
maize,
frijoles,
and
chiles).
The
question
arises of how
typical
the schedules
of
Palula
may
have
been. The
schedules
are
clearly
in
accordance
with
those
presented
by
Charles
Gibson
in
table
25
of
his
monumental
study
of
the
Valley
of Mexico. This
table
is
based
especially
on
the
extant
documents
of
two
haciendas
in the
Valley:
the
weekly
reports
of the
haciendas Santa
Ana
Aragon
(1765-1768,
and
1771-1772)
and
Molino de
Flores
(1775-1785).
Both
Aragon
and theMolino
belonged
to
the north
part
of
the
Valley.
The documents of Aragon offer a good opportunity for comparison with those
of
Palula.8
The
hacienda
Santa
Ana
Aragon
had
a
unique background,
because
it
belonged
to
the Bienes comunales
de
la
parcialidad
de
Santiago
Tlatelolco,
one
of
the
two
official Indian
quarters
ofMexico
city.
As
part
of
an
older
study,
Lopez
Sarrelangue
recently
published
the
governmental
and
juridical
part
of the
hacienda's
history.
She
stresses
the
fact
that
possibly
none
of the Indian
communities in
New
Spain
received
so
much
attention
from the
Spanish
government
as
these
two
Indian
quarters.9
The
governmental
support
also
struck
Gibson,
who
noted,
with
reference
to
a
lawsuit of 1764-1765:10
'The
case
illustrates
how
earnestly
the
lawyers
of
the 18th
century
sought
to
interpret
traditional
Indian
commonlands
in
terms
of
Spanish
municipal
land
law
-
as
capable
of
rental
or
sale,
as
requiring
special dispensation,
as
property
of
the
municipality,
or as
concesion
real.'
The
comunidad
de Tlatelolco had
a
special
licence
to
rent
the
commonlands
to
third
parties.
Nevertheless,
in
the
case
mentioned,
the
hacienda fell
under the
command
of
the
government
and
an
administrator
was
appointed.
Using
three colonial
maps
and
a
contemporary
description
of
Aragon,
it is
not
difficult
to
locate
its
borders,
ditches
and
fields
(see
maps
1
and
2).11
The
hacienda
covered an area which is now part of Mexico City, more or less the part between
the
Calzada
Guadalupe
(west)
and
the Avenida
Ing.
Eduardo Molina
(east),
and
between
the
Eje
5
Norte
(north)
and
the
Eje
2
Norte
(south).
With
its
71
caballerias*
(about
3040
hectares)
it
must
have been
one
of
the
biggest
haciendas
in the
Valley
of
Mexico. Two
rivers,
one
in
its northern
part
and
one
in
its
southern
part,
crossed
the
hacienda
east-west,
flowing
into
Lake
Texcoco,
which
bordered the hacienda
at
the
east
side. In
times of
heavy
rainfall
there
was a
danger
of
flooding
by
the
rivers
and the
lake. Much
energy
was
dedicated
to
cleaning
the
drainage
canals
and both
bocas
del
rio. In
fact,
Aragon
suffered
from
too
much
water.
The
salting
up
of
the
soils
(tequesquite)
and
the
danger
of
grainrust
(chahuistle)
hampered
a
regular
wheat
harvest.
As
shown
in
an
other
paper,
the
failure
of
the
wheat
harvest
could be
a
major
disaster
for
the
hacienda's
economy.12
On
Aragon
the
best
soil
was near
the
main
buildings.
The
southern fields
served
as
commercial
pastures,
For the
weights,
measures,
and
monetary
standard of
colonial
Mexico
see
Manuel
Carrera
Stampa,
'The
evolution of
weights
and
measures
in New
Spain',
Hispanic
American
Historical Review
(HAHR)
29
(1949),
pp.
2-45.
We
note
pesos
as
p,
for instance:
5
pesos
and 6 reales
as
5p6;
and 1
peso
was
8
reales.
65
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
5/36
which
were
rented
out
to
passing
mule-trains;
one
of these
was
called
Xapingo
and the other
Los
Regidores (see
map
2).
A
third
meadow between the
northern
fields
was
meant
for the
sheep
and
goats
of
the
hacienda.
There
were
also
salinas
where salt
was
produced
and
a
lot of
magueyes
bordering
the
fields
to
reinforce
the riverside walls.
In
1765
Aragon
had
6500
mageuyes
and Maria
Teresa,
la
tamalera,
a.woman from nearby Guadalupe, bought the rights to use these agaves for the
production
of
pulque,
the
alcoholic
beverage
made
from
maguey-ymcz.
She
paid
5
to
8 reales
per
maguey-,
25
magueyes
in
December
1766,
40
in
February
1767,
40 in
March,
and 28
in
April.
This
beverage
was
not
produced
on
the
hacienda.
Map
1.
LOCATION OF
THE
HACIENDA SANTA ANA
ARAGON
IN THE VALLEY
OF
MEXICO,
1766-1768.
@
Xs^^^^^Mr|
/
'Kda.
SANTA
NA
RAGCK
^^JLmJ
^
4.
Ezcapozalco
^^^?JlJ
5. La
Magdalena
^\
^^^^^^^^
3
6-San
Juanico
-^-W^w^W*^-^-17
Los
Reyes
Source:
see
note
11
18.
Tizapan
66
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
6/36
Map
2. THE
FIELDS OF
THE
HACIENDA SANTA ANA
ARAGON,
1766-1768
Source:
see
note
11.
67
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
7/36
In
1762
the
hacienda
Aragon
was
leased
out
to
Don
Miguel
de
Berrio,
Conde
de San
Mateo
Valparaiso,
on a
lease of 3000
pesos
a
year,
and
a
contract
of 9
years.
The
Conde
had bound
himself
to
clean the
rivers and the
drainage
canals
regularly,
but
a
huge
flood
in
1763
destroyed
alle
previous
investments
and
the
hope
of
good
returns.
He
asked for
dissolution of the
contract.
The
comunidad
de Tlatelolco, accusing the Conde of non-feasance, refused. The
tense
atmosphere
between
both
parties
deteriorated
daily,
but
in
the
end
they
had
to
compromise.
The
Conde
offered
to
repair
the
damages
if
he
was
free
to
leave the
hacienda
afterwards. The comunidad
agreed.
The
government
appointed
one
of its
officials,
Don
Jose
Joaquin
Moreno,
the escribano
delJuzgado
General
de
Indios,
as
supervisor.
In
the
course
of his administration of
Aragon
(1765-1768)
he
had
the idea of
benefitting
from the
transport
that
passed
the Calzada de
Guadalupe
on
entering
or
leaving
the
capital.
He
planned
to
offer the arable
land
for
grazing.
However,
it
was
not
until
the
administration
of his
brother,
Diego,
(1771-1772)
that these
plans
could
be
put
into
effect
by
producing
barley
instead
of
wheat
(which
had
been the
main
product)
and
by setting up
a
management
for
leasing pastures
to
the
mule-trains.13
The hacienda of San Nicolas
de
los
Pilares
was
situated
in
the
irrigated
lowlands
of the Teotihuacan
Valley,
as
far
to
the
north
as
the
city
of
Texcoco,
close
by
the
town
of
Acolman.
It
was a
fertile
and
irrigated
part
of the
dry
Texcoco district.
Pilares
was a
modest,
cereal
producing
hacienda
that,
like
Aragon,
raised
some
livestock.
It
was
the
property
of
the
Gudiel
Roldan
family,
a
Mexico
city
clan,
entrenched
in
the
secondary
stratum
of
the
city
elite
according
to
the criteria
of
Tutino. Such
a
position
was
typical
of the
owners
of
most
estates
of
Central Mexico.
The hacienda drew its
workers
from the comunidad
of
Acolman,
a
community
whose
basic
structure
corresponded
to
that
analysed
for Indian
society by
Tutino.
From
1791
to
1795,
the
period
of
available
records
- some
30
years
later
than
Palula and
Aragon
-
one or
two
hundred
villagers
laboured
at
Pilares.
They
were
all
male workers. Tutino
was
able
to
identify
the labourers who
came
from
outside
Acolman,
some
10
per
cent
of
the
workers. About 80
per
cent
of these
came
from
villages
in
the
immediate Acolman
region.
Nine workers
were
identified
as
coming
from
a
distance,
from
Otumba,
Calpulalpan,
and
Apam,
the
dry
region
near
or
just
beyond
the
eastern
limit of
the
Valley
of
Mexico.
A
similar
reliance
on
workers
primarily
from
nearby
regions
and
secondarily
from
more
distant,
mountainous
or
less
fertile
areas
characterized
labour
recruitment
at
Palula,
Aragon,
and
at
Molino
de
Flores.14
The hacienda
Pilares
was
owned
by
the Jesuits until
their
expulsion
in 1767, producing capital for the maintenance of their main college
of
San
Andres and
the Casa Profesa
in Mexico
city.
It
had
formed
a
unit with
haciendas
like
Chapingo,
San Antonio
Acolman,
and San
Diego
Metepec
-
other
estates
in the
Texcoco-Teotihuacan
districts. Pilares
had
two
ranches:
Nestlapa,
which
was
used
for maize
production,
and
Ayapango,
where
the
magueyes
for
production
of
pulque
were
grown.15
Both
ranches
were
sold
with Pilares
to
the
above-mentioned
family
late
in the
18th
century.
I
will
now
proceed
to
a more
detailed
discussion
of the
agricultural
schedules
of these haciendas.
My
purpose
is
to
verify
the schedules
presented
by
Gibson
as
well
as
to
examine
the effects
on
employment
(see
appendix
3).
The documents
of Aragon will be used to reconstruct the agricultural cycle of a Central Mexican
wheat hacienda.
The
data
will
be
compared
with
the
data
from
the
hacienda
San
Juan
Xaltipan
(1734-1737)
near
Palula
-
the
subject
of
another
paper
-,
the
data
from the
Molino
de
Flores
published
by
Swan,
and
from
Pilares.
In
the
concluding
part
of
the
paper
coefficients
will
be
presented
to
correlate the
agrarian
schedules
and
to
investigate
employment
on
the basis
of
the data from
Pilares. Thus
a
period
68
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
8/36
of
sixty
years
of
agrarian
activity
on
Central
Mexican
wheat
haciendas
is
covered.
All
the
data
support
the
reconstruction
of the
precise
workings
of the
hacienda
in
the second
part
of
the
eighteenth
century.
They
show
a
struggle
with the
unreliable
climate of
highland
Central
Mexico
and its
environmental
obstacles
to
prosperous
agriculture.16
Wheat
cultivation
In
Central Mexico the haciendas
that
could
make
use
of
irrigated
fields
were
producing
wheat.
Other
important
crops
were
maize,
barley
and
beans,
but these
were
partly
grown
for home
consumption.
The
transition
to
large-scale
enterprise
in
wheat
production
occurred in
the
late
sixteenth
century,
especially
between
1563
and
1602.17
The
rejection
of
wheat
by
the
indigenous
farmers had
provided
some
justification
for the
establishment of
farms
by
Spaniards
and their
acquisition
of
land,
while
the
growing
number
of
non-Spaniards
in
the cities
gave
the
haciendas
the
growing
consumer
market
they
needed.
This
last
point
marks
above
all
the
economic
history
of New
Spain
in
the Era
of
Independence,
a
period
of
the extension
of
hacienda
production
from
Spanish
markets
to
Indian
markets,
not
only
in
wheat
production,
but also
in
maize,
pulque,
the seeds
(semillas:
frijoles, garbanzos,
habas,
etc.),
and
pork
(by
then
an
'Indian'
commodity),
displacing
Indian
supplies
and
reducing
Indian
agriculture.18
The Indian
communities
of
eighteenth
century
Central Mexico
still
controlled
significant
areas
of
agricultural
lands,
but
while
their
populations
expanded,
their
landholding
could
not
because
of the
all-important
presence
of
the
hacienda
in
the
countryside.
As
has
been
shown
by
Tutino,
this
led
inevitably
to
the
proliferation
of
agrarian
tensions.
Moreover,
there
was
rarely
a
good agricultural year
in
the
central
highland valleys
in
the last
decades
of
the
century.
The
hazardous environment
of
the
highland
favoured
the
irrigated
soils of the
haciendas,
forcing
Indian
cultivators
to
abandon
their fields
and
start
working
on
the
haciendas
or
in
the
cities.
Although
the
Indian
villages
suffered
heavily
from
the
unfavourable weather
conditions,
this
does
not
mean
that
the
haciendas
could
continue
to
produce
without
difficulties.
Reports
from the
estate
administrators
on
various
haciendas reveal
no
year
and
no
hacienda
wholly
spared
from
natural hazards.
One
might
conclude that
in
the
dry
and
frosty
decades between
1770
and
1820
the
haciendas
only
suffered
less,
saved
by
the
reservoirs
they
could
fill
with the
precipitation
that did
fall.
This
unfortunate
picture
does not
apply
to
the
agricultural
years
of
1765
to
1768. The 1760s form a
period
of abundant harvests and low
prices.
Here the
problem
is
abundance,
favourable for the
villagers
but
a
death-blow
for
many
hacienda
enterprises.
Also
the
early
drought
of
1765
was
followed
by
sufficient
rainfall and
a
regular
climatic
scheme.
Only
in
1768
were
the
rains
out
of
season,
causing
droughts
and
shortages
of
all
grains.
In
1769 there
were
general
shortages
of
wheat
and
beans,
but
not
of
maize. The
year
1771
opened
the
decades
in which
the
situation
was
reversed. Frosts in
mid-October
destroyed
the
maize
fields,
while
the
wheat
was
harvested
in
sufficient
quantities.
Nevertheless,
1771
is
known
as
a
year
of
severe
crisis.20
The
hacienda
of
Palula
had
a
good
production during
the
year
of
1766-1767.
Its irrigated wheat-field measured about 200 hectares (53 cargas de sembradura)
and
yielded
13:1
that
year.
This Palula
yield
may
be
called
low
for
Mexico
in
comparison
with the 35:1
or
60:1
calculated
by
Morin for
Michoacan,
but
it
was
equal
to
some
European yields,
like
those
of
the
Aljarafe
of
Sevilla,
Spain,
in
the
eighteenth century,
a
region
with
similar
conditions
to
Central
Mexico.
The
crop
year
on
Palula
opened
in
the
summer
with
the
breaking
of
the
ground
for
69
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
9/36
the accumulation of
water
by
teams
of
oxen
with
ploughs (juntas)
(in
the
Diary
this
was
called
barbecho).
The
number
of
farmhands,
boys
and
men,
increased
gradually
from 16
to
24,
beginning
in
July.
The
preparation
was
followed
by
irrigation
and
sowing,
all
in
a
regular
way.
Only
one
complaint
on
the weather
can
be found
in
the
diary
of Gonzalez Ruiz:
on
a
day
in
October
it
was
impossible
to
plough
because of too much rain. The steady number of farmhands involved in the cycles
corresponds
to
the number of
yuntas.
According
to
Morin each
yunta
consisted
of
about
five
oxen,
of which
only
two
at
any
time. An
oxherd
(boyero),
sometimes
accompanierd
by
a
help,
took
care
of
the
oxen
who
were
resting.
The
oxherd
also
brought
the
oxen
to
the fields
and
afterwards back
to
the
corral,
which
was
constructed
near
the fields.
The
schedule
ran
from
July
15,
1766
(barbecho)
until
July
8
next
year,
with
the last
twenty-eight
farmhands
mowing.
Several
ploughings
had followed
the first
in
August
and
September
-
crosswise
-
,
and
a
sowing
took
place
in autumn.
The
sower,
called
desparramador,
worked al
voleo,
broadcast.
Palula had
in
general
two
desparramadores.21
A melgero had preceded sowing by making amelgas,
a
kind of paddyfield for
wheat.
Some
yuntas
followed the
sowers
tossing
the
seed
into the
ground.
This
was
referred
to
as
tapar
la
tierra.
The wheat stood in
the fields from December
to
May,
when harvest
began.
During
the
dry
winters
regadores
irrigated
the
crop
until the
first
days
of
May.
The
plants
needed 10
days
to
dry
before
reaping
could
begin.
The
harvest
occupied
many hands,
between
16 and
88
a
day.
Most of these
were
seasonal laboureres from outside the
hacienda
(usually
tlaquehuales)
while
all the
other
work
on
the
estate
was
carried
out
by
the
farmhands
living
on
the
hacienda
(most
of them
gananes).
There
were
also
workers
for
binding
and
storing
sheaves.
The
bulk
of the harvest
was
done
in
May
and
June.
Apparently
there
was
no
hurry
in
threshing,
because it
took
place
in
autumn
and
winter, 1767,
every
now
and
again,
in
small
quantities.
More than 80
per
cent
of
the
production
was
sold,
66V2
per
cent
to
only
one
buyer
in the
city
of Puebla
at
the
price
of
5p7
per
carga.
In
the
period
under consideration
(1765-1768)
the situation
at
Aragon
was
not
much
different. There
were
three
harvests,
1766,
1767,
and
1768. The
first of these
crops
started
really
from
scratch.
The seed had
to
be
bought
(10
cargas
of
trigo
blanquillo
at
7p4
per
carga,
plus 2p4
transport
costs),
the
ploughs
had
to
be
bought,
repaired
or
made,
the
oxen
fed and the
field had
to
be
protected
from
flooding.
The
barbecho
was
likewise
late
in
1765,
in
September
and October
because
of
the
late
entry
of
the
administrator
on
the
hacienda.
The
sowing
was
in
November
and December. Later on the
ploughings
in October were referred to as cruzar,
the second and crosswise
ploughing.
The
desparramador, Diego
de la
Cruz,
began
his
work
in
the first
week
of November.
The
wheat
was sown
on
three
big
fields,
called tablas
(San
Francisco,
Santiago,
and
San
Joseph).
The
quantity
of
men
and
yuntas
involved
was
roughly
the
same
as on
Palula,
although
the
accounts
of
Aragon
mention twice
as
many
farmhands.
Half
of
them
were,
however,
busy
on
themaize
fields.
The
crops
of 1767
and 1768
were
sown
with
seed
from the
previous
harvest,
that
was
threshed
shortly
before
use
(the
accounts
speak
of
trillando
el
que
se
ha de
sembrar).
The hacienda
needed
an
extra
staffmember
to
supervise
the
threshing
near
the
trojes
(granaries)
and contracted
a
certain
Julian Guerrero.
As
on
Palula,
sowing was followed by irrigation, lasting from December 1765 tillMay 1766,
from
January
until
May
in 1767
and
from late
December 1767
until
April
19,
1768.
Apart
from
the
starting-point,
the
schedule
corresponds
to
that of
Palula.
The
most
important
event
on
a
central
highland
hacienda
was
the wheat
harvest.
The
revenues
of the hacienda
depended
on
a
good
yield.
On
Aragon,
before
the
first
labourers
started
to
reap
in
May,
the
hacendado
or
administrator
tried
to
70
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
10/36
sell his
harvest in
advance.
The
prices
were
higher
before
harvest,
although good
weather
reports
could
depress
them in
the
early
months of the
year.
The
crop
of 1767
(sown
in
1766)
was
sold
in
April,
a
month before
harvest. Most
of
it,
186
cargas
or
51
per
cent,
was
bought by
the
Santa Monica mill. Another
mill,
Prieto,
bought
147Vi
cargas,
40
per
cent.
These
mills
functioned
as
intermediate
traders, selling the flour
to
bakers in the capital. Ten per
cent
of the crop went
in
tithes.
Almost
80
per
cent
of
the
crop
was
sold
at
a
price
of
5p6
per carga,
almost
the
same
price
that Palula
received
on
the
Puebla
market that
year.
The
total
revenue
for
Aragon
was
calculated
at
1636p4,
but it had
to
be
reduced
with
transport
costs
(72p4)
and
a
kind of
advertising
charges
(156p5V2).
A
year later,
the
crop
of
1768
was
sold in
February,
four months in
advance.
In
the end
it
yielded
380%
cargas
(I5V2:1).
No
less than
94
per
cent
was
bought by
the
Prieto
mill,
at
a
price
of
4p6
a
carga.
This
was
much lower
than
in
1767,
because the
grain
was
spoiled
by
the
chahuistle
('perdido
en
la
espiga
y
chupado
mucho
con
el
chahuistle').
At that time there
were
no
transport
costs.
It
was
much
cheaper
to
transport
the sheaves
by
hacienda mules. Such
a
policy usually
was
a
real
saving.22
All kinds of
things
were
done in the
spring
besides
selling
the wheat.
A
bricklayer
was
ordered
to
repair
the
granaries.
A
few
extra
farmhands
were now
and
then
protecting
the fields
against
cattle.
During
the winter
the administrator
had
bought
some
necessities
like
baskets,
ropes
and
sickles for
the harvest.
After
sowing,
the
wheat
field
was
daily
irrigated
by
one or
two
regadores,
supervising
and
managing
the
water
supply
and
shortly
before
harvest
(but
6
weeks
in
1768 )
the
water
was
gradually
reduced
to
let
the
plants
turn
yellow
(dorado).
At that
moment
a
few
boys,
children of the
farmhands,
were
sent
into
the
fields
to
drive the
birds
-
starlings,
thrushes,
and
sparrows
-
away.
The
boys
chased
the
birds until
the wheat
was
stored
in
the
granaries.
The
harvest created
a
big
demand for labour
in
the
early
summer.
It
was
the
big operation
one
might
expect.
Like
Palula,
the
hacienda
Aragon
contracted workers
from
outside,
who had
to
be
paid
a
little
more
in
cash,
0p21/2
a
day
(gananes
received
Op
1V2
plus
rations in
kind),
but
nothing
in
kind.
The
number of
men
involved
was
not
regular.
The
day-labourers
were
apparently
not
contracted
for
more
than
a
day.
It
is
interesting
to note
the
irregularity:
in
1766,
on
May
25,
for
instance,
some
52
men were
on
the
fields,
more or
less the
same
in June 2
6,
but there
were
131
men
daily
in
the weeks
from
June
9
to
21;
in
1767,
36
men
were
working
\\9Vi
mandays
from
June
7
to
13,
40
men
with 154
mandays
from June
21
to
27 and
59
men
with
290
mandays
from
July
5
to
11.
At
that
time
they
had to work more because of the
pouring
rain, while the wheat had
to
be
stored
dry.
In
1768
28
to
33
men were
working
on
the
fields,
clearly
a
lesser
number.
This
suggests
a
failure.
The
reapers
were
followed
by
men
binding
the sheaves
with
ropes.
A
few
boys
walked
behind
to
gather
unsheaved
ears
(this
job
was
called
'pepenar
espigas').
The
part
of
the harvest that
had been
cut
off
wet
was
dried
in the
sun.
The
dry
sheaves
were
covered with
mats,
petates,
from
Tula.
The
harvest
periode
on
Aragon
was
between
May
and June
21,
in
1766,
between
May
24
and
July
16
in
1767,
and
between
May
22 and June
29 in
1768.
These
dates
are
in
striking
accordance
with those of
Palula.
Immediately
after
harvest the
administrator
organised
and
paid for a big feast on the hacienda. He noted without much enthusiasm that
he
had
spent
money
on
tameles,
bread, chicken,
pork
and
pulque;
'como
es
costumbre\
Also
on
Aragon
threshing
the
wheat
was
something
for the
autumn,
done
on
the
hacienda's
hera
near
the
granary.
It
was
done
during
the
ploughings
for the
next
crop
to
get
seed. All
the
other
sheaves
were
sold.
The
story
repeats
itself
on
the
hacienda
Pilares,
some
25
years
later.
Ploughing,
71
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
11/36
combined
with
threshing
and
sowing
occurred
during
the
autumn,
with
a sower
until the
last week of
October.
Until
the harvest in
May
the
growing
season
of
wheat
was
accompanied
by
two
regador
es,
Juan de Dios
and
Cresencio.
Both had
an
irrigation
task
seven
days
a
week
until
the
first
summer
rains.
In
1793 the
irrigation
was
stopped
in
April.
For
the
next
crop
they
had
to
begin during
ploughing
and
sowing
from
late
September
1793.
Apparently, sowing
was over
by about
Christmas,
because
after
December 28 until
the
second
week of
April
1794
both
regadores
worked 7
days
per
week
again.
In
all
this time
only
Juan de Dios
neglected
his
job
from March
24
to
29. It
was
then taken
over
by
ganan
Leonicio Santa
Maria.
During
the first
rains in
April
and
May
the
irrigation
was
not
necessary
every
day,
and
it
was
eventually
stopped
on
May
10.
The
regador
Juan
de Dios
was
missing
again
from
April
12 to
26
and Cresencio did
not
show
up
the
next
week. Their
work
was
taken
over
by
Jose de
la
Cruz.
Cresencio returned
in
December
on
the wheat
field,
but had
obviously
left the
hacienda
shortly
thereafter.
In
1795
a
certain Tomas
was
working
as
regador
with Juan de Dios. The
irrigation
that
year
lasted until June
15,
since
the
summer
rains
began
late
in
1795.
The
harvest
took four weeks
in 1794
(May
26-June
21),
and
three
in
1795
(June
2-22).
Although
the
schedule
resembles
that
of Palula and
Aragon,
wheat cultivation
on
Pilares
was
different
because
of the
extremely
dry
years
in the
early
nineties.
The
good
harvests made
way
for
mediocre
ones.
The
wheat
prices
in
Texcoco
were
twice
as
high
in
1800
as
in
1775.23
In
Texcoco the
years
of
1793 and 1794
were
characterised
by
late rainfall
or
hardly
any
rainfall
at
all. The
rains
were
also
late
in
1795 but
seemed
sufficient.
Nevertheless,
precipitation
in
these
years
could
fill
the
reservoirs
of the haciendas
to
grow
regular
irrigated
wheatcrops.
The
crops
of
maize
and
barley
which
were not
or
hardly
irrigated
suffered
extreme
dryness
and
failed
(with
the
exception
of the
barley crop
of
1795).
The
results
of the
production
on
Pilares
are
not
known for these
years. Earlier,
in
1791 and
1792,
the situation
was
the
same:
the
irrigated
crops
succeeded,
the
crops
that
were
not
irrigated
were
lost. The wheat
yielded
7:1 in 1791
en
6:1 in 1792. This
may
be
seen as
a
bad
result
on
a
wheatfield
of about 130 hectares.
The
series of letters
written between
1775
and
1785
by
Marcos
Morales,
administrator
of
Molino de Flores
near
Texcoco,
to
the
owner
of
the
hacienda
in
the
city,
and
the
report
of
Claudio
Pesero,
administrator
of
San
Juan
Xaltipan
(1734-1737)
can
only
confirm the data
found
for
Palula,
Aragon
and
Pilares.
Apparently
the wheat had
to
be cultivated
within certain
periods,
with fixed
periods
for
ploughing,
sowing, irrigation
and
harvest,
while
threshing
was
done
according
to the wishes and needs of the hacendado.24 This means that employment on
haciendas
was
likewise
a
fixed
matter.
It
clearly
depended
on
the
acreage
under
cultivation
and
on
climatic
restrictions.
A
Central
Mexican
wheat
hacienda could
not
assimilate
a
big
rush of
migrant
servants from
the
villages
in
times
of
dearth.
Peasants from
nearby
communities
had
only
a
small
chance of
working
as
day
labourers
on
such
haciendas:
the administrator
would
only
contract
extra
farmhands
in
the
summer.
All
the
other work
was
carried
out
by
gananes,
the
20
to
30
regular
workmen
of the
estates.
The
summer
opportunity
of three
to
four weeks of wheat
harvest could
be
extended, however,
if the
hacienda
grew
maize.
Therefore,
we
shall
turn
to
the
milpa,
the
maize field.
Work
on
the
milpa
As
a
native
crop
of the
Indians,
maize
had
at
first
been
produced
by
the
comunidades,
but
since the
early
seventeenth
century
it
was
a
separate
article
of commercial
value
to
the haciendas.
The
estates
had several
advantages
over
the
communities,
72
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
12/36
such
as
the
possession
of lands for
large
scale
production
and better
facilities
for
storage
and
transportation.
Other
points
of
importance
were
the
power
of
un
derselling
the
small
village
producers
and the
heavy
speculation
in the maize
markets.25 The
eighteenth
century
maize
production
of the haciendas differed
considerably
from the
nineteenth
century
practice
of
cultivation
by
humble,
hacienda
controlled sharecroppers on the non-irrigated lands (temporal).26 Itwas cultivated
entirely
on
the hacienda
itself;
its
cycle
was
part
of
the
responsibility
of the
administrator;
and it
was
irrigated.
San Antonio Palula
forms
a
good
example
of
late colonial
maize-growing.
It
used
a
complicated,
meticulous
administrative
schedule,
whose illustration
required
9
graphs.27
By
comparison
with
wheat,
it
required
more men
with different
daily
tasks,
working
according
to
a
system
that
led them
to
different fields
on
succeeding
days.
Maize
contributed
that
year
31
per
cent
of
the
revenues
of
the
hacienda,
as
compared
with 59
V2
per
cent
for wheat.
This
difference is
even more
marked
if
we
consider
the
production
costs:
maize
production
accounted
for
29
per
cent
of the total costs of the 1766-1767-year, wheat for only 25 per cent, the same
percentage
as
that
paid
for interest
that
year.
We
may
conclude that maize
was
an
expensive
crop
in
comparison
to
wheat.
It
was
also
more
intensive.
The
preparation
of
the
maize fields still followed
a
pattern
similar
to
that used
on
the wheat
fields,
starting
with
a
barbecho and
some
crosswise
ploughings.
The
actual
barbecho
of
January
and December 1766
was
preceded by
a
small
operation
in
September
to
profit
from the tail-end of
the
rainy
season
to
accumulate
water
and
to
prevent
the
growing
of
weeds
or
the incubation of
plant
diseases. The
interchange
of
activities, however,
had
already
begun
by
then. The second
ploughing,
for
instance,
started
in
December and lasted
until
April 22,
while the
sowing began
on
March
1
and
finished
somewhere
in
May
with
a
resowing.
Both first
ploughings
were
accompanied
by
irrigation
activities,
although
most
of
the
water
was run over
the barbecho
fields
before the crosswise
ploughing began.
The
alternation of the work
on
the fields
may
be illustrated
by
the
accounts
of
February
1766.
During
that month the
ploughing
was
done
by
6 adult
gananes
and
10
boys,
using
16
yuntas.
In
the week of
February
12
to
16 the ratio
was
7 adults and 9
boys
on
the
yuntas.
The month
started with these
labourers
on
the barbecho
fields until
February
6
(February
2
was
a
free
Sunday).
On
the 7th and 8th the
group
changed
to
the second
ploughing
activities.
There
was no
work
from
the 9th
to
the 11th. Then followed four
days
on
the barbecho
fields
again,
a
free
Sunday
and
two
more
barbecho
days.
On the
19th the
ploughers
were
working
on the second
ploughing
elsewhere.
They
returned to the barbecho
from
the
20th
to
the
22nd.
The
23rd
was
again
a
second
ploughing
day.
After
another
Sunday
the last
days
of
February
were
spent
on
the
barbecho fields
again.
During
sowing
more
labourers
were
used,
especially
more
adults
(10
to 12
gananes
more).
The
technique applied
was
of combined
Spanish
and
native
origin.
Some
yuntas
opened
the
ground
in
linear
furrows
and
were
followed
by
men
using digging
sticks
(coas)
to
put
the seed into the
furrows,
in
clusters
of
3
or
4
grains.
To
level the
fields other
men
crossed them
with
a
yunta,
shovels
or
spades.
On Palula
I5V2
fanegas
were
planted
in
March
1766,
the
equivalent
of
about 50
to
60
hectares,
a
third of
the
size
of its
wheatfield.
All
the work
was
done
by
gananes,
between
15 to 30 a day, but most of them were boys. Precisely the use of boys made the
ploughing-sowing
period
not too
expensive.
The
costs
of this
period
totalled 48
per
cent
of
the maize
expenses
and
44
per
cent
of the
wheat
expenses.
The
use
of
more
adults
would have
changed
this ratio.
After
sowing
maize needs
much
more care
than
wheat does.
This
consists
of
hilling,
the
piling
up
of
ground
around the stalks. This
was
done
in four
operations,
73
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
13/36
called
labores
(with
yuntas,
done
twice),
cajon (done
with
a
different
plough),
and
aterradura
or
aporque
(done
by
hand
and with
shovels).
The
interchanging
of
work
on
the
different fields
was
by
then
even
more
sophisticated
than
during
the
preceding
period.
The
last
mentioned cultivation
was
in
fact
the
most
important
one.
Because
of
their
height,
the
stalks could be
damaged by heavy
summer
rains and
were
therefore bound together in bundles of 3 or 4. Extra piling up of earth had to
strengthen
the stalks
at
their base.
Nevertheless,
the
milpa
of
Palula
fell in
September
and
had
to
be raised
again.
It is
interesting
to note
that the
aterradura
on
Palula
was
in
the
hands of
tlaquehuales,
in June and
July
like
the
wheat harvest.
The aterradura took
place
shortly
before the
ears
were
full
grown.
These
ears,
called
elotes,
could
be
stolen
by
passers-by
or
eaten
by
animals.
The
maizefield
had
to
be
watched
after the last cultivation.
This
was
the
responsibility
of
a
milpero
or
field watchman.
He
walked around
the fields
daily
or
sat
on
top
of
three
ladders,
placed
together
in the
centre
of
the
field.28
On
Palula the
milpero
worked from
July
27, 1766,
to
the end of the
harvest
in
January
1767,
a
period
of
six
months.
The maize remained on the fields until themarket offered a good price. This occurred
after the communities had
sold
their
maize
in
the
autumn.
Reaping
(pisca) began
in
November
but
had
its
peak
in
December
and
January.
It
was
carried
out
by
men
with
baskets,
who
stripped
the
elotes from the
stalks
(the
baskets
were
called
chiquihuetes).
The
stalks
were
later
cut
off and
stored
as
forage.
The labourers
were
gananes
and
not
the
tlaquehuales
from outside
as on
thewheatfield. The number
of
men
varied between
15 and
25,
an
increase
compared
with the
barbecho. Some
70
per
cent
of
the
labourers
were
adults. Palula
produced
2194
fanegas,
a
yield
of 142:1. Some
20
per
cent
of
it
was
reserved
for internal
use
(raciones,
the
rations,
part
of the
salary
to
the
gananes
paid
in
kind),
and 10
per
cent went in
tithes
(this
was
not
always
the
case).
About
15
fanegas
were
reserved
for
seed.
The
remainder,
a
little
less
than
70
per
cent,
was
sold
in
Puebla
for
lpl
per
fanega.
The maize
cycle
spanned
the
whole
year
and
belonged
to
the
irrigated
crops.
Palula
had
no
maize
on
the
temporal.
An
important
part
of the
haciendas'
expenses
were
paid
for
the
wheat harvest:
36
per
cent
of
the wheat
outlay.
This
was
caused
by
the
use
of
tlaquehuales.
In
this
respect
the
pisca
of
the
maize
was
much
cheaper
and
cost
only
9
per
cent
of
its
expenses.
The
tlaquehuales
on
the
maize fields
were
involved
in
the
aterradura,
which made
up
14
per
cent
of the
expenses.
This
irrigated
maize
cycle
did
not
really
increase
employment
for
outsiders,
as
the
aterradura
offered
less
than the
wheat
harvest.
Ifwe switch over to
Aragon,
we find the same
pattern.
The
Aragon
crops
of
1766,
1767
and 1768
were
planted
in
the
summer
(in
the first
year
of the
administrator),
or
in the
spring,
from March
to
the
end of
May. Planting
was
preceded
by
barbechos
in
February,
and
in 1767
even
by
a
farmhand
manuring
the
fields
('uno
que
ha estado
hechando
majada
en
las
tierras9).
During
the barbechos
the
manure
was
ploughed
under.
In
my
article
on
Palula,
I
expressed
some
doubts
as
to
the
fertilization
of the
hacienda
fields with
animal
dung.
The
hacienda
certainly
made
use
of
a
corral
system,
in
which
sheep
and
cattle
were
allowed
to
graze
on
non-irrigated
or on
fallow-land,
spending
the
night
in
a
corral.
This corral
had
to
be
rotated
systematically
over
the
fields,
which
is
a
labour
intensive
and
expensive, but very effective system.Aragon too had such a corral besides itsextended
irrigation
system.
The
note
on
manuring
the
fields with
dung
-
also
to
be
found
in
the
accounts
of
Palula
-
contradicts
the observation
of Ewald
and
Morin,
that
manuring
was
not
part
of the
agricultural
schedule
of Central
Mexican
haciendas.29
Usually
it
is,
however,
not
easy
to
find data
on
manuring,
because
it
was
unnecessary
and undesirable
to
manure
the
same
fields
every year
with
animal
dung.
On
Palula
74
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
14/36
there
were
18
man
manuring
the
fields
on
April
25,
1766. The small
milpa
of
Aragon,
10-14
hectares,
could
be served
by
only
one man.
The
piling
up
of
ground
around the
stalks,
clearing
the fields of
stones
and
weeds,
in
short the
labores,
were
done
in
August
and
September
1766,
and
May
to
August
1767
and
1768,
by
25
to
50
men.
Again
the
aterradura
coincided with
the wheat harvest. After the last cultivation a milpero was instructed to climb his
ladders and
make
his rounds.
He
was
paid
from
August
to
January.
Sometimes
he
was
accompanied
by
one or
two
regadores
who
supplied
water if
necessary.
Harvest
began
in late
December
or even
January
and did
not
end
before March.
In
1767
a
part
of the
Aragon
milpa
was
cut
off in
September,
because it
was
frozen
by
nightfrosts.
The
pisca
of
1765-1766 had
to
be
dried
because
of
an
early
shower.
Some of the
elotes,
called
mazorcas
after
harvest,
were
rotten
because
of
this shower.
The
production
of
January
1766
was
65%
cargas
in
mazorcas,
of which
a
part
had
to
be threshed
and
cleaned
for the
payments
of the
Holy
Week,
Semana
Santa.
The
next
year
the
pisca
managed
81%
cargas
in
mazorca
and
33%
cargas
were brought to Church (first-fruitsand tithe),
a
total yield of 38:1, which ismuch
lower in
comparison
with Palula.
Part of the harvest
was
sold,
but
in
the
summer
of 1768
-
when
Moreno retired
temporarily
-
there
were
still
38%
cargas
en mazorca
in
the
granary,
worth
2p4
a
carga.
Only
4%
cargas
were
planted
on
the
fields,
of which
a
third
was
already
lost. As
Moreno
noted,
a
harvest
of 60
cargas
could
be
expected.
It
seems
as
if
the
bad
maize
years
had
begun,
and the administrator
was
expecting
worse:
he
planted
a
very
small
amount.
The
milpa
was
not
just
a
maize
field.
In
Central
Mexico it remained the classical
system
it had
been before
the
Conquest:
the cultivation
of
maize,
American beans
and
squashes
(calabasas)
in
one
field. The
Spanish
hacendados
inherited the
system
from the Indians.
The Palula
accounts
mention the simultaneous cultivation
of
maize and
American
beans,
frijoles.
The
Aragon
reports
make
reference
to
the
cultivation
of
maize
with calabasas
and
alverjon,
a
pea
sort.
On
the
milpa
of
1767,
for
instance,
2
cargas
of
alverjon
were
planted
next to
3
cargas
of
maize;
93/4
argas
were
produced,
a
yield
of
about
5:1.
In
the
summer
of
1768
3%
cargas
were
still
in
storage.
There
are
no
notes
of
selling
the
peas,
so
they
were
presumably
used
as
fodder. The
squashes
Aragon
grew
were
sold,
however,
as
indicated
by
a
note
of
April
1768.
So the
milpa
served
many
purposes.
Although Aragon
did
not
grow
wheat
in
the
period
of 1771
to
1772,
as
mentioned
before,
there
was
cultivation
of maize and
frijoles
on
the
milpa
near
the main
buildings.
The
reports
start
with
a
harvest of
50
cargas
of maize
en
mazorca,
stored
in sacks. This time the mazorcas were to be threshed later on. But there were
also
7%
cargas
produced
on
the
fields
of
the
mayordomo
in
a
sharecropping
agreement
and
some
13
to 14
cargas
by
two
other
sharecroppers.
In
June
that
year, 1771,
the hacienda
had
exhausted
its
stock and
the
administrator had
to
buy
some,
for
the rations of the
gananes,
in
Toluca;
23
cargas
at
a
rate
of
2p5%
and 3
p
a
carga.
It
was
sold
to
the
gananes
for
4
p
a
carga.
From
fear of
losing
the
new
crop
only
1%
famegas
were
planted,
combined with 1%
fanega
of
frijol
in
July
1771.
This
was no
more
than
a
quarter
of
the
usual
milpa
(about
5
hectares).
But
even
this small
field
followed
the
standard
cycle.
The
labor
es
and the other cultivations,
referred
to
as
'dando
monton
en
la
milpa\
took place in July, August, and September. The milpero, Juan Bernardino, sat
on
the ladders from
September
13 until
February
29.
Meanwhile,
the beans
were
unprooted by
hand
in
October
and November
(arrancar)
and
produced
11
cargas
of
frijoles,
including
2
cargas
of
frijol
parraleno.
The
pisca
was
late,
in
February.
The
reports
mention
the
storage
of 1
% costales
(sacks)
of blue
maize besides
the
usual
white
maize,
of
which
21
costales
were
stored. These
21%
costales
produced
75
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
15/36
19
fanegas (9*/2 argas),
about
a
costal
per
fanega.
The
production
of
20:1
was
adequate.
The
stalks
were
cut
down and
stored,
the
mazorcas
were
threshed
and
served
as
rations
to
the farmhands.
A
few months
later,
in
May,
a
little
blue
maize
was
planted
on
the
huerta
(vegetable
garden)
near
the
main
buildings,
while the
ploughings
were
carried
out
on
the other fields. The
blue maize
was
used for the
festal tlacoyos, a special native delicacy. Again the administrator was surprisingly
prudent: hardly
2
fanegas
were
sown,
in
combination
with
not
more
than
1
Vi
quartillo
of
frijol parraleno.
Besides the
labores
in June and
July
we
read about
labores
on
the
frijoles
in
those months. After the
aterradura,
Pedro
Antonio,
the
former
watcher
over
the
barley
field,
started
as
milpero
in
September.
How
long
he
worked
is
not
known,
because his
employer
left the
enterprise
in late
September.
Thirty
years
before Palula
and
Aragon,
the
hacienda
Xaltipan
had been
using
the
cycle
of
January-January.
In
1763
Xaltipan produced
638
cargas
and 8
almudes
en
mazorca.
After
threshing
(desgranar)
they
were
able
to
sell 655
cargas
and 9
almudes.
This
harvest
yielded
62:1,
a
much better result than
Aragon
in
1765
to
1768. Almost 75 per cent of the crop was sold in nearby towns. Besides its own
milpa Xaltipan
cultivated
a
milpa
in
partnership
with
nearby
San Nicolas
Panotla,
an
Indian
community.
As
might
be
expected,
the
milpero,
Manuel
Esteban,
worked
between
August
16,
1737
and December
23
that
year,
protecting
the
crop.30
Bad results
were
scored
in
the later
decades
of
the
century.
The letters
of
Marcos
Morales,
administrator
of
the
Molino de
Flores,
show
a
lot of
preoccupation
with
the weather.
In
fact
they only
mention
problems.
All aberrations
were
reported
in
an
alarming
tone.
The
production
of the hacienda
in
the
period
1775-1785
reflects
the alarm.
Already
in
May
1775
some
maize
-
7
fanegas
-
remained
unseeded
because
of
drought.
It
was
planted
in June and
immediately
attacked
by
frost.
Nevertheless,
in
July
the farmhands
were
busy
with
the
labores,
and
in
August,
behind
schedule,
with
the
aterradura.
By
the
end
of
September
Morales
wrote to
the
owner
of
theMolino that the
milpa
was
finally doing
well,
but frosts around
October 8 caused
considerable losses.
No wonder the
maize-prices
went
up
that
time
from
3p
to
3p4,
to
4p.
The
pisca
of
what
must
have been
a
bad
harvest
was
in
December
and
January,
followed
by threshing
and
even
winnowing
in
March.
The
next
crop
began
late
again,
with
ploughing
and
seeding
in
April.
The
drought
in
May
and
June rendered
reseeding
useless,
although
the
milpa
was
irrigated.
After
some
heavy
showers in
July,
which
were
so
excessive
that
all other work
had
to
be
called
to
a
halt,
the
drought
returned,
accompanied
by
frosts.
Of
course
there
were severe
losses
of wheat
and maize
on
the Molino
that
year.
Again,
the
aterradura,
now in
July,
was behind
schedule,
and the harvest did not
begin
before
the end
of
February
1777. The
continuing
drought
postponed
the
preparation
of
the
next
crop.
Seeding
was
in
May
that
year.
In
August
the
maize,
like
the
barley
on
another
field,
was
lacking
water
and
in
September
frosts annihilated
the
frijoles
that
had been
sown
with the
by
then
almost ruined
maize. The
Molino's livestock
also suffered
similar
losses
and
damage.
On
July
3,
1780,
for
instance,
71
oxen
died
of
thirst.31
The
droughts,
attended
by
frost
as
usual,
continued
to
haunt
Marcos
Morales'
hacienda
in the late seventies
and
the
eighties.
The
nadir
was
reached
on
August
27,
1785.
The
preceding
crop
of 1784 had
started
well
with
seeding
in
April
and
May,
preceded
by irrigation. The labores, likewise accompanied by irrigation,
followed
in June.
But
frosts and
droughts
were
already
delaying
the
work
and
a
hoarfrost
on
June
4
dried
up
the
pastures
and
part
of
the
milpa
and
froze
the
wheat.
No
reseeding
was
tried.
However,
in
July
the weather
recovered.
It
rained
abundantly
and Morales
was
pleased
that
what
was
left
over
on
the
fields
was
proceeding
well.
He
even
managed
to
borrow
from the Church
to
pay
off
some
76
This content downloaded from 145.18.82.72 on Wed, 13 May 2015 14:11:08 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/21/2019 Ouweneel 1986 - BELC - Schedules in Hacienda Agriculture - Aragon & Pilares 1765-95
16/36
of his debts.
It
was
in
vain. The
barley
was
harvested
green
that
year
and thus
of
poor
quality,
and
the wheat had suffered immense
damage.
Morales
called
the
frosts of the
early
eighties unprecedented.
The maize of
that
year
had been
sufficient.
The
succeeding
crop
was
planted
in
April
1785.
But
already
the
early
frosts
of that month frustrated the
hopes
of
an
equivalent
result. Morales
noted
again
that he had never experienced such rigorous and r